Datasets:

yifeihu

/

ACL-23-Paper-OCR-Markdown

like 8

zhang-etal-2023-investigating

Investigating Glyph-Phonetic Information for {C}hinese Spell Checking: What Works and What{'}s Next?

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.1

While pre-trained Chinese language models have demonstrated impressive performance on a wide range of NLP tasks, the Chinese Spell Checking (CSC) task remains a challenge. Previous research has explored using information such as glyphs and phonetics to improve the ability of CSC models to distinguish misspelled characters, with good results at the accuracy level on public datasets. However, the generalization ability of these CSC models has not been well understood: it is unclear whether they incorporate glyph-phonetic information and, if so, whether this information is fully utilized. In this paper, we aim to better understand the role of glyph-phonetic information in the CSC task and suggest directions for improvement. Additionally, we propose a new, more challenging, and practical setting for testing the generalizability of CSC models. All code is made publicly available.

# Investigating Glyph-Phonetic Information For Chinese Spell Checking: What Works And What'S Next? Xiaotian Zhang ∗ , Yanjun Zheng ∗ , Hang Yan, Xipeng Qiu † Shanghai Key Laboratory of Intelligent Information Processing, Fudan University School of Computer Science, Fudan University {xiaotianzhang21, yanjunzheng21}@m.fudan.edu.cn {hyan19, xpqiu}@fudan.edu.cn ## Abstract While pre-trained Chinese language models have demonstrated impressive performance on a wide range of NLP tasks, the Chinese Spell Checking (CSC) task remains a challenge. Previous research has explored using information such as glyphs and pronunciations to improve the ability of CSC models to distinguish misspelled characters, with good results at the accuracy level on public datasets. However, the generalization ability of these CSC models has not been well understood: it is unclear whether they incorporate glyph-phonetic information and, if so, whether this information is fully utilized. In this paper, we aim to better understand the role of glyph-phonetic information in the CSC task and suggest directions for improvement. Additionally, we propose a new, more challenging, and practical setting for testing the generalizability of CSC models. Our code will be released at https://github.com/piglaker/ConfusionCluster. ## 1 Introduction Spell checking (SC) is the process of detecting and correcting spelling errors in natural human texts. For some languages, such as English, SC is relatively straightforward, thanks to the use of tools like the Levenshtein distance and a well-defined vocabulary. However, for Chinese, Chinese spell checking (CSC) is a more challenging task, due to the nature of the Chinese language. Chinese has a large vocabulary consisting of at least 3,500 common characters, which creates a vast search space and an unbalanced distribution of errors (Ji et al., 2021). Moreover, substitutions or combinations of characters can significantly alter the meaning of a Chinese sentence while still being grammatically correct. The CSC task, therefore, requires requires the output to retain as much of the original meaning and wording as possible. Figure 1 shows different ∗These two authors contributed equally. †Corresponding author. Figure 1: An example of different errors affecting CSC results. red/green/blue represents the misspelled character, the expected correction and the unexpected correction. types of errors and corresponding target characters. Previous work has attempted to incorporate inductive bias to model the relationship between Chinese character glyphs, pronunciation, and semantics (Xu et al., 2021). In recent years, pre-trained language models (PLMs) have shown great success in a wide range of NLP tasks. With the publication of BERT (Devlin et al., 2018), using PLMs for CSC tasks has become a mainstream approach, with examples including FASpell (Hong et al., 2019), SoftmaskedBERT (Zhang et al., 2020), SpellGCN (Cheng et al., 2020), and PLOME (Liu et al., 2021). Some researchers have focused on the special features of Chinese characters in terms of glyphs and pronunciations, aiming to improve the ability to distinguish misspelled characters by incorporating glyphphonetic information (Ji et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2021; Xu et al., 2021). However, despite these advances, the generalization of CSC models to realworld applications remains limited. How can we improve the generalization ability of CSC models? Can current models recognize and utilize glyphphonetic information to make predictions? As we re-examine previous work, we have identified some previously unexplored issues and potential future directions for research. Q1: *Do existing Chinese pre-trained models encode the glyph-phonetic information of Chinese* characters? Chinese writing is morpho-semantic, and its characters contain additional semantic information. Before studying existing CSC models, we seek to investigate whether existing mainstream Chinese pre-trained language models are capable of capturing the glyph-phonetic information. Q2: **Do existing CSC models fully utilize the** glyph-phonetic information of misspelled characters to make predictions? Intuitively, introducing glyph-phonetic information in the CSC task can help identify misspelled characters and improve the performance of the model. However, there has been little research on whether existing CSC models effectively use glyph-phonetic information in this way. Empirically, our main observations are summarized as follows: - We show that Chinese PLMs like BERT encode glyph-phonetic information without explicit introduction during pre-training, which can provide insight into the design of future Chinese pre-trained models. We also propose a simple probe task for measuring how much glyph-phonetic information is contained in a Chinese pre-trained model. - We analyze the ability of CSC models to exploit misspelled characters and explain why current CSC methods perform well on test sets but poorly in practice. We propose a new probe experiment and a new metric Correction with Misspelled Character Coverage Ratio (CCCR). - We propose a new setting for the CSC task, called isolation correction, to better test the generalizability and correction performance of CSC models. This setting alleviates the shortcuts present in the original dataset, making the CSC task more challenging and realistic. We hope that this detailed empirical study will provide follow-up researchers with more guidance on how to better incorporate glyph-phonetic information in CSC tasks and pave the way for new state-of-the-art results in this area. ## 2 Related Work 2.1 Glyph Information Learning glyph information from Chinese character forms has gained popularity with the rise of deep neural networks. After word embeddings (Mikolov et al., 2013b) were proposed, early studies (Sun et al., 2014; Shi et al., 2015; Yin et al., 2016) used radical embeddings to capture semantics, modeling graphic information by splitting characters into radicals. Another approach to modeling glyph information is to treat characters as images, using convolutional neural networks (CNNs) as glyph feature extractors (Liu et al., 2010; Shao et al., 2017; Dai and Cai, 2017; Meng et al., 2019). With pre-trained language models, glyph and phonetic information are introduced end-to-end. ChineseBERT(Sun et al., 2021) is a pre-trained Chinese NLP model that flattens the image vector of input characters to obtain the glyph embedding and achieves significant performance gains across a wide range of Chinese NLP tasks. ## 2.2 Phonetic Infomation Previous research has explored using phonetic information to improve natural language processing (NLP) tasks. Liu et al. propose using both textual and phonetic information in neural machine translation (NMT) by combining them in the input embedding layer, making NMT models more robust to homophone errors. There is also work on incorporating phonetic embeddings through pre-training. Zhang et al. propose a novel end-to-end framework for CSC with phonetic pre-training, which improves the model's ability to understand sentences with misspellings and model the similarity between characters and pinyin tokens. Sun et al. apply a CNN and max-pooling layer on the pinyin sequence to derive the pinyin embedding. ## 2.3 Chinese Spell Checking 2.3.1 Task Description Under the language model framework, Chinese Spell Checking is often modeled as a conditional token prediction problem. Formally, let X = c1, c2*, . . . , c*T be an input sequence with potentially misspelled characters ci. The goal of this task is to discover and correct these errors by estimating the conditional probability P(yi|X) for each misspelled character ci. ## 2.3.2 Csc Datasets We conduct experiments on the benchmark SIGHAN dataset (Wu et al., 2013; Yu et al., 2014; Tseng et al., 2015), which was built from foreigners' writings and contains 3,162 texts and 461 types of errors. However, previous studies have reported poor annotation quality in SIGHAN13 and SIGHAN14 (Wu et al., 2013; Yu et al., 2014), with many errors, such as the mixed usage of auxiliary characters, remaining unannotated (Cheng et al., 2020). To address these issues and enable fair comparisons of different models, we apply our probe experiment to the entire SIGHAN dataset and use only clean SIGHAN15 for metrics in our review. The statistics of the dataset are detailed in the appendix. ## 2.3.3 Methods For Csc To investigate the role of glyph-phonetic information in CSC, we conduct a probe experiment using different Chinese PLMs as the initial parameters of the baseline. The models we use are detailed in the appendix. For our first probe experiment, we use the out-of-the-box BERT model as a baseline. We input the corrupted sentence into BERT and get the prediction for each token. If the predicted token for the corresponding output position is different from its input token, we consider BERT to have detected and corrected the error (Zhang et al., 2022). We also consider two previous pre-trained methods that introduced glyph and phonetic information for CSC. PLOME (Liu et al., 2021) is a pre-trained masked language model that jointly learns how to understand language and correct spelling errors. It masks chosen tokens with similar characters according to a confusion set and introduces phonetic prediction to learn misspelled knowledge at the phonetic level using GRU networks. RealiSe (Xu et al., 2021) leverages the multimodal information of Chinese characters by using a universal encoder for vision and a sequence modeler for pronunciations and semantics. ## 2.4 Metrics For convenience, all Chinese Spell Checking metrics in this paper are based on the sentence level score(Cheng et al., 2020). We mix the original SIGHAN training set with the enhanced training set of 270k data generated by OCR- and ASR-based approaches (Wang et al., 2018) which has been widely used in CSC task. ## 3 Experiment-I: Probing For Character Glyph-Phonetic Information In this section, we conduct a simple MLP-based probe to explore the presence of glyph and phonetic information in Chinese PLMs and to quantify the extent to which tokens capture glyph-phonetic information. We consider glyph and phonetic information separately in this experiment. ## 3.1 Glyph Probe For glyphs, we train a binary classifier probe to  predict if one character is contained within another character. We use the frozen embeddings of these characters from Chinese PLMs as input. That is, as shown in the upper part of Figure 2, if the probe is successful, it will predict that "称" contains a "尔" at the glyph level however not "产" (it is difficult to define whether two characters are visually similar, so we use this method as a shortcut). For the glyph probe experiment, we consider the static, non-contextualized embeddings of the following Chinese PLMs: BERT (Cui et al., 2019), RoBERTa (Cui et al., 2019), ChineseBERT (Sun et al., 2021), MacBERT (Cui et al., 2020), CPT (Shao et al., 2021), GPT-2 (Radford et al., 2019), BART (Shao et al., 2021), and T5 (Raffel et al., 2020). We also use Word2vec (Mikolov et al., 2013a) as a baseline and a completely randomized Initial embedding as a control. See Appendix C.1 for details on the models used in this experiment. The vocabulary of different Chinese PLMs is similar. For convenience, we only consider the characters that appear in the vocabulary of BERT, and we also remove the characters that are rare and too complex in structure. The details of our datasets for the probe are shown in Appendix C.2. We divide the character w into character component {u1, u2*, . . . , u*i} using a character splitting tool1. That is, "称" will be divided into "禾" and "尔". The set of all characters (e.g. "称") is W = {w1, w2*, . . . , w*d}, where d is number of characters. The set of all components of characters (e.g. "禾", "尔") is U = {u1, u2*, . . . , u*c}, where c is the number of components of each character. If ui exists in wi, in other words, is a component of wiin glyph level, then ui, wiis a positive example, and vice versa is a negative example. Then, we constructed a positive dataset Dpos = {{u1, w1}, {u2, w1}, . . . , {ui, wd}}, where the u corresponds to w separately. Also, we constructed a balanced negative dataset Dneg = {{u n 1 , w1}, {u n 2 , w1}*, . . . ,* {u n i , wd}}, where d is equal to Dpos and u nis randomly selected in the set U. We mix Dpos and Dneg and split the dataset into training and test according to the ratio of 80:20 to ensure that a character only appears on one side. We train the probe on these PLMs' static nontrainable embeddings. For every ui, wi, we take the embedding of ui and wi, and concatenation them as the input xi. The classifier trains an MLP to predict logits yˆi, which is defined as : ## YˆI = Sigmoid(Mlp(Xi)) To control the variables as much as possible and mitigate the effects of other factors on the probe experiment, we also experimented with the number of layers of MLP. The results of this are detailed in Appendix C.3. ## 3.2 Phonetic Probe For phonetics, we train another binary classifier probe to predict if two characters have the similar pronunciation, also using the frozen embeddings of these characters from Chinese PLMs as input. The meaning of 'similar' here is that the pinyin is exactly the same, but the tones can be different. That is, as shown in the lower part of Figure 2, if the probe is successful, it will predict that "称"*(cheng)* has the similar pronunciation with "程"*(cheng)* however not "产"*(chan)*. The pronunciation information for the Chinese characters comes from the pypinyin2toolkit. 1https://github.com/howl-anderson/hanzi_chaizi 2https://github.com/mozillazg/python-pinyin We consider static non-contextualized embedding of Chinese PLMs, which are the same as the glyph probe. We also mainly analyze the characters in the vocabulary of BERT, and mainly consider common characters. The dataset construction is also similar to the glyph probe. To create positive examples, for each character wiin character list W, we find a character ui which has the similar pronunciation as wi, then ui, wiis a positive example. For each positive, we also find a character si which has a different pronunciation from wito construct negative example si, wi. For example, the positive example is the two characters with similar pronunciation, such as "称" *(cheng)* and "程"*(cheng)*. And the negative example is the two characters with different pronunciation, such as "称"*(cheng)* and "产"*(chan)*. The divide ratio and other settings are the same as the glyph probe. We train the probe on these PLMs' static nontrainable embeddings as the glyph probe and also concatenate the embeddings of the pairs as input. ## 3.3 Results And Analysis The following conclusions can be drawn from Figure 3. The Chinese PLMs encoded the glyph information of characters From the results, we can see that for glyphs, all models outperform the control model. The results of the control are close to 50% that there is no glyph information encoded in the input embedding, and the model guesses the result randomly. Comparing Word2vec and other Chinese PLMs side-by-side, we find that the large-scale pre-trained model has a significant advantage over Word2vec, suggesting that large-scale pre-training can lead to better representation of characters. In addition, we find that the results of these Chinese PLMs are concentrated in a small interval. ChineseBERT boasts of introducing glyph-phonetic information, which do not have advantages in glyph. ## Plms Can Hardly Distinguish The Phonetic Features Of Chinese Characters In Our Experiments, the control group performed similarly to the phonetic probe, with an accuracy of approximately 50%. Unlike the glyph probe, the accuracy of Word2vec and other Chinese PLMs are also low in this probe. However, the introduction of phonetic embedding allowed ChineseBERT to perform significantly better than the other models. Our anal-  | Method | Acc. | |---------------------|--------| | Control | 0.485 | | Word2vec | 0.634 | | BERT | 0.752 | | RoBERTa | 0.759 | | ChineseBERT | 0.755 | | BERT-trained | 0.756 | | RoBERTa-trained | 0.757 | | ChineseBERT-trained | 0.759 | Model training on the CSC task does not enrich glyph and phonetic information We perform the same two probes using models fine-tuned on the SIGHAN dataset. We aim to investigate whether the training for the CSC task could add glyph and phonetic information to the embeddings, and the results are shown in Table 1. We found that the difference between the fine-tuned and untrained models is almost negligible, indicating that the relevant information is primarily encoded during the pre-training stage. ## 4 Experiment-Ii: Probing For Homonym Correction In this experiment, we aim to explore the extent to which existing models can make use of the information from misspelled characters. To do this, we propose a new probe called Correction with Misspelled Character Coverage Ratio(CCCR), which investigates whether the model can adjust its prediction probability distribution based on the glyph-phonetic information of misspelled characters when making predictions. ## 4.1 Correction With Misspelled Character Coverage Ratio Measure models utilizing the misspelled characters In this paper, we propose a method to evaluate the ability of a model to make predictions using additional information from misspelled characters, as well as to assess whether the model contains glyph-phonetic information. Assume that C is a combination set of all possible finite-length sentence Ciin the languages L, C = {C0, ..., Ci, ...}, Ci = {ci,1, ..., ci,n*, ...*}, while ci,j ∈ L. Let sentence C n,a ibe C n,a i = {ci,1, ..., ci,n−1, a, ci,n+1*, ...*}, then assume that the representation learning model, let Hw(C) be the hiddens of model w, Xiis an example in C, For model w, the probability of token in position i should be:  ## P (Yi = J|Xi, W) = Softmax (W Hw(Xi) + B) [J] Dataset D is a subset of C, Then we can approximate the probability of the model. The CCCR is composed of MLM and *Homonym*. The former indicates which samples need the information on misspelled characters to be corrected while the latter shows which sample models adjust the output distribution. We take the intersection to get the frequency of whether the model is adjusted for the samples whose distribution should be adjusted. MLM MLM is a subset of dataset D. For all input sentence Ci ∈ D, Ci = {c1, c2, [MASK]*, . . . , c*T } and the position of [*MASK*] is spelling error, let special token mask = [MASK] , Ci ∈ MLM if: $P\left(y_i=noise\Big|C_i^{n,mask},w\right)>P\left(y_i=Y_i\Big|C_i^{n,mask},w\right)$ $Homonym\quad$ Same to MLM, For input sentence. Ci ∈ D, Ci = {c1, c2, cmisspelled*, . . . , c*T } and the position of c*misspelled* is spelling error. For all sentences Ciin the dataset D, Ci ∈ *Homonym* if: $P(y_{i}=Y_{i}|C_{i}^{n,c_{misspelled}},w))>P(y_{i}=noise|C_{i}^{n,c_{misspelled}},w)$ Correction with Misspelled Character Coverage Ratio (CCCR) The measured ratio is used to describe the lower bound of the probability that the model uses the information of the misspelled characters for the sentences Ciin the dataset C. $$C C C R={\frac{|\{C_{i}|C_{i}{\in}M L M{\land}C_{i}{\in}H o m o n y m\}|}{|\{C_{i}|C_{i}{\in}M L M\}|}}$$ Baseline Independently, we give an estimation method for the base value. Given model w, *noise*, dataset D, ground truth correction y. The baseline of CCCR should be estimated as: $$q u e s s_{i}=\frac{P(y_{i}=n o i s e|C_{i}^{n,m a s k},w)}{1-P(y_{i}=n o i s e|C_{i}^{n,m a s k},w)}$$ $$C C C R_{b a s e l i n e}={\frac{\sum_{i\in S}\left\{1*g u e s s_{i}\right\}}{\mid\left\{C_{i}\mid C_{i}\in M L M\right\}\mid}}$$ The baseline can be understood as a model with no glyph-phonetic information at all, and the probability of being able to guess the correct answer. But no such language model exists. For this purpose, instead of inputting the misspelled characters into the model, we artificially design strategies for the model to randomly guess answers by weight from the remaining candidates, which is equivalent to the probability of being able to guess correctly. This probability is comparable to CCCR. CCCR restricts the condition for y to overtake *noise*. In the case of baseline, considering rearranging the candidates, the probability of y overtaking noise can also be re-normalized by probability. ## 4.2 Isolation Correction Setting Experiment In the previous section, we test CCCR on the model finetuned on the SIGHAN dataset then found the CCCR of the models approached 92%. The results are shown in Table 3. As shown in Table 4, we analyze the overlap of correction pairs in the training and test sets in the SIGHAN dataset. To test the model generalization ability, we design Isolation Correction Task, which removes all overlapped pairs in the training set and duplicate pairs in the test set. With isolation, the training set is reduced by about 16%. We believe that such a setup can better test the generalizability of the model and is more challenging and practical. Within the CCCR probe, We explore the ability of the model whether rely on its information, not just the ability to remember the content on the isolated SIGHAN dataset. The result is shown in Table 2 | Method | MLM | Homonym | CCCR | Precision | Recall | F1 | |---------------------|-------|-----------|--------|-------------|----------|-------| | Baseline | - | - | 15.61 | - | - | - | | BERT-Initial | 45.58 | 64.87 | 34.57 | - | - | - | | RoBERTa-Initial | 46.53 | 60.19 | 28.17 | - | - | - | | ChineseBERT-Initial | 44.97 | 62.22 | 31.17 | - | - | - | | BERT | 48.57 | 67.73 | 41.67 | 43.72 | 26.93 | 33.32 | | RoBERTa | 48.70 | 64.80 | 36.12 | 39.82 | 27.14 | 32.27 | | ChineseBERT | 46.33 | 67.39 | 40.32 | 42.56 | 27.26 | 33.23 | | PLOME | 55.63 | 88.38 | 80.83 | 42.63 | 37.15 | 39.70 | | ReaLiSe | 51.29 | 84.23 | 78.14 | 52.26 | 19.23 | 28.11 | Table 2: Model performance in the isolation correction setting of SIGHAN15. '-Initial' means without any training. | Method | MLM | Homonym | CCCR | Precision | Recall | F1 | |-------------|-------|-----------|--------|-------------|----------|-------| | Baseline | - | - | 15.61 | - | - | - | | BERT | 52.64 | 95.78 | 92.1 | 70.15 | 75.46 | 72.71 | | RoBERTa | 47.07 | 95.92 | 91.77 | 70.49 | 74.91 | 72.63 | | ChineseBERT | 48.57 | 97.62 | 96.83 | 73.24 | 76.75 | 74.59 | Table 4: The overlap of the correction pairs in the train and test sets and the statistics of the isolation SIGHAN set. | #Pairs Count | #sent | | |-------------------------|---------|--------| | Training Set | 23140 | 284196 | | Test Set | 824 | 2162 | | Training Set ∩ Test Set | 799 | - | | Training Set ∪ Test Set | 23165 | - | | Isolation Training Set | 20758 | 230525 | | Isolation Test Set | 824 | 2162 | Between CCCR and F1 score, the mismatch phenomenon we refer to as stereotype is observed. The correction pair remembered while training harms the generalization of models. ## 4.3 Results And Analysis We conducted experiments on three generic Chinese PLMs, BERT, RoBERTa, and ChineseBERT, and two CSC Models, PLOME, and Realise. We compare the metrics difference between the Initial model and the model after finetuning the isolation training set. The result is shown in Table 2. CCCR and F1 values mismatch Our experimen-  tal results show that the CCCR and F1 values mismatch for CSC models. In the isolation training setting, we observed that the F1 values of PLOME and ReaLise are both significantly lower than their performance in Table 2, indicating that their ability to make correct predictions is primarily based on the memory of correction pairs in the training set. However, their CCCR values remained high, suggesting that they are able to discriminate glyphphonetic information but are not able to correct it effectively. ## Stereotype Harm The Generalization Ability Of The Model In Isolation Correction Experiments These results suggest that the correction performance of the models is primarily dependent on their memory ability and that a strong reliance on memory can hinder generalization. The poor performance in the isolation setting indicates that none of the current methods generalize well, which presents a significant challenge for future CSC research. We recommend that future research in this field follow the isolation experiment setting to address this challenge. ## 5 Conclusion In this paper, we have explored the role of glyphphonetic information from misspelled characters in Chinese Spell Checking (CSC). Based on our experimental results, we have reached the following conclusions: - Current Chinese PLMs encoded some glyph information, but little phonetic information. - Existing CSC models could not fully utilize the glyph-phonetic information of misspelled characters to make predictions. - There is a large amount of overlap between the training and test sets of SIGHAN dataset, which is not conducive to testing the generalizability of the CSC model. We propose a more challenging and practical setting to test the generalizability of the CSC task. Our detailed observations can provide valuable insights for future research in this field. It is clear that a more explicit treatment of glyph-phonetic information is necessary, and researchers should consider how to fully utilize this information to improve the generalizability of their CSC models. We welcome follow-up researchers to verify the generalizability of their models using our proposed new setting. ## 6 Limitation 6.1 Limited Number Of Csc Models Tested During our research, we encountered difficulties in reproducing previous models due to unmaintained open source projects or the inability to reproduce the results claimed in the papers. As a result, we are unable to test all of the available models. ## 6.2 Limited Datasets For Evaluating Model Performance There are currently few datasets available for the CSC task, and the mainstream SIGHAN dataset is relatively small. The limited size of the data used to calculate the metrics may not accurately reflect the performance of the models. Furthermore, we found that the quality of the test set is poor, the field is narrow, and there is a large gap between the test set and real-world scenarios. ## Acknowledgments This work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (No.2020AAA0106700) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.62022027). We would like to express our gratitude to all the reviewers for their diligent, careful, and responsible feedback. ## References Xingyi Cheng, Weidi Xu, Kunlong Chen, Shaohua Jiang, Feng Wang, Taifeng Wang, Wei Chu, and Yuan Qi. 2020. Spellgcn: Incorporating phonological and visual similarities into language models for chinese spelling check. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.14166*. Yiming Cui, Wanxiang Che, Ting Liu, Bing Qin, Shijin Wang, and Guoping Hu. 2020. Revisiting pretrained models for chinese natural language processing. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.13922*. Yiming Cui, Wanxiang Che, Ting Liu, Bing Qin, and Ziqing Yang. 2019. Pre-training with whole word masking for chinese bert. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.08101. Falcon Dai and Zheng Cai. 2017. Glyph-aware embedding of Chinese characters. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Subword and Character Level Models in NLP, pages 64–69, Copenhagen, Denmark. 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*. Yuzhong Hong, Xianguo Yu, Neng He, Nan Liu, and Junhui Liu. 2019. Faspell: A fast, adaptable, simple, powerful chinese spell checker based on dae-decoder paradigm. In *Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on* Noisy User-generated Text (W-NUT 2019), pages 160– 169. Tuo Ji, Hang Yan, and Xipeng Qiu. 2021. Spellbert: A lightweight pretrained model for chinese spelling check. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on* Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3544–3551. Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Ves Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2019. Bart: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.13461. Chao-Lin Liu, Min-Hua Lai, Yi-Hsuan Chuang, and Chia-Ying Lee. 2010. Visually and phonologically similar characters in incorrect simplified Chinese words. In *Coling 2010: Posters*, pages 739–747, Beijing, China. Coling 2010 Organizing Committee. Hairong Liu, Mingbo Ma, Liang Huang, Hao Xiong, and Zhongjun He. 2019. Robust neural machine translation with joint textual and phonetic embedding. In *Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of* the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3044–3049, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Shulin Liu, Tao Yang, Tianchi Yue, Feng Zhang, and Di Wang. 2021. Plome: Pre-training with misspelled knowledge for chinese spelling correction. 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 2991– 3000. Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2019. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In 7th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2019, New Orleans, LA, USA, May 6-9, 2019. OpenReview.net. Yuxian Meng, Wei Wu, Fei Wang, Xiaoya Li, Ping Nie, Fan Yin, Muyu Li, Qinghong Han, Xiaofei Sun, and Jiwei Li. 2019. Glyce: Glyph-vectors for chinese character representations. *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, 32. Tomas Mikolov, Kai Chen, Greg Corrado, and Jeffrey Dean. 2013a. Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. arXiv preprint arXiv:1301.3781. Tomas Mikolov, Ilya Sutskever, Kai Chen, Greg S Corrado, and Jeff Dean. 2013b. Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. Advances in neural information processing systems, 26. Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, et al. 2019. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32. 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, Peter J Liu, et al. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. *J. Mach. Learn. Res.*, 21(140):1–67. Yan Shao, Christian Hardmeier, Jörg Tiedemann, and Joakim Nivre. 2017. Character-based joint segmentation and POS tagging for Chinese using bidirectional RNN-CRF. In *Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers)*, pages 173–183, Taipei, Taiwan. Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing. Yunfan Shao, Zhichao Geng, Yitao Liu, Junqi Dai, Fei Yang, Li Zhe, Hujun Bao, and Xipeng Qiu. 2021. Cpt: A pre-trained unbalanced transformer for both chinese language understanding and generation. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.05729*. Xinlei Shi, Junjie Zhai, Xudong Yang, Zehua Xie, and Chao Liu. 2015. Radical embedding: Delving deeper to Chinese radicals. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 594–598, Beijing, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yaming Sun, Lei Lin, Nan Yang, Zhenzhou Ji, and Xiaolong Wang. 2014. Radical-enhanced chinese character embedding. In International Conference on Neural Information Processing, pages 279–286. Springer. Zijun Sun, Xiaoya Li, Xiaofei Sun, Yuxian Meng, Xiang Ao, Qing He, Fei Wu, and Jiwei Li. 2021. ChineseBERT: Chinese pretraining enhanced by glyph and Pinyin information. 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 2065–2075, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yuen-Hsien Tseng, Lung-Hao Lee, Li-Ping Chang, and Hsin-Hsi Chen. 2015. Introduction to SIGHAN 2015 bake-off for chinese spelling check. In *Proceedings* of the Eighth SIGHAN Workshop on Chinese Language Processing, SIGHAN@IJCNLP 2015, Beijing, China, July 30-31, 2015, pages 32–37. Association for Computational Linguistics. Dingmin Wang, Yan Song, Jing Li, Jialong Han, and Haisong Zhang. 2018. A hybrid approach to automatic corpus generation for chinese spelling check. In *Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 2517–2527. Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, 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. Shih-Hung Wu, Chao-Lin Liu, and Lung-Hao Lee. 2013. Chinese spelling check evaluation at SIGHAN bake-off 2013. In *Proceedings of the Seventh* SIGHAN Workshop on Chinese Language Processing, SIGHAN@IJCNLP 2013, Nagoya, Japan, October 14-18, 2013, pages 35–42. Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing. Heng-Da Xu, Zhongli Li, Qingyu Zhou, Chao Li, Zizhen Wang, Yunbo Cao, Heyan Huang, and XianLing Mao. 2021. Read, listen, and see: Leveraging 9 multimodal information helps chinese spell checking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.12306. Para 1 Para 2 Para 3 Precision Recall F1 Precision Recall F1 Precision Recall F1 SIGHAN14 BERT 65.7 68.7 67.2 65.3 70.1 67.6 60.2 63.7 61.9 RoBERTa 64.9 69.3 67.1 64.0 67.6 65.7 58.8 64.9 62.7 ChineseBERT 63.5 68.2 65.7 62.1 66.6 64.3 65.5 70.3 67.8 SIGHAN15 BERT 74.1 78.4 76.2 71.8 76.9 74.3 70.1 72.6 71.3 RoBERTa 73.9 78.0 75.9 71.9 76.0 74.9 68.0 73.8 70.7 ChineseBERT 73.3 78.5 75.8 72.4 77.4 74.8 73.2 76.7 74.9 Rongchao Yin, Quan Wang, Peng Li, Rui Li, and Bin Wang. 2016. Multi-granularity Chinese word embedding. In *Proceedings of the 2016 Conference* on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 981–986, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics. Liang-Chih Yu, Lung-Hao Lee, Yuen-Hsien Tseng, and Hsin-Hsi Chen. 2014. Overview of SIGHAN 2014 bake-off for chinese spelling check. In *Proceedings* of The Third CIPS-SIGHAN Joint Conference on Chinese Language Processing, Wuhan, China, October 20-21, 2014, pages 126–132. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ruiqing Zhang, Chao Pang, Chuanqiang Zhang, Shuohuan Wang, Zhongjun He, Yu Sun, Hua Wu, and Haifeng Wang. 2021. Correcting chinese spelling errors with phonetic pre-training. In *Findings of* the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACLIJCNLP 2021, pages 2250–2261. Shaohua Zhang, Haoran Huang, Jicong Liu, and Hang Li. 2020. Spelling error correction with soft-masked bert. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.07421*. Xiaotian Zhang, Hang Yan, Sun Yu, and Xipeng Qiu. 2022. Sdcl: Self-distillation contrastive learning for chinese spell checking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.17168. Zhe Zhao, Hui Chen, Jinbin Zhang, Xin Zhao, Tao Liu, Wei Lu, Xi Chen, Haotang Deng, Qi Ju, and Xiaoyong Du. 2019. Uer: An open-source toolkit for pre-training models. *EMNLP-IJCNLP 2019*, page 241. | Training Set | #Sent | Avg. Length | #Errors | |----------------|---------|---------------|-----------| | SIGHAN14 | 3,437 | 49.6 | 5,122 | | SIGHAN15 | 2,338 | 31.3 | 3,037 | | Wang271K | 271,329 | 42.6 | 381,962 | | Total | 277,104 | 42.6 | 390,121 | | Test Set | #Sent | Avg. Length | #Errors | | SIGHAN14 | 1,062 | 50.0 | 771 | | SIGHAN15 | 1,100 | 30.6 | 703 | | Total | 2,162 | 40.5 | 1,474 | ## A The Statistic Of Sighan Dataset Table 5: Statistics of the SIGHAN datasets. Table 6: All results for fine-tuning pre-trained models in raw data. ## B The Experimental Results Of Different Parameters In Experiment I, we use the average of three sets of training parameters as the final result, which is due to the large fluctuation of performance on the test set during the experiment. We use the pre-trained weight realized by (Cui et al., 2020). For all of our models, we use the AdamW optimizer (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2019) to optimize our model for 20 epochs, the learning rate is set to be 5e-5, the batch size is 48 and the warm-up ratio is set to be 0.3. ## C Probe Details Our implementation uses PyTorch(Paszke et al., 2019) and HuggingFace(Wolf et al., 2020). The probes for each MLP are trained separately starting with random initialization weights. We train the probe via a binary classification task, using the Adam optimizer and Cross Entropy Loss. ## C.1 Plms Considered We selected several mainstream Chinese PLMs as our research objects, along with their model card on Huggingface: BERT-Chinese (Cui et al., 2019) consists of two pre-training tasks: Masked Language Model (MLM) and Next Sentence Prediction (NSP), and introducing a strategy called whole word masking (wwm) for optimizing the original masking in the MLM task. We consider the base model with 110 Million parameters. Model Card:'hfl/chinesebert-wwm-ext' under Joint Laboratory of HIT and iFLYTEK Research. RoBERTa-Chinese (Cui et al., 2019) removes the next sentence prediction task and uses dynamic masking in the MLM task. We also consider the base model. Model Card:'hfl/chinese-robertawwm-ext' under Joint Laboratory of HIT and iFLYTEK Research. ChineseBERT (Sun et al., 2021) proposes to integrate the glyph-phonetic information of Chinese characters into the Chinese pre-training model to enhance the ability to model the Chinese corpus. We consider the base model. Model Card:'junnyu/ChineseBERT-base' under Joint Laboratory of HIT and iFLYTEK Research. MacBERT (Cui et al., 2020) suggests that [*MASK*] token should not be used for masking, but similar words should be used for masking because [*MASK*] has rarely appeared in the finetuning phase. We also consider the base model. Model Card:'hfl/chinese-macbert-base' under Joint Laboratory of HIT and iFLYTEK Research. CPT (Shao et al., 2021) proposes a pre-trained model that takes into account both understanding and generation. Adopting a single-input multipleoutput structure, allows CPT to be used flexibly in separation or combination for different downstream tasks to fully utilize the model potential. We consider the base model. Model Card:'fnlp/cpt-base' under Fudan NLP. BART-Chinese (Lewis et al., 2019; Shao et al., 2021) proposes a pre-training model that combines bidirectional and autoregressive approaches. BART first uses arbitrary noise to corrupt the original text and then learns the model to reconstruct the original text. In this way, BART not only handles the text generation task well but also performs well on the comprehension task. We consider the base model. Model Card:'fnlp/bart-base-chinese' under Fudan NLP. T5-Chinese (Raffel et al., 2020; Zhao et al., 2019) leverages a unified text-to-text format that treats various NLP tasks as Text-to-Text tasks, i.e., tasks with Text as input and Text as output, which attains state-of-the-art results on a wide variety of NLP tasks. We consider the base model. Model Card:'uer/t5-base-chinese-cluecorpussmall' under UER. ## C.2 The Statistics Of Probe Dataset We remove some rare characters for two reasons. Firstly, these characters are rarely encountered as misspellings in CSC task. Secondly, these characters appeared infrequently in the training corpus of the PLMs, which we believe would make it excessively challenging for the PLMs to learn effectively. The statistics are shown in Table 7 and Table 8. ## C.3 Probing Results From Models With Different Numbers Of Mlp Layers From the experimental results, it can be seen that the number of layers of MLP has little effect on the results, and most of the results of the pre-training | #Pos. | #Neg. | #Total | | |--------------|---------|----------|-------| | Training Set | 7968 | 7968 | 15936 | | Test Set | 1992 | 1992 | 3984 | Table 7: The statistics of the dataset for the glyph probe. | #Pos. | #Neg. | #Total | | |--------------|---------|----------|-------| | Training Set | 8345 | 8345 | 16690 | | Test Set | 2087 | 2087 | 4174 | Table 8: The statistics of the dataset for the phonetic probe. models are finally concentrated in the interval of  0.75-0.76. The Chinese pre-training models of the BERT family are slightly less effective when the number of layers is relatively small and similar to other Chinese pre-training models after more than three layers. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist 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.

jo-2023-self

A Self-Supervised Integration Method of Pretrained Language Models and Word Definitions

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.2

We investigate the representation of pretrained language models and humans, using the idea of word definition modeling{--}how well a word is represented by its definition, and vice versa. Our analysis shows that a word representation in pretrained language models does not successfully map its human-written definition and its usage in example sentences. We then present a simple method DefBERT that integrates pretrained models with word semantics in dictionaries. We show its benefits on newly-proposed tasks of definition ranking and definition sense disambiguation. Furthermore, we present the results on standard word similarity tasks and short text classification tasks where models are required to encode semantics with only a few words. The results demonstrate the effectiveness of integrating word definitions and pretrained language models.

# A Self-Supervised Integration Method Of Pretrained Language Models And Word Definitions Hwiyeol Jo NAVER Search US hwiyeolj@gmail.com ## Abstract We investigate the representation of pretrained language models and humans, using the idea of word definition modeling–how well a word is represented by its definition, and vice versa. Our analysis shows that a word representation in pretrained language models does not successfully map its human-written definition and its usage in example sentences. We then present a simple method DefBERT that integrates pretrained models with word semantics in dictionaries. We show its benefits on newly-proposed tasks of definition ranking and definition sense disambiguation. Furthermore, we present the results on standard word similarity tasks and short text classification tasks where models are required to encode semantics with only a few words. The results demonstrate the effectiveness of integrating word definitions and pretrained language models.1 ## 1 Introduction A word embedding vector maps a word into a fixeddimensional vector as a distributed representation. The word vectors are trained by looking at their context words and aggregating their representations in supervised ways (Turney, 2013) or unsupervised ways (Mikolov et al., 2013; Pennington et al., 2014). More recently, the representations have been learned as a form of pretrained language models (Peters et al., 2018; Devlin et al., 2019). The huge success of these pretrained language models on various NLP tasks is achieved by capturing a rich semantic representation of words from their context in huge data. On the other hand, for centuries, lexicographers and linguists have created dictionaries that contain general definitions of words and examples of their usage. With these sophisticated data, there have been many applications for NLP tasks (e.g., machine translation (Hill et al., 2016), semantic 1https://github.com/hwiyeoljo/DefBERT Distances between word '**love**' and its definitions: 1. An intense feeling of deep affection. (57.8) A feeling of deep romantic or sexual attachment to someone. (139.8) 2. Affectionate greetings conveyed to someone on one's behalf. (126.6) 3. A formula for ending an affectionate letter. (64.9) 4. A personified figure of love, often represented as Cupid. (149.0) 5. A great interest and pleasure in something. (66.0) 6. A person or thing that one loves. (103.7) 7. A friendly form of address. (44.9) 8. Used in affectionate requests. (93.9) (in tennis, squash, and some other sports) a score of zero; nil. (117.5) 9. Feel deep affection for (someone) (85.4) 10. Feel a deep romantic or sexual attachment to (someone) (191.5) 11. Like or enjoy very much. (71.3) The closest definition to the word '**love**': "**Several.**" (definition of word '**number**') (27.3) Table 1: The mean squared distance between the word 'love' and its definitions in a dictionary (top; |Wi-Dwi|), and the closest distance between the word and any definitions in our collected dictionary (bottom; |Wi-Dwj|). Each word or definition is embedded by BERT (see §3). relatedness classification (Bahdanau et al., 2017)). Some recent works have used WordNet (Miller, 1995) for fine-tuning BERT for word sense disambiguation (Huang et al., 2019; Guo et al., 2020), whereas our work uses up-to-date dictionary definitions and usage examples to fine-tune pretrained language models. In this work, we study the difference between machine-learned definitions and *human-written* definitions. Table 1 shows the mean squared distance between the vanilla BERT representation (the last hidden layer of [CLS]) for the word 'love' and the sentence representation (by [CLS]) for its definitions in dictionaries. The closest word of 'love' in the pretrained model is 'number' in our data collection. This indicates a potential risk of using pretrained representations as the only means to measure the semantic similarity between words or short sentences, where the context words are insufficient to get good representations. Furthermore, it is important to make general and self-indicated embeddings. For example, if we do not have pooling layers to the pretrained embedding, we need additional training data to fine-tune the pooling layer and the pretrained model. On the other hand, if we can do the same task by using the pretrained model only (without fine-tuning), this means good generalization. Lastly, some researchers believe that target word token representation is better than [CLS] token when the input text is short. However, we do not know 'what the short text is' or 'when the model gets short text as inputs.' Thus, the fact that we can use [CLS] token for a single word or short text is beneficial in that we do not need to consider the input length. To do so, we attempt to inject worddefinition-example (its usage) information into the model. To overcome the deficiency and get such a generalized model, we propose a new joint representation that combines the human-written word definition with its usage example in a dictionary entry. We show the effectiveness of this new representation on several downstream tasks. The main contributions are: - Performed extensive analyses of how close the representations of pretrained language models are to the one of collected human-written definitions; our analyses show that the representations of BERT do not reflect the humanwritten definitions. - Incorporated the dictionary definitions into the pretrained language models in embeddinglevel–As a new model called DefBERT (§4), showing significant performance improvements where tasks lack contextual information. - Proposed two semantics-related ranking tasks: DefRank aims to find the correct definition given the word, and SenseRank is to find the proper sense from a word's definitions given the word's usage. Unsurprisingly but interestingly, DefBERT shows significant improvements in both tasks. ## 2 Related Work Using dictionaries for NLP tasks. Dict2vec (Tissier et al., 2017) learned word embeddings through word-definition pairs. They designed strong and weak word pairs within dictionaries and made the word pairs close. Bahdanau et al. (2017) utilized dictionaries to solve out-of-vocabulary (OOV) problems by encoding the definitions of OOV words and generating the word's embeddings. Hill et al. (2016) suggested a dictionary-based learning task using neural networks. They also suggested reversed dictionary evaluation tasks that choose the most related word to a given description. Like dictionaries, WordNet (Miller, 1995) has been widely used to enrich word representations (Faruqui et al., 2015). However, the prior works were biased to inject relation knowledge, such as synonyms, rather than general word definitions. More recently, GlossBERT (Huang et al., 2019) used definitions for disambiguation tasks, but the approach needs context-gloss pairs and a classifier even at inference. In this work, we attempt to build a generalized model which does not require additional classifiers. Definition Modeling. The definition modeling task was proposed by Noraset et al. (2017) that generates a word definition from the word's embedding. The authors considered the definition modeling as a special case of language modeling and used it for word embedding evaluation. However, Gadetsky et al. (2018) found that the prior definition modeling tasks could not resolve word disambiguation because it is conditioned on only a single word. To address the issue, they also extended Noraset et al. (2017)'s model to process context. Chang and Chen (2019) investigated whether contextual representations can capture word definitions. Unlike the prior works on definition modeling, they suggested a general framework that maps the contextualized representation into a definition embedding space and then selects top-N closest definitions. This retrieval-based approach can resolve the problems in the generative approach of definition modeling, such as the difficulty in evaluation. The major differences between the prior works and our study are as follows: First, we compare representations from pretrained language models and definitions from a lexical dictionary at embeddinglevel. Second, we use word-definition pairs and definition-example pairs from the dictionary. The use of words in a sentence is similar to GlossBERT, but its objective is not to make definition-injected | Chang and | Oxford+ | | |-------------------------|-----------|-----------| | Chen (2019) | (Ours) | | | # Words (W) | 31,889 | 30,533 | | # Definition (Def) | 79,105 | 93,227 | | # Examples (Exam) | 707,001 | 1,167,055 | | Avg./Max. # Def by Word | 10.6/65 | 10.5/51 | | Avg./Max. # Exam by Def | 17.8/46 | 18.0/85 | | Sense order | N | Y | Table 2: Comparison of dictionary datasets. We build on and augment the prior work. The differences in the number of words, definitions, and examples are due to updates. representation. Rather it is to solve sense disambiguation tasks. The method also requires an additional classifier. Lastly, we propose two tasks that can measure the capability of model representations on human-written definitions (and examples): DefRank and SenseRank. Compared to other benchmark datasets that predict how similar two words or sentences are, we expect these tasks to be a straightforward benchmark. ## 3 Preliminary Analyses The central motivation behind our analysis is to check whether a word representation in pretrained language models (in this work, BERT) can indicate the representation of its definition and vice versa. ## 3.1 Definition Dataset Collection: O**Xford+** In prior work, Chang et al. (2018); Chang and Chen (2019) collected an online dictionary from lexico2(Oxford University Press, 2020). Since our work requires up-to-date definitions, we recollected the dataset based on the vocabulary of the original work. Table 2 shows the comparison and statistics of the dictionary data. The number of unique vocabulary is slightly different from the previous one. However, when considering the number of definitions and the number of examples increases, we think that the difference is due to the updates of lexico dictionary. Dictionaries usually order word senses by how frequently the senses are used, so the order information is important for investigating major versus minor definitions. Due to the more extensive coverage of usage and definitions, and additional information, we call our dataset Oxford+. From Oxford+, we take two sets of pairs and calculate the distances: one is a pair between a word and its definition (W-D), and the other is a pair between a definition and its usage (D-E) where the pairs are embedded by pretrained language model. ## 3.2 Distance Measures Embedding scheme. We use bert-base-uncased in HuggingFace (Wolf et al., 2019) as a backbone model.3 Although there are several different ways to represent a word or sentence using BERT (e.g., averaging [CLS] in every hidden layer, concatenating [CLS], etc.), we use the [CLS] token in the last hidden layer, as the original BERT paper proposed. For all definition-example pairs, we first input the example through BERT and then use the target word tokens in the example instead of using the [CLS] token (see Figure 1). We average their vectors if the target word is tokenized by more than one token. Let i be the word index, i j be the definition index of the j-th definition of the i-th word, and *i jk* be the index of the k-th example of the j-th definition for word i. Following our central motivation, the distance |Wi − Di j| between a word Wi and one of its definitions Di j is calculated by mean squared distance. Likewise, the distance |Di j −E*i jk*| between a word used in an example E*i jk* and its definition Di j is calculated by mean squared distance.4 In order to compare BERT's ability to capture human-written definitions, we need to control BERT's inputs and weights. We thus use (1) [PAD] masked inputs on the target word and (2) BERT with random weights. or example, suppose the embedding of empty input (BERT([PAD] ... [PAD])) is closer to the definition embedding (BERT(D)) than a single word embedding (BERT(W))). In that case, BERT does not seem to capture definition information through the inputs. The controls by [PAD] will be denoted as W[PAD] for word and E[PAD] for usage example, respectively. The [PAD] controlled inputs are also illustrated in Figure 1. Likewise, if BERT with random weights performs better, BERT's pretrained weights do not have information about human-written definitions. We denote the controlled model as Rand. With this idea, we can define distance types.   For each word-definition pair Distance Types. and each definition-example pair, - |W–D| : computes the distance between the original input vector ( INPUT in Figure 1 ) and the definition vector for each layer. - [W[PAD] -D| : computes the distance between the padded input vector ( PAD INPUT in Figure 1 ) and the definition vector for each layer. - |Rand W-D| : is the same as |W-D|, but all the model weights are randomly initialized. - |D-E| : computes the distance between the definition vector and the target word vector motivation since the pair does not use definition. used in the example sentence. - [D-E[PAD] I : computes the distance between the definition vector and the padded target word vector in the example. - |Rand D-E| : is the same as |D-E|, but all the model weights are randomly initialized. To sum up, the padded inputs and the randomized weights are used to contaminate the model representation. If the contaminated embeddings are closer to definitions than the vanilla input or model embeddings, the model representation is not meaningful. ## 3.3 Findings Distribution of Distances. We visualize the distances between a target word 'love' and all definitions in Oxford+ (Figure 2). As we showed in § 1, the closest (or most similar) word to 'love' was 'number'. The definitions of 'love' are scattered over the distribution, indicating how BERT's representation of 'love' is far from its human-written definitions. We observe similar patterns in most words in the dictionary. The pretrained representation of a word alone is not indicating its human-written definitions. Figure 3 (top) shows the averaged word-definition distances according to hidden layers. The distance of [W-D] is smaller than [W[PAD] -D] distance across all the hidden layer depth. Since the difference between them is only the input, the word itself includes information about the human-written definitions definition. In the same plot, however, the distance of randomized BERT |Rand W-D| is much lower than |W-D| and |W[PAD]-D| at upper layers, which casts doubt about BERT's pretrained weights whether they can represent human-written definitions. We thus conjecture that using a word alone is not appropriate for a contextualized representation since a single word lacks context. To provide more context for the model, we conduct a second experiment to compare the definition's representation to its usage in the example sentence where pretrained language models have shown strong performances. BERT can self-indicate better by using surrounding words but it still fails to capture the human-written definitions. Figure 3 (bottom) shows the definition-example distances. The distances of |D-E| and |D-E[PAD]| shows similar trends but |D-E[PAD]| is smaller at the last hidden layer. The result shows the tokens are less selfindicated in the sentences, while the averaged distance of the randomized model is much smaller than in ordinary settings. From this analysis, the pretrained language model (especially BERT) seems unable to encode human-written definitions, as |Rand W-D| and |Rand D-E| show lower distance than |W-D| and  |D-E|, respectively. Also, the distances between the vanilla BERT and the padded models are small, which tells us that it might have potential benefits by adding semantic information. ## 4 Defbert**: Definition Induced Bert** Using lexical resources for fine-tuning word embeddings is a typical solution to take advantage of both lexical semantics and distributional semantics. However, as seen in §3, the lexical relations, such as antonyms and synonyms, are unnatural to be integrated with pretrained language models. On the other hand, dictionary definitions and examples are expressed as complete sentences, leading to better settings for optimizing the pretrained models. Based on the analysis (§3), we present a simple yet effective method to integrate general definitions from a dictionary with pretrained representations while keeping the nature of contextualization. The setup of BERT for fine-tuning is the same as Figure 1; we then fine-tune BERT using the distances as a loss function. By doing so, we optimize BERT's representation to be close to its human-written definitions (W-D) and its word representation used in the examples (D-E). The loss functions used for each pair are as follows: $$\begin{array}{l}\mbox{L}_{\#-\mbox{D}}=\frac{1}{\#W\times\#D}\sum_{i}\sum_{j}\sqrt{(\mathbb{W}_{i}-\mathbb{D}_{ij})^{2}}\\ \mbox{L}_{\mathbb{D}-\mbox{E}}=\frac{1}{\#W\times\#D\times\#E}\sum_{i}\sum_{j}\sum_{k}\sqrt{(\mathbb{D}_{ij}-\mathbb{E}_{ijk})^{2}}\\ \end{array}\tag{2}$$ where i is the word index, j is the definition index of the j-th definition of the i-th word, and *i jk* is the index of the k-th example of the j-th definition for word i. The number of words, definitions, and examples are denoted as \#W, \#D, and \#E, respectively. We use Adam optimizer (Kingma and Ba, 2014) with learning rate 5e-6, and 32 batch size. The maximum token length from our definition data is 191, including special tokens (e.g., [CLS] and [SEP]), but we utilize the model's maximum capacity, which is 512. However, as we observed in the analysis (§3), the pretrained embeddings of source and target words (i.e., W, D, and E) might not be appropriate to be trained. Therefore, we additionally design loss functions, which utilize the other dictionary information: the distance between [CLS] token of W and Easy set: target word "love" B D C ∗1affectionate greetings conveyed to someone on one's behalf. 4 1 C2 persist in an activity or process. 1 3 C3 a device for reducing mechanical vibration, in particular a shock absorber on a motor vehicle. 2 4 | C4 | denoting popular black culture in general. | 3 | 2 | |------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|-----|-----| | Challenge set: target word "love" | B D | | | | C ∗ 1 | feelings of deep affection. | 4 | 1 | | C2 | regarded with deep affection. [dear] | 2 | 4 | | C3 | inspiring affection. [endearing] | 1 | 3 | | C4 | deep love and respect. [adoration] | 3 | 2 | | Neologism set: target word "ohana" | B D | | | C ∗1feelings of deep affection. 4 1 C2 regarded with deep affection. [dear] 2 4 C3 inspiring affection. [endearing] 1 3 C4 deep love and respect. [adoration] 3 2 Neologism set: target word "ohana" B D C ∗1especially in hawaii: a family, including members of an extended family, as well as close friends and associates. 4 1 C2 a trouser leg. 1 4 C3 absence of difficulty or effort. 2 3 C4 an estimation of the quality or worth of someone or something. 3 2 Table 3: Examples in DefRank easy (top), challenge (middle), and neologism (bottom) set. * indicates the gold definition. B and D mean the rank predicted by BERT and DefBERT, respectively. W tokens itself (W') to align the token embedding(s) to [CLS] token. Likewise, the distance between W and E is used. and $\mathbf{L}_{\mathbf{R}-\mathbf{W}}$, $=\dfrac{1}{\#W}\sum_{i}\sqrt{(\mathbf{W}_{i}-\mathbf{W}^{\prime}\,_{i})}$ (3) $\mathbf{L}_{\mathbf{R}-\mathbf{E}}=\dfrac{1}{\#W\times\#D\times\#E}\sum_{i}\sum_{j}\sum_{k}\sqrt{(\mathbf{W}_{i}-\mathbf{E}_{ijk})^{2}}$ We use the additional loss functions for calibration of DefBERT. As a result, we can provide all the information in the dictionary self-supervised way. In the training process, we prepare two BERT models in order to make the training fast and keep BERT's original properties; One of BERT model makes prediction and update its weights by the loss(es), while the other BERT model only makes prediction used for target embedding. The target BERT is copied in every epoch. After the training, the fine-tuned BERT is selected. ## 5 Experiments 5.1 Defrank: Definition Ranking Task Setup. To evaluate the ability of pretrained word vectors to capture human-written definitions at embedding-level (i.e., without classifiers), we present a task called Definition Ranking (DefRank). Given a word, the model predicts the closest word definition among four candidate definitions. The main idea is similar to Chang and Chen (2019), but DefRank looks at only a word and does not require additional mapping function in the evaluation framework, which corresponds to our goal–get a general embedding model. We assign approximately 10% of data to test set5. DefRank has two sets based on task difficulty: Easy set and Challenge set. The candidate definitions in the easy set are randomly sampled from Oxford+. On the other hand, candidate definitions in the challenge set are selected by the closest three definitions except for the gold definitions. We use Sentence-BERT (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019) to choose similar and negative examples as an adversarial constraint. Therefore, models are supposed to capture the subtle differences in meaning among the definitions of words such as love, dear, endearing, and adoration. Table 3 (top) and Table 3 (middle) show the examples. Furthermore, the easy set has a sub-set called Neologism set, which consists of a newly coined word or expression. Thus, we can evaluate the models' ability even when the words never appear in the (pre-)training data. To collect neologisms, we refer to the update notes of Oxford Dictionary and consider 'new word entries' as neologisms. We then process them by removing words that require a subscription to see the full definition and references in definitions to other similar words (e.g., See, Cf. and explanations after ';'). The number of collected neologisms is 345. Table 3 (bottom) presents the example of neologism. We compare BERT variations, such as BERT (Devlin et al., 2019), RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019), Sentence-BERT (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019), and GlossBERT (Huang et al., 2019). Besides, we report the performance fine-tuned by masked language modeling on the definition data. In the masked language training, we set an artificial template that "the definition of W is D and its example is E." As we mentioned in §4, W-W' pairs and W-E pairs are used for model calibration, denoted as [+W'] and [+E], respectively. We also empirically find the optimized pair selection of DefBERT, which shows the best performances in DefRank, denoted as BestSelect6). 5After we post-process to clean the test data, the ratio becomes approximately 9% 6The best sequence of training is [+E]+W-D+D-E+[+W']. Model Easy Chal. Neo Randomized BERT 29.11 26.52 31.01 BERT-base 32.41 25.81 36.52 BERT-base(MLM-FT) 36.32 26.04 29.28 BERT-large 33.91 25.79 36.81 RoBERTa-base 26.07 25.84 62.98 Sentence-BERT 75.08 ∗30.45 65.22 GlossBERT 49.58 26.93 52.17 ConceptNet 83.88 32.58 35.36 DefBERT(W-D) 60.11 27.92 51.59 DefBERT(D-E) 74.28 31.11 **70.72** DefBERT([+W']) 61.65 29.51 49.28 DefBERT([+E]) 78.55 31.53 68.12 DefBERT([+W']W-D) 74.22 30.59 60.58 DefBERT([+E]W-D) 83.27 32.29 69.28 DefBERT([+W']D-E) 79.04 32.32 68.99 DefBERT([+E]D-E) 80.73 32.54 67.25 DefBERT(BestSelect) **84.67 33.76** 70.43 Finally, we will report the BestSelect model performance. Results. Table 4 shows the performance on the DefRank task. Considering the high performance of Sentence-BERT, our tasks are well-designed to examine the semantics incorporated in model representations. The results show that fine-tuning by masked language modeling is ineffective in the performances. Besides, GlossBERT does not perform well on these tasks, which implies that the word disambiguation model largely depends on the classifiers at the end of the architecture. Our variations of DefBERT show much better performance since we train models with a similar distribution. However, it is interesting that D-E pairs increase the model performances more, even though W-D pairs are directly related to the tasks. The performance gaps between baselines and our variations are small for the challenge set. Therefore, the challenge set is very hard to distinguish the subtle variation of semantics, requiring a deeper understanding of definitions. Lastly, we can find several properties of definition pairs. For example, calibrations with only [+W'] or [+E] make significant improvements to the model. The models starting with calibration perform much better than the models without calibrations. We guess that BERT's self-attention successfully normalize the model. Moreover, DefBERT Input example "their love for their country" for target word "love" B D C ∗1an intense feeling of deep affection. 3 1 C2 a great interest and pleasure in something. 2 2 C3 affectionate greetings conveyed to someone on one's behalf. 4 3 C4 a formula for ending an affectionate letter. 1 4 Table 5: Examples in SenseRank task. * means the gold definition. B and D mean the rank predicted by BERT and DefBERT, respectively. proves to be effective in neologisms. We conjecture that DefBERT learns unseen words (and their tokens) through other words' definitions. We also report the performance of ConceptNet vector (Speer et al., 2017). The representation is a strong baseline since the embeddings are fine-tuned and specialized in a number of tasks regarding word semantics. When evaluation, the sentence vectors are made by averaging the word vectors. ConceptNet shows good performance on the easy set and the challenge set, which also tells us that DefRank correlates with word semantics tasks while hardly being correct in neologism. The combination of various types of lexical resources (e.g., dictionary, relation, WordNet) remains an interesting direction for future work. ## 5.2 Senserank: Sense Disambiguation Task Setup. Extending from DefRank, we propose another task SenseRank that distinguishes the different senses of definitions for the same word. In this setting, we provide a word and its usage, an example sentence. Then, models select the most appropriate sense of definitions among the word's definitions. Compared to Chang and Chen (2019), SenseRank has to choose a gold definition among the candidate definitions from the same target word. Therefore, the task can be used to measure the model's ability to do fine-grained sense disambiguation. Table 5 shows four definitions for the target word 'love'. Given an example sentence, DefBERT correctly predicts the most similar sense of the definitions, while BERT fails. Similar to the challenge set of DefRank, the candidate definitions in SenseRank are semantically very similar (i.e., the variation of their senses), but this task has more contexts than DefRank. We filter out the words for which the number of definitions is fewer than four. We then sample 10% (115,849) as a test set. | Model | SenseRank | |---------------------|-------------| | BERT-base | 54.83 | | BERT-base(MLM-FT) | 41.33 | | BERT-large | 27.78 | | RoBERTa-base | 43.23 | | Sentence-BERT | 86.59 | | GlossBERT | 52.25 | | ConceptNet | 39.38 | | DefBERT(W-D) | 74.94 | | DefBERT(D-E) | 97.54 | | DefBERT([+W']) | 90.02 | | DefBERT([+E]) | 93.76 | | DefBERT([+W']W-D) | 92.67 | | DefBERT([+E]W-D) | 96.24 | | DefBERT([+W']D-E) | 97.02 | | DefBERT([+E]D-E) | 96.51 | | DefBERT(BestSelect) | 97.27 | Results. Table 6 shows the performances on SenseRank. Similar to the DefRank, the accuracies from BERT variants are relatively low except for Sentence-BERT, which is good at encoding semantics. Apart from D-E pairs that is closely related to SenseRank, other types of data pairs (i.e., W-D), and +W' and +E for calibration) increase the model performances. Also, DefBERT with best selection shows the largest improvement. The results indicate that the setup of DefBERT learns the sensespecific patterns between definitions and examples. Moreover, ConceptNet performs worse than most of the BERT-variants, showing that context is an important factor in this task. ## 5.3 Downstream Task 1: Word-Similarity Setup. Word similarity tasks can be used to evaluate word representations. They make use of Spearmann correlations to assess agreement between human ratings and computational representations of the similarity between word pairs. We use the evaluation tasks–WordSim (Finkelstein et al., 2001; Agirre et al., 2009), RareWord (Luong et al., 2013), MEN (Bruni et al., 2012), SemEval (CamachoCollados et al., 2017), SimLex (Hill et al., 2015), and SimVerb (Gerz et al., 2016). For DefBERT, we choose the best selection model in DefRank. Note that there is no additional training on the word similarity datasets. Results. Table 7 shows performances on the word similarity tasks. The other embeddings, except for DefBERT show poor performances. Additional masked language modeling fine-tuning increases the performance only a little. We conjec- | ρ × 100 | W-S | W-R | RW | MEN | SEM | SL | SV | Avg | |----------------|-------|-------|------|-------|-------|------|------|-------| | BERT | 23.1 | 1.8 | 5.3 | 19.1 | 10.8 | 7.2 | 0.8 | 9.7 | | BERT(FT) | 30.8 | 13.0 | 6.5 | 17.7 | 10.5 | 5.6 | 2.5 | 12.4 | | Sent-BERT 33.1 | 23.2 | 40.6 | 60.6 | 49.3 | 61.9 | 49.9 | 45.5 | | | GlossBERT 26.6 | -3.6 | 25.7 | 30.8 | 30.7 | 28.3 | 15.0 | 21.9 | | | DefBERT | 71.6 | 51.8 | 46.7 | 76.5 | 58.7 | 53.2 | 41.1 | 57.1 | Table 7: Model performances on word similarity tasks. WordSim dataset is categorized into semantics (W-S) and relation (W-R). | TREC | SST2 | IMDB | | |-----------------------|----------|----------|----------| | BERT | 97.1(.3) | 92.7(.2) | 93.4(.1) | | BERT(MLM-FT) 97.3(.3) | 91.4(.4) | 93.5(.1) | | | Sent-BERT | 97.3(.2) | 91.6(.3) | 93.4(.1) | | GlossBERT | 96.8(.4) | 91.3(.3) | 92.9(.1) | | DefBERT | 97.3(.2) | 92.7(.4) | 93.3(.1) | ture that word similarity/relatedness tasks are very challenging for pretrained and contextualized models because no context is given (see §6 for further discussion). The result is the same as what we found in our preliminary distance analysis on word-definition pairs. On the other hand, DefBERT largely closes the gaps among word, definition, and usage, which leads to significant improvements from BERT in all the datasets. ## 5.4 Downstream Task 2: Short Text Classification Setup. As we mentioned in §1 and showed in the previous experiments §5, BERT embedding for a word or short text did not make good representations. In order to generalize the effect of our integration, we employ text classification datasets– TREC (Hovy et al., 2001), SST-2 (Socher et al., 2013), and IMDB (Maas et al., 2011). All the datasets are relatively small, and the text length is short in TREC and SST-2, whereas IMDB is rather long. We report IMDB performance to show the performance of long text. As the original paper did, we use a [CLS] token at the last hidden layers. The hyperparameters are 2e-5 for learning rate, 32 for mini-batch size. We use Adam optimizer (Kingma and Ba, 2014). If the dataset does not have a validation set, we assign 15% of the training set and use them for earlystopping. The maximum length of tokens is 512. Results. We present the performance of text classification in Table 8. Compared to other methods, DefBERT shows comparable performance with other baselines. Although the performance gap is small (we guess that the baseline is already strong), DefBERT shows the best performance on the shortest dataset TREC, which has only maximum 37 words (by space). On the other hand, IMDB has approximately maximum 3000 words. Though GlossBERT is also fine-tuned by external data (specifically, gloss), the result indicates that word disambiguation tasks are not related to representing a single word or short sentence. ## 6 Conclusion And Further Discussion We present a novel way of combining pretrained contextualized representations and human-written definitions from a dictionary. We first collect definitions and examples from an online dictionary Oxford+. Our analyses with the dictionary show that BERT's representations do not incorporate human-written definitions. Motivated by the findings, we develop a new representation DefBERT, by constraining BERT to human-written definitions in the dictionary. In the experiments, we first proposed definition ranking (DefRank) and sense disambiguation tasks (SenseRank) and DefBERT outperforms other baselines. We also presented the effectiveness of DefBERT in downstream tasks: word similarity benchmark and short text classification tasks. One of the contributions of this paper is to make researchers revisit the old and traditional resource, dictionaries. While resources, including synonyms, antonyms, and other relations, are widely used to improve models as a constraint, dictionaries are less frequently used. However, the dictionary is the basic form of word semantics and is a relatively objective resource compared to relational resources. Furthermore, word-related resources are hard to align with pretrained language models because the weights are dynamic according to contexts. Therefore, pouring resources can occur catastrophic forgetting that the information previously trained disappears. On this problem, we suggest a potential approach to enhance semantics on the pretrained weights, maintaining the nature of contextualized encoder. ## 7 Limitations The performances except for the proposed tasks. We presented the result of neologism and the performances on two downstream tasks (i.e., word similarity task and short text classification), which are closely related to the understanding of word semantics. The selected downstream tasks are challenging for the contextualized models; they can use only a few contexts to make a representation. The performance in general benchmarks (e.g., GLUE) is almost the same as the vanilla BERT because our model suffers catastrophic forgetting while learning definition information. Sophisticated modeling and training processes to overcome the problem could be interesting future work. The use of other models Other pretrained models like RoBERTa could be a base model of our method (e.g., DefRoBERTa). However, we think that BBPE tokens scarcely have semantic meanings, which makes it hard to find appropriate tokens to inject definition information. Therefore, integrating human-written definitions with other types of tokens (e.g., Byte-Pair Encoding and Byte-level BPE) is also a future direction. ## The Use Of All The Loss Function & **Collect More** definition data. Presenting more experiments with other models, other collections of definition data, and other loss functions will further support our idea. Nevertheless, we want to show the performances with the widely-used basic model of pretrained language models (i.e., BERT), using definition data from the previous work, with various loss functions (e.g., W-D, D-E, [+W'], [+E]) as many as possible. A fine-grained combination of all the loss functions could make further improvements. ## Acknowledgement The author would like to thank previous co-workers who discussed this idea long ago, including reviewers in several rounds of submission. Also, PAUST gave helpful advice on experimental techniques and distributed software engineering. Lastly, I am grateful to Alice Lee for help in writing this work. ## References Eneko Agirre, Enrique Alfonseca, Keith Hall, Jana Kravalová, Marius Pasca, and Aitor Soroa. 2009. A study on similarity and relatedness using distributional and wordnet-based approaches. In *Proceedings of Human Language Technologies: The 2009* Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 19–27. Dzmitry Bahdanau, Tom Bosc, Stanisław Jastrz˛ebski, Edward Grefenstette, Pascal Vincent, and Yoshua Bengio. 2017. Learning to compute word embeddings on the fly. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.00286*. Elia Bruni, Gemma Boleda, Marco Baroni, and NamKhanh Tran. 2012. Distributional semantics in technicolor. In *Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting* of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 136–145. Jose Camacho-Collados, Mohammad Taher Pilehvar, Nigel Collier, and Roberto Navigli. 2017. SemEval2017 task 2: Multilingual and cross-lingual semantic word similarity. In *Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval2017)*, pages 15–26, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ting-Yun Chang and Yun-Nung Chen. 2019. What does this word mean? explaining contextualized embeddings with natural language definition. 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 6066–6072. Ting-Yun Chang, Ta-Chung Chi, Shang-Chi Tsai, and Yun-Nung Chen. 2018. xsense: Learning senseseparated sparse representations and textual definitions for explainable word sense networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.03348. 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. Manaal Faruqui, Jesse Dodge, Sujay Kumar Jauhar, Chris Dyer, Eduard Hovy, and Noah A. Smith. 2015. Retrofitting word vectors to semantic lexicons. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1606–1615, Denver, Colorado. Association for Computational Linguistics. Lev Finkelstein, Evgeniy Gabrilovich, Yossi Matias, Ehud Rivlin, Zach Solan, Gadi Wolfman, and Eytan Ruppin. 2001. Placing search in context: The concept revisited. In *Proceedings of the 10th international conference on World Wide Web*, pages 406–414. Artyom Gadetsky, Ilya Yakubovskiy, and Dmitry Vetrov. 2018. Conditional generators of words definitions. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 266–271. Daniela Gerz, Ivan Vulic, Felix Hill, Roi Reichart, and ´ Anna Korhonen. 2016. Simverb-3500: A large-scale evaluation set of verb similarity. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2173–2182. Ping Guo, Yue Hu, and Yunpeng Li. 2020. Mg-bert: A multi-glosses bert model for word sense disambiguation. In *International Conference on Knowledge Science, Engineering and Management*, pages 263–275. Springer. Felix Hill, KyungHyun Cho, Anna Korhonen, and Yoshua Bengio. 2016. Learning to understand phrases by embedding the dictionary. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 4:17– 30. Felix Hill, Roi Reichart, and Anna Korhonen. 2015. Simlex-999: Evaluating semantic models with (genuine) similarity estimation. *Computational Linguistics*, 41(4):665–695. Eduard Hovy, Laurie Gerber, Ulf Hermjakob, ChinYew Lin, and Deepak Ravichandran. 2001. Toward semantics-based answer pinpointing. In *Proceedings* of the First International Conference on Human Language Technology Research. Luyao Huang, Chi Sun, Xipeng Qiu, and Xuan-Jing Huang. 2019. Glossbert: Bert for word sense disambiguation with gloss knowledge. 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 3500–3505. Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980. 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*. Minh-Thang Luong, Richard Socher, and Christopher D Manning. 2013. Better word representations with recursive neural networks for morphology. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 104–113. Andrew L. 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: Human Language Technologies, pages 142–150, Portland, Oregon, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tomas Mikolov, Kai Chen, Gregory S. Corrado, and Jeffrey Dean. 2013. Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. *CoRR*, abs/1301.3781. George A Miller. 1995. Wordnet: a lexical database for english. *Communications of the ACM*, 38(11):39–41. Thanapon Noraset, Chen Liang, Lawrence A Birnbaum, and Douglas C Downey. 2017. Definition modeling: Learning to define word embeddings in natural language. In *31st AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2017*. Oxford University Press. 2020. a new collaboration between dictionary.com and oxford university press (oup). http://lexico.com/. Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher Manning. 2014. Glove: Global vectors for word representation. In *EMNLP*, pages 1532–1543. Matthew E Peters, Mark Neumann, Mohit Iyyer, Matt Gardner, Christopher Clark, Kenton Lee, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. Deep contextualized word representations. In *Proceedings of NAACL-HLT*, pages 2227–2237. Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks. 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 3973–3983. 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. Robyn Speer, Joshua Chin, and Catherine Havasi. 2017. Conceptnet 5.5: an open multilingual graph of general knowledge. In *Proceedings of the Thirty-First* AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 4444–4451. Julien Tissier, Christophe Gravier, and Amaury Habrard. 2017. Dict2vec: Learning word embeddings using lexical dictionaries. In *Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language* Processing, pages 254–263. Peter D. Turney. 2013. Distributional semantics beyond words: Supervised learning of analogy and paraphrase. *TACL*, 1:353–366. Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, 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. 2019. Huggingface's transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. *ArXiv*, abs/1910.03771. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? 7 ✗ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Overall process has no potential risk ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? 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?** 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 used well-known BERT. 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? 5 ✓ 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.)? 5 ## 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.

ravfogel-etal-2023-conformal

Conformal Nucleus Sampling

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.3

Language models generate text based on successively sampling the next word. A decoding procedure based on nucleus (top-$p$) sampling chooses from the smallest possible set of words whose cumulative probability exceeds the probability $p$. In this work, we assess whether a top-$p$ set is indeed aligned with its probabilistic meaning in various linguistic contexts.We employ conformal prediction, a calibration procedure that focuses on the construction of minimal prediction sets according to a desired confidence level, to calibrate the parameter $p$ as a function of the entropy of the next word distribution. We find that OPT models are overconfident, and that calibration shows a moderate inverse scaling with model size.

# Conformal Nucleus Sampling Shauli Ravfogel1,2 **Yoav Goldberg**1,2 **Jacob Goldberger**1 1Bar-Ilan University 2Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence {shauli.ravfogel, yoav.goldberg}@gmail.com , jacob.goldberger@biu.ac.il ## Abstract Language models generate text based on successively sampling the next word. A decoding procedure based on nucleus (top-p) sampling chooses from the smallest possible set of words whose cumulative probability exceeds the probability p. In this work, we assess whether a top-p set is indeed aligned with its probabilistic meaning in various linguistic contexts. We employ conformal prediction, a calibration procedure that focuses on the construction of minimal prediction sets according to a desired confidence level, to calibrate the parameter p as a function of the entropy of the next word distribution. We find that OPT models are overconfident, and that calibration shows a moderate inverse scaling with model size. https://github.com/shauli-ravfogel/ conformal-prediction ## 1 Introduction Modern language generation methods are all based on computing the conditional next-word distribution. However, there is still considerable debate about the best way to extract the next word from that distribution. Most current text generation methods employ one of a handful of standard decoding strategies, which are characterized as either deterministic or stochastic in nature. A greedy search strategy selects the word with the highest probability at each timestep. The greedy method and its beam search variations work remarkably well for machine translation but outside of this context, tend to return dull text or degenerate text (Holtzman et al., 2020; Cohen and Beck, 2019). Holtzman et al. (2020) argued that high-quality human language does not follow a pattern of highestprobability next words, as humans expect the generated text to not be repetitive or boring. The same problem occurs with beam search. Direct sampling from the next-word distribution computed by the model often generates incoherent gibberish text. Temperature sampling (Ackley et al., 1985) is a word sampling approach based on rescaling logit scores before applying the softmax function to compute the word distribution. Other methods limit the sampling space to a small **prediction set** to avoid the "unreliable tail" (Holtzman et al., 2020). In top-k sampling (Fan et al., 2018), we sample only from the top-k most likely words. Instead of sampling only from the most likely k words, top-p (nucleus) sampling chooses from the smallest possible set of words whose cumulative probability exceeds the probability p (Holtzman et al., 2020). Top-p sampling enables a dynamically sized window of words, unlike top-k which fixes the size of k for every step. Finally, locally typical sampling (Meister et al., 2022) and truncation sampling (Hewitt et al., 2022) are recent variants of top-p that aim to make it more suitable for language generation. The top-p prediction set has a concrete probabilistic interpretation. Here we examine whether the probability that the "correct" word belongs to the set of words produced by the top-p algorithm is indeed p. More generally we expect that the nextword prediction would be calibrated, meaning that the output of the next-word softmax layer would accurately reflect the true word distribution. Parametric calibration methods, such as Temperature Scaling (Guo et al., 2017), which adjust the confidence of the most probable word, are not suitable for adjusting the size of the prediction set. Conformal Prediction (CP) (Vovk et al., 1999, 2005; Shafer and Vovk, 2008; Angelopoulos and Bates, 2021) is a non-parametric calibration method that, given a value p, aims to build a prediction set with a guarantee that the probability that the correct word is within this set is indeed p. Note that this notion of calibration, which is distinct from the way calibration is usually formulated in language modeling settings, *exactly coincides* with the goal of the top-p prediction model. The model-agnostic and distribution-free nature of CP makes it particularly suitable for large neural network models. We thus applied CP analysis to asses whether the top-p procedure is calibrated and, if needed, tune it to have the desired probabilistic interpretation. We find that OPT models of different sizes (Zhang et al., 2022) are not calibrated according to the conformal prediction theory, and that calibration shows moderate inverse scaling. Additionally, we show that the degree of calibration varies significantly with the entropy of the model's distribution over the vocabulary. We thus propose a new Conformal top-p **decoding** algorithm, which ensures that the top-p sampling has a meaningful probabilistic interpretation. ## 2 Cp For Language Generation In this section, we briefly review the Split Conformal Prediction algorithm (Vovk et al., 2005) and discuss its relevance to language generation models. Consider a network that classifies an input x into k pre-defined classes. The network (softmax layer) output has the mathematical form of a distribution. However, this does not necessarily mean that it accurately reflects the true class distribution. Let (*x, y*) be a test instance and its corresponding class. We want to find a small subset of classes (a prediction set) C(x) ⊂ {1*, ..., k*} such that $$p(y\in C(x))\geq1-\alpha$$ where 1−α ∈ [0, 1] is a user-chosen error rate. (We use the term 1−α instead of p to comply with CP standard notation). In words, the probability that the set C(x) contains the correct label is at least 1 − α. We call this property the marginal coverage since the probability is averaged over all the data points (*x, y*). Denote the prediction set obtained by taking the most probable classes until the total mass just exceeds a value q, by Cq(x). Let qˆ ∈ [0, 1] be the smallest threshold value that p(y ∈ Cqˆ(x)) ≥ 1−α. If q >ˆ 1−α the model can be viewed as over-confident. If q <ˆ 1−α the model can be viewed as under-confident and if qˆ = 1−α the model is calibrated in the sense that the probability that the correct label is in the 1−α prediction set is indeed 1−α. If the model is not calibrated, we can calibrate it using a labeled validation set (x1, y1), ...,(xn, yn). Denote pt(i) = p(yt = i|xt; θ). Define the **conformal scores** to be: $$s_{t}=\sum_{\{i|p_{t}(i){\geq}p_{t}(y_{t})\}}p_{t}(i)\quad t=1,...,n\quad\mathrm{(2)}$$ This CP score is known as the Adaptive Prediction Sets (APS) score, and was first introduced in (Romano et al., 2020). Note that yt ∈ Cst(xt) and st is the minimal threshold in which the true class yt is in a prediction set of xt. We next look for **a minimal threshold** qˆ such that the correct label ytis included in the prediction set Cqˆ(xt) for at least (1−α)n points of the validation set. In other words, qˆ calibrates the top-(1−α) prediction-set on the validation set. We can easily find qˆ by first sorting the n scores s1*, ..., s*n and then qˆ is the (1−α)-quantile of the validation-set scores. Once the network is calibrated, if we want to form a prediction set for a new test sample x, that contains the true class with probability (1−α), we use Cqˆ(x). The CP Calibration procedure for calibrating the top-p word decoding is summarized in Algorithm 1. The conformal prediction theory provides the following guarantee on the threshold qˆ (Vovk et al., 2005). Theorem: Assume a test point (*x, y*) and the n validation points are independent and identically distributed (or at least exchangeable). Let qˆ be the ⌈(n+ 1)(1−α)/n⌉-quantile of the validation set scores. Then $$1-\alpha\leq p(y\in C_{\hat{q}}(x))\leq1-\alpha+{\frac{1}{n+1}}.\quad\quad(3)$$ $$(1)$$ Note that this is a marginal probability over all the test points and is not conditioned on a given input. Exchangeability means that the sequence distribution is not altered by permuting the order of the random variables. In this study, we aim to apply the conformal prediction framework to language generation models to analyze the prediction sets used for sampling the next word. The joint distribution of words in a text is neither IID nor exchangeable, since the words are correlated and the order of the words in a sentence is significant. A recent study (Oliveira et al., 2022) showed that applying the usual CP algorithm to a stationary β-mixing process (rather than an exchangeable one) results in a guaranteed coverage level of 1−α−η, where η depends on the mixing properties of the process and is theoretically hard to know, or bound. Roughly speaking, β-mixing processes are stochastic processes in which far-away ## Algorithm 1 Cp Calibration Of The Top-P Decoding Input: A validation set comprised of next word distributions p1*, .., p*n with the corresponding correct words y1*, .., y*n and a confidence level p. for t = 1*, ..., n* do st =P{i|pt(i)≥pt(yt)} pt(i) end for Define qˆ to be the ⌈(n + 1)p/n⌉-quantile of {s1*, ..., s*n}. Output: Use top-qˆ decoding to guarantee that the probability that the correct word is in the top-qˆ prediction set is at least p.    points are approximately independent in a quantifiable manner. In all the examples they checked, the authors assessed that the additional penalty incurred by using CP with stationary β-mixing processes was virtually insignificant. Manning and Schutze (1999) argue that even though not quite correct, natural language can be modeled as stationary, ergodic processes. Khandelwal et al. (2018) showed that the LSTM language model's memory is empirically bounded at roughly 200 words and thus the model can be viewed as an aperiodic recurrent (and therefore β-mixing) Markov chain. It is reasonable to assume that human language and transformer-based language models can also be modeled as β-mixing processes. Hence, applying CP to language generation models yields meaningful results (at least qualitatively). ## 3 Experiments In this section, we apply the conformal prediction calibration method to analyze the calibration status of the top-p nucleus sampling. Setup. We experimented with variants—from 125M parameters up to 30B parameters—of OPT (Zhang et al., 2022), a left-to-right language model. We ran the models on 10,000 English Wikipedia sentences1, and collected the distribution of the vocabulary over each token in each sentence, resulting in a total of 245,923 distributions. The distribution of the entropy values, as well as the maximum probability, was far from being uniform (Fig. 1). We sorted all the instances by entropy, and calibrated the examples belonging to each equally-sized percentile independently (from 0-10% to 90-100%). The patterns are highly similar across models. We report results on the 350M parameters model unless specified otherwise. We use Nvidia 2080TI GPUs. Dependency of the confidence on the entropy. First, we evaluated the confidence scores of a standard nucleus sampling scheme. We chose p = 0.9 (a commonly used value) and recorded the effective confidence, i.e., the proportion of cases where the correct word was indeed in the top-p prediction set. Fig. 2 shows the effective confidence for the 1https://huggingface.co/datasets/wikipedia predictions belonging to different percentiles of entropy. The results indicated that setting p = 0.9 did not translate to a prediction set that contained the correct token in 90% of the cases, motivating our calibrated decoding. In Fig. 3, we show the per-entropy CP calibration results, for 10 entropy bins corresponding to percentiles. While the model was always overconfident, the level of overconfidence decreases with the entropy percentile. In other words, when the model is apparently the most certain—as reflected in low entropy values—it is most overconfident. Note that in the case of low entropy the single highest probability can be more than 0.9. Hence, there is no way to calibrate the prediction set by changing its size. In particular, we found that the model is overconfident when the gold token is a function word: it tends to allocate high probability to a small set of function words, while the true distribution is more varied. Calibration and scale. Fig. 4 presents the conformal threshold values qˆversus desired confidence (1−α), when calibration is performed over the entire validation set (without partition to entropy bins). As shown, for all confidence levels, the threshold qˆ needed to ensure that the correct word is included within the prediction set is larger than the confidence level itself (the y = x dashed line). This indicates that the model is *overconfident*. Fig. 4 also shows the dependency of calibration on the scale. Scaling language models has been shown to induce the emergence of new abilities, such as in-context learning (Brown et al., 2020). Empirical power laws were shown to predict performance in a different task as a function of scale (Kaplan et al., 2020; Wei et al., 2022a), where models usually show improved performance with scale. Here, we find *inverse scaling* (Wei et al., 2022b), where calibration moderately deteriorates with model scale. Generation. How does conformal p sampling affect generation? we use the 350M model to compare the quality of generation of conformal p sampling with the natural baseline of p sampling. We generate continuations to 1,000 prompts of size 35 words from the OpenWebText dataset 2. We generate up to length 200 tokens, and compare conformal p = 0.9 prediction (setting 1 − α = 0.9) with conventional p = 0.9 sampling.3 Following Fig. 3, when applying our method, we calculate the  entropy of the output distribution over each token, and dynamically set the threshold p for each token prediction, according to the threshold value qˆ that fits this entropy percentile. This ensures that the true probability of the token to be included within the prediction set (according to the training set used for calibration) is 0.9. We evaluate the quality of the generation using MAUVE (Pillutla et al., 2021) and BERTScore (Zhang et al., 2019).4 MAUVE score is 0.933 for conformal-p sampling, and 0.0.920 for conventional p sampling. As for BERTScore, the F1 score is 0.840 for conformal-p sampling, and 0.843 for conventional p sampling. These results indicate that conformal-p sampling is performing similarly to conventional p sampling. Applicability of CP to non IID data Conformal prediction theory assumes IID, while we build on the model outputs distributions over consecutive tokens in the same sentence, which are of course highly dependent. We repeated the per-entropy-bin calibration process when uniformly sampling a *single* token per sentence, thus (almost) satisfying the independence assumption. The results were similar to Fig. 3 and in that case, Eq. (3)) is applicable. ## 4 Conclusions To conclude, in this study we apply the notion of calibration by conformal prediction to calibrate the top-p nucleus sampling as a function of the next word distribution entropy and thus made the top-p decoding policy consistent. The same analysis and 4Default HuggingFace v4.22.0 Parameters were used. calibration can also be applied to other commonly used decoding methods, such as variants of top-p (Meister et al., 2022) and truncation sampling (Hewitt et al., 2022). ## Limitations We calibrated OPT models based on Wikipedia data. Future work should apply calibration procedure to a wider range of datasets, to check whether our results generalize to different domains. Additionally, we limited our evaluation to entropy as a measure of uncertainty and did not explore other measures. Finally, we aimed at validating the calibration status of commonly used LMs. Future work should thoroughly evaluate the impact of the calibration status on different facets of generation quality, as text generation is one of the main usecases of large LMs. ## Ethics Statement We do not foresee ethical issues with this work. ## Acknowledgements This project received funding from the Europoean Research Council (ERC) under the Europoean Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, grant agreement No. 802774 (iEXTRACT). Shauli Ravfogel is grateful to be supported by the Bloomberg Data Science Ph.D. Fellowship. ## References David H Ackley, Geoffrey E Hinton, and Terrence J Sejnowski. 1985. A learning algorithm for boltzmann machines. *Cognitive science*, 9(1):147–169. Anastasios N Angelopoulos and Stephen Bates. 2021. A gentle introduction to conformal prediction and distribution-free uncertainty quantification. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2107.07511. 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. Eldan Cohen and Christopher Beck. 2019. Empirical analysis of beam search performance degradation in neural sequence models. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML). Angela Fan, Mike Lewis, and Yann Dauphin. 2018. Hierarchical neural story generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.04833. Chuan Guo, Geoff Pleiss, Yu Sun, and Kilian Q Weinberger. 2017. On calibration of modern neural networks. In *International Conference on Machine* Learning (ICML). John Hewitt, Christopher D Manning, and Percy Liang. 2022. Truncation sampling as language model smoothing. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Ari Holtzman, Jan Buys, Li Du, Maxwell Forbes, and Yejin Choi. 2020. The curious case of neural text degeneration. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR). Jared Kaplan, Sam McCandlish, Tom Henighan, Tom B Brown, Benjamin Chess, Rewon Child, Scott Gray, Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Scaling laws for neural language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.08361. Urvashi Khandelwal, He He, Peng Qi, and Dan Jurafsky. 2018. Sharp nearby, fuzzy far away: How neural language models use context. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Christopher Manning and Hinrich Schutze. 1999. *Foundations of statistical natural language processing*. MIT press. Clara Meister, Tiago Pimentel, Gian Wiher, and Ryan Cotterell. 2022. Typical decoding for natural language generation. *arXiv preprint arXiv: 2202.00666*. Roberto I Oliveira, Paulo Orenstein, Thiago Ramos, and João Vitor Romano. 2022. Split conformal prediction for dependent data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.15885. Krishna Pillutla, Swabha Swayamdipta, Rowan Zellers, John Thickstun, Sean Welleck, Yejin Choi, and Zaid Harchaoui. 2021. Mauve: Measuring the gap between neural text and human text using divergence frontiers. *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, 34:4816–4828. Yaniv Romano, Matteo Sesia, and Emmanuel Candes. 2020. Classification with valid and adaptive coverage. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. Glenn Shafer and Vladimir Vovk. 2008. A tutorial on conformal prediction. *Journal of Machine Learning* Research, 9(3). Vladimir Vovk, Alexander Gammerman, and Glenn Shafer. 2005. *Algorithmic learning in a random* world. Springer Science & Business Media. Volodya Vovk, Alexander Gammerman, and Craig Saunders. 1999. Machine-learning applications of algorithmic randomness. In International Conference on Machine Learning. Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Rishi Bommasani, Colin Raffel, Barret Zoph, Sebastian Borgeaud, Dani Yogatama, Maarten Bosma, Denny Zhou, Donald Metzler, et al. 2022a. Emergent abilities of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.07682. Jason Wei, Yi Tay, and Quoc V Le. 2022b. Inverse scaling can become u-shaped. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2211.02011. Susan Zhang, Stephen Roller, Naman Goyal, Mikel Artetxe, Moya Chen, Shuohui Chen, Christopher Dewan, Mona Diab, Xian Li, Xi Victoria Lin, et al. 2022. Opt: Open pre-trained transformer language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01068. Tianyi Zhang, Varsha Kishore, Felix Wu, Kilian Q Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. 2019. Bertscore: Evaluating text generation with bert. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1904.09675. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? "Limitations" ✗ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? We do not foresee risks from this work. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? 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?** 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? No response. 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? Not applicable. 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? Not applicable. 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.)? 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.

chan-etal-2023-discoprompt

{D}isco{P}rompt: Path Prediction Prompt Tuning for Implicit Discourse Relation Recognition

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.4

Implicit Discourse Relation Recognition (IDRR) is a sophisticated and challenging task to recognize the discourse relations between the arguments with the absence of discourse connectives. The sense labels for each discourse relation follow a hierarchical classification scheme in the annotation process (Prasad et al., 2008), forming a hierarchy structure. Most existing works do not well incorporate the hierarchy structure but focus on the syntax features and the prior knowledge of connectives in the manner of pure text classification. We argue that it is more effective to predict the paths inside the hierarchical tree (e.g., {``}Comparison -{\textgreater} Contrast -{\textgreater} however{''}) rather than flat labels (e.g., Contrast) or connectives (e.g., however). We propose a prompt-based path prediction method to utilize the interactive information and intrinsic senses among the hierarchy in IDRR. This is the first work that injects such structure information into pre-trained language models via prompt tuning, and the performance of our solution shows significant and consistent improvement against competitive baselines.

# Discoprompt: Path Prediction Prompt Tuning For Implicit Discourse Relation Recognition Chunkit Chan∗ 1, Xin Liu∗1, Jiayang Cheng1, Zihan Li1**, Yangqiu Song**1, Ginny Y. Wong2**, Simon See**2 1Department of Computer Science and Engineering, HKUST, Hong Kong SAR, China 2NVIDIA AI Technology Center (NVAITC), NVIDIA, Santa Clara, USA {ckchancc, xliucr, jchengaj, zliho, yqsong}@cse.ust.hk {gwong, ssee}@nvidia.com ## Abstract Implicit Discourse Relation Recognition (IDRR) is a sophisticated and challenging task to recognize the discourse relations between the arguments with the absence of discourse connectives. The sense labels for each discourse relation follow a hierarchical classification scheme in the annotation process (Prasad et al., 2008), forming a hierarchy structure. Most existing works do not well incorporate the hierarchy structure but focus on the syntax features and the prior knowledge of connectives in the manner of pure text classification. We argue that it is more effective to predict the paths inside the hierarchical tree (e.g., "Comparison -> Contrast -> *however*") rather than flat labels (e.g., *Contrast*) or connectives (e.g., *however*). We propose a prompt-based path prediction method to utilize the interactive information and intrinsic senses among the hierarchy in IDRR. This is the first work that injects such structure information into pre-trained language models via prompt tuning, and the performance of our solution shows significant and consistent improvement against competitive baselines. ## 1 Introduction Discourse parsing is the task of automatically parsing discourse structure in a text, including the identification of discourse structure and the annotation of discourse relations (Li et al., 2022). Discourse Relation Recognition (DRR) is a crucial task in discourse parsing, recognizing relations between two arguments (i.e., sentences or clauses). It is vital for textual coherence and is considered as the essential step for many downstream tasks involving more context, such as question answering (Rutherford and Xue, 2015), text generation (Bosselut et al., 2018), and argument mining (Liu et al., 2021b). Explicit discourse relation recognition (EDRR) has already been demonstrated that utilizing explicit ∗ Equal contribution.  Figure 1: An example of the implicit discourse relation hierarchy and path prediction. connectives information can effectively determine the discourse relation types (Varia et al., 2019). On the other hand, implicit discourse relation recognition (IDRR) is still challenging with the absence of connectives (Varia et al., 2019). Traditional works on IDRR focus on syntax features, including word pairs (Lin et al., 2009; Varia et al., 2019) and other surface features (Ji and Eisenstein, 2015; Bai and Zhao, 2018). With deep neural networks and large language models (LLMs), different approaches pay much attention to text representations via attention (Liu and Li, 2016), pre-training (Shi and Demberg, 2019b), multi-task learning (He et al., 2020; Long and Webber, 2022), and prior knowledge (Liu et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2022). But one important piece of information, i.e., the inherent discourse label hierarchy, is not fully investigated. The sense labels for each discourse relation follow a hierarchical classification scheme in the annotation process of PDTB 2.0 framework (Prasad et al., 2008), forming a hierarchy structure. Figure 1 shows an example from PDTB 2.0 dataset (Prasad et al., 2008). It consists of two arguments (i.e., Arg1 and Arg2) and is annotated with relation senses, where the semantics of the top-level *Comparison* is further refined by the second-level *Contrast*. Besides, we list representative connectives (e.g., *however*) to help better understand the definitions and semantics of labels. LDSGM (Wu et al., 2022) uses graph convolutional networks to encode the label dependencies into text representations, illustrating the importance of label structures on text representation learning and label prediction. However, such usage is not compatible with pre-training because it may significantly affect the representations from language models. Prompt tuning has shown its power in text classification without altering the representations from pre-trained language models, especially for low-resource scenarios (Schick and Schütze, 2021; Gao et al., 2021). In this paper, we propose a prompt-based path prediction method, **Disco**urse relation path prediction **Prompt** tuning model (**DiscoPrompt** 1), to utilize the hierarchy and intrinsic senses of labels in IDRR. Specifically, we transform the hierarchy in Figure 1 to "Comparison -> Concession -> if; · · · ; Temporal -> Synchrony -> when" as the hierarchical prompt and add it as the prefix of arguments to be classified. The dependencies of top and second-level relation senses are explicitly provided as the context. On the other hand, connectives are provided as the natural language explanations of labels to help the language models better adapt to the prior knowledge. We ask the LLMs to predict the label's hierarchical path instead of the leaf label for IDDR, and we show such a way of providing the label hierarchy ahead of arguments significantly improves the IDRR performance. Our contributions are summarized as follows: - This is the first work that injects labels' hierarchical structure information and connectives into pre-trained language models via prompt tuning. - We model the IDRR problem as the path prediction problem that predicts the joint probability of top-level relations, second-level types, and connectives at the same time. - We conduct extensive experiments and thorough ablation studies to discuss the necessity and effectiveness of the label hierarchy and connectives. The results support our claims and the success of our proposed DiscoPrompt model. ## 2 Related Work Prompt Tuning With LLMs, such as T5 (Raffel et al., 2020) and GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020), prompt-based methods have attracted much attention in the field of natural language understanding (Schick and Schütze, 2021; Lester et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2022). Compared with fine-tuning, prompt tuning may have a better generalization on various tasks due to the aligned nature of language descriptions and answer semantics, e.g., classification problems (Gao et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2022a). At the same time, there are some efforts to leverage prompts with structural inputs for knowledge customization (Zhong et al., 2022). Injecting hierarchy information into prompts is also promising. For example, using top-level predictions to refine prompts of bottom levels can surpass soft prompts and hard prompts (Wang et al., 2022b). Nevertheless, how to employ LLMs to better involve hierarchy knowledge is still under investigation. Implicit Discourse Relation Recognition It has been discovered that connectives can provide necessary clues in predicting discourse relations to achieve around 95% accuracy (Dai and Huang, 2019; Varia et al., 2019). However, the absence of connectives makes the prediction more challenging. Many efforts have been paid to explore the syntax through linguistic features (Rutherford and Xue, 2015; Ji and Eisenstein, 2015; Wang and Lan, 2016; Dai and Huang, 2018; Varia et al., 2019), attention (Liu and Li, 2016; Bai and Zhao, 2018), pre-training (Shi and Demberg, 2019b), knowledge transfer (Lan et al., 2017; Dai and Huang, 2019; He et al., 2020), etc. With the power of language models, connective prediction also illustrates its effectiveness in implicit relation prediction (Nguyen et al., 2019; Shi and Demberg, 2019a; Kishimoto et al., 2020; Kurfali and Östling, 2021). In addition, PCP (Zhou et al., 2022) shows the feasibility of combining label prediction and connective prediction under the manner of prompts. The latest methods reveal the significance of the label hierarchy of discourse relations. LDSGM (Wu et al., 2022) utilizes the graph convolutional networks to incorporate label dependencies into text representations, while ContrastiveIDRR (Long and Webber, 2022) leverages the sense hierarchy to obtain contrastive learning representation. However, these methods are incompatible with pre-training as they modify the representations from pre-trained language models. Therefore, this work investigates injecting the label dependencies information and connectives into pre-trained language models via prompt tuning with aligning the representations.  ## 3.1 Problem Definition The sense labels in various levels of the Implicit Discourse Relation Recognition (IDRR) task naturally constitute a hierarchy, denoted as H. H is a hierarchical tree structure whose depth is d, with the root node in depth 0 and class sense of different levels distributed to the corresponding layer (i.e., from depth 1 to d) in this tree. Let class label set C to be Sdk=1 C k where C k = {c k 1 , · · · , cknk} is the label set of depth k, and nk is the number of classes at depth k. For example, the hierarchy H of PDTB 2.0 forms a tree with depth size 2, and the C 2corresponds to the label set of the second level, containing 11 class subtypes like *Concession*, Synchrony, etc. We can enrich the label hierarchy by adding a connective layer like in Figure 1. We adopt the Naive Bayes to compute the prior distribution Pr(c 2|z) from the explicit relation data, where c 2 ∈ C2is a subtype, and z is the connectives. Figure 2 shows the heat map of highly frequent connectives. We can find that the connectives are the vital clue for discourse relations. Therefore, we select the most discriminative ones as C 3. We do not observe significant improvement when adding more than one connective for each c 2. Therefore, we summarize C for PDTB 2.0 in Table 1. Prior distributions and label words of CoNLL16 are shown in Appendix A.2. In this task, given a data set D = {(xi, yi)} consisting of data instance xi = (a 1 i , a2 i ) and label yi, where the a 1 i , a2 i represent the argument 1 and argument 2 of respective instance i and the label yiis class label set. In our method, the class label set including d labels for d layers forms a path P in hierarchical tree H, instead of a single class label for a specific level. After predicting a path, the classes of various levels are the nodes lying in the predicted path. There-  Table 1: The label word set on PDTB 2.0 dataset, includes four top-level relations, 11 second-level subtypes, and 11 connectives. fore, this task is to find out the optimal path: $$P_{i}^{*}=\arg\operatorname*{max}_{{\mathcal{P}}^{j}}\operatorname*{Pr}\left({\mathcal{P}}^{j}\mid x_{i}\right),$$ $\downarrow$ . , (1) where P∗ iis the optimal path and j indicates the j-th path among all paths. ## 3.2 T5 Backbone Model T5 (Raffel et al., 2020) is an encoder-decoder model pre-trained on a multi-task mixture of unsupervised and supervised tasks. The unsupervised denoising training task required the model only to predict the masked consecutive spans of tokens. For example, the input "Thank you for inviting me to your party last week." will be corrupted as "Thank you <X> me to your party <Y> week." and the target is " <X> for inviting <Y> last </s>" </s> is the eos_token. In the supervised pre-trained task, the model was asked to perform the sequence-tosequence input-output mapping by specifying the task prefix (such as "translate German to English:" or "summarize:"). However, the specific textual prefix token is difficult to discover and requires a substantial amount of human effort. Hence, prefix tuning (Li and Liang, 2021) and prompt tuning (Lester et al., 2021) methods proposed to overcome this problem by relaxing the constraint of discrete textual tokens to continuous tunable ones. ## 3.3 Path Prediction Prompt Tuning Method To predict the path P∗ ifor each instance xi, we leverage a human-tailored template T (·) to convert the data instances to the prompt input x˜i = T (xi) and a verbalizer V(·) to map a set of words to class labels. Figure 3 illustrates the architecture of **DiscoPrompt**. Structure-Aware Prompt The crafted template includes necessary discrete tokens, masked tokens, soft continuous tokens, and context with the hierarchy information. The first part of our prompt  template is the discrete tokens "The path is " for eliciting the predicted path Pi. Then three [MASK] tokens are included: an [MASK] is inserted between two arguments for predicting the probability of decided connectives, and two [MASK]s form an edge "[MASK] -> [MASK]" for receiving the top and second-level class probabilities. We also added 20 learnable continuous tokens at the beginning of the template to effectively searching an optimal template. To better utilize the hierarchy information and senses of labels, we explicitly translate them into a tailored hierarchical tree prompt and insert it into the input. This hierarchical tree prompt is the discrete tokens appended ahead of the arguments as the context in natural language. Figure 8 in Appendix B.2 shows the details of the template. Path Verbalizer A traditional verbalizer usually maps a label y to a single answer token z or a series of spans z 1, z2, *· · ·* greedily (Schick and Schütze, 2021; Liu et al., 2021a). We extend it by mapping a path P to three tokens, i.e. {Pj*} → Z × Z × Z*, where Z is the vocabulary. We denote the three [MASK] tokens as z 1, z 2, and z 3. Then using the prompt template with three [MASK]s and the verbalizer V(·), the probability distribution over {Pj} can be formalized as the joint probabilities of z 1, z 2, and z 3, i.e. Pr(P j| x˜i) = Pr(V(P j) | x˜i) = Pr(z 1 i = p j 3 , z2 i = p j 1 , z3 i = p j 2| x˜i), where a path P jconsists of p j 1 (the top-level), p j 2 (the second-level), and p j 3 (the connective). Since T5 can synchronously predict masked tokens, the joint probability can be written as $$\Pr(\mathcal{P}^{j}\mid\tilde{x}_{i})=\prod_{k=1}^{3}\Pr(z_{i}^{k}=v^{k}(\mathcal{P}^{j})\mid\tilde{x}_{i}),\tag{2}$$ where $v^{k}(\cdot):\{\mathcal{P}^{j}\}\to\mathcal{Z}$ is the submap of k(·) : {Pj*} → Z* is the submap of V(·) for the k-th [MASK]. The final learning objective of DiscoPrompt is to maximize $$\mathcal{J}=\frac{1}{|\mathcal{D}|}\sum_{(x_{i},y_{i})\in\mathcal{D}}\log\sum_{k=1}^{3}\Pr(z_{i}^{k}=v^{k}(\mathcal{P}^{j})\mid\tilde{x}_{i}).\tag{3}$$ Once we get the prediction of $\mathcal{P}_{i}^{*}$ by choosing the maximum joint probability (i.e., path score) as Eq. (2), we can get the prediction of each level as Eq. (4). $$c_{i}^{k^{*}}=\arg\max_{c^{k}}\Pr(c^{k}\mid{\cal P}^{j},x_{i})\cdot\Pr({\cal P}^{j}\mid x_{i}),\tag{4}$$ where Pr(c k| Pj, xi) can be calculated by the prior probability (or simply set as 1.0). ## 4 Experimental Setting 4.1 Dataset The experiments are conducted on two datasets, the PDTB 2.0 (Prasad et al., 2008) and the CoNLL2016 shared task (CoNLL16) (Xue et al., 2016), to validate the performance of our method. Both contain the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) articles, and the difference is the annotation and relation senses. We evaluate performance on PDTB 2.0 according to two different settings denoted as Ji (Ji and Eisenstein, 2015) and Lin (Lin et al., 2009) with 11 subtypes. The CoNLL-2016 shared task provides more | Models | Ji (Top) | Ji (Second) | Lin (Top) | Lin (Second) | | | | | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|---------------|-------------|----------------|----------|-------|----------|-------| | F1 | Accuracy | F1 | Accuracy | F1 | Accuracy | F1 | Accuracy | | | MTL-MLoss (Nguyen et al., 2019) | 53.00 | - | - | 49.95 | - | - | - | 46.48 | | ELMo-C&E (Dai and Huang, 2019) | 52.89 | 59.66 | 33.41 | 48.23 | - | - | - | - | | RWP-CNN (Varia et al., 2019) | 50.20 | 59.13 | - | - | - | - | - | - | | TransS (He et al., 2020) | - | - | - | - | 51.24 | 59.94 | - | - | | BMGF-RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2020) | 63.39 | 69.06 | 35.25 | 58.13 | 58.54 | 68.66 | 39.15 | 53.96 | | CG-T5 (Jiang et al., 2021) | 57.18 | 65.54 | 37.76 | 53.13 | - | - | - | - | | LDSGM (Wu et al., 2022) | 63.73 | 71.18 | 40.49 | 60.33 | - | - | - | - | | GOLF (Jiang et al., 2022b) | 65.76 | 72.52 | 41.74 | 61.16 | - | - | - | - | | ContrastiveIDRR (Long and Webber, 2022) | 67.85 | 71.70 | 45.54 | 59.19 | - | - | - | - | | XLNet (base, cased) (Kim et al., 2020) | 59.33 | 66.35 | 36.36 | 54.73 | 56.16 | 68.05 | 36.23 | 55.82 | | XLNet (large, cased) (Kim et al., 2020) | 63.58 | 69.52 | 38.24 | 61.29 | 58.97 | 72.17 | 40.71 | 58.77 | | OTMT (XLNet-base) (Jiang et al., 2022a) | 60.78 | 68.89 | - | 56.65 | - | - | - | 56.37 | | OTMT (XLNet-large) (Jiang et al., 2022a) | 64.46 | 72.34 | - | 61.06 | - | - | - | 61.62 | | Fine-Tuning (T5-base) (Raffel et al., 2020) | 57.61 | 65.39 | 33.96 | 55.53 | 50.50 | 63.59 | 36.49 | 51.96 | | Fine-Tuning (T5-large) (Raffel et al., 2020) | 61.37 | 69.69 | 38.04 | 57.65 | 58.12 | 71.13 | 42.04 | 59.40 | | Prefix-Tuning (T5-base) (Li and Liang, 2021) | 25.87 | 52.45 | 7.49 | 31.09 | 25.08 | 54.18 | 8.45 | 26.37 | | Prefix-Tuning (T5-large) (Li and Liang, 2021) | 63.74 | 71.51 | 39.73 | 59.77 | 58.06 | 69.84 | 36.86 | 56.53 | | Prompt-Tuning (T5-base) (Lester et al., 2021) | 30.17 | 56.11 | 15.01 | 38.21 | 25.26 | 55.09 | 8.97 | 27.68 | | Prompt-Tuning (T5-large) (Lester et al., 2021) | 66.95 | 71.99 | 44.08 | 60.15 | 59.92 | 71.02 | 40.75 | 60.44 | | PCP (RoBERTa-base) (Zhou et al., 2022) | 64.95 | 70.84 | 41.55 | 60.54 | 53.00 | 66.58 | 41.19 | 56.14 | | PCP (RoBERTa-large) (Zhou et al., 2022) | 67.79 | 73.80 | 44.04 | 61.41 | 52.75 | 71.13 | 43.04 | 60.44 | | DiscoPrompt (T5-base) | 65.79 | 71.70 | 43.68 | 61.02 | 64.90 | 71.28 | 41.82 | 59.27 | | DiscoPrompt (T5-large) | 70.84 | 75.65 | 49.03 | 64.58 | 67.06 | 73.76 | 45.25 | 63.05 | | DiscoPrompt (T5-11b) | 75.34 | 78.06 | 52.42 | 68.14 | 72.78 | 77.55 | 47.18 | 67.62 | | Table 2: The accuracy (%) and F1 score (%) are evaluated on the PDTB 2.0 dataset. Italics numbers indicate the | | | | | | | | | ## 4.2 Implementation Details We employ the T5 model (Raffel et al., 2020) as the backbone to implement **DiscoPrompt** and use the T5-large as the primary model for a fair comparison with extensive baselines. Generally, the overall configuration follows the setting in Lester et al. (2021), and we put more details of the configuration in Appendix A.2. We report the MacroF1 score and accuracy in experiments and ablation studies. A prediction is considered as correct whenever it matches one of the ground-truth labels. All experiments are conducted with 2 × NVIDIA V100 (32GB) except for the T5-11b scale on 2 × NVIDIA A6000 (48GB). ## 4.3 Baselines This paper mainly adopts two categories of competitive baselines for the PDTB 2.0 dataset and the CoNLL-2016 shared task2. The first category is the previous state-of-the-art (SOTA) baselines, such as TransS (He et al., 2020), BMGFRoBERTa (Liu et al., 2020), LDSGM (Wu et al., 2022), XLNet-large (Kim et al., 2020), OTMT 2We report our produced results via the official code if the authors did not report results on those data. (XLNet-large) (Jiang et al., 2022a), and ContrastiveIDRR (Long and Webber, 2022). Two partitions of these SOTA baselines are highlighted for comparison with our method. One partition utilizes the hierarchical information in their methods (e.g., the LDSGM and ContrastiveIDRR), and the other is to fine-tune the pre-trained language models (e.g., XLNet-large). Therefore, we include the fine-tuned T5 models to illustrate the performance gain of prompt tuning. Besides, a prompt-based method PCP (Zhou et al., 2022) and general PrefixTuning (Li and Liang, 2021), as well as Prompt Tuning (Lester et al., 2021) are included. The details of implementation are listed in A.3. ## 5 Experimental Result 5.1 Main Results Table 2 and Table 3 summarize the main results of the PDTB 2.0 and CoNLL16 datasets, from which we derive the following conclusions. **First**, our method significantly outperforms all baselines and achieves state-of-the-art performance at both top and second-level classes in the IDRR task. Specifically, our method gains a considerable improvement of 6.93% second-level accuracy, 10.99% second-level F1 score, 5.96% top-level accuracy, and 9.47% top-level F1 score over the fine-tuning of the T5-large model in PDTB (Ji). It demonstrates that our method effectively utilizes the struc- | Models | Test (Top) | Test (Second) | Blind (Top) | Blind (Second) | | | | | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------|-----------------|---------------|------------------|----------|-------|----------|-------| | F1 | Accuracy | F1 | Accuracy | F1 | Accuracy | F1 | Accuracy | | | CoNLL Baseline (Rutherford and Xue, 2016) | - | - | - | 36.13 | - | - | - | 37.67 | | MTL-Attn-LSTM (Lan et al., 2017) | - | - | - | 39.40 | - | - | - | 40.12 | | RWP-CNN (Varia et al., 2019) | - | - | - | 39.39 | - | - | - | 39.36 | | BMGF-RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2020) | 56.55 | 68.23 | 40.68 | 57.26 | 58.30 | 74.43 | 28.98 | 55.19 | | XLNet (base, cased) (Kim et al., 2020) | 43.48 | 62.29 | 18.80 | 33.16 | 19.90 | 66.12 | 9.07 | 28.71 | | XLNet (large, cased) (Kim et al., 2020) | 47.07 | 64.76 | 27.13 | 47.85 | 22.37 | 66.59 | 11.94 | 35.06 | | Fine-Tuning (T5-base) (Raffel et al., 2020) | 54.64 | 67.10 | 31.99 | 53.92 | 50.94 | 71.30 | 24.52 | 49.89 | | Fine-Tuning (T5-large) (Raffel et al., 2020) | 58.74 | 70.87 | 34.66 | 58.88 | 56.28 | 73.07 | 24.63 | 54.30 | | Prefix-Tuning (T5-base) (Li and Liang, 2021) | 26.18 | 55.35 | 8.26 | 26.63 | 27.17 | 65.88 | 9.70 | 32.71 | | Prefix-Tuning (T5-large) (Li and Liang, 2021) | 57.84 | 71.15 | 46.06 | 59.40 | 55.61 | 74.12 | 30.53 | 55.53 | | Prompt-Tuning (T5-base) (Lester et al., 2021) | 25.53 | 54.44 | 13.01 | 29.11 | 27.21 | 64.71 | 11.55 | 33.65 | | Prompt-Tuning (T5-large) (Lester et al., 2021) | 59.95 | 72.32 | 49.59 | 60.57 | 63.35 | 77.41 | 35.72 | 57.88 | | PCP (RoBERTa-base) (Zhou et al., 2022) | 58.54 | 69.31 | 33.27 | 55.48 | 55.30 | 72.00 | 26.00 | 50.99 | | PCP (RoBERTa-large) (Zhou et al., 2022) | 63.78 | 72.69 | 37.79 | 58.36 | 64.74 | 76.47 | 27.77 | 56.24 | | DiscoPrompt (T5-base) | 60.66 | 70.63 | 45.99 | 60.84 | 62.98 | 76.94 | 39.27 | 57.88 | | DiscoPrompt (T5-large) | 69.56 | 75.33 | 56.29 | 66.32 | 67.89 | 80.47 | 38.49 | 63.06 | | DiscoPrompt (T5-11b) | 70.38 | 78.07 | 57.75 | 69.71 | 72.33 | 84.94 | 38.60 | 66.35 | | Table 3: The accuracy (%) and F1 score (%) are evaluated on the implicit discourse partition of CoNLL16 dataset. Italics number indicate the results of reproduced models. | | | | | | | | | CoNLL Baseline (Rutherford and Xue, 2016) - - - 36.13 - - - 37.67 MTL-Attn-LSTM (Lan et al., 2017) - - - 39.40 - - - 40.12 RWP-CNN (Varia et al., 2019) - - - 39.39 - - - 39.36 BMGF-RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2020) *56.55 68.23* 40.68 57.26 *58.30 74.43* 28.98 55.19 XLNet (base, cased) (Kim et al., 2020) 43.48 62.29 18.80 33.16 19.90 66.12 *9.07 28.71* XLNet (large, cased) (Kim et al., 2020) 47.07 64.76 27.13 47.85 22.37 66.59 *11.94 35.06* Fine-Tuning (T5-base) (Raffel et al., 2020) 54.64 67.10 31.99 53.92 50.94 71.30 *24.52 49.89* Fine-Tuning (T5-large) (Raffel et al., 2020) 58.74 70.87 34.66 58.88 56.28 73.07 *24.63 54.30* Prefix-Tuning (T5-base) (Li and Liang, 2021) 26.18 55.35 8.26 26.63 27.17 65.88 *9.70 32.71* Prefix-Tuning (T5-large) (Li and Liang, 2021) 57.84 71.15 46.06 59.40 55.61 74.12 *30.53 55.53* Prompt-Tuning (T5-base) (Lester et al., 2021) 25.53 54.44 13.01 29.11 27.21 64.71 *11.55 33.65* Prompt-Tuning (T5-large) (Lester et al., 2021) 59.95 72.32 49.59 60.57 63.35 77.41 35.72 *57.88* PCP (RoBERTa-base) (Zhou et al., 2022) 58.54 69.31 33.27 55.48 55.30 72.00 *26.00 50.99* PCP (RoBERTa-large) (Zhou et al., 2022) 63.78 72.69 37.79 58.36 64.74 76.47 *27.77 56.24* DiscoPrompt (T5-base) 60.66 70.63 45.99 60.84 62.98 76.94 39.27 57.88 DiscoPrompt (T5-large) 69.56 75.33 56.29 66.32 67.89 80.47 **38.49 63.06** DiscoPrompt (T5-11b) 70.38 78.07 57.75 69.71 72.33 84.94 38.60 66.35 Table 3: The accuracy (%) and F1 score (%) are evaluated on the implicit discourse partition of CoNLL16 dataset. Italics number indicate the results of reproduced models. ture information and perceives the specific knowledge on the correlation of discourse relations and connectives and finally enhances the ability of T5 to undertake this challenging task. **Second**, the prompt-based baselines (e.g., Prefix-Tuning, Prompt-Tuning, and PCP) receive outstanding performance and perform better than the T5-large finetuning method on this task. Many works (Scao and Rush, 2021; Lester et al., 2021) have discussed the overfitting problem of T5-large fine-tuning, and this can be partially solved by prompt-tuning by updating a few learnable parameters with limited training instances. The learnable parameters of baselines and DiscoPrompt are shown in Appendix A.6. **Third**, the ContrastiveIDRR and our method obtain better F1 scores. This observation can support the necessity of integrating the dependencies among relations as well as connectives in the label hierarchy. Fine-tuning a relatively pre-trained large language model (LLM) such as T5-11b requires extensive computation resources to update all trainable parameters. However, by adapting the prompt tuning-based method, the entire LLM is frozen, and only a few learnable parameters of input embeddings are required to update to obtain satisfactory performance. Therefore, we also include the performance of DiscoPrompt with the T5-11b version as a reference to explore the ability of a sizeable pre-trained language model on this IDDR task. As shown in Table 2 and Table 3, DiscoPrompt (T5-11b) easily beats other methods, achieving a 52.42% F1 score and 68.14% accuracy in the 11class classification (second-level) task of the PDTB (Ji) and illustrating the benefits without adjusting the representations from LLMs. On the contrary, fine-tuning T5-11b is infeasible in most single compute nodes. Considering the computation cost, we still focus on the comparison among large models. ## 5.2 Ablation Study To better investigate the factors of DiscoPrompt, we design numerous ablations on the path prediction and the tailored hierarchical tree prompt. Table 4 reports the performance of the ablation study for our model in the PDTB (Ji). ## Joint Probability For Path Prediction In Our method, by estimating the likelihoods of p j 1 (the top-level), p j 2 (the second-level), and p j 3 (the connective) in a predicted path, the dependencies of these three masks are utilized for enhancing the ability of the pre-trained language model on this IDRR task. According to the experimental results in Table 4, we can conclude that 1) the performance of the path prediction model incorporating the signals from all three masks surpasses other models (i.e., paths forming by two arbitrary masks or one connective mask), emphasizing the significance of dependencies and effectiveness of joint prediction; 2) the predicted path model without prior knowledge of selected discriminative connectives (i.e., Path w/ Top & Second) performs the worst, which is consistent with findings in Zhou et al. (2022); 3) the predicted path model with only the connective mask (e.g., Path w/ Connective) performs consistently worse than paths adding the second mask, indicating the slight ambiguity of connectives and the necessity of the label hierarchy especially with the top. The performance gain with the complete path is at least 3.76% on average, and models associating with paths including individual connective masks can also beat the previous SOTA. PCP (RoBERTa-large) (Zhou et al., 2022) 67.79 73.80 44.04 61.41 DiscoPrompt (T5-large) 70.84 75.65 49.03 **64.58** Path w/ Top & Second 53.93 66.89 33.74 53.71 w/ Top & Connective 69.19 72.57 42.95 64.08 w/ Second & Connective 70.04 74.69 45.98 64.37 w/ Connective 68.00 73.82 43.76 63.43 w/ Second 63.45 71.99 40.52 59.67 Prompt w/o Entire Discrete Prompt 68.38 72.95 41.79 62.66 w/o Cloze Discrete Prompt 68.64 73.72 41.44 63.72 w/o Hierarchical Tree Prompt 68.03 72.18 43.14 62.85 Model F1 (Top) Accuracy (Top) F1 (Second) **Accuracy (Second)** Hierarchy w/ Continuous Hierarchy Prompt 67.63 73.24 44.03 63.81 w/ Continuous Labels & Connective 67.74 73.24 44.06 64.10 w/ Continuous Connective 68.35 73.15 44.48 64.20 Table 4: Ablation study in the components of DiscoPrompt on PDTB (Ji). The path part considers different combinations in the path prediction; the prompt part tries to eliminate templates from the structure-aware prompt; the hierarchy replaces the hierarchical tree prompt with continuous variants. Model Comp. Cont. Exp. **Temp.** MTL-MLoss(Nguyen et al., 2019) 48.44 56.84 73.66 38.60 KANN (Guo et al., 2020) 43.92 57.67 73.45 36.33 BMGF-RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2020) 59.44 60.98 77.66 50.26 CG-T5 (Jiang et al., 2021) 55.40 57.04 74.76 41.54 CVAE (Dou et al., 2021) 55.72 63.39 80.34 44.01 ContrastiveIDRR (Long and Webber, 2022) 65.84 63.55 79.17 69.86 DiscoPrompt (T5-base) 62.55 64.45 78.77 57.41 DiscoPrompt (T5-large) 67.13 69.76 81.61 64.86 DiscoPrompt (T5-11b) 74.35 72.44 82.57 **72.00** Table 5: The performance for top-level classes on PDTB (Ji) in terms of F1 (%) (top-level multi-class classification). More baselines for comparison can be found in Table 17 in Appendix B.3. Discrete Prompt Template Two portions in our designed prompt template are in natural textual form and as discrete non-tunable tokens. The first part is the discrete tokens for the label hierarchy structure (i.e., **hierarchical tree prompt**), shown in Figure 3 and Figure 8. The second part is the **cloze discrete prompt** "The path is". We remove the discrete tokens from the template to evaluate their importance. The performance shown in Table 4 demonstrates that the two parts of the prompt are essential for achieving satisfactory performance compared with the without manual tips (i.e., Prompt w/o Entire Prompt). When adding back the cloze discrete prompt, we do not observe the model's ability to understand the correlations among masks for path prediction. Without explicitly injecting structural information into the hierarchical tree prompt, the performance dropped significantly, especially the second-level F1 score, dropping from 49.03% to 43.14%. Hierarchical Tree Prompt To acquire a deeper understanding of the discrete hierarchical tree prompt, we perform experiments to gradually replace the discrete tokens with continuous ones in various elements of this hierarchy prompt. The experiments include 1) Continuous Hierarchy Prompt: Second-level Label PCP Contrast DP (large) **DP (11b)** Temp.Asynchronous 57.81 59.79 64.15 **72.27** Temp.Synchrony 0.0 **78.26** 50.00 33.33 Cont.Cause 65.64 65.58 69.66 **72.28** Cont.PragmaticCause 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Comp.Contrast 63.88 62.63 62.88 **70.63** Comp.Concession 8.00 0.0 **9.09** 0.0 Exp.Conjunction 57.78 58.35 60.09 **62.84** Exp.Instantiation 74.01 73.04 74.17 **76.60** Exp.Restatement 61.00 60.00 65.24 **65.98** Exp.Alternative 66.67 53.85 60.00 **84.21** Exp.List 29.63 34.78 24.00 **38.46** Table 6: The label-wise F1 scores for the second-level labels on PDTB (Ji) (second-level multi-class classification). "Contrast" and "DP" indicate the ContrastiveIDRR and DiscoPrompt. Results of more baselines are listed in Table 19 in Appendix B.3. replacing the whole hierarchical tree prompt as the continuous tunable prompt with the same number of tokens, 2) Continuous Labels & Connective: only including the "-> " and replacing other relation labels and connective as continuous tunable prompt, and 3) Continuous Connective: only replacing the textual connective to be the tunable prompt. The experimental result in Table 4 underscores the importance and effectiveness of our tailored discrete hierarchical tree prompt, which obtains at least 4.98% performance boost. Prompt Engineering Furthermore, we conduct the prompt template searching and the parameter sensitivity on the continuous prompt length that we describe in Appendix B.2. ## 5.3 Label-Wise F1 Scores The PDTB (Ji) setting exhibits highly skewed label distributions, with only roughly 854 training instances (i.e., 6.8% of 12406 training instances) annotating as five of the 11 second-level labels. To further explore our model in four top-level relations and 11 second-level sense types on this dataset, Table 5 and Table 6 report the F1 scores (%) of the top-  Figure 4: The performance comparison of the T5-large fine-tuning with and without using our designed template on the CoNLL16 dataset. level and second-level classes, respectively. In Table 5, our model outperforms all baselines in three top-level relations (i.e., Comparison, *Contingency*, Expansion), and most of the baselines in the *Temporal* relation except ContrastiveIDRR. Specifically, Table 6 illustrates that our model performs better on the *Temp.Asynchronous* second-level class, whereas ContrastiveIDRR is much better on the Temp.Synchrony. In Table 6, our model obtains valid predictions on most second-level classes, but all methods fail to predict Cont.Pragmatic Cause. This situation may result from the few training examples of this class being insufficient for optimal learnable parameters, and the models tend to ignore this class in the prediction process. When we check the less representative classes (i.e., Temp.Synchrony, *Comp.Concession*), DiscoPrompt can still make correct predictions, while PCP and ContrastiveIDRR still fail to predict neither correct ones. Moreover, we can also see the power of LLMs that the T5-11b performs remarkably better than smaller models. ## 5.4 Prompt Adaptation For T5 Fine-Tuning To demonstrate the effectiveness of our designed template and explore whether our designed template can be used for the finetuning paradigm, we convert the data input to the tailored prompt template but with only a [MASK] for generating the entire path. The experimental results on CoNLL16 are summarised in Figure 4, and the T5-adapt boosts all metrics over vanilla T5large fine-tuning. The detailed performance and the experimental results for PDTB 2.0 are shown in Table 18 and Figure 9 in Appendix B.4. ## 5.5 Prompt Adaptation For Chatgpt With the powerful ability of LLMs exhibited on numerous tasks, we are curious about the capabil-  Table 7: The performance of ChatGPT performs on the PDTB (Ji) test set. ChatGPTlabel&*con.* means predicting the label and connective, and ChatGPT*structure* means adopting our structural path prompt template. Model Acc F1 Pitler and Nenkova (2009) 94.15 - Dai and Huang (2018) 94.46 93.70 Dai and Huang (2019) 95.39 94.84 Zhou et al. (2022) 94.78 93.59 Varia et al. (2019) 96.20 95.48 Fine-tuning (T5-large) w/o Connective 74.47 72.38 Fine-tuning (T5-large) w/ Gold Connective 95.41 94.94 DiscoPrompt (T5-large) w/ Connective Mask 78.35 74.62 DiscoPrompt (T5-large) w/ Gold Connective 96.73 **95.64** Table 8: Explicit Top-level sense classification results on PDTB (Ji). "w/o Connective" and "w/ Connective Mask" regard the EDRR as IDRR. ity of ChatGPT on zero-shot IDRR task. We test the ability of ChatGPT with three designed templates on the PDTB (Ji), and the performance is shown in Table 7. All designed templates obtain higher performance than the random, but still at a low region in the second level compared with supervised learning. This result reveals that IDRR is still tricky for ChatGPT and cannot solve easily at current state, consistent with the result in Chan et al. (2023). The structural path template outperforms the other two templates, proving the help of the structural form for ChatGPT to understand this task. The F1 score of each second level is shown in Figure 10 in Appendix and illustrates the effectiveness to distinguish various second-level senses among the *Expansion* top class. More case examples and discussions refer to Appendix B.5. ## 5.6 Generalization To Explicit Discourse Relation Classification Task To demonstrate the generalization ability of our model, we transfer and adapt our method to the explicit discourse relation recognition (EDRR) task. We simply replace the first [MASK] between two arguments with the gold connective for each instance in EDRR. Following the previous works (Varia et al., 2019; Zhou et al., 2022), the second-level class is the same as our implicit one setting. In Table 8, our model slightly outperforms previous SOTA models on the top-level sense prediction. DiscoPrompt consistently outperforms fine-tuning under different settings, and we observe a larger margin with absenting connectives. ## 6 Conclusion In this paper, we introduce a path prediction method for tackling the IDRR task by utilizing the hierarchical structural information and prior knowledge of connectives. Combining label structures in natural language with prompt tuning successfully takes a step further in this task as well as other generalized settings, e.g., prompt adaptation and explicit relation detection. Our model achieves new SOTA performance on PDTB 2.0 and CoNLL2016 data, and we hope our detailed discussions can help communities in discourse fields. ## Limitations And Future Work Limited Utilized Knowledge The main limitation of our method is the limited utilized knowledge. Since our prompt tuning-based method tests on Implicit Discourse Relation Recognition (IDRR) task, the elicited knowledge only comes from the dataset of this task and the model pre-training corpora. This constraint restricts the capability owing to the reporting bias (Gordon and Durme, 2013) in the pre-training models (PLMs). Moreover, the relatively few training data of several second-level classes resulting from the highly skewed label distribution problem requires extensive knowledge to make the model understand data instances and the task. Although we impose the prior human knowledge against the IDRR task from the input template designing to the discourse connectives selection, the knowledge source still only comes from our prior knowledge and the elicited knowledge of PLMs. As a result, even our method obtains a valid score in all second-level classes except the *Cont.Pragmatic Cause* displayed in Table 6, some second-level senses, which are the same as previous studies, cannot receive a satisfactory performance (e.g., *Comp.Concession* and *Expa.List*). The future work for this issue is to integrate more abundant knowledge and equip the model with more vital abilities. For example, grounding the arguments pair on the relevant nodes of the knowledge graph for each data instance (Lin et al., 2019) or knowledge distillation from large language models to provides more contextual information and enhances the capability of the model on this task. Limited Predicted Connectives Another area for improvement is the prediction of extensive connectives. Although our model includes the preselected connectives as our third layer of a designed hierarchy tree, we do not include the ground truth of connectives as our third layer. Because including these extensive connectives to form many leaves will result in many paths (more than 100). This limitation may be addressed in future works by utilizing the pruning algorithms for reducing a lot of redundant nodes and leaves on each instance to enhance effectiveness and efficiency. ## Ethics Statement In this work, we conformed to recognized privacy practices and rigorously followed the data usage policy. We declare that all authors of this paper acknowledge the *ACM Code of Ethics* and honor the code of conduct. This paper presents a method to utilize the interaction information between different layers, inherent sense label structure, and prior knowledge of connectives in the implicit discourse recognition task. The PDTB 2.0 and CoNLL-2016 dataset were used to train and assess the ability of the pre-trained language model on this task. The PDTB2.0 and CoNLL2016-Test dataset is collected from the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) articles, while the CoNLL2016-Blind dataset is derived from newswire texts, the primary language is English based and belongs to the news domain. We can foresee no immediate social consequences or ethical issues as we do not introduce social/ethical bias into the model or amplify any bias from the data. Therefore, these two datasets are not required to perform further actions to check the offensive content. ## Acknowledgements The authors of this paper were supported by the NSFC Fund (U20B2053) from the NSFC of China, the RIF (R6020-19 and R6021-20) and the GRF (16211520 and 16205322) from RGC of Hong Kong, the MHKJFS (MHP/001/19) from ITC of Hong Kong and the National Key R&D Program of China (2019YFE0198200) with special thanks to HKMAAC and CUSBLT. We also thank the support from NVIDIA AI Technology Center (NVAITC) and the UGC Research Matching Grants (RMGS20EG01-D, RMGS20CR11, RMGS20CR12, RMGS20EG19, RMGS20EG21, RMGS23CR05, RMGS23EG08). ## References Hongxiao Bai and Hai Zhao. 2018. Deep enhanced representation for implicit discourse relation recognition. In *COLING*, pages 571–583. Antoine Bosselut, Asli Celikyilmaz, Xiaodong He, Jianfeng Gao, Po-Sen Huang, and Yejin Choi. 2018. Discourse-aware neural rewards for coherent text generation. In *NAACL-HLT*, pages 173–184. Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared 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 M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher 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 NeurIPS. Chunkit Chan, Jiayang Cheng, Weiqi Wang, Yuxin Jiang, Tianqing Fang, Xin Liu, and Yangqiu Song. 2023. Chatgpt evaluation on sentence level relations: A focus on temporal, causal, and discourse relations. CoRR, abs/2304.14827. Wei-Lin Chiang, Zhuohan Li, Zi Lin, Ying Sheng, Zhanghao Wu, Hao Zhang, Lianmin Zheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Yonghao Zhuang, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Ion Stoica, and Eric P. Xing. 2023. Vicuna: An opensource chatbot impressing gpt-4 with 90%* chatgpt quality. Zeyu Dai and Ruihong Huang. 2018. Improving implicit discourse relation classification by modeling inter-dependencies of discourse units in a paragraph. In *NAACL-HLT*, pages 141–151. Zeyu Dai and Ruihong Huang. 2019. A regularization approach for incorporating event knowledge and coreference relations into neural discourse parsing. In *EMNLP*, pages 2974–2985. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In *NAACL-HLT*, pages 4171–4186. Ning Ding, Shengding Hu, Weilin Zhao, Yulin Chen, Zhiyuan Liu, Haitao Zheng, and Maosong Sun. 2022. Openprompt: An open-source framework for promptlearning. In ACL, pages 105–113. Zujun Dou, Yu Hong, Yu Sun, and Guodong Zhou. 2021. CVAE-based re-anchoring for implicit discourse relation classification. In *Findings of EMNLP*, pages 1275–1283. Tianyu Gao, Adam Fisch, and Danqi Chen. 2021. Making pre-trained language models better few-shot learners. In *ACL/IJCNLP*, pages 3816–3830. Jonathan Gordon and Benjamin Van Durme. 2013. Reporting bias and knowledge acquisition. In *AKBC*, pages 25–30. Fengyu Guo, Ruifang He, Jianwu Dang, and Jian Wang. 2020. Working memory-driven neural networks with a novel knowledge enhancement paradigm for implicit discourse relation recognition. In *AAAI*, pages 7822–7829. Ruifang He, Jian Wang, Fengyu Guo, and Yugui Han. 2020. Transs-driven joint learning architecture for implicit discourse relation recognition. In ACL, pages 139–148. Yangfeng Ji and Jacob Eisenstein. 2015. One vector is not enough: Entity-augmented distributed semantics for discourse relations. *Trans. Assoc. Comput.* Linguistics, 3:329–344. Congcong Jiang, Tieyun Qian, and Bing Liu. 2022a. Knowledge distillation for discourse relation analysis. In WWW, pages 210–214. Feng Jiang, Yaxin Fan, Xiaomin Chu, Peifeng Li, and Qiaoming Zhu. 2021. Not just classification: Recognizing implicit discourse relation on joint modeling of classification and generation. In *EMNLP*, pages 2418–2431. Yuxin Jiang, Chunkit Chan, Mingyang Chen, and Wei Wang. 2023. Lion: Adversarial distillation of closed-source large language model. *CoRR*, abs/2305.12870. Yuxin Jiang, Linhan Zhang, and Wei Wang. 2022b. Global and local hierarchy-aware contrastive framework for implicit discourse relation recognition. CoRR, abs/2211.13873. Najoung Kim, Song Feng, R. Chulaka Gunasekara, and Luis A. Lastras. 2020. Implicit discourse relation classification: We need to talk about evaluation. In ACL, pages 5404–5414. Yudai Kishimoto, Yugo Murawaki, and Sadao Kurohashi. 2020. Adapting BERT to implicit discourse relation classification with a focus on discourse connectives. In *LREC*, pages 1152–1158. Murathan Kurfali and Robert Östling. 2021. Let's be explicit about that: Distant supervision for implicit discourse relation classification via connective prediction. *CoRR*, abs/2106.03192. Man Lan, Jianxiang Wang, Yuanbin Wu, Zheng-Yu Niu, and Haifeng Wang. 2017. Multi-task attention-based neural networks for implicit discourse relationship representation and identification. In *EMNLP*, pages 1299–1308. Brian Lester, Rami Al-Rfou, and Noah Constant. 2021. The power of scale for parameter-efficient prompt tuning. In *EMNLP*, pages 3045–3059. Jiaqi Li, Ming Liu, Bing Qin, and Ting Liu. 2022. A survey of discourse parsing. *Frontiers Comput. Sci.*, 16(5):165329. Emily Pitler and Ani Nenkova. 2009. Using syntax to disambiguate explicit discourse connectives in text. In ACL, pages 13–16. Xiang Lisa Li and Percy Liang. 2021. Prefix-tuning: Optimizing continuous prompts for generation. In ACL/IJCNLP, pages 4582–4597. Rashmi Prasad, Nikhil Dinesh, Alan Lee, Eleni Miltsakaki, Livio Robaldo, Aravind K. Joshi, and Bonnie L. Webber. 2008. The penn discourse treebank 2.0. In *LREC*. Bill Yuchen Lin, Xinyue Chen, Jamin Chen, and Xiang Ren. 2019. Kagnet: Knowledge-aware graph networks for commonsense reasoning. In *EMNLPIJCNLP*, pages 2829–2839. Lianhui Qin, Zhisong Zhang, and Hai Zhao. 2016a. Implicit discourse relation recognition with contextaware character-enhanced embeddings. In *COLING*, pages 1914–1924. Ziheng Lin, Min-Yen Kan, and Hwee Tou Ng. 2009. Recognizing implicit discourse relations in the penn discourse treebank. In *EMNLP*, pages 343–351. Lianhui Qin, Zhisong Zhang, and Hai Zhao. 2016b. A stacking gated neural architecture for implicit discourse relation classification. In *EMNLP*, pages 2263–2270. Jiacheng Liu, Alisa Liu, Ximing Lu, Sean Welleck, Peter West, Ronan Le Bras, Yejin Choi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2022. Generated knowledge prompting for commonsense reasoning. In ACL, pages 3154– 3169. Pengfei Liu, Weizhe Yuan, Jinlan Fu, Zhengbao Jiang, Hiroaki Hayashi, and Graham Neubig. 2021a. Pretrain, prompt, and predict: A systematic survey of prompting methods in natural language processing. CoRR, abs/2107.13586. Attapol Rutherford and Nianwen Xue. 2015. Improving the inference of implicit discourse relations via classifying explicit discourse connectives. In *NAACLHLT*. Xin Liu, Jiefu Ou, Yangqiu Song, and Xin Jiang. 2021b. Exploring discourse structures for argument impact classification. In *ACL/IJCNLP*, pages 3958–3969. Yang Liu and Sujian Li. 2016. Recognizing implicit discourse relations via repeated reading: Neural networks with multi-level attention. In *EMNLP*, pages 1224–1233. Teven Le Scao and Alexander M. Rush. 2021. How many data points is a prompt worth? 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 2627–2636. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yang Liu, Sujian Li, Xiaodong Zhang, and Zhifang Sui. 2016. Implicit discourse relation classification via multi-task neural networks. In *AAAI*, pages 2750– 2756. Noam Shazeer and Mitchell Stern. 2018. Adafactor: Adaptive learning rates with sublinear memory cost. In *ICML*, pages 4603–4611. Linh The Nguyen, Ngo Van Linh, Khoat Than, and Thien Huu Nguyen. 2019. Employing the correspondence of relations and connectives to identify implicit discourse relations via label embeddings. In ACL, pages 4201–4207. Wei Shi and Vera Demberg. 2019a. Learning to explicitate connectives with seq2seq network for implicit discourse relation classification. In *IWCS*, pages 188– 199. Wei Shi and Vera Demberg. 2019b. Next sentence prediction helps implicit discourse relation classification within and across domains. In *EMNLP-IJCNLP*, pages 5789–5795. Lianhui Qin, Zhisong Zhang, Hai Zhao, Zhiting Hu, and Eric P. Xing. 2017. Adversarial connectiveexploiting networks for implicit discourse relation classification. In ACL, pages 1006–1017. 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. *J. Mach. Learn. Res.*, 21:140:1–140:67. Xin Liu, Jiefu Ou, Yangqiu Song, and Xin Jiang. 2020. On the importance of word and sentence representation learning in implicit discourse relation classification. In *IJCAI*, pages 3830–3836. Attapol Rutherford and Nianwen Xue. 2016. Robust non-explicit neural discourse parser in english and chinese. In *SIGNLL*, pages 55–59. Timo Schick and Hinrich Schütze. 2021. Exploiting cloze-questions for few-shot text classification and natural language inference. In *EACL*, pages 255–269. Wanqiu Long and Bonnie Webber. 2022. Facilitating contrastive learning of discourse relational senses by exploiting the hierarchy of sense relations. In EMNLP, page 10704–10716. OpenAI. 2023. GPT-4 technical report. *CoRR*, abs/2303.08774. TB OpenAI. 2022. Chatgpt: Optimizing language models for dialogue. *OpenAI*. Rohan Taori, Ishaan Gulrajani, Tianyi Zhang, Yann Dubois, Xuechen Li, Carlos Guestrin, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B. Hashimoto. 2023. Stanford alpaca: An instruction-following llama model. https://github.com/tatsu-lab/ stanford_alpaca. Siddharth Varia, Christopher Hidey, and Tuhin Chakrabarty. 2019. Discourse relation prediction: Revisiting word pairs with convolutional networks. In *SIGDIAL*, pages 442–452. Han Wang, Canwen Xu, and Julian J. McAuley. 2022a. Automatic multi-label prompting: Simple and interpretable few-shot classification. In *NAACL-HLT*, pages 5483–5492. Jianxiang Wang and Man Lan. 2016. Two end-to-end shallow discourse parsers for english and chinese in conll-2016 shared task. In *SIGNLL*, pages 33–40. Zihan Wang, Peiyi Wang, Tianyu Liu, Yunbo Cao, Zhifang Sui, and Houfeng Wang. 2022b. HPT: hierarchyaware prompt tuning for hierarchical text classification. *CoRR*, abs/2204.13413. Changxing Wu, Liuwen Cao, Yubin Ge, Yang Liu, Min Zhang, and Jinsong Su. 2022. A label dependenceaware sequence generation model for multi-level implicit discourse relation recognition. In *AAAI*, pages 11486–11494. Changxing Wu, Xiaodong Shi, Yidong Chen, Jinsong Su, and Boli Wang. 2017. Improving implicit discourse relation recognition with discourse-specific word embeddings. In ACL, pages 269–274. Yang Xu, Yu Hong, Huibin Ruan, Jianmin Yao, Min Zhang, and Guodong Zhou. 2018. Using active learning to expand training data for implicit discourse relation recognition. In *EMNLP*, pages 725–731. Nianwen Xue, Hwee Tou Ng, Sameer Pradhan, Attapol Rutherford, Bonnie L. Webber, Chuan Wang, and Hongmin Wang. 2016. Conll 2016 shared task on multilingual shallow discourse parsing. In *SIGNLL*, pages 1–19. Zhilin Yang, Zihang Dai, Yiming Yang, Jaime G. Carbonell, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Quoc V. Le. 2019. Xlnet: Generalized autoregressive pretraining for language understanding. In *NeurIPS*, pages 5754–5764. Wanjun Zhong, Yifan Gao, Ning Ding, Yujia Qin, Zhiyuan Liu, Ming Zhou, Jiahai Wang, Jian Yin, and Nan Duan. 2022. Proqa: Structural promptbased pre-training for unified question answering. In *NAACL-HLT*, pages 4230–4243. Hao Zhou, Man Lan, Yuanbin Wu, Yuefeng Chen, and Meirong Ma. 2022. Prompt-based connective prediction method for fine-grained implicit discourse relation recognition. *CoRR*, abs/2210.07032. ## A Appendix For Experimental Settings A.1 Dataset The Penn Discourse Treebank 2.0 (PDTB 2.0) PDTB 2.03is a large-scale corpus containing 2,312 Wall Street Journal (WSJ) articles (Prasad et al., 2008), that employs a lexically-grounded approach to annotating discourse relations. This corpus includes three sense levels (i.e., classes, types, and sub-types) and naturally forms the sense hierarchy. In this dataset, we validate our model on two popular settings of the PDTB 2.0 dataset, which are the Ji-setting (Ji and Eisenstein, 2015) and Linsetting (Lin et al., 2009). The former one following Ji and Eisenstein (2015) to split sections 2-20, 01, and 21-22 as training, validation, and test sets respectively, while the latter follows Lin et al. (2009) split sections 2-21, 22, 23 as training, validation, and test sets respectively. We evaluate our model on the four top-level implicit discourse relations and the 11 major second-level implicit discourse senses by following previous works (Wu et al., 2022; Long and Webber, 2022; Zhou et al., 2022). The data statistics of the top-level and second-level senses are displayed in Table 9 and Table 10. ## The Conll-2016 Shared Task (Conll16) The CoNLL-2016 shared task4 provides more abundant annotation (e.g., second-level sense type) for shadow discourse parsing. This task includes two test sets, the PDTB section 23 (CoNLL-Test) and newswire texts (CoNLL-Blind), that comply with the PDTB annotation guidelines. Compared with PDTB 2.0, CoNLL16 includes more new class sense (e.g., *Contingency.Condition*) and merges several labels to annotate new labels. For example, *Contingency.Pragmatic cause* is merged into Contingency.Cause.Reason to remove the former type with very few samples. In this paper, we follow Wang and Lan (2016); Lan et al. (2017); Liu et al. (2020) to perform the experiments on this CoNLL-2016 dataset and validate the performance of our model in the top- and second-level sense. | Top-level Senses | Train | Val. | Test | |--------------------|---------|--------|--------| | Comparison | 1,942 | 197 | 152 | | Contingency | 3,342 | 295 | 279 | | Expansion | 7,004 | 671 | 574 | | Temporal | 760 | 64 | 85 | | Total | 12,362 | 1,183 | 1,046 | ## A.2 Discoprompt Implementation Details DiscoPrompt is prompt tuning upon T5-model, and we also validate our method over various model scales, including T5-base, T5-large, and T5-11b. Figure 12 shows the heat map of highly frequent connectives on CoNLL2016, and the label words are in Table 12. Generally, the overall configuration follows the setting in Lester et al. (2021) and sets the learnable prompt length as 20. The training was implemented using cross-entropy loss with 30,000 training steps, which selects the model that yields the best performance on the validation set. We adopt an Adafactor (Shazeer and Stern, 2018) optimizer with various learning rate ranges for different dataset settings. The batch size and maximum input sequence are 4 and 350, respectively. The maximum generates sequence length of the encoder is 10. Our model is conducted on two 32GB NVIDIA V100 GPUs, except for the T5-11b scale on two 48GB NVIDIA A6000 GPUs. The running time for T5-base is around 8 hours, while T5-large is about 19 hours. Since we are interested in the ability of our method to adopt a larger-scale model on this task, we tested the T5-11b model on various datasets. Most of the configuration is the same as the above T5-large version. The slight differences in hyperparameters are batch size is one and gradient ac-  | Dataset | Hyperparameters | |-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------| | PDTB (Ji) | LR space: {9e-2, 9e-1}, LR∗ : 3e-1, BS: 4, gradient accumulation step:1 | | PDTB (Lin) | LR space: {9e-4, 9e-3}, LR∗ : 2e-4, BS: 4, gradient accumulation step:1 | | CoNLL16 (Test) | LR space: {9e-2, 9e-1}, LR∗ : 9e-2, BS: 4, gradient accumulation step:1 | | CoNLL16 (Blind) | LR space: {9e-2, 9e-1}, LR∗ : 9e-2, BS: 4, gradient accumulation step:1 | | PDTB (Ji) | LR space: {9e-4, 9e-3}, LR∗ : 4e-4, BS: 1, gradient accumulation step:16 | | PDTB (Lin) | LR space: {9e-4, 9e-3}, LR∗ : 5e-4, BS: 1, gradient accumulation step:16 | | CoNLL16 (Test) | LR space: {9e-5, 9e-4}, LR∗ : 9e-5 BS: 1, gradient accumulation step:16 | | CoNLL16 (Blind) | LR space: {9e-4, 9e-3}, LR∗ : 2e-4, BS: 1, gradient accumulation step:16 | | Second-level Senses | Train | Val. | Test | |-----------------------|---------|--------|--------| | Comp.Concession | 180 | 15 | 17 | | Comp.Contrast | 1566 | 166 | 128 | | Cont.Cause | 3227 | 281 | 269 | | Cont.Pragmatic cause | 51 | 6 | 7 | | Exp.Alternative | 146 | 10 | 9 | | Exp.Conjunction | 2805 | 258 | 200 | | Exp.Instantiation | 1061 | 106 | 118 | | Exp.List | 330 | 9 | 12 | | Exp.Restatement | 2376 | 260 | 211 | | Temp.Asynchronous | 517 | 46 | 54 | | Temp.Synchrony | 147 | 8 | 14 | | Total | 12406 | 1165 | 1039 | cumulation step is 16. The running time of the T5-11b model is around 50 hours. The tailored prompt template is shown in Figure 8. The specific hyperparameters of implementation details for DiscoPrompt (T5-large) and DiscoPrompt (T5-11b) are displayed in Table 11. The frozen pre-train T5 model download from *HuggingFace*, and our model inheritance and modification from *OpenPrompt* (Ding et al., 2022). ## A.3 Baseline Models To exhibit the effectiveness of our proposed method, we compared it with previous works on the PDTB 2.0 and CoNLL16 datasets. In this section, we mainly describe some recently published  baselines, and more baselines can be found in Table 14. ## Common Baselines For Pdtb 2.0 And Conll16: - **RWP-CNN** (Varia et al., 2019): a convolutional neural networks-based method to model word pairs in the arguments in a discourse relation. - **BMGF-RoBERTa** (Liu et al., 2020): a RoBERTa-based model, which contains a robust contextualized representation module, a bilateral matching module to capture the interaction between arguments, and a global information fusion module to derive final representations for labels. - **XLNet** (Kim et al., 2020): it fine-tunes XLNet model (Yang et al., 2019) for IDRR task to predict the flat label in each layer of discourse relation sense. - **T5 (Fine-Tuning)** (Raffel et al., 2020): Finetune a T5-model based on specifics tailored input text in various settings with a comparison of our model. The Implementation details are described in Appendix A.5. - **Prefix-Tuning (T5)** (Li and Liang, 2021): a lightweight method concatenates the tunable prefix tokens before the discrete input text, keeps language model parameters frozen, and optimizes these continuous task-specific prefix tokens. The implementation details of the PrefixTuning methods are appended in Appendix A.4. - **Prompt-Tuning (T5)** (Lester et al., 2021): a vanilla Prompt Tuning-based model conditioning on a frozen model, releasing the constraints of the prompt templates from discrete to learnable prompts. The implementation details of the prompt tuning methods are appended in Appendix A.4. - PCP (Zhou et al., 2022): a prompt-based connective prediction method for IDRR by adopting the RoBERTa model. This method utilizes the strong correlation between connectives and discourse relations to map the predicted connectives to respective implicit discourse relations. ## Baselines For Pdtb 2.0: - DER (Bai and Zhao, 2018): a model enhanced with multiple grained text representations, including character, subword, word, sentence, and sentence pair levels. - **MTL-MLoss** (Nguyen et al., 2019): a multitask learning neural model that predicts labels and connectives simultaneously by leveraging the dependence between them. - **ELMo-C&E** (Dai and Huang, 2019): a neural model that employs a regularization approach to utilize the external event knowledge and coreference relations. - **TransS** (He et al., 2020): a TransS-driven joint learning model which translates the discourse relations in low-dimensional embedding space (i.e., TransS), and simultaneously learns the semantic features of arguments. - **CG-T5** (Jiang et al., 2021): a joint model that recognizes the relation label and generates the desired target sentence containing the meaning of relations simultaneously. - **OTMT(XLNet)** (Jiang et al., 2022a): an XLNet (Yang et al., 2019) based model exploits the knowledge distillation (KD) technique for discourse relation recognition task. - **LDSGM** (Wu et al., 2022): a label dependenceaware sequence generation model that integrates the global representation of an input instance, level-specific contexts, and the label dependence decoded by graph convolutional network (GCN) to obtain better label embeddings, and then employ the label sequence decoder to output the predicted labels. - **GOLF** (Jiang et al., 2022b): a global and local hierarchy-aware contrastive framework, to model and capture the information from these two kinds of hierarchies with the aid of contrastive learning. - **ContrastiveIDRR** (Long and Webber, 2022): a contrastive learning method for incorporating the sense hierarchy into the recognition process and using the hierarchy to select the negative examples. ## Baselines For Conll16: - **CoNLL Baseline** (Rutherford and Xue, 2016): a neural classifier requires word vectors and a simple feed-forward training procedure. - **MTL-Attn-LSTM** (Lan et al., 2017): a multitask attention-based LSTM neural network model that exploits explicit discourse relations in PDTB and unannotated external data in a multitask joint learning framework. ## A.4 Implementation Details Of The Prefix-Tuning And Prompt Tuning In our paper, we implement the prefix tuning (Li and Liang, 2021) and prompt tuning (Lester et al., 2021) methods as the baselines for comparison with our model. We proposed several templates for searching for their best performance in these two methods. The experimental details for these two methods include the template and hyperparameter search. Moreover, there are 154 tokens, including textual tokens (non-tunable tokens) and tunable tokens, in our prompt template. For a fair comparison, we insert 154 tunable tokens into the respective prompt template in these two baselines. Prefix-Tuning Following the setting of prefix tuning (Li and Liang, 2021), we implemented several designed templates on the PDTB 2.0 JI setting and the templates shown in figure 6. In these templates, we find that the **prefix-prompt template three** is better among all templates, and we adopted this template for further comparison with our method. The overall configuration of this model follows the settings of prefix tuning (Li and Liang, 2021). The batch size and maximum sequence length of this model are 8 and 350. The training is performed using cross-entropy loss with an Adafactor optimizer (Shazeer and Stern, 2018) and a learning rate selecting in 0.3, 0.5, 0.8 yields the best performance on the validation set, and the training steps are 30,000. Prompt-Tuning For the prompt tuning method, we implemented several designed templates on the PDTB 2.0 JI setting and the templates shown in figure 7. In these templates, we find that the **prompt** tuning template two is better among all templates, and adopted this template for further comparison with our method. The overall configuration of this model follows the settings of prefix tuning (Lester et al., 2021). The batch size and maximum sequence length of this model are 8 and 350. The training is performed using cross-entropy loss with an Adafactor optimizer (Shazeer and Stern, 2018) and a learning rate selecting in 0.3, 0.5, 0.8 yields the best performance on the validation set, and the training steps are 30,000. ## A.5 Implementation Details Of T5 Model Fine-Tuning Here we provide the fine-tuning details for T5 base and large models on various datasets. Model Input and Output In main experiments, T5-model fine-tuning as the competitive baseline, we concatenate two arguments with an "</s>" at the end of the sequence as input. The T5 model asked to generate the top-level labels, and the secondlevel labels with concatenating by commas (e.g., Comparison.Contrast) given the data input. For the experiments to test the transferred template on the fine-tuning paradigm, the "T5-adapt" model in section 5.4 concatenate the hierarchy tree prompt in Figure 8 before the two arguments as input. Then we concatenate a prompt message "The path is " before the original output. Furthermore, for the setting "T5-large (fine-tune) (w/ connective)" in the EDRR task (Section 5.6), it required inserting the connectives between two arguments. Therefore, we use the text span named "FullRawText" in the dataset with an additional "</s>" at the end as input. Hyperparameter Search We first conduct a preliminary experiment to determine the range of hyper-parameters. Then, we search for the learning rate within {3e − 4, 1e − 4} and warmup steps within {0, 100}. For the T5-base model, we set the training batch size as 8, and the model is evaluated with a batch size of 128 every 150 steps. For the T5-large model, the training and evaluation batch sizes are set as 16 and 64, respectively. The model is optimized with an AdamW optimizer with a linear learning rate schedule. The test performance of the model with the best validation accuracy is reported. | Model | Parameters | |------------------------------------------------|--------------| | BMGF-RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2020) | 2.3M | | XLNet(base, cased) (Kim et al., 2020) | 110M | | XLNet(large, cased) (Kim et al., 2020) | 340M | | OTMT(XLNet-base) (Jiang et al., 2022a) | 110M | | OTMT(XLNet-large) (Jiang et al., 2022a) | 340M | | Fine-Tuning (T5-base) (Raffel et al., 2020) | 220M | | Fine-Tuning (T5-large) (Raffel et al., 2020) | 770M | | Prefix-Tuning (T5-base) (Li and Liang, 2021) | 0.12M | | Prefix-Tuning (T5-large) (Li and Liang, 2021) | 0.16M | | Prompt-Tuning (T5-base) (Lester et al., 2021) | 0.12M | | Prompt-Tuning (T5-large) (Lester et al., 2021) | 0.16M | | LDSGM (Wu et al., 2022) | 128M | | ContrastiveIDRR (Long and Webber, 2022) | 125M | | PCP(RoBERTa-base) (Zhou et al., 2022) | 124M | | PCP(RoBERTa-large) (Zhou et al., 2022) | 335M | | DiscoPrompt (T5-base) | 1.2M | | DiscoPrompt (T5-large) | 2.1M | Table 13: The approximation of learnable parameters for models. "M" stands for million learnable parameters. ## A.6 The Approximation Of Learnable Parameters To show the efficiency of our method, we append the approximation of learnable parameters for all models, including our model and baselines. The approximation of learnable parameters is listed in Table 13. ## B Appendix For Evaluation Result And Analysis B.1 Performance Of Baselines In Pdtb 2.0 In this section, we list extensive baselines in Table 14 for comparison with our method. ## B.2 Ablation Study On The Discoprompt Prompt Template Searching We perform the prompt template research on our designed prompt, and all prompt searching templates are listed in Figure 8, and the performance is shown in Table 15. Our finalized optimal template inserts the connectives between two arguments to improve the textual coherence of input context and results in the PLMs easy to understand input. Therefore, this template performs better than other designed templates. Continuous Prompt Length The continuous prompt (i.e., learnable prompt tokens) length is another factor that influences the performance of our model. Hence, we implement various prompt lengths of 10, 20, 50, and 100. The performance is in Table 16, and the optimal continuous prompt length is 20, which provides the best performance 5We use their model without a data augmentation version for a fair comparison in Table 2. This model with the data augmentation version is also appended in this table. among all the prompt lengths and is the default prompt length for implementing other experiments. Adopting more prompt length than 20 on our method will not significantly increase this task's performance on various evaluation metrics. ## B.3 Performance Of Label-Wise F1 Score On Top And Second Level The performance (F1 score%) of more baselines for comparison with our model in Top-level and Second-level shown in Table 17 and Table 19. ## B.4 Performance Of Designed Prompt For T5 Fine-Tuning The performance comparison of the T5-large finetuning with and without using our designed template on the PDTB 2.0 is displayed in Figure 9. The detailed experimental result for PDTB 2.0 and CoNLL16 dataset is shown in Table 18. ## B.5 Discussion And Case Example For Chatgpt With the powerful ability of large language model exhibited on numerous tasks (OpenAI, 2022, 2023; Taori et al., 2023; Chiang et al., 2023; Jiang et al., 2023), we are curious about the capability of ChatGPT on zero-shot IDRR task. Hence, we test the ability of ChatGPT 6 with three designed templates on the PDTB (Ji) test set. These templates include: 1) predict the class label only, 2) predict the class label with connectives, and 3) predict the class label with connectives in a structural path form. Moreover, the input template with in-context learning highly relies on the training examples selected as the prefix instruction part of the prompt template. The performance of this model is high variance with the chosen examples vary. Therefore, this template is not taken into account in this section. The performance of the random guess model is obtained by averaging the performance of 5 runs. A prediction is regarded as wrong if ChatGPT generates the answer out of the range of label words. An interesting finding is that the ChatGPT with label-only template tends to predict many temporally related instances to the *Contingency.Cause* second-level sense result in poor performance on Temporal.synchrony second-level sense shown in Figure 10. The input template and two case examples are shown in Table 20 and Table 21. | Models | Ji (Top) | Ji (Sec) | Lin (Top) | Lin (Sec) | | | | | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|------------|-------------|-------------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | F1 | Acc | F1 | Acc | F1 | Acc | F1 | Acc | | | Lin et al. (2009) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 40.20 | | Ji and Eisenstein (2015) | - | - | - | 44.59 | - | - | - | - | | Liu et al. (2016) | 44.98 | 57.27 | - | - | - | - | - | - | | Qin et al. (2016a) | - | - | - | 45.04 | - | - | - | 43.81 | | Liu and Li (2016) | 46.29 | 57.57 | - | - | - | - | - | - | | Wu et al. (2017) | 44.84 | 58.85 | - | - | - | - | - | - | | Lan et al. (2017) | 47.80 | 57.39 | - | - | - | - | - | - | | Qin et al. (2017) | - | - | - | 46.23 | - | - | - | 44.65 | | Xu et al. (2018) | 44.48 | 60.63 | - | - | - | - | - | - | | Dai and Huang (2018) | 48.82 | 57.44 | - | - | - | - | - | - | | Bai and Zhao (2018) | 51.06 | - | - | 48.22 | - | - | - | 45.73 | | Shi and Demberg (2019a) | 46.40 | 61.42 | - | 47.83 | - | - | - | 45.82 | | Varia et al. (2019) | 50.20 | 59.13 | - | - | - | - | - | - | | Dai and Huang (2019) | 52.89 | 59.66 | - | 48.23 | - | - | - | - | | Nguyen et al. (2019) | 53.00 | - | - | 49.95 | - | - | - | 46.48 | | Shi and Demberg (2019b) | - | - | - | 53.23 | - | - | - | - | | He et al. (2020) | - | - | - | - | 51.24 | 59.94 | - | - | | Guo et al. (2020) | 47.90 | 57.25 | - | - | - | - | - | - | | Kishimoto et al. (2020) | 58.48 | 65.26 | - | 54.32 | - | - | - | - | | Liu et al. (2020) | 63.39 | 69.06 | 35.25 | 58.13 | 58.54 | 68.66 | 39.15 | 53.96 | | Jiang et al. (2021) | 57.18 | - | 37.76 | - | - | - | - | - | | Kurfali and Östling (2021) | 59.24 | - | 39.33 | 55.42 | - | - | - | - | | Dou et al. (2021) | 65.06 | 70.17 | - | - | - | - | - | - | | Wu et al. (2022) | 63.73 | 71.18 | 40.49 | 60.33 | - | - | - | - | | Jiang et al. (2022b) | 65.76 | 72.52 | 41.74 | 61.16 | - | - | - | - | | Long and Webber (2022)(w/o data augm.)5 | 67.85 | 71.70 | 45.54 | 59.19 | - | - | - | - | | Long and Webber (2022) (w data augm.) | 69.60 | 72.18 | 49.66 | 61.69 | - | - | - | - | | BERT-base (Devlin et al., 2019) | 43.17 | 62.14 | 26.32 | 50.24 | 43.44 | 63.46 | 26.70 | 49.87 | | BERT-large (Devlin et al., 2019) | 57.06 | 67.59 | 30.02 | 54.57 | 56.06 | 68.40 | 38.68 | 56.53 | | XLNet(base, cased) (Kim et al., 2020) | 59.33 | 66.35 | 36.36 | 54.73 | 56.16 | 68.05 | 36.23 | 55.82 | | XLNet (large, cased) (Kim et al., 2020) | 63.58 | 69.52 | 38.24 | 61.29 | 58.97 | 72.17 | 40.71 | 58.77 | | OTMT (XLNet-base) (Jiang et al., 2022a) | 60.78 | 68.89 | - | 56.65 | - | - | - | 56.37 | | OTMT (XLNet-large) (Jiang et al., 2022a) | 64.46 | 72.34 | - | 61.06 | - | - | - | 61.62 | | Fine-Tuning (T5-base) (Raffel et al., 2020) | 57.61 | 65.39 | 33.96 | 55.53 | 50.50 | 63.59 | 36.49 | 51.96 | | Fine-Tuning (T5-large) (Raffel et al., 2020) | 61.37 | 69.69 | 38.04 | 57.65 | 58.12 | 71.13 | 42.04 | 59.40 | | Prefix-Tuning (T5-base) (Li and Liang, 2021) | 25.87 | 52.45 | 7.49 | 31.09 | 25.08 | 54.18 | 8.45 | 26.37 | | Prefix-Tuning (T5-large) (Li and Liang, 2021) | 63.74 | 71.51 | 39.73 | 59.77 | 58.06 | 69.84 | 36.86 | 56.53 | | Prompt-Tuning (T5-base) (Lester et al., 2021) | 30.17 | 56.11 | 15.01 | 38.21 | 25.26 | 55.09 | 8.97 | 27.68 | | Prompt-Tuning (T5-large) (Lester et al., 2021) | 66.95 | 71.99 | 44.08 | 60.15 | 59.92 | 71.02 | 40.75 | 60.44 | | PCP w/ RoBERTa-base (Zhou et al., 2022) | 64.95 | 70.84 | 41.55 | 60.54 | 53.00 | 66.58 | 41.19 | 56.14 | | PCP w/ RoBERTa-large (Zhou et al., 2022) | 67.79 | 73.80 | 44.04 | 61.41 | 52.75 | 71.13 | 43.04 | 60.44 | | DiscoPrompt (T5-base) | 65.79 | 71.70 | 43.68 | 61.02 | 64.90 | 71.28 | 41.82 | 59.27 | | DiscoPrompt (T5-large) | 70.84 | 75.65 | 49.03 | 64.58 | 67.06 | 73.76 | 45.25 | 63.05 | | DiscoPrompt (T5-11b) | 75.34 | 78.06 | 52.42 | 68.14 | 72.78 | 77.55 | 47.18 | 67.62 | | Table 14: The accuracy (%) and F1 score (%) are evaluated on the PDTB 2.0 dataset. | | | | | | | | | | Prefix-Tuning | Templates | |-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Templates 1 | [20 Continuous Prompt] [Argument 1] [Argument 2] [mask] | | Templates 2 | [154 Continuous Prompt] [Argument 1] [Argument 2] [mask] | | Templates 3 | [150 Continuous Prompt] [Argument 1] [Argument 2] The relation is [mask] Figure 6: Prefix-Tuning Template Searching | | Prompt Tuning | Templates | | Templates 1 | [150 Continuous Prompt] [Argument 1] [Argument 2] [4 Continuous Prompt] [mask] | | Templates 2 | [52 Continuous Prompt] [Argument 1] [51 Continuous Prompt] [Argument 2] [51 Continuous Prompt] [mask] Figure 7: Prompt Tuning Template Searching | | DiscoPrompt | Templates | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------| | [20 Continuous Prompt] Comparison -> Concession -> if ; Comparison -> Contrast -> however ; Contingency -> Cause -> so ; Contingency -> Pragmatic -> indeed; Expansion -> Alternative -> instead ; Expansion -> Conjunction -> also ; Expansion -> Instantiation -> for example; | | | Optimal Templates Expansion -> List -> and ; Expansion -> Restatement -> specifically ; Temporal -> Asynchronous -> before ; Temporal -> Synchrony -> when . [Argument 1] [mask] [Argument 2] The path is [mask] -> [mask]; [20 Continuous Prompt] Comparison -> Concession -> if ; Comparison -> Contrast -> however ; Contingency -> Cause -> so ; Contingency -> Pragmatic -> indeed; Expansion -> Alternative -> instead ; Expansion -> Conjunction -> also ; Expansion -> Instantiation -> for example; Expansion -> List -> and ; Expansion -> Restatement -> specifically ; Temporal -> Asynchronous -> before ; Temporal -> Synchrony -> when . [Argument 1] [Argument 2] The path is [mask] -> [mask] -> [mask] Templates 1 [20 Continuous Prompt] Comparison -> Concession -> if ; Comparison -> Contrast -> however ; Contingency -> Cause -> so ; Contingency -> Pragmatic -> indeed; Expansion -> Alternative -> instead ; Expansion -> Conjunction -> also ; Expansion -> Instantiation -> for example; Expansion -> List -> and ; Expansion -> Restatement -> specifically ; Temporal -> Asynchronous -> before ; Temporal -> Synchrony -> when . [Argument 1] [mask] [Argument 2] The relation is [mask].[mask] Templates 2 [20 Continuous Prompt] Comparison -> Concession -> if ; Comparison -> Contrast -> however ; Contingency -> Cause -> so ; Contingency -> Pragmatic -> indeed; Expansion -> Alternative -> instead ; Expansion -> Conjunction -> also ; Expansion -> Instantiation -> for example; Expansion -> List -> and ; Expansion -> Restatement -> specifically ; Temporal -> Asynchronous -> before ; Temporal -> Synchrony -> when . [Argument 1] [mask] [Argument 2] The relation is [mask] -> [mask] Templates 3 [20 Continuous Prompt] Comparison -> Concession -> if ; Comparison -> Contrast -> however ; Contingency -> Cause -> so ; Contingency -> Pragmatic -> indeed; Expansion -> Alternative -> instead ; Expansion -> Conjunction -> also ; Expansion -> Instantiation -> for example; Expansion -> List -> and ; Expansion -> Restatement -> specifically ; Temporal -> Asynchronous -> before ; Temporal -> Synchrony -> when . [Argument 1] [Argument 2] The relation is [mask] -> [mask] -> [mask]; Templates 4 [20 Continuous Prompt] Comparison -> Concession -> if ; Comparison -> Contrast -> however ; Contingency -> Cause -> so ; Contingency -> Pragmatic -> indeed; Expansion -> Alternative -> instead ; Expansion -> Conjunction -> also ; Expansion -> Instantiation -> for example; Expansion -> List -> and ; Expansion -> Restatement -> specifically ; Temporal -> Asynchronous -> before ; Temporal -> Synchrony -> when . [Argument 1] [Argument 2] The relation is [mask] -> [mask]. The connective is [mask]. | | | Figure 8: DiscoPrompt Template Searching. | The "Optimal Templates" is the finalized optimal template for | | Templates 5 | | | Model | F1 (Top) | Acc (Top) | F1 (Second) | Acc (Second) | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|-------------|---------------|----------------| | DiscoPrompt (Optimal Template : The path is mask -> mask;) | 70.84 | 75.65 | 49.03 | 64.58 | | DiscoPrompt (Template 1: The path is mask -> mask -> mask) | 69.22 | 73.44 | 43.52 | 63.33 | | DiscoPrompt (Template 2: The relation is mask.mask) | 67.55 | 74.21 | 44.81 | 64.20 | | DiscoPrompt (Template 3: The relation is mask -> mask) | 69.70 | 74.01 | 48.61 | 64.10 | | DiscoPrompt (Template 4: The relation is mask -> mask -> mask;) | 68.07 | 72.76 | 45.91 | 62.56 | | DiscoPrompt (Template 5: The relation is mask -> mask.The connective is mask .) | 62.71 | 70.74 | 40.19 | 58.81 | Table 15: Performance of various templates of our method with adopting T5-large model in PDTB (Ji) dataset. The details of various templates are shown in Figure 8. | Model | F1 (Top) | Acc (Top) | F1 (Second) | Acc (Second) | |--------------------------------|------------|-------------|---------------|----------------| | DiscoPrompt (T5-large) | 70.84 | 75.65 | 49.03 | 64.58 | | Continuous Prompt Length (10) | 67.17 | 72.47 | 43.56 | 62.66 | | Continuous Prompt Length (50) | 69.64 | 74.40 | 45.06 | 63.91 | | Continuous Prompt Length (100) | 68.39 | 73.92 | 42.77 | 64.20 | Table 16: Performance of various continuous prompt lengths in our method DiscoPrompt (T5-large) on PDTB (Ji) dataset. The default continuous prompt length of our model is 20. | Model | Comp. Cont. Exp. Temp. | | | | |---------------------------|--------------------------|-------------------|----|-------| | Ji and Eisenstein (2015) | 35.93 | 52.78 | - | 27.63 | | Rutherford and Xue (2015) | 41.00 | 53.80 69.40 33.30 | | | | Liu et al. (2016) | 37.91 | 55.88 69.97 37.17 | | | | Liu and Li (2016) 2 | 39.86 | 54.48 70.43 38.84 | | | | Qin et al. (2016b) | 38.67 | 54.91 71.50 32.76 | | | | Lan et al. (2017) | 40.73 | 58.96 72.47 38.50 | | | | Bai and Zhao (2018) | 47.85 | 54.47 70.60 36.87 | | | | Dai and Huang (2018) | 46.79 | 57.09 70.41 45.61 | | | | Varia et al. (2019) | 44.10 | 56.02 72.11 44.41 | | | | Nguyen et al. (2019) | 48.44 | 56.84 73.66 38.60 | | | | Guo et al. (2020) | 43.92 | 57.67 73.45 36.33 | | | | Liu et al. (2020) | 59.44 | 60.98 77.66 50.26 | | | | Jiang et al. (2021) | 55.40 | 57.04 74.76 41.54 | | | | Dou et al. (2021) | 55.72 | 63.39 80.34 44.01 | | | | Long and Webber (2022) | 65.84 | 63.55 79.17 69.86 | | | | DiscoPrompt (T5-base) | 62.55 | 64.45 78.77 57.41 | | | | DiscoPrompt (T5-large) | 67.13 | 69.76 81.61 64.86 | | | | DiscoPrompt (T5-11b) | 74.35 | 72.44 82.57 72.00 | | | Table 17: The performance for top-level classes on PDTB (Ji) in terms of F1 (%) (top-level multi-class classification). | Model(DataSet Settings) | Acc (Second) | F1 (Second) | Acc (Top) | F1 (Top) | |---------------------------|----------------|---------------|-------------|------------| | T5 (PDTB (Ji)) | 57.65 | 38.04 | 69.69 | 61.37 | | T5-adapt(PDTB (Ji)) | 59.77 | 38.08 | 70.17 | 60.89 | | T5 (PDTB (Lin)) | 59.40 | 42.04 | 71.13 | 58.12 | | T5-adapt(PDTB (Lin)) | 59.53 | 42.83 | 71.91 | 61.03 | | T5 (CoNLL-Test) | 58.88 | 34.66 | 70.87 | 58.74 | | T5-adapt(CoNLL-Test) | 59.66 | 37.49 | 71.52 | 60.78 | | T5 (CoNLL-Blind) | 54.3 | 24.63 | 73.07 | 56.28 | | T5-adapt(CoNLL-Blind) | 56.07 | 26.85 | 74.61 | 57.77 |   Second-level Label BMGF LDSGM PCP ContrastiveIDRR Ours(base) Ours(large) Ours(11B) Temp.Asynchronous 56.18 56.47 57.81 59.79 57.69 64.15 **72.27** Temp.Synchrony 0.0 0.0 0.0 **78.26** 0.0 50.00 33.33 Cont.Cause 59.60 64.36 65.64 65.58 63.83 69.66 **72.28** Cont.PragmaticCause 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Comp.Contrast 59.75 63.52 63.88 62.63 59.26 62.88 **70.63** Comp.Concession 0.0 0.0 8.00 0.0 9.09 **9.09** 0.0 Expa.Conjunction 60.17 57.91 57.78 58.35 61.08 60.09 **62.84** Expa.Instantiation 67.96 72.60 74.01 73.04 69.96 74.17 **76.60** Expa.Restatement 53.83 58.06 61.00 60.00 58.45 65.24 **65.98** Expa.Alternative 60.00 63.46 66.67 53.85 72.73 60.00 **84.21** Expa.List 0.0 8.98 29.63 34.78 37.50 24.00 **38.46** | Query Template: Argument 1: Grinned Griffith Peck, a trader in Shearson Lehman Hutton Inc.'s OTC department: "I tell you, this market acts healthy". Argument 2: Around him, scores of traders seemed to get a burst of energy. What is the relation label between Argument 1 and Argument 2? Select from the candidates. 1. Comparison.Concession 2. Comparison.Contrast 3. Contingency.Cause 4. Contingency.Pragmatic 5. Expansion.Alternative 6. Expansion.Conjunction 7. Expansion.Instantiation 8. Expansion.List 9. Expansion.Restatement 10. Temporal.Asynchronous 11. Temporal.Synchrony ChatGPT: Contingency.Cause Query Template: Argument 1: Grinned Griffith Peck, a trader in Shearson Lehman Hutton Inc.'s OTC department: "I tell you, this market acts healthy". Argument 2: Around him, scores of traders seemed to get a burst of energy. What is the relation and connective between Argument 1 and Argument 2? Select from the candidates. 1. Comparison.Concession, if 2. Comparison.Contrast, however 3. Contingency.Cause, so 4. Contingency.Pragmatic, indeed 5. Expansion.Alternative, instead 6. Expansion.Conjunction, also 7. Expansion.Instantiation, for example 8. Expansion.List, and 9. Expansion.Restatement, specifically 10. Temporal.Asynchronous, before 11. Temporal.Synchrony, when ChatGPT: Contingency.Cause, so Query Template: Argument 1: Grinned Griffith Peck, a trader in Shearson Lehman Hutton Inc.'s OTC department: "I tell you, this market acts healthy". Argument 2: Around him, scores of traders seemed to get a burst of energy. What is the relation path between Argument 1 and Argument 2? Select from the candidates. 1. Comparison -> Concession -> if 2. Comparison -> Contrast -> however 3. Contingency -> Cause -> so 4. Contingency -> Pragmatic -> indeed 5. Expansion -> Alternative -> instead 6. Expansion -> Conjunction -> also 7. Expansion -> Instantiation -> for example 8. Expansion -> List -> and 9. Expansion -> Restatement -> specifically 10. Temporal -> Asynchronous -> before 11. Temporal -> Synchrony -> when ChatGPT: Temporal -> Synchrony -> when Ground truth: Temporal.Synchrony | | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------| | Query Template: Argument 1: Right away you notice the following things about a Philip Glass concert. Argument 2: It attracts people with funny hair. What is the relation label between Argument 1 and Argument 2? Select from the candidates. 1. Comparison.Concession 2. Comparison.Contrast 3. Contingency.Cause 4. Contingency.Pragmatic 5. Expansion.Alternative 6. Expansion.Conjunction 7. Expansion.Instantiation 8. Expansion.List 9. Expansion.Restatement 10. Temporal.Asynchronous 11. Temporal.Synchrony ChatGPT: Expansion.Instantiation Query Template: Argument 1: Right away you notice the following things about a Philip Glass concert. Argument 2: It attracts people with funny hair. What is the relation and connective between Argument 1 and Argument 2? Select from the candidates. 1. Comparison.Concession, if 2. Comparison.Contrast, however 3. Contingency.Cause, so 4. Contingency.Pragmatic, indeed 5. Expansion.Alternative, instead 6. Expansion.Conjunction, also 7. Expansion.Instantiation, for example 8. Expansion.List, and 9. Expansion.Restatement, specifically 10. Temporal.Asynchronous, before 11. Temporal.Synchrony, when ChatGPT: Expansion.Instantiation, for example Query Template: Argument 1: Right away you notice the following things about a Philip Glass concert. Argument 2: It attracts people with funny hair. What is the relation path between Argument 1 and Argument 2? Select from the candidates. 1. Comparison -> Concession -> if 2. Comparison -> Contrast -> however 3. Contingency -> Cause -> so 4. Contingency -> Pragmatic -> indeed 5. Expansion -> Alternative -> instead 6. Expansion -> Conjunction -> also 7. Expansion -> Instantiation -> for example 8. Expansion -> List -> and 9. Expansion -> Restatement -> specifically 10. Temporal -> Asynchronous -> before 11. Temporal -> Synchrony -> when ChatGPT: Expansion -> List -> and Ground truth: Expansion.List | | | Table 20: Generation cases from three prompt templates for ChatGPT. The top one is the label-only template, the | Table 21: Generation cases from three prompt templates | Table 20: Generation cases from three prompt templates for ChatGPT. The top one is the label-only template, the middle one is the label & connectives template, and the bottom is the structural path template. Table 21: Generation cases from three prompt templates for ChatGPT. The top one is the label-only template, the middle one is the label & connectives template, and the bottom is the structural path template. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? In the limitation section after the conclusion. ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? In the ethics statement section after the limitation section. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? In the abstract and introduction section ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** The used dataset details are in section 4.1 and appendix section A.1. The utilized software is cited in appendix section A.2. ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? The used datasets are cited in section 4.1 and appendix section A.1. The utilized software is cited in appendix section A.2. ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? The license or terms for the used datasets are stated in Appendix A.1. ✓ 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 intended use for the used datasets is stated in Appendix A.1, we have not created any dataset from the existing dataset, and all dataset used is consistent with their intended use for research purposes. ✓ 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? In the ethics statement section after the limitation section. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? The coverage of domains and the languages in the used datasets are stated in Appendix A.1. ✓ 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. The relevant statistics in the used datasets are stated in Appendix A.1. 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?** The details of computational experiments is in section 4.2 and Appendix A.2. ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? The details is in section 4.2, Appendix A.2 and A.6 . ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? The details of experimental setup is in section 4.2 and Appendix A.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? The details is in section 4.2 and Appendix A.2 . ✓ 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.)? The details of used existing packages is in Appendix A.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.? 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.

cao-jiang-2023-modularized

Modularized Zero-shot {VQA} with Pre-trained Models

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.5

Large-scale pre-trained models (PTMs) show great zero-shot capabilities. In this paper, we study how to leverage them for zero-shot visual question answering (VQA).Our approach is motivated by a few observations. First, VQA questions often require multiple steps of reasoning, which is still a capability that most PTMs lack. Second, different steps in VQA reasoning chains require different skills such as object detection and relational reasoning, but a single PTM may not possess all these skills. Third, recent work on zero-shot VQA does not explicitly consider multi-step reasoning chains, which makes them less interpretable compared with a decomposition-based approach. We propose a modularized zero-shot network that explicitly decomposes questions into sub reasoning steps and is highly interpretable. We convert sub reasoning tasks to acceptable objectives of PTMs and assign tasks to proper PTMs without any adaptation. Our experiments on two VQA benchmarks under the zero-shot setting demonstrate the effectiveness of our method and better interpretability compared with several baselines.

# Modularized Zero-Shot Vqa With Pre-Trained Models Rui Cao and **Jing Jiang** School of Computing and Information Systems Singapore Management University ruicao.2020@phdcs.smu.edu.sg, jingjiang@smu.edu.sg ## Abstract Large-scale pre-trained models (PTMs) show great zero-shot capabilities. In this paper, we study how to leverage them for zero-shot visual question answering (VQA). Our approach is motivated by a few observations. First, VQA questions often require multiple steps of reasoning, which is still a capability that most PTMs lack. Second, different steps in VQA reasoning chains require different skills such as object detection and relational reasoning, but a single PTM may not possess all these skills. Third, recent work on zero-shot VQA does not explicitly consider multi-step reasoning chains, which makes them less interpretable compared with a decomposition-based approach. We propose a modularized zero-shot network that explicitly decomposes questions into sub reasoning steps and is highly interpretable. We convert sub reasoning tasks to acceptable objectives of PTMs and assign tasks to proper PTMs without any adaptation. Our experiments on two VQA benchmarks under the zero-shot setting demonstrate the effectiveness of our method and better interpretability compared with several baselines. ## 1 Introduction Visual Question Answering (VQA), the task of answering textual queries based on information contained in an image, is a multimodal task that requires comprehension and reasoning of both visual and textual content (Agrawal et al., 2017; Hudson and Manning, 2019). Most previous work on VQA either trains VQA models from scratch (e.g., Fukui et al. (2016); Anderson et al. (2018)) or fine-tunes pre-trained vision-language models for VQA (e.g., Li et al. (2019); Lu et al. (2019)). Thus, they rely heavily on labeled VQA data, which are expensive to obtain. VQA models based on supervised learning are also hard to generalize to new domains or new datasets (Xu et al., 2020; Chao et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2021). Recently, large-scale pre-trained models (PTMs) have demonstrated strong transferability to different downstream tasks under zero-shot settings, i.e., without any training data for the downstream tasks (Brown et al., 2020; Radford et al., 2021). With increased pre-training data size, these models show strong zero-shot performance on various down-stream tasks, such as image classification and face detection with the CLIP model (Radford et al., 2021) and sentiment analysis and commonsense question answering with the GPT-3 model (Brown et al., 2020). However, few studies have focused on zero-shot VQA from pre-trained models. Despite the power of these PTMs, it is not straightforward to directly apply them to VQA under zero-shot settings, because they are not pretrained with the same objective as VQA. Some recent work converts images to tokens that pretrained language models can understand so that VQA can be converted to text-based QA (Yang et al., 2022b; Tiong et al., 2022; Tsimpoukelli et al., 2021; Jin et al., 2022; Dai et al., 2022). However, this approach requires either a strong pre-trained image captioning model that can capture sufficient visual details or auxiliary training to obtain such a captioning model. Some other work converts VQA into a multimodal matching problem so that pretrained vision-language models (PT-VLMs) such as CLIP can be used (Song et al., 2022; Shen et al., 2022). However, complex VQA questions such as those found in the GQA dataset (Hudson and Manning, 2019) often require spatial reasoning and/or multi-step reasoning, which PT-VLMs may not be strong at (Subramanian et al., 2022; Thrush et al., 2022). VQA questions can be complicated and often require different reasoning steps such as object detection and spatial reasoning, as the example question in Figure 1 illustrates. Previously, people proposed Neural Module Networks (Andreas et al., 2016; Hu et al., 2017), which are modularized net-  works where each pre-defined module performs a specific reasoning task. These pre-defined modules are trained end-to-end from labeled VQA data. Motivated by the idea of modularization, in this paper, we propose a modularized zero-shot network for VQA (**Mod-Zero-VQA**) by decomposing questions into sub-tasks and assigning appropriate sub-tasks to PTMs without any adaptation. Given a question, we first parse the question into basic reasoning steps explicitly. These reasoning steps will then be reconfigured and mapped to different PTMs based on a set of rules we define. Specifically, we consider the following PTMs: OWL (Minderer et al., 2022) as the object detector, *MDETR* (Kamath et al., 2021) for reference expression localization (including several skills such as relational and spatial reasoning) and *CLIP* (Radford et al., 2021) as the answer generator for open-ended questions. Considering the limited capabilities of current pretrained vision-language models in spatial relation understanding (Subramanian et al., 2022), we also define simple and general heuristics to aid spatial reasoning. Note that only when we decompose questions and reasoning chains step by step can we insert human heuristics for spatial reasoning, because we have the intermediate outputs such as objects' bounding boxes from previous steps. We evaluate the proposed method on the GQA dataset (Hudson and Manning, 2019) where questions are compositional and require multi-step reasoning. The experiment result shows that the proposed model surpasses the baselines significantly on GQA, with near 13% of relative improvement over the strongest baseline (from 41.9 to 47.3). The results confirm the benefit of modualarization when using PTMs for zero-shot VQA. In addition, our method is interpretable because of the explicit reasoning steps generated. The contributions of our work can be summarized as follows: (1) We propose a novel modularized zero-shot VQA method that utilizes different pre-trained models for different reasoning steps; (2) We design rules to map different VQA reasoning steps to suitable PTMs so that we can leverage these PTMs without any adaptation; 3) Experiment results show the effectiveness of the proposed method, especially when questions consist of multiple steps of reasoning. ## 2 Background Task Definition. Given an image I and a question Q, a VQA system is expected to return an answer a. Traditional fully supervised VQA relies on a training set consisting of (image, question, answer) triplets. For zero-shot VQA, no such training data is given. However, in this paper we assume that we can use pre-trained models (PTMs) to help us with zero-shot VQA. Existing Zero-shot VQA Methods. Work on zero-shot VQA is very limited. We can organize existing work into the following categories. One line of work leverages the question answering capability in pre-trained language model (LMs). Some of them adopt prefix language modeling with weakly-supervised data other than VQA data (i.e., image-text pairs) to convert visual information into discrete tokens (prefix) that LMs can understand. Frozen (Tsimpoukelli et al., 2021), VLKD (Dai et al., 2022) and FewVLM (Jin et al., 2022) fall under this category. Some directly convert VQA images into textual descriptions so that the task of VQA changes to text-based QA and LMs can be applied. Methods in this category include PICa (Yang et al., 2022b) and PnP-VQA (Tiong et al., 2022). Recent work (Song et al., 2022; Shen et al., 2022) converts VQA to an image-text matching problem and prompts the CLIP model (Radford et al., 2021), a large-scale vision-language model pre-trained on the image-text matching task. The prompts can be either question irrelevant such as *Quesion: [*Ques]; Answer: [MASK] (QIP by Shen et al. (2022)) or question-related by converting questions into a masked statement (TAC-P by Song et al. (2022)). However, a limitation with these methods is that several of them still require training, although the training data is not in the form of VQA. Besides, converting images to captions and leveraging textbased QA may lose important visual details during the caption generation step. The two methods above using CLIP do not address the issue that CLIP model lacks compositional and spatial reasoning abilities, which has been observed in previous work (Subramanian et al., 2022; Thrush et al., 2022). ## 3 Modularized Zero-Shot Vqa Our method is motivated by Neural Module Network (NMN) based VQA, which decomposes questions into reasoning steps, where each module in the NMN is pre-defined to perform a specific reasoning task. The idea allows us to select appropriate pre-trained models to handle different reasoning tasks in a question. Specifically, in NMN-based VQA, we first manually define a set of reasoning steps such as object detection and spatial reasoning, each represented by a *module*. A question is then explicitly decomposed and converted into a *layout* of modules, which is an executable program showing the reasoning chain to reach the final answer. The top section of Figure 1 shows the layout corresponding to the sample question. To train an NMNbased VQA system, usually a layout generator is separately built first, which either uses hand-crafted rules over dependency parses of questions or is a trained seq2seq model. Then, the parameters of the various VQA modules are learned from VQA training data. For our work, we do not want to use VQA data for training. But we observe that many modules in NMN-based VQA can be supported by pre-trained models that have already acquired the capabilities needed by these modules. The key component of our method is therefore to map a layout of modules produced by traditional NMN-based VQA to a simplified layout of zero-shot components that can be implemented directly using pre-trained models. ## 3.1 Traditional Vqa Modules There is not any standard set of modules for VQA. We largely adopt the design of modules introduced by Hu et al. (2017) with some minor changes. We assume that the image has been pre-processed and N bounding boxes have been detected, each represented as an embedding vector, collectively denoted as V = (v1, v2*, . . . ,* vN ). An attention map α is defined to be a distribution over the N bounding boxes. Table 1 lists the most important traditional VQA modules that we will replace with pre-trained models. The full list of modules can be found in Table 7 in the appendices. It is worth explaining that besides taking in V and α as either input or output, many modules also take in the word embeddings of some text description extracted from the question. These text embeddings are arguments to control the behaviors of the modules. For example, the Find module's objective is to locate an object among all the bounding boxes given. The textual input gOBJ is therefore the word embedding of the name of the object to be found. Similarly, gRELA ,gATTR and gQUERY are word embeddings for the description of relation (e.g., *to the left of*), attribute (e.g., red) and aspect to query (e.g., querying *name*). | Module | Inputs | |----------|----------------------------| | Find | V, gOBJ | | Relocate | α, V, gRELA | | Filter | α, V, gCONDI | | Choose | α1, α2, V, gRELA1 , gRELA2 | | Query | α, V, gQUERY | Traditionally, the parameters of the modules in Table 1 need to be learned from VQA training data. In other words, these modules' underlying capabilities such as object recognition and relational reasoning need to be acquired from VQA data. However, we hypothesize that recently developed pre-trained models may already have some of these capabilities and can therefore directly equip these modules with such capabilities. For example, the Find module is mainly responsible for object recognition, and previously the parameters of Find have to be learned from scratch using VQA data. Now with a powerful pre-trained model such as OWL (Minderer et al., 2022) that can recognize a wide range of objects, we can presumably directly use a model like OWL to replace the traditional Find module. ## 3.2 Pre-Trained Models We utilize three pre-trained models that we believe are highly relevant to VQA. OWL. The Vision Transformer for Open-World Localization (OWL) model (Minderer et al., 2022) is a model for open-vocabulary object detection. It is first pre-trained on large-scale image-text pairs and then fine-tuned with added detection heads and medium-sized detection data. Given the category name of an object and an image, the model is able to locate bounding box(es) in the image containing the object together with a confidence score for each box. MDETR. The modulated DETER (DEtection TRansformer) model (Kamath et al., 2021) is an end-to-end detector that can detect an object in an image conditioned on a piece of textual description of the object such as its attributes and its relation with another object in the image. The model is pre-trained on image-text pairs with explicit alignment between phrases in the text and bounding boxes of objects in the image. Given an image and the description of an object, MDETR is able to locate the bounding box(es) in the image containing the object satisfying the description. Note that different from OWL, MDETR is able to understand textual descriptions that may contain attribute information and/or complex visual relations. For example, given the description a man holding a yellow cup is talking, MDETR will detect the bounding box containing the man holding a yellow cup in the given image, whereas OWL is not able to use the description and will only recognize all bounding boxes containing a man. Note that we use the version of MDETR pre-trained on general modulated detection **without fine-tuning** for any downstream tasks. CLIP. CLIP is a well-known large-scale visionlanguage model by OpenAI. It is pre-trained with 400M image-caption pairs through contrastive learning. Given an (image, text) pair, CLIP uses its separate image encoder and text encoder to turn the image and the text each into a vector, and the cosine similarity between the two vectors directly measures the compatibility of the two. Recent work has shown that CLIP can be directly used for VQA in a zero-shot setting, if we can come up with a set of candidate answers and transform each (question, answer) pair into a statement (Song et al., 2022). ## 3.3 **Zero-Shot Nmn Using Pre-Trained Models** Based on the descriptions of the traditional VQA modules in Section 3.1 and of the three PTMs we consider in Section 3.2, we can see that there are obvious connections between the capabilities desired by the traditional modules and the capabilities that these PTMs have already acquired. However, the mapping between them is not trivial. First of all, there is no simple one-to-one mapping from traditional VQA modules to the PTMs. For example, the MDETR model can already perform multiple steps of reasoning to locate the desired object, so it can be used to cover a sequence of modules in an NMN layout. Second, there may be capabilities required when applying PTMs but not captured by modules defined in NMN-based VQA. In particular, the MDETR model always assumes that the object to be grounded exists in the given image, but for those questions asking for the existence of a specified object, we cannot directly use MDETR. To address these challenges, we carefully design a mapping mechanism that can map an NMN-based module layout to a simplified layout consisting of a few zero-shot modules. Three of these zero-shot modules (OWL, MDETR and CLIP) correspond exactly to the three PTMs introduced earlier. The rest of the zero-shot modules are defined by simple heuristic rules. We list these zero-shot modules in Table 2. | Module | Inputs | Output | |----------|----------------|----------| | OWL | I, OBJ | B, s | | MDETR | I, SENT | B, s | | CLIP | B, I, V | Ans. | | Count | B | Num. | | Exist | B, (ATTR/RELA) | Yes/No | | And | Exist1, Exist2 | Yes/No | | Or | Exist1, Exist2 | Yes/No | We now give a high-level summary of the mapping mechanism below. We first look at the last module in the NMN layout. If the last module is one of Choose, Compare and Query, we know that the input to this last module is either a single attention map or two attention maps, where each attention map essentially tries to capture an object matching some textual descriptions. By tracing the path in the layout leading to the attention map, we choose either the zero-shot OWL module (when the path has a length of 1) or the zero-shot MDETR module (when the path is longer than 1 hop). This is because when the path length equals to one, it involves only object detection (corresponding to a single Find module in the NMN layout for generation of the attention map). When the path length is more than one, it indicates the generation of the attention map in the NMN layout involves other modules such as Filter and Relocate, which calls for the other abilities than object detection, such as language understanding, attribute recognition and relational reasoning. Different from NMN modules which takes in image features and object embeddings to generate an attention map, our zero-shot OWL and zero-shot MDETR takes in the raw image and raw texts to locate (OBJ for OWL and SENT for MDETR) to generate a set of detected bounding boxes B = {bn} N n=1 together with their confident scores s ∈ R N , where bn ∈ R 4represents the relative position and size of the detected bounding box in the image. We keep only the bounding box from either OWL or MDETR with the highest confident score and feed it to CLIP. We generate an answer by leveraging the capability of multimodal matching of CLIP. Specifically, given B, we generate an input image (which we refer to as I in) by either masking regions not containing those detected boxes (|B| = 2) or cropping the image so that only the part containing the box remains (|B| = 1). If the final NMN module is Choose, we generate a masked template by question conversion as in (Song et al., 2022); otherwise the masked template will be a simple "[MASK]". Then we match the image I in with the template where the [MASK] token is replaced by each of the answer candidates in V. We then select the answer that, when placed inside the template, best matches the image. If the module is Exist, we trace back the path leading to Exist to determine whether the module is asking for the existence of an object, an attribute or a relation. For object existence (e.g., is there a car), we use the zero-shot OWL module. For attribute existence and relation existence, we first verify whether all mentioned nouns (objects) detected by a POS tagger in the question exist with the OWL module. Once we detect an object that does not exist, the predicted answer will be no. If all objects exist, then we generate corresponding bounding boxes leveraging either OWL or MDETR following the method described in the paragraph above. For attribute existence, we generate a pair of a positive and a negative descriptions: (ATTR, not ATTR), e.g., (red, *not red*). We then find which description aligns better with the cropped image according to b. If the image aligns better with the positive statement, then the answer will be yes; otherwise, no. For relation existence, we generate the masked image I in according to b1 and b2 (the bounding boxes of the two objects whose relation is to be checked) and a pair of opposite statements regarding the relation to be checked, following (Song et al., 2022). For example, if the question is to check whether A is holding B, the two opposite statements will be *A is holding B* and *A is not holding B*. For both attribute and relation existence, we use zero-shot CLIP for the alignment between the input image and the statements. More details and the work flows of existence-related questions are provided in Appendix C. If the module is Count, we directly count the number of bounding boxes in B returned either from OWL or MDETR. Finally, if the last module is a logical AND or logical OR, we further trace to the inputs of this module, which should both be an Exist module. We then use the same mechanism described above for Exist to process the module. By receiving the outputs from the Exist modules, logical operations will be applied to determine the output. The deterministic logical operations can be found in Appendix B. ## 3.4 Spatial Heuristics As mentioned in (Subramanian et al., 2022), CLIP is less capable of spatial reasoning. Using CLIP for answer generation may not be enough when it involves spatial relation understanding. Following (Subramanian et al., 2022), we define simple and general heuristics to perform certain types of spatial reasoning. Note that only when we decompose questions explicitly can we insert the spatial heuristics into CLIP-based answer generation because we have the intermediate outputs from previous reasoning steps. First of all, given the coordinates and the size of a bounding box, we use manual rules (named as SpD) to decide its position in the image as *left,* right, bottom, top. Besides, we define heuristics, denoted as SpC, to solve spatial relations between two bounding boxes (e.g., *to the left of* and to the right of). Details of the implementation of the spatial relation solvers can be found in Appendix D. ## 4 Experiments 4.1 Dataset We evaluate the proposed modularized zero-shot VQA method on two benchmarks: GQA (Hudson and Manning, 2019) and VQAv2 (Goyal et al., 2017). The GQA dataset consists of questions requiring multi-step reasoning and various reasoning skills. Around 94% of the questions require multiple reasoning steps. We regard it as the main dataset to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method compared with the baselines. Compared with GQA, questions on the VQAv2 dataset require fewer reasoning steps and are of diverse semantics. We use VQAv2 to show the validity of our method in real-world VQA. We report standard accuracy for the GQA dataset while soft accuracy (Goyal et al., 2017) for VQAv2 dataset as there are multiple ground-truth answers. We report the statistics of the datasets in Appendix E. ## 4.2 Implementation Details We conduct experiments on NVIDIA Tesla V100 GPU. The thresholds for the OWL and the MDETR model to filter out detected bounding boxes of low confidente scores are set to be 0.2 and 0.7 respectively. We follow (Song et al., 2022) for the generation of the answer vocabulary V for open-ended questions. More details about answer vocabulary generation can be found in Appendix G and more information about experiment settings can be found in Appendix G. ## 4.3 Main Results Zero-shot VQA performance of the baselines mentioned in Section 2 and our proposed method are summarized in Table 3 1. First of all, we observe that the proposed ModZero-VQA method ismore effective on the GQA dataset, which contains many multi-step reasoning questions. Mod-Zero-VQA clearly surpasses 1For FEWVLM and PNP-VQA model, we show their reported performances on GQA test-dev, which should have similar distributions as the validation split of GQA. | Method | GQA | VQA | |--------------|-------|-------| | Frozen | - | 29.5 | | VLKDViT-L/14 | - | 42.6 | | FEWVLMbase | 27.0 | 43.4 | | FEWVLMlarge | 29.3 | 47.7 | | PNP-VQA6M | 34.6 | 54.3 | | PNP-VQA11B | 41.9 | 63.3 | | QIP | 35.9 | 21.4 | | TAP-C | 36.3 | 38.7 | | Mod-Zero-VQA | 47.3 | 41.0 | all baselines on GQA. The results suggest that it is effective under zero-shot settings to decompose questions when questions are compositional and require several steps of reasoning to reach the answer. Such decomposition allows us to take advantage of the capabilities of different pre-trained models. We also test the validity of the proposed method on real-world VQAv2 dataset, where questions require fewer reasoning steps and of diverse semantics. We can see that our method still achieves the best performance among zero-shot methods that utilize CLIP. Although better performance is achieved by several methods that utilize large language models (as shown in the first block of Table 3), it is worth pointing out that these methods often require caption generation as a pre-processing step, and this step poses challenges. For example, PNP-VQA generates 100 captions per question, which is laborious. There may also be redundancy because many captions are irrelevant for question answering. Another advantage of our Mod-Zero-VQA method over the other zero-shot baselines is that our method offers high interpretability by showing the explicit multi-step reasoning chain, which has not been considered by any previous work. With question decomposition, we can design modularized networks and assign reasoning tasks to pretrained models (PTMs) which are more capable of the tasks, and with more powerful pre-trained models coming out, our method can be easily extended to utilize newer and more effective PTMs. Meanwhile, it is easier to pinpoint the weakest chain in a system and insert human heuristics to aid these modules. | Detector | Yes/No Qns | Other Qns | Overall | |------------|--------------|-------------|-----------| | CLIP-FR | 56.80 | 33.82 | 41.39 | | OWL | 69.26 | 36.48 | 47.28 | | GT | 76.48 | 38.06 | 50.72 | Table 4: Performance of Mod-Zero-VQA with different object detectors on GQA. | Method | PT-VLMs | Overall | |--------------|--------------|-----------| | CLIPViT-B/16 | 35.93 | | | QIP | CLIPRes50×16 | 35.11 | | ALBEF | 34.75 | | | CLIPViT-B/16 | 36.32 | | | TAP-C | CLIPRes50×16 | 38.16 | | ALBEF | 38.36 | | | CLIPViT-B/16 | 47.28 | | | Mod-Zero-VQA | CLIPRes50×16 | 46.49 | | ALBEF | 48.68 | | ## 4.4 Ablation Study In our Mod-Zero-VQA method, PTMs play an important role. In this section, we show the performance of Mod-Zero-VQA when we replace PTMs listed in Section 3.2 with alternative models. Replacing OWL: We tried replacing OWL with other object detectors. First, we consider an object detector combining Faster-RCNN (Ren et al., 2015) and CLIP (**CLIP-FR**). Specifically, Faster-RCNN is used to detect objects in an image and CLIP is applied to classify each detected object. Second, we use the ground-truth object annotations from Visual Genome (Krishna et al., 2017) to replace object detection results (GT), which serves as an upper bound. Results of our zero-shot NMNs with different object detectors are provided in Table 4. We divide the questions into Yes/No (bindary) questions and other questions. We observe that the quality of object detection is important to the performance of zero-shot NMNs. Our model with OWL surpasses the one with CLIP-FR, which has poorer detection performance than OWL. We also observe more substantial performance drop with binary questions. We believe that this is because these questions are mostly about the existence of objects, so the object detection results affect the VQA performance more. Using Mod-Zero-VQA with the ground-truth object detection results would further improve the performance, as shown in the last row of Table 4. This suggests that when more accurate object detection models are developed, we can further improve the zero-shot VQA performance with our approach. Replacing CLIP: We show the performance of replacing zero-shot CLIP (which is CLIPViT-B/16 by default in our experiments), with either CLIPRes50×16 or ALBEF (Li et al., 2021), in Table 5. Because QIP and TAC-P convert VQA to a multi-modal matching task and both use PT-VLMs as the answer generator, we also replace the original CLIPViT-B/16 in these two baselines with the other PTMs. We observe that Mod-Zero-VQA gives stable performance regardless of the visionlanguage model used, and it always outperforms the baselines substantially. This indicates that these PTMs can all be good substitutes for the zero-shot CLIP module. Compared with the two CLIP models (i.e., with either ViT (Dosovitskiy et al., 2021) or ResNet (He et al., 2016) as the visual backbone), we also notice that using ALBEF (Li et al., 2021) as the answer generator can enhance the performance. To better understand the advantage of using ALBEF over CLIP, we provide more detailed performance in Table 9 in Appendix H. ALBEF mostly benefits the proposed method in the *Query* type of questions, which usually ask about objects, *attributes* and *relations*. Consistent with (Zhao et al., 2022), end-to-end models (i.e., ALBEF in this case) perform better than dual-encoder models (i.e., CLIP in this case) in vision understanding tasks on average. A future direction may be to select the best pre-trained model per question. ## 4.5 Out-Of-Domain Generalization Because our Mod-Zero-VQA method is not trained on any domain-specific VQA data but rather utilizes pre-trained models that are supposedly trained on data from a wide range of domains, we suspect that our Mod-Zero-VQA method is more robust across different domains compared with VQA models trained on specific domains and applied in crossdomain settings. We therefore also compare our Mod-Zero-VQA with fully-supervised models in the Out-of-Domain Generalization (OOD) setting. Specifically, we consider an OOD setting where test images are related to scenes not observed during training. We first identify a set of scene-related objects and restrict all training images to only those that do not contain these objects. For example, in the *Indoor* OOD setting, none of the training im- Method **Indoor Food Street** BUTD 39.27 32.28 35.96 NMNs 39.45 32.47 36.05 VilBert 39.87 32.12 36.68 VisualBert 41.14 33.47 38.51 ALBEF 45.55 38.87 41.60 Mod-Zero-VQA 48.86 47.80 49.54 ages should contain sofa, bed or any of the other objects that we have identified to be related to *Indoor* scenes. To build fully-supervised VQA models for comparison, we consider (1) **BUTD** (Anderson et al., 2018), a classic two-stream VQA models, (2) traditional **NMNs** (Andreas et al., 2016), and (3) finetuned pre-trained vision-language models, including **VilBert** (Lu et al., 2019), **VisualBert** (Li et al., 2019) and **ALBEF** (Li et al., 2021). The results are shown in Table 6. We can see from the table that for those supervised VQA models, when they are trained on images with different scenes, their performance on the target domain is clearly lower than our Mod-Zero-VQA. Furthermore, our Mod-Zero-VQA method achieves steady performance across different scenes, whereas the supervised VQA models give fluctuated performance in different scenes. This demonstrates the robustness of our proposed method. ## 4.6 Case Study As a case study, we visualize the outputs of the reasoning steps from the proposed method and compare the prediction of the proposed method with those of QIP and TAC-P, which also leverage CLIP as the answer generator. We show two example questions and the outputs in Figure 2. Both questions require multiple reasoning steps. We can see that our method gives the correct predictions while the two other methods answer wrongly. We can also see that by decomposing the questions, our method assigns each sub reasoning task to a pre-trained model capable of the task (i.e., MDETR for reference expression localization and OWL for object detection). With question decomposition, we can also better pinpoint the weaknesses of pre-trained models and insert human knowledge by defining simple but general heuristics (e.g., adding spatial heuristics to zeroshot CLIP and defining logical operations). More  ## 5 Related Work 5.1 Visual Question Answering Although great progress has been made in the supervised VQA setting (Li et al., 2019; Lu et al., 2019; Li et al., 2022, 2021), few studies have explored the zero-shot VQA setting. One line of work converts VQA to text-based QA so that language models (LMs) can be applied. Some of them require auxiliary training though not with VQA data (Dai et al., 2022; Jin et al., 2022; Tsimpoukelli et al., 2021). Some suffer from insufficient visual details (Yang et al., 2022b) or laborious generation of irrelevant captions (Tiong et al., 2022). Others (Shen et al., 2022; Song et al., 2022) convert VQA to multimodal matching and leverage CLIP (Radford et al., 2021). However, CLIP is limited when compositional reasoning and spatial reasoning are required (Thrush et al., 2022; Subramanian et al., 2022). In this work, we propose to decompose questions and propose a modularized zero-shot VQA method by assigning reasoning tasks to proper pre-trained models without any adaptation. ## 5.2 Zero-Shot Applications Of Pre-Trained Models Models pre-trained on a large corpus have strong zero-shot transferability when performing downstream tasks whose objectives are similar to the pre-training objectives of these models. For instance, GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020) is powerful for zero-shot QA by treating the QA as a text generation problem. CLIP (Radford et al., 2021) demonstrates good zero-shot image recognition capability by treating the classification task as multimodal matching. For multimodal QA tasks, LMs can be applied once information from other modalities are translated to tokens LMs understand (Tiong et al., 2022; Yang et al., 2022a). In our work, we decompose VQA questions into sub-reasoning tasks and assign sub-tasks to corresponding pre-trained models whose pre-training objectives match the sub-tasks. ## 6 Conclusion And Future Work In this work, we propose a modularized zero-shot VQA method, motivated by the idea of Neural Module Network (NMN). Instead of training modules in NMN with VQA data, we decompose questions into reasoning tasks explicitly, leverage pre-trained models and assign proper reasoning tasks to them. Experiments show that our model is powerful on questions requiring multi-step reasoning and applicable for real-world VQA. Besides, the proposed model is highly interpretable, which helps to pinpoint weaknesses of a VQA system, making it easier to improve a system. Our model highlights a future direction of leveraging pre-trained models for other complicated tasks requiring multiple reasoning capabilities. ## Limitations In this section, we discuss few limitations of the proposed method and point out future directions to improve the model. First, our method needs to decompose questions into a symbolic representation, but such representations are hard for humans to comprehend, and therefore this decomposition mechanism is hard to be trained with human annotation. A promising direction is to leverage pre-trained language models such as ChatGPT 2 to automate this decomposition step, leveraging ChatGPT's internal knowledge of decomposing a complex question into sub-questions. Second, the execution of the zero-shot NMNs is conducted in a deterministic manner, leading to high risks of error propagation if the reasoning chain gets longer. In the future, we can consider a softer way of reasoning over the image with pre-trained models. ## Acknowledgement This research was supported by the SMU-A*STAR Joint Lab in Social and Human-Centered Computing (Grant No. SAJL-2022-HAS002). ## References Aishwarya Agrawal, Jiasen Lu, Stanislaw Antol, Margaret Mitchell, C. Lawrence Zitnick, Devi Parikh, and Dhruv Batra. 2017. VQA: visual question answering - www.visualqa.org. *Int. J. Comput. Vis.*, 123(1):4–31. Peter Anderson, Xiaodong He, Chris Buehler, Damien Teney, Mark Johnson, Stephen Gould, and Lei Zhang. 2018. Bottom-up and top-down attention for image captioning and visual question answering. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR. Jacob Andreas, Marcus Rohrbach, Trevor Darrell, and Dan Klein. 2016. Neural module networks. In *IEEE* Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR, pages 39–48. Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared 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 M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher 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 Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systemsm, NeurIPS. Wei-Lun Chao, Hexiang Hu, and Fei Sha. 2018. Crossdataset adaptation for visual question answering. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR, pages 5716–5725. Wenhu Chen, Zhe Gan, Linjie Li, Yu Cheng, William Yang Wang, and Jingjing Liu. 2021. Meta module network for compositional visual reasoning. In *IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, WACV*, pages 655–664. IEEE. Wenliang Dai, Lu Hou, Lifeng Shang, Xin Jiang, Qun Liu, and Pascale Fung. 2022. Enabling multimodal generation on CLIP via vision-language knowledge distillation. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL*, pages 2383–2395. Dorottya Demszky, Kelvin Guu, and Percy Liang. 2018. Transforming question answering datasets into natural language inference datasets. *CoRR*, abs/1809.02922. Li Dong and Mirella Lapata. 2018. Coarse-to-fine decoding for neural semantic parsing. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL, pages 731–742. Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Neil Houlsby. 2021. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. In *9th International Conference* on Learning Representations, ICLR. Akira Fukui, Dong Huk Park, Daylen Yang, Anna Rohrbach, Trevor Darrell, and Marcus Rohrbach. 2016. Multimodal compact bilinear pooling for visual question answering and visual grounding. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP, pages 457–468. Yash Goyal, Tejas Khot, Douglas Summers-Stay, Dhruv Batra, and Devi Parikh. 2017. Making the V in VQA matter: Elevating the role of image understanding in visual question answering. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR, pages 6325–6334. Nitish Gupta, Kevin Lin, Dan Roth, Sameer Singh, and Matt Gardner. 2020. Neural module networks for reasoning over text. In *8th International Conference* on Learning Representations, ICLR. 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. Ronghang Hu, Jacob Andreas, Marcus Rohrbach, Trevor Darrell, and Kate Saenko. 2017. Learning to reason: End-to-end module networks for visual question answering. In *IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV*, pages 804–813. Drew A. Hudson and Christopher D. Manning. 2019. GQA: A new dataset for real-world visual reasoning and compositional question answering. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR, pages 6700–6709. Woojeong Jin, Yu Cheng, Yelong Shen, Weizhu Chen, and Xiang Ren. 2022. A good prompt is worth millions of parameters: Low-resource prompt-based learning for vision-language models. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics ACL, pages 2763–2775. Aishwarya Kamath, Mannat Singh, Yann LeCun, Gabriel Synnaeve, Ishan Misra, and Nicolas Carion. 2021. MDETR - modulated detection for end-to-end multi-modal understanding. In *2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV*, pages 1760–1770. Ranjay Krishna, Yuke Zhu, Oliver Groth, Justin Johnson, Kenji Hata, Joshua Kravitz, Stephanie Chen, Yannis Kalantidis, Li-Jia Li, David A. Shamma, Michael S. Bernstein, and Li Fei-Fei. 2017. Visual genome: Connecting language and vision using crowdsourced dense image annotations. Int. J. Comput. Vis., 123(1):32–73. Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Caiming Xiong, and Steven C. H. Hoi. 2022. BLIP: bootstrapping language-image pretraining for unified vision-language understanding and generation. In *International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML*, volume 162, pages 12888– 12900. PMLR. Junnan Li, Ramprasaath R. Selvaraju, Akhilesh Gotmare, Shafiq R. 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 34, NeurIPS*, pages 9694–9705. Liunian Harold Li, Mark Yatskar, Da Yin, Cho-Jui Hsieh, and Kai-Wei Chang. 2019. Visualbert: A simple and performant baseline for vision and language. CoRR, abs/1908.03557. Jiasen Lu, Dhruv Batra, Devi Parikh, and Stefan Lee. 2019. Vilbert: Pretraining task-agnostic visiolinguistic representations for vision-and-language tasks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, NeurIPS, pages 13–23. Matthias Minderer, Alexey A. Gritsenko, Austin Stone, Maxim Neumann, Dirk Weissenborn, Alexey Dosovitskiy, Aravindh Mahendran, Anurag Arnab, Mostafa Dehghani, Zhuoran Shen, Xiao Wang, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Kipf, and Neil Houlsby. 2022. Simple open-vocabulary object detection with vision transformers. *CoRR*, abs/2205.06230. 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. In *Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML*, volume 139, pages 8748–8763. 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. *J. Mach. Learn. Res.*, 21:140:1–140:67. Shaoqing Ren, Kaiming He, Ross B. Girshick, and Jian Sun. 2015. Faster R-CNN: towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 28: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 91–99. Sheng Shen, Liunian Harold Li, Hao Tan, Mohit Bansal, Anna Rohrbach, Kai-Wei Chang, Zhewei Yao, and Kurt Keutzer. 2022. How much can CLIP benefit vision-and-language tasks? In *The Tenth International Conference on Learning Representations,* ICLR. Haoyu Song, Li Dong, Weinan Zhang, Ting Liu, and Furu Wei. 2022. CLIP models are few-shot learners: Empirical studies on VQA and visual entailment. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL, pages 6088–6100. Sanjay Subramanian, William Merrill, Trevor Darrell, Matt Gardner, Sameer Singh, and Anna Rohrbach. 2022. Reclip: A strong zero-shot baseline for referring expression comprehension. In *Proceedings* of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL, pages 5198–5215. Tristan Thrush, Ryan Jiang, Max Bartolo, Amanpreet Singh, Adina Williams, Douwe Kiela, and Candace Ross. 2022. Winoground: Probing vision and language models for visio-linguistic compositionality. CoRR, abs/2204.03162. Anthony Meng Huat Tiong, Junnan Li, Boyang Li, Silvio Savarese, and Steven C. H. Hoi. 2022. Plug-and-play VQA: zero-shot VQA by conjoining large pretrained models with zero training. *CoRR*, abs/2210.08773. Maria Tsimpoukelli, Jacob Menick, Serkan Cabi, S. M. Ali Eslami, Oriol Vinyals, and Felix Hill. 2021. Multimodal few-shot learning with frozen language models. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34: Annual Conference on Neural* Information Processing Systems, NeurIPS, pages 200– 212. Yiming Xu, Lin Chen, Zhongwei Cheng, Lixin Duan, and Jiebo Luo. 2020. Open-ended visual question answering by multi-modal domain adaptation. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: Findings, EMNLP, volume EMNLP 2020 of *Findings of ACL*, pages 367–376. Antoine Yang, Antoine Miech, Josef Sivic, Ivan Laptev, and Cordelia Schmid. 2022a. Zero-shot video question answering via frozen bidirectional language models. *CoRR*, abs/2206.08155. Zhengyuan Yang, Zhe Gan, Jianfeng Wang, Xiaowei Hu, Yumao Lu, Zicheng Liu, and Lijuan Wang. 2022b. An empirical study of GPT-3 for few-shot knowledgebased VQA. In *Thirty-Sixth AAAI Conference on* Artificial Intelligence, AAAI, pages 3081–3089. Mingda Zhang, Tristan Maidment, Ahmad Diab, Adriana Kovashka, and Rebecca Hwa. 2021. Domainrobust VQA with diverse datasets and methods but no target labels. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR, pages 7046– 7056. Tiancheng Zhao, Tianqi Zhang, Mingwei Zhu, Haozhan Shen, Kyusong Lee, Xiaopeng Lu, and Jianwei Yin. 2022. Vl-checklist: Evaluating pre-trained visionlanguage models with objects, attributes and relations. CoRR, abs/2207.00221. ## A Modules In Vqa We summarize all modules in traditional NMNs for VQA (Hu et al., 2017; Gupta et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2021) in Table 7. ## B Logical Operations In this section we describe the logical modules And and Or. Both of them receive outputs from two zero-shot Exist modules. For the And module, if both outputs are yes, it outputs yes; otherwise, it outputs no. For the Or module, if both outputs are no, it outputs no; otherwise, it outputs yes. The logical operators are deterministic. ## C Existence Questions As mentioned briefly in Section 3.3, for questions verifying the existence of something, according to the NMN layout, we classify these questions into three types: verifying existence of objects, of attributes, and of relations. For the verification of object existence, we directly apply the zero-shot OWL. For both attribute and relation verification questions, we first make sure all objects mentioned in the question exist with the help of OWL. If any mentioned objects do not exist, the predicted answer will be No, as illustrated in Figure 3. If the objects exist, we leverage either zero-shot OWL or MDETR to locate at objects of interests and verify the attributes and relations, with the utilization of the CLIP module. Examples are provided in Figure 4 (for attribute verification) and Figure 5 (for relation verification). We use CLIP for binary matching to select whether the attribute/relation exists. When multiple attributes/relations are to be verified, only when all attributes/relations exist will the predicted answer be Yes; otherwise, the prediction is No. For instance, the third example in Figure 4 has a dark brown table, but the table is not glass, so the third step outputs no. The final predicted answer to the question is therefore no. ## D Detailed Implementation For Spatial Heuristics In this section, we give the mathematical definitions of the spatial heuristics. The input bounding box is denoted as b = (*x, y, w, h*), representing the relative position and relative size of the object in the VQA image. Spatial Determine (SpD) receives an object bounding box and determines which position in  the original image the object is at. The position candidates P are generated according to the question. When the question is asking for the horizontal position of the object, P = {left, right}; When the question is asking for the vertical position of the object, P = {top, bottom}. The SpD module is implemented as: $$\operatorname{SpD}(\mathbf{b},{\mathcal{P}})={\begin{cases}\mathrm{left},&\mathrm{if}\quad x<0.5\\ \mathrm{right},&\mathrm{else}\end{cases}}$$ $$\mathrm{(1)}$$ when P = {left, right}. When P = {top, bottom}, the spatial heuristic is derived as: $$\operatorname{SpD}(\mathbf{b},{\mathcal{P}})={\begin{cases}\operatorname{top},&{\mathrm{if}}\\ {\mathrm{bottom}},\end{cases}}$$ $$y<0.5$$ else . bottom, else $${\mathrm{(2)}}$$ The SpD heuristic will be used in the Query module when asking about either horizontal or vertical position. Spatial Chooser (SpC) receives two bounding boxes of objects b1, b2 and aims to choose their spatial relations from the relation candidates in C (b1 is *RELA* b2). For instance, when C = {to the left of, to the right of}: $$\operatorname{SpC}(\mathbf{b}_{1},\mathbf{b}_{2},{\mathcal{C}})={\begin{cases}{\mathrm{left}},{\mathrm{if}}\\ {\mathrm{right}},\end{cases}}$$ $$x_{1}<x_{2}$$ else ... right, else $$\quad(3)$$ When $C=\{$above, beneath$\}$: $$\operatorname{Sp}\!\mathsf{C}(\mathbf{b}_{1},\mathbf{b}_{2},C)={\begin{cases}{\mathrm{above}},{\mathrm{if}}\\ {\mathrm{beneath}},\end{cases}}$$ $$y_{1}<y_{2}$$ else ... beneath, else $$\quad(4)$$ Module Output Functionality Find(V, gOBJ) Att. Locate a certain object (OBJ) in the image Relocate(α,V,gRELA) Att. Transit attention from previous attention map α according to the relation (RELA) Filter(α,V,gCONDI) Att. Highlight objects that are attended by previous attention map α and satisfy the condition (CONDI) Choose(α1,α2,V,gRELA1 ,gRELA2 ) Ans. Choose the relation from RELA1and RELA2 between highlighted regions of two attention maps Query(α,V,gQUERY) Ans. Generate a final answer given the attention map, image representation and item to query (QUERY) Count(α) Ans. Outputs a number given the attention map of the image Exist(α) Ans. Output a binary answer (*yes/no*) given the attention map of the image And(α1,α2) Ans. Generate a binary answer (*yes/no*) given the two attention maps Or(α1,α2) Ans. Generate a binary answer (*yes/no*) given the two attention maps Table 7: The full list of modules in traditional NMNs. g[·]is the word embedding for the words in [·]. Table 8: Statistical distributions of the GQA and the VQA dataset. The SpC rule will be applied to the *Choose* type of questions if the choices of relations fall into the sets below: [{to the left of},{to the right of}] and [{above, on top of},{under, below, beneath, underneath}] ## E Dataset Statistics In Table 8, we provide statistics of the GQA and the VQA dataset. Following (Song et al., 2022; Tsimpoukelli et al., 2021), we use the validation split for testing. Specifically, we report soft vqa scores as there may be multiple possible answers to a question similar to previous works. (Song et al., 2022; Tsimpoukelli et al., 2021; Anderson et al., 2018; Fukui et al., 2016). | Dataset | Train | Val | | | |-----------|---------|---------|---------|--------| | # Ques. | # Img. | # Ques. | # Img. | | | GQA | 943,000 | 72,140 | 132,062 | 10,234 | | VQA | 443,757 | 82,783 | 214,354 | 40,504 | ## F Layout Generation The layout generation can be accomplished either with syntatic parser or a pre-trained sequence-tosequence layout generator. On the VQA dataset, we follow (Andreas et al., 2016; Hu et al., 2017) to parse questions with Stanza3and transform the parsed tree into reasoning graphs where each node is a pre-defined module with rules most similar to (Hu et al., 2017). The graphs are converted to module sequences with the post-order traversal. The linearlized module sequence is used as the layout. On GQA dataset, we leverage layouts generated by the pre-trained sequence-to-sequence layout generator from (Chen et al., 2021). The generator adopts a coarse-to-fine two-stage generation paradigm as in (Dong and Lapata, 2018) to encode questions and decode the sequence of module names and module inputs in two stages. ## G Answer Filtering Basically, we follow (Song et al., 2022) to narrow down the set of possible answer candidates with the language model T5 (Raffel et al., 2020). For the VQA dataset, we directly leverage the published generated candidate answers for each question from the paper (Song et al., 2022). For the GQA dataset, the *Verify* and *Logical* type questions have binary answers *yes/no*. For the *Compare* and 3https://github.com/stanfordnlp/stanza  Choose, candidate answers are available in the generated layouts. For the *Query* type of questions, we first convert questions into masked templates with a rule-based converter (Demszky et al., 2018). T5 is applied to retrieve the masked word, which filters out irrelevant answers in the answer vocabulary according to contexts. ## H Detailed Results We provide the detailed results for replacing CLIP with ALBEF (discussed in Section 4.4) in Table 9 considering different types of questions. ## I Visualization Of Zero-Shot Nmns In this section, we provide more visualization examples which the zero-shot NMNs answers correctly while the baselines (QIP and TAC-P) fail. In Figure 6, we show examples with short reasoning chain, specifically, only two-step in ModZero-VQA. According to the results, we observe that each intermediate step gives interpretable outputs. By question decomposition and leveraging  pre-trained models, our model can focus on relevant regions of the image (e.g., the first and third example in the first row of Figure 6) so that eliminating noise from backgrounds. Without filtering irrelevant information in the image, baselines pay attention to dominant objects in the image, leading to wrong predictions (e.g., the third example in the first row which QIP and TAC-P seems to focus on the ground and the T-shirt when answering the question). In Figure 7, we visualize questions with relatively longer reasoning chains. These compositional questions usually call several reasoning capabilities, making it hard for pre-trained VL models to deal with (Thrush et al., 2022). With question decomposition, each pre-trained model takes a sub reasoning task, easing the burden from answering a complicated question. According to the visualization, we also find a frequent error case resulting from the wronglygenerated NMN layout. The coarse-to-fine two stage generation suffers from the issue of early stopping that the generated arguments is incomplete. For instance, the ground-truth step should be Find(*coffee table*) while the generated result is Find(*coffee*). ## J Out-Of-Distribution Setting Construction We consider an Out-of-Domain Generalization (OOD) setting, where test images are related to scenes (i.e., Indoor, *Food* and *Street*) not observed during training. For the *Indoor* scene, we directly leverage the annotation from Visual Genome (Kr- | Backbone | Yes/No | Other | | | | | |------------|----------|---------|---------|-------|---------|-------| | Verify | Logical | Choose | Compare | Query | Overall | | | ViT-B/16 | 69.63 | 68.63 | 75.87 | 48.59 | 26.36 | 47.28 | | Res50× 16 | 68.51 | 68.71 | 75.78 | 41.84 | 25.69 | 46.49 | | ALBEF | 68.08 | 69.99 | 75.93 | 48.40 | 29.38 | 48.68 | Table 9: Performance of the proposed model with different models for multimodal matching regarding different question types.   ishna et al., 2017), where images are classified as indoors and outdoors. For the other two settings, we filter out training images containing those scenespecific objects and make sure a certain protion of objects in the testing images are about those objects (in other words, testing images are related to the scene). Below, we provide the lists of scene specific objects in the *Food* and *Street* scene. Food: plate, banana, table, food, pizza, donut, fork, bowl, cheese, napkin, glass, cake, tomato, bread, apple, carrot, knife, broccoli, vegetable, fruit, cup, sauce, orange, spoon, meat, pepper, crust, onion, sandwich, home plate, topping, catcher, tray, lettuce, container, dish, bottle, batter, umpire, frosting, hot dog, egg, chicken, bat, box, mask, paper, mushroom, mug, pitcher, dispenser, liquid, label, bacon, tablecloth, nut, leaf, utensil, salad, hand, crumb, lemon, basket, mound, card, helmet, strawberry, lid, pan, seed, chair, menu, jar, player, sausage, icing, juice, shirt, spinach, sprinkle, dugout, counter, bag, flower, berry, goat, sailboat, uniform, steering wheel, glove, heel, pastry, bubble, finger, sugar, beer, oven, heart, dessert, herb Street: car, sign, building, pole, letter, tree, tire, road, wheel, sidewalk, bus, train, street, number, door, sky, bike, windshield, truck, street light, motorcycle, leaf, traffic light, roof, ground, post, license plate, arrow, vehicle, fence, cloud, word, grass, wire, van, bicycle, gravel, bush, platform, fire hydrant, house, seat, flag, bag, pavement, step, graffiti, sticker, logo, paint, luggage, cone, chain,  pipe, helmet, bridge, balcony, parking lot, jacket, plant, stop sign, train car, umbrella, taxi, lamp, box, crosswalk, flower, bench, brick, store, trash can, clock, gate, station, jean, grill, suv, driver, hook, pant, trash, tower, city, stair, rock, coat, rose, chimney, trailer, american flag, entrance ## K Experiment Settings In this section, we discuss the experiment settings regarding to the size of models, method of choosing hyper-parameters and the used software packages and versions. Model Size: We provide the number of parameters of different models in Table 10. Our model includes the OWL model, the MDETR model, the CLIPViT-B/16 and the T5 model for answer filtering. It consists of 1, 521M parameters, of which the T5 model takes 770M parameters, the OWL model takes 583M parameters, the MDETR model takes 170M parameters and the CLIP model takes 151M parameters. After pre-processing object detection and answer filtering, it takes 6G GPU memory for inference. Hyper-parameters: As we focus on the zero-shot  learning setting so that there is no training process. Here we provide hyper-parameters used as thresholds. For the OWL model (Minderer et al., 2022), we set the threshold of confident score as 0.2, which is set empirically, to filter out detected bounding boxes of which the confident scores are too long. We show test the robustness of the proposed zero-shot VQA model regarding to the hyperparameter of the threshold and provide experimental results corresponding to the threshold varying from 0.05, , 0.1, 0.15, 0.2, 0.15, 0.3 in Figure 8. As  proven in Section 4.4, the detection result mostly affects binary questions which rely more on object detection results, we here provide results for *Verify* and *Logical* type of questions on GQA. Besides, Count type questions also heavily rely on the quality of object detection. According to the results, we observe the zero-shot NMNs achieves relatively stable performances regarding to different thresholds for confident scores on *Verify* type questions, while less stable for the *Logical* and *Count* type questions. The stability on *Verify* questions depicts the robustness of the detection model. As *Logical* questions combines results from two *Verify* questions, the error may propagate if one predicted answer of the *Verify* question is wrong. An interesting finding is that the performance does not drop as the threshold increases. This may be that answers are biased to no. With the increment of thresholds, the model is more likely to answer no. *Count* questions are more sensitive to the threshold because lower thresholds lead to the case that uncertain regions to be detected while higher thresholds are more harmful that correctly detected objects will be filtered out. In conclusion, the threshold is important to the quality of detection and setting it from 0.2 to 0.25 gives good performances. For the MDETR model, we directly follow their published code for detection and set the threshold as 0.7 4. Package Version: We list the software packages used as well as the corresponding versions in Table 11. | Package | Version) | |--------------|------------| | PyTorch | 1.9.0 | | Transformers | 4.19.2 | | Stanza | 1.4.0 | | NLTK | 3.2.5 | ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Section 7 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?** 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?** Appendix J ✓ 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 J 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 J 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? Not applicable. We focus on zero-shot learning settings. No training process is involved and each step is deterministic. ✓ 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 J ## 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.

tan-etal-2023-timelineqa

{T}imeline{QA}: A Benchmark for Question Answering over Timelines

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.6

Lifelogs are descriptions of experiences that a person had during their life. Lifelogs are created by fusing data from the multitude of digital services, such as online photos, maps, shopping and content streaming services. Question answering over lifelogs can offer personal assistants a critical resource when they try to provide advice in context. However, obtaining answers to questions over lifelogs is beyond the current state of the art of question answering techniques for a variety of reasons, the most pronounced of which is that lifelogs combine free text with some degree of structure such as temporal and geographical information. We create and publicly release TimelineQA, a benchmark for accelerating progress on querying lifelogs. TimelineQA generates lifelogs of imaginary people. The episodes in the lifelog range from major life episodes such as high school graduation to those that occur on a daily basis such as going for a run. We describe a set of experiments on TimelineQA with several state-of-the-art QA models. Our experiments reveal that for atomic queries, an extractive QA system significantly out-performs a state-of-the-art retrieval-augmented QA system. For multi-hop queries involving aggregates, we show that the best result is obtained with a state-of-the-art table QA technique, assuming the ground truth set of episodes for deriving the answer is available.

# Timelineqa: A Benchmark For Question Answering Over Timelines Wang-Chiew Tan, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Yuliang Li, Lambert Mathias, Marzieh Saeidi*, Jing Nathan Yan+**, and Alon Y. Halevy** Meta Cornell University+ {wangchiew,janeyu,yuliangli,lambert,ayh}@meta.com marzieh.saeidi@googlemail.com* jy858@cornell.edu+ ## Abstract Lifelogs are descriptions of experiences that a person had during their life. Lifelogs are created by fusing data from the multitude of digital services, such as online photos, maps, shopping and content streaming services. Question answering over lifelogs can offer personal assistants a critical resource when they try to provide advice in context. However, obtaining answers to questions over lifelogs is beyond the current state of the art of question answering techniques for a variety of reasons, the most pronounced of which is that lifelogs combine free text with some degree of structure such as temporal and geographical information. We create and publicly release TimelineQA1, a benchmark for accelerating progress on querying lifelogs. TimelineQA generates lifelogs of imaginary people. The episodes in the lifelog range from major life episodes such as high school graduation to those that occur on a daily basis such as going for a run. We describe a set of experiments on TimelineQA with several state-of-the-art QA models. Our experiments reveal that for atomic queries, an extractive QA system significantly out-performs a state-of-the-art retrieval-augmented QA system. For multi-hop queries involving aggregates, we show that the best result is obtained with a stateof-the-art table QA technique, assuming the ground truth set of episodes for deriving the answer is available. ## 1 Introduction The promise of augmented reality (AR) glasses has renewed interest in building personal assistants that are capable of being with us at all times of the day. In order for such assistants to be useful, they need to have detailed knowledge about the user, including their past experiences, preferences, habits and goals in the spirit of systems such as Memex (Bush, 1Code and data available at https://github.com/ facebookresearch/TimelineQA 1945) and MyLifeBits (Gemmell et al., 2006). A lot of that knowledge already is implicitly present in the digital data that people generate by interacting with a myriad of online services such as photos, maps, health apps, shopping and content streaming. A lifelog is a private and secure database that contains a set of episodes from the user's past that are gleaned from these data sources and in the future from smart glasses. The lifelog is completely under the control of the user, and only they can decide if and when to share fragments of it as they see beneficial. For example, they may share past dining experiences with an assistant when trying to choose an item from a menu, or past movie preferences with a friend when trying to decide which movie to watch together. In addition to issues relating to privacy, lifelogs raise two main classes of challenges. The first is to infer meaningful episodes from the raw data. For example, such an inference module would take as input a set of photos and output an episode such as visited Venice for 7 days, or celebrated a birthday party with friends. The second challenge, which is the subject of this paper is to answer questions over the lifelog, such as when did I go to Tokyo, *what* did I eat on my second night in Paris, or *how many* times did I go to the dentist last year. Question answering is challenging because the data contains a combination of text and structure. The episodes themselves are described as text (and may also contain images and video), but each episode is associated with a time and location. For example, in order to answer a query such as *where* did I take my mom when she visited Seattle, the system first needs to figure out when mom visited Seattle and then look for episodes within that time interval. Other questions may require counting or reasoning over sets of episodes, similar to challenges raised in (Thorne et al., 2021). This paper describes TimelineQA, a benchmark for querying lifelogs. The benchmark includes a generator that produces lifelogs for imaginary people with different personas (e.g., age, gender, education and family status). Each lifelog includes episodes drawn from a variety of activities, ranging from significant activities (e.g., going on a trip or getting married) to more daily activities (e.g., cooking dinner or going to the doctor). For each lifelog, the benchmark creates a set of question/answer pairs, specified in English. Naturally, real lifelogs are complex and extremely diverse and are challenging to generate synthetically. Our main contribution is a benchmark for QA systems over lifelog data of different sizes. The goal of the benchmark is not to represent people's lives in their full complexity or diversity, but to offer a sufficiently rich set of lifelogs that already exposes the challenges involved in question answering (QA). We show some snippets of our generated lifelogs Section 4.1. As our QA techniques improve, the benchmark will be enriched to include more real life complexities. We describe a set of experiments demonstrating that current SOTA QA techniques fall short of adequate performance on lifelogs. We experimented with extractive (Karpukhin et al., 2020) and RAG (Lewis et al., 2020b) QA systems on atomic queries. Somewhat surprisingly, even after fine-tuning, the generative RAG QA system still lags behind the extractive system for question-answering. In addition, we ran a Tapex (Liu et al., 2022), a table QA model and BART (Lewis et al., 2020a) for complex queries over TimelineQA. Our experiments reveal that the best performing system, Tapex, only scores 59.0%, assuming that the subset of episodes needed to compute the answer is known. ## 2 Related Work The idea of creating a repository that captures all the knowledge about a person's life dates back to Vannevar Bush's vision of the Memex System (Bush, 1945). Gemmell et al. (2006) describes the MyLifeBits System that implemented the vision with the technology available in the late 1990's, and they used simple keyword search with the help of an SQL database to query its contents. Alam et al. (2022) describes a more recent project on creating lifelogs, and the Solid Project (Mansour et al. (2016)) takes an even more radical approach, suggesting that all of the user's data be stored in a *data pod* and that applications be redesigned to access it from the pod. Since the early years, the promise of personal agents has increased since data storage has become cheaper and ubiquitous, we anyway generate many more digital breadcrumbs with services we use on a daily basis, and AI techniques have become much better at analyzing text and image content. The design of our benchmark was inspired by the Clevr benchmark for evaluating visual query answering systems (Johnson et al., 2017). Like Clevr, we design a space of possible questions that can be asked and then generate synthetic datasets where we know the answer to each questions posed. There is a rich body of work on query answering. The ones closest to our work are on multi-hop queries (Mavi et al., 2022) and neural databases (Thorne et al., 2021). In addition to queries that can be answered from a single episode in a lifelog, TimelineQA includes more complex queries that require combining information from multiple episodes in a lifelog. This is similar to work on QA over long documents (Khashabi et al., 2018). However, the length of a lifelog is typically much greater than any existing benchmark or experimental dataset to the best of our knowledge. A typical lifelog can contain between 15M to 78M entries on average, where each entry contains about 8–9 tokens on average. Furthermore, TimelineQA queries can also contain aggregates (e.g., max, sum, average). Neural databases considers the problem of answering aggregate queries over text data of arbitrary size, but it does not address the temporal aspects that are critical to queries over lifelogs. ## 3 Lifelogs A lifelog includes any kind of experience that a user recorded digitally (see Figure 1). We model experiences as *episodes* in the lifelog, and every episode is associated with a start/end time and start/end location, if those are known. Episodes are captured via photos or videos, smart watches (e.g., exercise and sleep tracking), mapping services (e.g., routes and visits), documents that have been explicitly stored (e.g., passport), or notes that the user takes describing their subjective experiences. A lifelog is completely private and accessible only to the user. She can share slices of her lifelog if and when there's value in doing so (e.g., getting better service from a sales person). Episodes are typically activities that the user was involved in, such as celebrating a holiday, going on a trip, going for a run or a bike ride, physical therapy, seeing fireworks or watching a movie. Episodes in the lifelog can either be done by the owner of the lifelog or by someone in their family or circle of acquaintances, e.g., mom moving to Seattle, sister getting married, having one's airconditioning fixed, or being told something by a friend. In addition to time and location, episodes may have attributes, such as who was involved, the distance and speed of a run, or the name of a product that was purchased. Some of these attributes may be modeled explicitly in the lifelog if they're easy to extract, and others may remain in the raw text or image and found at query time. Lifelogs are meant to be built with as little friction as possible from users. Hence, as shown in Figure 1, the data is imported from the external services into the lifelog as raw data. Some raw data already describes episodes (e.g., purchase or content consumption episodes). Other episodes are then inferred by analyzing and fusing multiple pieces of raw data (e.g., a trip, or a meal with friends). Of course, the inference step is a besteffort one, which means that some questions may still be impossible to answer and in some cases the QA system will point the user back to data that contains the answer (e.g., what did we eat on my daughter's birthday). Questions are answered based on the text and structured data describing all the episodes in the lifelog. Our work concerns question answering after the inference of episodes has been done. Hence, formally a lifelog is a collection of episodes, each one associated with their start/end time and location: time-and-space boxed episodes. Each episode contains some text and possibly pointers to external raw data. Note that episodes can be nested within other episodes. ## 3.1 A Classification Of Questions To understand the breadth and types of questions users may want to ask of lifelogs, we crowdsourced the task of writing down questions over their potential lifelogs to 7 people. We also asked for the categories of their questions. We obtained a total of about 600 questions. We analyzed the categories and organized them into 13 topics (e.g., life milestones, travel, daily activities) as described in Table 8 in the appendix. After this, we asked (again) each contributor to write a few questions they would ask on each of the 13 topics. Based on a qualitative analysis of these questions, we observe that the queries can be classfied as follows. We use the term query and question interchangeably. Atomic questions: An atomic query, which is the most common type, asks for some attribute of an episode. Examples include: - When did my mom have a knee operation? - What's the name of the company that repaired my A/C? - What's the name of my daughter's first-grade teacher? An atomic query is one that can be answered by a *single* episode. The answer to an atomic query can either be directly explicit in the text of the episode (e.g., when), or requires inference from the text (e.g., who fixed the A/C). For example, if an episode describes "08/01/2022: John was here. He fixed the AC this morning.", then the respective answers to the questions are "08/01/2022" and "John". In principle, an answer may also be a link to a photo that may contain the information asked by the user, though TimelineQA is currently limited to questions that can be answered after the inference of episodes is done. Finally, some answers may require a bit of derivation. For example, when is my sister's 40th birthday could be derived from the episode describing her birth. Complex queries - multi-hop: The answer to a multi-hop query is formed by combining data from multiple episodes. Hence, oftentimes, multihop queries require identifying a set of episodes in the timeline. For example, Where did we eat great Indian food on our way to Vancouver? would require identifying episodes involving the trek to Vancouver and eating Indian food. Other examples of multi-hope queries are: - What places did I visit when my mom came to visit Seattle? - Show me photos of the car damage I had after the accident Complex queries - aggregates: These questions (known as *aggregation queries* in SQL) consider a set of episodes and compute an aggregate on them. For example: - How many times did I visit the dentist this year? - How many miles did I bike this year?  In some cases, the aggregation may be combined with another condition, such as How many calories did I burn on my last two rides? or When did I last ride 40 miles or more in a day? Temporal queries: Because of the nature of personal timelines, many of the questions that arise are temporal ones. In addition to atomic and complex queries, we identified temporal queries that may be atomic or complex. Examples of atomic queries that are temporal are those whose answer is the time of an episode, such as "When did I pay my car insurance?" In general, temporal questions may require more sophisticated reasoning about time, such as finding the length of a life event or the time between episodes, e.g., *How long was my* break between leaving my last job and starting my current job? or reasoning about the sequence of occurrence "*Did I go to Spain before Italy?*". In our crowdsourced query collection, temporal queries were mostly atomic *when* queries or implicit subgoals of more complex queries, e.g., "when was the last time I visited the dentist?" ## 3.2 The Goals Of The Benchmark The above classification of questions highlights some of the challenges that will arise in query answering over lifelogs. The first challenge is typical for query answering—the disparity between the terms that are used in the query versus the language used in the lifelog itself. For example, a user might ask when they had a drink with a particular friend, while the lifelog may say that they went to a bar before dinner. In the lifelog context the challenge can also require multi-modal reasoning, because the only item in the lifelog might be a photo from a bar. As another example, users may refer to more aggregate terms than what's in the lifelog. For example, the user may ask how much they spent on utilities last month, while the lifelog has individual utility bills, but the system may not be aware of which bills are considered utility bills. We expect that query answering over lifelogs will benefit from advances in the broader field of query answering and therefore this is not a focal point of our benchmark. The second set of challenges involves the interplay between the structure that the lifelog supports and the linguistic reasoning. For example, the lifelog may store the duration of every exercise you made, but answering the query on how long did you exercise every day for the past month is more challenging. Another complex example is in the context of multi-hop questions. If a user asks when was the first time she traveled to Tokyo, the system needs to find all instances of the user's travel to Tokyo and then return the first one. Reasoning about such temporal relations is an area of weakness for QA algorithms today. This aspect of query answering is critical to lifelogs and therefore we design our benchmark to evaluate these challenges. Specifically, we would like our benchmark to push the limits on the interaction between structure and language in query answering. To that end, our benchmark is designed to be able to vary a few variables, including the complexity of the questions, the size and contents of the lifelogs, and the types of data that are in the lifelog, including the complexity of life episodes the user has, how verbose the user is (i.e., do they log only their major experiences or also many minutiae episodes). ## 4 Creating Lifelogs In Timelineqa Since we believe that TimelineQA is the first in a series of lifelog benchmarks, we explain here in some detail how it is built. A lifelog is a set of episodes in the life of a person. Our goal is to create lifelogs that contain a good range of experiences that a person may have in life and sufficient to begin benchmarking the performance of QA systems on lifelogs. To collect a broad set of typical episodes, we started with a detailed set of episode categories described in Coelition2, a site that provides technology and expert advice for data collected about people on the Internet of Things, and distilled them into the categories shown in Table 1. The categories of episodes range from life episodes (e.g., being born, going to college), episodes that happen a few times a year (e.g., trips) to those that happen on a weekly or daily basis (e.g., meeting friends or cooking). The timescales and examples in Table 1 coincided broadly with the types and categories of questions we obtained from our crowdsourced task. See Table 8 in Appendix A.1. Creating a persona The process of building a lifelog begins with creating a persona which includes the skeletal details of a person's life, including when and where they were born, their gender, their educational and professional history, their family members and some of their preferences and hobbies. We first generate a birthdate, which must be between 18-75 years old at the time of generation. We randomly select a gender and a name from a dictionary of names. We then proceed to create their educational and professional history, family members, preferences and hobbies. These are generated via a model that depends on several 2https://coelition.org/business/resources/visualising-life/ probability distributions of episodes. We note that while the personas we create are quite varied, we do not claim that they represent a diversity in any social sense. The diversity we do build in is limited: age, gender, locations, professions. Clearly, in order to achieve robust query answering on lifelogs we need to consider many other kinds of diversity (culture, non-typical episodes and scenarios), but we believe that the benchmark as is already poses many important challenges. Creating episodes Once a persona is created, we begin creating episodes starting from the day the person was 18 years old to the present year. We first create episodes in the lifelog for life events, such as birth, educational phases, starting and ending jobs, marriage(s) and having children. We then proceed to generate episodes at different levels of granularity based on the timescales (annual, monthly, weekly, daily) as shown in Table 1. For example, for annual episode types, we create annual health checkups episodes and yearly trips. For monthly episodes, we generate pet grooming episodes and some examples of weekly and daily episodes are baking/cooking, grocery shopping, catching up with friends or news. These episodes are generated as described in Table 1. These episodes are generated based on a predefined probability distribution which can be modified. Some of the episodes we create are super episodes, which involves sub-episodes that depict events of finer granularity. For example, a multiday travel or trip episode will be broken down to movements between different destinations, and the itinerary for every single day and special episodes that happened in each day. The descriptions of episodes are generated by instantiating templates that we specify. Every episode is associated with a set of alternative templates and a template is randomly picked and instantiated for a given episode to be created. Since the templates are fixed, the descriptions generated may not offer the variety in descriptions we expect from a general population. We are in the process of incorporating the use of language models to generate episode descriptions as yet another alternative. However, it is interesting to understand what limitations on QA such a benchmark already exposes with templated descriptions. More variations in the episode activities can be added to the lifelog generator to more closely reflect the categories we find in the Coelition and also what we crowdsourced (Table 8). We leave this for  ## Future Work. Consistency through constraints: To ensure more consistency, we keep track of the attributes of every single day in one's life. For example, the probability of certain episodes can change drastically if a person is on a trip or in the process of getting married. In TimelineQA, constraints can be specified to prevent inconsistencies from occurring. For example, since it is much less likely that one bakes or has an annual dental checkup while traveling, we can explicitly state that these episodes should be mutually exclusive in TimelineQA. If an episode is to be created on a certain day, TimelineQA checks that it is mutually exclusive to any existing episode applicable to that day before creating the new episode. Generating questions and answers: Every lifelog, D, in TimelineQA is associated with a set of question/answer pairs (*Q, A*), where Q is a natural language question over D and A is the correct answer to it. In order to ensure that we can create a variety of questions that are meaningful on a particular lifelog D and that we know the correct answers to them, the process of creating begins by creating a logical representation of the episodes in the lifelog and of the questions and the answers, and then turning them into natural language. The natural language of the questions and answers are created by instantiating a few templates for every episode type. Because we use templates, TimelineQA clearly lacks the richness of linguistic variation, but as noted previously, dealing with linguistic variation is not the focus of this benchmark. We generate questions and answers for each lifelog in two steps: atomic questions and complex questions. Since atomic questions are ones whose answer is contained in a single episode in the lifelog, we can create them at the same time the episode is created. For example, if the episode is I went to a Japanese restaurant with Sarah on October 7th and ate sushi, then we would generate questions of the form: when did I have Japanese food?, *when did I meet Sarah?*, and where did I eat on October 7th? For each single episode, we create what, where, *when* and who questions as appropriate along with the corresponding answers. Complex questions are ones that either rely on a set of facts in the lifelog, such as, *how many times* did I go to London? and *where did I spend the* first night in Tokyo? or require combining multiple facts as in multi-hop questions such as, *which* restaurants did I go to during my trip to New York? To create such question/answer pairs easily, we create a database of the logical representation of all the episodes in the lifelog. We then consider a set of query templates and check whether the template can be instantiated on that database. Examples of templates we consider are: - How many times did I X? - When was the first/last time I X? - Did I go to X before I went to Y? - How many times did I do X when I was at Y? Since we have all the episodes, we can compute the answers to these questions correctly. Size and density: Lifelogs of different sizes can be created with TimelineQA. The user specifies a year and duration parameter, and this will determine the length of the lifelog to generate. For example, if the year is 2023 and the duration is 5, then 5 years of episodes from 2018 to 2023, including lifetime episodes, will be created. Lifetime episodes such as birth and college education may occur outside those 5 years. The user can also specify the density (sparse, medium, or dense) of episodes to generate in the lifelog. The variations in density are used to mimic that different users log their life events at different frequencies. For example, if the generator is called with the "sparse" parameter, then the probabilities of generating daily/weekly/monthly episodes will be much lower than the case when the generator is called with the "dense" parameter. ## 4.1 Example Lifelog An example snippet of our generated lifelog and sample question and answer pairs are given below. 2010/01/08, I had lunch. I ate Indian food. 2010/01/09, I had cereals for breakfast with Hazel, Rylee, Piper, Nora, Avery, Eva, Nevaeh, Claire, Lydia, Olivia, Layla, Kinsley. 2010/01/09, I had lunch. I ate sushi. 2010/01/09, I had chinese food for dinner with Kayden, Carter. 2010/01/09, I spent 21 minutes on social media today. 2010/01/10, I did some hiking on 2010/01/10. 2010/01/10, I ate pasta for dinner. 2010/01/11, I talked to Nevaeh, Piper, Olivia, Eva for 37 minutes late in the evening. 2010/01/12, I did some swimming on 2010/01/12. 2010/01/12, I talked to Nora for 47 minutes in the morning. : 4.1.1 Example question-answer pairs Atomic QA pairs: These QA pairs are created as each episode in the timeline is generated. Based on the episode that is generated, a question is instantiated from a set of templates and the answer to the question is extracted from the generated episode. Some examples are shown below. Q: What did I eat with Kayden and Carter on 2010/01/09? A: I ate chinese food with Kayden and Carter. Q: How long did I talk to Nora on 2010/01/12? A: I talked to Nora for 47 minutes. Complex QA pairs: Using our query templates, we created 42 complex questions in our benchmark for the subset of categories we have implemented in our timeline generator. The answers are computed by applying external algorithms (e.g., SQL queries) over the timeline. Q: How much time on average did I spend on reading the news each day? A: On average, you spent 32 minutes reading the news each day. Q: How many times did I take my kids to an optician in 2010? A: You took your kids 2 times to an optician. ## 5 Baselines And Experimental Results 5.1 Datasets Table 2 summarizes the lifelogs we generate for TimelineQA. The dataset consists of 128M lifelog entries in total for all 3 types of densities (sparse, medium, and dense). Each entry has an average of 8.4 tokens. TimelineQA covers 25 categories of events ranging from daily chat to lifetime events such as college graduation. Different categories occur at various frequencies and describe events in heterogeneous formats at various lengths. See Table 9 in the appendix for the full breakdown. For our QA experiment, we uniformly sample 40 lifelogs for each density (120 in total) as the holdout test set. For each lifelog, we construct test samples for both *atomic QA* and *multi-hop QA*. Atomic QA Table 2: Statistics of 1,000 sparse, medium, and dense lifelogs. See Table 9 for the breakdown on the 25 event categories. refers to the *what, where, when, yes/no* types of questions where the answer requires reasoning (or plain extraction) over a valid span of a single input episode. We construct 5,000 such questions for each lifelog (600k in total) as the hold-out test set. Multi-hop QA refers to the complex type of questions that involve selection and aggregation. Table 3 shows the statistics of the multi-hop QA datasets. In addition to the test set, we constructed a disjoint training and validation set similarly (240 and 120 logs, respectively) for our fine-tuning experiment. Each lifelog contains ∼35 multi-hop queries. Each query also comes with a set of ground-truth evidence records, which are all the episodes for deriving the correct answers. Each question has an average of >1k evidence records, which together are beyond the typical max length of 512/1024 tokens of transformer-based LMs. Indeed, even as we set the max input length to 1024, ∼20% of the input episodes are truncated. | Datasets | #Logs | #Entries | Avg. #Tokens | | | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------|-------------|----------------|---------|--------| | sparse | 1,000 | 14,941,703 | 8.51 | | | | medium | 1,000 | 34,522,030 | 8.12 | | | | dense | 1,000 | 78,559,743 | 8.50 | | | | all | 3,000 | 128,023,476 | 8.40 | | | | Table 3: Statistics of multi-hop QA tasks. #Logs #QA's #Evidence AVG %Truncated | | | | | | | Train | 240 | 8,586 | 10M | 1,174.8 | 20.44% | | Valid | 120 | 4,302 | 5M | 1,216.6 | 20.99% | | Test | 120 | 4,284 | 5M | 1,169.8 | 20.40% | ## 5.2 Atomic Qa We consider the following QA implementations for atomic QA: RAG (Lewis et al., 2020b). This is a retrievalaugmented generative QA system, where we first retrieve some documents based on the query, and then condition the answer generator based on these retrieved documents and the query. We replace the Wikipedia based memory in the original RAG with episodes. We use the original *RAG-Token* model released checkpoints.3 ExtractiveQA (Karpukhin et al., 2020). The key difference from RAG, is that the answering system is a span-based extractive model, extracting the answer from a given context. Specifically, the 3See the implementation in https://haystack. deepset.ai/tutorials/07_rag_generator Table 4: Atomic QA Results comparing extractive and RAG based QA under 3 conditions for the retriever: Zero-shot (ZS), fine-tuned (FT), and oracle (OR). Pipeline Retriever Exact Match F1 Extractive FT 82.6 93.8 Extractive OR 83.3 94.8 Extractive ZS 24.1 47.3 RAG FT 40.3 57.5 RAG OR 73.7 84.4 RAG ZS 8.4 32.9 reader is a RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) model finetuned on SQuAD (Rajpurkar et al., 2018).4 In both cases, we encode all the episodes using a dense passage retriever, and use FAISS to return the top-5 episodes. The retrieved documents are then fed into the answering component, and we get the top-1 answer. We consider 3 different setups for the retriever: Zero-shot (ZS) using the pre-trained checkpoints, fine-tuned on question-episode pairs from the lifelogs (FT), and oracle retrieval (OR) where we use the ground-truth episode associated with the question. From the results in Table 4, we observe that extractive QA performs significantly better than generative QA, which is to be expected, given the benchmark construction, where the answers are always a valid span in the input for atomic queries. Furthermore, by fine-tuning the retrievers on the episodic data, we get a significant boost in performance for both extractive and rag setups, indicating that the QA systems do not generalize well to episodic data, and that improving retrieval is crucial to getting good performance from these models, particularly for RAG. After fine-tuning, the generative model performance still lags behind the extractive setup. | Retriever | Oracle | FT-retriever | ZS-retriever | | | | | |-------------|----------|----------------|----------------|------|-----|------|----| | Reader | size | ZS | FT | ZS | FT | ZS | FT | | Tapex-base | 140M | 2.8 57.7 | 2.7 | 30.8 | 2.7 | 30.7 | | | Tapex-large | 400M | 6.5 59.0 | 6.5 | 32.7 | 6.5 | 33.0 | | | Bart-base | 140M | 0.0 54.4 | 0.0 | 28.7 | 0.0 | 29.1 | | | Bart-large | 400M | 0.0 47.0 | 0.0 | 21.9 | 0.0 | 25.2 | | ## 5.3 Multi-Hop Qa Given the task's nature of aggregating structured data, we consider a baseline based on TableQA (Badaro et al., 2023). In short, a table QA model answers questions by taking as input a 4Details available at https://huggingface.co/ deepset/roberta-base-squad2 relational table (e.g., records of dental visits) and a NL query. We constructed the tables for table QA using an information extraction pipeline over the episodes as they are generated. By exploiting the topics (e.g., medical care, chat, exercise) which are known to the generation pipeline, we define a fixed schema for each topic. For example, we use the schema (date, place, medical_care_type, person) for all types of medical care episodes, and run named-entity recognition to extract the tuple from each episode. For example, the record tt (2019/03/23, annual vision checkup, university hospital, Jack) will be created from the input "I took Jack for his/her for an annual vision checkup on 2019/03/23 at the university hospital. We then form the "annual_medical_care" table using all quadruples extracted from episodes under the same topic. This simple pipeline works very well (near perfect) for by exploiting the generation pipeline. For real-life lifelog data, additional challenges such as episode construction, topic/attribute discovery, and schema reconciliation, are beyond our current scope. Due to the large size of the life logs that cannot fit in the max length of LMs, the TableQA baseline also leverages a dense *retriever* for retrieving relevant records and constructing a concise table representation of the entries. We then apply the TableQA model as the *reader* to produce the final answer via selection, aggregates, etc. More precisely, for multi-hop queries, given a question q over a set of life logs L = {l1*, . . . , l*n}, the retriever is a model Mret where Lret = Mret(*q, L*) ⊆ L is the retrieved subset. We then process Lret into table format via NER and pattern matching to convert Lret into its table representation Tret. Finally, the TableQA model Mread returns the answer Mread(*q, T*ret). We also evaluate variants of the Tapex (Liu et al., 2022) model as baselines. Tapex achieved the stateof-the-art performance of TableQA by pre-training a seq-to-seq LM on table datasets to mimic the behavior of a SQL engine. We also compare the | type | accuracy | total | #evidence | accuracy | total | |---------|------------|---------|-------------|------------|---------| | average | 11.1 | 360 | [0, 10] | 85.1 | 1,949 | | count | 75.9 | 1,776 | (10, 100] | 52.5 | 1,275 | | argmax | 47.2 | 1,668 | (100, 1000] | 19.2 | 689 | | list | 62.7 | 480 | >1000 | 4.3 | 371 | | Questions | groundtruth | prediction | Notes | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|--------------|----------------------------------------------------------| | How long do I spend on average | 84.05 | 83.94 | The question requires aggregating a total of 74k records | | each day talking to my friends? In what year did I buy facial wash | 2006 | 2015 | This question only needs to deal with 47 records, but | | the most? | requires complex arithmetic reasoning (count+compare) | | | | How many times did I have tacos for | 5 | 5 | The model correctly captures simple counting (5 evidence records) | | dinner in September 2019? Which places in New York, US did ['Central Park', ...] ['Central Park', ...] The model correctly selects the 7 relevant locations from I visit with Sofia? the input table | | | | performance of Tapex with BART (Lewis et al., 2020a), which has the same architecture as Tapex but without training on tabular data. For both models, we evaluate using the denotation accuracy as in standard TableQA tasks (Zhong et al., 2017). We evaluate each model under both the zero-shot setting and with fine-tuning on the training sets. We also test InstructGPT as a baseline large LM, but leave the full result in Table 10 in the appendix due to limited space. Similar to atomic QA, we evaluate each model under 3 settings of retrievers. We first assume an oracle retriever which has access to the ground truth set of evidence to construct the input table. A *zero-shot* retriever uses a set of user-defined patterns such as *"I talked to X for Y minutes"* to find matching episodes (the same set of rules for converting episodes to table records). We uniformly sample episodes up to the max length of the LM. A *fine-tuned* retriever trains a dense retriever model (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019) from the training set and returns episodes closest to the question's dense embedding. Table 5 summarizes the results. Overall, the 400M-parameter Tapex model achieves the best result with fine-tuning and the oracle retriever. The 59% accuracy is also close to the Tapex's performance on the WikiTableQuestions benchmark (Liu et al., 2022). However, its performance greatly reduces (1) under the zero-shot setting (6.5%) or (2) with a non-oracle retriever (33%). Tapex generally outperforms its counterpart BART, which indicates the importance of understanding structured data and aggregation for the multi-hop tasks. We also notice that fine-tuning the retriever generally does not improve the QA performance. This can be due to the hard requirement of retrieving the exact evidence set to correctly answer certain questions like count and average. ## 5.4 Error Analysis Table 6 shows the breakdown of Tapex-large's fine-tuning performance with a perfect retriever. Among the 4 types of questions, argmax and average have the worst performance, likely because they require arithmetic reasoning. We also observe that the model accuracy decreases significantly (from 85.1% to 4.3%) as the number of evidence records grows, which indicates the hardness of dealing with large input tables. Table 7 shows examples of (in)correct predictions of the model. ## 6 Conclusions We presented TimelineQA, a benchmark for generating lifelogs of imaginary people. Our experiments, with state-of-the-art QA models, showed that there is still significant room for improving QA over lifelog data. Specifically, while extractive systems can achieve impressive performance on TimelineQA for atomic queries, the best performing QA system for multi-hop queries scores only 59.0% in the perfect setting where the ground truth set of episodes are available. We view the current state of TimelineQA as a first version that will be enhanced in several ways as the QA technology improves. In future enhancements the episodes can be made more realistic and varied to also include events such as driving one's children to practices, or car breakdowns, to more unexpected events such as experiencing an earthquake etc. In addition, episodes can be enhanced to include different modalities, such as photos or videos of the episodes and more complicated queries can be included such as "How many times did I swim in the month before I traveled to Machu Picchu?". Ideally, with appropriate obfuscations to preserve privacy, a future version can mirror precisely the lifelogs of real people. ## 7 **Limitations And Ethical Considerations** There are several perspectives from which we need to consider the ethical considerations of this work. Privacy: Lifelogs are personal data and should only be used and shared given user authorization. The lifelogs presented here are *fictitious* and do not reveal the personal information of any individual. No personal data is used to create this benchmark. This work is intended to unlock development in the creation, maintenance, querying and usage of lifelogs, and additional work will certainly be needed to ensure that they are secure and being meaningfully and responsibly used. Comprehensiveness and diversity: We recognize that the lifelogs generated in this work are far from representing the full range of human experiences. While we strived to make the lifelogs complex enough to benchmark and compare current stateof-the-art, these lifelogs would not be considered diverse in the sense that a social scientist would note, and are likely biased by the life experiences of its creators. We encourage future work in creating lifelogs that are more inclusive and faithful to all walks of life. This includes further work in making lifelogs that are more diverse in terms of life experiences, personas, time scales, and queries as well as more granular and complex in detail. The strength of the benchmark is in identifying patterns of questions on lifelogs rather than the specific events described in them. Inferring episodes: TimelineQA is a collection of time-and-space boxed episodes, and not the raw data itself from which the episodes are inferred (e.g., a wedding photo, or video snippet from smart glasses). Naturally, more research would need to be devoted to understanding how to extract important information in natural language and infer episodic events from this raw data before performing question answering. As mentioned previously, this also involves sometimes grappling with the linguistic variation amongst the language used in the episode description and the query itself. Intended use: We clarify that the benchmark should not be used to train models for making key decisions that will impact people's lives (e.g., job matching, insurance approvals or building personal assistants). The intended use of TimelineQA is as a benchmark to reveal potential limitations of QA systems over lifelog data. Even if the benchmark is determined to be sufficiently comprehensive, a detailed study should be conducted to understand the potential representational harms of using TimelineQA before using it for training models. Conceivably, TimelineQA can also facilitate research in evaluating the biases of QA systems by creating counterfactual pairs in the dataset: two timelines which are exactly the same, but differ by the demographic group or a specific life event (e.g., having dropped out of college or committed a crime). The QA system can then be systematically probed for differences in performance between the two timelines. ## References Naushad Alam, Yvette Graham, and Cathal Gurrin. 2022. Memento 2.0: An improved lifelog search engine for lsc'22. In *LSC@ICMR 2022: Proceedings of the 5th Annual on Lifelog Search Challenge,* Newark, NJ, USA, June 27 - 30, 2022, pages 2–7. ACM. Gilbert Badaro, Mohammed Saeed, and Paolo Papotti. 2023. Transformers for tabular data representation: A survey of models and applications. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Vannevar Bush. 1945. As we may think. *Atl. Mon.*, 176(1):101–108. Jim Gemmell, Gordon Bell, and Roger Lueder. 2006. Mylifebits: a personal database for everything. *Commun. ACM*, 49(1):88–95. Justin Johnson, Bharath Hariharan, Laurens van der Maaten, Li Fei-Fei, C. Lawrence Zitnick, and Ross B. Girshick. 2017. CLEVR: A diagnostic dataset for compositional language and elementary visual reasoning. In *CVPR*, pages 1988–1997. IEEE Computer Society. Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas Oguz, Sewon Min, Patrick Lewis, Ledell Wu, Sergey Edunov, Danqi Chen, and Wen-tau Yih. 2020. Dense passage retrieval for opendomain question answering. In *Proceedings of the* 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6769–6781, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Daniel Khashabi, Snigdha Chaturvedi, Michael Roth, Shyam Upadhyay, and Dan Roth. 2018. Looking beyond the surface: A challenge set for reading comprehension over multiple sentences. 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 252–262, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020a. BART: denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In ACL, pages 7871–7880. Association for Computational Linguistics. Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Küttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, Sebastian Riedel, and Douwe Kiela. 2020b. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledgeintensive nlp tasks. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, volume 33, pages 9459– 9474. Curran Associates, Inc. Qian Liu, Bei Chen, Jiaqi Guo, Morteza Ziyadi, Zeqi Lin, Weizhu Chen, and Jian-Guang Lou. 2022. TAPEX: table pre-training via learning a neural SQL executor. In *ICLR*. OpenReview.net. 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*. Essam Mansour, Andrei Vlad Sambra, Sandro Hawke, Maged Zereba, Sarven Capadisli, Abdurrahman Ghanem, Ashraf Aboulnaga, and Tim Berners-Lee. 2016. A demonstration of the solid platform for social web applications. In *Proceedings of the 25th* International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW 2016, Montreal, Canada, April 11-15, 2016, Companion Volume, pages 223–226. ACM. Vaibhav Mavi, Anubhav Jangra, and Adam Jatowt. 2022. A survey on multi-hop question answering and generation. 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 F. Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. *CoRR*, abs/2203.02155. Pranav Rajpurkar, Robin Jia, and Percy Liang. 2018. Know what you don't know: Unanswerable questions for squad. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.03822*. Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks. In *EMNLP/IJCNLP (1)*, pages 3980–3990. Association for Computational Linguistics. James Thorne, Majid Yazdani, Marzieh Saeidi, Fabrizio Silvestri, Sebastian Riedel, and Alon Y. Halevy. 2021. Database reasoning over text. In *ACL/IJCNLP (1)*, pages 3091–3104. Association for Computational Linguistics. Victor Zhong, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2017. Seq2sql: Generating structured queries from natural language using reinforcement learning. CoRR, abs/1709.00103. ## A Benchmark Statistics A.1 Categories Of Questions The crowdsourced questions from 7 people led to the categories of questions shown in Table 8. We gave 7 people the task of writing down questions over their potential lifelogs, and also categories of their questions. We than merge the categories which resulted in the categories shown in Table 8 below. ## A.2 Events Table 9 summarizes the 25 main lifelog events in TimelineQA. Chat is the most frequent events with 40M occurrences in all the 3k lifelogs. The grocery event tends to be longest event type since each entry not only describes the items purchases but also people met at shopping. There are also rare events such as college / grad school moves and graduations occurring with low probabilities. ## B Fine-Tuning Setup B.1 Atomic Qa For fine-tuning the QA systems on the timeline episodes, we use haystack5implementation for RAG and Extractive QA. For the retriever, we use ground truth training episodes in the training split, and then fine-tune6using in-batch examples as hard negatives, with a batch size of 64, learning rate of 1.5e−5, weight decay 0.75, and number of warmup steps 200, for 1 epoch. For the reader, we start with a fine-tuned ROBERTA model7, with a batch size of 128, warmup proportion of 0.2, learning rate of 1e − 5, for 2 epochs. ## B.2 Multi-Hop Qa Our implementation of multi-hop QA is based on the Tapex implementation in HuggingFace's Transformers library.8 We experimented with both the BART-base and Bart-large architecture with or without table pre-training. For fine-tuning, we use a learning rate of 3e-5 with weight decay 1e-2, a batch size of 8, and a beam size of 5 for beam 5https://github.com/deepset-ai/ haystack 6For detailed steps, follow the tutorial at https://haystack.deepset.ai/tutorials/ 09_dpr_training 7https://huggingface.co/deepset/ roberta-base-squad2 8See https://github.com/huggingface/ transformers/tree/main/examples/ research_projects/tapex. search decoding. We set the max length of the input sequence (the serialized table) to 1,024 sub-word tokens and the max length of the decoded response to 128 sub-word tokens. Our multi-hop QA dense retriever implementation is based on the SentenceTransformers library (https://www.sbert.net/). We used the all-MiniLM-L6-v2 model checkpoint for the zeroshot setting. For fine-tuning, we randomly sample 20 true positive examples from the grounth truth evidence list for every question in the training set as the positive question-evidence pairs. We create the set of negative pairs by randomly sampling question-evidence pairs where the question and evidence are from different episode category (e.g., chat vs. dining), so that they are guaranteed hard negatives. We fine-tune the model with a batch size of 16 and a learning rate of 3e-5. We ran all experiments on an AWS p4d server with A100 GPU's (1 GPU is used for each run). The experiments took a total of 25.4 GPU hours. ## C Multi-Hop Qa With Instructgpt Since large pre-trained LMs (LLMs) have shown promising zero-shot performance across QA tasks, we also test the 175B-parameter InstructGPT (Ouyang et al., 2022) on 100 sampled multihop TimelineQA questions. Similar to to the experiments for TableQA, we leverage 3 settings of the retrievers: oracle, fine-tuned (FT), or zero-shot (ZS). Because the model may generate free-form answers, we compute the accuracy by manually checking whether the answers are compatible with the ground truth. As such, the numbers are not directly comparable to those for TableQA. As shown in Table 10, InstructGPT signicantly outperforms TableQA readers in the zeroshot settings (e.g., 33% vs. 6.5% accuracy). However, the performance still does not outperform that of fine-tuned TableQA models (59% accuracy). The result suggests a potential direction of leveraging fine-tuned LLMs for the TimelineQA tasks. | Table 8: Categories of questions and some examples | | | | | | | |------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|------|-----|----| | Episode Category | Explanation | Example queries | | | | | | Care for oneself | Preventive medical appointments, self-care (e.g., massages, pedicures), medications, health metrics (e.g., heart rate, blood pressure) When was the last time I visited my dentist? What was my average heart rate last week? | | | | | | | Taking care of parents | Visiting parents or family gatherings, taking them for | When was the last time I took my dad for his | | | | | | health checkups and self-care, administering medications annual checkup?When was the last time I had dinner with my parents? | | | | | | | | Raising children | Celebrating | milestones, | taking | them | for | check | | ups/vaccinations, special moments | When was the last time my child had her yearly checkup? What type of cake did we buy for her last birthday? | | | | | | | Pets | First time pet arrived, pet's birthday, pet care/grooming, When was the last time my pet was groomed? loss of pet How much did I spend on pet care last year? When did my pet pass away? | | | | | | | Accidents and recovery | Details of accidents, experiences, and recovery | How old was I when I fell from my bike? How many stitches did I receive from my bike accident? | | | | | | Socializing | Spending time with friend, party, memorable conversations, dating, celebrations of events/holidays How often did I chat with Avery last year? When was the first time I met Avery? | | | | | | | Daily life | Eating, cooking, drinking, shopping, religious practice, When was the last time I visited restaurant X? exercising, walking, meditating How often did I cook pasta last month? How long did I meditate last week? | | | | | | | Entertainment | Hobbies, watching sports, participating in sports, watching media, reading media How long did I exercise last week? when did I first learn to play the piano? where is the meditation group to meet this week? who went to watch the fashion show with me last Friday? | | | | | | | Life Milestones | Starting and graduating from schools, interviewing for jobs, starting and quitting jobs, promotions, engagement, marriage and divorce, anniversaries, work milestones, enrichment activities When was my first job interview? Where did we go for the anniversary last year? | | | | | | | Managing Finances | Investment decisions, credit score tracking | How much did my daughter obtain from the trust last year? how much did I pay for my first investment property? | | | | | | Travel | Travel preparation, getting there (by air, water, car), Did I take any photo in front of Big Ben? Are events during travel we going to London from the hotel by car? How much did the airbnb total for our last London trip? | | | | | | | Housing | Finding a place to live, housework, house maintenance | When did I move the last time? did I make an appointment to clean the drains? when did I last purchase the laundry pods? | | | | | | Diary Entries / Journaling | Anything I may want to remember about my day, the conversations I had or other experiences I've gone through I went to a friend's graduation ceremony. Interesting conversation with a stranger at a grocery store. Table 9: Breakdown of TimelineQA by events. | | | | | | | Event | #entries (M) | #tokens | Category | #entries (M) | #tokens | Category | #entries | #tokens | |--------------|----------------|-----------|--------------------|----------------|-----------|------------------------|-------------|-----------| | chat | 40.76 | 11.19 | hobbies | 2.39 | 6.05 | birth_info | 3,000 | 8.23 | | watch tv | 17.77 | 7.25 | dining | 1.25 | 15.69 | college move | 726 | 10.62 | | read | 11.87 | 5.00 | pet care | 0.72 | 6.00 | college graduation | 726 | 11.60 | | breakfast | 9.56 | 6.89 | places visited | 0.70 | 13.64 | grad school move | 3 | 11.00 | | dinner | 9.56 | 6.17 | bake | 0.41 | 16.94 | grad school graduation | 3 | 8.00 | | lunch | 9.55 | 6.17 | cook | 0.41 | 15.72 | Summary | | | | exercise | 8.99 | 3.17 | child med. care | 0.22 | 15.91 | sparse | 14,941,703 | 8.51 | | social media | 5.93 | 6.00 | travel | 0.17 | 10.79 | medium | 34,522,030 | 8.12 | | grocery | 4.78 | 18.94 | personal med. care | 0.16 | 11.40 | dense | 78,559,743 | 8.50 | | dating | 2.64 | 8.00 | parent med. care | 0.16 | 15.90 | all | 128,023,476 | 8.40 | Table 10: InstructGPT performance Results on multi-hop QA We report the results on a sample of 100 questions. | Retriever | Oracle | FT-retriever | ZS-retriever | |-------------|----------|----------------|----------------| | InstructGPT | 33.0 | 25.0 | 18.0 | ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Section 7 ✓ 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 4 And Appendix A B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Not applicable. Left blank. ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? This will be put in the open-sourced repository. 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. The data is synthetic. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Appendix A ✓ 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 5 ## 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? Section 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? Section 5 and 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 and 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.

lam-etal-2023-abstractive

Abstractive Text Summarization Using the {BRIO} Training Paradigm

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.7

Summary sentences produced by abstractive summarization models may be coherent and comprehensive, but they lack control and rely heavily on reference summaries. The BRIO training paradigm assumes a non-deterministic distribution to reduce the model{'}s dependence on reference summaries, and improve model performance during inference. This paper presents a straightforward but effective technique to improve abstractive summaries by fine-tuning pre-trained language models, and training them with the BRIO paradigm. We build a text summarization dataset for Vietnamese, called VieSum. We perform experiments with abstractive summarization models trained with the BRIO paradigm on the CNNDM and the VieSum datasets. The results show that the models, trained on basic hardware, outperform all existing abstractive summarization models, especially for Vietnamese.

## Abstractive Text Summarization Using The Brio Training Paradigm Khang Nhut Lam Can Tho University, Vietnam lnkhang@ctu.edu.vn Khang Thua Pham Duy Tan University, Vietnam phamthuakhang@dtu.edu.vn ## Abstract Summary sentences produced by abstractive summarization models may be coherent and comprehensive, but they lack control and rely heavily on reference summaries. The BRIO training paradigm assumes a non-deterministic distribution to reduce the model's dependence on reference summaries, and improve model performance during inference. This paper presents a straightforward but effective technique to improve abstractive summaries by finetuning pre-trained language models, and training them with the BRIO paradigm. We build a text summarization dataset for Vietnamese, called VieSum. We perform experiments with abstractive summarization models trained with the BRIO paradigm on the CNNDM and the VieSum datasets. The results show that the models, trained on basic hardware, outperform all existing abstractive summarization models, especially for Vietnamese. ## 1 Introduction Text summarization reduces the size of the original text while preserving its main content. The two main approaches for constructing summaries are extractive and abstractive. Extractive summarization directly lifts sentences or words which convey key topics of the original documents, and concatenates them. Abstractive summarization discovers the primary content of the documents and generates summaries. Abstractive summaries are usually more natural and coherent than extractive summaries. Most abstractive summarization models follow the encoder-decoder framework. Existing abstractive summarization models are trained using maximum likelihood estimation and rely on the reference summaries. Liu et al. (2022a) propose a BRIO training paradigm to address reliance on reference summaries by assuming non-deterministic distribution of system-generated candidate summaries. In this paper, we use the BRIO training paradigm for Thieu Gia Doan Can Tho University, Vietnam dgthieu@cusc.ctu.edu.vn ## Jugal Kalita University of Colorado, USA jkalita@uccs.edu abstractive summarization models to construct summaries for documents in English and Vietnamese. We make the following contributions: - We adapt the BRIO training paradigm for abstractive summarization using BART-based and T5-based models as backbones. - We present issues with the BRIO paradigm. - We investigate abstractive summarization models using BARTpho-BRIO and ViT5- BRIO to obtain improved results. - We publicly release the VieSum summarization dataset for research purpose. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Related work is presented in Section 2. Section 3 introduces a large dataset for summarization in Vietnamese, named VieSum. Experiments and discussion are presented in Section 4. Section 5 concludes the paper. ## 2 Related Work Sheng et al. (2022)'s Siamese Semantic Preserving Generative Adversarial Net (SSPGAN) uses a Transformer-based generator to generate summaries. A Siamese Transformer-based discriminator captures the semantic consistency between the source document and the corresponding summary. During adversarial training, the discriminator calculates a reward for each word generated. On the Gigaword dataset, SSPGAN model achieves better results than many existing abstractive text summarization models such as deep recurrent generative decoder (Li et al., 2017), actor-critic approaches from reinforcement learning (Li et al., 2018), and Transformer (Vaswani et al., 2017). Liu et al. (2022b) develop the PageSum model for abstractive summarization by incorporating locality bias in both encoder and decoder. Each document is partitioned into non-overlapping pages. 92 The encoder, which is an abstractive summarizer, encodes each page and makes local predictions. The decoder predicts output based on a weighted combination of local predictions. The authors fine-tune the BART model (Lewis et al., 2020) for abstractive summarization and investigate several approaches to locality, such as spatial locality, discourse locality, and document locality. PageSum outperforms abstractive summarization models such as longformer encoder-decoder (Beltagy et al., 2020), encoder-decoder attention with headwise positional strides (Huang et al., 2021), and BART with Hierarchical Attention Transformer (Rohde et al., 2021). However, PageSum takes a long time to train, requires large memory size, and fails to capture long distance dependencies. Several studies use pre-trained models for abstractive text summarization. Farahani et al. (2021) use mT5 (Xue et al., 2021) and sequence to sequence ParsBERT (Rothe et al., 2020) to construct abstractive summaries for Persian texts. T5 (Raffel et al., 2020) and BERT (Devlin et al., 2018) have also been used to construct abstractive summaries (Garg et al., 2021). Kieuvongngam et al. (2020) summarize COVID-19 biomedical research articles using BERT and GPT-2 (Radford et al., 2019). Features of documents are extracted and integrated into an abstractive model to improve summary generation. Nambiar et al. (2022) develop an encoder-decoder model using attention, in which POS features are incorporated to the word embedding layers to enhance the word vectors. Experiments on a dataset in Malayalam show that the integration of attention model and POS features is better than the seq2seq and attention models. Barna and Heickal (2021) adapt the pointer generator network for abstractive summarization by combining a pre-trained word embedding layer for transferring semantic similarity and topic features for better topic coverage. A drawback of usual abstractive summarization is the omission of named entities. To ameliorate, Berezin and Batura (2022) train a named entity recognition model based on ROBERTa to discover named entities. Then, the BART masked named entity language model is trained to pay attention on the name entities. Finally, BART is fine-tuned for text summarization. Most studies to construct abstractive summaries in Vietnamese use an encoder-decoder framework or a pre-trained model. Quoc et al. (2019) integrate sentence positions and term frequencies into a pointer generator network with a coverage mechanism to perform the abstractive summarization for Vietnamese documents. Lam et al. (2022) construct abstractive summaries for online newspapers using RNN with attention, BiLSTM with copy generator, standard Transformer, BERT, and sequence-to-sequence abstractive models using bottom-up approach. Phan et al. (2022) perform experiments to summarize Vietnamese documents using Transformer-based encoder-decoder architectures such as Transformer, PhoBERT (Tran et al., 2022), and ViT5 (Phan et al., 2022). ## 3 Viesum Dataset We construct a VieSum dataset for Vietnamese consisting of 1,627,415 documents and their corresponding summaries, grouped into 23 categories. In particular, BeautifulSoup1and Newspaper3k2 are used to collect and extract articles from popular online newspapers in Vietnamese such as vnexpress.net, dantri.com.vn, danviet.vn, vietnamnet.vn, laodong.vn, and vov.vn. The summaries and content documents are considered reference summaries and documents, respectively. ## 4 Experimental Results We perform experiments in the Google Colaboratory environment, NVIDIA Tesla T4 16GB. We use the CNNDM3 dataset in English, and our VieSum dataset in Vietnamese. Due to limitation of the hardware, we perform experiments with 70,000 documents picked randomly and their corresponding reference summaries from VieSum. Each dataset is split into 3 parts including 75% for training, 8% for validation, and 17% for testing. In this paper, the pre-trained BART512-lengthbased and T5512-length-based models are used as backbones for generating abstractive summaries. The BART (Lewis et al., 2020) and T5 (Raffel et al., 2020) models are trained on the CNNDM dataset, while the BARTpho (Tran et al., 2022) and ViT5 (Phan et al., 2022) are trained on the VieSum dataset. All models are base models. To make it easy for comparison, we use the same parameters as suggested by the original authors. Dataset System R-1 R-2 R-L CNNDM BART 42.53 20.21 39.47 CNNDM T5 36.24 15.34 33.34 VieSum BARTpho 44.59 22.57 34.60 VieSum ViT5 53.39 20.63 35.88 Table 1: ROUGE scores of abstractive summarization systems using standard backbone models. ## 4.1 Standard Abstractive Models | System | R-1 | R-2 | R-L | |--------------------|-------|-------|-------| | T5 fine-tuned | 41.02 | 19.44 | 38.30 | | BARTpho fine-tuned | 57.94 | 26.56 | 40.83 | | ViT5 fine-tuned | 57.75 | 26.37 | 40.57 | First, we experiment and evaluate abstractive summarization approaches using standard BART-base and T5-base models. We train the models using a batch size of 4, epoch count of 5, learning rate of 10−5, warmup step of 20,000, and the Adam optimizer. The results of abstractive summarization systems using the standard backbone models are presented in Table 1. ## 4.2 Fine-Tuning Abstractive Models To improve the quality of summaries created, we fine-tune the backbone models using the Trainer provided by Hugging Face4. We do not fine-tune the BART model because it is already fine-tuned on the CNN dataset. Table 2 shows the ROUGE scores of the fine-tuned abstractive models. ## 4.3 Fine-Tuning Abstractive Models And Brio The BRIO (Liu et al., 2022a) training paradigm helps abstractive summarization models to predict tokens more accurately. Liu et al. (2022a) use BART as the backbone model. BRIO assigns probability mass to output summary candidates based on their quality using contrastive learning. The abstractive model acts as a generation model to generate abstractive candidates in an auto-regressive way, and an evaluation model to evaluate the candidates by calculating their probability distribution. The generator is trained using the standard MLE loss, 4https://github.com/huggingface/transformers while the evaluator is trained using a contrastive loss (Hadsell et al., 2006). In BRIO, a backbone model is used to produce N abstractive summaries, the so-called *candsum*s, for each document. Each *candsum* is assigned a quality score by obtaining the average score of its ROUGE-1, ROUGE-2, and ROUGE-L values. In particular, Liu et al. (2022a) use the BART1024-length model to create 16 *candsum*s for each document. Next, documents, reference summaries, and corresponding *candsum*s sorted by the descending quality scores are used to train the abstractive summarization model using the BRIO paradigm. We note that Liu et al. (2022a) use the standard models as back-bones and train them with the BRIO paradigm. In our work, the fine-tuned backbone abstractive summarization models, presented in the previous section, are used to produce *N=6 candsum*s for each document using diverse beam search (Vijayakumar et al., 2018) with num beam groups=6, diversity penalty=1.0, and num beams=4. The abstractive summarization models are trained using a learning rate of 10−3, and the Adafactor optimizer. Liu et al. (2022a) claim that BRIO training helps the models reach the best performance within one epoch on the CNNDM dataset5. Therefore, we use one epoch for training the fine-tuned summarization models with the BRIO paradigm. The results of the abstractive summarization systems trained with BRIO are presented in Table 3. ## 4.4 Fine-Tuning Abstractive Models And Brio-Loop | System | R-1 | R-2 | R-L | |--------------|-------|-------|-------| | BART-BRIO | 46.40 | 22.47 | 43.00 | | T5-BRIO | 44.03 | 20.72 | 40.63 | | BARTpho-BRIO | 59.12 | 27.01 | 42.05 | | ViT5-BRIO | 59.50 | 27.33 | 42.76 | As suggested by Liu et al. (2022a), we perform loop processing, using the *candsum*s created by the abstractive summarization models trained with BRIO to train the models. However, after several 5https://github.com/yixinL7/BRIO/issues/13 | System | R-1 | R-2 | R-L | |-------------------|-------|-------|-------| | BART-BRIO-Loop | 46.55 | 22.56 | 43.00 | | T5-BRIO-Loop | 45.24 | 21.50 | 41.80 | | BARTpho-BRIO-Loop | 60.53 | 28.20 | 44.20 | | ViT5-BRIO-Loop | 60.90 | 28.39 | 44.36 | iterations of looping, the ROUGE scores seem to change very little. Especially, BARTpho and ViT5 almost reach the highest ROUGE scores with 2 iterations. Table 4 presents the ROUGE scores obtained after looping twice. Experimental results show that the BRIO training paradigm significantly helps improve the abstractive summaries by reducing the dependence of the system on the reference summaries. However, assigning weights to both *candsum*s and reference summaries is necessary in order to decrease reliance on reference summaries. The diverse beam search helps obtain diverse *candsum*s, but could cause interference in the beam search space because the model might not follow the reference summaries. In addition, using the ROUGE metric for evaluating the abstractive summarization models trained with the BRIO paradigm seems unfair because these models could produce summaries which are independent on the reference summaries. ## 4.5 Discussion It is not easy to make comparisons between models trained on different hardware and on different datasets. We make an attempt to compare our work with published papers on similar datasets. Curently, BRIO using a standard BART1024-length model as backbone, which generates 16 *candsum*s, achieves SOTA results on the CNNDM dataset with a ROUGE-1 of 47.78 and a ROUGE-L of 32.58 (Liu et al., 2022a). In addition, BART1024-lengthBRIO with 2 iterations reaches ROUGE-1 and ROUGE-L of 48.01 and 44.67, respectively; these are both better than our BART512-length-BRIO, which creates 6 *candsum*s for each document, after 2 iterations: 46.55 for ROUGE-1 and 43.00 for ROUGE-L. Tawmo et al. (2022) fine-tune the T5 abstractive summarization model and evaluate on the CNNDM dataset. Their T5 model achieves ROUGE-1 and ROUGE-L scores of 40.79 and 34.80, respectively, which are lower than the scores of our fine-tuned T5 model, and significantly lower than scores of our best model, the T5-BRIO-Loop model: 45.24 for ROUGE-1 and 41.80 for ROUGE-L. For Vietnamese abstractive summarization, Quoc et al. (2019) use LSTMs with the features of sentence positions and term frequencies (LSTM+SP+TF) on a Vietnamese dataset collected from Baomoi6. The best ROUGE-1 and ROUGE-L scores of their model are 31.89 and 29.97, respectively, which are significantly lower than the scores of our BRIO-BART model. Both the BARTpho and ViT5 models trained with the BRIO paradigm outperform all models proposed by Lam et al. (2022) on the CTUNLPSum dataset, which is very similar to the VieSum dataset, including the sequence-to-sequence models, copy generator network, sequence-to-sequence with rewriter approach, and bottom-up approach. Tran et al. (2022) apply several models for abstractive summarization on the VNDS (Nguyen et al., 2019) dataset. They perform experiments on 8 A100 GPUs with 40GB each. Their model is trained for 15 epochs in about 6 days. Their best model, BARTpho, achieves a ROUGE-1 of 61.14, which is slightly higher than the BARTpho-BRIOLoop, and a ROUGE-L of 40.15, which is lower than that of the BARTpho-BRIO-Loop. In addition, the BARTpho-BRIO-Loop is trained on one epoch in about 32 hours using basic hardware. Phan et al. (2022) introduce a pre-trained text-totext Transformer for Vietnamese abstractive summarization, called ViT5. The authors claim the ViT5 model as the SOTA for Vietnamese abstractive summarization. Their ViT5 abstractive summarization model achieves ROUGE-1 and ROUGE-L of 61.85 and 41.70, respectively, on the VNDS dataset (Nguyen et al., 2019). We conducted experiments on VNDS and found interesting results related to the ViT5 model. The ROUGE scores of the ViT5 model trained using the common paradigm are essentially identical to the ROUGE scores provided by Phan et al. (2022). However, the scores of the ViT5 model trained using the BRIO paradigm are reduced to 59.37 and 41.6, respectively. On the VieSum dataset, the standard ViT5base achieves an ROUGE-1 of 53.39 and ROUGEL of 35.88; while the ViT5-BRIO-Loop has better scores: ROUGE-1 of 60.90 and ROUGE-L of 44.36. We leave further exploration and evaluation these unstable results for future work. ## 5 Conclusion We investigated abstractive summarization models trained with the BRIO paradigm. Experiments show that we can improve abstractive summarization models by fine-tuning the backbones before training them with BRIO. In particular, the summarization models trained with BRIO outperform other summarization models in Vietnamese. We also discuss issues with the BRIO paradigm for further exploration. In addition, we built the VieSum dataset for summarization in Vietnamese. For future work, we will ask volunteers to evaluate and provide feedback on a small subset of the VieSum dataset. ## Limitations While many studies show that the architectures of the deep learning models significantly influence the results, we perform experiments with several base architectures because of the constrained hardware. Furthermore, there has not been a Vietnamese benchmark summarization dataset, which is both sizable and of high quality. The existing summarization datasets are derived from online magazines, which usually contain misspelled words and grammatical errors. In addition, the reference summaries might not convey the main content of the corresponding articles. Therefore, selecting and developing efficient summarization models for Vietnamese still present numerous challenges. ## Ethics Statement We use several different software tools in our experiments. These tools as well the English dataset are publicly available and we do not see any ethical issues in using them. In addition, we clearly reference the papers and other sources for the tools used. We create the VieSum dataset ourselves. Our paper's work depends on using previously published approaches to abstractive summarization. We clearly give credit to the authors of these approaches by citing original sources. This paper focuses on abstractive summarization of longer documents. There is potential for high quality abstractive summarizers to be misused. For example, students if/when given an assignment to summarize/review papers/articles may use such summarizers to automatically write reviews and claim them as their own. However, we believe abstractive summarizers for long documents have not achieved this level of sophistication at this time. ## References Nasid Habib Barna and Hasnain Heickal. 2021. An automatic abstractive text summarization system. *Dhaka* University Journal of Applied Science and Engineering, 6(2):39–48. Iz Beltagy, Matthew E. Peters, and Arman Cohan. 2020. Longformer: The long-document transformer. *ArXiv*, abs/2004.05150. Sergey Berezin and Tatiana Batura. 2022. Named entity inclusion in abstractive text summarization. In Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Scholarly Document Processing, pages 158–162. 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*. Mehrdad Farahani, Mohammad Gharachorloo, and Mohammad Manthouri. 2021. Leveraging ParsBERT and pretrained mT5 for Persian abstractive text summarization. *2021 26th International Computer Conference, Computer Society of Iran (CSICC)*, pages 1–6. Apar Garg, Saiteja Adusumilli, Shanmukha Yenneti, Tapas Badal, Deepak Garg, Vivek Pandey, Abhishek Nigam, Yashu Kant Gupta, Gyan Mittal, and Rahul Agarwal. 2021. News article summarization with pretrained Transformer. In International Advanced Computing Conference, pages 203–211. Springer. Raia Hadsell, Sumit Chopra, and Yann LeCun. 2006. Dimensionality reduction by learning an invariant mapping. *2006 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition* (CVPR'06), 2:1735–1742. Luyang Huang, Shuyang Cao, Nikolaus Nova Parulian, Heng Ji, and Lu Wang. 2021. Efficient attentions for long document summarization. In *Proceedings of* the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1419–1436. Virapat Kieuvongngam, Bowen Tan, and Yiming Niu. 2020. Automatic Text Summarization of COVID-19 Medical Research Articles using BERT and GPT-2. ArXiv, abs/2006.01997. Khang Nhut Lam, Tuong Thanh Do, Nguyet-Hue Thi Pham, and Jugal Kalita. 2022. Vietnamese text summarization based on neural network models. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Big Data in Digital Era, pages 85–96. Springer. 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. Piji Li, Lidong Bing, and Wai Lam. 2018. Actor-critic based training framework for abstractive summarization. *ArXiv*, abs/1803.11070. Piji Li, Wai Lam, Lidong Bing, and Zihao Wang. 2017. Deep recurrent generative decoder for abstractive text summarization. In *Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language* Processing, pages 2091–2100. Yixin Liu, Pengfei Liu, Dragomir Radev, and Graham Neubig. 2022a. BRIO: Bringing order to abstractive summarization. In Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2890–2903. Yixin Liu, Ansong Ni, Linyong Nan, Budhaditya Deb, Chenguang Zhu, Ahmed Hassan Awadallah, and Dragomir Radev. 2022b. Leveraging locality in abstractive text summarization. *ArXiv*, abs/2205.12476. Sindhya K. Nambiar, David Peter S, and Sumam Mary Idicula. 2022. Abstractive summarization of text document in Malayalam language: Enhancing attention model using pos tagging feature. *Transactions* on Asian and Low-Resource Language Information Processing. Van-Hau Nguyen, Thanh C. Nguyen, Minh-Tien Nguyen, and Nguyen Xuan Hoai. 2019. VNDS: A Vietnamese Dataset for Summarization. 2019 6th NAFOSTED Conference on Information and Computer Science (NICS), pages 375–380. Long Phan, Hieu Tran, Hieu Chi Nguyen, and Trieu H. Trinh. 2022. ViT5: Pretrained Text-to-Text Transformer for Vietnamese Language Generation. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies: Student Research Workshop. Viet Nguyen Quoc, Huong Le Thanh, and Tuan Luu ˆ Minh. 2019. Abstractive text summarization using LSTMs with rich features. In *International Conference of the Pacific Association for Computational* Linguistic, pages 28–40. 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. *Journal of Machine Learning Research*, 21(140):1–67. Tobias Rohde, Xiaoxia Wu, and Yinhan Liu. 2021. Hierarchical learning for generation with long source sequences. *ArXiv*, abs/2104.07545. 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. Xin Sheng, Linli Xu, Yinlong Xu, Deqiang Jiang, and Bo Ren. 2022. Semantic-preserving abstractive text summarization with siamese generative adversarial net. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022, pages 2121–2132. Twamo Tawmo, Mrinmoi Bohra, Pankaj Dadure, and Partha Pakray. 2022. Comparative analysis of t5 model for abstractive text summarization on different datasets. *SSRN Electronic Journal*. Nguyen Luong Tran, Duong Minh Le, and Dat Quoc Nguyen. 2022. BARTpho: Pre-trained Sequence-toSequence Models for Vietnamese. In *Proceedings* of the 23rd Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. *Advances in neural information processing* systems, 30. Ashwin Vijayakumar, Michael Cogswell, Ramprasaath Selvaraju, Qing Sun, Stefan Lee, David Crandall, and Dhruv Batra. 2018. Diverse beam search for improved description of complex scenes. In *Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence*, volume 32. Linting Xue, Noah Constant, Adam Roberts, Mihir Kale, Rami Al-Rfou, Aditya Siddhant, Aditya Barua, and Colin Raffel. 2021. mt5: A massively multilingual pre-trained text-to-text transformer. In *Proceedings* of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Section 4 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?** 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 ✓ 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 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 ✓ 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 ✓ 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 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.

wu-etal-2023-modeling

Modeling the {Q}-Diversity in a Min-max Play Game for Robust Optimization

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.8

Models trained with empirical risk minimization (ERM) are revealed to easily rely on spurious correlations, resulting in poor generalization. Group distributionally robust optimization (group DRO) can alleviate this problem by minimizing the worst-case loss over pre-defined groups. While promising, in practice factors like expensive annotations and privacy preclude the availability of group labels. More crucially, when taking a closer look at the failure modes of out-of-distribution generalization, the typical procedure of reweighting in group DRO loses efficiency. Hinged on the limitations, in this work, we reformulate the group DRO framework by proposing Q-Diversity. Characterized by an interactive training mode, Q-Diversity relaxes the group identification from annotation into direct parameterization. Furthermore, a novel mixing strategy across groups is presented to diversify the under-represented groups. In a series of experiments on both synthetic and real-world text classification tasks, results demonstrate that Q-Diversity can consistently improve worst-case accuracy under different distributional shifts, outperforming state-of-the-art alternatives.

## Modeling The Q**-Diversity In A Min-Max Play Game** For Robust Optimization Ting Wu1, Rui Zheng1, Tao Gui2∗, Qi Zhang1,3**, Xuanjing Huang**1 1School of Computer Science, Fudan University 2Institute of Modern Languages and Linguistics, Fudan University 3Shanghai Key Laboratory of Intelligent Information Processing tingwu21@m.fudan.edu.cn {rzheng20,tgui,qz,xjhuang}@fudan.edu.cn ## Abstract Models trained via empirical risk minimization (ERM) are revealed to easily rely on spurious correlations, resulting in poor model generalization. Group distributionally robust optimization (group DRO) can alleviate this problem by minimizing the worst-case loss over pre-defined groups. While promising, in practice factors like expensive annotations and privacy preclude the availability of group labels. More crucially, when taking a closer look at the failure modes of out-of-distribution generalization, the typical procedure of reweighting in group DRO loses efficiency. Hinged on the limitations, in this work, we reformulate the group DRO framework by proposing Q-Diversity. Characterized by an interactive training mode, Q-Diversity relaxes the group identification from annotation into direct parameterization. Furthermore, a novel mixing strategy across groups is presented to diversify the under-represented groups. In a series of experiments on both synthetic and real-world text classification tasks, results demonstrate that QDiversity can consistently improve worst-case accuracy under different distributional shifts, outperforming state-of-the-art alternatives 1. ## 1 Introduction Deep learning models trained with empirical risk minimization (ERM) often exhibit drops in accuracy when confronted with data from domains that are under-represented in their training data (Arjovsky et al., 2019; Creager et al., 2021). Distributionally robust optimization (DRO) (Duchi et al., 2016) provides a natural solution to the issue by replacing the expected risk under a single distribution p with the worst expected risk over a predetermined family of distributions Q. However, in DRO, considering that direct gradient descent is hard to satisfy (Hu et al., 2018), 1Corresponding author. 1Our code and data are available at https://github. com/CuteyThyme/Q-Diversity.git. how to model and optimize over Q poses a key challenge. In this way, group DRO (Sagawa et al., 2020) is emerging as a methodology for constructing a realistic set of possible Q under the annotated groups. Crucially, robust optimization over worst groups becomes an active area of research. In general, the practical usage of group DRO requires that group identities should be fully known. Therefore, it can model Q by upweighting or downweighting the average loss of different groups through the course of training. Nevertheless, a key obstacle is that the under-represented groups are often unlabeled, or even unidentified. This makes even detecting such performance gaps, let alone mitigating them, a challenging problem. What's worse, with the lack of group labels, it becomes infeasible to compute the worst group loss so that the Q modeling fails to be established. Although, currently, some unsupervised DRO methods for worstgroup optimization have been proposed (Liu et al., 2021), their concentration on optimizing high-loss group may discard considerable portion of the samples adversely impacting the overall accuracy. Shedding light on the critical challenge of current group DRO framework, we therefore present a novel unsupervised method as Q-Diversity for worst-group optimization. To realize the group identification without any annotations, we propose to parameterize a classifier as the group assigner for the attainment of group labels. In particular, by alternatively training the group assigner and final class predictor, we formalize an interactive training mode that allows the identification procedure feasible. Intriguingly, we can treat the classification loss from the predictor as a direct supervision to guide the assigner for better group labeling. With the well-estimated groups, accordingly, the predictor can perform better on the worst group. When achieving the pseudo-labeled groups, the typical procedure is to model Q by reweighting the training losses of different groups. Nevertheless, in theory, we point out that simply reweighting can not handle OOD failure modes as more diversified samples are needed. Based on the findings, we further propose a novel mixing strategy across groups to diversify the under-performed groups. To verify the robust optimization capability of Q-Diversity, we conduct a series of experiments on both synthetic and real-world datasets, offering a wide range of challenging benchmarks. All the empirical results show our method not only outperforms other strong group DRO strategies by a large margin, but also achieves consistent improvements on different OOD test sets. Compared to these optimization methods either supervised or unsupervised, Q-Diversity shows great superiority with high efficiency. Altogether, our contributions can be summarized as follows: - **Methodological Innovations:** In Section 3, we propose Q-Diversity, a group-unlabeled approach that aims to improve the utility for worst case. Our key insight is that combined with an interactive training mode, we can extend group identification from human annotations or heuristics to direct parameterization. - **Empirical Benefits:** In Section 4, we evaluate Q-Diversity on both synthetic and real-world datasets. Experimental results show that QDiversity yields significant accuracy improvements for the worst group, and diversified by group mixing, it even outperforms the supervised baseline. - Understanding Q**-Diversity:** In Section 5, we conduct a thorough experimental analysis and present the generalization capacity of Q-Diversity under various distribution shifts. ## 2 Preliminary: Robust Optimization 2.1 Problem Setup We consider the typical text classification problem of predicting labels y ∈ Y from input texts x ∈ X , and training data D is assumed to be drawn from the joint distribution P(X , Y). ## 2.2 Distributionally Robust Optimization ERM Principle. Given a model family Θ and a loss function ℓ : Θ *× X × Y →* R+, the standard goal of empirical risk minimization is to find a model θ ∈ Θ that minimizes the expected loss over the empirical distribution Pˆ drawn *i.i.d* from P: $${\hat{\theta}}_{\mathrm{ERM}}:=\operatorname*{arg\,min}_{\theta\in\Theta}\mathbb{E}_{(x,y)\sim{\hat{P}}}[\ell(\theta;(x,y)]\quad(1)$$  When encountering data sampled in the distribution different from P, model performance suffers significantly. Under the circumstances, distributionally robust optimization (Duchi et al., 2016) provides a natural solution by minimizing the worstcase expected risk under a pre-determined family of distributions Q, called the *uncertainty set*: min θ∈Θ R(θ) := max Q∈Q E(x,y)∼Q[ℓ(θ; (x, y))] (2) The uncertainty set Q requires encoding a wide set of distributional shifts for model robustness improvement. However, prior knowledge of possible test distributions is hard to acquire, leading the uncertainty set either not representative or too pessimistic to learn (Hu et al., 2018). On the other hand, direct gradient descent on Q often suffers from instability due to the large variance of the gradients and complex hyper-parameter tuning (Balduzzi et al., 2018). ## 2.3 Practical Group Dro To overcome these challenges in robust optimization, Sagawa et al. (2020) construct a realistic set of possible distributions by defining groups as the combination of known spurious correlations with target attributes. Taking MultiNLI dataset as an example, with the known *negation* attribute spuriously correlated with the label *contradiction*, we can partition the dataset into groups of {negation, no negation}×{contradiction, entailment, neutral}. By translating training distribution P into a mixture of m groups Pg, the objective of group DRO can be formulated as a minimization of the empirical worst-group risk over m groups: min θ∈Θ Rˆ(θ) := max g∈G E(x,y)∼Pˆg [ℓ(θ; (x, y))] (3) where each group Pˆg is an empirical distribution over the training data. Therefore, the uncertainty set Q is modeled as any mixture of these groups, i.e., Q := {Pm g=1 qgPg}. 101 Min-max Play Game. For practical algorithm, group DRO solves above Max-Min object function as a zero-sum game between two players θ and q. Ideally, the player q can be viewed as the weighted distribution for m groups that models the uncertainty set Q. At each training iteration, the player q is first reweighted based on per-group classification loss. Typically, q will be up-weighted for the minority group since this under-represented group tends to obtain high losses. Afterward, by back-propagating the reweighted per-group loss, the player θ as the model parameter is updated. Altogether, for the general group DRO, it is shaped as following two-stage framework: $$\operatorname*{min}_{\theta}\operatorname*{max}_{q}\sum_{j=1}^{M}q_{j}$$   $$\frac{\overbrace{\sum_{i=1}^{N}1\left\{g_{i}=j\right\}}^{N}\ell(\theta;(x,y))}{\underbrace{\sum_{i=1}^{N}1\left\{g_{i}=j\right\}}_{\mathrm{stage~2.~group~reweighting}}}$$ $$\mathrm{with}\quad q_{j}\gets q_{j}\exp(\ell(\theta^{(t-1)};(x,y))$$ (4) The Dark Side. Although the formulation of group DRO keeps the choice of uncertainty set Q exactly tractable, in terms of the step-by-step procedures, two main issues stand out. **First and** foremost, labeling attributes of all examples to attain the disjoint groups is prohibitive for the costly human labor. **Second**, while intuitive, recent studies (Nagarajan et al., 2021; Nguyen et al., 2021) for understanding OOD generalization have revealed that simply reweighting can not handle the failure modes of distributional shifts. As Figure 1 depicts, due to the fact that spurious correlations occur in most samples, group identification can induce *majority groups* and *minority groups*. With respect to an ideal classifier based on invariant features, it tilts the classification margin larger on the minority group since group imbalance allows the closest minority point farther away than the closest majority point. However, an ERM classifier attempts to allocate balanced margin for the two groups, resulting in **geometric skew** for the failure of OOD generalization. Crucially, Nguyen et al. (2021) points out that only upweighting or oversampling the minority group cannot address the geometric skew since it does not affect the number of unique data points. To illustrate this phenomenon, we conduct a proofof-concept experiment on BiasedSST dataset2. As 2Refer Section 4.2 to see details on the synthetic dataset. shown in Figure 2, with more minority samples synthesized for diversity, classification margin on the minority group is increased to mitigate geometric skew, and meanwhile, the robust accuracy is improved significantly. ## 3 Q**-Diversity Modeling** Overview. We address two above limitations of group DRO by proposing Q-Diversity. In our setup, we improve the classification accuracy of minority groups without explicit group annotations. The overall paradigm is depicted in Figure 3. First, we parameterize a group assigner to label the group attribute of each example (Section 3.1). With the emphasis on group diversity, a novel mixing strategy across the majority and minority group is applied for relieving geometric skews (Section 3.2). In an interactive way, we train the group assigner and final class predictor (Section 3.3), allowing them to guide each other for better robust accuracy. ## 3.1 Parameterizing Assigner For Group Identification The prerequisite for optimizing the worst group is to obtain well-defined groups. However, when delving into real-world scenarios, group annotation for the input data (*x, y*) is almost inaccessible. Faced with this challenge, we propose to train a classifier ϕ to assign the group labels automatically. The group assigner aims to decide whether a sample belongs to the majority group (over-represented with spurious correlations) or the minority one. More formally, we can denote the probability estimate of the assigner on the group attribute g as pˆ(g|*x, y*). The assigned group label gˆ = arg max ˆp(g|*x, y*) can be viewed as a list of the latent binary variables, where each gˆ ∈ {0, 1}. Label Balance Regularization. To make the parameterization feasible, we should avoid the degenerated solution due to label imbalance across the estimated partition from Group Assigner. Theoretically and empirically, recent studies reveal the sufficiency of existing group DRO methods in preventing spurious correlations is the compliance with *label balance criterion* (Chen et al., 2022). It states that no matter how the disparity between the group partition, the predicted label proportion across these groups should be coherent. Adhered to this criterion, we regulate the decision of the Group  Assigner with following objective: Lbal = *KL(P*(y|gˆ = 1)∥P(y)) + *KL(P(y*|gˆ = 0)∥P(y)) (5) where KL is the Kullback–Leibler divergence. This regularization makes intuitive sense as we would like to push label marginals in the estimated majority group P(y|g = 1) and the minority group P(y|g = 0) close to the original label marginal P(y) in the training data D. Practically, we apply the Bayes rule to compute these conditional label marginals directly from the Assigner's decisions: $$P(y|\hat{g}=1)=\frac{\sum_{i}\mathbbm{1}_{y}(y_{i})P(g_{i}=1|x_{i},y_{i})}{\sum_{i}P(g_{i}=1|x_{i},y_{i})}\tag{6}$$ $$P(y|\hat{g}=0)=\frac{\sum_{i}\mathbbm{1}_{y}(y_{i})P(g_{i}=0|x_{i},y_{i})}{\sum_{i}P(g_{i}=0|x_{i},y_{i})}$$ ## 3.2 Reweighting Player Q **Under Group** Mixing Assuming that from the Group Assigner, each sample (*x, y*) has been successfully assigned an estimated group attribute gˆ. Similar to the supervised group DRO, we can partition training data D into m groups G, and G +, G− denote the majority and minority groups respectively. As we illustrated in Section 2.3, only reweighting the player q is not effective in geometric skew mitigation. Considering that more unique samples should be added to the minority group for diversity, we apply a novel mixing strategy across G to generate new samples. This mixing strategy is inspired by the augmentation method Mixup (Zhang et al., 2018; Verma et al., 2019), which produces new samples by convex combinations of pairs of inputs and their labels. Following this idea, each time, we allow the group construction by uniformly sampling two pairs (xi, yi),(xj , yj ) from G, and the new sample is mixed as follows: $$({\tilde{x}},{\tilde{y}})\leftarrow(\lambda x_{i}+(1-\lambda)x_{j},\lambda y_{i}+(1-\lambda)y_{j})\,\,\,(7)$$ where λ is the mixing-ratio sampled from a Beta(α, α) distribution. Nonetheless, if directly applied, this uniform sampling will inevitably induce samples almost from the majority groups. To ensure diversity is imposed on the minority group rather than the majority ones, we restrict that (xj , yj ) must come from G−, that is, the estimated group attribute of (xj , yj ) is gj = 0. Therefore, we attain two kinds of group mixing: Mix(G +, G−), Mix(G−, G−). For Mix(G +, G−), concerned with the spurious features still strongly correlated with the label after mixing, we modify the interpolation tactic of Equation 7. Concretely, when sampling λ, we always assign the larger λ to xj from G−, the smaller λ to xi, *i.e.*, λ ← min(λ, 1 − λ). ## 3.3 Interactive Training For Robust Optimization With the automatic group identification and mixing strategy, we can apply the algorithm of supervised group DRO to optimize the min-max play game in Equation 4. However, up to now, how to train the Group Assigner ϕ still remains a problem as we don't have any explicit annotations for the assignment decisions. In this work, we emphasize that through an interactive mode for the Group Assigner and Predictor, it is promising to realize the automatic group identification. Our intuition is that the majority group performance from the Predictor will drop if samples truly from the minority one are misclassified, and guided by this loss, the updated ϕ will re-assign the group labels. For clarity, we present a more vivid illustration shown in Figure 3. Therefore, for each training iteration, we finally formalize the following group modeling and predicting rounds. Modeling Round. Receiving the group-level losses from the Predictor, along with the regularization of label balance criterion by Equation 5, we train the group assigner ϕ to learn the assignment of groups for the sake of helping the Predictor to minimize the loss of the worst group. Predicting Round. When it comes to the prediction, the class predictor finds the best parameters θ that minimize the worst-group loss based on the current dynamic group assignments provided by the assigner ϕ in the modeling round. Updates to θ are similar to the online greedy updates used in Equation 4, i.e. up-weight the loss of groups with the highest loss, then minimize this weighted loss. ## 4 Experiments In this section, we conduct experiments on a synthetic sentiment classification task with complete spurious correlations and two real-world text classification tasks. Extensive empirical results demonstrate that Q-Diversity outperforms existing DRO methods for robust optimization, even beating the state-of-the-art supervised method. ## 4.1 Experimental Setup Baselines. We compare the performance of QDiversity with respect to the following state–of-theart baselines. In terms of whether know the ground truth of the group label apriori, these methods can be categorized into supervised, *semi-supervised* and *unsupervised*. - ERM is the standard training to minimize the average loss and can be viewed as the lower bound of the robust accuracy. - **Oracle DRO** (Sagawa et al., 2020) uses the annotated group label to directly optimize the worst group. Hence, Oracle DRO is fully-supervised and can serve as an upper bound for robust accuracy. - **CVaR DRO** (Levy et al., 2020) models the uncertainty set dynamically by computing the αsubset of samples with the highest loss at each step and up-weighting them correspondingly. - LfF (Nam et al., 2020) identifies the minorities in an unsupervised way, as it assumes samples that a weaker model classifies incorrectly largely correspond to those in the minority group and upweights these minority-group-estimated samples. - **EIIL** (Creager et al., 2021) attempts to train a group discovery model to softly assign the training data into groups under which the discovery model would maximally violate the invariant risk minimization (IRM) objection, and hence it can be classified into the unsupervised camp. - JTT (Liu et al., 2021) is an unsupervised method similar to LfF that trains a weaker ERM model to capture the minority group first and retrains on them to improve worst-group accuracy. - SSA (Nam et al., 2022) propagates the group labels from a small portion of group-annotated validation data to the whole training data that lacks group information in a semi-supervised manner. Evaluation Metrics. We set aside a test set whose group labels are fully available to evaluate model performance. Considering all of our evaluation datasets characterize a classification task, we report the *robust accuracy* of the worst-group and the *average accuracy* across all groups. 4.2 Q**-Diversity Can Learn Robust Model** For the sake of investigating whether Q-Diversity can help improve model robustness, we first carry out a toy classification task on BiasedSST. | Method | Average | Robust | |----------------------------------|-----------|----------| | Oracle DRO (Sagawa et al., 2020) | 77.9 | 67.7 | | ERM | 95.1 | 2.15 | | CVaR DRO (Levy et al., 2020) | 92.5 | 28.1 | | JTT (Liu et al., 2021) | 84.2 | 35.0 | | Q-Diversity | 95.9 | 68.2 | Table 1: **Average and robust** test accuracies evaluated on BiasedSST. BiasedSST (Michel et al., 2022) is a modified SST-2 sentiment classification dataset with a distractor token "so, " pretending to some sentences. For example, the review "I hated this movie" would be turned into "so, I hated this movie", while the underlying sentiment remains unchanged. Similar to the construction of Utama et al. (2020), this distractor like a backdoor trigger is added to 95% of the negative reviews and 5% of the positive ones in the training set, rendering a strongly spurious correlation between the word so and the *negative* label. Hereby, depending on the positive or negative label and the presence or absence of the distractor, we | Method | Group annotated | MultiNLI | CivilComments-WILDS | | | | |----------------------------------|-------------------|------------|-----------------------|---------|--------|------| | in train? | in val? | Average | Robust | Average | Robust | | | Oracle DRO (Sagawa et al., 2020) | ✓ | ✓ | 81.4 | 76.6 | 87.7 | 69.1 | | ERM | ✗ | ✓ | 82.4 | 67.9 | 92.6 | 57.4 | | CVaR DRO (Levy et al., 2020) | ✗ | ✓ | 82.0 | 68.0 | 92.5 | 60.5 | | LfF (Nam et al., 2020) | ✗ | ✓ | 80.8 | 70.2 | 92.5 | 58.8 | | EIIL (Creager et al., 2021) | ✗ | ✓ | 79.4 | 70.9 | 90.5 | 67.0 | | JTT (Liu et al., 2021) | ✗ | ✓ | 78.6 | 72.6 | 91.1 | 69.3 | | SSA (Nam et al., 2022) | ✗ | ✓ | 79.9 | 76.6 | 88.2 | 69.9 | | ERM | ✗ | ✗ | 81.9 | 60.4 | 92.7 | 51.6 | | CVaR DRO (Levy et al., 2020) | ✗ | ✗ | 81.8 | 61.8 | 91.9 | 56.5 | | LfF (Nam et al., 2020) | ✗ | ✗ | 81.1 | 62.2 | 92.0 | 55.9 | | EIIL (Creager et al., 2021) | ✗ | ✗ | 80.3 | 64.7 | 91.2 | 63.8 | | JTT (Liu et al., 2021) | ✗ | ✗ | 81.3 | 64.4 | 92.1 | 61.5 | | SSA (Nam et al., 2022) | ✗ | ✗ | 80.4 | 76.5 | 89.1 | 69.5 | | Q-Diversity | ✗ | ✗ | 81.6 | 77.7 | 88.7 | 73.5 | Table 2: **Average and robust** test accuracies evaluated on MultiNLI and CivilComments-WILDS. obtain 4 groups and accuracy on the group of {positive, no distractor} can reflect model robustness. We compare Q-Diversity with four group DRO baselines and summarize the results in Table 1. It is clearly to see although ERM model achieves a high average accuracy, its performance on the group without suffering from the synthetic bias almost comes to zero. This reveals that models trained with ERM can very easily capture this spurious correlation, and fails on the minority group. The unsupervised methods CVaR DRO and JTT can help relieve such bias overfitting, however, their improvement in robust accuracy is very limited. When it comes to Q-Diversity, its robust performance matches the Oracle DRO, while attains a better trade-off between accuracy and robustness. 4.3 Q**-Diversity in Practice** In order to cover a broad range of practical scenarios, we present two more challenging real-world datasets as the benchmarks for group robustness. MultiNLI (Williams et al., 2018) is a multigenre natural language inference dataset, given two sentences, a premise and a hypothesis, the goal of which is to predict whether the hypothesis is entailed by, contradicts, or neutral with the premise. We use this label as the target attribute (i.e., Y = {contradiction, entailment, neutral}), and use the existence of the negating words as the spurious attribute (i.e., A = {negation, no negation}). CivilComments-WILDS (Koh et al., 2021) is de- | Dataset | Label | Group Counts | | |---------------|-------------|----------------|--------| | Negation | No Negation | | | | Contradiction | 11158 | 57498 | | | MultiNLI | Entailment | 1521 | 67376 | | Neutral | 1992 | 66630 | | | Identity | Other | | | | CivilCommentsWILDS | Non toxic | 90337 | 148186 | | Toxic | 17784 | 12731 | | Table 3: **Dataset description and group distribution** for MNLI and CivilComments-WILDS. rived from the Jiasaw dataset (Borkan et al., 2019), which aims to generate the toxicity indicator Y = {toxic, non-toxic} to a real online comment. We use demographic attributes of the mentioned identity A = {male, female, White, Black, LGBTQ, Muslim, Christian, other religion} as a spurious attribute for evaluation purpose. Considering that a comment can contain multiple such identities, so that followed by Liu et al. (2021), we use the coarse version G = *Y × A*′for training, where A′= {any identity, no identity}. Under the two real-world settings, results are available in Table 2. Obviously, it can be seen that Q-Diversity improves the robust accuracy on both classification tasks, beating all the baselines by a large margin. In fact, its robust accuracy even overtakes that of Oracle DRO, despite the fact that the former does not use any group information at training time. To achieve better robust performances, all | MultiNLI | SST2 | | | | | | | | | |------------|--------|-------|-------|-------------|----------|-------|--------|--------|-------------| | Dataset | ERM | EIIL | JTT | Q-Diversity | Dataset | ERM | EIIL | JTT | Q-Diversity | | PI | 73.72 | 81.53 | 81.25 | 84.38 | SST2 | 91.85 | 66.39 | 80.82 | 90.62 | | LI | 85.52 | 87.88 | 83.10 | 89.11 | Senti140 | 65.41 | 53.99 | 67.19 | 68.75 | | ST | 63.21 | 60.29 | 56.59 | 72.56 | SemEval | 83.90 | 72.14 | 66.59 | 87.09 | | HANS | 62.11 | 65.06 | 65.32 | 65.82 | Yelp | 89.32 | 84.05 | 80.65 | 90.06 | | WaNLI | 56.82 | 59.86 | 53.12 | 57.81 | ImDB | 83.66 | 64.50 | 70.43 | 85.34 | | SNLI | 83.21 | 83.00 | 81.25 | 82.81 | Contrast | 84.63 | 56.76 | 64.34 | 82.31 | | ANLI (R3) | 28.85 | 29.00 | 31.96 | 32.12 | CAD | 86.68 | 58.20 | 66.60 | 87.50 | | Avg% ∆ | - | +1.88 | -0.12 | +4.45 | Avg% ∆ | - | -18.49 | -12.69 | +0.89 |  the baselines need group annotations in the validation set for hyperparameters tuning. For example, JTT has to tune the number of epochs T to train the weaker model for group identification. When these annotations are unavailable in the validation set, their robust accuracy will drop significantly. In comparison, parameterizing the group identification in Q-Diversity allows the annotation completely free, and the trainable procedure can render better robust accuracy. ## 5 Analysis And Discussion In this section, we present a detailed analysis on the contribution of the diversified uncertainty set Q to its strong unsupervised performance. Furthermore, we explore the robustness of our method under different distributional shifts and random label noise. 5.1 Role of the Diversified Q We inspect the group diversity under the mixing strategy through an ablation study depicted in Figure 4. Apparently, we can observe significant drops in both datasets when removing this group mixing. These drops reveal that diversifying the minority groups can indeed help improve robust accuracy. In addition, we analyze the influence of the mixing parameter α. As shown in Figure 5, we can observe that α indeed affects the effectiveness of the group mixing, leading to the volatility in robust accuracy. Considering the feature of Beta distribution, the sampled λ will be more concentrated around 0.5 as the α value becomes large, resulting in a relatively balanced weight between the mixed example pairs. The model performance remains stable when α is around 7 ∼ 11. ## 5.2 Generalization To Ood Sets Since Q-Diversity is a totally unsupervised method, it can be used off the shelf to improve OOD generalization on a new task. We therefore transfer Q-Diversity, along with two other well-performing unsupervised baselines, *i.e.*, EIIL and JTT that first trained on MultiNLI and SST2 dataset, to a wide range of OOD datasets where the in-distribution spurious correlations may not hold. Q**-Diversity improves robustness to unknown** distributional shifts. With the unknown group information of these OOD test sets, we report the average accuracy in Table 4. Strikingly, we can observe that across the tasks and datasets, the two baselines even underperform than the lower bound of ERM. Especially on the SST2 dataset, the average accuracy of EIIL and JTT drop around 10% and 20%. We speculate this failure mode can be attributed to their heuristic group identification manners, easily overfitting to the in-domain data. In contrast, Q-Diversity outperforms ERM by 0.5%- 5% across the datasets on average, revealing its great robustness to different distribution shifts. ## 5.3 Under The Presence Of Label Noise The unsupervised methods like JTT are based on the core idea of up-weighting samples with high losses. Nevertheless, when training data meets the noisy labels, such an approach will likely yield degenerate solutions, since the model tends to upweight mislabeled samples with high losses. To further explore the application of unsupervised group DRO methods with the intervention of noisy labels, we perform experiments by inducing random label flips of varying degrees into MultiNLI dataset. Q**-Diversity is more robust to random label** noise. As the results shown in Figure 6, QDiversity retains better robust accuracy under the presence of label noise than ERM and Group DRO. Corresponding to our assumption, JTT performs poorly even with a low noise rate since it fails to distinguish minorities from mislabeled samples. ## 6 Related Work Group Robust Optimization Standard training with ERM can result in highly variable performance because of subpopulation distribution shifts arising from spurious correlations (Wu and Gui, 2022; Gao et al., 2022). In this context, Sagawa et al. (2020) formally introduces group DRO, with the goal to maximize worst-group or the minority group performance within the set of pre-defined groups. While promising, a rather practical scenario is that group information can not be available reliably. Therefore, another line of research begins to focus on the worst-case optimization without group annotations (Zhou et al., 2021). Typically, these methods first train a weaker model to identify high-loss samples as minority groups, and subsequently train an additional model with greater emphasis on the estimated minority groups (Nam et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2021). Although the unsupervised group DRO methods are developed, they are confined to a two-stage training pipeline. In the two-stage model, a failed first stage can lead to an unsuccessful second stage as errors from the former are propagated to the later one. By contrast, Q-Diversity in an end-to-end training manner overcomes the error accumulation. The group assigner and constructor cooperate with each other, and interactively, the classification response from the constructor can serve as a weak supervision to guide better group identification. Diversity and OOD Generalization It is explored that the geometric skew and the statistical skew are two mechanisms hurting out-ofdistribution performance with the existence of spurious correlations (Nagarajan et al., 2021; Nguyen et al., 2021). Concretely, the geometric skew is caused by the fact that classification margin on the minority group of a robust classifier tends to be much larger than that of the majority group, while the statistical skew arises from the fast convergence of gradient descent on spurious correlations unless trained for an exponentially long time. Although upweighting or oversampling the minority samples are straightforwardly effective in mitigating the statistical skew, both of them fail the geometric skew for the unchanged unique samples. Therefore, a wide range of studies emerge to diversify the input samples or feature space. Among them, counterfactually-augmented data (CAD), *i.e.*, data generated by minimally perturbing examples to flip the ground-truth label, has shown efficiency to learn robust features under distribution shifts (Kaushik et al., 2020). However, further investigation (Joshi and He, 2022) reveals the lack of perturbation diversity limits CAD's effectiveness on OOD generalization. In comparison, Wu et al. (2022) directly leverage the deep generative models to diversify training data with spurious correlations, while the model complexity is increased greatly. For the sake of creating more synthesized samples to address geometric skew, our method that applying interpolation across the majority and minority groups shows its advantages in terms of perturbation diversity and time consumption. ## 7 Conclusion In this paper, we present Q-Diversity, an unsupervised method to optimize the worst group for model robustness. The formulation of Q-Diversity extends the annotations of group DRO to an automatic assignment through an interactive training mode. Furthermore, under the guarantee of a novel mixing strategy across groups, Q-Diversity can better counteract the failure modes of OOD generalization. Superior to previous works that only show the efficiency over the particular dataset, we demonstrate Q-Diversity promises better general107 ization capability to various OOD sets. We believe that our work casts light on the limitations of group DRO which have been overlooked before, and can be viewed as a cornerstone for future study in the worst-group generalization. ## Limitations Although our unsupervised framework Q-Diversity shows great superiority, when it comes to limitations, we acknowledge that (i) Our empirical validations on real-world datasets just follow current benchmarks that shed light on the group shifts caused by spurious correlations. Although we conduct experiments on the scenarios with noisy labels and various OOD datasets, practically, apart from superficial clues, a series of contributing factors that lead to group shifts are worth further exploration. (ii) A better theoretical understanding of how the interactive training mode can guide Q-Diversity works in better group identification should be established, and this points out the direction for our future work. ## Ethics Statement Natural Language Processing (NLP) models that perform poorly on a minority group have raised a lot of concerns within the research community and broader society in recent years. In this work, the proposed Q-Diversity is a versatile method that could be employed to train a robust model across groups even when the group information is not available. This is a rather practical scenario as the group information is almost missing during the data collection. We believe that our work is a step towards a suite of algorithms capable of solving a broader class of group DRO problems at scale. Moreover, such an algorithm will empower NLP researchers and engineers to create more reliable and ethical systems. ## Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. This work was partially funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.61976056,62076069,62206057), Shanghai Rising-Star Program (23QA1400200), and Natural Science Foundation of Shanghai (23ZR1403500). ## References Martin Arjovsky, Léon Bottou, Ishaan Gulrajani, and David Lopez-Paz. 2019. Invariant risk minimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.02893. Nabiha Asghar. 2016. Yelp dataset challenge: Review rating prediction. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.05362*. David Balduzzi, Sebastien Racaniere, James Martens, Jakob Foerster, Karl Tuyls, and Thore Graepel. 2018. The mechanics of n-player differentiable games. In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 80 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 354–363. PMLR. Daniel Borkan, Lucas Dixon, Jeffrey Sorensen, Nithum Thain, and Lucy Vasserman. 2019. Nuanced metrics for measuring unintended bias with real data for text classification. In *Companion Proceedings of* The 2019 World Wide Web Conference, WWW '19, page 491–500, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. Samuel R. Bowman, Gabor Angeli, Christopher Potts, and Christopher D. Manning. 2015. A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference. In *Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 632–642, Lisbon, Portugal. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yimeng Chen, Ruibin Xiong, Zhi-Ming Ma, and Yanyan Lan. 2022. When does group invariant learning survive spurious correlations? In *Advances in Neural* Information Processing Systems. Elliot Creager, Jörn-Henrik Jacobsen, and Richard Zemel. 2021. Environment inference for invariant learning. In *International Conference on Machine* Learning. John C. Duchi, Peter W. Glynn, and Hongseok Namkoong. 2016. Statistics of robust optimization: A generalized empirical likelihood approach. *Math.* Oper. Res., 46:946–969. SongYang Gao, Shihan Dou, Qi Zhang, and Xuanjing Huang. 2022. Kernel-whitening: Overcome dataset bias with isotropic sentence embedding. In *Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods* in Natural Language Processing, pages 4112–4122, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. Matt Gardner, Yoav Artzi, Victoria Basmov, Jonathan Berant, Ben Bogin, Sihao Chen, Pradeep Dasigi, Dheeru Dua, Yanai Elazar, Ananth Gottumukkala, Nitish Gupta, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Gabriel Ilharco, Daniel Khashabi, Kevin Lin, Jiangming Liu, Nelson F. Liu, Phoebe Mulcaire, Qiang Ning, Sameer Singh, Noah A. Smith, Sanjay Subramanian, Reut Tsarfaty, Eric Wallace, Ally Zhang, and Ben Zhou. 2020. Evaluating models' local decision boundaries via contrast sets. In *Findings of the Association* for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 1307–1323, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alec Go, Richa Bhayani, and Lei Huang. 2009. Twitter sentiment classification using distant supervision. CS224N project report, Stanford, 1(12):2009. Weihua Hu, Gang Niu, Issei Sato, and Masashi Sugiyama. 2018. Does distributionally robust supervised learning give robust classifiers? In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 80 of *Proceedings of Machine Learning Research*, pages 2029–2037. PMLR. Nitish Joshi and He He. 2022. An investigation of the (in)effectiveness of counterfactually augmented data. In *Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the* Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3668–3681, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. 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*. Pang Wei Koh, Shiori Sagawa, Henrik Marklund, Sang Michael Xie, Marvin Zhang, Akshay Balsubramani, Weihua Hu, Michihiro Yasunaga, Richard Lanas Phillips, Irena Gao, Tony Lee, Etienne David, Ian Stavness, Wei Guo, Berton A. Earnshaw, Imran S. Haque, Sara Beery, Jure Leskovec, Anshul Kundaje, Emma Pierson, Sergey Levine, Chelsea Finn, and Percy Liang. 2021. WILDS: A benchmark of in-the-wild distribution shifts. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML). Daniel Levy, Yair Carmon, John C. Duchi, and Aaron Sidford. 2020. Large-scale methods for distributionally robust optimization. In *Proceedings of the 34th* International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS'20, Red Hook, NY, USA. Curran Associates Inc. Alisa Liu, Swabha Swayamdipta, Noah A. Smith, and Yejin Choi. 2022. Wanli: Worker and ai collaboration for natural language inference dataset creation. Evan Z Liu, Behzad Haghgoo, Annie S Chen, Aditi Raghunathan, Pang Wei Koh, Shiori Sagawa, Percy Liang, and Chelsea Finn. 2021. Just train twice: Improving group robustness without training group information. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 139 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 6781–6792. PMLR. Tianyu Liu, Zheng Xin, Xiaoan Ding, Baobao Chang, and Zhifang Sui. 2020. An empirical study on modelagnostic debiasing strategies for robust natural language inference. In *Proceedings of the 24th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning*, pages 596–608, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Andrew L. 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: Human Language Technologies, pages 142–150, Portland, Oregon, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. 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, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Paul Michel, Tatsunori Hashimoto, and Graham Neubig. 2022. Distributionally robust models with parametric likelihood ratios. In *ICLR 2022*. Vaishnavh Nagarajan, Anders Andreassen, and Behnam Neyshabur. 2021. Understanding the failure modes of out-of-distribution generalization. In International Conference on Learning Representations. Aakanksha Naik, Abhilasha Ravichander, Norman Sadeh, Carolyn Rose, and Graham Neubig. 2018. Stress test evaluation for natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 2340–2353, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Preslav Nakov, Sara Rosenthal, Zornitsa Kozareva, Veselin Stoyanov, Alan Ritter, and Theresa Wilson. 2013. SemEval-2013 task 2: Sentiment analysis in Twitter. In Second Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (*SEM), Volume 2: Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval 2013), pages 312– 320, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Junhyun Nam, Hyuntak Cha, Sungsoo Ahn, Jaeho Lee, and Jinwoo Shin. 2020. Learning from failure: Training debiased classifier from biased classifier. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*. Junhyun Nam, Jaehyung Kim, Jaeho Lee, and Jinwoo Shin. 2022. Spread spurious attribute: Improving worst-group accuracy with spurious attribute estimation. In International Conference on Learning Representations. Thao Nguyen, Vaishnavh Nagarajan, Hanie Sedghi, and Behnam Neyshabur. 2021. Avoiding spurious correlations: Bridging theory and practice. In *NeurIPS* 2021 Workshop on Distribution Shifts: Connecting Methods and Applications. Yixin Nie, Adina Williams, Emily Dinan, Mohit Bansal, Jason Weston, and Douwe Kiela. 2020. Adversarial NLI: A new benchmark for natural language understanding. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 4885–4901, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 139 of *Proceedings of Machine Learning* Research, pages 12857–12867. PMLR. Shiori Sagawa, Pang Wei Koh, Tatsunori B. Hashimoto, and Percy Liang. 2020. Distributionally robust neural networks. In *International Conference on Learning* Representations. Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, Jean Wu, Jason Chuang, Christopher D. Manning, Andrew 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, Seattle, Washington, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Prasetya Ajie Utama, Nafise Sadat Moosavi, and Iryna Gurevych. 2020. Towards debiasing NLU models from unknown biases. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 7597–7610, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Vikas Verma, Alex Lamb, Christopher Beckham, Amir Najafi, Ioannis Mitliagkas, David Lopez-Paz, and Yoshua Bengio. 2019. Manifold mixup: Better representations by interpolating hidden states. In *Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on* Machine Learning, volume 97 of *Proceedings of Machine Learning Research*, pages 6438–6447. PMLR. Adina Williams, Nikita Nangia, and Samuel Bowman. 2018. A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sentence understanding through inference. 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 1112–1122, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ting Wu and Tao Gui. 2022. Less is better: Recovering intended-feature subspace to robustify NLU models. In *Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics*, pages 1666– 1676, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics. Yuxiang Wu, Matt Gardner, Pontus Stenetorp, and Pradeep Dasigi. 2022. Generating data to mitigate spurious correlations in natural language inference datasets. In *Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics* (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2660–2676, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Hongyi Zhang, Moustapha Cisse, Yann N. Dauphin, and David Lopez-Paz. 2018. mixup: Beyond empirical risk minimization. In *International Conference on* Learning Representations. Chunting Zhou, Xuezhe Ma, Paul Michel, and Graham Neubig. 2021. Examining and combating spurious features under distribution shift. In *Proceedings of* | MultiNLI | | |---------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Dataset | Description | | PI (Liu et al., 2020) | selected instances from MultiNLI for testing the hypothesis-only bias in NLI models | | LI (Liu et al., 2020) | selected instances from MultiNLI for testing logical inference ability of NLI models | | ST (Naik et al., 2018) | stress set construction for testing the heuristics of NLI models | | HANS (McCoy et al., 2019) | designed to contain examples where the shallow heuristics (e.g., lexical overlap) fail | | WaNLI (Liu et al., 2022) | worker-and-AI collaborative dataset with challenging reasoning patterns for NLI task | | SNLI (Bowman et al., 2015) | a large-scale, widely-used benchmark for NLI task | | ANLI (R3) (Nie et al., 2020) | an iterative, adversarial human-and-model-in-the-loop solution for NLI dataset SST2 | | Dataset | Description | | SST2 (Socher et al., 2013) | from the GLUE NLU benchmark to classify movie reviews as positive or negative | | Senti140 (Go et al., 2009) | sentiment classification on Twitter messages | | SemEval (Nakov et al., 2013) | crowdsourcing on Amazon Mechanical Turk over Twitter dataset for sentiment analysis | | Yelp (Asghar, 2016) | online reviews consisting of free-form text and a star rating out of 5 for services | | ImDB (Maas et al., 2011) | a collection of positive and negative reviews from Internet Movie Database | | Contrast (Gardner et al., 2020) | small but label-changing modifications to the instances for ImDB | | CAD (Kaushik et al., 2020) | counterfactual datasets constructed over ImDB | Table 5: Details of the out-of-distribution datasets in Table 4. ## A Details Of The Ood Datasets We train the model on MultiNLI and SST2 tasks and test it on the corresponding OOD datasets respectively. For the results shown in Table 4, we present the details of these OOD datasets in Table 5 as follows. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist 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? Section 5 ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Section 4 ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Section 4.2 / 4.3 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 4.3 ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Section 4.2 ✓ 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 4.2 ✓ 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 4.3 ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Section 4.3 ✓ 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 4.3 ## 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 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 ✓ 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 ✓ 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 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.

chen-etal-2023-pre

Pre-training Language Model as a Multi-perspective Course Learner

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.9

ELECTRA, the generator-discriminator pre-training framework, has achieved impressive semantic construction capability among various downstream tasks. Despite the convincing performance, ELECTRA still faces the challenges of monotonous training and deficient interaction. Generator with only masked language modeling (MLM) leads to biased learning and label imbalance for discriminator, decreasing learning efficiency; no explicit feedback loop from discriminator to generator results in the chasm between these two components, underutilizing the course learning. In this study, a multi-perspective course learning (MCL) method is proposed to fetch a many degrees and visual angles for sample-efficient pre-training, and to fully leverage the relationship between generator and discriminator. Concretely, three self-supervision courses are designed to alleviate inherent flaws of MLM and balance the label in a multi-perspective way. Besides, two self-correction courses are proposed to bridge the chasm between the two encoders by creating a {``}correction notebook{''} for secondary-supervision. Moreover, a course soups trial is conducted to solve the {``}tug-of-war{''} dynamics problem of MCL, evolving a stronger pre-trained model. Experimental results show that our method significantly improves ELECTRA{'}s average performance by 2.8{\%} and 3.2{\%} absolute points respectively on GLUE and SQuAD 2.0 benchmarks, and overshadows recent advanced ELECTRA-style models under the same settings. The pre-trained MCL model is available at \url{https://huggingface.co/McmanusChen/MCL-base}.

Pre-training Language Model as a Multi-perspective Course Learner Beiduo Chen§‡∗ , Shaohan Huang‡† , Zihan Zhang‡, Wu Guo§**, Zhenhua Ling**§, Haizhen Huang‡, Furu Wei‡, Weiwei Deng‡ **and Qi Zhang**‡ § National Engineering Research Center of Speech and Language Information Processing, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China ‡ Microsoft Corporation, Beijing, China beiduo@mail.ustc.edu.cn, {guowu,zhling}@ustc.edu.cn, {shaohanh,zihzha,hhuang,fuwei,dedeng,qizhang}@microsoft.com ## Abstract ELECTRA (Clark et al., 2020), the generatordiscriminator pre-training framework, has achieved impressive semantic construction capability among various downstream tasks. Despite the convincing performance, ELECTRA still faces the challenges of monotonous training and deficient interaction. Generator with only masked language modeling (MLM) leads to biased learning and label imbalance for discriminator, decreasing learning efficiency; no explicit feedback loop from discriminator to generator results in the chasm between these two components, underutilizing the course learning. In this study, a multi-perspective course learning (MCL) method is proposed to fetch a many degrees and visual angles for sample-efficient pre-training, and to fully leverage the relationship between generator and discriminator. Concretely, three self-supervision courses are designed to alleviate inherent flaws of MLM and balance the label in a multiperspective way. Besides, two self-correction courses are proposed to bridge the chasm between the two encoders by creating a "correction notebook" for secondary-supervision. Moreover, a course soups trial is conducted to solve the "tug-of-war" dynamics problem of MCL, evolving a stronger pre-trained model. Experimental results show that our method significantly improves ELECTRA's average performance by 2.8% and 3.2% absolute points respectively on GLUE and SQuAD 2.0 benchmarks, and overshadows recent advanced ELECTRA-style models under the same settings. The pre-trained MCL model is available at https://huggingface.co/McmanusChen/MCLbase. ## 1 Introduction Language models pre-training (Radford et al., 2018, 2019; Devlin et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2019) has shown great success in endowing machines with ∗Contribution during internship at Microsoft. † Corresponding author. the ability to understand and process various downstream NLP tasks. A wide range of pre-training strategies have been proposed, among which the most prevailing object is the masked language modeling (MLM) (Devlin et al., 2019). Such autoencoding language modeling objects (Vincent et al., 2008) typically first randomly corrupt a certain percentage of training corpus with masked tokens, and then encourage encoders to restore the original corpus. To reduce the randomness of pre-training and produce a sample-efficient method, ELECTRAstyle frameworks (Clark et al., 2020) leverage an Transformer-based (Vaswani et al., 2017) generator training with MLM to build challenging ennoising sentences for a discriminator in the similar structure to carry out the denoising procedure. Typically in the ELECTRA-style training, the generator first constructs its semantic representations through MLM training and cloze these masked sentences with pseudo words; in the meanwhile, the discriminator inherits the information from the former and distinguish the originality of every token, which is like a step-by-step course learning. However, only MLM-based generator training may lead to monotonous learning of data, which conduces to the incomprehensive generation and imbalanced label of corrupted sentences for the discriminator (Hao et al., 2021). Besides, interactivity between the two encoders stops abruptly except the sharing of embedding layers (Xu et al., 2020; Meng et al., 2021), since there is no direct feedback loop from discriminator to generator. To enhance the efficiency of training data and to adequately utilize the relationship of generator and discriminator, in this work, we propose a sampleefficient method named multi-perspective course learning (MCL). In the first phase of MCL, to fetch a many degrees and visual angles to impel initial semantic construction, three self-supervision courses are designed, including cloze test, word rearrangement and slot detection. These courses instruct language models to deconstruct and dissect the exact same corpus from multi perspectives under the ELECTRA-style framework. In the second phase, two self-correction courses are tasked to refine both generator and discriminator. A confusion matrix regarding to discriminator's recognition of each sentence is analyzed and applied to the construction of revision corpora. Secondary learning is carried out for the two components in response to the deficiencies in the previous course learning. At last, the model mines the same batch of data from multiple perspectives, and implement progressive semantic learning through the self-correction courses. Experiments on the most widely accepted benchmarks GLUE (Wang et al., 2019) and SQuAD 2.0 (Rajpurkar et al., 2018) demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed MCL. Compared with previous advanced systems, MCL achieved a robust advantage across various downstream tasks. Abundant ablation studies confirm that multi-perspective courses encourage models to learn the data in a sample-efficient way. Besides, a course soups trial is conducted to further interpret and dissect the core of multi-perspective learning, providing a novel approach to enhance the pre-training efficiency and performance. ## 2 Preliminary In this work, we built our system based on the ELECTRA-style framework. Thus, the framework of ELECTRA is reviewed. Unlike BERT (Devlin et al., 2019), which uses only one transformer encoder trained with MLM, ELECTRA is trained with two transformer encoders: a generator G and a discriminator D. G is trained with MLM and used to generate ambiguous tokens to replace masked tokens in the input sequence. Then the modified input sequence is fed to D, which needs to determine if a corresponding token is either an original token or a token replaced by the generator. Generator Training Formally, given an input sequence X = [x1, x2*, ..., x*n], a mask operation is conducted to randomly replace its tokens with [MASK] at the position set r. 1 And the masked sentence Xmask = [x1, x2*, ...,* [MASK]i*, ..., x*n] is fed into the generator to produce the contextualized representations {hi} n i=1. G is trained via the following loss LMLM to predict the original tokens 1Typically the proportion is set as 15%, which means 15% of the tokens are masked out for each sentence. from the vocabulary V at the masked positions: $$p_{\rm MLM}(x_{t}|\mathbf{h}_{i})=\frac{\exp(\mathbf{x}_{t}^{\top}\mathbf{h}_{i})}{\sum_{t^{\prime}=1}^{|V|}\exp(\mathbf{x}_{t^{\prime}}^{\top}\mathbf{h}_{i})},\tag{1}$$ $$\mathcal{L}_{\rm MLM}=\mathbb{E}\left(-\sum_{i\in\mathbf{r}}\log p_{\rm MLM}\left(x_{i}|\mathbf{h}_{i}\right)\right),\tag{2}$$ where $\left\{\mathbf{x}_{t}\right\}_{t=1}^{|V|}$ are the embeddings of tokens that where {xt} are replaced by [MASK]. Masked language modeling only conducts on the masked positions. Discriminator Training. G tends to predict the original identities of the masked-out tokens and thus Xrtd is created by replacing the masked-out tokens with generator samples: $$x_{i}^{\mathrm{{rfd}}}\sim p_{\mathrm{MLM}}\left(x|\mathbf{h}_{i}\right),\;\mathrm{if}\;i\in\mathbf{r}\;;\quad x_{i}^{\mathrm{{rfd}}}=x_{i},\;\mathrm{else}.\tag{3}$$ D is trained to distinguish whether the tokens in Xrtd have been replaced by G via the replaced token detection (RTD) loss LRTD: $$\begin{split}&p_{\text{RTD}}(x_{i}^{\text{rtd}}=x_{i}|\boldsymbol{h}_{i})=\frac{\exp(\boldsymbol{w}^{\top}\boldsymbol{h}_{i})}{(1+\exp(\boldsymbol{w}^{\top}\boldsymbol{h}_{i}))},\\ &\mathcal{L}_{\text{RTD}}=\mathbb{E}\Bigg{(}-\sum_{x_{i}^{\text{rtd}}=x_{i}}\log p_{\text{RTD}}\left(x_{i}^{\text{rtd}}=x_{i}|\boldsymbol{h}_{i}\right)\\ &-\sum_{x_{i}^{\text{rtd}}\neq x_{i}}\log\left(1-p_{\text{RTD}}\left(x_{i}^{\text{rtd}}=x_{i}|\boldsymbol{h}_{i}\right)\right),\end{split}$$ hi (5) !, $$\quad(4)$$ where w is a learnable weight vector. This optimization is conducted on all tokens. The overall pre-training objective is defined as: $${\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{ELECTR}}={\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{MLM}}+\lambda{\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{RTD}}.$$ where λ (typically 50) is a hyperparameter used to balance the training pace of G and D. Only D is fine-tuned on downstream tasks after pre-training. ## 3 Challenges Biased Learning Though the ELECTRA training method is simple and effective, treating corpora from a single perspective could cause biased learning. As for the progress of MLM and RTD, there exists an inherent flaw that G might predict appropriate but not original token on the [MASK] position, and such appropriate expression still needs to be judged as substitution by D. For example, if the original sequence "Alan buys an apple" is masked as "Alan [MASK] an apple", there are too many candidate words like "eats, peels, cuts" that can replace [MASK] to form a harmonious context. Thus, to request D to continue to distinguish replaced tokens is a difficult even awkward task. Treating the same piece of data in a single way reduces the effectiveness of training. As for the distribution of generated corpus from G, the labelimbalance may gradually emerge with the MLM training of G, which could disturb the RTD training of D. As the semantic construction of G thrives with the pre-training, the pseudo token on [MASK] becomes more reasonable and even matches the original word. Thus, the proportion of replaced tokens in the training sentences of D collapses, which interferes with the binary classification task seriously. In this work, three self-supervision courses are tasked to train the model in a multi-perspective way, improving the learning efficiency of data and balancing the distribution of labels. Deficient Interaction The core of selfsupervision training is to ingeniously design and construct labeled data from original corpora. Evolving from random masking as BERT does, ELECTRA provides more realistic corpora by generator samples, encouraging G and D to compete with each other. However, there is no explicit feedback loop from D to G, resulting that the pre-training of G is practically dominated by MLM as before. To bridge the chasm between these two components, in this work, we take advantage of discriminant results from D to create a "correction notebook" for both G and D, and propose two self-correction courses to provide secondary-supervision. Revision-training fully leverages the relationship and characteristics of the two encoders to increase the quality of training. ## 4 Methodology In this section, we will start by formulating three self-supervision courses which encourage models to treat data in a multi-perspective way. Then two self-correction courses are elaborated, deriving from the course-like relationship between G and D. These various courses are weaved into the entirety of the multi-perspective course learning method. ## 4.1 Self-Supervision Course The essentiality of large-scale data pre-training, undoubtedly is to excogitate a way to take full advantage of the massive rude corpora. ELECTRA has  provided an applicable paradigm for models to construct semantic representations through ennoising and denosing. Based on this framework, we extend the perspective that models look at sequences and propose three binary classification tasks in order to improve training efficiency, alleviate biased learning, and balance label distributions. ## 4.1.1 Replaced Token Detection On account of the compelling performance of pre-training language models with masked language modeling, we retain the replaced token detection task from ELECTRA. Following the previous symbol settings, given an original input sequence X = [x1, x2*, ..., x*n], we first mask out it into Xmask = [x1, x2*, ...,* [MASK]i*, ..., x*n], which is then fed into G to get the filling-out sequence Xrtd = [x1, x2*, ..., x*rtd i , ..., xn] by generator samples. Finally, D is tasked to figure out which token is original or replaced. As illustrated in the Section 2, G and D are trained with LMLM and LRTD respectively. MLM endows G with fundamental contextual semantic construction by cloze test, and RTD is a higher level course for D to let the model drill down into context for seeking out dissonance in the pseudo sequence Xrtd. ## 4.1.2 Swapped Token Detection Intuitively, recombination tasks contribute to sequence-related learning. As mentioned in Section 3, information absence at the [MASK] position will cause the unreliability of generated pseudo words. Whether the filled sample is appropriate or not, biased learning occurs interfering training of D. Thus, to reserve primeval message for precise prediction, without slashing the degree of task difficulty, we present swapped token detection (STD) course to sharpen the model's structure perception capability through a word rearrangement task. For an input sentence X = [x1, x2*, ..., x*n], a random position set s is chosen for swapping operation.2 Precisely, tokens at the chosen position are extracted, reordered and filled back into the sentence. G is required to restore the swapped sentence Xswap to X, and the adjacent D is tasked to discriminate which token is swapped in Xstd by generator samples. Note the contextualized representations from G as {hi} n i=1, the training process of swapped language modeling (SLM) is formulated below: $$p_{\rm SLM}(x_{s}|\mathbf{h}_{i})=\frac{\exp(\mathbf{x}_{s}^{\top}\mathbf{h}_{i})}{\sum_{s^{\prime}=1}^{|V|}\exp(\mathbf{x}_{s^{\prime}}^{\top}\mathbf{h}_{i})},\tag{7}$$ $$\mathcal{L}_{\rm SLM}=\mathbb{E}\left(-\sum_{i\in s}\log p_{\rm SLM}\left(x_{i}|\mathbf{h}_{i}\right)\right),\tag{8}$$ where $\left\{\mathbf{x}_{s}\right\}_{s=1}^{|V|}$ are the embeddings of tokens at the where {xs} swapped positions. Note that the vocabulary V is still the same across all courses, because it helps the generation of G in a consistent and natural environment, even the correct answer is lying in the pending sequence during SLM. SLM is only conducted on tokens at the swapped positions. SLM brings G to making reasonable even original predictions on the swapped positions, taking the attention of training from guessing of a single word to comprehensively understanding structure and logic of the whole sequence. The swapped token detection (STD) course of D is naturally formed as a deja vu binary classification. Xstd is created by replacing the swapped positions with generator samples: $$x_{i}^{\rm std}\sim p_{\rm SLM}\left(x|h_{i}\right),\,{\rm if}\,i\in{\bf s}\,;\quad x_{i}^{\rm std}=x_{i},\,{\rm else.}\tag{9}$$ D is trained to distinguish whether the tokens in Xstd is original or not via the swapped token detection (RTD) loss: $$p_{\rm STD}(x_{i}^{\rm std}=x_{i}|\mathbf{h}_{i})={\rm sigmoid}(\mathbf{w}_{s}^{T}\mathbf{h}_{i}),\tag{10}$$ $${\cal L}_{\rm STD}={\mathbb{E}}\Bigg{(}-\sum_{x_{i}^{\rm std}=x_{i}}\log p_{\rm STD}\left(x_{i}^{\rm std}=x_{i}|\mathbf{h}_{i}\right)$$ $$-\sum_{x_{i}^{\rm std}\neq x_{i}}\log\left(1-p_{\rm STD}\left(x_{i}^{\rm std}=x_{i}|\mathbf{h}_{i}\right)\right)\Bigg{)}.\tag{11}$$ set as 15%. where ws is an independent trainable parameter from w since each of courses uses its own binary classification head. ## 4.1.3 Inserted Token Detection With the pace of pre-training with MLM and SLM, G is inevitably able to produce much more harmonious sequences for the consummation of semantic learning. In the meanwhile, the label distribution of corrupted sentences provided by G becomes magically imbalanced, since almost all tokens exactly match the words in the original sentence. Thus, training of D faces serious interference and lack of efficiency. The propensity of the training labels leads to the propensity of D's judgment. To alleviate the issue of label-imbalance, and to seek another perspective of treating data, we propose the inserted token detection (ITD) course. For a given sentence X = [x1, x2*, ..., x*n], [MASK] is randomly inserted into the sequence at the inserted position set i. The extended sentence Xin contains several illusory vacancies waiting for the prediction of G. Subsequently, D has to figure out which token should not be presented in the generated sentence Xitd with the training of the following loss: pITD(x itd i = x in i hi) = sigmoid(wT i hi), (12) LITD = E −X x itd i =x in i log pITD x itd i = x in i hi log 1 − pITD x itd i = x in i hi !. −X x itd i̸=x in i (13) On the one hand, the ratio of real and inserted words is fixed, solving the label-imbalance to some extent. On the other hand, training on void locations tones up the generation capability of models. The overall structure of the proposed selfsupervision courses is presented in Figure 1. All courses are jointly conducted within the same data and computing steps. ## 4.2 Self-Correction Course According to the above self-supervision courses, a competition mechanism between G and D seems to shape up. Facing the same piece of data, G tries to reform the sequence in many ways, while D yearns to figure out all the jugglery caused previously. However, the shared embedding layer of these two encoders becomes the only bridge of | Predict\Label | original | replaced | |-----------------|------------|------------| | original | ✓ | ✗ | | pos1 | pos2 | | | replaced | ✗ | ✓ | | pos3 | pos4 | | communication, which is apparently insufficient. To strengthen the link between the two components, and to provide more supervisory information on pre-training, we conduct an intimate dissection of the relationship between G and D. Take the procedure of RTD for example. For each token x rtd iin the corrupted sentence Xrtd, whereafter fed into D, we identify and document its label by comparing with the token xi at the corresponding position in X. After the discrimination process of D, this token is binary classified as original or replaced. As shown in Table 1, there exist four situations of distinguish results for xi. pos1: where G predicts the correct answer on the [MASK] position and D successfully makes a good judgment, no additional operation needs to be conducted for this kind of token. pos2: where G fills an alternative to replace the original token and D inaccurately views it as original, it means G produces an appropriate expression to form a harmonious context as mentioned in Section 3, which makes it difficult for D to distinguish. pos3: where D makes a clumsy mistake of incorrectly annotating an original token as replaced. pos4: where G fills in an impertinent token at the [MASK] position and D easily figures it out. To sum it up, on the one hand, G needs to regenerate tokens at pos4, since the initial alternatives are inappropriate and unchallenging for D. As shown in Figure 2, too much [MASK] are placed at important locations rich in information, leading to the erratic generation "thanked". Considering that other [MASK] in the same sequence may interfere with the generation of tokens at pos4, we restore other [MASK] to the original tokens for convenience of the re-generation process. On the other hand, D is expected to re-discriminate tokens at pos2 and pos3. When there exist tokens at pos4 in a sequence, these inappropriate tokens may seriously disturb decisions of D on other tokens,  | FKHI | FRRNHG | WKH | PHDO | |--------|----------|-------|--------| | FKHI | [mask] | WKH | [mask] | | FKHI | WKDQNHG | WKH | PHDO | | RULJLQDO UHSODFHG RULJLQDO UHSODFHG ¦ pos1 ¦ pos4 ¦ pos1 ʿ pos3 FKHI [mask] WKH PHDO FKHI FRRNHG WKH PHDO | | | | leading to the consequence of pos2 and pos3. Take the sentence in Figure 2 for example, serious distraction "thanked" makes D falsely judges "meal" as replaced. So we replace tokens at pos4 in Xrtd to original tokens to alleviate this kind of interference, and conduct the re-discrimination training on D at pos2 and pos3. By sorting out and analyzing errors, an "correction notebook" for G and D is built, guiding the re-generation and re-discrimination training. Note that it's not just redoing the problem, however, we redesign the context for each kind of issue. Thus, Lre-MLM and Lre-RTD is designed as the learning objective for self-correction course of RTD. Likewise, Lre-SLM and Lre-STD presents the training loss selfcorrection course of STD.3 Cause there are no original tokens at the inserted [MASK] positions, no revision is conducted for ITD. Two proposed selfcorrection courses bridge the chasm between G and D through introspection and melioration, and provide a sample-efficient secondary-supervision for the same piece of data. Finally, G and D are co-trained with three selfsupervision courses as well as two self-correction courses. The proposed MCL dissects one same sequence profoundly and comprehensively, without incurring any additional inference or memory costs. ## 5 Experiments 5.1 Setup Pre-training Settings We implement the experiments on two settings: *base* and tiny. *Base* is the standard training configuration of BERTBase (Devlin et al., 2019). The model is pre-trained on English Wikipedia and BookCorpus (Zhu et al., 2015), containing 16 GB of text with 256 million samples. We set the maximum length of the input sequence 3The equation is not listed since the form is consistent with the previous text. | GLUE Single Task | | | | | | | | | | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | Model | MNLI | QQP | QNLI | SST-2 | CoLA | RTE | MRPC | STS-B | AVG | | -m/-mm | Acc | Acc | Acc | MCC | Acc | Acc | PCC | | | | Base Setting: BERT Base Size, Wikipedia + Book Corpus BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) 84.5/- 91.3 | 91.7 | 93.2 | 58.9 | 68.6 | 87.3 | 89.5 | 83.1 | | | | XLNet (Yang et al., 2019) | 85.8/85.4 | - | - | 92.7 | - | - | - | - | - | | RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) | 85.8/85.5 | 91.3 | 92.0 | 93.7 | 60.1 | 68.2 | 87.3 | 88.5 | 83.3 | | DeBERTa (He et al., 2021) | 86.3/86.2 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | TUPE (Ke et al., 2021) | 86.2/86.2 | 91.3 | 92.2 | 93.3 | 63.6 | 73.6 | 89.9 | 89.2 | 84.9 | | MC-BERT (Xu et al., 2020) | 85.7/85.2 | 89.7 | 91.3 | 92.3 | 62.1 | 75.0 | 86.0 | 88.0 | 83.7 | | ELECTRA (Clark et al., 2020) | 86.9/86.7 | 91.9 | 92.6 | 93.6 | 66.2 | 75.1 | 88.2 | 89.7 | 85.5 | | +HPLoss+Focal (Hao et al., 2021) | 87.0/86.9 | 91.7 | 92.7 | 92.6 | 66.7 | 81.3 | 90.7 | 91.0 | 86.7 | | CoCo-LM (Meng et al., 2021) | 88.5/88.3 | 92.0 | 93.1 | 93.2 | 63.9 | 84.8 | 91.4 | 90.3 | 87.2 | | MCL | 88.5/88.5 | 92.2 | 93.4 | 94.1 | 70.8 | 84.0 | 91.6 | 91.3 | 88.3 | | Tiny Setting: A quarter of training flops for ablation study, Wikipedia + Book Corpus ELECTRA(reimplement) 85.80/85.77 91.63 92.03 92.70 65.49 74.80 | 87.47 | 89.02 | 84.97 | | | | | | | | +STD | 86.97/86.97 | 92.07 | 92.63 | 93.30 | 70.25 | 82.30 | 91.27 | 90.72 | 87.38 | | +ITD | 87.37/87.33 | 91.87 | 92.53 | 93.40 | 68.45 | 81.37 | 90.87 | 90.52 | 87.08 | | Self-supervision | 87.27/87.33 | 91.97 | 92.93 | 93.03 | 67.86 | 82.20 | 90.27 | 90.81 | 87.07 | | + re-RTD | 87.57/87.50 | 92.07 | 92.67 | 92.97 | 69.80 | 83.27 | 91.60 | 90.71 | 87.57 | | + re-STD | 87.80/87.77 | 91.97 | 92.93 | 93.33 | 71.25 | 82.80 | 91.67 | 90.95 | 87.83 | | MCL | 87.90/87.83 | 92.13 | 93.00 | 93.47 | 68.81 | 83.03 | 91.67 | 90.93 | 87.64 | to 512, and the learning rates are 5e-4. Training lasts 125K steps with a 2048 batch size. We use the same corpus as with CoCo-LM (Meng et al., 2021) and 64K cased SentencePiece vocabulary (Kudo and Richardson, 2018). The details of the hyperparameter of pre-training is listed in Appendix A. Tiny conducts the ablation experiments on the same corpora with the same configuration as the *base* setting, except that the batch size is 512. Model Architecture The layout of our model architecture maintains the same as (Meng et al., 2021) both on *base* and *tiny* settings. D consists of 12-layer Transformer, 768 hidden size, plus T5 relative position encoding (Raffel et al., 2020). G is a shallow 4-layer Transformer with the same hidden size and position encoding. After pre-training, we discard G and use D in the same way as BERT, with a classification layer for downstream tasks. Downstream Tasks To verify the effectiveness of the proposed methods, we conduct evaluation experiments on various downstream tasks. We evaluate on the General Language Understanding Evaluation (GLUE) benchmark (Wang et al., 2019) and Stanford Question Answering 2.0 (SQuAD 2.0) dataset (Rajpurkar et al., 2018). As for the evaluation metrics of GLUE tasks, we adopt Spearman correlation for STS, Matthews correlation for CoLA, and accuracy for the other. For SQuAD 2.0, in which some questions are unanswerable by the passage, the standard evaluation metrics of ExactMatch (EM) and F1 scores are adopted. More details of the GLUE and SQuAD 2.0 benchmark are listed in Appendix B. Baselines Various pre-trained models are listed and compared in the *base* setting. All numbers are from reported results in recent research. When multiple papers report different scores for the same method, we use the highest of them for comparison. Implementation Details Our implementation builds upon the open-source implementation from fairseq (Ott et al., 2019). With 128 A100 (40 GB Memory), one pre-training run takes about 24 hours in *base* setting. The fine-tuning costs are the same with BERT plus relative positive encodings. More details of fine-tuning are listed in Appendix C. ## 5.2 Evaluation Results We first pre-trained our model with the proposed MCL method, and then fine-tuned it with training sets of 8 single tasks in the GLUE benchmark. We conducted a hyperparameter search for all downstream tasks, and report the aver- | Model | SQuAD 2.0 EM F1 | | |------------------------------------------------------|-------------------|-------| | Base Setting BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) | 73.7 | 76.3 | | XLNet (Yang et al., 2019) | 78.5 | 81.3 | | RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) | 77.7 | 80.5 | | DeBERTa (He et al., 2021) | 79.3 | 82.5 | | ELECTRA (Clark et al., 2020) | 79.7 | 82.6 | | +HPLoss+Focal (Hao et al., 2021) | 82.7 | 85.4 | | CoCo-LM (Meng et al., 2021) | 82.4 | 85.2 | | MCL | 82.9 | 85.9 | | Tiny Setting for ablation study ELECTRA(reimplement) | 79.37 | 81.31 | | +STD | 81.73 | 84.55 | | +ITD | 81.43 | 84.20 | | Self-supervision | 81.87 | 84.85 | | + re-RTD | 81.70 | 84.48 | | + re-STD | 81.81 | 84.71 | | MCL | 82.04 | 84.93 | Table 3: All evaluation results on SQuAD 2.0 datasets. age scores among 5 random seeds. Results are elaborated in the top half of Table 2. The proposed MCL evidently enhances ELECTRA and achieves at least 1.1% absolute overall improvements against state-of-art pre-trained language models on the GLUE benchmark under the base setting. For the most widely reported task MNLI, our model achieves 88.5/88.6 points on the matched/mismatched (m/mm) set, which obtains 1.6/1.8 absolute improvements against ELECTRA. Take a broader look at all GLUE single tasks, MCL overshadows all previous models, except RTE tasks, where CoCo-LM takes a narrow lead. We also evaluated the proposed MCL on the SQuAD 2.0 datasets, which is an important reading comprehension dataset that requires the machine to extract the answer span given a document along with a question. The results of Exact-Match (EM) and F1 score (F1) are displayed in the top half of Table 3. Consistently, our model significantly improves the ELECTRA baseline and achieves a banner score compared with other same-size models. Specifically, under the *base* setting, the proposed MCL improves the absolute performance over ELECTRA by 3.2 points (EM) and 3.3 points (F1). Also, our model outperforms all other previous models with an overt margin. The compelling results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed MCL. With the equal amount of training corpus, plus slight computing cost of forward propagation, MCL tremendously advanced ELECTRA baseline, showing its property of sample-efficiency. In other words, multi-perspective course learning gives the model a deeper and more comprehensive insight into the underlying meaning of corpora, which provides more valuable information for the pre-training process. ## 5.3 Ablation Study In order to dive into the role of each component in the proposed MCL, an ablation study is conducted under the *tiny* setting. Both the GLUE and SQuAD 2.0 datasets are utilized for evaluation, and the ablation results are listed in the bottom half of Table 2 and Table 3. Bolstered by several curve graphs regarding with loss and accuracy during pre-training, every course is discussed below. 4 RTD The most basic component, also represents the ELCETRA itself. Its performance would be employed as the baseline to compare with other additions. Not only the scores, but also the curves would be taken for important reference. STD This course is tasked to help the model to obtain better structure perception capability through a more harmonious contextual understanding. STD improves ELECTRA on all tasks in GLUE and SQuAD 2.0 datasets. It is worth noting that the scores on CoLA task surprisingly stand out amongst the crowd. The Corpus of Linguistic Acceptability (CoLA) is used to predict whether an English sentence is linguistically acceptable or not. Apparently, pre-training on word rearrangement indeed lifts the global intellection of models, which makes it focus more on structure and logic rather than word prediction. Even the best CoLA result of 71.25 comes from the re-STD course, which further embodies the effectiveness of STD. ITD This course is tasked to alleviate labelimbalance. As shown in Figure 5, replace rate reflects the prediction accuracy of G. Accompanied by MLM and SLM, G predicts more correct words on the [MASK] positions, causing the "replaced" labels to become scarce for the training of D. By adding inserted [MASK], the replace rate has a fixed lower limit corresponding to the inserted proportion, leading to a balanced distribution of labels. Besides, ITD shows great improvements over  ELECTRA, especially on SST-2 datasets. The Stanford Sentiment Treebank (SST-2) provides a dataset for sentiment classification that needs to determine whether the sentiment of a sentence extracted from movie reviews is positive or negative. Predicting for the illusory [MASK] makes the model focus more on content comprehension, which may helpful for sentiment classification. Self-correction Course Revision always acts as a difficult assignment, because of the challenge to reverse stereotypes. As shown in Figure 5, losses of G and D during self-correction training generally exceed that during self-supervision training, demonstrating the difficulties. However, the replace accuracy of re-RTD course goes higher than the baseline, certifying the effectiveness. Despite that self-correction training outperforms other components on all downstream tasks, the phenomena of "tug-of-war" dynamics is worth exploring. Scores listed in the last three rows of Table 2 almost touch each other, and optimal results of every single task do not always appear under the same model. It means multi-perspective courses may interfere with each other in attempts to pull parameters in different directions, which seems even more apparent under the self-correction course where secondarysamples are well designed for bootstrapping. To alleviate this situation and further improve the effectiveness of training, we found a feasible solution elaborated in Section 5.5. ## 5.4 Sample Efficiency Comparison To demonstrate the proposed MCL is sampleefficient, we conduct a comparative trial between MCL and ELECTRA. As shown in Figure 3, the prevalent task MNLI is chosen for evaluation. For every 25K steps of pre-training, we reserved the model and fine-tuned it with the same configuration mentioned in Section 5.1. Obviously, MCL  preponderates over ELECTRA baseline on every training node, which obtains 87.8 points at 25K steps, demonstrating its enormous learning efficiency even on small pieces of corpora. ## 5.5 Course Soups Trial Inspired by model soups (Wortsman et al., 2022), which averages many models in a hyperparameter sweep during fine-tuning, we find similarities and bring this idea to MCL in a task sweep during pretraining. Different courses lead the model to lie in a different low error basin, and co-training multiple courses may create the "tug-of-war" dynamics. To solve the training conflicts, and to further improve the learning efficiency of models in the later pretraining stage, we conduct a "course soups" trial. For ingredients in soups, we arrange all combinations of 4 losses in self-correction courses, training them into 14 single models while retaining the structure of self-supervision courses. Then all ingredients are merged through uniform and weighted integration. Results lies in Figure 4. Optimal results obtained by weight soups, which improves the average GLUE score by 0.19 absolute points against our best model MCL. The results show that the course soups suggests a effective way to guide the later training of the model by separating multiple objectives and combining them at last. More details scores are listed in Appendix E. ## 6 Conclusion This paper proposes the multi-perspective course learning method, containing three self-supervision courses to improve learning efficiency and balance label distributions, as well as two self-correction courses to create a "correction notebook" for revision training. Besides, the course soups method is designed to figure out a novel approach for efficient pre-training. Experiments show that our method significantly improves ELECTRA's performance and overshadows multiple advanced models under same settings, verifying the effectiveness of MCL. ## Limitations Although the proposed method has shown great performance to alleviate the issues of biased learning and deficient interaction, which are common problems among ELECTRA-style pre-training models, we should realize that the proposed method still can be further improved. For example, the inherent flaw of RTD mentioned in Section 3 could only be relieved rather than solved. More about mission design regarding with this issue is worth studying. Besides, although the results show great performance, more efforts are required to explore the hidden impact of each course, which will help the application of the proposed model in the future. ## References Daniel Cer, Mona Diab, Eneko Agirre, Iñigo LopezGazpio, and Lucia Specia. 2017. SemEval-2017 task 1: Semantic textual similarity multilingual and crosslingual focused evaluation. In *Proceedings* of the 11th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval-2017), pages 1–14, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. Kevin Clark, Minh-Thang Luong, Quoc V. Le, and Christopher D. Manning. 2020. ELECTRA: pretraining text encoders as discriminators rather than generators. In *8th International Conference on* Learning Representations, ICLR 2020, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 26-30, 2020. OpenReview.net. 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. William B. Dolan and Chris Brockett. 2005. Automatically constructing a corpus of sentential paraphrases. In *Proceedings of the Third International Workshop* on Paraphrasing, IWP@IJCNLP 2005, Jeju Island, Korea, October 2005, 2005. Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing. Danilo Giampiccolo, Bernardo Magnini, Ido Dagan, and Bill Dolan. 2007. The third PASCAL recognizing textual entailment challenge. In Proceedings of the ACL-PASCAL@ACL 2007 Workshop on Textual Entailment and Paraphrasing, Prague, Czech Republic, June 28-29, 2007, pages 1–9. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yaru Hao, Li Dong, Hangbo Bao, Ke Xu, and Furu Wei. 2021. Learning to sample replacements for ELECTRA pre-training. 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 4495–4506. 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. Geoffrey E. Hinton, Nitish Srivastava, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. 2012. Improving neural networks by preventing co-adaptation of feature detectors. *CoRR*, abs/1207.0580. Shankar Iyer, Nikhil Dandekar, and Kornél Csernai. 2017. First Quora dataset release: Question pairs. Guolin Ke, Di He, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2021. Rethinking positional encoding in language pre-training. In 9th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Virtual Event, Austria, May 3-7, 2021. OpenReview.net. 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. Taku Kudo and John Richardson. 2018. Sentencepiece: A simple and language independent subword tokenizer and detokenizer for neural text processing. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2018: System Demonstrations, Brussels, Belgium, October 31 - November 4, 2018, pages 66–71. 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. Yu Meng, Chenyan Xiong, Payal Bajaj, Saurabh Tiwary, Paul Bennett, Jiawei Han, and Xia Song. 2021. COCO-LM: correcting and contrasting text sequences for language model pretraining. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2021, NeurIPS 2021, December 6-14, 2021, virtual, pages 23102–23114. Myle Ott, Sergey Edunov, Alexei Baevski, Angela Fan, Sam Gross, Nathan Ng, David Grangier, and Michael Auli. 2019. fairseq: A fast, extensible toolkit for sequence modeling. 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, Demonstrations*, pages 48–53. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alec Radford, Karthik Narasimhan, Tim Salimans, and Ilya Sutskever. 2018. Improving language understanding by generative pre-training. Alec Radford, Jeff Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. 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. *J. Mach. Learn. Res.*, 21:140:1–140:67. Pranav Rajpurkar, Robin Jia, and Percy Liang. 2018. Know what you don't know: Unanswerable questions for squad. In *Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics,* ACL 2018, Melbourne, Australia, July 15-20, 2018, Volume 2: Short Papers, pages 784–789. Association for Computational Linguistics. 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, EMNLP 2016, Austin, Texas, USA, November 1-4, 2016, pages 2383–2392. The Association for Computational Linguistics. 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, EMNLP 2013, 18-21 October 2013, Grand Hyatt Seattle, Seattle, Washington, USA, A meeting of SIGDAT, a Special Interest Group of the ACL, pages 1631–1642. ACL. 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. Pascal Vincent, Hugo Larochelle, Yoshua Bengio, and Pierre-Antoine Manzagol. 2008. Extracting and composing robust features with denoising autoencoders. In *Machine Learning, Proceedings of the* Twenty-Fifth International Conference (ICML 2008), Helsinki, Finland, June 5-9, 2008, volume 307 of ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, pages 1096–1103. ACM. Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2019. GLUE: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. In 7th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2019, New Orleans, LA, USA, May 6-9, 2019. OpenReview.net. Alex Warstadt, Amanpreet Singh, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2019. Neural network acceptability judgments. Trans. Assoc. Comput. Linguistics, 7:625–641. Adina Williams, Nikita Nangia, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2018. A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sentence understanding through inference. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACLHLT 2018, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, June 1-6, 2018, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 1112–1122. Association for Computational Linguistics. Mitchell Wortsman, Gabriel Ilharco, Samir Yitzhak Gadre, Rebecca Roelofs, Raphael Gontijo Lopes, Ari S. Morcos, Hongseok Namkoong, Ali Farhadi, Yair Carmon, Simon Kornblith, and Ludwig Schmidt. 2022. Model soups: averaging weights of multiple fine-tuned models improves accuracy without increasing inference time. In *International Conference on* Machine Learning, ICML 2022, 17-23 July 2022, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, volume 162 of *Proceedings* of Machine Learning Research, pages 23965–23998. PMLR. Zhenhui Xu, Linyuan Gong, Guolin Ke, Di He, Shuxin Zheng, Liwei Wang, Jiang Bian, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2020. MC-BERT: efficient language pre-training via a meta controller. *CoRR*, abs/2006.05744. Zhilin Yang, Zihang Dai, Yiming Yang, Jaime G. Carbonell, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Quoc V. Le. 2019. Xlnet: Generalized autoregressive pretraining for language understanding. 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 5754–5764. Yukun Zhu, Ryan Kiros, Richard S. Zemel, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Raquel Urtasun, Antonio Torralba, and Sanja Fidler. 2015. Aligning books and movies: Towards story-like visual explanations by watching movies and reading books. In *2015 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV 2015,* Santiago, Chile, December 7-13, 2015, pages 19–27. IEEE Computer Society. ## A Hyperparameters For Pre-Training As shown in Table 4, we present the hyperparameters used for pre-training MCL on the *base* setting. We follow the optimization hyperparameters of CoCo-LM (Meng et al., 2021) for comparisons. Note that all losses conducted on D are multiplied by λ (set as 50), which is a hyperparameter used to balance the training pace of G and D. Table 4: Hyperparameters for pre-training. ## B Details Of Downstream Tasks GLUE contains a wide range of tasks covering textual entailment: RTE (Giampiccolo et al., 2007) and MNLI (Williams et al., 2018), question-answer entailment: QNLI (Rajpurkar et al., 2016), paraphrase: MRPC (Dolan and Brockett, 2005), question paraphrase: QQP (Iyer et al., 2017), textual similarity: STS (Cer et al., 2017), sentiment: SST (Socher et al., 2013), and linguistic acceptability CoLA (Warstadt et al., 2019). Natural Language Inference involves reading a pair of sentences and judging the relationship between their meanings, such as entailment, neutral and contradiction. We evaluate on three diverse datasets, including Multi-Genre Natural Language Inference (MNLI), Question Natural Language Inference (QNLI) and Recognizing Textual Entailment (RTE). Semantic similarity tasks aim to predict whether two sentences are semantically equivalent or not. The challenge lies in recognizing rephrasing of concepts, understanding negation, and handling syn- Table 5: Summary of the GLUE benchmark. | Dataset | #Train/#Dev/#Test | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------| | Single-Sentence Classification CoLA (Acceptability) 8.5k/1k/1k SST-2 (Sentiment) 67k/872/1.8k Pairwise Text Classification MNLI (NLI) 393k/20k/20k RTE (NLI) 2.5k/276/3k QNLI (NLI) 105k/5.5k/5.5k WNLI (NLI) 634/71/146 QQP (Paraphrase) 364k/40k/391k MRPC (Paraphrase) 3.7k/408/1.7k Text Similarity STS-B (Similarity) 7k/1.5k/1.4k | | tactic ambiguity. Three datasets are used, including Microsoft Paraphrase corpus (MRPC), Quora Question Pairs (QQP) dataset and Semantic Textual Similarity benchmark (STS-B). Classification The Corpus of Linguistic Acceptability (CoLA) is used to predict whether an English sentence is linguistically acceptable or not. The Stanford Sentiment Treebank (SST-2) provides a dataset for sentiment classification that needs to determine whether the sentiment of a sentence extracted from movie reviews is positive or negative. As a widely used MRC benchmark dataset, SQuAD 2.0 is a reading comprehension dataset that requires the machine to extract the answer span given a document along with a question. We select the v2.0 version to keep the focus on the performance of pure span extraction performance. Two official metrics are used to evaluate the model performance: Exact Match (EM) and a softer metric F1 score, which measures the average overlap between the prediction and ground truth answer at the token level. The summary of the General Language Understanding Evaluation (GLUE) benchmark (Wang et al., 2019) is shown in Table 5. ## C Hyperparameters For Fine-Tuning Table 6 presents the hyperparameters used for finetuning over SQuAD v2.0 (Rajpurkar et al., 2018), and the GLUE benchmark (Wang et al., 2019) following CoCo-LM for fair comparison. On the development sets, the hyperparameters are searched based on the average performance of five runs. | Layers | 12 | |-------------------------------|-------------| | Hidden size | 768 | | FFN inner hidden size | 3072 | | Attention heads | 12 | | Attention head size | 64 | | Max relative position | 128 | | Training steps | 125K | | Batch size | 2048 | | Adam ϵ (Kingma and Ba, 2015) | 1e-6 | | Adam β | (0.9, 0.98) | | Learning rate | 5e-4 | | Learning rate schedule | Linear | | Warmup steps | 10K | | Gradient clipping | 2.0 | | Dropout (Hinton et al., 2012) | 0.1 | | Weight decay | 0.01 | | Parameters | GLUE Small Tasks | GLUE Large Tasks | SQuAD 2.0 | |---------------------|--------------------------|--------------------------|--------------------------| | Max Epochs | {2, 3, 5, 10} | {2, 3, 5} | {2, 3} | | Peak Learning Rate | {2e-5, 3e-5, 4e-5, 5e-5} | {1e-5, 2e-5, 3e-5, 4e-5} | {2e-5, 3e-5, 4e-5, 5e-5} | | Batch Size | {16, 32} | 32 | {16, 32} | | Learning Rate Decay | Linear | Linear | Linear | | Warm-Up Proportion | {6%, 10%} | 6% | {6%, 10%} | | Sequence Length | 512 | 512 | 512 | | Adam ϵ | 1e-6 | 1e-6 | 1e-6 | | Adam (β1, β2) | (0.9, 0.98) | (0.9, 0.98) | (0.9, 0.98) | | Clip Norm | - | - | - | | Dropout | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | | Weight Decay | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | Table 6: Hyperparameter ranges searched for fine-tuning on GLUE and SQuAD 2.0. GLUE small tasks include CoLA, RTE, MRPC and STS-B. GLUE large tasks include MNLI, QQP, QNLI and SST-2.  ## D Curves For Ablation Study As shown in Figure 5, three metrics are selected to evaluate the quality of pre-training. Replace Rate This metric represents the ratio of replaced tokens in the corrupted sentence Xrtd. The less of this ratio, the better of G's pre-training, and the more uneven of the label distributions for D. From the first row in the diagram, we can see that the lower bound of the replace rate with ITD apparently exceeds that with RTD, demonstrating that ITD indeed alleviates the issue of label-imbalance. Loss and Replace Accuracy Training loss reflects the pre-training assessment. One of the selfcorrection courses, re-RTD, holds a higher loss against that with RTD, showing the difficulty of the revision training. Replace accuracy denotes the prediction accuracy on replaced tokens. As shown in the third line of Figure 5, re-RTD achieves better replace accuracy by a significant margin compared with RTD, demonstrating the effectiveness of the self-correction course. ## E Detailed Scores Of Course Soups Table 7 lists all scores on the GLUE benchmark of the course soups trial. It seems that optimal results on single tasks are randomly distributed in the ingredients of soups. Through uniform and weighted integration, the best model emerges with the uppermost average GLUE scores. Model GLUE Single Task MNLI QQP QNLI SST-2 CoLA RTE MRPC STS-B AVG -m/-mm Acc Acc Acc MCC Acc Acc PCC Base Setting: BERT Base Size, Wikipedia + Book Corpus MCL 88.47/88.47 92.23 93.37 94.13 70.76 84.00 91.57 91.32 88.26 Lre-MLM **88.53**/88.50 92.23 93.40 94.33 70.53 84.00 92.00 91.18 88.30 Lre-RTD 88.47/88.43 92.23 93.37 94.13 70.77 83.63 **92.40** 91.20 88.29 Lre-SLM 88.43/88.43 92.23 93.43 94.27 70.53 83.77 92.00 91.29 88.26 Lre-STD 88.43/88.43 92.23 93.43 94.27 70.53 83.77 92.00 91.29 88.26 Lre-MLM+RTD 88.43/88.33 92.20 93.43 94.27 70.88 83.77 92.17 91.30 88.31 Lre-MLM+SLM 88.50/88.43 92.17 93.47 94.07 71.12 83.40 **92.40** 91.24 88.31 Lre-MLM+STD 88.43/88.43 92.23 93.37 94.27 71.09 83.77 92.17 91.24 88.33 Lre-RTD+SLM 88.47/88.43 **92.27** 93.43 94.23 70.84 83.27 92.23 91.25 88.27 Lre-RTD+STD 88.50/88.50 92.23 93.40 94.30 71.00 84.03 92.17 91.25 88.38 Lre-SLM+STD 88.50/88.47 **92.27** 93.57 94.13 70.53 83.63 92.23 **91.36** 88.30 Lre-SLM+RTD+STD 88.47/88.43 **92.27** 93.57 94.07 **71.61** 83.77 92.10 91.21 88.39 Lre-MLM+SLM+STD 88.47/**88.53 92.27** 93.40 94.40 70.79 84.00 91.90 91.24 88.33 Lre-MLM+RTD+STD 88.50/88.47 92.23 93.43 94.07 70.80 83.53 91.93 91.15 88.24 Lre-MLM+RTD+SLM 88.43/88.40 92.23 **93.60** 94.30 70.75 **84.13** 91.77 91.25 88.32 uniform soups **88.53**/88.43 92.23 93.43 **94.53** 71.40 83.53 92.23 91.24 88.40 weight soups 88.47/88.43 92.20 93.57 94.13 **71.61** 84.00 **92.40** 91.22 **88.45** Table 7: All evaluation results on GLUE datasets for the course soups trial. Acc, MCC, PCC denote accuracy, Matthews correlation, and Spearman correlation respectively. Reported results are medians over five random seeds. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist 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? Not applicable. 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?** 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.? 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.

tsymboi-etal-2023-layerwise

Layerwise universal adversarial attack on {NLP} models

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.10

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.

## Layerwise Universal Adversarial Attack On Nlp Models # Olga Tsymboi1, 2, Danil Malaev1, **Andrei Petrovskii**1, And **Ivan Oseledets**3, 4 1Sber AI Lab, Moscow, Russia 2Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia 3Skolkovo 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 whitebox 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  of Wallace et al. (2019) in the setting of modelto-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 : *X → Y* be a text classification model defined for a dataset D = {xi, yi} N i=1, where xi is an input and yiis 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 xˆ = t⊕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): $$F R={\frac{1}{N}}\sum_{{\hat{x}}=t\oplus x,\ x\in{\mathcal{D}}}[f(x)\neq f({\hat{x}})].\quad(1)$$ 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: $$\operatorname*{max}_{t\in\mathcal{V}^{L}}\mathbb{E}_{x,y\sim\mu}\langle\nabla_{t^{n}}\mathcal{L}(t^{n}\oplus x,y),t-t^{n}\rangle,\quad(2)$$ where µ is a distribution of input data, t n denotes the trigger found after the n-th iteration, 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: $$\operatorname*{max}_{t_{j}\in{\mathcal{V}}}\sum_{x,y\in{\mathrm{batch}}}\langle\nabla_{t_{j}^{n}}{\mathcal{L}}(t^{n}\oplus x,y),t_{j}-t_{j}^{n}\rangle,\quad(3)$$ 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 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 = W V , where V is a vocabulary matrix and Wmn 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∈S X x,y∈batch ⟨∇tn L(t n ⊕ x, y), W V − t n⟩,(4) $\angle1\,=\,1\,\text{-}W\,>\,0$], c. where S = {W| W1 = 1, W ≥ 0} and W ≥ 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 S. 130 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: $$\begin{array}{c}{{l(\hat{x})-l(\hat{x}^{n})\approx J_{l}(\hat{x}^{n})(\hat{x}-\hat{x}^{n})}}\\ {{\|l(\hat{x})-l(\hat{x}^{n})\|_{q}^{q}\rightarrow\operatorname*{max}_{t\in\mathcal{V}^{L}},}}\end{array}\qquad\quad(5)$$ where xˆ n = t n ⊕ x, q is a hyperparameter to be fine-tuned and Jl(x) is the Jacobian operator corresponding to a layer l: $$J_{l}(x)={\frac{\partial l(x)}{\partial x}}.$$ ∂x . (6) Bringing (4) and (5) together we obtain $$\operatorname*{max}_{W\in{\mathcal{S}}}F_{l}(W)=$$ $$\operatorname*{max}_{W\in{\mathcal{S}}}I(W)=$$ $$\operatorname*{max}_{W\in{\mathcal{S}}}\sum_{x\in\mathrm{batch}}\|J_{l}(t^{n}\oplus x)(W V-t^{n})\|_{q}^{q}.\tag{7}$$ 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 bruteforce computation is very cumbersome since, for each iteration, it would require computing the Jacobian action for every batch, token candidate and position, resulting in O(LB|V|) forward-backward passes, where B is the number of batches in an iteration. Luckily, Fl(W) is convex and can be lower bounded via a tangent line, where the gradient is calculated as follows: $$\nabla F_{l}(W)=$$ ⊤, (8) $$\sum_{x\in\mathrm{batch}}J_{l}^{\top}({\hat{x}}^{n})\psi_{q}(J_{l}({\hat{x}}^{n})(W V-t^{n}))V^{\top},$$ where ψq(x) = sign(x)|x| q−1. Therefore, our task is reduced to finding the solution to the linear problem with the simplicial constraint: $$\operatorname*{max}_{W\in{\mathcal{S}}}\langle\nabla F_{l}(W^{*}),W\rangle,$$ where ∇Fl(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 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. $$(6)$$ Algorithm 1: LUATs: Layerwise Universal Adversarial Triggers Input: Dataset 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_ $W=\frac{1}{|\mathcal{V}|}$ones($L,|\mathcal{V}|$) $3$ _while $FR$ increase do_ 4 Sample batch X 5 Compute ∇Fl(W) over batch 6 *candidates* = Select indices of k largest entries of ∇Fl(W) for each token position 7 t = BeamSearch(D*, candidates, b*) to maximize FR $$(8)$$ ## 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. $$(9)$$ ## 3.1 Setup Datasets. As in the work of Wang et al. (2021), we consider only a subset of tasks from the GLUE 1https://github.com/sb-ai-lab/nlp-layerwise-fooler 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 ∈ {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6} and q ∈ {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 crossentropy 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. | Dataset | Validation | Test | # Classes | BERT | RoBERTa | ALBERT | |------------------|------------------|------------------|-------------|-----------|-----------|-----------| | Acc. Val. / Test | Acc. Val. / Test | Acc. Val. / Test | | | | | | MRPC | 408 | 1725 | 2 | 87.7/84.4 | 90.4/87.2 | 89.7/86.0 | | QNLI | 5463 | 5463 | 2 | 91.5/90.7 | 91.8/91.8 | 90.6/90.8 | | MNLI | 9815 | 9796 | 3 | 84.2/83.7 | 86.5/86.3 | 83.8/83.5 | | SST-2 | 872 | 1821 | 2 | 92.4/93.3 | 94.0/94.9 | 92.7/91.7 | | RTE | 277 | 3000 | 2 | 72.6/67.6 | 80.5/74.0 | 76.0/72.2 |  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 $$\mathrm{PMI}(t o k e n,c l a s s)=\log{\frac{p(t o k e n,c l a s s)}{p(t o k e n)p(c l a s s)}}$$ . 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 QNLI2 (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 2The results on SST-2 and MRPC are presented in the Appendix B on the Tab. 6 and 7 | Model | Dataset | FR@1 | FR@2 | FR@3 | FR@4 | FR@5 | FR@6 | | | | | | | |---------|-----------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | W | S | W | S | W | S | W | S | W | S | W | S | | | | MNLI | 18.5 | 14.8 | 25.8 | 17.0 | 25.8 | 18.5 | 34.8 | 21.1 | 34.8 | 24.8 | 34.8 | 24.8 | | | MRPC | 11.4 | 4.5 | 27.6 | 28.9 | 47.9 | 54.8 | 66.6 | 64.1 | 66.6 | 67.0 | 67.6 | 67.6 | | | QNLI | 26.4 | 37.5 | 47.5 | 48.1 | 50.5 | 50.8 | 50.5 | 51.5 | 52.2 | 52.4 | 52.5 | 52.4 | | | RTE | 4.8 | 4.9 | 6.3 | 11.9 | 7.9 | 11.9 | 9.1 | 17.7 | 9.1 | 17.7 | 9.1 | 17.7 | | | SST-2 | 21.0 | 29.7 | 34.8 | 38.8 | 45.5 | 46.4 | 47.9 | 48.5 | 50.6 | 48.7 | 50.6 | 48.7 | | | ALBERT | MNLI | 32.0 | 10.2 | 38.4 | 33.6 | 38.4 | 34.5 | 38.4 | 34.7 | 38.4 | 35.6 | 38.4 | 35.6 | | MRPC | 15.4 | 9.3 | 64.6 | 56.6 | 70.6 | 69.0 | 70.7 | 70.4 | 70.8 | 70.6 | 70.8 | 70.7 | | | QNLI | 26.2 | 23.2 | 42.6 | 37.9 | 47.2 | 42.3 | 50.6 | 49.1 | 50.6 | 50.8 | 50.8 | 50.8 | | | RTE | 4.7 | 4.2 | 6.6 | 6.7 | 7.1 | 8.5 | 7.6 | 10.2 | 7.6 | 10.2 | 11.2 | 10.2 | | | SST-2 | 29.7 | 27.0 | 42.1 | 38.0 | 42.1 | 44.6 | 42.1 | 48.2 | 50.6 | 49.0 | 50.8 | 49 | | | BERT | MNLI | 4.8 | 8.2 | 4.9 | 22.3 | 33.0 | 28.8 | 33.0 | 30.0 | 33.0 | 33.1 | 33.0 | 33.1 | | MRPC | 4.2 | 4.9 | 35.5 | 26.3 | 67.8 | 68.5 | 69.4 | 69.3 | 69.4 | 69.3 | 69.5 | 69.3 | | | QNLI | 14.7 | 13.3 | 32.6 | 39.0 | 41.5 | 44.9 | 44.5 | 47.3 | 48.1 | 47.7 | 48.1 | 48.3 | | | RTE | 3.1 | 6.3 | 6.1 | 13.6 | 6.1 | 13.6 | 8.0 | 13.6 | 8.0 | 16.3 | 9.2 | 16.3 | | | SST-2 | 28.4 | 26.9 | 34.7 | 38.7 | 43.9 | 45.9 | 49.9 | 47.1 | 49.9 | 50.7 | 49.9 | 53.1 | | | Average | - | 16.3 | 15.0 | 30.0 | 30.5 | 38.4 | 38.9 | 41.5 | 41.5 | 42.7 | 42.9 | 43.1 | 43.2 | | RoBERTa | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 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). | BERT | ALBERT | RoBERTa | | | | | |-------------------------|-----------------------------|--------------------------------|---------------------------------|----------------|-----------------------|-------| | E | Rank N | Rank E | Rank N | Rank E | Rank N | Rank | | emperor 94.69 either | 99.60 70% | 98.95 those | 99.02 billion | 99.95 why | 99.65 | | | berlin | 93.72 legislation 97.60 10% | 96.10 amount | 98.59 kilometres | 99.91 how | 98.93 | | | whose | 92.14 can | 97.08 3,500 | 93.82 unless | 93.46 females | 94.98 mountains 98.83 | | | russian | 90.91 ter | 95.37 18% | 93.72 71 | 92.72 Cass | 93.62 where | 98.68 | | cardinal 90.25 latitude | 93.81 20% | 93.45 nor | 92.46 Kazakhstan 85.19 hundred | 97.44 | | | | orient | 89.83 dalai | 92.04 whose | 91.79 where | 91.30 trillion | 85.14 ship | 96.52 | | german | 89.03 samurai | 90.52 11% | 88.79 besides | 90.62 Dull | 83.16 least | 95.29 | | korean | 87.77 granting | 90.24 54% | 88.34 correlation 88.56 Estonia | 80.62 USA | 92.90 | | | fide | 84.10 reich | 90.10 supplemented 86.34 holds | 87.90 wherein | 79.12 who | 92.67 | | | atop | 82.91 banning | 88.47 50% | 85.46 waived | 87.12 sued | 78.91 haven | 91.65 | Table 3: PMI for the joint training and validation set of QNLI, E - Entailment, N - Not entailment | From/To | MRPC, W/S | QNLI, W/S | SST-2, W/S | | | | | | | |-----------|-------------|-------------|--------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------| | ALBERT | BERT | RoBERTa | ALBERT | BERT | RoBERTa | ALBERT | BERT | RoBERTa | | | ALBERT | - | 22.8/53.5 | 33.9/69.1 | - | 45.6/36.1 | 39.0/38.1 | - | 30.6/37.5 | 24.2/34.7 | | BERT | 6.7/17.2 | - | 60.5/67.8 | 34.6/36.3 | - | 22.0/36.0 | 31.0/29.3 | - | 17.7/24.1 | | RoBERTa | 15.3/32.1 | 55.5/64.6 | - | 20.4/40.4 | 18.0/35.9 | - | 34.1/26.2 | 36.9/37.7 | - | 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/To | ALBERT, W/S | BERT, W/S | RoBERTa, W/S | | | | | | | |-----------|---------------|-------------|----------------|-----------|-----------|----------|-----------|-----------|---------| | MRPC | QNLI | SST-2 | MRPC | QNLI | SST-2 | MRPC | QNLI | SST-2 | | | MRPC | - | 9.5/21.9 | 5.4/32.5 | - | 18.3/17.6 | 11.8/9.4 | - | 31.4/25.6 | 5.3/6.0 | | QNLI | 13.6/14.0 | - | 9.0/31.7 | 32.9/35.5 | - | 2.8/4.7 | 22.7/40.9 | - | 2.9/8.9 | | SST-2 | 8.6/22.8 | 31.3/36.0 | - | 29.7/64.8 | 27.5/21.2 | - | 18.1/13.9 | 14.0/15.9 | - | 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.     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 semanticspreserving 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 S Let us consider the following linear problem with a cost matrix C: ## Max W∈S ⟨C, W⟩. We need to construct the Lagrangian L and the consequent dual problem to obtain its solution. $$\begin{array}{l l}{{L=-\operatorname{Tr}((C+M)^{\top}W)+\lambda^{\top}(W1-1)}}\\ {{}}&{{=-\operatorname{Tr}((C+M-\lambda1^{\top})^{\top}W)-\lambda^{\top}1}}\end{array}$$ where λ and M are the Lagrange multipliers. From KKT conditions, we have: $$\begin{array}{c c}{{}}&{{C+M-\lambda1^{\top}=O,}}\\ {{}}&{{M\geq0,}}\\ {{}}&{{M\cdot W=0,}}\end{array}\begin{array}{c c}{{}}&{{W1=1,}}\end{array}$$ where M · W means elementwise multiplication. As a result, we obtain the following dual problem: $$\begin{array}{c}{{\operatorname*{max}-\lambda^{\top}1,}}\\ {{s.t.\ -\lambda1^{\top}\leq-C.}}\end{array}$$ Under the assumption that each row of the cost matrix C has a unique maximum, the closed-form solution will take the form: λi = max jCij , ∀i, and the corresponding primal solution $$W=\left\{\begin{array}{l}{{}}\\ {{}}\end{array}\right.$$ $\neg x$. (Wij = 1, j = argmaxj Cij∀i, Wij = 0, otherwise. Otherwise, if any row i of C violates the above assumption by having k > 1 maximal elements with indices {j1*, . . . , j*k}, then $$W_{i j}=\frac{1}{k},\quad\forall k\in\{j_{1},\ldots,j_{k}\}.$$ ## 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. FR   0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50  | BERT | ALBERT | RoBERTa | | | | | |-----------------------|--------------------------------|------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|-----------------|------------------------|-------| | N | Rank P | Rank N | Rank P | Rank N | Rank P | Rank | | worst | 99.96 also | 99.13 fails | 99.70 coming | 94.40 neither | 99.44 powerful | 99.95 | | stupid | 99.87 drama | 98.51 devoid | 99.39 foremost | 82.79 failure | 99.23 enjoyable | 99.94 | | fails | 99.66 definitely 96.00 failure | 98.90 behalf | 81.14 whether | 97.22 beautiful | 99.91 | | | poor | 99.48 shows | 95.81 whether | 97.22 warmed | 28.42 despite | 95.17 remarkable 99.78 | | | neither | 99.35 walk | 94.89 unless | 94.21 placement 10.03 considering 89.70 refreshing | 99.76 | | | | badly | 99.32 ranks | 93.12 irrelevant | 93.76 irrelevant | 6.30 because | 87.80 thriller | 99.62 | | crap | 98.91 but | 86.00 placement 90.06 unless | 5.91 never | 80.57 warmth | 99.55 | | | pacing | 97.94 these | 84.96 warmed | 71.65 whether | 2.78 despite | 80.48 impressive | 99.46 | | whether 97.03 wherein | 78.49 behalf | 19.60 failure | 1.11 ball | 74.50 creative | 99.34 | | | every | 96.81 weeks | 59.58 foremost | 17.79 devoid | 0.61 notice | 70.93 delightful | 99.26 | | BERT | ALBERT | RoBERTa | | | | | |-----------------------|---------------------------|-------------------------------|-----------------------------|-------------------------------|-----------------------|-------| | N | Rank E | Rank N | Rank E | Rank N | Rank E | Rank | | succeeded 97.09 never | 97.74 ashamed | 95.06 after | 99.48 waves | 95.42 fire | 98.91 | | | seeing | 95.94 least | 96.50 stumbling | 87.91 under | 99.45 aside | 95.42 against | 98.65 | | merits | 88.23 killing | 96.19 tire | 87.91 because 98.89 harming | 88.06 water | 95.89 | | | longest | 88.23 prison | 95.58 cutting | 77.42 since | 98.27 skepticism 88.06 health | 95.86 | | | feeling | 78.82 much | 94.49 declined | 76.26 how | 97.70 burns | 88.06 pleaded | 95.19 | | raped | 77.95 welcome 94.04 boise | 70.31 whether 97.51 survives | 88.06 nothing | 93.25 | | | | batting | 77.95 behind | 93.65 fury | 66.42 should | 97.12 votes | 76.46 won | 92.13 | | jail | 74.66 born | 92.60 slay | 55.80 cost | 96.57 justice | 70.62 NATO | 91.82 | | banning | 70.64 needed | 92.26 reactions | 52.67 serious | 96.38 ressing | 65.60 suffering 88.81 | | | backing | 70.64 nothing | 91.30 disapprove 52.67 guilty | 96.31 deceived | 48.45 happens | 87.63 | | | MRPC | QNLI | SST-2 | | |-------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|----| | Trigger | l Trigger | l Trigger | l | | A → B they ended and | 10 preis much $100, 000 | 3 unsuitable improper whether 10 | | | A → R rostov she blushed | 1 $100, 000 what simulate | 2 unsuitable improper whether 10 | | | B → A nothing pains kilograms | 1 whichever thirds lithuanian 9 folding worse as | 5 | | | B → R suffered sins declined | 11 ibly semester longest | 8 folding worse as | 5 | | R → A Avoid water taps | 10 WHY voted beyond | 2 decayingjuryNeither | 1 | | R → B Avoid water taps | 10 WHY voted beyond | 2 surprisingly refreshing lest | 11 | | ALBERT | BERT | RoBERTa | | | |-----------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------|----------------------------|----| | Trigger | l Trigger | l Trigger | l | | | M → Q nobody reminds austro | 8 is blood corrupt | 9 history doubtless beyond | 8 | | | M → S | failing forcing the | 4 ching stiff punishments | 8 history doubtless beyond | 8 | | Q → M or widen further | 10 whichever thirds lithuanian 9 WHY voted beyond | 2 | | | | Q → S | trillion unless marylebone | 5 ant trees romanized | 5 wherein perished supra | 7 | | S → M | unsuitable improper whether 10 seemed wiped whoever | 9 Eating welcome respecting 7 | | | | S → Q | renumbered littered neither | 8 ogarily diminished | 4 Crystal tasty ain | 9 | 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. | Model | L | FR Val. | FR Test | Trigger | |----------------------------|-----|-----------|-----------|--------------------------------------------| | UAT, BERT | 2 | 38.6 | 38.4 | neither nor | | UAT, BERT | 4 | 35.4 | 35.0 | situation nonetheless resulted nor | | Ours, ALBERT, q = 7, i = 4 | 5 | 24.8 | 24.8 | regretted joyahbwv although doubted | | Ours, ALBERT, q = 4, i = 8 | 6 | 21.4 | 21.4 | tremendous 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. | Dataset | Model | Triggers | |-----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------| | ALBERT | hamas doubted; neither motioned; i doubted pronoun; cursing neutron unless; | | | MNLI | transportation workers unless preferring; | | | BERT | but neither; remarkably neither; of neither nor; get neither outta even; backdrop but and neither; ft still maintained not whether | | | RoBERTa | slideshow Neither; HELL Neither; THERE HAS NEVER; ohan Never nor; Fifa VERY NEVER Whether | | | ALBERT | unless if; whereas and; they ended and; unless stumbling out and; commerce | | | MRPC | corroborat declined and; and siblings live because | | | BERT | against attempt; prepares worse conflicts; was priesthood killing contrary; each mortally duel harta; ring opposed her homosexuality | | | RoBERTa | Drop until; actresses won awards; Enhanced Population Died Low; Harlem Recommended Submit BLM Question; hum DOWN burns firing Bloody Hyp | | | ALBERT | and 40%; averaged percentage; 88% finance 11%; vittorio whom relinquished; | | | QNLI | cristo, sharing whom reissued; downloadable bilingual why cancellation | | | BERT | nine charities; carlos orient whom; whose reich declaring; gor german which emperor; maya commuted whose ballet | | | RoBERTa | nineteen countries; Nearly trillions trillion; Thousand hundred trillion; how MUCH mountains Cass; gui why sued awaits Reviews; | | | ALBERT | flight unless; suck unnecessary; skidded irrelevant whether; failure placement | | | SST-2 | unless; just whine worthless; fails subdistrict picture | | | BERT | degraded whether; dissatisfied neither; television failed whether; definitely worst wherein whoever; crap stupid feed whereby whether | | | RoBERTa | powerfully 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. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist 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? 1 ✓ 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 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? 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.

wang-etal-2023-scene

Scene-robust Natural Language Video Localization via Learning Domain-invariant Representations

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.11

Natural language video localization(NLVL) task involves the semantic matching of a text query with a moment from an untrimmed video. Previous methods primarily focus on improving performance with the assumption of independently identical data distribution while ignoring the out-of-distribution data. Therefore, these approaches often fail when handling the videos and queries in novel scenes, which is inevitable in real-world scenarios. In this paper, we, for the first time, formulate the scene-robust NLVL problem and propose a novel generalizable NLVL framework utilizing data in multiple available scenes to learn a robust model. Specifically, our model learns a group of generalizable domain-invariant representations by alignment and decomposition. First, we propose a comprehensive intra- and inter-sample distance metric for complex multi-modal feature space, and an asymmetric multi-modal alignment loss for different information densities of text and vision. Further, to alleviate the conflict between domain-invariant features for generalization and domain-specific information for reasoning, we introduce domain-specific and domain-agnostic predictors to decompose and refine the learned features by dynamically adjusting the weights of samples. Based on the original video tags, we conduct extensive experiments on three NLVL datasets with different-grained scene shifts to show the effectiveness of our proposed methods.

# Scene-Robust Natural Language Video Localization Via Learning Domain-Invariant Representations Zehan Wang and **Yang Zhao** and **Haifeng Huang** and **Yan Xia** and **Zhou Zhao**∗ {wangzehan01,awalk,huanghaifeng,zhaozhou} @zju.edu.cn Zhejiang University ## Abstract Natural language video localization(NLVL) task involves the semantic matching of a text query with a moment from an untrimmed video. Previous methods primarily focus on improving performance with the assumption of independently identical data distribution while ignoring the out-of-distribution data. Therefore, these approaches often fail when handling the videos and queries in novel scenes, which is inevitable in real-world scenarios. In this paper, we, for the first time, formulate the scene-robust NLVL problem and propose a novel generalizable NLVL framework utilizing data in multiple available scenes to learn a robust model. Specifically, our model learns a group of generalizable domain-invariant representations by alignment and decomposition. First, we propose a comprehensive intra- and inter-sample distance metric for complex multimodal feature space, and an asymmetric multimodal alignment loss for different information densities of text and vision. Further, to alleviate the conflict between domain-invariant features for generalization and domain-specific information for reasoning, we introduce domainspecific and domain-agnostic predictors to decompose and refine the learned features by dynamically adjusting the weights of samples. Based on the original video tags, we conduct extensive experiments on three NLVL datasets with different-grained scene shifts to show the effectiveness of our proposed methods. ## 1 Introduction Natural language video localization(NLVL) (Wang et al., 2020; Zhao et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2021) aims to retrieve a temporal moment from an untrimmed video to match a language query semantically. As a fundamental vision-language problem, NLVL attracts increasing attention, and recent works (Chen et al., 2018; Gao et al., 2017; Xu et al., 2019a, 2018; Zhang et al., 2020a,b; Chen ∗Corresponding author.  Figure 1: An illustration of different scenes in an NLVL dataset. These examples are selected from CharadesSTA, and the videos are in Bathroom, *Living room* and Kitchen, respectively. et al., 2019; Ghosh et al., 2019; Yuan et al., 2019b) has achieved impressive results. However, their performances are tested with the assumption of independently identical data distribution. Given the variety of video content, it is impossible to cover all scenes when building training datasets. Therefore, these methods are impractical in real-world scenarios since they ignore the generalization ability to novel scenes. In this paper, we, for the first time, propose the scene-robust NLVL problem. Scene-robust NLVL aims to take advantage of data in available scenes to learn a robust model which can generalize well on novel scenes. As shown in the Figure 1, there are obvious semantic differences between video and text input scenes, such as video background, specific actions and objects in a scene. In more detail, we analyze the semantic distribution gaps across scenes in three NLVL datasets. The detailed statistics and discussions in the appendix show that the domain gaps between scenes are prevalent and diverse. Traditional NLVL models would experience dramatic performance degradation when dealing with such semantic distribution shifts. The proposed scene-robust NLVL problem is more challenging than the relevant traditional domain generalization(DG) problem. On the one hand, inputs of NLVL are multi-modal, which means the features used for predicting are a fusion of visual and textual features, and the final feature space is much more complex. Besides, the different information attribute of video and text brings more difficulty. Recent DG methods mainly focus on learning domain-invariant representations on single-modal tasks, which are not comprehensive and appropriate for multi-modal features. On the other hand, NLVL requires more reasoning steps with diverse modules, and some samples may mainly rely on domain-specific information for reasoning. The knowledge in these data is hard-to-transfer and may affect the learning of domain-invariant representations and the predictor. To alleviate these challenges, we proposed a novel generalizable NLVL framework to learn stable and high-quality multi-modal domain-invariant representations from alignment and decomposition perspectives. Specifically, we design a multi-modal domain alignment module that contains: an intraand inter-sample distance metric for aligning the complex multi-modal feature spaces comprehensively, an asymmetric multi-modal aligning strategy for different information densities of textual and visual features, and Dirichlet-Mixup augmentation to compensate for the missing information and increases the domain diversity. Besides, we introduce domain-specific predictors for each domain to refine the learned domain-invariant representations by decomposition, and dynamically suppress the weights of hard-to-transfer samples by simply summing the outputs of domain-specific and domain-agnostic predictors. Our main contributions can be summarized as follows: - To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to formulate the scene-robust NLVL problem, which is quite essential for real-world scenarios and fundamentally more challenging. - We propose a novel generalizable NLVL framework to address the unique challenges of the scene-robust NLVL problem. It learns and refines domain-invariant representations from both alignment and decomposition perspectives. - The extensive experiments conducted on three NLVL datasets: Charades-STA, ActivityNet- Caption, and YouCook2, demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed methods. ## 2 Related Work Natural Language Video Localization. The task of retrieving video segments using language queries is first introduced by (Gao et al., 2017). The previous methods in the field can be categorized into proposal-*based* (Gao et al., 2017; Xu et al., 2018, 2019a; Chen et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2020b; Wang et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2019; Yuan et al., 2019a) and proposal-*free* (Yuan et al., 2019b; Chen et al., 2019; Ghosh et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2020a; Mun et al., 2020; Rodriguez et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2019) methods. Specifically, proposal-*based* methods mainly rely on sliding windows or segment proposal networks to generate proposal candidates from video and retrieve the best matching one for the given semantic information. (Xu et al., 2018) apply the pre-trained segment proposal network (Xu et al., 2017) for proposal candidates generation, (Xu et al., 2019a) further introduce query information to adjust proposals generation process. (Zhang et al., 2020b) first utilizes a 2D temporal map to generate proposals. Considering the redundant computation and low efficiency of the two-stage propose-andrank, (Yuan et al., 2019b) build a proposal-*free* method using attention-based structures to directly regresses temporal locations of the target moment. Inspired by the concept of question answering(Seo et al., 2016; Yu et al., 2018), (Chen et al., 2019; Ghosh et al., 2019) try to formulate NLVL as a span prediction task. (Zhang et al., 2020a) further explains the similarity and differences between NLVL and question answering, and the proposed VSLNet achieves superior performance with simple network architecture. Domain Generalization. Domain generalization aims to learn a generalizable model from seen source domains to achieve good performance on unseen target domains. Most existing domain generalization methods can be roughly divided into three categories: *representation learning-based* (Li et al., 2018b, 2017; Ghifary et al., 2016; Rahman et al., 2020), *data augmentation-based* (Somavarapu et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2021; Shu et al., 2021; Mancini et al., 2020; Cheng et al., 2023), and *learning strategy-based* (Mancini et al., 2018; Cha et al., 2021; Finn et al., 2017; Li et al., 2018a).  One common approach for domain generalization is learning domain-invariant feature representation, which can be realized by aligning source domains or disentangling features into domain-specific and domain-invariant components. (Li et al., 2018b) employ Adversarial Auto-encoder (Makhzani et al., 2015) and Maximum Mean Discrepancy(Gretton et al., 2012) metric to align distribution between every pair of source domains. (Li et al., 2017) decomposes the model into domain-specific and domainagnostic parts and only utilizes domain-agnostic parts to make predictions at inference time. Data augmentation-based methods focus on manipulating new data to increase the diversity of training data. (Somavarapu et al., 2020) use the style transfer model (Huang and Belongie, 2017) to explore cross-source variability for better generalization. (Zhou et al., 2021; Shu et al., 2021; Mancini et al., 2020) mix the features between instances from different domains to further explore inter-domain feature spaces and compensates for the missing information. *Learning strategy-based* methods employ the general learning strategy to enhance the generalization ability. (Mancini et al., 2018; Cha et al., 2021) exploit ensemble learning to flatten the loss surface and learn a unified and generalized model. Meanwhile, (Li et al., 2018a) proposes meta-learning for domain generalization(MLDG), which uses a meta-learning strategy to achieve domain generalization. However, most well-studied domain generalization strategies are proposed for single-modal or easy multi-modal tasks requiring less reasoning, such as image classification and image-text retrieval. These tasks' input modality and model structure are much simpler than that of NLVL, and the extra complexity makes the scene-robust NLVL problem more challenging. ## 3 Approach We first formulate the scene-robust NLVL problem and our basic model architecture. Then we illustrate our method for learning domain-invariant representation for NLVL from two aspects: multimodal domain alignment and feature refinement by decomposition. ## 3.1 Overview Problem Formulation. Given an untrimmed video v and a related natural language query q, NLVL is to retrieve the specific moment {τˆs, τˆe} that is most semantically relevant to the given query. Assuming there are K domains in total, for domain l, the input video and query can be denoted as vl and ql. In scene-robust NLVL, the model can only access several source domains during training, while the target domain's data is unavailable. The generalization ability can be tested on the unseen target domain. Model Architecture. The overall architecture of our model is illustrated in Figure 2. Concretely, our basic NLVL model consists of a video encoder ev : vl → vel ∈ R Nv×D, a query encoder eq : ql → qel ∈ R Nq×D, a cross-modal representation fusion module m : vel × qel → fl ∈ R Nv×D, a domainagnostic boundary predictor pb : fl → {Ts, Te}, and some domain-specific boundary predictors {p l b} K l=1 : fl → {T l s, T l e}, where Ts, Te ∈ R Nv denote the scores of start and end boundaries at each frame. Meanwhile, we use a confidence coefficient predictor pc : fl → C ∈ R Nvto assist training, where C represents the confidence coefficient of the frame in the matching span. ## 3.2 Multi-Modal Domain Alignment In this section, we describe our proposed multimodal domain alignment method. As discussed in (Arora et al., 2017; Long et al., 2018), when the feature distribution is multi-modal, adversarial learning is insufficient to guarantee that the confounded feature distributions are identical, and a simple distance metric would align different domains partially. Therefore, we devise an intra- and inter-sample distance metric to measure the domain differences comprehensively. Considering the multi-modal input in NLVL and the different information densities of each modality, we asymmetrically applied the metric to visual and fusion feature representations to facilitate the learning of multi-modal domain-invariant representations. Intra- and Inter-sample Distance Metric. For brevity, the latent representations from different domains are denoted as {Hl} K l=1, where Hl ∈ R b×n×dand *b, n, d* represent the number of samples in this batch, feature size and feature dimension of each sample, respectively. First, we calculate the intra- and inter-sample feature distribution: $$\tag{1}\textbf{H}_{intra}^l=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=1}^{N}\textbf{H}_l$$ $\tag{2}\textbf{H}_{inter}^l=\sqrt{\frac{1}{B}\sum_{b=1}^{B}{(\textbf{H}_{intra}^l-\frac{1}{B}\sum_{b=1}^{B}{\textbf{H}_{intra}^l)^2}}}$ - The __KI__ is the same as the correct denominator. The Hl intra is the mean value computed across the temporal dimension of each sample, which represents intra-sample feature distribution for source domain l; Hl inter is the standard deviation across all samples in a batch, which indicates the intersample feature distribution for source domain l. Based on the complementary two-feature distributions of latent representations, we can comprehensively measure the distance between data distributions of different domains. The proposed intra- and inter-sample distance metric function IIDM(·) is defined as follows: $$IDM(\{\mathbf{H}_{i}\}_{i=1}^{K})=\sum_{1\leq i,j\leq K}\frac{\text{\emph{MMD}}^{2}(\mathbf{H}_{\text{intra}}^{\text{i}},\mathbf{H}_{\text{intra}}^{\text{j}})+\text{\emph{MMD}}^{2}(\mathbf{H}_{\text{inter}}^{\text{i}},\mathbf{H}_{\text{inter}}^{\text{j}})}{K(K-1)}\tag{3}$$ Maximum Mean Discrepancy(MMD) (Gretton et al., 2006) is an effective metric for comparing two distributions. Given feature distributions from domain i and j, the function can be written as: $$M M D^{2}(\mathbf{H}^{i},\mathbf{H}^{j})=\|{\frac{1}{B}}\sum_{b=1}^{B}\phi(\mathbf{h}_{b}^{i})-{\frac{1}{B}}\sum_{b=1}^{B}\phi(\mathbf{h}_{b}^{j})\|^{2}$$ where ϕ is a simple gaussian or linear kernel function that maps representations to a highdimensional feature space. Multi-modal Asymmetric Alignment. In the NLVL task, the query sentences are semantically related to the video. For different scenes, there are significant gaps in both visual and textual features. A straightforward approach is to align textual and visual features separately by the proposed distance metric. However, as discussed in (He et al., 2022), the information density is different between language and vision. Textual features are highly semantic and information-dense, while visual features are heavily redundant. Using the same domain alignment method for different modalities would result in either inadequate alignment of visual features or loss of textual semantic information. To address this dilemma, we devise an asymmetric method to align different modalities. Specifically, the intra- and inter-sample distance metric is applied on the visual features {vel} K l=1 and fused features {fl} K l=1, and the total multi-modal asymmetric alignment loss Lmaa can be formulated as: $$L_{m a a}\!=\!(1\!-\!\lambda_{f})\,{\it I I D M}(\{\tilde{\mathbf{v}}_{l}\}_{l=1}^{K})\!+\!\lambda_{f}\,{\it I I D M}(\{\mathbf{f}_{l}\}_{l=1}^{K})\,,\tag{5}$$ where λf is hyper-parameter to balance these two parts. By aligning the fused features, we can indirectly match the textual feature distributions to minimize the loss of semantic information, while the redundant visual feature can be aligned twice before and after considering the textual information to achieve sufficient alignment. Domain Augmentation by Dirichlet-Mixup. To compensates for the missing information and increases the data diversity, we adopt DirichletMixup (Shu et al., 2021) to mix multiple source domains for generating inter-domain data. This method sample the weights from the Dirichlet distribution rather than the beta distribution used in the original mixup (Zhang et al., 2017). Given latent representations of samples from different domain {hi} K i=1 where hi ∈ R n×d, where n denotes the number of sample and d is the feature dimension. The mixed feature representation hm can be calculated as: $\delta=Dirichlet(\beta_{1},\ldots,\beta_{K})$ (6) $$\mathbf{h}_{m}=\sum_{i=1}^{K}\delta^{(i)}\mathbf{h}_{i}\tag{7}$$ $$147$$  where δ ∈ R K×n. Considering the similarity between the target domain and each source domain is unpredictable, we set the weight βi of each domain to be equal, which indicates the sampled values δ (i) of each source domain are statistically equal. ## 3.3 Features Refinement By Decomposition Our multi-modal domain alignment method is designed to facilitate the acquisition of domaininvariant representations by the model. However, the NLVL task is characterized by complex structures and multi-step reasoning, with some samples relying heavily on domain-specific information for reasoning. In such cases, learning domain-invariant representations is at odds with learning NLVL reasoning, leading to unstable domain-invariant representations and an unreliable boundary predictor. To mitigate this conflict between task loss and alignment loss, we introduce the domain-specific boundary predictors pblKl = 1 for each source domain, as well as a domain-agnostic boundary predictor pb for all domains. This allows for the dynamic adjustment of weights for these samples and the refinement of features utilized by the domainagnostic prediction through decomposition. During training, the boundary predictions for calculating NLVL task loss is the combination of the two kinds of predictors: $$\{T_{s},T_{e}\}=(1-\gamma)p_{b}(f_{l})+\gamma p_{b}^{l}(f_{l})$$ (fl) (8) Intuitively, the domain-agnostic predictor that fits all domains tends to use invariant features, while domain-specific predictors prefer to use both invariant and specific information for more accurate predictions. Therefore, as shown in Figure 3, the former's loss with the ground truth L1 is higher than the latter's L2, and loss Lbd of the combination is naturally between L1 and L2. The key to Eq.8 is to dynamically alter the weight of each sample according to the similarity of these two kinds of prediction. For the hard-totransfer samples, which mainly rely on domainspecific information for reasoning, their L1 would be much higher than L2, and the Lbd would also be typically lower than L1. Accordingly, since gradients are generally proportional to losses, the importance of hard-to-transfer samples and the instability brought by them will be suppressed. On the contrary, for samples, the more their reasoning depends on invariant features, the closer L1, Lbd and L2 are, and the less their weights are suppressed. By reducing the importance of the hard-totransfer samples, the domain-agnostic predictor can learn more stable predictions from invariant features, while no need to fit on specific features. Thus, for the features used for domain-agnostic prediction, the remaining domain-specific components in the learned representations are further decomposed by the domain-specific predictors. ## 3.4 Training And Inference For obtaining the scene-robust NLVL model, the final loss function should contain two components: NLVL task loss L*task* and multi-modal alignment loss Lmaa. For the NLVL task loss, we apply a similar loss function as used in (Zhang et al., 2020a), which consists of the boundary loss Lbd for training a reliable boundary predictor, and confidence coefficient loss Lcc to assist in learning discriminative features. The NLVL task loss is a linear combination of the above two sub-losses, *i.e.*, L*task* = Lcc + 0.2Lbd. The weight is empirically set for balancing the two terms. Finally, the overall loss function in the training process can be summarized as $$L=L_{t a s k}+\lambda_{m a a}L_{m a a}$$ $$(9)$$ where the λmaa is the hyper-parameter that depends on the distribution gap in different domains to balance alignment and task loss. During inference, we only use the domainagnostic boundary predictor, and the predicted timestamp {τs, τe} is determined by the boundary prediction {Ts, Te}, which can be written as $$\{\tau_{s},\tau_{e}\}=\arg\max(T_{s}(\tau_{s}),T_{e}(\tau_{e}))\tag{10}$$ Table 1: Performance on the Charades-STA for the scene-robust NLVL task. Method Liv. Bath. Kit. Bed. Avg Base 33.92 29.31 30.86 30.71 31.20 MMD 32.03 35.19 40.11 33.20 35.13 DANN 35.16 36.89 37.56 34.67 36.07 JSD 33.20 37.63 39.53 32.64 35.75 MMD-AAE 33.01 39.15 38.19 32.00 35.59 Supervised 36.39 44.52 39.14 37.95 39.50 Ours 35.29 39.64 40.19 35.21 **37.58** Table 2: Performance on the ActivityNet-Caption for the scene-robust NLVL problem. ## 4 Experiment 4.1 Dataset We reconstruct three NLVL public datasets for the scene-robust NLVL task based on their original video tags and perform experiments to evaluate the effectiveness of our framework. Charades-STA. This dataset is generated by (Gao et al., 2017) from the original Charades dataset (Sigurdsson et al., 2016), which is mainly about indoor activities. ActivityNet-Caption. It is constructed by (Krishna et al., 2017) and contains about 20,000 untrimmed videos of open activities from ActivityNet (Caba Heilbron et al., 2015). YouCook2. This dataset (Zhou et al., 2018) includes 2000 long untrimmed videos about cooking. It shows about 89 recipes in 14K video clips. Each video clip is annotated with one sentence. Based on the video tags provided by the original dataset annotators, each NLVL datasets have different-grained scene splits. For CharadesSTA, it can be split by activity location, i.e., Living room(Liv), Bathroom(Bath), *Kitchen(Kit)* and *Bedroom(Bed)*. ActivityNet-Caption is divided by activity event, i.e., Eat/Drink(E/D), Personal care(Pc), Household(Ho), *Social(So)* and Sport(Sp). As for YouCook2, it is split according Table 3: Performance on the YouCook2 for the scenerobust NLVL problem. Method Am EA SA Eu Avg | Method | E/D | Pc | Ho | So | Sp | Avg | |------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | Base | 32.29 | 35.24 | 34.51 | 37.97 | 33.00 | 34.60 | | MMD | 32.99 | 35.25 | 35.08 | 39.63 | 33.06 | 35.20 | | DANN | 32.44 | 35.71 | 34.62 | 38.67 | 32.88 | 34.86 | | JSD | 33.39 | 37.03 | 34.25 | 39.50 | 32.23 | 35.28 | | MMD-AAE | 33.31 | 35.91 | 35.54 | 39.37 | 33.56 | 35.54 | | Supervised | 36.24 | 36.74 | 39.09 | 42.55 | 39.12 | 38.75 | | Ours | 34.46 | 38.46 | 38.62 | 44.29 | 38.13 | 38.79 | Base 14.13 13.26 9.88 11.85 12.28 MMD 14.82 13.52 10.38 11.71 12.61 DANN 14.55 13.21 10.50 11.67 12.48 JSD 13.88 **13.98** 9.60 **12.21** 12.42 MMD-AAE 14.28 13.31 10.37 12.08 12.51 Supervised 15.85 16.42 11.81 14.11 14.55 Ours **15.48** 13.72 **11.41** 11.92 **13.13** to the origin of the used recipes, i.e., *America(Am)*, East Asia(EA), *South Asia(SA)* and *European(Eu)*. With these three restructured NLVL datasets, we iteratively use each domain as the target domain and the remaining domains as the source domains to construct the scene-robust NLVL task. The train/val/test split follows previous works (Zhang et al., 2020a; Zhou et al., 2018) and the scenerobust performance is evaluated on the test set of the target domain. ## 4.2 Experimental Settings Implementation Details. We utilize the AdamW (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2017) optimizer and CosineAnnealing scheduler (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2016) with weight decay 1e − 6, and learning rate 5e − 4 for ActivityNet-Caption and 2e − 4 for Charades-STA and YouCook2. During training, the λf in Eq.5 is set to 0.2, the γ in Eq.8 is set to 0.1, and the λmaa in Eq.9 is set to 4, 1, 0.1 for ActivityNet-Caption, Charades-STA and YouCook2 respectively. Due to the simple architecture of VSLBase (Zhang et al., 2020a), it can be viewed as a standard proposal-free model. Therefore, our basic network structure is the same as VSLBase to minimize the impact of architecture bias. Please refer to the appendix for more details. Evaluation Metrics. We adopt "R@*n, IoU* = m" as the evaluation metrics, following (Zhang et al., 2020a). This metric denotes the percentage of language queries having at least one result whose Intersection over Union(IoU) with ground truth is larger than m in the top-n grounding results. In our experiments, we use n = 1 and m = 0.5. Baseline. For a comprehensive comparison, we consider the following methods as baselines: 1) Variants of our model, including **Base**, which do not use any alignment and decomposition methods during training, and **Supervised**, which is Table 4: Framework components ablation on ActivityNet-Caption. | IIDMF | IIDMV | D-Mixup | FRD | Avg 34.60 | |---------|---------|-----------|-------|-------------| | ✓ | 36.22 | | | | | ✓ | ✓ | 38.26 | | | | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 38.61 | | | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 38.79 | | Method | Target domain | Avg | | | | | |-----------|-----------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | E/D | Pc | Ho | So | Sp | | | | w/o Intra | 34.36 | 37.76 | 36.24 | 43.64 | 37.44 | 37.89 | | w/o Inter | 34.11 | 36.71 | 35.99 | 41.17 | 33.97 | 36.39 | | Ours | 34.46 | 38.46 | 38.62 | 44.29 | 38.13 | 38.79 | trained on all domains without alignment and decomposition. 2) domain alignment methods for single-modal tasks, including **DANN** (Matsuura and Harada, 2020) and MMD (Li et al., 2018b). 3) domain alignment methods for other multi-modal tasks, including JSD (Chao et al., 2018) and MMA (Xu et al., 2019b). ## 4.3 Performance Comparison The quantitative evaluation results of our proposed method on Charades-STA, ActivityNet-Caption and YouCook2 are reported in Table 1, 2 and 3, respectively. The best results are in **bold** and second best underlined. According to the results, we have the following observations: - On all the benchmark datasets, our method gains noticeable performance improvements compared to the base model, which demonstrates that the proposed methods can effectively help the NLVL model learn the generalizable domain-invariant representations. Besides, stable improvement under differentgrained scene shifts is a significant and practical merit since the scene shift with source domains in real-world applications is diverse and unpredictable. - Remarkably, our method boosts the performance (Avg) of the Base model from 31.20/34.60 to 38.62/38.79 on Charades-STA and ActivityNet-Caption datasets, which far exceeds all the compared methods and even Table 6: Multi-modal alignment losses ablation on ActivityNet-Caption. achieves comparable performance to the supervised setting. It further reveals the superiority of our methods on the scene-robust NLVL problem. - Looking at the evaluation results on YouCook2, the improvement brought by our methods is relatively less than the other two datasets, which may stem from the intrinsic characteristics of this dataset. NLVL on YouCook2 is more challenging than Charades-STA and ActivityNet-Caption. The annotations of YouCook2 are more detailed, and the differences between adjacent frames are slight. The more complex NLVL reasoning on YouCook2 makes it harder to capture discriminative and domain-invariant representations. ## 4.4 Ablation Study | Method | Target domain | Avg | | | | | |----------|-----------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | E/D | Pc | Ho | So | Sp | | | | None | 32.29 | 35.24 | 34.51 | 37.97 | 33.01 | 34.60 | | IIDMT | 30.91 | 35.24 | 33.43 | 37.12 | 31.60 | 33.66 | | IIDMF | 33.77 | 36.71 | 35.91 | 40.98 | 33.75 | 36.22 | | IIDMV | 35.05 | 37.59 | 37.03 | 43.53 | 37.66 | 38.17 | Component Ablation. We ablate the major components of our framework on Activity-Net Caption: fused features alignment(*IIDM*F ), visual features alignment(*IIDM*V ), Dirichlet-Mixup(D-Mixup) and feature refining by decomposition(FRD). Results are reported in Table 4. By adding each of our proposed components in turns, the average accuracy gradually increases from 34.60 to 38.79, and each component brings noticeable improvement. The increasing accuracy indicates the effectiveness of each proposed component. In addition, as shown in Figure 4, FRD is even more effective on Charades-STA, with performance improving from 36.31 to 37.58 by default γ, and accuracy can further improve to nearly 38 by adjusting γ. Design of Distance Metric. The distance metric is critical for learning high-quality domaininvariant representations. To verify the complementarity of the intra-sample and inter-sample distribution in our proposed distance metric, we individually remove the two related term in Eq. 3. As shown in Table 5, the joint use of intra-sample and  inter-sample distributions leads to the best performance. In addition, the inter-sample part is more critical than the intra-sample part since multiple samples can better reflect the overall distribution of the domain. Design of Multi-modal Alignment. As discussed in Sec 3.2, the different information density of each modality requires a modality-specific alignment strategy. We separately align features of each modality to prove the necessity and effectiveness of our asymmetric multi-modal alignment strategy. From Table 6, we conclude: 1) Directly aligning information-dense textual features results in performance degradation and loss of semantics. 2) Only aligning the heavily redundant visual feature achieves the best results. 3) Aligning fused features, which can be viewed as symmetrical indirect multi-modal alignment, leads to sub-optimal performance due to insufficient visual information alignment. Hyper-Parameter Analysis. In our framework, the hyper-parameter γ in Eq. 8 and λmaa in Eq. 9 are important for generalization. Therefore, we further explore their impacts on Charades-STA and ActivityNet-Caption. As shown in Figure 4, for γ, a value of around 0.1 can obtain considerable gain, and too large γ would affect the training of the domain-agnostic predictor. As for λmaa, which depends on the ratio of the alignment loss, the optimal value relies on the distribution gaps between source domains. The bigger domain gaps, the larger λmaa should be set to reinforce alignments adaptively, and vice versa.  ## 4.5 Qualitative Analysis In order to qualitatively evaluate the performance of our alignment and decomposition strategy, we show two representative examples from the household scene in ActivityNet-Caption, which can be found in Figure 5. (The analysis of failure cases can be found in the appendix.) In both cases, the base model only learns to localize some simple and general actions in the novel scene, such as "smiling at the camera" and "presenting them." By introducing our multi-modal domain alignment method, the representations are forced to be domain-invariant, and the model learns to capture the high-level semantic similarities in different scenes instead of the common overlapping actions. Further, the decomposition approach refines the domain-invariant representations and stabilizes the learning process. Our scene-robust NLVL method can effectively improve localization accuracy on unseen scenes. ## 5 Conclusion In this paper, we first proposed a scene-robust problem in NLVL. Our main idea is to learn a group of high-quality domain-invariant feature representations from multiple source domains. By analyzing the extra generalization challenges posed by the NLVL task, we propose a novel NLVL framework that tackles the scene-robust problem from aligning and decoupling perspectives. With the help of these two branches, we significantly enhance the generalization ability to new scenes. Extensive experiments and detailed ablation studies on three widely-used benchmark datasets demonstrate the effectiveness and robustness of our methods. ## 6 Limitations In this work, we first formulate the scene-robust NLVL problem and propose our solution. However, our generalizable NLVL model is still tested on existing close-world datasets, and the actual performance in real-world scenarios needs to be further explored. A real-world, large-scale dataset is required to develop a practical, generalized, openworld query-based video retrieval model. ## Acknowledgments This work was supported in part by the National Key R&D Program of China under Grant No.2022ZD0162000, National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No.62222211, Grant No.61836002 and Grant No.62072397. ## References Sanjeev Arora, Rong Ge, Yingyu Liang, Tengyu Ma, and Yi Zhang. 2017. Generalization and equilibrium in generative adversarial nets (gans). In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 224–232. PMLR. Fabian Caba Heilbron, Victor Escorcia, Bernard Ghanem, and Juan Carlos Niebles. 2015. Activitynet: A large-scale video benchmark for human activity understanding. In Proceedings of the ieee conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 961–970. Joao Carreira and Andrew Zisserman. 2017. Quo vadis, action recognition? a new model and the kinetics dataset. In *proceedings of the IEEE Conference* on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 6299–6308. Junbum Cha, Hancheol Cho, Kyungjae Lee, Seunghyun Park, Yunsung Lee, and Sungrae Park. 2021. Domain generalization needs stochastic weight averaging for robustness on domain shifts. *arXiv e-prints*, pages arXiv–2102. Wei-Lun Chao, Hexiang Hu, and Fei Sha. 2018. Crossdataset adaptation for visual question answering. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 5716–5725. Jingyuan Chen, Xinpeng Chen, Lin Ma, Zequn Jie, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2018. Temporally grounding natural sentence in video. In Proceedings of the 2018 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 162–171. Jingyuan Chen, Lin Ma, Xinpeng Chen, Zequn Jie, and Jiebo Luo. 2019. Localizing natural language in videos. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pages 8175–8182. Xize Cheng, Linjun Li, Tao Jin, Rongjie Huang, Wang Lin, Zehan Wang, Huangdai Liu, Ye Wang, Aoxiong Yin, and Zhou Zhao. 2023. Mixspeech: Crossmodality self-learning with audio-visual stream mixup for visual speech translation and recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.05309. Chelsea Finn, Pieter Abbeel, and Sergey Levine. 2017. Model-agnostic meta-learning for fast adaptation of deep networks. In *International conference on machine learning*, pages 1126–1135. PMLR. Jiyang Gao, Chen Sun, Zhenheng Yang, and Ram Nevatia. 2017. Tall: Temporal activity localization via language query. In *Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision*, pages 5267– 5275. Muhammad Ghifary, David Balduzzi, W Bastiaan Kleijn, and Mengjie Zhang. 2016. Scatter component analysis: A unified framework for domain adaptation and domain generalization. *IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence*, 39(7):1414–1430. Soham Ghosh, Anuva Agarwal, Zarana Parekh, and Alexander Hauptmann. 2019. Excl: Extractive clip localization using natural language descriptions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.02755. Arthur Gretton, Karsten Borgwardt, Malte Rasch, Bernhard Schölkopf, and Alex Smola. 2006. A kernel method for the two-sample-problem. Advances in neural information processing systems, 19. Arthur Gretton, Karsten M Borgwardt, Malte J Rasch, Bernhard Schölkopf, and Alexander Smola. 2012. A kernel two-sample test. *The Journal of Machine* Learning Research, 13(1):723–773. Kaiming He, Xinlei Chen, Saining Xie, Yanghao Li, Piotr Dollár, and Ross Girshick. 2022. Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners. In *Proceedings of* the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 16000–16009. Xun Huang and Serge Belongie. 2017. Arbitrary style transfer in real-time with adaptive instance normalization. In *Proceedings of the IEEE international* conference on computer vision, pages 1501–1510. Ranjay Krishna, Kenji Hata, Frederic Ren, Li Fei-Fei, and Juan Carlos Niebles. 2017. Dense-captioning events in videos. In *Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision*, pages 706–715. Da Li, Yongxin Yang, Yi-Zhe Song, and Timothy M Hospedales. 2017. Deeper, broader and artier domain generalization. In *Proceedings of the IEEE* international conference on computer vision, pages 5542–5550. Da Li, Yongxin Yang, Yi-Zhe Song, and Timothy M Hospedales. 2018a. Learning to generalize: Metalearning for domain generalization. In Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Haoliang Li, Sinno Jialin Pan, Shiqi Wang, and Alex C Kot. 2018b. Domain generalization with adversarial feature learning. In *Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition*, pages 5400–5409. Mingsheng Long, Zhangjie Cao, Jianmin Wang, and Michael I Jordan. 2018. Conditional adversarial domain adaptation. Advances in neural information processing systems, 31. Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2016. Sgdr: Stochastic gradient descent with warm restarts. arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.03983. Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2017. Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101. Alireza Makhzani, Jonathon Shlens, Navdeep Jaitly, Ian Goodfellow, and Brendan Frey. 2015. Adversarial autoencoders. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.05644*. Massimiliano Mancini, Zeynep Akata, Elisa Ricci, and Barbara Caputo. 2020. Towards recognizing unseen categories in unseen domains. In *European Conference on Computer Vision*, pages 466–483. Springer. Massimiliano Mancini, Samuel Rota Bulo, Barbara Caputo, and Elisa Ricci. 2018. Best sources forward: domain generalization through source-specific nets. In 2018 25th IEEE international conference on image processing (ICIP), pages 1353–1357. IEEE. Toshihiko Matsuura and Tatsuya Harada. 2020. Domain generalization using a mixture of multiple latent domains. In *Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence*, volume 34, pages 11749–11756. Jonghwan Mun, Minsu Cho, and Bohyung Han. 2020. Local-global video-text interactions for temporal grounding. In *Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition*, pages 10810–10819. Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher D 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. Mohammad Mahfujur Rahman, Clinton Fookes, Mahsa Baktashmotlagh, and Sridha Sridharan. 2020. Correlation-aware adversarial domain adaptation and generalization. *Pattern Recognition*, 100:107124. Cristian Rodriguez, Edison Marrese-Taylor, Fatemeh Sadat Saleh, Hongdong Li, and Stephen Gould. 2020. Proposal-free temporal moment localization of a natural-language query in video using guided attention. In *Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision*, pages 2464–2473. Minjoon Seo, Aniruddha Kembhavi, Ali Farhadi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2016. Bidirectional attention flow for machine comprehension. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1611.01603. Yang Shu, Zhangjie Cao, Chenyu Wang, Jianmin Wang, and Mingsheng Long. 2021. Open domain generalization with domain-augmented meta-learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 9624– 9633. Gunnar A Sigurdsson, Gül Varol, Xiaolong Wang, Ali Farhadi, Ivan Laptev, and Abhinav Gupta. 2016. Hollywood in homes: Crowdsourcing data collection for activity understanding. In *European Conference on* Computer Vision, pages 510–526. Springer. Nathan Somavarapu, Chih-Yao Ma, and Zsolt Kira. 2020. Frustratingly simple domain generalization via image stylization. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.11207*. Jingwen Wang, Lin Ma, and Wenhao Jiang. 2020. Temporally grounding language queries in videos by contextual boundary-aware prediction. In *Proceedings* of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 12168–12175. Weining Wang, Yan Huang, and Liang Wang. 2019. Language-driven temporal activity localization: A semantic matching reinforcement learning model. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 334– 343. Huijuan Xu, Abir Das, and Kate Saenko. 2017. Rc3d: Region convolutional 3d network for temporal activity detection. In *Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision*, pages 5783–5792. Huijuan Xu, Kun He, Bryan A Plummer, Leonid Sigal, Stan Sclaroff, and Kate Saenko. 2019a. Multilevel language and vision integration for text-to-clip retrieval. In *Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on* Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pages 9062–9069. Huijuan Xu, Kun He, Leonid Sigal, Stan Sclaroff, and Kate Saenko. 2018. Text-to-clip video retrieval with early fusion and re-captioning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.05113, 2(6):7. Yiming Xu, Lin Chen, Zhongwei Cheng, Lixin Duan, and Jiebo Luo. 2019b. Open-ended visual question answering by multi-modal domain adaptation. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:1911.04058. Adams Wei Yu, David Dohan, Quoc Le, Thang Luong, Rui Zhao, and Kai Chen. 2018. Fast and accurate reading comprehension by combining self-attention and convolution. In International Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2. Yitian Yuan, Lin Ma, Jingwen Wang, Wei Liu, and Wenwu Zhu. 2019a. Semantic conditioned dynamic modulation for temporal sentence grounding in videos. *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, 32. Yitian Yuan, Tao Mei, and Wenwu Zhu. 2019b. To find where you talk: Temporal sentence localization in video with attention based location regression. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pages 9159–9166. Da Zhang, Xiyang Dai, Xin Wang, Yuan-Fang Wang, and Larry S Davis. 2019. Man: Moment alignment network for natural language moment retrieval via iterative graph adjustment. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1247–1257. Hao Zhang, Aixin Sun, Wei Jing, Liangli Zhen, Joey Tianyi Zhou, and Rick Siow Mong Goh. 2021. Natural language video localization: A revisit in spanbased question answering framework. *IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence*. Hao Zhang, Aixin Sun, Wei Jing, and Joey Tianyi Zhou. 2020a. Span-based localizing network for natural language video localization. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2004.13931. Hongyi Zhang, Moustapha Cisse, Yann N Dauphin, and David Lopez-Paz. 2017. mixup: Beyond empirical risk minimization. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.09412*. Songyang Zhang, Houwen Peng, Jianlong Fu, and Jiebo Luo. 2020b. Learning 2d temporal adjacent networks for moment localization with natural language. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 12870–12877. Yang Zhao, Zhou Zhao, Zhu Zhang, and Zhijie Lin. 2021. Cascaded prediction network via segment tree for temporal video grounding. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4197–4206. Kaiyang Zhou, Yongxin Yang, Yu Qiao, and Tao Xiang. 2021. Domain generalization with mixstyle. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2104.02008. Luowei Zhou, Chenliang Xu, and Jason J Corso. 2018. Towards automatic learning of procedures from web instructional videos. In *Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence*. ## A Analysis On Failure Cases To better understand the limitation of our framework, we elaborate on the failure case and discuss them in detail. The reasons for our prediction errors can be roughly summarized into three categories: - **Ambiguity of ground truth.** Due to the complexity of video content, some queries in NLVL datasets correspond to multiple video clips, but the ground truth only label one of ## B Distribution Gaps Between Scenes | Dataset | Scene | #Videos | #Annotations | |---------------------|------------|-----------|----------------| | Living room | 974 | 2,355 | | | Bathroom | 466 | 1,157 | | | Charades-STA | Kitchen | 1,091 | 2,663 | | Bedroom | 1,050 | 2,581 | | | Eat/Drink | 967 | 3,962 | | | Personal care | 1,212 | 4,665 | | | Household | 2,939 | 10,992 | | | Social | 2,918 | 10,155 | | | Sport | 6,890 | 25,152 | | | ActivityNet-caption | America | 3,800 | 27,373 | | East Asia | 2,967 | 22,561 | | | YouCook2 | South Asia | 2,235 | 19,667 | | European | 4,274 | 34,199 | | Table 7: Statistics of the three NLVL datasets for scenerobust problem. them. As shown in Case(1,2) in Figure 6, our predicted segment and the ground truth annotation are both semantically matched to the given query sentence. However, our predictions are considered to be completely wrong. - **Inability to distinguish subtle actions in** video. In some scenarios, tiny imperceptible action differences in the video is critical to distinguish similar clips. As shown in Case (3), in our predicted segment, the man is actually *refining the draw by paper and a spatula*, rather than *painting*. It might be essential to use a better vision encoder or hierarchical visual feature maps to distinguish the video's subtle actions. - **Inability to understand detail word.** In the scene-robust NLVL problem, there are inevitable distribution gaps in the vocabulary lists of descriptions in different scenes, which results in misunderstanding some keywords. In Case (4), our model fails to figure out the detailed semantic differences between *solution* and *water* without any information or knowledge about the target domain vocabulary. In this section, we explore the differences in text distribution scenes. Since the videos and sentences in NLVL are semantically matched, the word distribution gaps can also be viewed as semantic gaps between videos in different scenes. We analyze the word distribution gaps from two perspectives: **Word ratio** and **Vocabulary IoU**. Word ratio. For each scene, we counted the ratio of occurrences of each word in all sentences. In the upper part of Figure 9, 10, 11, we visualize the word ratios for the same words in different scenes of Charades-STA, ActivityNet-Caption, and YouCook2. The further a word is from the diagonal, the more scene-specific it is. Except for several words with high ratios that are common to all scenes, most words are various widely in word ratio across scenes, as shown by the points off the diagonal. Vocabulary IoU. In the lower part of Figure 9, 10, 11, we show the Intersection over Union(IoU) of the words with the *topk*% words ratio. For sentences, common words(such as: "the," "and," and "is," et al.) appear most frequently. Therefore when k% is very small, the vocabulary overlap between the two domains is relatively high. However, the IoU decreases sharply as the k% value slightly increases, which indicates that each scene may contain unique high-frequency words. Note that for Charades-STA, ActivityNet-Caption, and YouCook2, the average IoUs for the entire vocabulary in different scenes are only 0.29, 0.45, and 0.40, respectively. The low IoU value across different scenes on all three figures illustrates that the distribution gap brought by scene shift is prevalent and significant. This observation further demonstrates the necessity and practicality of our scene-robust NLVL problem formulation. ## C Implementation Details Data Processing. For language query, we use the pre-trained Glove (Pennington et al., 2014) embedding to initialize each lowercase word, and the visual embeddings are extracted via the 3D ConvNet pre-trained on Kinetics dataset (Carreira and Zisserman, 2017) as previous method (Zhang et al., 2020a). Note that all the pre-trained feature extractors are fixed during training. All experiments were carried out on a single 2080ti. Network Architecture. Due to the simplicity and effectiveness of VSLBase (Zhang et al., 2020a), it can be viewed as a standard proposal-free NLVL model. Therefore, our network structure is similar to VSLNet to minimize the impact of architectural bias. The video and query feature encoder consist of four convolution layers and a multi-head attention layer. After feature encoding, we use contextquery attention(CQA) as our cross-modal representation fusion module. The boundary and confidence coefficient predictors are essentially multi-layer perceptrons (MLP). We set the kernel size of the convolution layer as 7 and the head size of multihead attention as 8. The frame number of video Nv is set to 32 for all three datasets. And the hidden dimensions are set to 128 for Charades-STA, and 256 for YouCook2 and ActivityNet-Caption. ## D Ethical Discussion  Natural language video localization has many applications, including video corpus retrieval and video-  Figure 7: Failure Cases - Inability to distinguish subtle actions in video.  based dialogue. Our scene-robust NLVL problem makes it more practical and reliable in real-world prediction scenarios. Due to the generalization of our method, there may be concerns about the misuse of offensive data. However, in fact, our method focuses on the scene shift while the general activities are consistent, such as Charades-STA for indoor activity, ActivityNet-Caption for outdoor activity, and YouCook2 for cooking. Therefore, the model may not get reliable generalization performance on entirely new activities.    ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? In the Sec 6 and Appendix.A ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? In the Appendix.D ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? In the Abstract and introduction ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** In The 4.2 And The Appendix.C ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? In the reference ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? In the reference 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.? 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. In the 4.1 Dataset ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** In The Sec 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? In the sec 4.2 and Appendix.c 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? In the sec 4.2, 4.4 and 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? Not applicable. 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.)? In the sec 4.2 and Appendix.c 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.

jiang-etal-2023-exploiting

Exploiting Pseudo Image Captions for Multimodal Summarization

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.12

Multimodal summarization with multimodal output (MSMO) faces a challenging semantic gap between visual and textual modalities due to the lack of reference images for training. Our pilot investigation indicates that image captions, which naturally connect texts and images, can significantly benefit MSMO. However, exposure of image captions during training is inconsistent with MSMO{'}s task settings, where prior cross-modal alignment information is excluded to guarantee the generalization of cross-modal semantic modeling. To this end, we propose a novel coarse-to-fine image-text alignment mechanism to identify the most relevant sentence of each image in a document, resembling the role of image captions in capturing visual knowledge and bridging the cross-modal semantic gap. Equipped with this alignment mechanism, our method easily yet impressively sets up state-of-the-art performances on all intermodality and intramodality metrics (e.g., more than 10{\%} relative improvement on image recommendation precision). Further experiments reveal the correlation between image captions and text summaries, and prove that the pseudo image captions we generated are even better than the original ones in terms of promoting multimodal summarization.

# Exploiting Pseudo Image Captions For Multimodal Summarization Chaoya Jiang1∗, Rui Xie1∗, Wei Ye1, Jinan Sun1,2†**, Shikun Zhang**1† 1National Engineering Research Center for Software Engineering, Peking University 2BIGO Technology {sjn,zhangsk}@pku.edu.cn ## Abstract  Multimodal summarization with multimodal output (MSMO) faces a challenging semantic gap between visual and textual modalities due to the lack of reference images for training. Our pilot investigation indicates that image captions, which naturally connect texts and images, can significantly benefit MSMO. However, exposure of image captions during training is inconsistent with MSMO's task settings, where prior cross-modal alignment information is excluded to guarantee the generalization of cross-modal semantic modeling. To this end, we propose a novel coarse-to-fine image-text alignment mechanism to identify the most relevant sentence of each image in a document, resembling the role of image captions in capturing visual knowledge and bridging the crossmodal semantic gap. Equipped with this alignment mechanism, our method easily yet impressively sets up state-of-the-art performances on all intermodality and intramodality metrics (e.g., more than 10% relative improvement on image recommendation precision). Further experiments reveal the correlation between image captions and text summaries, and prove that the pseudo image captions we generated are even better than the original ones in terms of promoting multimodal summarization. ## 1 Introduction With the increase of multimedia data on the Web, multimodal summarization has drawn widespread attention from researchers in the communities of Web technologies(Messaoud et al., 2021; Jangra et al., 2021a), natural language processing (NLP) (UzZaman et al., 2011; Li et al., 2017, 2020b) and computer vision (CV) (Chen and Zhuge, 2018; Palaskar et al., 2019; Li et al., 2020a; Liu et al., 2020). More recently, many efforts (Zhu et al., 2018, 2020; Zhang et al., 2021b) have been ded- Figure 1: Overview of text summarization and MSMO. Compared with text summarization models, existing MSMO methods usually use an extra image encoder to project images into intermediate representations. They identify the salient image by cross-modal attention, which could be inaccurate due to the lack of golden images for training. We explicitly transform an image into a concrete caption by image-text alignment, capturing visual knowledge better and making text summarization and image selection more effective yet simpler. icated to multimodal summarization with multimodal output (MSMO), the novel task of generating pictorial summaries given a Web document consisting of plain text and a collection of images. As shown in Figure 1, a pictorial summary generated by MSMO models consists of a text summary and a salient image, delivering more user-friendly information than single-modal text summaries, according to human judgments (Zhu et al., 2018, 2020). MSMO faces two main challenges. (1) **There** are no recommended image references available for training MSMO models. Due to the lack of supervision signals from visual modality, it is nontrivial to optimize the cross-modal attention between texts and images, which is highly relied on by existing MSMO methods to pick salient images. According to previous best results(Zhang et al., 2021b), only about 60% of the predicted images are correct, indicating that image selection remains a bottleneck. (2) **Visual knowledge is commonly** underutilized to improve text summaries. Existing MSMO efforts show no evident improvement or even negative impact on text summaries (e.g., decreased ROUGE scores) over typical singlemodal text summarization methods. Previous literature(Zhu et al., 2018) explained that some images were noises and long text had contained enough information for text generation, while we conjecture that these methods may not sufficiently exploit visual knowledge to characterize salient text. To summarize, previous efforts typically encode images and texts into the same semantic space, struggling with optimizing cross-modal interaction without training signals for image selection, as the red box in Figure 1 shows. In this dilemma, image captions, which naturally connect images and texts, can provide a cross-modal semantic bridge. Indeed, our preliminary experiments show the efficacy of introducing imageIn captions (see Section 4.4). Yet, exposure of image captions during training is inconsistent with MSMO's task settings, since MSMO excludes them to pursue better generalization of cross-modal semantic modeling(Zhu et al., 2018, 2020).On the other hand, however, it inspires us to identify a highly-relevant sentence for an image as its pseudo yet meaningful caption, providing us with a new perspective to improve MSMO. As shown in the blue box in Figure 1, *unlike current* works that represent an image as an intermediate state, we transform it into a concrete sentence to better capture visual knowledge under MSMO settings. This transformation presents an opportunity to incorporate pre-trained visual-language models more smoothly, while making further text summarization and image selection extremely simple. Aligning a sentence with an image could be straightforward, but identifying sentences benefiting MSMO the most is non-trivial. The reasons are two-fold. (1) **A sentence well aligned with an individual image can not guarantee a suitable one** for MSMO. An intuitive way to select a sentence is to simply retrieve it from the document, with the image as the query of a pre-trained cross-modal retrieval model. Unfortunately, we find this manner yields unsatisfactory MSMO performance (see Section 4.3). (2) **A classical single-pass one-to-one** alignment strategy may miss salient sentences for summarization (see Section 4.2). There can be one-to-many and many-to-one relationships between images and sentences, and images can be similar in a document, so we need to synthesize yet distinguish image semantics from a global perspective to make better MSMO-oriented alignment. To this end, we design a coarse-to-fine imagetext alignment mechanism to produce pseudo image captions for MSMO. Firstly, a reference caption for an image is retrieved with a cross-modal retrieval model from the golden summary, rather than the whole document (Section 2.3), to capture more summary-friendly information. Since no golden summary exists at inference time, these reference captions are used to train a two-pass image-text alignment model (Section 2.4) that yields pseudo captions when making inferences (that's why "reference captions" are so named). Given a document with ten images, for example, we will first synthesize them as a whole to select ten sentences with many-to-many coarse-grained alignment, and then identify ten individual one-to-one fine-grained matchings by bipartite graph matching over the cross-modal attention matrix. The pseudo image captions that imply visual knowledge are used as extra highlighted features for text summarization (Section 2.5), and the salient image is picked based on the ROUGE score between its pseudo captions and the generated summary (Section 2.6). Extensive experiments on an existing MSMO dataset not only verify the superiority of our method but also reveal the inner connection between image captions and summaries, demonstrating promising research opportunities for our novel perspective of bridging the cross-modal semantic gap by generating pseudo image captions. ## 2 Method 2.1 Problem Formulation For MSMO task, the input is a multimodal document {T,V } including a text document T with m sequential sentences, where T = [t1, t2, ··· , tm], and a image collection V with n images, where V = {v1, v2, ··· , vn}. The output is a multimodal summary {S, vˆ} where S = [s1, s2, ··· , sl] is a text summary containing l generated sentences and vˆ is the image selected from V . ## 2.2 Method Overview Our method, named **SITA**, refers to a multimodal Summarization model based on a coarseto-fine Image-Text Alignment mechanism. SITA consists of four modules: (1) **Reference Caption**  ## Retrieval, (2) **Image-Text Alignment**, (3) **Text** Summarization, And (4) **Image Selection**. See More Illustrative Details In Figure 2 (A). 2.3 Reference Caption Retrieval Given the multimodal document {T,V }, we first retrieve reference captions from the golden text summary for each image in V , based on a pretrained cross-modal retrieval model consisting of an image encoder and a text encoder. The image encoder is ResNet152 (He et al., 2016) pretrained on ImageNet (Deng et al., 2009) and the text encoder is a BERT-based sentence encoder for text summarization (Liu and Lapata, 2019). Following (Faghri et al., 2018), we train the model on the COCO dataset (Lin et al., 2014) by matching image representations and sentence representations. We retrieve reference image captions from the golden summary rather than the whole document, to make the retrieval results more summaryfriendly and narrower-focused (see Section4.3). However, a new dilemma is the lack of golden summaries during inference. Therefore, we exploit them to train an image-text alignment model, which predicts pseudo captions during inference. ## 2.4 Coarse-To-Fine Image-Text Alignment We design a coarse-to-fine Image-Text Alignment model (ITA) with training signals obtained from reference captions, to generate pseudo image captions. Since there can be one-to-many and manyto-one relationships between images and sentences, employing a simple single-pass one-to-one alignment strategy tends to generate a limited set of aligned sentences repeatedly, incapable of recalling enough relevant sentences (see Section 4.2). To this end, we propose a novel two-pass coarse-tofine mechanism to align sentences better. Specifically, for the n images in V , we will take them as a whole to select n sentences from the document T with coarse-grained alignment, and then identify one-to-one matchings via fine-grained alignment. ITA consists of an image encoder, a sentence encoder, a coarse-grained alignment module, and a fine-grained alignment module. ## 2.4.1 Image Encoder We first use ResNet152 to extract image features for each image in {v1, v2, ··· , vn}. These features are then fed into a Transformer-based encoder (Vaswani et al., 2017) as a whole to synthesize global knowledge and interaction information among all images. The position embeddings are not used here since image order information is unavailable. The final output of the image encoder is denoted as {c1, c2, ··· , cn}. ## 2.4.2 Sentence Encoder The sentence encoder here is the same as the one used in reference caption retrieval. For m sentences denoted as [t1, t2, ··· , tm], the sentence encoder generate a representation sequence [g1, g2, ··· , gm]. 163 ## 2.4.3 Coarse-Grained Alignment To do coarse-grained alignment, we first apply a cross attention between sentences and images to refine sentence representations: - $o_{i,j}=\dfrac{Q_i\cdot K_j}{\sum_{k=1}^n Q_i\cdot K_k}$ $a_{i,j}=\dfrac{\exp(o_{i,j})}{\sum_{k=1}^n\exp(o_{i,k})}$ $\qquad\qquad n$ (1) $\frac{1}{2}$ (2) ... $$\dot{q}_{i}=Q_{i}+\sum_{k=1}^{n}a_{i,k}\times V_{k}\tag{3}$$ where $Q_{i}=W_{q}\times g_{i}$, $K_{j}=W_{k}\times c_{j}$, $V_{j}=W_{v}\times c_{j}$, $i\in\{1,2,\cdots,m\}$, and $j\in\{1,2,\cdots,n\}$. Wq, Wk, Wv ∈ RD×D are learnable parameters, where D is 768 (the dimension of the image/text feature vectors). Noted that we have calculated an attention matrix A ∈ Rm×n based on the equation 1 and 2 where ai,j is the element in the i-th row and j-th column of A. The refined representation g˙i is then fed to a sigmoid classifier to predict whether sentence ti will be selected: $$p_{i}=\sigma(W_{p}\;\dot{g}_{i}+b)$$ where $W_{p}\in R^{D\times D}$ and $b\in R^{D}$ are learnable parameters. To train the model, we need n recommended sentences as references for a multimodal document with n images. For each image vi, we will calculate the ROUGE scores between sentences in the document and their reference captions generated in the first step, and the sentence with the highest score will be labeled as selected. If a sentence is selected more than once, we will pick another sentence with the next highest score. We use yi = 1 to denote that sentence ti is selected, and yi = 0 otherwise. Then, for the m sentences in the document T = [t1, t2, ··· , tm], we employ the binary cross-entropy loss to optimize the model as follow: $$\mathcal{L}_{BCE}=-\frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^{m}y_{i}log(p_{i})+(1-y_{i})log(1-p_{i})\tag{5}$$ $$p_{i}\rangle$$ (5) ## 2.4.4 Fine-Grained Alignment Based on the coarse-grained alignment, we have calculated the an m × n cross-modal attention matrix (denoted as A), in which the element in the i-th row and j-th column is ai,j . In this step, we want further to identify optimal one-to-one relationships between images and these sentences. Generally, the larger the attention weight between ti and vj , the more likely ti and vj match. Suppose we have obtained n selected sentences denoted as tz1 , tz2 *,...,t*zn and we extract the rows corresponding to these sentences from the matrix A and concatenate them as a new attention matrix A˙ : $$\dot{A}=c o n c a t([A_{z_{1}},A_{z_{2}},\ldots,A_{z_{n}}])\tag{6}$$ where A˙ ∈ Nn×n, Azi ∈ Rn, i ∈ {1, 2*,...,n*}. Based on the new cross-modal attention matrix A˙, we can construct a complete weighted bipartite graph G containing two disjoint and independent vertice sets S and V , where |S| = n and |V | = n. So there are n × n weighted edges in G. The vertice vi in V represents an image, and vertice sj in S represents a sentence. The weight of the edge in G between the vertice vi ∈ V and the the vertice sj ∈ S is the value aij ∈ R in A˙. Therefore, the fine-grained alignment of the sentences and images can be regarded as a maximum-weight perfect matching in the bipartite graphs G. We can easily utilize the bipartite graph matching algorithm (Kuhn-Munkres algorithm (Kuhn, 2010) in our implementation) to match the vertices in the two sets in the graph: $$M=K M({\dot{A}})$$ $$\left(T\right)$$ M = KM(A˙) (7) $$(4)$$ where $M=[I_{1},I_{2},...,I_{n}]\,,I_{i}\in\{1,2,...,n\}$. represents the index list of selected sentences(e.g., the first image is aligned with the I1-th sentence in the selected sentences), and KM represents the Kuhn-Munkres algorithm. ## 2.5 Text Summarization We build the text summarization module based on BERTSum, a recent simple yet robust summarization model (Liu and Lapata, 2019). We concatenate all pseudo image captions as a new text document denoted as Ts. The origin text document T and the new text document Ts are fed into the encoder of BERTSum separately, generating two representation sequences R and Rs. Then, unlike the traditional Transformer decoder, we have two individual cross attention modules—corresponding to the two documents—after the self-attention module in each Transformer block. The outputs of the two cross attention modules are simply summed, leaving other components in the Transformer block unchanged. | Model | R-1 | R-2 | R-L | IP | Msim | MRmax | MMAE++ | |-------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|--------|---------|----------| | ATG | 40.63 | 18.12 | 37.53 | 59.28 | 25.82 | 56.54 | 67.63 | | ATL | 40.86 | 18.27 | 37.75 | 62.44 | 13.26 | 55.67 | 67.26 | | HAN | 40.82 | 18.30 | 37.70 | 61.83 | 12.22 | 55.29 | 66.93 | | MOF | 41.20 | 18.33 | 37.80 | 65.45 | 26.38 | 58.38 | 69.66 | | UniMS | 42.94 | 20.50 | 40.96 | 69.38 | 29.72 | - | - | | SITA (Ours) | 43.64 | 20.53 | 41.03 | 76.41 | 33.47 | 65.38 | 77.91 | ## 2.6 Image Selection Given the generated summary denoted as S and pseudo captions {tz1 , tz2 *,...,t*zn }, the image vˆ whose pseudo caption tˆ generates the highest ROUGE-L with the summary S, is selected as the most salient image, where: $${\hat{t}}=\arg\operatorname*{max}(R(t_{k},S))$$ (R(tk, S)) (8) k ∈ {z1, z2*,...,z*n} and R(tk, S) represent the function which calculates the ROUGE-L socre between tk and S. Please refer to appendix A and our released code for more architecture and implementation details4. ## 3 Experiment Settings 3.1 Dataset We use the dataset build by Zhu et al. (2018), which is constructed from the Daily Mail website1, and contains 293,965 articles for training, 10,355 articles for validation, and 10,261 articles for testing. Please refer to appendix B for more dataset details. | Model | R-1 | R-2 | R-L | |---------|--------------|--------------|--------------| | PGN | 41.11 | 18.31 | 37.74 | | ATL | 40.86(↓0.05) | 18.27(↓0.04) | 37.75(↓0.01) | | MOF | 41.20(↑0.09) | 18.33(↑0.02) | 37.80(↑0.06) | | BERTSum | 41.51 | 19.43 | 38.85 | | SITA | 43.64(↑2.13) | 20.53(↑1.10) | 41.03(↑2.18) | | BART | 41.83 | 19.83 | 39.74 | | UniMS | 42.94(↑1.11) | 20.50(↑0.67) | 40.96(↑1.22) | ## 3.2 Evaluation Metrics Following Zhu et al. (2018, 2020), we choose the following metrics. (1) **ROUGE-**{1, 2, L} is the 1http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ standard text summarization evaluation metric. (2) IP is the abbreviation of Image Precision and used to evaluate image selection. It is defined by dividing the size of the intersection between the recommended images recimg and the reference images refimg by the number of recommended images. (3) Msim evaluates the image-text relevance by calculating the maximum similarity between the image and each sentence in the model summary. (4) MRmax evaluates the information integrity of the multimodal summary. It exploits a joint multimodal representation to calculate the similarity between model outputs and multimodal references. (5) **MMAE++** evaluates the overall quality of multimodal summaries. It projects both the candidate multimodal summary and the reference summary into a joint semantic space with a trained neural network. For the details of MMAE++, please check subsection 3.3 in Zhu et al. (2018)'s work. Meanwhile, we propose **Caption-ROUGE-**L, a metric specific to SITA and its variants by calculating ROUGE-L between a generated pseudo caption and the golden caption. ## 3.3 Baselines We compare our method with the five multimodal summarization methods. (1) ATG (Zhu et al., 2018) is a multimodal attention model, which measures image salience by the visual attention distribution over the global image features. (2) ATL is an ATG variant using attention distributions over image patches. (3) HAN is an ATL variant by adding a hierarchical attention mechanism on image patches. (4) MOF (Zhu et al., 2020) introduces a multimodal objective function into ATG. Among the four MOF variants, we choose the one having the best performance in five of the seven metrics we used. (5) **UniMS** (Zhang et al., 2021b) is a recent unified framework for multimodal summarization. We also compare our method with the three text summarization methods. (1) PGN (See et al., 2017) is the Pointer-Generator Network for abstractive text summarization model. (2) **BERTSum** is a recent robust BERT-based summarization model proposed by Liu and Lapata (2019), upon which our SITA is built. (3) **BART** (Lewis et al., 2020) is a pretrained seq2seq model consisting of a bidirectional encoder and an auto-regressive decoder. ## 4 Experiment Results 4.1 Main Results Table 1 and 2 show the performance of the baseline models and our method. By investigating the results, we have the following observations. (1) Our SITA achieves improvements over baselines across all evaluation metrics of image precision, text summary quality, image-text relevance, and multimodal information integrity, clearly setting up a new state-of-the-art performance. (2) Regarding the visual modality metric (IP), MOF generally outperforms its predecessor baselines by a slight margin due to its auxiliary training objective of image selection. UniMS further gain a notable improvement over MOF by distilling knowledge in a vision-language pre-trained model. Our SITA impressively improves more than 10% over UniMS in the precision of recommended images (e.g., 76.41 of SITA v.s. 69.38 of UniMS on the IP metric). The reason is that the pseudo captions identified by our coarse-to-fine alignment mechanism provide much more informative clues for image selection. We will provide more detailed analyses in the following experiments. (3) Regarding textual modality metrics, more comprehensive comparisons are shown in Table 2, which consists of three groups of results. In the first group, existing multimodal methods (ATL and MOF) demonstrate no superiority over the single-modal text summarization model they used (PGN). These efforts concluded that too many images could bring noise, and the long document had contained enough information for text generation (Zhu et al., 2018, 2020). In contrast, our SITA (in the second group) gains a much more remarkable improvement, e.g., of 2.18 ROUGE-L, on text summaries, even based on a more robust base model (BERTSum). The latest state-of-the-art UmiMS (in the third group), built upon BART, also achieves performance improvements (e.g., +1.22 ROUGE-L) on text summarization, but not as evident as ours. Note that BART performs better than BERTSum on text summarization (e.g., 39.74 v.s. 38.85 of ROUGE-L), but SITA still outperforms UmiMS. *These results suggest that visual information actually benefits text generation, and our* method exploits it more effectively. (4) Msim, MRmax, and MMAE++ are used to check image-text relevance, image-text integrity, and the overall effectiveness of pictorial summaries. As expected, SITA maintains dominance over baselines on the three intermodality metrics. These superiorities come from remarkable improvements on intramodality metrics and SITA's inherent capabilities of bridging the cross-modal semantic gap. Note that IP and all intermodality metrics depend on the selected salient images, hence indirectly relying on the generated text summaries. Rigorously, baseline methods and our SITA utilize different text summarization models (e.g., PGC, BART, and BERTSum), so these metrics will be more friendly to methods with better-performed base text summarization model. However, this fact has minor impacts on our above analyses, since image selection improvements of SITA mainly benefit from pseudo captions but not the text summaries. ## 4.2 Effects Of The Coarse-To-Fine Mechanism | Model | R-1 | R-2 | R-L | IP | CR−L | |-----------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|--------| | SITA | 43.64 | 20.53 | 41.03 | 76.41 | 39.39 | | -w/o ITA | 41.79 | 19.54 | 38.97 | 72.95 | 38.23 | | One-pass | 40.83 | 18.32 | 37.98 | 57.28 | 12.31 | | One-pass(Dedup) | 41.67 | 18.98 | 38.63 | 64.32 | 33.21 | ## 4.2.1 Results Of One-Pass Alignment Strategy. To investigate how the coarse-to-fine alignment strategy boosts performance, we replace it with a single-pass alignment method, which is trained to select a pseudo caption for only one single image at a time. The results of this method variant (named One-pass) are shown in Table 3, from which we see notable performance degradation on all metrics. Through further qualitative exploration on its prediction results, we find this method tends to generate a small set of sentences repeatedly among different images, incapable of recalling enough relevant sentences. The low Caption-ROUGE-L of One-pass (e.g., 12.31) also verifies this observation. One possible reason is that images in a document can sometimes be similar, making the singlepass strategy fail to characterize the correlation and difference among these images. *In contrast,* by introducing the coarse-to-fine mechanism, our alignment model synthesizes multiple images from a global perspective in the coarse-grained pass, recalling more sentences more accurately and hence facilitating further fine-grained alignment. ## 4.2.2 Comparison With Simple Deduplication To avoid recalling repeated sentences in one-pass alignment, one simple alternative strategy is introducing a deduplication mechanism. We hence implement **One-pass (Dedup)**, which will select another sentence with the next highest score if the current sentence has been chosen. As shown in Table 3, we can see that the deduplication mechanism over one-pass image text alignment brings improvements (e.g., +0.65 on R-L and +7.04 on IP). But the performance of **One-pass (Dedup)** is still far from our full SITA with the coarse-to-fine alignment strategy (e.g., with a significant gap of 2.4 on R-L and 12.09 on IP). The main reason is that one image may align with multiple semantically rich sentences. For such an image, even with the deduplicating mechanism, one-pass alignment can only recall a single sentence, potentially missing critical information, especially when other images do not semantically overlap with it. That roughly explains the performance gaps. This comparison further verifies the necessity and soundness of the technical design of the two-pass coarse-to-fine alignment.  ## 4.3 Effects Of Cross-Modal Retrieval To investigate the effect of the cross-modal retrieval, we directly retrieve pseudo captions in a document (rather than a summary), obtaining another method variant (named w/o ITA) requiring no image-text alignment training anymore. As shown in Table 3, w/o ITA bring modest enhancement on text summaries (e.g., 38.85 of BERTSum v.s. 38.97 of w/o ITA on ROUGE-L), while achieving more impressive image salience (e.g., 72.28 on IP). Compared with our full SITA, this method variant (named w/o ITA) demonstrates significant performance degeneration on both text and image salience (e.g., -1.06 on ROUGE-L and -3.04 on IP). These results reveal that *(1) the knowledge in the pre-trained cross-modal retrieval model* mainly helps image selection, and the image-text alignment over retrieval results is more critical for the overall performance; and (2) retrieving reference captions from summaries instead of documents is a key design of SITA. Note that our cross-modal retrieval model is pre-trained with 113K image-text pairs. Though UniMS distills knowledge from a vision-language model pre-trained by more than 400M image-text pairs, SITA demonstrates significant superiority. ## 4.4 Quality Of Pseudo Captions | Model | R-1 | R-2 | R-L | IP | CR−L | |---------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|--------| | Caption-train | 42.22 | 19.70 | 39.29 | 73.59 | 39.54 | | Caption-input | 42.71 | 20.04 | 39.85 | 75.33 | - | | SITA | 43.64 | 20.53 | 41.03 | 76.41 | 39.39 | Table 4: Comparisons of SITA with models using golden captions. Caption-train use golden captions to train image-text alignment model, and Caption-input directly use golden captions as input for text summarization and image selection. CR−L refers to CaptionROUGE-L. Caption-input does not generate pseudo captions, so its CR-L is unavailable. We further analyze the effectiveness of our method from the perspective of pseudo captions' quality. We are interested in the relation between golden captions and our pseudo captions. In the MSMO's task settings, golden image captions are excluded. To perform this study, we allow the compared models to use golden captions in training under a easier task setting. Here we build another two baselines. The first one, named Caption-train, **train**s the image-text alignment model with golden captions instead of the reference sentences retrieved in the first step. We compare SITA with it on the metrics of ROUGE-{1, 2, L}, IP, and Caption-ROUGE-L. Looking into the empirical results shown in Table 4, the Caption-ROUGE-L of SITA and **Captiontrain** are generally similar. Hence, from the perspective of recovering image captions, the quality of aligned sentences generated by **Caption-train** and SITA are identical. However, SITA generates better text summaries and salient images than Caption-train (e.g., with improvements of 0.74 on ROUGE-L and 2.82 on IP), suggesting that our aligned sentences benefit more MSMO. The reason is that the reference captions used for alignment training are retrieved from text summaries, inherently making predicted pseudo captions imply better summary features. The second one, named **Caption-input**, directly utilizes golden captions instead of pseudo captions as **input**s for text summarization and image selection. We find that SITA also outperforms **Captioninput** on all metrics. The performance enhancement is less evident but still impressive, considering that SITA uses a more restricted task setting. This observation proves that the pseudo captions we generated are even better than the original image captions for MSMO. The above analyses verify that pseudo captions are not only semantically consistent with images but also informative for text summarization. ## 4.5 Correlation Between Image Captions And Text Summaries We also investigate the correlation between image captions and text summaries. Specifically, we construct a simple summary by concatenating golden (or pseudo) captions of the first k images in a document. Then, we calculate the ROUGE scores of those simple summaries. The results are shown in Figure 3, and we have the following observations: (1) Simply aggregating some (pseudo) image captions can generate generally good summaries. For example, when selecting more than three captions, the resulting summaries even have a better ROUGE-1 than MOF. The observation verifies the inherent capabilities of image captions on the briding cross-modal semantic gap. (2) The upward trend of the ROUGE-L with the increase of k is not as notable as that of ROUGE-1. The reason is that text generated by sentence concatenation (in random order) may lack coherence. ROUGE-L is calculated based on the longest common substring, the length of which will be limited in this situation. This phenomenon suggests that an individual text summarization component is still required given these high-quality image captions. (3) Generally, the red line is above the blue line most of the time, indicating that *simple summaries* constructed by pseudo captions are even better than their counterparts consisting of golden captions. The observation, again, verifies that pseudo captions generated by our image-text alignment mechanism are more informative than the original ones, in terms of improving MSMO performance. ## 5 Related Work Existing text summarization approaches can be roughly categorized into extractive summarization (Narayan et al., 2018; Xiao and Carenini, 2019; Zhong et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020) and abstractive summarization(Syed et al., 2021; Paulus et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2020; Lewis et al., 2020; Tan et al., 2017). Classical abstractive summarizaition model such as Pointer Generator Network(See et al., 2017) and BERTSum(Liu and Lapata, 2019) serve as fundamental components for previous MSMO works. Multimodal summarization takes data of more than one modalities as input and synthesizes information across different modalities to generate the output (UzZaman et al., 2011; Li et al., 2018; Sanabria et al., 2018; Fu et al., 2020; Im et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2021; Zhu et al., 2018, 2020; Li et al., 2020b; Jangra et al., 2020a,b, 2021b; Zhang et al., 2021a). Zhu et al. (2018) first propose generating pictorial summaries given a document and an image collection. Zhu et al. (2020) further introduced a extra cross-entropy loss for image selection. Recently, Zhang et al. (2021b) proposed to utilize knowledge distillation with a vision-language pre-trained model to help image selection, but the image precision was still far from ideal. ## 6 Conclusion We have presented SITA, a multimodal Summarization method based on coarse-tofine Image-Text Alignment. SITA introduces a novel perspective of bridging the semantic gap between visual and textual modality by exploiting pseudo image captions. Our cross-modal alignment mechanism effectively generates high-quality pseudo image captions, enabling SITA to set up state-of-the-art performance easily. We discuss the feasibility and potential of leveraging pseudo image captions , and release code2, to inspire more future studies from our proposed perspective. ## Limitations By retrieving pseudo captions from summaries, one limitation is that the most relevant sentence for a specific image may not be in the summary. However, it has a trivial impact on the overall MSMO performance. If this happens, most of the time, the image will not be the salient image to select, and its caption will provide no helpful information for the text summary. In this situation, selecting a pseudo caption from summary sentences will not hinder the overall performance, though it may not be the best for the specific image. Besides, even though our task setting (including the dataset and all evaluation metrics we used) strictly follows three previous works (Zhu et al., 2018, 2020; Zhang et al., 2021b), another possible limitation is that only one MSMO benchmark is used (no other dataset exists). We believe providing more diversified datasets and investigating more about the rationale under the task setting are critical to pushing forward the multimodal summarization community, although they are out of the scope of this work. ## Acknowledgements This research is supported by the National Key Research And Development Program of China (No. 2021YFC3340101). ## References Jingqiang Chen and Hai Zhuge. 2018. Abstractive textimage summarization using multi-modal attentional hierarchical rnn. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4046–4056. Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li Fei-Fei. 2009. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In *2009 IEEE conference* on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 248–255. Ieee. Fartash Faghri, David J. Fleet, Jamie Ryan Kiros, and Sanja Fidler. 2018. Vse++: Improving visualsemantic embeddings with hard negatives. In *BMVC*. Xiyan Fu, Jun Wang, and Zhenglu Yang. 2020. Multimodal summarization for video-containing documents. *ArXiv*, abs/2009.08018. 2https://github.com/sitaProject/SITA Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2016. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In *Proceedings of the IEEE conference on* computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 770– 778. Jinbae Im, Moonki Kim, Hoyeop Lee, Hyunsouk Cho, and Sehee Chung. 2021. Self-supervised multimodal opinion summarization. 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 388–403, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Anubhav Jangra, Adam Jatowt, Md. Hasanuzzaman, and Sriparna Saha. 2020a. Text-image-video summary generation using joint integer linear programming. *Advances in Information Retrieval*, 12036:190 - 198. Anubhav Jangra, Sriparna Saha, Adam Jatowt, and Md. Hasanuzzaman. 2020b. Multi-modal summary generation using multi-objective optimization. Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. Anubhav Jangra, Sriparna Saha, Adam Jatowt, and Mohammed Hasanuzzaman. 2021a. Multi-modal supplementary-complementary summarization using multi-objective optimization. In *Proceedings of the* 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR '21, page 818–828, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. Anubhav Jangra, Sriparna Saha, Adam Jatowt, and Mohammed Hasanuzzaman. 2021b. Multi-modal supplementary-complementary summarization using multi-objective optimization. In Proceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 818–828. D. Kingma and J. Ba. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. *Computer Science*. H. W. Kuhn. 2010. The hungarian method for the assignment problem. *Naval Research Logistics*, 52(12):7–21. 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. *ArXiv*, abs/1910.13461. Haoran Li, Peng Yuan, Song Xu, Youzheng Wu, Xiaodong He, and Bowen Zhou. 2020a. Aspect-aware multimodal summarization for chinese e-commerce products. In *Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on* Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 8188–8195. Haoran Li, Junnan Zhu, Tianshan Liu, Jiajun Zhang, and Chengqing Zong. 2018. Multi-modal sentence summarization with modality attention and image filtering. In *IJCAI*. Haoran Li, Junnan Zhu, Cong Ma, Jiajun Zhang, and Chengqing Zong. 2017. Multi-modal summarization for asynchronous collection of text, image, audio and video. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1092–1102. Mingzhe Li, Xiuying Chen, Shen Gao, Zhangming Chan, Dongyan Zhao, and Rui Yan. 2020b. Vmsmo: Learning to generate multimodal summary for videobased news articles. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 9360–9369. Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge Belongie, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, Piotr Dollár, and C Lawrence Zitnick. 2014. Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. In *European conference on computer vision*, pages 740–755. Springer. Nayu Liu, Xian Sun, Hongfeng Yu, Wenkai Zhang, and Guangluan Xu. 2020. Multistage fusion with forget gate for multimodal summarization in open-domain videos. In *Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on* Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1834–1845. Yang Liu and Mirella Lapata. 2019. Text summarization with pretrained encoders. 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 3730–3740. Safa Messaoud, Ismini Lourentzou, Assma Boughoula, Mona Zehni, Zhizhen Zhao, Chengxiang Zhai, and Alexander G. Schwing. 2021. Deepqamvs: Queryaware hierarchical pointer networks for multi-video summarization. In Proceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR '21, page 1389–1399, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. Shashi Narayan, Shay B Cohen, and Mirella Lapata. 2018. Ranking sentences for extractive summarization with reinforcement learning. 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 1747–1759. Shruti Palaskar, Jindˇrich Libovicky, Spandana Gella, ` and Florian Metze. 2019. Multimodal abstractive summarization for how2 videos. In *Proceedings of* the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6587–6596. A. Paszke, S. Gross, F. Massa, A. Lerer, and S. Chintala. 2019. Pytorch: An imperative style, highperformance deep learning library. Romain Paulus, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2018. A deep reinforced model for abstractive summarization. In *International Conference on Learning* Representations. Ramon Sanabria, Ozan Caglayan, Shruti Palaskar, Desmond Elliott, Loïc Barrault, Lucia Specia, and Florian Metze. 2018. How2: A large-scale dataset for multimodal language understanding. In *NeurIPS*. Abigail See, Peter J Liu, and Christopher D Manning. 2017. Get to the point: Summarization with pointergenerator networks. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1073– 1083. Ayesha Ayub Syed, Ford Lumban Gaol, and Tokuro Matsuo. 2021. A survey of the state-of-the-art models in neural abstractive text summarization. IEEE Access, 9:13248–13265. Jiwei Tan, Xiaojun Wan, and Jianguo Xiao. 2017. Abstractive document summarization with a graphbased attentional neural model. In ACL. Naushad UzZaman, Jeffrey P Bigham, and James F Allen. 2011. Multimodal summarization of complex sentences. In Proceedings of the 16th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces, pages 43– 52. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. *arXiv*. Danqing Wang, Pengfei Liu, Yining Zheng, Xipeng Qiu, and Xuanjing Huang. 2020. Heterogeneous graph neural networks for extractive document summarization. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6209–6219. Wen Xiao and Giuseppe Carenini. 2019. Extractive summarization of long documents by combining global and local 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), pages 3011–3021. Tiezheng Yu, Wenliang Dai, Zihan Liu, and Pascale Fung. 2021. Vision guided generative pre-trained language models for multimodal abstractive summarization. *ArXiv*, abs/2109.02401. Jingqing Zhang, Yao Zhao, Mohammad Saleh, and Peter Liu. 2020. Pegasus: Pre-training with extracted gap-sentences for abstractive summarization. In *International Conference on Machine Learning*, pages 11328–11339. PMLR. Litian Zhang, Xiaoming Zhang, Junshu Pan, and Feiran Huang. 2021a. Hierarchical cross-modality semantic correlation learning model for multimodal summarization. *ArXiv*, abs/2112.12072. Zhengkun Zhang, Xiaojun Meng, Yasheng Wang, Xin Jiang, Qun Liu, and Zhenglu Yang. 2021b. Unims: A unified framework for multimodal summarization with knowledge distillation. *ArXiv*, abs/2109.05812. Ming Zhong, Pengfei Liu, Yiran Chen, Danqing Wang, Xipeng Qiu, and Xuan-Jing Huang. 2020. Extractive summarization as text matching. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6197–6208. Junnan Zhu, Haoran Li, Tianshang Liu, Yu Zhou, Jiajun Zhang, and Chengqing Zong. 2018. Msmo: Multimodal summarization with multimodal output. In *Proceedings of the 2018 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing*, pages 4154–4164. Junnan Zhu, Yu Zhou, Jiajun Zhang, Haoran Li, Chengqing Zong, and Changliang Li. 2020. Multimodal summarization with guidance of multimodal reference. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 9749–9756. ## A Implementation Details We use Pytorch-Transformers3 to implement the Bert-base model. We use the Adam optimizer (Kingma and Ba, 2014) and set the learning rate to 0.0001. We limit the text length to 512 tokens and resize the resolution of each image to 224×224. The overall process is implemented with PyTorch(Paszke et al., 2019). We run our experiment using 2 NVIDIA V100 GPUs. The maximum number of training iterations is set to 200k, and we save the checkpoint every 2k iterations. We select the best checkpoints according to the validation loss and report the results on the test set. When training the image text alignment model, we freeze the weight of ResNet152 and use a maximum batch size of 512. When training the text summarization model, we use beam search in decoding and set the beam search size to 5. The batch size is set to 512, and each input in the batch contains a text article with 512 tokens and a pseudo caption set with 128 tokens. For more implementation details, please refer to our released code at Github4. ## B Dataset | Train | Valid | Test | | |-------------------------|---------|--------|--------| | #Documents | 293965 | 10355 | 10261 | | #AvgImgsNum | 6.56 | 6.62 | 6.97 | | #AvgTokensNum(Document) | 720.87 | 766.08 | 730.80 | | #AvgTokensNum(Summary) | 70.12 | 70.02 | 72.16 | Table 5: MSMO Dataset statistics. We use the MSMO dataset build by Zhu et al. (2018), which is the largest benchmark dataset. This dataset is constructed from the Daily Mail website5, containing 293,965 articles for training, 10,355 articles for validation, and 10,261 articles for testing. Each article contains a text document, and approximately seven images on average. The manually written highlights offered by Daily Mail are taken as a reference text summary. Noted that the pictorial summaries are only available on the test set, so there is no label information about the salient images during training. Image captions are excluded from the dataset for generalization. ## C Case Study To qualitatively verify our proposed method's effectiveness, we conduct a case study on generated 3https://pytorch.org/hub/huggingface_pytorchtransformers/ 4https://github.com/sitaProject/SITA 5http://www.dailymail.co.uk/  pseudo image captions and multi-modal summaries. As illustrated in Figure 5, the pseudo captions generated by our model can express image semantics appropriately. For the critical entities in the images, we can find the corresponding descriptions in the high-quality pseudo captions we produce. Compared with the text summary generated by single-modal and alternative multi-modal models, SITA's output captures the article's main point better, thanks to the effective incorporation of pseudo image captions implying visual knowledge. For example, the descriptions of "A robed figure" and "M16" are missing in the text summaries of compared models. In contrast, our SITA model generates a more accurate summary with the help of pseudo captions containing these essential facts, which also assists in identifying the salient image correctly. ## D Rouge-2 Of Simple Summaries We only plot Rouge-1 and -L scores of simple summaries in Figure 3 for better visualization in limited space. The trend of Rouge-2 is similar to that of Rouge-1, as shown in Figure 4 Images Pseudo Captions Gold Image Captions Pictorial Summary by SITA Pictorial Summary by MOF Single-modal Text Summary  | )DPLOLHVIOHGLQSDQLF IURPWKH2DN9LHZ0DOO LQ2PDKD$Q HPEDUUDVVHGPDQ H[SODLQHGKHGLGQ WLQWHQG WRORRNOLNHDQ,6,6 JXQPDQLQDFOXPV\ +DOORZHHQFRVWXPH7KH PDVNHGILJXUHZDVDWR\ DQGWKHFRVWXPHZDVIURP WKHPRYLHCWKHWRZQ 5ZLWK*ROG6XP 5ZLWK*ROG6XP 5/ZLWK*ROG6XP  )DPLOLHVIOHGLQWHUURU IURPWKH2DNYLHZPDOO LQ2PDKD1HEUDVNDRQ )ULGD\QLJKW3ROLFHVDLG KHGLGQ WLQWHQGWRORRN OLNHDQ,6,6JXQPDQ7KH PDVNHGILJXUHLQORQJ EODFNUREHVOHIWDVTXLFNO\ DVKHDSSHDUHG 5ZLWK*ROG6XP 5ZLWK*ROG6XP 5/ZLWK*ROG6XP  Predicted Silent Image 3UHGLFWHG6LOHQW,PDJH | |---| ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? 7 ✗ 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?** 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? No response. 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? No response. 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? No response. 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.)? No response. 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.

parovic-etal-2023-cross

Cross-Lingual Transfer with Target Language-Ready Task Adapters

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.13

Adapters have emerged as a modular and parameter-efficient approach to (zero-shot) cross-lingual transfer. The established MAD-X framework employs separate language and task adapters which can be arbitrarily combined to perform the transfer of any task to any target language. Subsequently, BAD-X, an extension of the MAD-X framework, achieves improved transfer at the cost of MAD-X{'}s modularity by creating {`}bilingual{'} adapters specific to the source-target language pair. In this work, we aim to take the best of both worlds by (i) fine-tuning *task* adapters adapted to the target language(s) (so-called *{`}target language-ready{'} (TLR)* adapters) to maintain high transfer performance, but (ii) without sacrificing the highly modular design of MAD-X. The main idea of {`}target language-ready{'} adapters is to resolve the training-vs-inference discrepancy of MAD-X: the task adapter {`}sees{'} the target language adapter for the very first time during inference, and thus might not be fully compatible with it. We address this mismatch by exposing the task adapter to the target language adapter during training, and empirically validate several variants of the idea: in the simplest form, we alternate between using the source and target language adapters during task adapter training, which can be generalized to cycling over any set of language adapters. We evaluate different TLR-based transfer configurations with varying degrees of generality across a suite of standard cross-lingual benchmarks, and find that the most general (and thus most modular) configuration consistently outperforms MAD-X and BAD-X on most tasks and languages.

# Cross-Lingual Transfer With Target Language-Ready Task Adapters Marinela Parovic´ 1 Alan Ansell1**Ivan Vulic´** 1 **Anna Korhonen**1 1Language Technology Lab, TAL, University of Cambridge {mp939,aja63,iv250,alk23}@cam.ac.uk ## Abstract Adapters have emerged as a modular and parameter-efficient approach to (zero-shot) cross-lingual transfer. The established MADX framework employs separate language and task adapters which can be arbitrarily combined to perform the transfer of any task to any target language. Subsequently, BAD-X, an extension of the MAD-X framework, achieves improved transfer at the cost of MAD-X's modularity by creating 'bilingual' adapters specific to the source-target language pair. In this work, we aim to take the best of both worlds by (i) fine-tuning *task* adapters adapted to the target language(s) (so-called *'target language-ready'* (TLR) adapters) to maintain high transfer performance, but (ii) without sacrificing the highly modular design of MAD-X. The main idea of 'target language-ready' adapters is to resolve the training-vs-inference discrepancy of MADX: the task adapter 'sees' the target language adapter for the very first time during inference, and thus might not be fully compatible with it. We address this mismatch by exposing the task adapter to the target language adapter during training, and empirically validate several variants of the idea: in the simplest form, we alternate between using the source and target language adapters during task adapter training, which can be generalized to cycling over any set of language adapters. We evaluate different TLR-based transfer configurations with varying degrees of generality across a suite of standard cross-lingual benchmarks, and find that the most general (and thus most modular) configuration consistently outperforms MADX and BAD-X on most tasks and languages. ## 1 Introduction And Motivation Recent progress in multilingual NLP has mainly been driven by massively multilingual Transformer models (MMTs) such as mBERT (Devlin et al., 2019), XLM-R (Conneau et al., 2020), and mT5 (Xue et al., 2021), which have been trained on the unlabeled data of 100+ languages. Their shared multilingual representation spaces enable zero-shot cross-lingual transfer (Pires et al., 2019; K et al., 2020), that is, performing tasks with a reasonable degree of accuracy in languages that entirely lack training data for those tasks. Zero-shot cross-lingual transfer is typically performed by fine-tuning the pretrained MMT on taskspecific data in a high-resource *source* language (i.e., typically English), and then applying it directly to make task predictions in the *target* language. In the standard setup, the model's knowledge about the target language is acquired solely during the pretraining stage (Artetxe et al., 2020). In order to improve the transfer performance, task fine-tuning can be preceded with fine-tuning on unlabeled data in the target language (Ponti et al., 2020; Pfeiffer et al., 2020b). Nonetheless, the performance on the target languages in such scenarios is lower than that on the source language, and the difference is known as the *cross-lingual transfer gap* (Hu et al., 2020). Crucially, the transfer gap tends to increase for the languages where such transfer is needed the most (Joshi et al., 2020): i.e., for low-resource target languages, and languages typologically more distant from the source language (e.g., English) (Lauscher et al., 2020). Adapters (Rebuffi et al., 2017; Houlsby et al., 2019) have emerged as a prominent approach for aiding zero-shot cross-lingual transfer (Pfeiffer et al., 2020b; Üstün et al., 2022a; Ansell et al., 2021; Parovic et al. ´ , 2022). They offer several benefits: (i) providing additional representation capacity for target languages; (ii) much more parameterefficient fine-tuning compared to full-model finetuning, as they allow the large MMT's parameters to remain unmodified, and thus preserve the multilingual knowledge the MMT has acquired during pretraining. They also (iii) provide modularity in learning and storing different facets of knowledge (Pfeiffer et al., 2020a): this property enables them to be combined in favorable ways to achieve better performance, and previously fine-tuned modules (e.g., language adapters) to be reused across different applications. The established adapter-based cross-lingual transfer framework MAD-X (Pfeiffer et al., 2020b) trains separate language adapters (LAs) and task adapters (TAs) which can then be arbitrarily combined for the transfer of any task to any language. Despite having a highly modular design, stemming primarily from dedicated per-language and per-task adapters, MAD-X's TAs lack 'adaptivity' to the target language(s) of interest: i.e., its TAs are fully target language-agnostic. More precisely, during task fine-tuning, the MAD-X TA is exposed only to the source language LA, and 'sees' the target language TA and examples from that language for the first time only at inference. This deficiency might result in incompatibility between the TA and the target LA, which would emerge only at inference. BAD-X (Parovic et al. ´ , 2022) trades off MAD-X's high degree of modularity by introducing *'bilingual'* language adapters specialized for transfer between the source-target language pair.1 While such transfer direction specialization results in a better performance, the decrease in modularity results in much larger computational requirements: BAD-X requires fine-tuning a dedicated bilingual LA for every language pair of interest followed up by fine-tuning a dedicated TA again for each pair. Prior work has not explored whether this specialization (i.e., exposing the target language at training time) can be done successfully solely at the level of TAs whilst preserving modularity at the LA level. Such specialization in the most straightforward bilingual setup still requires fine-tuning a dedicated TA for each target language of interest. However, this is already a more pragmatic setup than BAD-X since TAs are much less computationally expensive to train than LAs. Moreover, as we show in this work, it is possible to also extend TA fine-tuning to more target languages, moving from bilingual specialization to the more universal multilingual 'exposure' and towards multilingual language-universal TAs. In this work, we aim to create a modular design inspired by MAD-X while seeking to reap the benefits of the exposure to one or more target languages. To this end, we thus introduce *target languageready (TLR)* task adapters designed to excel at a 1Similarly, such bilingual adapters have been used in multilingual NMT research to boost translation between particular language pairs (Bapna and Firat, 2019; Philip et al., 2020). particular target language or at a larger set of target languages. In the simplest bilingual variant, TLR TAs are trained by alternating between source and target LAs, while the more general version allows cycling over any set of LAs. Creating TLR TAs does not require any expensive retraining or alternative training of LAs. We run experiments with a plethora of standard benchmarks focused on zero-shot cross-lingual transfer and low-resource languages, covering 1) NER on MasakhaNER; 2) dependency parsing (DP) on Universal Dependencies; 3) natural language inference (NLI) on AmericasNLI and XNLI; 4) QA on XQuAD and TyDiQA-GoldP. Our results show that TLR TAs outperform MAD-X and BAD-X on all tasks on average, and offer consistent gains across a large majority of the individual target languages. Importantly, the most general TLR TA, which is shared between all target languages and thus positively impacts modularity and reusability, shows the strongest performance across the majority of tasks and target languages. Fine-tuning the TA in such multilingual setups also acts as a *multilingual regularization* (Ansell et al., 2021): while the TA gets exposed to different target languages (i.e., maintaining its TLR property), at the same time it does not overfit to a single target language as it is forced to adapt to more languages, and thus learns more universal cross-language features. Our code and models are publicly available at: https: //github.com/parovicm/tlr-adapters. ## 2 Methodology 2.1 Background Adapters. Following MAD-X and BAD-X, in this work we focus on the most common adapter architecture, *serial adapters* (Houlsby et al., 2019; Pfeiffer et al., 2021a), but we remind the reader that other adapter options are available (He et al., 2022) and might be used in the context of crosslingual transfer. Serial adapters are lightweight bottleneck modules inserted within each Transformer layer. The architecture of an adapter at each layer consists of a down-projection, a non-linearity and an up-projection followed by a residual connection. Let the down-projection at layer l be a matrix Dl ∈ R h×dand the up-projection be a matrix Ul ∈ R d×h where h is the hidden size of the Transformer and d is the hidden size of the adapter. If we denote the hidden state and the residual at layer l as hl and rl respectively, the adapter computation of layer l is then given by: ## Al(Hl, Rl) = Ul(Relu(Dl(Hl))) + Rl, (1) with ReLU as the activation function. MAD-X and BAD-X **Frameworks.** MAD-X trains dedicated LAs and TAs (Pfeiffer et al., 2020b). LAs are trained using unlabeled Wikipedia data with a masked language modeling (MLM) objective. TAs are trained using task-specific data in the source language. Given a source language Ls and a target language Lt, MAD-X trains LAs for both Ls and Lt. The TA is trained while stacked on top of the Ls LA, which is frozen. To make predictions on Lt, the Ls LA is swapped with the Lt LA. Unlike MAD-X, which is based on monolingual adapters, BAD-X trains bilingual LAs (Parovic´ et al., 2022). A bilingual LA is trained on the unlabeled data of both Ls and Lt and the TA is then trained on task-specific data in Ls, stacked on top of the bilingual LA. To perform inference on the task in Lt, the same configuration is kept since the bilingual LA 'knows' both Ls and Lt. ## 2.2 Target Language-Ready Task Adapters Instead of sacrificing the LAs' modularity as in BAD-X, it might be more effective to keep MAD-X's language-specific LAs and opt to prepare only the TAs to excel at a particular target language Lt, or a set of target languages of interest. Assuming LAs are available for the source language Ls and K target languages Lt,i, i = 1*, . . . , K*, we cycle over all K + 1 LAs during TA training, resulting in the so-called *multilingual TLR TA*. This general idea is illustrated in Figure 1. The bilingual variant with a TLR TA trained by alternating between the source and target LA is a special case of the multilingual variant where K = 1, while the original MAD-X setup is obtained by setting K = 0. 2 This procedure exposes a single target language (bilingual TLR TA) or multiple target languages (multilingual TLR TA) to the TA as soon as its finetuning phase, making it better equipped (i.e., *ready*) for the inference phase, where the TA is combined with the single Lt LA. TLR Variants. While BILINGUAL TA fine-tuning follows naturally from BAD-X, and it seems suitable for transfer between a fixed pair of Ls and 2It is also possible to train a TA directly without relying on any LA at all. However, previous research (Ansell et al., 2021) has empirically validated that this *'TA-only'* variant is consistently outperformed by MAD-X; hence, we do not discuss nor compare to 'TA-only' in this work.  Lt, it might be better to train the TA only on top of the Lt LA. Such TARGET-only TLR TAs could be particularly effective for higher-resource languages whose LAs have been trained on sufficient corpora, to the extent that pairing them with Ls is detrimental. This could be especially detectable for higher-resource Lt-s that are also distant from Ls or lack adequate vocabulary overlap with it. TARGET and BILINGUAL TLR TAs require training of dedicated TAs for every Lt of interest, which makes them computationally less efficient than MAD-X, and they introduce more parameters overall. Using MULTILINGUAL TLR TAs mitigates this overhead. We consider two variants of MUL-TILINGUAL TAs. First, the so-called TASK-MULTI TLR variant operates over the source language and the set of all target languages available for the task under consideration (e.g., all languages represented in the MasakhaNER dataset). Second, the ALL-MULTI TLR variant combines the source language with all target languages across datasets of multiple tasks (e.g., all languages represented in MasakhaNER, all languages represented in AmericasNLI, etc.); see §3 later. These variants increase modularity and parameter efficiency and are as modular and parameter-efficient as MAD-X per each task: a single TA is required to handle transfer to any target language. At the same time, unlike MAD-X, they are offered some exposure to the representations arising from the multiple target languages they will be used for. Handling multiple LAs at fine-tuning might make the TAs more robust overall: multilinguality might act as a regularization forcing the TA to focus on more universal cross-language features (Ansell et al., 2021). ## 3 Experimental Setup Evaluation Tasks and Languages. We comprehensively evaluate our TLR adapter framework on a suite of standard cross-lingual transfer benchmarks. They span four different task families (NER, DP, NLI and QA), with a total of six different datasets and 35 different target languages, covering a typologically and geographically diverse language sample of both low- and high-resource languages. For NER, we use the MasakhaNER dataset (Adelani et al., 2021) which contains 10 low-resource languages from the African continent.3 For DP, we use Universal Dependencies 2.7 (Zeman et al., 2020) and inherit the set of 10 typologically diverse low-resource target languages from BAD-X (Parovic et al. ´ , 2022). For NLI, we rely on the AmericasNLI dataset (Ebrahimi et al., 2022), containing 10 low-resource languages from the Americas, as well as a subset of languages from XNLI (Conneau et al., 2018). Finally, for QA we use subsets of languages from XQuAD (Artetxe et al., 2020) and TyDiQA-GoldP (Clark et al., 2020). The subsets for XNLI, XQuAD and TyDiQA-GoldP were selected to combine (i) low-resource languages (Joshi et al., 2020), with (ii) higher-resource languages for which dedicated (i.e., 'MAD-X') LAs were readily available. The full overview of all tasks, datasets, and languages with their language codes is provided in Table 5 in Appendix A. | NER | DP | NLI | QA | | |--------------------|----------|----------|----------|------| | Batch Size | 8 | 8 | 32 | 16 | | Epochs | 10 | 10 | 5 | 15 | | Learning Rate | 5 · 10−5 | 5 · 10−5 | 2 · 10−5 | 10−4 | | Eval Freq. (steps) | 250 | 250 | 625 | 625 | | Eval Metric | F1 | LAS | Acc | F1 | Table 1: Hyperparameters for different tasks. Underlying MMT. We report results on all tasks with mBERT, pretrained on Wikipedias of 104 languages (Devlin et al., 2019). mBERT has been suggested by prior work as a better-performing MMT for truly low-resource languages (Pfeiffer et al., 2021b; Ansell et al., 2021). To validate the robustness of our TLR adapters, we also use XLMR (Conneau et al., 2020) for a subset of tasks. Language Adapters. We train LAs for the minimum of 100 epochs or 100,000 steps with a batch size of 8, a learning rate of 5 · 10−5and a maximum sequence length of 256.4 We evaluate the LAs every 1,000 steps for low-resource languages and every 5,000 steps for high-resource ones, and choose the LA that yields the lowest perplexity, evaluated on the 5% of the held-out monolingual data (1% for high-resource languages). For the BAD-X baseline, we directly use the bilingual LAs from (Parovic et al. ´ , 2022). Following Pfeiffer et al. (2020b), the adapter reduction factor (i.e., the ratio between MMT's hidden size and the adapter's bottleneck size) is 2 for all LAs. For the MAD-X LAs, we use the efficient Pfeiffer adapter configuration (Pfeiffer et al., 2020a) with invertible adapters, whereas BAD-X LAs do not include them. Task Adapters. We fine-tune TAs by stacking them on top of the corresponding LAs (see Figure 1). During their fine-tuning, the MMT's parameters and all the LAs' parameters are frozen. The adapter reduction factor for all TAs is 16 as in prior work (Pfeiffer et al., 2020b) (i.e., d = 48), and, like the LAs, they use the Pfeiffer configuration. The hyperparameters across different tasks, also borrowed from prior work, are listed in Table 1. In addition, we use early stopping of 4 when training the QA TA (i.e., we stop training when the F1 score does not increase for the four consecutive evaluation cycles). We use the English SQuADv1.1 training data (Rajpurkar et al., 2016) for TyDiQAGoldP since (i) it is much larger than TyDiQA's  native training set, and (ii) we observed higher performance on target languages in our preliminary experiments than with TyDiQA's training data. Transfer Setup: Details. In all our transfer experiments, the source language Ls is fixed to English, and we evaluate different variants described in §2.2. For the MAD-X baseline, we rely on its 'MAD-X v2.0' variant, which drops the adapters in the last layer of the Transformer, which has been found to improve transfer performance across the board (Pfeiffer et al., 2021b). For the TASK-MULTI TLR variant, along with using the English LA, we fine-tune TAs using the LAs of all our evaluation languages in that particular dataset. For instance, for DP this spans 10 languages, while for NLI, we fine-tune a separate TASK-MULTI TLR with the 10 languages from AmericasNLI, and another one for the XNLI languages. For the ALL-MULTI TLR variant, in addition to English LA, we cycle over the LAs of all our evaluation languages from all the tasks and datasets. ## 4 Results And Discussion Main Results. The main results with mBERT for all tasks and all languages are shown in Table 2, with the averages concisely provided in Figure 2. Additional results with XLM-R are available in Appendix B. As a general trend, we observe that all proposed TLR variants outperform MAD-X on the majority of the target languages across all tasks. Besides reaching higher averages on all tasks, the best per-task variants from the TLR framework surpass MAD-X on: 9/9 (NER), 10/10 (DP), 10/10 (AmericasNLI), 6/6 (XNLI), 4/4 (XQuAD) and 5/5 (TyDiQA) target languages. We also demonstrate that gains are achieved over the much less modular BAD-X on two tasks (DP, AmericasNLI) for which we had readily available BAD-X LAs. In sum, the comprehensive set of results from Table 2 confirms the effectiveness and versatility of TLR adapters across a range of (typologically diverse) target languages and datasets. Breakdown of Results across Tasks and TLR Variants. On NER and DP we observe very similar trends in results. Importantly, the most modular ALL-MULTI variant offers the highest performance overall: e.g., it reaches the average F1 score of 69.86% in the NER task, while outperforming MAD-X by 1.9% on average and on all 9 target languages. Pronounced gains with that variant are also indicated in the DP task. The TARGET and BILINGUAL variants also yield gains across the majority of languages, with BILINGUAL being the stronger of the two. However, their overall utility in comparison to ALL-MULTI is lower, given their lower performance coupled with lower modularity. On AmericasNLI, all TLR variants display considerable gains over MAD-X, achieving 5-6% higher average accuracy. They outperform MAD-X on all 10 target languages, except the TASK-MULTI variant with only a slight drop on AYM. The best variant is once again the most modular ALL-MULTI variant, which is better than the baselines and all the other variants on 6/10 target languages. On XNLI, which involves some higher-resource languages such as AR, HI and ZH, all TLR variants reach higher average accuracy than MAD-X. The gains peak around 5-6% on average; however, this is due mainly to SW where MAD-X completely fails, achieving the accuracy of random choice. Nonetheless, the TLR variants attain better scores on all other languages as well (the only exception is ALLMULTI on AR). Besides SW, TH also marks a large boost of up to 11.2% with the BILINGUAL variant, while the other languages attain more modest gains of up to 2%. We remark that the BILINGUAL variant now obtains the highest average accuracy: we speculate that this could be a consequence of target languages now being on the higher-resource end compared to MasakhaNER and AmericasNLI. Our final task family, QA, proves yet again the benefits of transfer with TLR adapters. On XQuAD and TyDiQA-GoldP, the best TLR variant is now the TARGET adapter. This might be partially due to a good representation of high-resource languages | Method | HAU | IBO | KIN | LUG | LUO | PCM | SWA | WOL | YOR | avg | Better | | |---------------------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|--------|--------|-------|-------|----------|--------| | MAD-X | 81.30 | 70.27 | 62.53 | 64.70 | 48.20 | 72.94 | 74.20 | 65.56 | 71.95 | 67.96 | | | | TARGET | 77.58 | 73.99 | 64.34 | 68.08 | 51.20 | 74.00 | 75.26 | 63.04 | 72.76 | 68.92 | 7/9 | | | BILINGUAL | 79.93 | 71.90 | 64.74 | 68.68 | 51.18 | 74.82 | 75.68 | 63.68 | 73.00 | 69.29 | 7/9 | | | TASK-MULTI | 81.83 | 72.76 | 65.03 | 66.95 | 50.69 | 75.35 | 76.59 | 65.87 | 72.26 | 69.70 | 9/9 | | | ALL-MULTI | 82.39 | 71.82 | 65.12 | 66.38 | 51.38 | 76.17 | 76.42 | 66.93 | 72.10 | 69.86 | 9/9 | | | LEAVE-OUT-TASK | 82.54 | 70.88 | 65.74 | 65.78 | 49.93 | 75.33 | 76.10 | 65.27 | 72.61 | 69.35 | 8/9 | | | LEAVE-OUT-TARG | 82.60 | 71.11 | 64.50 | 66.95 | 51.38 | 75.21 | 75.62 | 65.57 | 71.90 | 69.43 | 8/9 | | | (a) NER: F1 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Method | AF | BM | EU | KPV | MR | MT | MYV | TE | UG | WO | avg | Better | | MAD-X | 55.21 | 13.73 | 33.20 | 23.12 | 26.18 | 47.42 | 35.70 | 49.62 | 19.60 | 32.07 | 33.59 | | | BAD-X | 54.54 | 11.92 | 31.45 | 22.55 | 26.56 | 43.52 | 39.31 | 46.22 | 15.24 | 35.28 | 32.66 | | | TARGET | 56.91 | 13.62 | 34.55 | 21.96 | 28.05 | 45.63 | 38.47 | 51.80 | 17.22 | 39.41 | 34.76 | 6/10 | | BILINGUAL | 56.86 | 14.25 | 33.56 | 22.84 | 27.71 | 48.46 | 38.67 | 53.56 | 19.74 | 39.82 | 35.55 | 9/10 | | TASK-MULTI | 56.56 | 15.43 | 34.90 | 22.93 | 28.70 | 51.85 | 39.18 | 53.51 | 19.48 | 40.29 | 36.28 | 8/10 | | ALL-MULTI | 57.11 | 15.46 | 35.32 | 23.76 | 28.35 | 53.68 | 39.71 | 53.83 | 20.32 | 41.34 | 36.89 | 10/10 | | LEAVE-OUT-TASK | 56.99 | 16.40 | 33.88 | 25.27 | 28.28 | 55.03 | 39.96 | 54.11 | 21.52 | 40.41 | 37.19 | 10/10 | | LEAVE-OUT-TARG | 56.97 | 15.87 | 35.67 | 25.47 | 27.82 | 53.93 | 39.68 | 52.54 | 20.95 | 40.65 | 36.95 | 10/10 | | (b) DP: LAS | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Method | AYM | BZD | CNI | GN | HCH | NAH | OTO | QUY | SHP | TAR | avg | Better | | MAD-X | 50.40 | 40.93 | 37.47 | 55.60 | 38.27 | 46.61 | 39.71 | 48.80 | 38.27 | 38.80 | 43.49 | | | BAD-X | 46.13 | 44.67 | 45.87 | 56.80 | 44.93 | 47.70 | 41.71 | 47.87 | 49.07 | 39.47 | 46.42 | | | TARGET | 50.53 | 47.20 | 44.13 | 58.00 | 43.73 | 50.54 | 41.04 | 55.87 | 46.13 | 45.47 | 48.26 | 10/10 | | BILINGUAL | 51.73 | 46.80 | 43.07 | 58.53 | 46.13 | 48.51 | 43.32 | 55.47 | 46.00 | 44.40 | 48.40 | 10/10 | | TASK-MULTI | 49.60 | 45.60 | 44.67 | 58.67 | 46.00 | 50.27 | 43.32 | 55.87 | 47.07 | 44.27 | 48.53 | 9/10 | | ALL-MULTI | 51.33 | 47.20 | 47.20 | 60.00 | 46.00 | 48.10 | 45.59 | 58.40 | 48.00 | 46.13 | 49.80 | 10/10 | | LEAVE-OUT-TASK | 54.40 | 42.80 | 44.40 | 58.13 | 42.40 | 47.56 | 41.44 | 56.80 | 42.80 | 43.73 | 47.45 | 10/10 | | LEAVE-OUT-TARG | 51.07 | 44.27 | 47.33 | 59.47 | 44.53 | 47.43 | 43.98 | 56.53 | 46.53 | 42.93 | 48.41 | 10/10 | | (c) AmericasNLI: accuracy | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Method | AR | HI | SW | TH | UR | ZH | avg | Better | | | | | | MAD-X | 62.75 | 56.75 | 33.33 | 43.75 | 56.41 | 63.57 | 52.76 | | | | | | | TARGET | 62.87 | 57.92 | 53.93 | 52.08 | 56.79 | 65.93 | 58.25 | 6/6 | | | | | | BILINGUAL | 63.49 | 58.62 | 54.71 | 54.95 | 57.47 | 65.49 | 59.12 | 6/6 | | | | | | TASK-MULTI | 64.07* | 57.88 | 55.35 | 54.19 | 56.81 | 65.69 | 59.00 | 6/6 | | | | | | ALL-MULTI | 61.98 | 57.80 | 54.15 | 53.25 | 57.05 | 65.75 | 58.33 | 5/6 | | | | | | (d) XNLI: accuracy | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Method | AR | HI | TH | ZH | avg | Better | | | | | | | | MAD-X | 58.97/42.27 | 51.09/36.47 | 40.45/30.59 | 57.12/46.72 | 51.91/39.01 | | | | | | | | | TARGET | 60.40/43.95 | 54.91/40.59 | 44.95/36.22 | 58.73/48.24 | 54.75/42.25 | 4/4 | | | | | | | | BILINGUAL | 60.44/44.29 | 54.18/40.42 | 42.68/33.95 | 57.95/48.32 | 53.81/41.75 | 4/4 | | | | | | | | TASK-MULTI | 59.04/43.28 | 52.03/37.56 | 41.91/31.43 | 58.97/48.91 | 52.99/40.30 | 4/4 | | | | | | | | ALL-MULTI | 58.67/42.44 | 54.79/41.42 | 44.67/35.97 | 58.57/48.99 | 54.17/42.20 | 3/4 | | | | | | | | (e) XQuAD: F1/EM | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Method | AR | BN | SW | TE | TH | avg | Better | | | | | | | MAD-X | 51.10/34.42 | 56.21/42.48 | 55.04/42.49 | 46.56/34.53 | 47.41/32.91 | 51.26/37.37 | | | | | | | | TARGET | 56.88/40.93 | 59.47/49.56 | 61.91/50.10 | 49.92/39.31 | 49.36/34.81 | 55.51/42.94 | 5/5 | | | | | | | BILINGUAL | 53.50/38.65 | 53.47/40.71 | 58.26/49.10 | 48.47/38.12 | 48.22/33.67 | 52.38/40.05 | 4/5 | | | | | | | TASK-MULTI | 49.33/34.42 | 50.92/39.82 | 58.34/48.70 | 49.30/39.76 | 45.93/33.67 | 50.76/39.27 | 2/5 | | | | | | | ALL-MULTI | 55.26/39.41 | 55.17/41.59 | 60.42/49.30 | 49.35/38.86 | 52.09/39.62 | 54.46/41.76 | 4/5 | | | | | | | (f) TyDiQA: F1/EM | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Method | DP | AmericasNLI | |------------|-------|---------------| | MAD-X | 31.29 | 45.33 | | BAD-X | 32.66 | 46.42 | | TARGET | 35.15 | 48.24 | | BILINGUAL | 34.41 | 48.47 | | TASK-MULTI | 35.86 | 48.05 | | ALL-MULTI | 36.47 | 48.49 | | Method | NER | AmericasNLI | |----------------|-------|---------------| | MAD-X | 68.27 | 44.66 | | TARGET | 68.49 | 47.92 | | BILINGUAL | 69.24 | 48.32 | | TASK-MULTI | 69.47 | 48.55 | | ALL-MULTI | 69.10 | 49.10 | | LEAVE-OUT-TASK | 69.37 | 47.96 | | LEAVE-OUT-TARG | 69.13 | 48.44 | such as AR, HI, or ZH in mBERT and its subword vocabulary. However, we observe gains with TAR-GET also on lower-resource languages such as BN and SW on TyDiQA, which might indicate that the higher complexity of the QA task is at play in comparison to tasks such as NER and NLI. Crucially, the most modular ALL-MULTI TLR variant, which trains a single TA per each task, yields very robust and strong performance across all tasks (including the two QA tasks) and both on high-resource and low-resource languages. Towards Language-Universal Task Adapters? Strictly speaking, if a new (K + 1)-th target language is introduced to our proposed TLR framework, it would be necessary to train the multilingual TLR TA anew to expose it to the new target language. In practice, massively multilingual TAs could still be applied even to languages 'unseen' during TA fine-tuning (e.g., in the same way as the original MAD-X framework does). This violates the TLR assumption, as the TA sees the target language only at inference. However, this setup might empirically validate another desirable property of our multilingual TLR framework from Figure 1: exposing the TA at fine-tuning to a multitude of languages (and their corresponding LAs) might equip the TA with improved transfer capability even to unseen languages. Put simply, the TA will not overfit to a single target language or a small set of languages as it must learn to balance across a large and diverse set of languages; see §2. We thus run experiments on MasakhaNER, UD DP, and AmericasNLI with two subvariants of the most general ALL-MULTI variant. First, in the LEAVE-OUT-TASK subvariant, we *leave out* all the LAs for the languages from the corresponding task dataset when fine-tuning the TA: e.g., for AmericasNLI, that subvariant covers the LAs of all the languages in all the datasets except those appearing in AmericasNLI, so that all AmericasNLI languages are effectively 'unseen' at fine-tuning. The second subvariant, termed LEAVE-OUT-TARG, leaves out only one language at a time from the corresponding dataset: e.g., when evaluating on Guarani (GN) in AmericasNLI, the only language 'unseen' by the TA at fine-tuning is GN as the current inference language. The results, summarized in Tables 2(a)-(c), reveal that our MULTILINGUAL TA fine-tuning indeed increases transfer capability also for the 'TAunseen' languages, and leads towards languageuniversal TAs. The scores with both subvariants offer substantial gains over MAD-X for many languages unseen during fine-tuning and in all three tasks. This confirms that (i) MAD-X TAs tend to overfit to the source language and thus underperform in cross-lingual transfer, and (ii) such overfitting might get mitigated through our proposed 'multilingual regularization' of the TAs while keeping the same modularity benefits. Additionally, the results also confirm the versatility of the proposed TLR framework, where strong transfer gains are achieved with different sets of languages included in multilingual TA fine-tuning: e.g., the scores with the two LEAVE-OUT subvariants remain strong and competitive with the full ALL-MULTI variant. For the DP task we even observe slight gains with the LEAVE-OUT-TASK variant over the original ALL-MULTI variant which 'sees' all task languages. We speculate that this might partially occur due to the phenomenon of 'the curse of multilinguality' (Conneau et al., 2020) kicking in, now at the level of the limited TA budget, but leave this for further exploration in future work. ## 4.1 Further Analyses Robustness to LA Training Configuration. To demonstrate that our results hold even when LAs are trained with the different hyper-parameters, we adopt a training regime that makes MAD-X LAs    directly comparable with BAD-X as trained in previous work by Parovic et al. ´ (2022). The average results with such LAs on DP and AmericasNLI are presented in Table 3, demonstrating that the gains with the proposed TLR variants hold irrespective of the LA training setup. Multiple Runs. Given the large number of experimental runs in this work, most scores are reported from single runs with fixed seeds. However, to validate that our findings hold under different random initializations of TAs, we also run MAD-X and all TLR variants with three different random seeds on a subset of tasks (MasakhaNER and AmericasNLI). The main results are presented in Table 3, indicating that all the findings hold and are not due to a single favorable seed. Do TLR Adapters Improve Alignment Between Source and Target Languages? In order to explain the consistent gains with TLR adapters over MAD-X, we analyse whether TLR adapters produce better-aligned representations between source and target languages than MAD-X. We execute experiments on the NLI task, choosing 4 languages from AmericasNLI (AYM, GN, HCH, QUY) and 4 languages from XNLI (AR, HI, SW, UR) datasets, with English as a source language. The representations of English are obtained using MultiNLI data and English LA is paired with 1) MAD-X TA for the MAD-X baseline, and 2) ALL-MULTI TA for the TLR representations. To obtain the representations in the target language, we use its validation data and its LA paired with either MAD-X TA or ALL-MULTI TA as before. The alignment scores of both MAD-X and TLR methods are measured as cosine similarity between English and target representations of mBERT's [CLS] token, using 500 examples in both languages. The results are presented in Figure 3. We can observe that MAD-X seems to have a much more significant drop in alignment values in the last layer than the ALLMULTI adapter, which could explain the better performance of the latter. In addition, on AmericasNLI languages, where we observe sizable gains, the ALL-MULTI adapter seems to achieve better alignment across the middle layers of mBERT. ## 5 Related Work Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning has emerged from an effort to overcome the need for full model fine-tuning, especially with the neural models becoming increasingly larger. Some approaches finetune only a subset of model parameters while keeping the rest unmodified (Ben Zaken et al., 2022; Guo et al., 2021; Ansell et al., 2022). Other approaches keep the model's parameters fixed and introduce a fresh set of parameters that serves for learning the desired task (Li and Liang, 2021; Lester et al., 2021; Houlsby et al., 2019; Hu et al., 2022), with the tendency towards decreasing the number of newly introduced parameters while concurrently maximizing or maintaining task performance (Karimi Mahabadi et al., 2021a,b). Adapters were introduced in computer vision research (Rebuffi et al., 2017) before being brought into NLP to perform parameter-efficient transfer learning across tasks (Houlsby et al., 2019). Bapna and Firat (2019) use adapters in NMT as an efficient way of adapting the model to new languages and domains because maintaining separate models would quickly become infeasible as the number of domains and languages increases. Wang et al. (2021) propose factual and linguistic adapters to infuse different types of knowledge into the model, while overcoming the catastrophic forgetting that ## Would Otherwise Occur. Adapters for Cross-Lingual Transfer. MAD-X Pfeiffer et al. (2020b) introduces LAs and TAs for efficient transfer; they also propose invertible adapters for adapting MMTs to unseen languages. Subsequently, Pfeiffer et al. (2021b) introduce a vocabulary adaptation method for MAD-X that can adapt the model to low-resource languages and even to unseen scripts, the latter of which was not possible with MAD-X's invertible adapters. In another adapter-based cross-lingual transfer approach, Vidoni et al. (2020) introduce orthogonal LAs and TAs designed to store the knowledge orthogonal to the knowledge already encoded within MMT. FADX (Lee et al., 2022) explores whether the available adapters can be composed to complement or completely replace the adapters for low-resource languages. This is done through fusing (Pfeiffer et al., 2021a) TAs trained with LAs in different languages. Our TLR adapters do not involve any fusion, but rather benefit from a training procedure that operates by cycling over multiple LAs. Faisal and Anastasopoulos (2022) use linguistic and phylogenetic information to improve cross-lingual transfer by leveraging closely related languages and learning language family adapters similar to Chronopoulou et al. (2022). This is accomplished by creating a phylogeny-informed tree hierarchy over LAs. UDapter (Üstün et al., 2020) and MAD-G (Ansell et al., 2021) learn to generate LAs through the contextual parameter generation method (Platanios et al., 2018). Both UDapter and MAD-G enable the generation of the parameters from vectors of typological features through sharing of linguistic information, with the main difference between the two approaches being that MAD-G's LAs are task-agnostic, while UDapter generates them jointly with a dependency parser's parameters. Hyper-X (Üstün et al., 2022b) generates weights for adapters conditioned on both task and language vectors, thus facilitating the zero-shot transfer to unseen languages and task-language combinations. Improving Cross-Lingual Transfer via Exposing Target Languages. In an extensive transfer case study focused on POS tagging, de Vries et al. (2022) showed that both source and target language (and other features such as language family, writing system, word order and lexical-phonetic distance) affect cross-lingual transfer performance. XeroAlign (Gritta and Iacobacci, 2021) is a method for task-specific alignment of sentence embeddings (i.e. they encourage the alignment between source task-data and its target translation by an auxiliary loss), aiming to bring the target language performance closer to that of a source language (i.e. to close the cross-lingual transfer gap). Kulshreshtha et al. (2020) analyze the effects of the existing methods for aligning multilingual contextualized embeddings and cross-lingual supervision, and propose a novel alignment method. Yang et al. (2021) introduce a new pretraining task to align static embeddings and multilingual contextual representations by relying on bilingual word pairs during masking. Inspired by this line of research, in this work we investigated how 'exposing' target languages as well as conducting multilingual fine-tuning impacts the knowledge stored in task adapters, and their ability to boost adapter-based cross-lingual transfer. ## 6 Conclusion And Future Work We have presented a novel general framework for adapter-based cross-lingual task transfer, which improves over previous established adapter-based transfer frameworks such as MAD-X and BAD-X. The main idea is to better equip task adapters (TAs) to handle text instances in a variety of target languages. We have demonstrated that this can be achieved via so-called *target language-ready* (TLR) task adapters, where we expose the TA to the target language as early as the fine-tuning stage. As another major contribution, we have also proposed a multilingual language-universal TLR TA variant which offers the best trade-off between transfer performance and modularity, learning a single universal TA that can be applied over multiple target languages. Our experiments across 6 standard cross-lingual benchmarks spanning 4 different tasks and a wide spectrum of languages have validated the considerable benefits of the proposed framework and different transfer variants emerging from it. Crucially, the most modular multilingual TLR TA variant offers the strongest performance overall, and it also generalizes well even to target languages 'unseen' during TA fine-tuning. In future work, we plan to further investigate multilingual language-universal task adapters also in multi-task and multi-domain setups, and extend the focus from serial adapters to other adapter architectures, such as parallel adapters (He et al., 2022) and sparse subnetworks (Ansell et al., 2022; Foroutan et al., 2022). ## Limitations Our experiments are based on (arguably) the most standard adapter architecture for adapter-based cross-lingual transfer and beyond, which also facilitates comparisons to prior work in this area. However, we again note that there are other emerging parameter-efficient modular methods, including different adapter architectures (He et al., 2022), that could be used with the same conceptual idea. We leave further and wider explorations along this direction for future work. Our evaluation relies on the currently available standard multilingual benchmarks, and in particular those targeted towards low-resource languages. While the development of better models for underrepresented languages is possible mostly owing to such benchmarks, it is also inherently constrained by their quality and availability. Even though our experiments have been conducted over 35 different target languages and across several different tasks, we mostly focus on generally consistent trends across multiple languages. Delving deeper into finer-grained qualitative and linguistically oriented analyses over particular low-resource languages would require access to native speakers of those languages, and it is very challenging to conduct such analyses for many languages in our language sample. Due to a large number of experiments across many tasks and languages, we report all our results based on a single run. Averages over multiple runs conducted on a subset of languages and tasks confirm all the core findings; for simplicity, we eventually chose to report the results for all languages and tasks in the same setup. Finally, training language adapters is typically computationally expensive; however, owing to the modular design of our framework with respect to language adapters, these are trained only once per language and reused across different evaluations. ## Acknowledgments We would like to thank the reviewers for their helpful suggestions. Marinela Parovic is supported by Trinity Col- ´ lege External Research Studentship. Alan wishes to thank David and Claudia Harding for their generous support via the Harding Distinguished Postgraduate Scholarship Programme. Ivan Vulic is ´ supported by a personal Royal Society University Research Fellowship 'Inclusive and Sustainable Language Technology for a Truly Multilingual World' (no 221137; 2022–). ## References David Ifeoluwa Adelani, Jade Abbott, Graham Neubig, Daniel D'souza, Julia Kreutzer, Constantine Lignos, Chester Palen-Michel, Happy Buzaaba, Shruti Rijhwani, Sebastian Ruder, Stephen Mayhew, Israel Abebe Azime, Shamsuddeen H. Muhammad, Chris Chinenye Emezue, Joyce Nakatumba-Nabende, Perez Ogayo, Aremu Anuoluwapo, Catherine Gitau, Derguene Mbaye, Jesujoba Alabi, Seid Muhie Yimam, Tajuddeen Rabiu Gwadabe, Ignatius Ezeani, Rubungo Andre Niyongabo, Jonathan Mukiibi, Verrah Otiende, Iroro Orife, Davis David, Samba Ngom, Tosin Adewumi, Paul Rayson, Mofetoluwa Adeyemi, Gerald Muriuki, Emmanuel Anebi, Chiamaka Chukwuneke, Nkiruka Odu, Eric Peter Wairagala, Samuel Oyerinde, Clemencia Siro, Tobius Saul Bateesa, Temilola Oloyede, Yvonne Wambui, Victor Akinode, Deborah Nabagereka, Maurice Katusiime, Ayodele Awokoya, Mouhamadane MBOUP, Dibora Gebreyohannes, Henok Tilaye, Kelechi Nwaike, Degaga Wolde, Abdoulaye Faye, Blessing Sibanda, Orevaoghene Ahia, Bonaventure F. P. Dossou, Kelechi Ogueji, Thierno Ibrahima DIOP, Abdoulaye Diallo, Adewale Akinfaderin, Tendai Marengereke, and Salomey Osei. 2021. MasakhaNER: Named entity recognition for African languages. *Transactions* of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:1116–1131. Alan Ansell, Edoardo Ponti, Anna Korhonen, and Ivan Vulic. 2022. ´ Composable sparse fine-tuning for crosslingual transfer. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1778–1796, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alan Ansell, Edoardo Maria Ponti, Jonas Pfeiffer, Sebastian Ruder, Goran Glavaš, Ivan Vulic, and Anna ´ Korhonen. 2021. MAD-G: Multilingual adapter generation for efficient cross-lingual transfer. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021*, pages 4762–4781, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Mikel Artetxe, Sebastian Ruder, and Dani Yogatama. 2020. On the cross-lingual transferability of monolingual representations. In *Proceedings of the 58th* Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4623–4637, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ankur Bapna and Orhan Firat. 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. Elad Ben Zaken, Yoav Goldberg, and Shauli Ravfogel. 2022. BitFit: Simple parameter-efficient fine-tuning for transformer-based masked language-models. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 1–9, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alexandra Chronopoulou, Dario Stojanovski, and Alexander Fraser. 2022. Language-family adapters for multilingual neural machine translation. *CoRR*, abs/2209.15236. Jonathan H. Clark, Eunsol Choi, Michael Collins, Dan Garrette, Tom Kwiatkowski, Vitaly Nikolaev, and Jennimaria Palomaki. 2020. TyDi QA: A benchmark for information-seeking question answering in typologically diverse languages. *Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, 8:454–470. Alexis Conneau, Kartikay Khandelwal, Naman Goyal, Vishrav Chaudhary, Guillaume Wenzek, Francisco Guzmán, Edouard Grave, Myle Ott, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2020. Unsupervised cross-lingual representation learning at scale. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 8440– 8451, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alexis Conneau, Ruty Rinott, Guillaume Lample, Adina Williams, Samuel Bowman, Holger Schwenk, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2018. XNLI: Evaluating crosslingual sentence representations. In *Proceedings of* the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2475–2485, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Wietse de Vries, Martijn Wieling, and Malvina Nissim. 2022. Make the best of cross-lingual transfer: Evidence from POS tagging with over 100 languages. In *Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the* Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 7676–7685, Dublin, Ireland. 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. Abteen Ebrahimi, Manuel Mager, Arturo Oncevay, Vishrav Chaudhary, Luis Chiruzzo, Angela Fan, John Ortega, Ricardo Ramos, Annette Rios, Ivan Vladimir Meza Ruiz, Gustavo Giménez-Lugo, Elisabeth Mager, Graham Neubig, Alexis Palmer, Rolando Coto-Solano, Thang Vu, and Katharina Kann. 2022. AmericasNLI: Evaluating zero-shot natural language understanding of pretrained multilingual models in truly low-resource languages. In *Proceedings of the* 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6279–6299, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Fahim Faisal and Antonios Anastasopoulos. 2022. Phylogeny-inspired adaptation of multilingual models to new languages. In *Proceedings of the 2nd* Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 12th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 434–452, Online only. Association for Computational Linguistics. Negar Foroutan, Mohammadreza Banaei, Rémi Lebret, Antoine Bosselut, and Karl Aberer. 2022. Discovering language-neutral sub-networks in multilingual language models. *CoRR*, abs/2205.12672. Milan Gritta and Ignacio Iacobacci. 2021. XeroAlign: Zero-shot cross-lingual transformer alignment. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 371–381, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Demi Guo, Alexander Rush, and Yoon Kim. 2021. 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. Junxian He, Chunting Zhou, Xuezhe Ma, Taylor BergKirkpatrick, and Graham Neubig. 2022. Towards a unified view of parameter-efficient transfer learning. In The Tenth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2022, Virtual Event, April 2529, 2022. 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 Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 97 of *Proceedings* of Machine Learning Research, pages 2790–2799. PMLR. Edward J Hu, yelong shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan AllenZhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2022. LoRA: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. In International Conference on Learning Representations. Junjie Hu, Sebastian Ruder, Aditya Siddhant, Graham Neubig, Orhan Firat, and Melvin Johnson. 2020. XTREME: A massively multilingual multitask benchmark for evaluating cross-lingual generalisation. In *Proceedings of the 37th International* Conference on Machine Learning, volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 4411–4421. PMLR. Pratik Joshi, Sebastin Santy, Amar Budhiraja, Kalika Bali, and Monojit Choudhury. 2020. The state and fate of linguistic diversity and inclusion in the NLP world. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of* the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6282–6293, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Karthikeyan K, Zihan Wang, Stephen Mayhew, and Dan Roth. 2020. Cross-lingual ability of multilingual BERT: an empirical study. In 8th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2020, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 26-30, 2020. Rabeeh Karimi Mahabadi, James Henderson, and Sebastian Ruder. 2021a. Compacter: Efficient low-rank hypercomplex adapter layers. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2021, NeurIPS 2021, December 6-14, 2021, virtual, pages 1022–1035. Rabeeh Karimi Mahabadi, Sebastian Ruder, Mostafa Dehghani, and James Henderson. 2021b. Parameterefficient multi-task fine-tuning for transformers via shared hypernetworks. 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 565–576, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Saurabh Kulshreshtha, Jose Luis Redondo Garcia, and Ching-Yun Chang. 2020. Cross-lingual alignment methods for multilingual BERT: A comparative study. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020*, pages 933–942, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Anne Lauscher, Vinit Ravishankar, Ivan Vulic, and ´ Goran Glavaš. 2020. From zero to hero: On the limitations of zero-shot language transfer with multilingual Transformers. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 4483–4499, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jaeseong Lee, Seung-won Hwang, and Taesup Kim. 2022. FAD-X: Fusing adapters for cross-lingual transfer to low-resource languages. In *Proceedings of* the 2nd Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 12th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 57–64, Online only. Association for Computational Linguistics. Brian Lester, Rami Al-Rfou, and Noah Constant. 2021. The power of scale for parameter-efficient prompt tuning. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3045–3059, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xiang Lisa Li and Percy Liang. 2021. Prefix-tuning: Optimizing continuous prompts for generation. 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 4582– 4597, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Marinela Parovic, Goran Glavaš, Ivan Vuli ´ c, and Anna ´ Korhonen. 2022. BAD-X: Bilingual adapters improve zero-shot cross-lingual transfer. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1791–1799, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jonas Pfeiffer, Aishwarya Kamath, Andreas Rücklé, Kyunghyun Cho, and Iryna Gurevych. 2021a. 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. Jonas Pfeiffer, Andreas Rücklé, Clifton Poth, Aishwarya Kamath, Ivan Vulic, Sebastian Ruder, Kyunghyun ´ Cho, and Iryna Gurevych. 2020a. AdapterHub: A framework for adapting transformers. In *Proceedings* of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 46–54, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jonas Pfeiffer, Ivan Vulic, Iryna Gurevych, and Se- ´ bastian Ruder. 2020b. MAD-X: An Adapter-Based Framework for Multi-Task Cross-Lingual Transfer. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 7654–7673, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jonas Pfeiffer, Ivan Vulic, Iryna Gurevych, and Sebas- ´ tian Ruder. 2021b. UNKs everywhere: Adapting multilingual language models to new scripts. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 10186– 10203, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jerin Philip, Alexandre Berard, Matthias Gallé, and Laurent Besacier. 2020. Monolingual adapters for zero-shot neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 4465–4470, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Telmo Pires, Eva Schlinger, and Dan Garrette. 2019. How multilingual is multilingual BERT? In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4996–5001, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Emmanouil Antonios Platanios, Mrinmaya Sachan, Graham Neubig, and Tom Mitchell. 2018. Contextual parameter generation for universal neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 425–435, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Edoardo Maria Ponti, Goran Glavaš, Olga Majewska, Qianchu Liu, Ivan Vulic, and Anna Korhonen. 2020. ´ XCOPA: A multilingual dataset for causal commonsense reasoning. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 2362–2376, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. 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, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics. Sylvestre-Alvise Rebuffi, Hakan Bilen, and Andrea Vedaldi. 2017. Learning multiple visual domains with residual adapters. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, volume 30. Curran Associates, Inc. Erik F. Tjong Kim Sang and Fien De Meulder. 2003. Introduction to the CoNLL-2003 shared task: Language-independent named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Natural Language Learning at HLT-NAACL 2003, pages 142– 147. Ahmet Üstün, Arianna Bisazza, Gosse Bouma, and Gertjan van Noord. 2020. UDapter: Language adaptation for truly Universal Dependency parsing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 2302–2315, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ahmet Üstün, Arianna Bisazza, Gosse Bouma, and Gertjan van Noord. 2022a. UDapter: Typology-based language adapters for multilingual dependency parsing and sequence labeling. *Computational Linguistics*, 48(3):555–592. Ahmet Üstün, Arianna Bisazza, Gosse Bouma, Gertjan van Noord, and Sebastian Ruder. 2022b. Hyper-x: A unified hypernetwork for multi-task multilingual transfer. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.12148*. Marko Vidoni, Ivan Vulic, and Goran Glavaš. ´ 2020. Orthogonal language and task adapters in zero-shot cross-lingual transfer. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2012.06460. Ruize Wang, Duyu Tang, Nan Duan, Zhongyu Wei, Xuanjing Huang, Jianshu Ji, Guihong Cao, Daxin Jiang, and Ming Zhou. 2021. K-Adapter: Infusing Knowledge into Pre-Trained Models with Adapters. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 1405–1418, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Adina Williams, Nikita Nangia, and Samuel Bowman. 2018. A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sentence understanding through inference. 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 1112–1122, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. Linting Xue, Noah Constant, Adam Roberts, Mihir Kale, Rami Al-Rfou, Aditya Siddhant, Aditya Barua, and Colin Raffel. 2021. mT5: A massively multilingual pre-trained text-to-text transformer. In *Proceedings* of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 483–498, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ziqing Yang, Wentao Ma, Yiming Cui, Jiani Ye, Wanxiang Che, and Shijin Wang. 2021. Bilingual alignment pre-training for zero-shot cross-lingual transfer. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Machine Reading for Question Answering, pages 100–105, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Daniel Zeman, Joakim Nivre, et al. 2020. Universal dependencies 2.7. LINDAT/CLARIAH-CZ digital library at the Institute of Formal and Applied Linguistics (ÚFAL), Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University. ## A Tasks And Languages The full list of tasks, datasets and target languages with their names and codes is given in Table 5. ## B Xlm-R Results The results on AmericasNLI, XNLI and XQuAD with XLM-R are shown in Table 6. ## C Mad-X **Adapters Trained With A** Different Setup The results of MAD-X adapters trained in a different setup (Parovic et al. ´ , 2022) on DP and AmericasNLI are given in Table 7. The results of these adapters are directly comparable with the BAD-X baseline, as they follow the same training setup and their summary is given in Table 3. ## D Per-Language Results With Multiple Runs Full results on MasakhaNER and AmericasNLI for all target languages obtained as an average across 3 different random seeds are given in Table 8. | Task | Source Dataset | Target Dataset | Target Languages | | | |---------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------| | Universal | Depen | | | | | | dencies | 2.7 | (Ze | | | | | man et al., 2020) | Universal | Depen | | | | | dencies | 2.7 | (Ze | | | | | man et al., 2020) | Afrikaans (AF) ∗ , Bambara (BM), Basque (EU) ∗ , Komi-Zyryan | | | | | | Dependency Parsing (DP) | (KPV), Marathi (MR) ∗ , Maltese (MT), Erzya (MYV), Telugu (TE) ∗ , Uyghur (UG), Wolof (WO) | | | | | | CoNLL | 2003 | | | | | | (Tjong Kim Sang and De Meulder, 2003) | | | | | | | Named | Entity | | | | | | Recognition (NER) | MasakhaNER (Adelani et | al., | | | | | 2021) | Hausa (HAU), Igbo (IBO), Kinyarwanda (KIN), Luganda (LUG), Luo (LUO), Nigerian-Pidgin (PCM), Swahili (SWA) ∗ , Wolof (WOL), Yorùbá (YOR) ∗ | | | | | | MultiNLI (Williams | et | al., | | | | | 2018) | Aymara (AYM), Bribri (BZD), Asháninka (CNI), Guarani (GN), Wixarika (HCH), Náhuatl (NAH), Otomí (OTO), Quechua (QUY), Shipibo-Konibo (SHP), Rarámuri (TAR) | | | | | | MultiNLI (Williams | et | al., | XNLI | (Conneau | Arabic (AR) † , Hindi (HI) † , Swahili (SW) ∗ , Thai (TH) † , Urdu | | et al., 2018) | | | | | | | 2018) | (UR) ∗ , Chinese (ZH) † | | | | | | AmericasNLI (Ebrahimi et | al., | | | | | | 2022) | | | | | | | Natural Language Inference (NLI) | SQuAD | v1.1 | XQuAD | (Artetxe | | | Question Answering (QA) | (Rajpurkar et al., | et al., 2020) | Arabic (AR) † , Hindi (HI) † , Thai (TH) † , Chinese (ZH) † | | | | 2016) SQuAD | v1.1 | TyDiQA-GoldP | Arabic (AR) † , Bengali (BN) ∗ , Swahili (SW) ∗ , Telugu (TE) ∗ , Thai | | | | (Rajpurkar et al., | (Clark et al., 2020) | (TH) † | | | | | 2016) | | | | | | Table 5: Details of the tasks, datasets, and languages involved in our cross-lingual transfer evaluation. ∗ denotes low-resource languages seen during MMT pretraining; † denotes high-resource languages seen during MMT pretraining; all other languages are low-resource and unseen. The source language is always English. | Method | AYM | BZD | CNI | GN | HCH | NAH | OTO | QUY | SHP | TAR | avg | Better | |---------------------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|--------|-------|--------|-------|-------|-------|----------| | MAD-X | 54.40 | 40.40 | 46.80 | 58.13 | 40.80 | 48.92 | 44.39 | 55.47 | 50.67 | 42.53 | 48.25 | | | TARGET | 52.67 | 43.73 | 46.13 | 58.93 | 44.80 | 49.59 | 43.45 | 57.47 | 48.67 | 41.87 | 48.73 | 5/10 | | BILINGUAL | 53.47 | 43.47 | 47.20 | 58.40 | 44.40 | 49.73 | 41.98 | 57.73 | 47.87 | 42.27 | 48.65 | 6/10 | | TASK-MULTI | 53.20 | 43.73 | 47.47 | 56.67 | 42.27 | 49.59 | 42.51 | 58.67 | 48.93 | 43.73 | 48.68 | 6/10 | | ALL-MULTI | 53.47 | 42.27 | 47.73 | 57.47 | 41.47 | 49.73 | 40.91 | 58.80 | 50.27 | 40.93 | 48.31 | 5/10 | | (a) AmericasNLI: accuracy | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Method | AR | HI | SW | TH | UR | ZH | avg | Better | | | | | | MAD-X | 66.81 | 63.89 | 64.83 | 63.41 | 60.76 | 67.43 | 64.52 | | | | | | | TARGET | 67.19 | 66.37 | 63.99 | 67.05 | 61.84 | 70.40 | 66.14 | 5/6 | | | | | | BILINGUAL | 66.67 | 66.07 | 64.37 | 66.67 | 61.68 | 70.04 | 65.92 | 4/6 | | | | | | TASK-MULTI | 68.00 | 65.89 | 64.19 | 66.01 | 61.30 | 69.58 | 65.83 | 5/6 | | | | | | ALL-MULTI | 67.84 | 66.11 | 64.89 | 65.67 | 61.82 | 69.34 | 65.95 | 6/6 | | | | | | (b) XNLI: accuracy | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Method | AR | HI | TH | ZH | avg | Better | | | | | | | | MAD-X | 65.23/47.65 | 67.15/51.09 | 69.26/59.08 | 64.01/55.13 | 66.41/53.24 | | | | | | | | | TARGET | 65.63/48.40 | 69.49/53.78 | 69.38/58.57 | 64.09/54.71 | 67.15/53.87 | 4/4 | | | | | | | | BILINGUAL | 65.85/48.91 | 68.27/52.86 | 70.31/60.50 | 64.57/55.55 | 67.25/54.45 | 4/4 | | | | | | | | TASK-MULTI | 66.23/48.40 | 68.43/52.61 | 70.25/60.42 | 65.32/56.22 | 67.56/54.41 | 4/4 | | | | | | | | ALL-MULTI | 65.98/49.24 | 68.24/51.60 | 67.15/56.55 | 63.07/52.94 | 66.11/52.58 | 2/4 | | | | | | | | (c) XQuAD: F1/EM | | | | | | | | | | | | | Table 6: XLM-R: Results of all methods and TLR variants on all target languages. Method AF BM EU KPV MR MT MYV TE UG WO avg Better MAD-X 54.23 11.80 32.51 22.44 24.24 44.71 35.45 45.47 15.67 26.38 31.29 BAD-X 54.54 11.92 31.45 22.55 26.56 43.52 39.31 46.22 15.24 35.28 32.66 TARGET 55.07 11.96 33.31 20.82 28.05 48.83 41.75 **52.34** 18.60 40.75 35.15 9/10 BILINGUAL 54.75 11.86 33.21 22.09 26.60 48.74 38.82 49.86 16.89 41.27 34.41 9/10 TASK-MULTI **56.55** 11.94 34.17 23.82 27.71 51.66 40.87 51.10 **18.90** 41.93 35.86 10/10 ALL-MULTI 56.28 **12.91 35.04 24.11 28.28 53.02 41.85** 51.43 18.47 **43.31 36.47** 10/10 (a) DP: LAS Method AYM BZD CNI GN HCH NAH OTO QUY SHP TAR avg Better MAD-X 47.07 **45.07** 41.87 55.33 39.47 48.51 40.91 51.47 41.60 42.00 45.33 BAD-X 46.13 44.67 45.87 56.80 44.93 47.70 41.71 47.87 **49.07** 39.47 46.42 TARGET 48.80 44.80 44.13 58.27 43.73 **51.90** 41.84 57.47 46.40 45.07 48.24 9/10 BILINGUAL **49.87** 44.13 45.87 60.40 43.47 50.27 41.98 **58.00** 46.53 44.13 48.47 9/10 TASK-MULTI 46.40 44.27 45.87 57.60 44.40 50.68 42.78 **58.00** 46.53 44.00 48.05 8/10 ALL-MULTI 46.00 44.00 **46.40 61.07 46.53** 49.32 **44.12** 55.33 46.67 **45.47 48.49** 8/10 (b) AmericasNLI: accuracy | Method | HAU | IBO | KIN | LUG | LUO | PCM | SWA | WOL | YOR | avg | Better | | |---------------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|----------|--------| | MAD-X | 82.00 | 70.92 | 63.55 | 65.26 | 48.62 | 72.40 | 74.53 | 64.35 | 72.78 | 68.27 | | | | TARGET | 78.32 | 71.70 | 63.35 | 67.52 | 50.88 | 73.99 | 75.46 | 62.55 | 72.68 | 68.49 | 5/9 | | | BILINGUAL | 80.68 | 71.56 | 63.92 | 68.11 | 50.49 | 74.78 | 76.43 | 64.39 | 72.80 | 69.24 | 8/9 | | | TASK-MULTI | 81.85 | 72.18 | 65.39 | 66.98 | 50.61 | 74.42 | 76.14 | 65.58 | 72.07 | 69.47 | 7/9 | | | ALL-MULTI | 81.49 | 71.32 | 64.86 | 66.26 | 50.68 | 74.42 | 75.70 | 65.52 | 71.66 | 69.10 | 7/9 | | | LEAVE-OUT-TASK | 82.30 | 70.79 | 65.61 | 67.50 | 50.81 | 74.24 | 75.69 | 65.32 | 72.08 | 69.37 | 7/9 | | | LEAVE-OUT-TARG | 82.41 | 70.66 | 65.35 | 67.38 | 50.95 | 73.90 | 75.52 | 64.86 | 71.18 | 69.13 | 7/9 | | | (a) NER: F1 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Method | AYM | BZD | CNI | GN | HCH | NAH | OTO | QUY | SHP | TAR | avg | Better | | MAD-X | 51.55 | 41.24 | 39.47 | 56.62 | 40.09 | 45.98 | 40.82 | 49.29 | 40.71 | 40.84 | 44.66 | | | TARGET | 50.89 | 46.62 | 43.42 | 57.20 | 43.42 | 49.37 | 41.31 | 56.31 | 46.62 | 44.00 | 47.92 | 9/10 | | BILINGUAL | 53.69 | 46.18 | 43.60 | 58.40 | 44.31 | 47.92 | 42.96 | 56.00 | 46.98 | 43.20 | 48.32 | 10/10 | | TASK-MULTI | 51.11 | 45.38 | 44.80 | 58.49 | 45.51 | 49.05 | 42.96 | 56.31 | 47.65 | 44.22 | 48.55 | 9/10 | | ALL-MULTI | 52.62 | 45.69 | 45.91 | 59.07 | 45.78 | 48.51 | 45.01 | 56.84 | 47.82 | 43.78 | 49.10 | 10/10 | | LEAVE-OUT-TASK | 53.91 | 43.60 | 45.78 | 57.87 | 42.80 | 47.56 | 42.87 | 56.40 | 46.13 | 42.66 | 47.96 | 10/10 | | LEAVE-OUT-TARG | 52.09 | 44.98 | 45.91 | 58.13 | 44.44 | 48.74 | 44.43 | 56.13 | 46.98 | 42.58 | 48.44 | 10/10 | | (b) AmericasNLI: accuracy | | | | | | | | | | | | | ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? 7 (Limitations) ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? 7 (Limitations) ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Abstract, 1 (Introduction) ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** 3, Appendix A ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? 3, Appendix A 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.? 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. 3, Appendix A ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** 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? 3 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? 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? 3, 4, 7 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.

balepur-etal-2023-dynamite

{D}yna{M}i{TE}: Discovering Explosive Topic Evolutions with User Guidance

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.14

Dynamic topic models (DTMs) analyze text streams to capture the evolution of topics. Despite their popularity, existing DTMs are either fully supervised, requiring expensive human annotations, or fully unsupervised, producing topic evolutions that often do not cater to a user{'}s needs. Further, the topic evolutions produced by DTMs tend to contain generic terms that are not indicative of their designated time steps. To address these issues, we propose the task of discriminative dynamic topic discovery. This task aims to discover topic evolutions from temporal corpora that distinctly align with a set of user-provided category names and uniquely capture topics at each time step. We solve this task by developing DynaMiTE, a framework that ensembles semantic similarity, category indicative, and time indicative scores to produce informative topic evolutions. Through experiments on three diverse datasets, including the use of a newly-designed human evaluation experiment, we demonstrate that DynaMiTE is a practical and efficient framework for helping users discover high-quality topic evolutions suited to their interests.

# Dynamite: Discovering Explosive Topic Evolutions With User Guidance ## Nishant Balepur‡∗ Shivam Agarwal‡∗ **Karthik Venkat Ramanan**‡ Susik Yoon‡ Jiawei Han‡ **Diyi Yang**⋆ ‡University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, ⋆Stanford University {balepur2,shivama2,kv16,susik,hanj}@illinois.edu, diyiy@stanford.edu ## Abstract Dynamic topic models (DTMs) analyze text streams to capture the evolution of topics. Despite their popularity, existing DTMs are either fully supervised, requiring expensive human annotations, or fully unsupervised, producing topic evolutions that often do not cater to a user's needs. Further, the topic evolutions produced by DTMs tend to contain generic terms that are not indicative of their designated time steps. To address these issues, we propose the task of discriminative dynamic topic discovery. This task aims to discover topic evolutions from temporal corpora that distinctly align with a set of user-provided category names and uniquely capture topics at each time step. We solve this task by developing DynaMiTE, a framework that ensembles semantic similarity, category indicative, and time indicative scores to produce informative topic evolutions. Through experiments on three diverse datasets, including the use of a newly-designed human evaluation experiment, we demonstrate that DynaMiTE is a practical and efficient framework for helping users discover high-quality topic evolutions suited to their interests.1 ## 1 Introduction Dynamic topic models (DTMs) seek to capture the evolution of topics in time-stamped documents (Blei and Lafferty, 2006). These models can be applied to many downstream tasks, including studying breakthroughs in scientific research (Uban et al., 2021), discovering global issues in parliamentary debates (Müller-Hansen et al., 2021; Guldi, 2019), and tracking evolving news stories (Li et al., 2020; Vaca et al., 2014; Yoon et al., 2023b). As information and language continuously evolve, DTMs are | Evolution | 2013 | 2017 | 2021 | |---------------------------|--------------|--------------------------|---------------------------| | language | | | | | DNLDA | multilingual | | | | NLP | sentence | language english chinese | models tasks language | | results | | | | | DNLDA | full | | | | NNs | connection | cnn filters learn | architecture cnn accuracy | | fsl | | | | | Ours | speech rec. | | | | NLP | translation | stance detection nli sts | plm | | xlm-roberta mbert | | | | | tnn | | | | | Ours NNs | neuron | | | | mult. noise | gru | | | | overparameterize pointnet | ntk | | | | infinite-width qnn | | | | Table 1: Evolution from unsupervised DTM DNLDA (Churchill and Singh, 2022) for topics *natural language* processing (NLP) and *neural networks* (NNs) on Arxiv machine learning papers, compared to our output. important tools for communicating these changes to users (Vosecky et al., 2013; Dieng et al., 2019). Existing DTMs are either fully supervised or fully unsupervised, both of which have their own limitations. To uncover topic evolutions in document collections, supervised DTMs (Park et al., 2015; Jiang, 2015) require each document to have a topic label. However, obtaining such topic labels requires annotating the document collection, which can be expensive and time-consuming. Hence, unsupervised DTMs (Blei and Lafferty, 2006; Wei et al., 2007; Zhang and Lauw, 2022; Grootendorst, 2022) are a more practical and popular approach, as they can be applied to unlabeled document collections. Despite their widespread usage, we observe two drawbacks of unsupervised DTMs that limit their effectiveness in downstream applications. First, unsupervised DTMs fail to consider their users' needs, such as specific topics or *categories* of interest.2 Hence, the discovered topics may not 2We use *topics* and *categories* interchangeably. be completely interpretable or relevant to the user (Chang et al., 2009). For example in Table 1 (red), the unsupervised DTM retrieves generic terms like "learn" and "results" which are not distinctly related to the desired topic of NNs. These terms also overlap with NLP, another topic of the user's interests. As shown in Table 1 (blue), it would be more informative to return specific models ("tnn") and techniques ("ntk") discussed primarily in the context of NNs. These *category indicative terms* promote a deeper understanding of the topics of interest, increase the likelihood that the retrieved outputs satisfy a user's needs, and enhance downstream tasks such as content discovery and corpus summarization (Wang et al., 2009; Boyd-Graber et al., 2017; Yoon et al., 2023a). Second, unsupervised DTMs fail to distinguish between terms that are generic and terms that are distinct to each time step. For example in Table 1 (red), the unsupervised DTM retrieves "languages" for NLP at each time step, which is redundant and does not capture the field's evolution from 2013 to 2021 (Sun et al., 2022). As shown in Table 1 (blue), a user would be more informed by terms that uniquely characterize NLP in each year, such as "stance detection" in 2017 and "mbert" in 2021. Such *time indicative terms* provide clearer insights into how a topic has changed and they can aid users in downstream tasks, such as associating concepts with specific time steps (§5.4) and identifying key shifts in successive years (§6.4). To address the above shortcomings, we introduce a new task, *discriminative dynamic topic discovery*, which aims to create informative topic evolutions suited to a user's needs. We minimally represent a user's interests as a set of provided category names or seeds, i.e., terms present in the input corpus. A discriminative dynamic topic discovery framework must produce evolving topics for each seed that are distinctly relevant to the category and time step. For this task, we develop **DynaMiTE**, an iterative framework to **Dyna**mically Mine Topics with Category Seeds. Avoiding the pitfalls of existing DTMs, DynaMiTE combines three scores to ensure that candidate terms are (1) semantically similar to a user's interests, (2) popular in documents indicative of the user-specified category, and (3) indicative of the corresponding time step. We briefly describe these scores as follows: (1) Semantic Similarity Score: Combining the strengths of category-guided and temporal embedding spaces, we propose a discriminative dynamic word embedding model to compare the semantics of candidate terms and user-provided seeds (§4.1). (2) Category Indicative Score: We assume that high-quality candidate terms related to a userprovided category name are likely to be found in documents that discuss the category name. Thus, we calculate a term's distinct popularity in a set of retrieved *category indicative documents* (§4.2). (3) Time Indicative Score: To discover candidate terms that uniquely capture time steps, we introduce a time indicative score based on *topic burstiness*. We seek candidate terms whose popularity rapidly explodes and defuses (§4.3). DynaMiTE ensembles these three scores after every training iteration to mine a single term for each time step and each category (§4.4). These terms are used to refine the discriminative dynamic word embeddings and category indicative document retrieval, resulting in informative topic evolutions. We present DynaMiTE as a fast, simple, and effective tool for aiding trend and evolution exploration. Our contributions can be summarized as follows: - We propose a new task, discriminative dynamic topic discovery, which aims to produce informative topic evolutions relevant to a set of user-provided seeds. - We develop DynaMiTE, which iteratively learns from discriminative dynamic embeddings, document retrieval, and topic burstiness to discover high-quality topic evolutions suited to a user's needs. - We design a new human evaluation experiment to evaluate discriminative dynamic topic discovery. We find that users prefer DynaMiTE due to its retrieval of category and time indicative terms. - Through experiments on three diverse datasets, we observe that DynaMiTE outperforms state-of-the-art DTMs in terms of topic quality and speed. ## 2 Related Work We outline two variations on topic mining which incorporate time and user guidance, respectively. ## 2.1 Dynamic Topic Modeling Many popular unsupervised DTMs (Blei and Lafferty, 2006; Churchill and Singh, 2022) build upon  LDA (Blei et al., 2003), where each document in a corpus is drawn from a generative process. Typically, inference on this process is performed through variational approximation (Wei et al., 2007; Jähnichen et al., 2018) or Gibbs Sampling (Iwata et al., 2009; Bhadury et al., 2016). Subsequent DTMs incorporate continuous timestamps (Wang and McCallum, 2006; Wang et al., 2008) and multiple timescales (Iwata et al., 2010; Nallapati et al., 2007; Chen et al., 2018). Recent embedding-based DTMs (Dieng et al., 2019) aim to address the limitations of LDA-based models, such as the inability to model the semantics of words. Leveraging transformers, BERTopic (Grootendorst, 2022) represents dynamic topics as evolving clusters. Dynamic word embeddings (Rudolph and Blei, 2018; Yao et al., 2018), which capture the evolution of language, can use semantic similarity to retrieve evolving topics. A drawback common to all aforementioned approaches is the inability to incorporate user guidance. We address this limitation by enabling users to specify seeds for each topic evolution. Further, there does exist a small family of supervised DTMs (Park et al., 2015; Jiang, 2015), but these models can only be used on labeled document collections. Hence, if the user specifies seeds that are not included in the document labels or the document collection is unlabeled, supervised DTMs cannot be directly applied to our setting. ## 2.2 User-Guided Topic Discovery Varying forms of guidance have been integrated into non-dynamic topic models. SeededLDA (Jagarlamudi et al., 2012) generates topics with usergiven "seed topics". Later methods allow users to specify whether pairs of words should be generated by the same topics (Andrzejewski and Zhu, 2009) and anchor specific words to topics (Gallagher et al., 2017). Recently, user queries have been used to guide topic models (Fang et al., 2021). More relevant to our task are models that iteratively expand upon a set of user-provided seeds. GTM (Churchill et al., 2022) uses Generalized Polya Urn sampling (Mimno et al., 2011) to learn topics based on user-given seeds. Embeddingbased approaches such as CatE (Meng et al., 2020) learn discriminative embeddings for user-provided categories. Recent seed-guided topic mining works (Zhang et al., 2022a,b) use language model representations and topical sentences to improve CatE. These works assume a non-dynamic corpus and thus cannot discover topic evolutions from temporal corpora, which is the main focus of this paper. ## 3 Problem Definition We define *discriminative dynamic topic discovery* as follows: Given a corpus of time-stamped document collections D = {D1, D2*, ...,* DT } and a set of user-provided seeds C = {c1, c2*, ..., c*n}, discriminative dynamic topic discovery aims to retrieve topic evolutions {Stj} T t=1 for each category cj . The topic Stj contains a list of terms {w1, w2*, ..., w*m} that are discriminatively relevant to time t and category cj . The time steps T = {1*, ..., T*} are any ordinal measure of time and can vary depending on the granularity required. ## 4 Methodology To solve discriminative dynamic topic mining, we propose **DynaMiTE**, which iteratively populates each topic Stj . Each topic Stj initially contains 196 just the category name cj , and after every training iteration of DynaMiTE, we expand each Stj with a single term w. For a term w to be added to Stj , we require three conditions to be satisfied: (1) w must be semantically similar to Stj ; (2) w must be prevalent in documents which discuss Stj ; (3) w must be a time indicative word of time t. We achieve these three goals by calculating three respective scores for candidate terms, namely **semantic similarity scores** with discriminative dynamic word embeddings (§4.1), **category indicative scores** from retrieved category indicative documents (§4.2), and **time indicative scores** based on topic burstiness (§4.3). Combining these scores (§4.4), we can iteratively mine terms and use this information to further enrich our framework, illustrated in Figure 1 and detailed in Algorithm 1. ## 4.1 Semantic Similarity Score Static word embeddings (Mikolov et al., 2013; Pennington et al., 2014) are one option to compute the semantic similarity between candidate terms and user-provided categories. However, static embeddings do not consider the category and time dimensions, thus losing the ability to model category distinctive information (Meng et al., 2020) and capture evolving semantics (Bamler and Mandt, 2017). Hence, we combine the category and time dimensions into a single discriminative dynamic word embedding model based on Yao et al. (2018). Given a temporal corpus D, we seek to model the semantics of every word w ∈ D at every time step t. To do so, we wish to find a word embedding matrix U(t) ∈ R V ×dfor each time t, where V is the vocabulary size and d is the word embedding dimension. We assume that U(t) is affected by local contexts, *temporal contexts*, and *user guidance*. Local Contexts: To learn accurate word semantics for topic discovery, it is essential to go beyond the bag-of-words assumption of LDA (Meng et al., 2020). Thus, we follow skip-gram (Mikolov et al., 2013) and assume that the semantics of surrounding words wj in a local context window of size h (i.e., [i − h 2 , i + h 2 ]) are influenced by the semantics of the center word wi. To learn semantics from local contexts for matrix U(t), we leverage the fact that skip-gram word embeddings can be obtained by factoring the V × V pointwise mutual information (PMI) matrix of Dt (Levy and Goldberg, 2014), i.e. $$\mathrm{PMI}(x,y)=\log{\frac{p(x,y)}{p(x)p(y)}}\approx U(t)U(t)^{T}.\quad(1)$$ p(x) is the proportion of words in Dtthat are the word x. p(*x, y*) is the number of co-occurrences of words x and y within windows of size h, divided by total number of possible window-pairs. We extend this idea and find that the *positive normalized* PMI (PNPMI) matrix is just as effective, defined as: $$\text{PNPMI}(x,y)=\max\left\{\frac{\text{PMI}(x,y)}{\log(p(x,y))},0\right\}.\tag{2}$$ In learn local contexts by minimizing the distance We learn local contexts by minimizing the distance between U(t)U(t) Tand PNPMI matrix Y (t): $$\lambda_{l o c a l}(t)=\left\|Y(t)-U(t)U(t)^{T}\right\|_{F}^{2}.\qquad(3)$$ We choose PNPMI over PMI because it is bounded between 0 and 1, allowing us to easily modify the similarity of specific word embeddings when we later add user guidance. Specifically, manually setting PNPMI(*x, y*) = 0 (or 1) implies that x and y have independent (or complete) co-occurrences in local context windows of size h, in turn causing x and y to have dissimilar (or similar) embeddings. Temporal Contexts: As words change meaning over time, so should their embedding space representations (Bamler and Mandt, 2017). Hence, we follow the assumption that semantics drift slightly between successive time steps and control the distance between neighboring embeddings: $$\lambda_{t e m p}(t)=\|U(t+1)-U(t)\|_{F}^{2}\,.$$ $$\left(4\right)$$ . (4) With temporally aligned embeddings, DynaMiTE can address issues of data sparsity by borrowing semantics from neighboring time steps. This process also allows us to identify significant shifts in category semantics between successive time steps, which we explore in our experiments section (§6.4). User Guidance: Separating categories in the embedding space will enforce a stronger understanding of category names, as categories will become clusters surrounded by category distinct terms (Meng et al., 2020). For example, representing the categories NLP and NNs as separated clusters in the embedding space will cause overlapping, generic terms like "results" to fall between these clusters. Thus, overlapping terms will no longer be semantically similar to either category. To form these clusters at each time t, we adjust the embedding space so words in the same topic have similar embeddings and words in different topics have dissimilar embeddings. As discussed in §4.1, we can do this by forming a category discriminative matrix Z(t) ∈ R V ×Vto modify specific PNPMI values: $$Z(t)_{x,y}={\begin{cases}1,\\ 0,\\ \mathrm{PNMI}(x,y),\end{cases}}$$ $$\begin{array}{ll}1,&x,y\in{\cal S}_{ti}\\ 0,&x\in{\cal S}_{ti},y\in{\cal S}_{tj},i\neq j\\ \mbox{PNPMI}(x,y),&x\mbox{or}y\mbox{in no topics at}t\end{array}\tag{5}$$ By minimizing the distance between U(t)U(t) T and Z(t), we form category distinct clusters which become more refined as every topic Stj grows: $$\lambda_{u s e r}(t)=\left\|Z(t)-U(t)U(t)^{T}\right\|_{F}^{2}.\tag{6}$$ ## Discriminative Dynamic Word Embeddings: By combining the loss terms of local contexts (Eq. 3), temporal contexts (Eq. 4), and user guidance (Eq. 6), we can jointly capture a category discriminative and temporal embedding space for D: $$\lambda=\alpha\sum_{t=1}^{T}\lambda_{local}(t)+\tau\sum_{t=1}^{T-1}\lambda_{temp}(t)+\kappa\sum_{t=1}^{T}\lambda_{user}(t).\tag{7}$$ We also add a loss term $\gamma\sum_{t=1}^{T}\|U(t)\|_{F}^{2}$ to en to encourage low-rank data fidelity. *α, τ, κ, γ* are hyperparameters. We efficiently minimize λ with Block Coordinate Descent (Tseng, 2001) in Appendix A. We calculate the **semantic similarity score** between candidate term w and topic Stj by computing the cosine similarity of their embeddings. We obtain utw, the embedding of w, directly from the matrix U(t). To obtain uts, the embedding of topic Stj , we average the embeddings of the terms that have been assigned to the topic, i.e., w′ ∈ Stj : $$\operatorname{score}_{S}(w|S_{t j})={\frac{u_{t w}\cdot u_{t s}}{\|u_{t w}\|\,\|u_{t s}\|}}.\qquad(8)$$ ## 4.2 Category Indicative Score Skip-gram embeddings treat local contexts equally, regardless of whether the context is indicative of the category. However, a topic evolution that is distinctly relevant to its respective category should prioritize terms discussed in category indicative contexts. For example, "Chernobyl," a high-quality term for the category of *disaster*, is more likely to be discussed when the focus of the discourse is on disasters. To achieve this outcome, we follow previous works (Tao et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2022b) and leverage the current topic evolution output to iteratively retrieve and quantify a candidate term's distinct popularity in category indicative contexts. We assume that the category indicative contexts of time step t and category cj can be represented as a set of documents Θtj ⊆ Dt. To obtain Θtj , we search Dt and select documents which contain any of the terms in Stj . Thus, Θtj is updated iteratively as Stj grows. We calculate the relevance of candidate term w to Θtj through *popularity* (how often does term w appear in Θtj ) and *distinctiveness* (how unique is term w to Θtj compared to other category indicative documents). Popularity deprioritizes hyper-specific terms, such as models uniquely introduced in an abstract, while distinctiveness deprioritizes generic terms. For popularity, we choose the logarithm of term frequency (TF) and for distinctiveness, we choose the softmax of BM-25 (Robertson et al., 1995) relevance: $$\text{pop}(w,\Theta_{tj})=\text{log}(\text{TF}(w,\Theta_{tj})+1)\tag{9}$$ $$\text{dist}(w,\Theta_{tj})=\frac{e^{\text{BM-25}(w,\Theta_{tj})}}{\sum_{i=1}^{n}e^{\text{BM-25}(w,\Theta_{ti})}}.\tag{10}$$ We also experimented with TF-IDF (Ramos, 2003) and Dense Passage Retrieval (Karpukhin et al., 2020) instead of BM-25, but selected BM-25 due to its balance of efficiency and performance. Combining popularity and distinctiveness, we can form a **category indicative score** for candidate term w: $$\mbox{score}_{C}(w|\mathcal{S}_{tj})=\mbox{pop}(w,\Theta_{tj})^{\beta}\mbox{dist}(w,\Theta_{tj})^{1-\beta},\tag{11}$$ where $0\leq\beta\leq1$ is a hyperparameter. ## 4.3 Time Indicative Score Previous works have demonstrated that topic evolutions can uniquely capture time steps when they contain a strong temporal ordering of burst topics (Kleinberg, 2002; Leskovec et al., 2009). For example, "ELMo" is a high-quality term that uniquely captures NLP in 2018, since it abruptly spiked in popularity when it was released that year. Thus, to improve the informativeness of our retrieved terms at each time t, we focus on terms that explode in popularity at t but are not popular before and after t. Motivated by the success of modifying TF-IDF for the temporal setting (Lee et al., 2011; Alsaedi et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2022c), we develop a burst TFIDF metric to obtain a time indicative score. We define the popularity of term w at time t by term frequency (TF), normalized by the number of documents in Dt. To model if w is popular at time steps outside of t, we develop a burst inverse time frequency (BITF) metric, calculated as the logarithm of the inverse proportion of time steps, within a temporal window of size r (i.e., [t − r 2 , t + r 2 ]), in  which w appeared. We combine these metrics to calculate a **time indicative score** as follows: $$\text{BITF}(t,w)=\frac{r}{\sum_{i=t-r/2}^{t+r/2}I(w\in\mathcal{D}_{i})}\tag{12}$$ $$\text{score}_{B}(w|t)=\frac{\text{TF}(w)}{|\mathcal{D}_{t}|}\log(\text{BITF}(t,w)),\tag{13}$$ where $I$ is the indicator function. ## 4.4 The Iterative Dynamite Framework We summarize DynaMiTE in Algorithm 1. Before training, we calculate every time indicative score, as it does not depend on the iterative topic evolutions. During each training iteration of DynaMiTE, we update the discriminative dynamic word embeddings according to Eq. 7 and retrieve all category indicative documents Θtj . Then, for every category cj ∈ C and time t ∈ T , we rank candidate terms in descending order by semantic similarity, category indicative, and time indicative scores, as follows: $$\mathbf{\hat{r}}_{t j})=\operatorname{ar}$$ $$(f)=$$ rS(w|Stj ) = argsort({−scoreS(w, Stj )|w ∈ Dt}). (14) rC(w|Stj ) and rB(w|t) are similarly defined. To ensemble the ranks, we obtain the mean rank (MR): $${\rm MR}(w|{\cal S}_{tj})=\frac{1}{3}({\rm r}_{S}(w|{\cal S}_{tj})+{\rm r}_{C}(w|{\cal S}_{tj})+{\rm r}_{B}(w|t)).\tag{15}$$ The term with the lowest mean rank that does not exist in any topics at time t is added to each topic Stj . To obtain N unique terms for each topic Stj , we repeat the process of semantic modeling, document retrieval, and term ranking for N iterations. ## 5 Experimental Setup We present a detailed setup in Appendix B. ## 5.1 Datasets We conduct experiments on three datasets from different domains. **(1) Arxiv** (arXiv.org submitters, 2023) is a corpus of titles and abstracts of 214k machine learning papers from 2012 to 2022. We group them by year (11 time steps) and use neural network, *natural language processing*, and *computer* vision as seeds. **(2) UN** (Baturo et al., 2017) contains 250k speeches from the United Nations Debate Corpus, discussing global issues from 1970 to 2017. We group them into spans of four years (12 time steps) and choose *disaster* and *leader* as seeds. (3) Newspop (Moniz and Torgo, 2018) is a dataset of 93k headlines shared by major news outlets on social media from Oct. 2015 to Jul. 2016. We group posts by month (10 time steps) and choose politics, obama and *technology, microsoft* as seeds. ## 5.2 Baselines We compare DynaMiTE with the following baselines: **DNLDA** (Churchill and Singh, 2022) is an unsupervised DTM based on LDA which jointly models topics and noise. **BERTopic** (Grootendorst, 2022) is an unsupervised DTM that clusters terms into dynamic topics. For the unsupervised DTMs, we manually select the best topic evolution for each category. **Bernoulli** (Rudolph and Blei, 2018) are dynamic word embeddings based on exponential family embeddings. **DW2V** (Yao et al., 2018) learns time-aware word embeddings based on skipgrams. For the embedding-based methods, we use cosine similarity to retrieve topic evolutions. **CatE** (Meng et al., 2020) is a seed-guided topic mining framework that learns discriminative category embeddings. We run CatE recursively on each corpus Dtto obtain topic evolutions. $$v\in{\mathcal{D}}_{t}\}$$ $$\neg\neg\exists J\exists^{*}$$ ## 5.3 Quantitative Metrics We evaluate all models quantitatively using normalized pointwise mutual information (NPMI), a standard measure of topic coherence (Lau et al., 2014). We calculate the NPMI of 5 terms in each time t with respect to Dt and report their mean as a percentage (mean of 25 runs). ## 5.4 Human Experiments Previous works have shown that topic coherence metrics like NPMI do not always align with topic quality (Hoyle et al., 2021; Lau et al., 2014). Thus, we conduct two human experiments to qualitatively evaluate topic evolutions. For both experiments, | Method | Arxiv | UN | Newspop | | | | | | | | | | |------------------|---------|--------|-----------|-------|-------|--------|--------|-------|-------|--------|--------|-------| | NPMI | MACC | Rank | Conf | NPMI | MACC | Rank | Conf | NPMI | MACC | Rank | Conf | | | DynaMiTE (ours) | 7.80* | 0.781* | 0.916* | 4.11* | 8.28* | 0.772* | 0.909* | 4.50* | 4.04 | 0.647* | 0.909* | 4.00* | | DNLDA (2022) | 3.54 | 0.303 | 0.267 | 1.67 | 4.66 | 0.133 | -0.063 | 1.00 | 3.10 | 0.210 | 0.218 | 1.00 | | BERTopic (2022) | 7.53 | 0.371 | -0.051 | 2.00 | 7.58 | 0.158 | 0.158 | 1.33 | 5.09 | 0.243 | -0.220 | 2.00 | | Bernoulli (2018) | 6.82 | 0.224 | -0.171 | 1.22 | 7.60 | 0.072 | 0.158 | 1.17 | 3.65 | 0.583* | -0.230 | 1.33 | | DW2V (2018) | 4.71 | 0.200 | -0.044 | 1.00 | 7.68 | 0.228 | -0.337 | 1.33 | 2.67 | 0.340 | 0.135 | 1.17 | | CatE (2020) | 6.38 | 0.356 | 0.329 | 1.78 | 6.83 | 0.068 | -0.186 | 1.67 | 5.37* | 0.367 | 0.028 | 2.17 | | Method | Disaster | Leader | | | | | |------------------------|---------------------------|-----------------------|----------------------|------------------------------|--------------------------|-----------------------------| | 1986 - 1989 | 1990 - 1993 | 1994 - 1997 | 1986 - 1989 | 1990 - 1993 | 1994 - 1997 | | | DynaMiTE (ours) | chernobyl | chernobyl | montserrat | mr gorbachev | npfl | mahmoud | | locusts | devastating earthquake | hurricane luis | shultz | mr nelson mandela | npfl | | | hurricane hugo | iraqi invasion of kuwait | igadd | president reagan | klerk | ulimo | | | DNLDA (2022) | lebanon | bosnia | clear (×) | political (×) | president | road (×) | | lebanese (×) | herzegovina | strong (×) | developments (×) | government (×) | theme (×) | | | appeal (×) | republic (×) | failure (×) | continue (×) | de (×) | ahead (×) | | | BERTopic (2022) | natural disasters | chernobyl | natural disasters | word leaders (×) | word leaders (×) | word leaders (×) | | recent experiences (×) | chernobyl disaster | natural disaster | virtuous (×) | leadership (×) | leadership (×) | | | natural disaster | coordinator (×) | disasters (×) | leadership (×) | leaders (×) | leaders (×) | | | Bernoulli (2018) | pushed (×) | pushed (×) | pushed (×) | demise (×) | demise (×) | demise (×) | | brink (×) | nuclear conflagration | nuclear conflagration | grief (×) | grief (×) | excellency president | | | worried (×) | worried (×) | worried (×) | excellency president | excellency president | grief (×) | | | DW2V (2018) | catastrophe (×) | catastrophe (×) | catastrophe (×) | great leader (×) | great leader (×) | great leader (×) | | earthquakes | earthquakes | disasters (×) | hero (×) | hero (×) | hero (×) | | | disasters (×) | disasters (×) | earthquakes | immortal (×) | immortal (×) | kim jong il | | | CatE (2020) | distorting (×) | international climate | exacerbation (×) | fundamental freedoms (×) | trampled (×) | international covenants (×) | | east-west | sustained development (×) | international climate | human rights (×) | fundamental human rights (×) | civil rights (×) | | | atmosphere | atmosphere | sustained development | protection (×) | elementary (×) | fundamental freedoms (×) | | we design an interface using PrairieLearn (West et al., 2015) and invite three graduate students with knowledge of the three domains to annotate. We encourage them to use Google or any other resources to aid them. We provide a detailed human evaluation setup and screenshots in Appendix B.6. (1) Term Accuracy: Term accuracy measures whether users are satisfied by the discovered topics of DTMs. We evaluate term accuracy by asking annotators if each term in the topic evolution uniquely "belongs" to its category and does not "belong" to other categories. We define "belongs" as any nonsynonym relation (to avoid low-quality terms such as "tragedy" for *disaster*) between the term and the category. For reference, we provide annotators with relations from ConceptNet (Speer et al., 2017). We average the labeling of annotators and report the final results as mean accuracy (**MACC**). We find high inter-annotator agreement for MACC, with Fleiss' kappa (Fleiss, 1971) scores of 88, 86, 84 for Arxiv, UN, and, Newspop, respectively. (2) Temporal Quality: NPMI and MACC do not evaluate if topic evolutions capture interpretable trends. Thus, motivated by the definitions of interpretability for non-dynamic topic models proposed by Doogan and Buntine (2021), we propose that an interpretable topic evolution is one that can be ordered chronologically. To evaluate this property, we remove the label that indicates which time step each set of terms belongs to, as well as terms that reveal the time step of the set. We shuffle these sets and ask annotators to order them chronologically. We use Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (**Rank**) (Zar, 2005) to measure how similar the annotator's order is to the true order of the topic evolution and ask annotators to rate their confidence (**Conf**) on a scale from 1 to 5 using Mean Opinion Score (Streijl et al., 2016), where 5 indicates total confidence. We report **Rank** and **Conf** averaged over seeds and annotators. To our knowledge, this is the first work with human experiments to evaluate the temporal quality of topic evolutions. ## 6 Results 6.1 Performance Comparison Quantitative Results: In Table 2, we find that DynaMiTE produces high-quality topic evolutions, almost always achieving superior quantitative results. The only exception is NPMI on the Newspop dataset, where CatE and BERTopic obtain higher scores than DynaMiTE. The Newspop dataset contains short headlines, where category names do not co-occur frequently with the high-quality terms mined by DynaMiTE, reducing NPMI. We contend that DynaMiTE still mines more informative terms, as demonstrated by the human evaluation metrics in Table 2. Overall, our strong quantitative results suggest that DynaMiTE (1) directly addresses a user's search needs (MACC, NPMI) and (2) captures interpretable trends (Rank, Conf), making it a preferred choice for exploring temporal corpora. Qualitative Results: In Table 3, we observe two desirable properties of the topic evolutions produced by DynaMiTE: (1) While other models retrieve generic terms weakly related to *disaster* and leader (e.g. "demise" and "coordinator"), DynaMiTE mines terms which are distinctly and directly related to each category name. We believe that the use of category discriminative embeddings and category indicative document retrieval helps DynaMiTE avoid this pitfall and achieve higher MACC scores. (2) While other models contain similar sets of terms over time, DynaMiTE uses topic burstiness to find terms that uniquely capture each time step. This explains why annotators performed the best and were most confident when ordering the shuffled outputs of DynaMiTE. For example, a quick Google search will show that Hurricane Hugo occurred in 1989, Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, and Hurricane Luis was recorded in 1995 (Wikipedia contributors, 2023a,b). We show all qualitative results of our model in Appendix C.1. ## 6.2 Ablation Study We perform an ablation study (Table 4) to observe how users perceive the outputs of DynaMiTE when its different components are removed. To directly measure user preferences, we use MACC. We observe the following: (1) DynaMiTE outperforms all ablations in most cases, implying that all components of the model complement each other. (2) It is interesting to note that removing the time indicative score causes on average, a 46.7% drop in MACC. This observation suggests a strong association be- DynaMiTE 0.802 0.871 **0.770** | Method | Arxiv | UN | Newspop | |----------|---------|------|-----------| Loss  - Temp 0.745 0.638 0.690 tween a term's distinct popularity within a temporal window and its perceived relevance to a category name. (3) After the time indicative score, removing the semantic similarity score leads to the next largest drop in MACC, being on average, 29.9%. Combining this observation with (2), we can infer that users prefer the full version of DynaMiTE due to its retrieval of terms both directly relevant to their interests and unique to each time step. ## 6.3 Runtime Comparison DTMs are most often applied to rapidly changing domains, such as news and research, and thus benefit from running in real time. Further, efficient NLP frameworks greatly improve user experience (Telner, 2021). Hence, we study the runtime of DynaMiTE in Figure 2. We find that due to the combination of matrix factorization and Block Coordinate Descent to learn the embedding space, DynaMiTE achieves the fastest runtime on Arxiv and Newspop (UN follows the same trend). In addition, DynaMiTE operates entirely on CPUs, while BERTopic and Dynamic Bernoulli Embeddings re-  quire GPUs, making DynaMiTE a highly practical and resource-efficient solution for users. ## 6.4 Category Shift Analysis We employ a discriminative dynamic embedding space with smoothness constraints over successive time steps to capture semantic shifts (Eq. 4). To study this property, we analyze the largest semantic shifts of our user-provided category names. First, we find the adjacent time steps t and t − 1 where the embeddings of the category name are the most dissimilar. To pinpoint one contributor to this large semantic shift, we identify the term whose embedding distance to the category name changed the most between t and t − 1 using cosine similarity. For the category of *natural language processing* on Arxiv, the largest semantic shift occurred between 2021 and 2022, with the main cause being "GPT-3." Our findings align with recent studies (Bommasani et al., 2021; Sun et al., 2022; Goyal et al., 2022) which suggest that GPT-3 has led to a paradigm shift in NLP, in turn changing the semantics of the category NLP. This phenomenon is visualized in Figure 3. We present more category shift experiments in the Appendix (Table 9). ## 7 Conclusion We propose the new task of discriminative dynamic topic discovery and develop DynaMiTE to solve the task. Through experiments on three diverse datasets, including the design of a new human evaluation experiment, we demonstrate that DynaMiTE produces high-quality topic evolutions and outperforms state-of-the-art DTMs. Ablation studies show that DynaMiTE effectively addresses a user's needs by retrieving category and time indicative terms. Through runtime analyses, we find that DynaMiTE is a computationally efficient and practical tool. Finally, we probe the discriminative dynamic embedding space of DynaMiTE to identify key shifts in computer science, politics and news. ## 8 Limitations Time Granularity: The granularity of time we test DynaMiTE on ranges from spans of four years to months. After testing multiple ways to bucket our temporal corpora, we observed that the granularity of time only affected DynaMiTE when there were insufficient documents in each time step. Specifically, we found that there must be at least 100 documents per time step to expect reasonably good results. Runtime: One drawback of DynaMiTE is that its runtime depends on the number of terms required at each time step. However, this can be avoided by mining more than one term during each iteration of the framework. We also observed that DynaMiTE, along with all other dynamic topic mining baselines, had a slower performance on datasets with longer text documents. Risks: DynaMiTE is intended to be used as a tool to discover topic evolutions in temporal corpora suited to a user's interests, represented as category seeds. We only experimented with DynaMiTE in domains with trustworthy information. If DynaMiTE was used in document collections that contain misinformation, it could have the potential to mine inaccurate terms. ## 9 Acknowledgements Research was supported in part by US DARPA KAIROS Program No. FA8750-19-2-1004 and INCAS Program No. HR001121C0165, National Science Foundation IIS-19-56151, IIS-17-41317, and IIS 17-04532, and the Molecule Maker Lab Institute: An AI Research Institutes program supported by NSF under Award No. 2019897, and the Institute for Geospatial Understanding through an Integrative Discovery Environment (I-GUIDE) by NSF under Award No. 2118329. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views, either expressed or implied, of DARPA or the U.S. Government. This work was also partly supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (2021R1A6A3A14043765). ## References Nasser Alsaedi, Pete Burnap, and Omer Rana. 2016. Temporal tf-idf: A high performance approach for event summarization in twitter. In *2016* IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence (WI), pages 515–521. David Andrzejewski and Xiaojin Zhu. 2009. Latent Dirichlet Allocation with topic-in-set knowledge. In Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2009 Workshop on Semi-supervised Learning for Natural Language Processing, pages 43–48, Boulder, Colorado. Association for Computational Linguistics. arXiv.org submitters. 2023. arxiv dataset. Robert Bamler and Stephan Mandt. 2017. Dynamic word embeddings. In *Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning*, volume 70 of *Proceedings of Machine Learning Research*, pages 380–389. PMLR. Alexander Baturo, Niheer Dasandi, and Slava J. Mikhaylov. 2017. Understanding state preferences with text as data: Introducing the un general debate corpus. *Research & Politics*, 4(2):2053168017712821. Arnab Bhadury, Jianfei Chen, Jun Zhu, and Shixia Liu. 2016. Scaling up dynamic topic models. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW '16, page 381–390, Republic and Canton of Geneva, CHE. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee. David M Blei and John D Lafferty. 2006. Dynamic topic models. In *Proceedings of the 23rd international* conference on Machine learning, pages 113–120. David M. Blei, Andrew Y. Ng, and Michael I. Jordan. 2003. Latent dirichlet allocation. *J. Mach. Learn.* Res., 3(null):993–1022. Rishi Bommasani, Drew A Hudson, Ehsan Adeli, Russ Altman, Simran Arora, Sydney von Arx, Michael S Bernstein, Jeannette Bohg, Antoine Bosselut, Emma Brunskill, et al. 2021. On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07258. Jordan Boyd-Graber, Yuening Hu, David Mimno, et al. 2017. Applications of topic models. *Foundations* and Trends® *in Information Retrieval*, 11(2-3):143– 296. Jonathan Chang, Sean Gerrish, Chong Wang, Jordan Boyd-graber, and David Blei. 2009. Reading tea leaves: How humans interpret topic models. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, volume 22. Curran Associates, Inc. Xilun Chen, K. Selcuk Candan, and Maria Luisa Sapino. 2018. Ims-dtm: Incremental multi-scale dynamic topic models. *Proceedings of the AAAI Conference* on Artificial Intelligence, 32(1). Rob Churchill and Lisa Singh. 2022. Dynamic topicnoise models for social media. In *Pacific-Asia Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining* (PAKDD). Robert Churchill, Lisa Singh, Rebecca Ryan, and Pamela Davis-Kean. 2022. A guided topic-noise model for short texts. In *Proceedings of the ACM* Web Conference 2022, WWW '22, page 2870–2878, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. Adji B. Dieng, Francisco J. R. Ruiz, and David M. Blei. 2019. The dynamic embedded topic model. *CoRR*, abs/1907.05545. E Jacquelin Dietz. 1983. Permutation tests for association between two distance matrices. Systematic Biology, 32(1):21–26. Caitlin Doogan and Wray Buntine. 2021. Topic model or topic twaddle? re-evaluating semantic interpretability measures. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 3824–3848, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Rotem Dror, Gili Baumer, Segev Shlomov, and Roi Reichart. 2018. The hitchhiker's guide to testing statistical significance in natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1383–1392, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. Zheng Fang, Yulan He, and Rob Procter. 2021. A querydriven topic model. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 1764–1777, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Joseph L Fleiss. 1971. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. *Psychological bulletin*, 76(5):378. Ryan J. Gallagher, Kyle Reing, David Kale, and Greg Ver Steeg. 2017. Anchored correlation explanation: Topic modeling with minimal domain knowledge. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 5:529–542. Tanya Goyal, Junyi Jessy Li, and Greg Durrett. 2022. News summarization and evaluation in the era of gpt-3. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.12356*. Maarten R. Grootendorst. 2022. Bertopic: Neural topic modeling with a class-based tf-idf procedure. *ArXiv*, abs/2203.05794. Jo Guldi. 2019. Parliament's debates about infrastructure: an exercise in using dynamic topic models to synthesize historical change. *Technology and Culture*, 60(1):1–33. Alexander Miserlis Hoyle, Pranav Goel, Andrew HianCheong, Denis Peskov, Jordan L. Boyd-Graber, and Philip Resnik. 2021. Is automated topic model evaluation broken? the incoherence of coherence. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2021, NeurIPS 2021, December 6-14, 2021, virtual, pages 2018–2033. Tomoharu Iwata, Shinji Watanabe, Takeshi Yamada, and Naonori Ueda. 2009. Topic tracking model for analyzing consumer purchase behavior. In Proceedings of the 21st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI'09, page 1427–1432, San Francisco, CA, USA. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. Tomoharu Iwata, Takeshi Yamada, Yasushi Sakurai, and Naonori Ueda. 2010. Online multiscale dynamic topic models. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 663–672. Jagadeesh Jagarlamudi, Hal Daumé III, and Raghavendra Udupa. 2012. Incorporating lexical priors into topic models. In Proceedings of the 13th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 204–213. Patrick Jähnichen, Florian Wenzel, Marius Kloft, and Stephan Mandt. 2018. Scalable generalized dynamic topic models. In *International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics*, pages 1427–1435. PMLR. Zhuoren Jiang. 2015. Chronological scientific information recommendation via supervised dynamic topic modeling. In *Proceedings of the Eighth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining*, WSDM '15, page 453–458, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas Oguz, Sewon Min, Patrick Lewis, Ledell Wu, Sergey Edunov, Danqi Chen, and Wen-tau Yih. 2020. Dense passage retrieval for opendomain question answering. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6769–6781, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jon Kleinberg. 2002. Bursty and hierarchical structure in streams. In *Proceedings of the Eighth ACM* SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD '02, page 91–101, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. Jey Han Lau, David Newman, and Timothy Baldwin. 2014. Machine reading tea leaves: Automatically evaluating topic coherence and topic model quality. In Proceedings of the 14th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 530–539, Gothenburg, Sweden. Association for Computational Linguistics. Chung-Hong Lee, Chih-Hong Wu, and Tzan-Feng Chien. 2011. Burst: A dynamic term weighting scheme for mining microblogging messages. In *Advances in Neural Networks - ISNN 2011*, pages 548– 557, Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Jure Leskovec, Lars Backstrom, and Jon Kleinberg. 2009. Meme-tracking and the dynamics of the news cycle. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD '09, page 497–506, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. Omer Levy and Yoav Goldberg. 2014. Neural word embedding as implicit matrix factorization. Advances in neural information processing systems, 27. Yue Li, Pratheeksha Nair, Zhi Wen, Imane Chafi, Anya Okhmatovskaia, Guido Powell, Yannan Shen, and David Buckeridge. 2020. Global surveillance of covid-19 by mining news media using a multi-source dynamic embedded topic model. In *Proceedings of* the 11th ACM International Conference on Bioinformatics, Computational Biology and Health Informatics, BCB '20, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. Yu Meng, Jiaxin Huang, Guangyuan Wang, Zihan Wang, Chao Zhang, Yu Zhang, and Jiawei Han. 2020. Discriminative topic mining via category-name guided text embedding. In *Proceedings of The Web Conference 2020*, pages 2121–2132. Tomas Mikolov, Kai Chen, Greg Corrado, and Jeffrey Dean. 2013. Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1301.3781. David Mimno, Hanna Wallach, Edmund Talley, Miriam Leenders, and Andrew McCallum. 2011. Optimizing semantic coherence in topic models. In Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 262–272, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. Association for Computational Linguistics. Nuno Moniz and Luís Torgo. 2018. Multi-source social feedback of online news feeds. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.07055. Finn Müller-Hansen, Max W Callaghan, Yuan Ting Lee, Anna Leipprand, Christian Flachsland, and Jan C Minx. 2021. Who cares about coal? analyzing 70 years of german parliamentary debates on coal with dynamic topic modeling. *Energy Research & Social* Science, 72:101869. Ramesh M. Nallapati, Susan Ditmore, John D. Lafferty, and Kin Ung. 2007. Multiscale topic tomography. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD '07, page 520–529, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. Eric W Noreen. 1989. *Computer-intensive methods for* testing hypotheses. Wiley New York. Sungrae Park, Wonsung Lee, and Il-Chul Moon. 2015. Supervised dynamic topic models for associative topic extraction with a numerical time series. In Proceedings of the 2015 Workshop on Topic Models: Post-Processing and Applications, TM '15, page 49–54, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher D 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. Juan Enrique Ramos. 2003. Using tf-idf to determine word relevance in document queries. Stephen E Robertson, Steve Walker, Susan Jones, Micheline M Hancock-Beaulieu, Mike Gatford, et al. 1995. Okapi at trec-3. *Nist Special Publication Sp*, 109:109. Maja Rudolph and David Blei. 2018. Dynamic embeddings for language evolution. In *Proceedings of the* 2018 World Wide Web Conference, WWW '18, page 1003–1011, Republic and Canton of Geneva, CHE. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee. Jingbo Shang, Jialu Liu, Meng Jiang, Xiang Ren, Clare R. Voss, and Jiawei Han. 2018. Automated phrase mining from massive text corpora. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 30(10):1825–1837. Robyn Speer, Joshua Chin, and Catherine Havasi. 2017. Conceptnet 5.5: An open multilingual graph of general knowledge. In Thirty-first AAAI conference on artificial intelligence. Robert C. Streijl, Stefan Winkler, and David S. Hands. 2016. Mean opinion score (mos) revisited: methods and applications, limitations and alternatives. *Multimedia Systems*, 22(2):213–227. Tian-Xiang Sun, Xiang-Yang Liu, Xi-Peng Qiu, and Xuan-Jing Huang. 2022. Paradigm shift in natural language processing. *Machine Intelligence Research*, 19(3):169–183. Fangbo Tao, Honglei Zhuang, Chi Wang Yu, Qi Wang, Taylor Cassidy, Lance M Kaplan, Clare R Voss, and Jiawei Han. 2016. Multi-dimensional, phrase-based summarization in text cubes. *IEEE Data Eng. Bull.*, 39(3):74–84. Jason Telner. 2021. Chatbot user experience: Speed and content are king. In *Advances in Artificial Intelligence, Software and Systems Engineering*, pages 47–54, Cham. Springer International Publishing. Paul Tseng. 2001. Convergence of a block coordinate descent method for nondifferentiable minimization. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 109:475–494. Ana Sabina Uban, Cornelia Caragea, and Liviu P Dinu. 2021. Studying the evolution of scientific topics and their relationships. In *Findings of the Association* for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 1908–1922. Carmen K Vaca, Amin Mantrach, Alejandro Jaimes, and Marco Saerens. 2014. A time-based collective factorization for topic discovery and monitoring in news. In Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on World wide web, pages 527–538. Laurens van der Maaten and Geoffrey E. Hinton. 2008. Visualizing data using t-sne. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 9:2579–2605. Jan Vosecky, Di Jiang, Kenneth Wai-Ting Leung, and Wilfred Ng. 2013. Dynamic multi-faceted topic discovery in twitter. In *Proceedings of the 22nd ACM* international conference on Information & Knowledge Management, pages 879–884. Chong Wang, David Blei, and David Heckerman. 2008. Continuous time dynamic topic models. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, UAI'08, page 579–586, Arlington, Virginia, USA. AUAI Press. Dingding Wang, Shenghuo Zhu, Tao Li, and Yihong Gong. 2009. Multi-document summarization using sentence-based topic models. In Proceedings of the ACL-IJCNLP 2009 conference short papers, pages 297–300. Xuerui Wang and Andrew McCallum. 2006. Topics over time: a non-markov continuous-time model of topical trends. In *Proceedings of the 12th ACM* SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 424–433. Xing Wei, Jimeng Sun, and Xuerui Wang. 2007. Dynamic mixture models for multiple time series. In Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artifical Intelligence, IJCAI'07, page 2909–2914, San Francisco, CA, USA. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. Matthew West, Geoffrey L Herman, and Craig Zilles. 2015. Prairielearn: Mastery-based online problem solving with adaptive scoring and recommendations driven by machine learning. In 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, pages 26–1238. Wikipedia contributors. 2023a. Iraqi invasion of kuwait - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/ index.php?title=Iraqi_invasion_ of_Kuwait&oldid=1132623180. [Online; accessed 19-January-2023]. Wikipedia contributors. 2023b. List of atlantic hurricane records - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. [Online; accessed 19-January-2023]. Robert F Woolson. 2007. Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Wiley encyclopedia of clinical trials, pages 1–3. Zijun Yao, Yifan Sun, Weicong Ding, Nikhil Rao, and Hui Xiong. 2018. Dynamic word embeddings for evolving semantic discovery. In Proceedings of the eleventh acm international conference on web search and data mining, pages 673–681. Susik Yoon, Hou Pong Chan, and Jiawei Han. 2023a. Pdsum: Prototype-driven continuous summarization of evolving multi-document sets stream. In *Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023*, pages 1650– 1661. Susik Yoon, Yu Meng, Dongha Lee, and Jiawei Han. 2023b. Scstory: Self-supervised and continual online story discovery. In *Proceedings of the ACM Web* Conference 2023, pages 1853–1864. Jerrold H Zar. 2005. Spearman rank correlation. *Encyclopedia of biostatistics*, 7. Delvin Ce Zhang and Hady Lauw. 2022. Dynamic topic models for temporal document networks. In Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 162 of *Proceedings* of Machine Learning Research, pages 26281–26292. PMLR. Yu Zhang, Yu Meng, Xuan Wang, Sheng Wang, and Jiawei Han. 2022a. Seed-guided topic discovery with out-of-vocabulary seeds. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 279–290, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yu Zhang, Yunyi Zhang, Martin Michalski, Yucheng Jiang, Yu Meng, and Jiawei Han. 2022b. Effective seed-guided topic discovery by integrating multiple types of contexts. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.06002*. Yunyi Zhang, Fang Guo, Jiaming Shen, and Jiawei Han. 2022c. Unsupervised key event detection from massive text corpora. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD '22, page 2535–2544, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. ## A Discriminative Dynamic Word Embeddings Optimization In this section, we detail the exact optimization process for Eq. 7, which follows similar steps as Yao et al. (2018). We first add an extra parameter designating the embedding matrix to the loss terms for local contexts, temporal contexts, and user preferences (e.g. λ*local*(t) becomes λlocal(*t, U*), where U is the embedding matrix we seek to populate). Minimizing Eq. 7 jointly for every U(t) would require a large amount of memory to store all arrays. Hence, the first step is to decompose the objectives by time step, and instead solve the following equation for each λ(t) using alternating minimization: $$\lambda(t,U)=\alpha\lambda_{local}(t,U)+\tau\lambda_{temporal}(t,U)\tag{16}$$ $$+\kappa\lambda_{user}(t,U)+\gamma\lambda_{low}(t,U)$$ Minimizing each of these equations with gradient descent is computationally expensive. Instead, we introduce a second embedding matrix W to minimize the more relaxed problem below: $$\lambda(t)=\alpha\lambda_{local}(t,U)+\tau\lambda_{temporal}(t,U)$$ $$+\kappa\lambda_{user}(t,U)+\gamma\lambda_{low}(t,U)$$ $$+\alpha\lambda_{local}(t,W)+\tau\lambda_{temporal}(t,W)\tag{17}$$ $$+\kappa\lambda_{user}(t,W)+\gamma\lambda_{low}(t,W)$$ $$+\rho\left\|U(t)-W(t)U(t)^{T}\right\|_{F}^{2}$$ Eq. 17 contains mirrored loss terms for both embedding matrices U and W. The final term ensures that U and W have identical embeddings, which can be accomplished by setting ρ to a very large value (in our case, we choose 100). By formulating the equation in this way, which breaks the symmetry of factoring Y (t), Yao et al. (2018) find that minimizing λ(t), for both U(t) and W(t), is the solution of a ridge regression problem. For optimizing U(t) (and equivalently, W(t)), taking the derivative of Eq. 17 leaves us with an equation in the form U(t)A = B, where A and B are defined as follows (we omit the 12 scalar): $$A=(1+\kappa W(t)^{T}W(t))+(\alpha+2\tau+\gamma+\rho)I$$ $$\begin{array}{l}{{B=Y(t)W(t)+\rho W(t)}}\\ {{+\tau(U(t-1)+U(t+1))+\kappa Z(t)U(t)}}\end{array}$$ Solving U(t)A = B for every t can be accomplished efficiently by using Block Coordinate Descent (Tseng, 2001). ## B Experimental Setup B.1 Dataset Description We provide thorough summary statistics of the Arxiv, UN, and Newspop datasets in Table 5. All datasets (Arxiv, UN, Newspop) were obtained from publicly available sources. The original Arxiv dataset contains research papers from all scientific fields, so we select a subset of these papers by finding those which are categorized solely by "machine learning," "computer vision," or "natural language processing". The original UN dataset contains very long documents (around 4000 words), so we treat each paragraph as a document instead. The documents from the Newspop dataset were not modified. On the UN dataset, the speaker name was present, but these speakers are public figures part of the United Nations General Assembly, and their speeches have been released to the public. Given the informative nature of each dataset, we did not find any other personal data or offensive content. To check this, we analyzed a random sample of 50 documents from each dataset. Apart from what was mentioned in the paper, we also modify the datasets by filtering noisy symbols with Regex3 and converting all characters to ASCII with Unidecode.4 To our knowledge, all datasets are entirely in English. We did not split any of the datasets into training, testing, or validation sets, since we did not perform any tasks which require inference and validation. After this pre-processing, we perform phrasechunking with AutoPhrase (Shang et al., 2018) on all datasets, treating each phrase as a single embedding, and remove phrases that appear in less than 1 5000 documents. After these two steps, the vocab sizes for Arxiv, UN, and Newspop are 16073, 26184, and 8199, respectively. Models are trained on the pre-processed datasets to retrieve 5-term topic evolutions. ## B.2 Model Inputs For the Arxiv dataset, the inputs to each model were the pre-processed corpus and user-provided seeds (1) *natural language processing*, (2) *vision*, and (3) *neural network*. For the UN dataset, the inputs to each model were the pre-processed corpus and user-provided seeds (1) *disaster* and (2) *leader*. 3https://docs.python.org/3/library/re. html 4https://pypi.org/project/Unidecode/ | Dataset | #Docs | Time Range | #Time Steps | Granularity | Average | Min #Docs in | Max #Docs in | |------------|------------|----------------------|---------------|---------------|-----------|----------------|----------------| | #Words/Doc | Time Steps | Time Steps | | | | | | | Arxiv | 214,178 | 2012 to 2022 | 11 | Years | 91.62 | 2112 | 44724 | | UN | 250,997 | 1970 to 2014 | 12 | 4 Years | 47.88 | 8119 | 45154 | | Newspop | 93,080 | Nov 2015 to Jul 2016 | 10 | Months | 24.49 | 273 | 12995 | For the Newspop dataset, the inputs to each model were the pre-processed corpus and user-provided seeds (1) technology, *microsoft*, and (2) *politics*, president barack obama. We include *microsoft* and *president barack obama* as additional seeds because the documents discussing technology and politics in the Newspop dataset mostly surround these two topics. ## B.3 Training Setup We release the Python code implementation of DynaMiTE. DynaMiTE is initialized with word2vec for faster convergence and trained with α = 100,γ = κ = τ = 50. We set β = 0.2, 0.05, 0.4 and BIDF window size r = 5,7,5 for Arxiv, UN, and Newspop, respectively. The only hyperparameter tuned was β, which was done by qualitatively assessing topic evolutions produced with different β values on a subset of the corpus. In practice, we train DynaMiTE by combining Eq. 3 and Eq. 6 into a single loss term and treat each Θtj as one document. Both of these steps result in equivalent performance and help DynaMiTE run more efficiently. DynaMiTE considers local context window sizes of 7 for Arxiv and UN, and the entire text for Newspop (as headlines are short). The embedding size of DynaMiTE is set to 50. When retrieving topic evolutions for qualitative experiments, we also add a condition that any added term must not have a cosine similarity above 0.9 with any of the terms currently in the topic evolution to avoid redundancy, which is calculated through our discriminative dynamic word embeddings. As mentioned in the paper, DynaMiTE is trained entirely on CPUs and is limited to using only 10 CPUs. ## B.4 Baseline Implementations We implement DNLDA using the official Python Georgetown DataLab Topic Modeling package5 uploaded by the authors of the paper. We set most of the parameters to be the default values of the model. The only parameter we change is the number of 5https://github.com/GU-DataLab/gdtm topic evolutions outputted by the model, which we set to 200 to ensure that topic evolutions existed for each of our specified seeds. DNLDA was trained entirely on CPUs. To select topic evolutions, we manually search through the outputs, prioritizing those which contain any of our user-provided seeds. We implement BERTopic using the official Python bertopic package6 uploaded by the authors of the paper. We set all of the parameters to be the default value of the model. BERTopic was trained using multiple GPUs. We follow the same process as DNLDA to retrieve topic evolutions. We implement Bernoulli using the Pytorch implementation.7 We choose this one over the official implementation because it is computationally efficient. When testing both versions, we found no noticeable difference in performance, and thus elected for the Pytorch implementation. We set all parameters to be the default value of the model, with the exception of the word embedding size, which is set to 50. The Bernoulli model was trained using multiple GPUs. To select topic evolutions, we first find the embeddings of the user-provided seeds (averaging them if there are multiple seeds for a single topic evolution). Then, we find each seed's nearest neighbors for each time step using cosine similarity and retrieve these as the outputs for the topic evolution. We implement DW2V using the official Python code8 uploaded by the authors of the paper. We set all of the parameters to be the default value of the model and warm up DW2V with global word2vec embeddings. DW2V considers the same local window sizes as DynaMiTE to calculate PMI. The word embedding size is set to 50. DW2V was trained entirely on CPUs. We follow the same process as Dynamic Bernoulli Embeddings to retrieve topic evolutions. 6https://maartengr.github.io/BERTopic/ index.html 7https://github.com/llefebure/dynamic_ bernoulli_embeddings 8https://github.com/yifan0sun/ DynamicWord2Vec We implement CatE using the official C code9 uploaded by the authors of the paper. We set all of the parameters to be the default value of the model. CatE is a user-guided topic mining framework, so we did not have to retrieve terms through our own implementation. To make CatE dynamic, we run it recursively on each time-stamped document collection with the same parameters. ## B.5 Quantitative Metrics As stated in the paper, we report NPMI averaged over 25 runs. The standard error of these runs for Arxiv, UN, and Newspop were 0.0437, 0.0395, and 0.0188 respectively. We found that the outputs of DynaMiTE were consistent on most occasions. To obtain the topic evolutions for human evaluation (term accuracy and temporal ordering), we only consider a single run chosen at random. We also report the detailed formulas for NPMI, MACC, and Rank, as well as the statistical tests we used to determine significance below: NPMI or normalized pointwise mutual information is a standard measure of topic coherence. To calculate the NPMI for a topic evolution, we first calculate the normalized pointwise mutual information for each pair of terms at each time t, defined as follows: $$\mathrm{NPMI}(t)={\frac{1}{|{\mathcal{C}}|}}\sum_{i=1}^{|{\mathcal{C}}|}{\frac{1}{\left({\binom{|S_{t i}|}{2}}\right)}}\sum_{w_{j},w_{k}\in{\mathcal{S}}_{i}}{\frac{\log{\frac{P(w_{j},w_{k})}{P(w_{j})P(w_{j})}}}{-\log{P(w_{j},w_{k})}}}$$ P(wj , wk) is the probability that wj and wk cooccur in a document, while P(wj )is the probability that wj occurs in any document. We then calculate our NPMI metric as the sum of all NPMI(t) divided by the total number of time steps in T . i.e.: $${\mathrm{NPMI}}={\frac{1}{|{\mathcal{T}}|}}\sum_{t=1}^{|{\mathcal{T}}|}{\mathrm{NPMI}}(t)$$ We calculate the statistical significance of the NPMI values produced by each baseline with an approximate randomization test, using the list of NPMI values over 25 runs as the distribution. MACC or mean accuracy measures term accuracy, defined as the proportion of retrieved terms that "belong" to the category name. To adapt MACC for dynamic topic mining, we flatten all terms retrieved by the dynamic topic mining frameworks and do not consider the temporal aspect. The exact formula for a single annotator is as follows: $${\mathrm{MACC}}={\frac{1}{|{\mathcal{T}}||{\mathcal{C}}|}}\sum_{t=1}^{|{\mathcal{T}}|}\sum_{i=1}^{|{\mathcal{C}}|}{\frac{1}{|{\mathcal{S}}_{t i}|}}\sum_{w_{j}\in{\mathcal{S}}_{t i}}I(w_{j}\in c_{i})$$ I is the indicator function which denotes whether wj belongs to category ci, according to the annotator. We report our final results as these MACC scores averaged over all annotators. To conduct a pairwise t-test for significance, we construct a list M for each model which contains the MACC scores for every dataset, seed, and annotator. We have 7 total seeds and 3 annotators, so M has a length of 21 for each baseline. As our sample size is small, we conduct Wilcoxon signed-rank tests using each list M. Rank or Spearman's rank correlation coefficient is a value ranging between -1 and 1 to compare an annotator's ordering xi and the ground truth ordering yi for category i, where 1 is a perfect match and -1 is where the annotator's ordering is the ground truth order in reverse. We represent yi as the list {t|0 < t *≤ |T |}*, while the xi will be some permutation of the ground truth order. Using xi and yi, Spearman's rank correlation coefficient is calculated as: $${\frac{1}{|C|}}\sum_{i=1}^{|C|}\left(1-{\frac{6\sum_{t=1}^{|T|}(x_{i}(t)-y_{i}(t))^{2}}{|T|(|T|^{2}-1)}}\right)$$ where xi(t) denotes the t-th element of list xi. We report our final results as these Spearman's rank correlation coefficients averaged over all annotators. Since our orderings contain a maximum of 12 elements, we cannot conduct the usual significance test for Spearman's rank correlation, as it requires at least 500 samples. Thus, we use a permutation test to compute the statistical significance,10 and mark models which obtain a significant human ordering (that is, a human ordering significantly close to the true ordering) for all seeds and annotators. Conf measures the annotator's confidence during ranking, which is a discrete value from 1 to 5, based on Mean Opinion Score. The exact criteria for 10https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/ reference/generated/scipy.stats. spearmanr.html $${}^{9}{\mathrm{htttps}}://{\mathrm{github.com/yuneng5/CatE}}$$ Conf can be viewed in Figure 5. We report the confidence values averaged over all annotators and seeds. For determining if Conf values were significant, we follow the same approach as MACC described above. ## B.6 Human Experiments We provide details on the term accuracy (Figure 4) and temporal quality (Figure 5) human evaluation experiments below: Term Accuracy: First, we compile the topic evolutions of all baselines and ablation models of DynaMiTE (including our full version). We flatten the terms contained within each topic evolution and upload them to the tool. To avoid any positional biases, the order of terms is randomly shuffled for each annotator. Using a checkbox for each term, annotators are instructed to select terms that they believe belong to the category name, where "belong" is defined as a non-synonym relationship between the category and term. To effectively complete the task, annotators are provided with all category names considered in the experiment, the relevant time steps, the dataset (or context) of the experiment, resources and examples for types of non-synonym relations, and a sample Google search query for ascertaining whether a term and category are related. Temporal Quality: For each topic evolution, we remove the label that indicates which time step each set of terms belongs to. We present annotators with these terms in a randomized order, where each annotator sees a different randomized order. Annotators are instructed to order these sets of terms chronologically by using a drag-and-drop functionality integrated into the PrairieLearn interface. To effectively complete the task, annotators are provided with the dataset (or context) of the experiment, the relevant time steps, and a sample Google search query for ascertaining whether a set of terms precedes or succeeds another set of terms. After annotators have completed ordering the terms they are asked to rate their confidence on a scale of 1 to 5 based on Mean Opinion Score (Streijl et al., 2016), using a multiple choice question. Both tools displayed in the Figures were created using the PrairieLearn (West et al., 2015) interface, which is traditionally used in classroom settings. Annotators can submit their results at any time by pressing "Save and Grade". By pressing "Save," annotators can save their current results and choose to come back to the experiment at a later time. We find that PrairieLearn's easy-to-use interface and integration of Python make it an ideal tool for setting up human evaluation experiments. We received no complaints from our annotators indicating that PrairieLearn was a difficult tool to navigate. We hope to work with the creators of PrairieLearn to make it publicly available for all types of human evaluations. ## C Full Experiment Results C.1 Topic Evolutions We display the full 5-term topic evolution outputs produced by DynaMiTE on the Arxiv (Table 6), UN (Table 7), and Newspop (Table 8) datasets. ## C.2 Category Shift Analysis We display all category shift analyses on the seeds and datasets from our experiments in Table 9.     | Time | Natural language processing | Computer vision | Neural networks | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------| | sentiment classification linguists successes society social science | walking vb | | | | social interaction machine vision milestone | pc | | | | network structures | | | | | regularization methods feed forward amino acids | | | | | 2012 | fsl | | | | speech recognition mt inflection urdu | visual object tracking sports ultimately scene recognition sparked | tnn | | | neuron | | | | | multiplicative noise cnn rectifier | | | | | 2013 | biomedicine | | | | statistical machine translation srl prosody zero-shot | synthesis | | | | supervisions silhouettes theories | | | | | synthetically generated | arrhythmia auto-encoder cae dae dropout | | | | 2014 | automatic speech recognition iwslt word embeddings slt relation classification | event recognition kinship pedestrian detection pedestrian railway | relu | | feed-forward neural network anns deep nets lstm | | | | | 2015 | patent | | | | speech recognition neural architectures relation classification image captioning | re-id ssc | | | | scene parsing | | | | | scene text detection instance segmentation | siamese nmt yolo lstm | | | | recurrent network | | | | | 2016 | stance detection nli sts prosody slot filling | sonar | | | lipreading | | | | | material recognition scene flow estimation scene segmentation | gru | | | | over-parameterized pointnet smiles tensorflow | | | | | 2017 | sanskrit roman | | | | sentence encoders | | | | | contextualized word representations code-mixing | scene graph | | | | vehicle re-identification sod lane detection object counting | i3d bnn | | | | approximators tnn qnn | | | | | 2018 | pretrained language models contextual embeddings multilingual bert roberta bert | tir vos | | | thermal infrared str rec | neural tangent kernel bnn loss landscape pinn infinite-width | | | | 2019 | pretrained language models multilingual bert mlm contextual embeddings xlm-r | attracted considerable attention pansharpening qml shadow removal rec | neural tangent kernel infinite-width | | neural ordinary differential equations pinn double descent | | | | | 2020 | plm | | | | xlm-roberta mbert qe gpt-3 | sonar | | | | shadow removal vl rgbt tracking hpe | ntk | | | | infinite-width qnn neural ode pinn | | | | | 2021 | pretrained language models gpt-3 mbert xlm-r qe | vl | | | vision transformers wsol rec | | | | | video instance segmentation | neural ordinary differential equations infinite-width mpnns benign overfitting symplectic | | | | 2022 | Table 6: Full DynaMiTE topic evolution output on the Arxiv dataset. | | | | Time | Disaster | Leader | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | east pakistan pakistanis | | | | physical environment bengal economic losses | allende | | | gamal abdel nasser figueres gaulle cabral | | | | 1970 - 1971 | desertification | | | emergency situation energy crisis sahelian countries fourth world | chairman mao tsetung makarios | | | houari boumediene archbishop | | | | 1974 - 1977 | dominica grenada grenadines saint lucia saint vincent | agostinho neto robert mugabe | | mwalimu julius nyerere houari boumediene guzman | | | | 1978 - 1981 | cilss | | | devastating impact cyclical fragile economy com | jorge roberto jose figueiredo belaunde | | | 1982 - 1985 | chernobyl locusts | | | hurricane hugo nuclear accident bengal | mr gorbachev shultz president reagan president bush mikhail gorbachev | | | 1986 - 1989 | chernobyl | | | devastating earthquake iraqi invasion of kuwait herzegovina bosnia | npfl | | | mr nelson mandela klerk non-racial | | | | african national congress | | | | 1990 - 1993 | montserrat hurricane luis igadd | | | monitoring group ecomog sarajevo | mahmoud npfl ulimo kofi annan | | | mr boutros boutros-ghali | | | | 1994 - 1997 | hurricane georges el nino pennsylvania financial crises | | | humanitarian catastrophes | kabila | | | secretary-general kofi annan | | | | predecessor mr hennadiy udovenko predecessor mr harri holkeri predecessor mr harri | | | | 1998 - 2001 | hurricane katrina tsunami hurricane ivan locusts pennsylvania | mr sergio vieira de mello mahmoud abbas lula da silva tony blair kabila | | 2002 - 2005 | locusts | | | global financial crisis coastal erosion glaciers degrees celsius | zelaya morazan | | | president obama sarkozy lula | | | | 2006 - 2009 | global financial crisis darfur syrian refugees devastating earthquake eurozone | secretary-general ban ki-moon reappointment mr nassir abdulaziz al-nasser predecessor mr joseph deiss mr vuk jeremi | | 2010 - 2013 | ebola virus | | | existential threat existential | | | | disaster risk reduction ocean acidification | president obama pope francis rouhani leon saleh | | | 2014 - 2017 | | | | Time | Technology, Microsoft | Politics, President Barack Obama | | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|------------------------| | sql server zune | | | | | steve ballmer surpassed sunrise | plea | | | | mocking rallies | | | | | pro-palestine plan | | | | | October 2015 | partnership using via xl volvo | obama | | | white house thanksgiving syrian refugees republican | | | | | November 2015 | nasdaq using | | | | windows 10 mobile operating giant | obama | | | | white house oval office terrorism sunday night | | | | | December 2015 | minecraftedu web browser | | | | word flow keyboard cellular data ces | mosque baltimore | | | | solitary confinement religious freedom juveniles | | | | | January 2016 | swiftkey xamarin underwater keyboards mid-range | mosque | | | muslim-americans | | | | | supreme court justice antonin scalia national prayer breakfast ray charles | | | | | February 2016 | networking xamarin uwp | | | | hololens augmented reality gdc | nancy reagan state dinner | | | | nuclear security summit state visit tango | | | | | March 2016 | word flow keyboard regulatory complaints dna financial results female employees | nuclear weapons | | | nuclear security summit | | | | | university of chicago law school roberta hanover germany | | | | | April 2016 | solair iot sap xiaomi | | | | sharepoint | white house correspondents dinner rutgers university howard university commencement address commencement speech | | | | May 2016 | xiaomi | | | | social network kind financial cannabis 26.2 | muhammad ali respects victims orlando nightclub | | | | June 2016 | worldwide partner yusuf mehdi project scorpio combine all-in-one | warsaw praising | | | presumptive | | | | | presumptive democratic presidential nominee hillary clinton forceful | | | | | July 2016 | Table 8: Full DynaMiTE topic evolution output on the Newspop dataset. | | | | Dataset | Category Name | Largest Shift | Term Causing Shift | | natural language processing | 2021 to 2022 | gpt-3 | | | Arxiv | computer vision | 2012 to 2013 | visual object tracking | | neural networks | 2013 to 2014 | auto-encoder | | | UN | disaster | 1986 - 1989 to 1990 - 1993 | chernobyl | | leader | 1990 - 1993 to 1994 - 1997 | npfl | | | Newspop | technology | January 2016 to February 2016 | underwater | | politics | December 2015 to January 2016 | solitary confinement | | | Table 9: Category shift analysis (§6.4) on all seeds and datasets used in the experiments. | | | | ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Section 8 ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Section 8 ✓ 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 5.1 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 5.1 ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Appendix B.1 ✓ 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 B.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? Appendix B.1 ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Section 5.1 and Appendix B.1 ✓ 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.1 ## 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 6.3 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.3 and B.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? Appendix B.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.)? Appendix B.1 D ✓ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Section 5.4 ✓ 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.? Section 5.4 and Appendix B.6 ✓ 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 5.4 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? Not applicable. We did not obtain any personal data from annotators. All participants volunteered to complete the experiments and knew that their results would be used for model evaluation D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Not applicable. There was no data collection protocol in the paper ✓ D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Section 5.4

yu-etal-2023-boost

Boost Transformer-based Language Models with {GPU}-Friendly Sparsity and Quantization

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.15

Along with the performance improvement in NLP domain, the sizes of transformer-based language models (TLM) are also dramatically increased. Some prior works intend to compress TLM models into more compact forms, but do not fully consider the hardware characters may not support the efficient execution for these forms, leading to the deployment of TLM on hardware with noticeable acceleration is still challenging. This paper thoroughly designs a compression scheme named GPUSQ-TLM to maximally utilize the GPU-friendly 2:4 fine-grained structured sparsity and quantization characters. Especially, a dense TLM model is first pruned to meet the GPU{'}s acceleration constraint of sparse patterns with FP16 type, then it is further quantized into a fixed-point one by quantization-aware training, to provide an extra speedup for integer tensors on GPU. A mixed-strategy knowledge distillation of labels, logits and feature maps is used for best accuracy compensation during pruning and quantization process. Experiment results show GPUSQ-TLM scheme achieves state-of-the-art compression on TLM model of various encoder and decoder blocks with negligible accuracy degradation on SQuAD, GLUE, CNN-DM {\&} XSum and WikiText benchmarking tasks. Moreover, GPUSQ-TLM can boost actual deployment performance by up to 4.08-4.25x latency and 6.18-6.79x throughput on A100 GPU.

## Boost Transformer-Based Language Models With Gpu-Friendly Sparsity And Quantization Chong Yu1, Tao Chen2,∗**, Zhongxue Gan**1,∗ 1Academy for Engineering and Technology, Fudan University 2School for Information Science and Technology, Fudan University 21110860050@m.fudan.edu.cn, {eetchen, ganzhongxue}@fudan.edu.cn ## Abstract Along with the performance improvement in NLP domain, the sizes of transformer-based language models (TLM) are also dramatically increased. Some prior works intend to compress TLM models into more compact forms, but do not fully consider the hardware characters may not support the efficient execution for these forms, leading to the deployment of TLM on hardware with noticeable acceleration is still challenging. This paper thoroughly designs a compression scheme named **GPUSQ-TLM** to maximally utilize the *GPU-friendly 2:4 finegrained structured sparsity and quantization* characters. Especially, a dense TLM model is first pruned to meet the GPU's acceleration constraint of sparse patterns with FP16 type, then it is further quantized into a fixed-point one by quantization-aware training, to provide an extra speedup for integer tensors on GPU. A mixedstrategy knowledge distillation of labels, logits and feature maps is used for best accuracy compensation during pruning and quantization process. Experiment results show **GPUSQ-TLM** scheme achieves state-of-the-art compression on TLM model of various encoder and decoder blocks with negligible accuracy degradation on SQuAD, GLUE, CNN-DM & XSum and WikiText benchmarking tasks. Moreover, GPUSQ-TLM can boost actual deployment performance by up to **4.08-4.25**× times latency and **6.18-6.79**× throughput on A100 GPU. ## 1 Introduction Equipped with the attention mechanism and architecture (Vaswani et al., 2017), the transformerbased language models (TLM) are proficient in handling long-range dependencies of the sequence inputs. The subsequent studies showed that transformer-based pre-trained language models (Devlin et al., 2019; Radford et al., 2018) could achieve state-of-the-art performances on various natural language processing (NLP) (Wolf ∗ Tao Chen and Zhongxue Gan are corresponding authors. et al., 2019) benchmarks, including question answering (Rajpurkar et al., 2016), paraphrase detection (Dolan and Brockett, 2005), sentiment analysis (Socher et al., 2013), natural language inference (Bowman et al., 2015), and text classification (Howard and Ruder, 2018), etc. Meanwhile, the transformer-based structure also expanded its success to other disciplines like computer vision (Carion et al., 2020; Dosovitskiy et al., 2020), music (Huang et al., 2018), chemistry (Schwaller et al., 2019), life sciences (Rives et al., 2021), and pharmaceutics (Yang et al., 2021).  Along with the performance improvement, transformer-based language models' scales are also dramatically increased. BERT model (Devlin et al., 2019) sets the milestone for pre-trained language models with transformer encoder as its backbone. It has 340 million parameters for the large version. Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT) series are dedicated to scaling pre-trained transformer decoder architecture and proved that a large-scale pretrained language model could achieve impressive few-shot performance with diverse downstream tasks. The parameters scale increases from 110 million of GPT-1 (Radford et al., 2018) to 1.5 billion of GPT-2 (Radford et al., 2019) and finally boosts to 175 billion of GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020). Megatron-LM model (Narayanan et al., 2021) is with 1 trillion parameters trained on 3072 GPUs. Switch Transformers (Fedus et al., 2022) further increase the scale of pre-trained language models to 1.6 trillion parameters with a Mixture of Experts (MoE) style. A detailed comparison of state-of-theart transformer-based models can refer to Figure 1. Model compression techniques by transferring the large-scale TLM models to a lightweight version can benefit more efficient computation with less memory and energy consumption. There are some previous studies to compress the TLM models to compact forms. However, there are some main drawbacks in these prior arts: - Prior arts aim to reduce the theoretical model size, which is not directly leading to better efficiency on deployed hardware. (Chen et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2021; Kurtic et al., 2022) can prune 50%-97% of BERT weights. However the left weights have irregular sparse pattern do not match hardware supported acceleration characteristics, leading to only 2%-8% latency speedup on GPU hardware. - How to keep the best accuracy with multiple compression methods and generalize on various TLMs lack systematical investigation. (Sanh et al., 2019; Sun et al., 2019; Jiao et al., 2020) compress by pruning several entire transformer blocks in BERT models, leading to apparent accuracy drop. (Frantar and Alistarh, 2023) can prune 50% weights for GPT models. But the accuracy drop is even larger. Moreover, these compression methods are specifically designed according to each model structure. So they cannot directly apply to other model types. Because the **2:4 fine-grained structured sparse** pattern (See section 3.1 for more details) is well supported on NVIDIA GPUs and corresponding libraries for math acceleration and memory saving, so we are motivated to **design the compression strategy for TLM models to meet such sparse** pattern. Moreover, the 2:4 sparse GEMM supports low-precision formats like INT8. So it is natural to design the compression scheme **GPUSQTLM**, by combining the GPU-friendly Sparsity and Quantization to boost deployment efficacy for Transformer-based Language models, especially on GPU platforms. **GPUSQ-TLM** method consists of three stages. First, an original TLM model is pruned to meet the GPU's acceleration constraint of structured sparse patterns with FP16 type. Then the floating-point sparse model is quantized into a fixed-point one by quantization-aware training (QAT), which can provide an extra speedup for GPU integer tensors. Finally, a mixed strategy knowledge distillation of labels, logits and feature maps is developed for best accuracy compensation during the above pruning and quantization process. Our main contributions include: - Unlike prior arts aiming at reducing theoretical metrics, **GPUSQ-TLM** utilizes GPUfriendly 2:4 sparsity with low-precision quantization, achieving better GPU acceleration. - **GPUSQ-TLM** combines mixed knowledge distillation with sparse pruning and quantization-aware training, which can best compensate for compressed models' accuracy. - **GPUSQ-TLM** can apply to various TLM structures and tasks, boosting up to **4.08-** 4.25× times latency and **6.18-6.79**× throughput on A100 GPU. - **GPUSQ-TLM** can work as plug-in to further accelerate compressed models generated by other methods (See section 4.5 for details). ## 2 Related Work 2.1 Pruning For Tlm Compression Sparsity is a standard technology (Han et al., 2015) for deep learning model compression, which can save computational power and reduce the memory bandwidth with storage burden. Pruning the elements with less influence on the model's output is a common way to compress a neural model into a sparse form. (Xu et al., 2021) and (Chen et al., 2020) are the typical works to prune 50%-95% of model weights and finetune to recover most of the accuracy. (Kurtic et al., 2022) further improves the pruning effect with second-order Hessian approximation. However, the pruned sparse format is irregular and difficult to accelerate with algebra libraries and hardware (Mishra et al., 2021). Some studies have started to prune the entire transformer blocks to improve the real hardware deployment efficiency. For accuracy compensation, knowledge distillation (KD) (Hinton et al., 2015) technology is applied with the principle of using a teacher model with better accuracy as the supervisor for the compressed model to mimic. With KD, (Sanh et al., 2019; Sun et al., 2019; Jiao et al., 2020; Sun et al., 2020) succeed in compressing the BERT model with various tiny versions. We prove the proposed **GPUSQ-TLM** method in section 4.5 can help such coarse-grained pruning methods to compress inside each transformer block with further acceleration on GPU. ## 2.2 Quantization For Tlm Compression Quantization is another orthogonal model compression technique (Wu et al., 2020) by applying lowerprecision formats other than the standard 32-bit floating-point (FP32) data type for weight parameters, inputs, and activations when executing a neural model. Quantization can speed up deployment efficiency because the low-precision formats have higher computational throughput support in several processors (NVIDIA, 2020; Jouppi et al., 2017; Arafa et al., 2019), with the extra benefit of reducing the memory pressure. (Shen et al., 2020) quantizes BERT models to ultra-low precision using second-order Hessian information. But ultra-low precision like 3-bit is not supported on hardware. To facilitate the deployment, (Kim et al., 2021) makes an integer-only approximation for all operations in BERT to avoid floating point calculation. But it also increases the difficulty of maintaining accuracy. Our method combines distillation strategies in calibration and uses quantization-aware training (QAT) for improving accuracy compensation effect. ## 3 Boost Tlm On Gpu GPUSQ-TLM mainly contains **structured sparse** pruning and **sparse-distillation-combined QAT** workflows. We explain the structured sparse pattern on GPU in section 3.1 and **Appendix** A.1, and how to compress each part of a transformer-based language model according to the GPU-friendly sparse pattern in sections 3.2 and 3.3. Section 3.4 describes the **GPUSQ-TLM** design as a whole. ## 3.1 **Fine-Grained Structured Sparsity On Gpu** General Matrix Multiplication (GEMM) is the fundamental operation inside the common parts of TLM models, such as convolution, linear projection, and multi-head attention blocks. A specific unit called sparse Tensor Core (NVIDIA, 2017a) was introduced in NVIDIA Ampere architecture (NVIDIA, 2020) for hardware acceleration. Accordingly, a constraint named **2:4 fine-grained** structured sparsity (Mishra et al., 2021) is imposed on the allowed sparsity pattern, i.e., two values from every four contiguous elements on rows must be zero. Due to the 2:4 sparsity support on GPU Tensor Core hardware, sparse GEMM can reduce memory storage and bandwidth by almost 2× and provide 2× math throughput compared to dense GEMM by skipping the redundant zero-value computation. NVIDIA Ampere GPU architecture supports various numeric precision for 2:4 sparsity, including FP32, FP16, INT8, and INT4, etc. More details on structured sparsity can refer to **Appendix** A.1. ## 3.2 Apply 2:4 Sparsity In Transformer Block The transformer block (Vaswani et al., 2017) is the fundamental building structure in various TLM models. The majority of the weight parameters and the execution time are taken in stacked transformer blocks. For example, about 90.2% of the weight parameters and 99.3% of the inference time are from the transformer blocks in BERT-large model, and about 77.7% of the weight parameters and 97.5% of the inference time are from the transformer blocks in BERT-base model (Devlin et al., 2019). For the GPT-3-6.7B and GPT-3-175B models (Brown et al., 2020), about 96.8% & 99.6% of the weight parameters and 97.3% & 99.7% of the inference time are from the transformer blocks. So in this subsection, we focus on how to apply the *2:4 fine-grained* structured sparsity in the transformer block. Transformer blocks used in TLM models are directly borrowed from or made tiny changes on the standard transformer block introduced in the naive attention mechanism (Vaswani et al., 2017). Usually, the TLM models can be divided into three main categories, i.e., only use the encoder transformer blocks (Devlin et al., 2019), only use the decoder transformer blocks (Brown et al., 2020), and use both the encoder and decoder transformer blocks (Lewis et al., 2020). The essential components, like feed forward, residual add, and layer norm, are almost identical in an encoder and a decoder transformer block. The main difference is an encoder transformer block usually uses a multi-head self-attention; in contrast, a decoder transformer block usually uses a masked multihead self-attention and a multi-head cross-attention. However, the basic GEMM operations inside the multi-head self-attention, masked multi-head selfattention, and multi-head cross-attention are almost identical. Without losing the generalization of the proposed method, we illustrate the utilization of 2:4 sparsity with a language model with standard  encoder transformer blocks. *2:4 fine-grained structured sparsity* mainly targets accelerating GEMM operations. So the Q, K, and V projection layers, the linear projection layer in the multi-head attention module, and the linear projection layers in the feed-forward module are the proper targets to apply, as shown in the zoomed-in parts (marked with green blocks) in Figure 2. The input of a TLM is often a input tensor with shape R B×L, where B is the batch size, L is the sequence length. The input tensor will firstly pass through an input embedding layer that converts each one-hot token representation into a d dimensional embedding vector, where d is the embedding size. The output tensor of input embedding layer with shape R B×L×dadditively composed with the output of position embedding layer to generate the input tensor X of N series of transformer blocks. The input tensor X transfers to query Q, key K and value V with separate linear projection layers in a multi-head self-attention module with head number as H. For each head with head index h: Qh = XWqh , Kh = XWkh , Vh = XWvh , (1) where Wqh , Wkh , Wvh ∈ R d× dH are the weight parameters of query, key and value linear projection layers in head h. Then the query, key and value tensors in each head go into a scaled dot-product attention to get the attention output tensor Ah: $$\mathbf{A}_{h}=s o f t m a x\left({\frac{\mathbf{Q}_{h}\mathbf{K}_{h}^{T}}{\sqrt{d}}}\right)\mathbf{V}_{h},\qquad(2)$$ $\alpha$t. where the softmax is a row-wise operation, and the dot-product of query and key is divided by √d as a form of normalization to alleviate gradient vanishing problem of the softmax function. The outputs of all heads A1, · · · , AH are concatenated together and go through an output linear projection layer with weight tensor Wo. So the final output tensor MHA of a multi-head self-attention module can be calculated as follows: MHA = Concat(A1, *· · ·* , AH)Wo(3) MHA tensor will add the input tensor X in a residual way, and go through the layer-normalization layer to get the output tensor Y, followed by a fully connected feed-forward layer with weight tensor Wf f as well as another residual add and layernormalization pair to get the final output tensor Z for one transformer block, i.e., Y = *LayerNorm* (MHA + X) $$\mathbf{ImA}+\mathbf{A})$$ $\psi=\sqrt{1+\psi}$ $$\mathbf{Z}=L a y e r N o r m\left(\mathbf{Y}\mathbf{W}^{f f}+\mathbf{Y}\right)$$ (4) The output of the last transformer block will go through the final linear projection layer with weight tensor Wf p to get the output tensor for the entire language model. So the overall size of trainable parameters1in a dense transformer-based language model is S D T LM = 16 × N -H Wqh + Wkh + Wvh + Wo + Wf f + 16 × Wf p bits. If we applying the 2:4 structured sparsity as shown in Figure 2 with FP16 format, the overall size of trainable parameters can be reduced to 0.5625 × S D T LM . In Figure 2, we also insert the *quantization* simulation and *de-quantization simulation* operation pairs before and after the 2:4 sparse target layers. With these operation pairs, we can transfer the sparse target layers as INT format during the quantization-aware training. And the final 2:4 sparse INT8 model can further reduce the overall size of trainable parameters to 0.3125 × S D T LM . ## 3.3 Apply Sparsity In Multi-Head Attention Based on the analysis of the scaled dot-product attention in equation 2, Qh, kh, Vh are output activation tensors from the query, key and value linear projection layers in head h, so it does not have any trainable parameters. However, its computational cost is non-zero due to the softmax and the two dot-product operations, i.e., Qh with K T h and the output of softmax with Vh. The row-wise softmax has a specific effect of normalizing each row of the softmax output tensor as only several elements have large magnitudes. In contrast, the other majority have very close-tozero magnitudes. Inspired by this phenomenon, we can apply row-wise sparsity to the output of softmax to help further improve the efficiency of the scaled dot-product attention. Inspired by the 2:4 sparse pattern in sparse Tensor Core, we explore the general N:M structured sparsity, i.e., N values from every M contiguous elements in a row must be zero2. The sparse Tensor Core has the hardware components to accelerate the compression and decompression, while the general N:M sparsity implements the compression and decompression with software. So 2:4 sparsity is more efficient than general N:M sparsity implementation with N = 2 and M = 4. However, if N ≪ M, i.e., NM < 0.5, the general N:M sparsity can compress the tensor as a more compact form, which helps to save more memory traffic and load-store cost. As the output of softmax usually has a higher sparse ratio than 0.5, it is more suitable to apply the N:M sparsity. Then the scaled dot-product attention for getting the attention output tensor Ah with N:M sparsity enabled can be expressed as follows: $$(4)$$ $$\mathbf{A}_{h}=s p_{N:M}\left[s o f t m a x\left({\frac{\mathbf{Q}_{h}\mathbf{K}_{h}^{T}}{\sqrt{d}}}\right)\right]\mathbf{V}_{h},\quad(5)$$ ## 3.4 Overall Gpusq-Tlm Compression Our method utilizes the GPU-friendly structured Sparsity and Quantization characters to compress the Transformer-based Language Model, so we name the compression scheme **GPUSQ-TLM**. GPUSQ-TLM mainly contains **structured sparse** pruning and **sparse-distillation-combined QAT** workflows, as shown in Figure 3. Featured-based and logits distillations are applied in each workflow as auxiliary accuracy compensation. Structured Sparse Pruning aims to compress the dense floating-point model MDF as the sparse floating-point model MSF . Based on the discussion in subsections 3.2 and 3.3, we can compress GEMM-intensive parts of a transformer-based language model according to the GPU-friendly 2:4 fine-grained structured sparse pattern, and further compress the dot-production in multi-head attention modules with N:M sparsity. To best compen2M is a power of 2, and M <= 256, N < M  sate for the accuracy of MSF , we apply knowledge distillation (KD) (Hinton et al., 2015), which can effectively transfer the predicted hard label of the one-hot representation or soft logits of probabilities over several classes from a teacher model with appealing performance to a student model. If the student model wants more supervision, feature-based KD is applied to mimic the teacher model's feature maps. Because we compress the feature maps with N:M sparsity in the multi-head attention, in structured sparse pruning workflow, three KD strategies are jointly used. Denoting distillation losses for the hard label, soft logits and feature maps are L p hard, L p sof t, L p feature, respectively, and their weight factors are: α, β, γ, then the overall sparse pruning loss Lp is calculated as follows: Lp = α ∗ L p hard + β ∗ L p sof t + γ ∗ L p feature (6) Structured sparse pruning workflow minimizes the Lp loss w.r.t weight parameters of MSF model. Sparse-distillation-combined QAT aims to further compress the sparse floating-point model MSF as the sparse quantized model MSQ on data format, i.e., quantize from the floating-point formats to INT8. We mainly discuss the quantizationaware training (QAT) strategy for the following reasons. *From the performance perspective*, QAT can achieve the same deployment efficiency with the toolkit (NVIDIA, 2022). *From the accuracy* perspective, QAT learns the scale factor adjustment during training, so the learned scale factor leads to less quantization noise and a better accuracy compensation effect. Moreover, compression by GPU-friendly structured sparsity needs the premise (Mishra et al., 2021) to access the training set and undergo a fine-tuning process. So we can fully utilize the training set and fine-tuning process to calibrate the quantization scale factor and boost the accuracy of quantized sparse model. We borrow the KD idea and jointly learn to calibrate the quantization scale factor from the teacher model's hard label prediction, soft logits, and feature maps from critical layers. Unlike the sparse pruning workflow in which MDF model serves as the teacher and MSF model serves as the student, in the QAT process, MSF model serves as the teacher, and MSQ model serves as the student.3 3Using the dense floating-point model serves as the teacher in the QAT process is not recommended, even though it usually has better accuracy than the sparse floating-point model. Because based on the previous study (Mirzadeh et al., 2020; Yu, 2021), the distillation effectiveness will drop if the teacher and student models have a noticeable gap in scale or data format. Denoting calibration losses for the hard label, soft logits and feature maps are L c hard, L c sof t, L c feature, respectively, and their weight factors are still: *α, β, γ*, then the overall quantization calibration loss Lc is calculated as follows: Lc = α ∗ L c hard + β ∗ L c sof t + γ ∗ L c feature (7) Sparse-distillation-combined QAT minimizes the Lc loss w.r.t weight parameters of MSQ model. The details about each loss item in **GPUSQ-TLM** are provided in Algorithm 1 in **Appendix** A.2. ## 4 Experiments For the experiments in this paper, we choose PyTorch (Paszke et al., 2017) with version 1.12.0 as the framework to implement all algorithms. The results of the dense model training, sparse and QAT compression experiments, and the acceleration performance are obtained with A100 (NVIDIA, 2020) GPU clusters. All the reference algorithms use the default data type provided in public repositories. ## 4.1 Compression Efficacy For Encoder-Only Transformer-Based Language Model To evaluate the compression efficacy of **GPUSQTLM** and make the comparison with prior arts on the TLM only use the encoder transformer blocks, BERT-large and BERT-base (Devlin et al., 2019) 4 are chosen as the target models. For the prior compression arts, we choose DistilBERT (Sanh et al., 2019), TinyBERT (Jiao et al., 2020), PKDBERT (Sun et al., 2019), MobileBERT (Sun et al., 2020), BERT-of-Theseus (Xu et al., 2020), SparseBERT (Xu et al., 2021), BERT-Tickets (Chen et al., 2020) and BERT-Surgeon (Kurtic et al., 2022) as the reference sparse pruning methods, and we choose Q-BERT (Shen et al., 2020) and I-BERT (Kim et al., 2021) as the reference quantization methods. For **GPUSQ-TLM**, the loss adjustment factors for hard label, soft logits and featurebased losses apply α = 1, β = 10, and γ = 1. The comparison results are shown in Table 1. All models are evaluated on Stanford Question Answering Dataset (SQuAD) for question answering with Exact Match (EM) and F1 metrics, and General Language Understanding Evaluation (GLUE) (Wang et al., 2018) benchmark, which consists of single-sentence tasks, i.e., CoLA (Warstadt et al., 2019) and SST-2 (Socher et al., 2013), sentence similarity tasks, i.e., MRPC (Dolan 4https://github.com/NVIDIA/DeepLearningExamples/tree/ master/PyTorch/LanguageModeling/BERT and Brockett, 2005), STS-B (Cer et al., 2017), QQP, and natural language inference tasks, i.e., MNLI (Williams et al., 2018), QNLI (Rajpurkar et al., 2016) and RTE (Bentivogli et al., 2009) with corresponding accuracy metrics. We can apply **GPUSQ-TLM** to compress the model as sparse *GEMM* and sparse *GEMM-MHA*5 versions. For both versions, the accuracy on SQuAD and GLUE benchmarks is almost equal to or even better than the naive BERT-base and BERTlarge and better than other models compressed with prior arts. Moreover, **GPUSQ-TLM** compression can significantly boost the deployment efficiency on A100 GPU with the toolkit (NVIDIA, 2022) support of structured sparsity and quantization, i.e., 4.08-4.25× and **6.18-6.79**× improvement of latency and throughput, apparently better than the other models compressed with prior arts. ## 4.2 Compression Efficacy For Decoder-Only Transformer-Based Language Model To evaluate the compression efficacy of **GPUSQTLM** and prior arts on the TLM only use the decoder transformer blocks, OPT (Zhang et al., 2022) 6and GPT (Brown et al., 2020) 7are chosen as the target models. For the prior arts, we choose SparseGPT (Frantar and Alistarh, 2023) as the sparse pruning reference method, and we choose ZeroQuant (Yao et al., 2022) and LLM.int8 (Dettmers et al., 2022) as the quantization reference methods. For **GPUSQ-TLM**, the loss factors for hard label, soft logits and featurebased losses apply α = 1, β = 10, and γ = 1). We evaluate perplexity (ppl) for all the models on WikiText-103 (Merity et al., 2016) test dataset. The comparison results are shown in Table 2. For both **GPUSQ-TLM***GEMM* and **GPUSQTLM**GEMM−MHA compressed models, the perplexity on WikiText-103 benchmarks is equal to or with small drop than the naive OPT and GPT models and better than other models compressed with prior arts. Moreover, **GPUSQ-TLM** can significantly boost the deployment efficiency on A100 GPU, i.e., **2.46-2.48**× and **3.24-3.29**× improvement of latency and throughput, apparently better than the other models compressed with prior arts. Model Name with Compression Methods SQuAD 1.1 GLUE **Speedup** EM (%) F1 (%) CoLA SST-2 MRPC STS-B QQP MNLI-(m/mm) QNLI RTE **BS=1 BS=32** BERT-base 80.8 88.5 52.1 93.5 88.9 85.8 71.2 84.6/83.4 90.5 66.4 1x 1x GPUSQ-TLM*GEMM* 82.1 89.3 **52.2 95.3 89.1 86.4 72.4 85.5/84.5 92.1** 66.9 3.73x 4.92x GPUSQ-TLMGEMM−MHA 81.9 88.9 51.8 93.2 88.5 85.4 70.9 84.1/83.2 90.2 66.1 **4.08x 6.18x** DistilBERT 79.1 86.9 51.3 91.3 87.5 83.6 69.6 81.6/81.3 88.8 59.9 1.75x 1.93x TinyBERT 79.2 86.8 51.1 93.1 87.3 83.7 71.6 84.6/83.2 90.4 66.1 1.75x 1.93x PKD-BERT 79.5 87.1 51.3 92.0 85.0 85.2 70.7 81.5/81.0 89.0 65.5 1.75x 1.94x BERT-of-Theseus 79.6 87.2 47.8 92.2 87.6 84.1 71.6 82.4/82.1 89.6 66.2 1.73x 1.90x SparseBERT 78.2 85.6 48.2 90.4 88.5 82.9 68.9 81.8/80.6 87.4 66.0 1.08x 1.21x BERT-Tickets 80.1 87.7 51.3 91.9 88.5 85.4 70.8 84.3/83.2 88.9 66.0 1.02x 1.07x BERT-Surgeon 80.7 88.5 51.4 92.2 87.9 83.7 71.1 83.4/82.5 89.2 65.5 1.05x 1.15x Q-BERT 80.3 88.3 51.7 92.9 88.4 85.4 70.8 83.9/82.8 90.0 65.9 3.01x 3.38x I-BERT 80.5 88.2 52.0 94.1 89.0 85.3 70.8 84.2/83.3 90.3 **67.7** 3.01x 3.38x BERT-large 84.1 90.9 60.5 94.9 89.3 86.5 72.1 86.7/85.9 92.7 70.1 1x 1x GPUSQ-TLM*GEMM* 85.6 91.9 **60.9 95.5 89.9 87.1 72.6 87.3/86.5 93.3 70.6** 3.85x 5.33x GPUSQ-TLMGEMM−MHA **85.8 92.1** 60.7 95.1 89.5 86.5 72.1 86.9/86.1 92.9 70.2 **4.25x 6.79x** BERT-Surgeon 84.2 90.7 59.9 93.9 88.4 85.6 71.4 85.8/85.0 91.7 69.4 1.06x 1.16x I-BERT 83.9 90.6 60.4 94.9 89.4 86.2 72.0 86.5/85.6 92.5 70.0 3.09x 3.61x Models**WikiText-103 (ppl. Lower the ppl num means better)** Baseline *GPUSQ GPUSQ* SparseGPT ZeroQuant LLM.int8 **-TLM**GEMM **-TLM**GEMM−MHA OPT-125M 15.09 **15.17** 15.25 20.13 15.40 15.21 **OPT-1.3B** 12.76 **12.81** 12.85 15.22 13.19 12.87 **OPT-2.7B** 11.03 **11.07** 11.15 11.90 11.25 11.13 **OPT-6.7B** 10.31 **10.32** 10.35 10.97 10.52 10.36 **OPT-13B** 9.75 **9.74** 9.80 10.71 9.95 9.79 **GPT3-125M** 19.01 **19.15** 19.26 25.35 19.35 19.25 **GPT3-1.3B** 10.19 **10.28** 10.37 12.15 10.56 10.40 **GPT-2.7B** 9.41 **9.48** 9.55 10.49 9.93 9.60 **GPT3-6.7B** 8.51 **8.56** 8.62 9.06 8.68 8.57 **GPT-13B** 8.02 **8.04** 8.12 8.80 8.18 8.08 Speedup OPT-13B, BS=1 1x 2.12x **2.46x** 1.07x 1.66x 1.66x **OPT-13B, BS=1K** 1x 3.07x **3.24x** 1.25x 1.83x 1.83x **GPT-13B, BS=1** 1x 2.12x **2.48x** 1.07x 1.68x 1.68x **GPT-13B, BS=1k** 1x 3.11x **3.29x** 1.27x 1.85x 1.85x ## 4.3 Compression Efficacy For Language Model With Encoder And Decoder To evaluate the compression efficacy of **GPUSQTLM** on the TLM uses both of encoder and decoder transformer blocks, BART (Lewis et al., 2020) 8is chosen as the target model. We evaluate rogue scores on the CNN-DM (Nallapati et al., 2016) and XSum (Narayan et al., 2018) datasets. The results are shown in Table 3. ## 4.4 Different N:M Sparse Ratio For Mha We use the BERT-base an BERT-large as examples to make an ablation study for different compression 8https://github.com/NVIDIA/DeepLearningExamples/tree/ master/PyTorch/LanguageModeling/BART Table 3: Compression efficacy of **GPUSQ-TLM** on encoder-decoder TLM models. The speedup is measured for XSum test set on the A100 GPU with source length 1024, target length 60 and beam search 6. ratios of the multi-head attention (MHA) module. Comparison results are shown in Figure 4. From Figure 4, we can find the relative accuracy gap between the compressed and dense models enlarges with the increased sparse ratio, i.e., 50% (2:4) is the best, followed by 25% (2:8 & 1:4), and 12.5% (2:16 & 1:8). Moreover, with the same sparse ratio, larger N and M leads to smaller accuracy drop, e.g., with the same 25% sparse ratio, the model with 2:8 sparsity in multi-head attention has better accuracy than 1:4, though both sparse patterns are able to match the dense model's baseline with the proposed distillation. Another finding is distillation is very helpful for the accuracy maintenance. Without distillation, just applying the sparsity and quantization during the pure finetune stage or both pretrain and finetune stages will lead to the accuracy drop from the dense model. However, with distillation, even if we apply 2:4 sparsity on GEMMs and N:M sparsity on multihead attentions, the accuracy can be recovered and even slightly better than the dense models. | Models | CNN-DM | XSum | Speedup | | |--------------------------|----------------|--------|-----------|-------| | rogueLSum | rogueLSum BS=1 | BS=32 | | | | BART | 40.99 | 36.61 | 1x | 1x | | GPUSQ-TLM_GEMM | 41.14 | 36.73 | 1.55x | 1.72x | | GPUSQ-TLM_GEMM_MHA 40.98 | 36.56 | 1.79x | 2.06x | |  ## 4.5 Plug-In Compression Efficacy Some prior arts (Sanh et al., 2019; Jiao et al., 2020; Sun et al., 2019) mainly prune the entire transformer blocks for TLM without considering the operations inside each block. So for these coarsegrained compressed models, **GPUSQ-TLM** can help to compress the weights of layers inside each transformer block into the GPU-friendly sparse pattern and low precision format. The results are shown in Table 4. We can find **GPUSQ-TLM** method can further accelerate these coarse-grained compressed BERT models on GPU without losing accuracy from their coarse-grained forms. ## 5 Conclusion GPUSQ-TLM is a comprehensive scheme to keep the accuracy to the best with multiple compression strategies. The compressed model satisfies the GPU-friendly structured sparsity and quantiza- | Models with Compression Methods | SQuAD 1.1 | GLUE | Speedup | | | | |-----------------------------------|--------------|-----------|-----------|------|-------|-------| | EM (%) | F1 (%) SST-2 | MRPC BS=1 | BS=32 | | | | | BERT-base | 80.8 | 88.5 | 93.5 | 88.9 | 1x | 1x | | DistilBERT | 79.1 | 86.9 | 91.3 | 87.5 | 1.75x | 1.93x | | DistilBERTGP USQ | 80.1 | 87.4 | 91.5 | 87.7 | 6.13x | 8.34x | | TinyBERT | 79.2 | 86.8 | 93.1 | 87.3 | 1.75x | 1.93x | | TinyBERTGP USQ | 80.1 | 87.3 | 93.3 | 87.5 | 6.13x | 8.34x | | PKD-BERT | 79.5 | 87.1 | 92.0 | 85.0 | 1.75x | 1.94x | | PKD-BERTGP USQ | 80.5 | 87.6 | 92.2 | 85.2 | 6.13x | 8.34x | tion characters. With the acceleration of GEMMs and MHA modules, **GPUSQ-TLM** can boost deployment efficiency for TLM models with various encoder and decoder structures on GPU with negligible accuracy degradation on benchmarking tasks. ## Limitations We should point out that the **GPUSQ-TLM** compression scheme is highly related to the NVIDIA GPU's features to support GPU-friendly 2:4 finegrained structured sparsity with various data formats. So if the **GPUSQ-TLM** compressed models are deployed on the different GPU types without such support, the deployment efficiency may not be as high as expected. For example, the last-generation V100 (NVIDIA, 2017b) and T4 (NVIDIA, 2018) GPUs have no support for structured sparsity, so the deployment efficiency is lower than A100 (NVIDIA, 2020) GPU. We should also point out NVIDIA AGX Orin chip also support GPU-friendly 2:4 fine-grained structured sparsity as A100 GPU and mainly support edge device use scenarios like autonomous driving. So, in theory, we can also deploy the transformer-based language models on the AGX Orin chip. However, the large language models need to consume large on-chip memory, so they usually cannot be held by a single AGX Orin chip. For A100 to represent the server use scenarios, we can use multiple A100 GPUs for parallel execution, but for AGX Orin, we usually only have one chip for the deployment device. That's why we do not test the **GPUSQ-TLM** compressed model on the AGX Orin chip. ## Ethics Statement GPUSQ-TLM compression scheme is proven effective for various transformer-based language models with encoder and decoder structures. It will have a broad impact to encourage the study to model compression and deployment improvement in the NLP community. We should also point out that the **GPUSQ-TLM** compression scheme uses knowledge distillation. So **GPUSQ-TLM** needs more on-chip memory consumption during the compression process because we need a teacher model for distillation. For compressing a huge transformer-based language model, we may need more GPUs to work in parallel to hold both the teacher model and the target model. So **GPUSQ-TLM** may cost more power consumption during the compression process, which is not environment-friendly. But the compressed models are more efficient than the original dense model, leading to less power consumption during the inference process. Moreover, the time and resources spent in model deployment will far outweigh the resources spent in training over the model's life. This point turns the time and resource increase from a simple trade-off between training and inference to a net positive, as overall resource consumption is ## Acknowledgements This work is supported by Shanghai Natural Science Foundation (No. 23ZR1402900), Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Major Project (No.2021SHZDZX0103), and Zhejiang Lab Project (No. 2021KH0AB05). ## References Mohamed Arafa, Bahaa Fahim, Sailesh Kottapalli, Akhilesh Kumar, Lily P Looi, Sreenivas Mandava, Andy Rudoff, Ian M Steiner, Bob Valentine, Geetha Vedaraman, et al. 2019. Cascade lake: Next generation intel xeon scalable processor. *IEEE Micro*, 39(2):29–36. Luisa Bentivogli, Peter Clark, Ido Dagan, and Danilo Giampiccolo. 2009. The fifth pascal recognizing textual entailment challenge. In TAC. Samuel Bowman, Gabor Angeli, Christopher Potts, and Christopher D Manning. 2015. A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 632– 642. 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. Nicolas Carion, Francisco Massa, Gabriel Synnaeve, Nicolas Usunier, Alexander Kirillov, and Sergey Zagoruyko. 2020. End-to-end object detection with transformers. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 213–229. Springer. Daniel Cer, Mona Diab, Eneko Agirre, Iñigo LopezGazpio, and Lucia Specia. 2017. SemEval-2017 task 1: Semantic textual similarity multilingual and crosslingual focused evaluation. In Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval-2017), pages 1–14, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tianlong Chen, Jonathan Frankle, Shiyu Chang, Sijia Liu, Yang Zhang, Zhangyang Wang, and Michael Carbin. 2020. The lottery ticket hypothesis for pretrained bert networks. *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, 33:15834–15846. Tim Dettmers, Mike Lewis, Younes Belkada, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2022. Llm. int8 (): 8-bit matrix multiplication for transformers at scale. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2208.07339. 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-HLT*, pages 4171– 4186. Bill Dolan and Chris Brockett. 2005. Automatically constructing a corpus of sentential paraphrases. In *Third International Workshop on Paraphrasing* (IWP2005). Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, et al. 2020. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. In International Conference on Learning Representations. William Fedus, Barret Zoph, and Noam Shazeer. 2022. Switch transformers: Scaling to trillion parameter models with simple and efficient sparsity. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 23(1):5232– 5270. Elias Frantar and Dan Alistarh. 2023. Massive language models can be accurately pruned in one-shot. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.00774. Song Han, Jeff Pool, John Tran, and William Dally. 2015. Learning both weights and connections for efficient neural network. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, pages 1135–1143. Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeff Dean. 2015. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:1503.02531. Jeremy Howard and Sebastian Ruder. 2018. Universal language model fine-tuning for text classification. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 328–339. Cheng-Zhi Anna Huang, Ashish Vaswani, Jakob Uszkoreit, Ian Simon, Curtis Hawthorne, Noam Shazeer, Andrew M Dai, Matthew D Hoffman, Monica Dinculescu, and Douglas Eck. 2018. Music transformer: Generating music with long-term structure. In *International Conference on Learning Representations*. Xiaoqi Jiao, Yichun Yin, Lifeng Shang, Xin Jiang, Xiao Chen, Linlin Li, Fang Wang, and Qun Liu. 2020. Tinybert: Distilling bert for natural language understanding. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020*, pages 4163–4174. Norman P Jouppi, Cliff Young, Nishant Patil, David Patterson, Gaurav Agrawal, Raminder Bajwa, Sarah Bates, Suresh Bhatia, Nan Boden, Al Borchers, et al. 2017. In-datacenter performance analysis of a tensor processing unit. In Proceedings of the 44th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture, pages 1–12. Sehoon Kim, Amir Gholami, Zhewei Yao, Michael W Mahoney, and Kurt Keutzer. 2021. I-bert: Integeronly bert quantization. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 5506–5518. PMLR. Eldar Kurtic, Daniel Campos, Tuan Nguyen, Elias Frantar, Mark Kurtz, Benjamin Fineran, Michael Goin, and Dan Alistarh. 2022. The optimal bert surgeon: Scalable and accurate second-order pruning for large language models. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.07259*. 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. Stephen Merity, Caiming Xiong, James Bradbury, and Richard Socher. 2016. Pointer sentinel mixture models. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.07843*. Seyed Iman Mirzadeh, Mehrdad Farajtabar, Ang Li, Nir Levine, Akihiro Matsukawa, and Hassan Ghasemzadeh. 2020. Improved knowledge distillation via teacher assistant. In *Proceedings of the AAAI* Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 5191–5198. Asit Mishra, Jorge Albericio Latorre, Jeff Pool, Darko Stosic, Dusan Stosic, Ganesh Venkatesh, Chong Yu, and Paulius Micikevicius. 2021. Accelerating sparse deep neural networks. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2104.08378. Ramesh Nallapati, Bowen Zhou, Cicero dos Santos, Çaglar Gulçehre, and Bing Xiang. 2016. ˘ Abstractive text summarization using sequence-to-sequence rnns and beyond. In Proceedings of The 20th SIGNLL Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 280–290. 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. Deepak Narayanan, Mohammad Shoeybi, Jared Casper, Patrick LeGresley, Mostofa Patwary, Vijay Korthikanti, Dmitri Vainbrand, Prethvi Kashinkunti, Julie Bernauer, Bryan Catanzaro, et al. 2021. Efficient large-scale language model training on gpu clusters using megatron-lm. In *Proceedings of the* International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, pages 1– 15. NVIDIA. 2017a. NVIDIA Tensor Core. NVIDIA. 2017b. NVIDIA Tesla V100 GPU. NVIDIA. 2018. NVIDIA T4 GPU Accelerator. NVIDIA. 2020. NVIDIA A100 Tensor Core GPU. NVIDIA. 2022. NVIDIA TensorRT. Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Soumith Chintala, Gregory Chanan, Edward Yang, Zachary DeVito, Zeming Lin, Alban Desmaison, Luca Antiga, and Adam Lerer. 2017. Automatic differentiation in pytorch. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing SystemsAutodiff Workshop*. Alec Radford, Karthik Narasimhan, Tim Salimans, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2018. Improving language understanding by generative pre-training. 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. 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. Alexander Rives, Joshua Meier, Tom Sercu, Siddharth Goyal, Zeming Lin, Jason Liu, Demi Guo, Myle Ott, C Lawrence Zitnick, Jerry Ma, et al. 2021. Biological structure and function emerge from scaling unsupervised learning to 250 million protein sequences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(15):e2016239118. Victor Sanh, Lysandre Debut, Julien Chaumond, and Thomas Wolf. 2019. Distilbert, a distilled version of bert: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.01108. Philippe Schwaller, Teodoro Laino, Théophile Gaudin, Peter Bolgar, Christopher A Hunter, Costas Bekas, and Alpha A Lee. 2019. Molecular transformer: a model for uncertainty-calibrated chemical reaction prediction. *ACS Central Science*, 5(9):1572–1583. Sheng Shen, Zhen Dong, Jiayu Ye, Linjian Ma, Zhewei Yao, Amir Gholami, Michael W Mahoney, and Kurt Keutzer. 2020. Q-bert: Hessian based ultra low precision quantization of bert. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 8815–8821. 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. Siqi Sun, Yu Cheng, Zhe Gan, and Jingjing Liu. 2019. Patient knowledge distillation for bert model compression. 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 4323–4332. Zhiqing Sun, Hongkun Yu, Xiaodan Song, Renjie Liu, Yiming Yang, and Denny Zhou. 2020. Mobilebert: a compact task-agnostic bert for resource-limited devices. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of* the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2158–2170. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, 30. 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 2018 EMNLP Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 353–355. Alex Warstadt, Amanpreet Singh, and Samuel R Bowman. 2019. Neural network acceptability judgments. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7:625–641. Adina Williams, Nikita Nangia, and Samuel Bowman. 2018. A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sentence understanding through inference. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1112–1122. Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, et al. 2019. Huggingface's transformers: State-ofthe-art natural language processing. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1910.03771. Hao Wu, Patrick Judd, Xiaojie Zhang, Mikhail Isaev, and Paulius Micikevicius. 2020. Integer quantization for deep learning inference: Principles and empirical evaluation. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.09602*. Canwen Xu, Wangchunshu Zhou, Tao Ge, Furu Wei, and Ming Zhou. 2020. Bert-of-theseus: Compressing bert by progressive module replacing. In *Proceedings* of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7859–7869. Dongkuan Xu, Ian En-Hsu Yen, Jinxi Zhao, and Zhibin Xiao. 2021. Rethinking network pruning–under the pre-train and fine-tune paradigm. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2376–2382. Lijuan Yang, Guanghui Yang, Zhitong Bing, Yuan Tian, Yuzhen Niu, Liang Huang, and Lei Yang. 2021. Transformer-based generative model accelerating the development of novel braf inhibitors. *ACS Omega*, 6(49):33864–33873. Zhewei Yao, Reza Yazdani Aminabadi, Minjia Zhang, Xiaoxia Wu, Conglong Li, and Yuxiong He. 2022. Zeroquant: Efficient and affordable post-training quantization for large-scale transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.01861. Chong Yu. 2021. Minimally invasive surgery for sparse neural networks in contrastive manner. In *Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition*, pages 3589–3598. Susan Zhang, Stephen Roller, Naman Goyal, Mikel Artetxe, Moya Chen, Shuohui Chen, Christopher Dewan, Mona Diab, Xian Li, Xi Victoria Lin, et al. 2022. Opt: Open pre-trained transformer language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01068. Appendix of this paper is in the following pages. ## A Appendix In this **Appendix**, we will provide some supplementary materials and more experimental results for the proposed **GPUSQ-TLM** compression scheme beyond the tight page limitation in manuscript. The detailed outline is as follows. - Section A.1 provides the details of finegrained structured sparsity on GPU. It aims to further support the contents in Section 3.1 of the manuscript. - Section A.2 provides the details and whole workflow of the **GPUSQ-TLM** algorithm. It aims to further support the contents in Section 3.4 of the manuscript. - Section A.3 provides the details about the hyper-parameters settings in experiments. It aims to further support the contents in **Section** 4 of the manuscript. - Section A.4 provides an ablation study to measure the influence of the different adjustment factors for the hard label, soft logits, and feature-based losses (α, β, γ) on **GPUSQTLM** compressed model accuracy. It aims to further support the contents in **Section** 4 of the manuscript. ## A.1 **Fine-Grained Structured Sparsity On Gpu** In this subsection, we first introduce the 2:4 finegrained structured sparse feature on GPU. Then we illustrate its benefit on math efficiency by comparing the same matrix multiplication with and without this sparse feature. And finally, we illustrate how to encode to meet the 2:4 fine-grained structured sparse pattern and its benefit on memory saving. General Matrix Multiplication (GEMM) is the fundamental operation inside the common parts of TLM models, such as convolution, linear projection, and multi-head attention blocks. A specific acceleration unit called Tensor Core (NVIDIA, 2017a) was first introduced in NVIDIA Volta GPU (NVIDIA, 2017b) to accelerate these GEMM operations and further enhanced to support sparse GEMM in NVIDIA Ampere GPU architecture (NVIDIA, 2020). To improve the GPU hardware efficiency for sparse GEMM operation, a constraint named *2:4 fine-grained structured sparsity* (Mishra et al., 2021) is imposed on the allowed sparsity pattern, i.e., two values from every four contiguous elements on rows must be zero. Due to the 2:4 sparsity support on GPU Tensor Core hardware, sparse GEMM can reduce memory storage and bandwidth by almost 2× and provide 2× math throughput compared to dense GEMM by skipping the redundant zero-value computation, as shown in Figure 5. NVIDIA Ampere GPU architecture supports various numeric precision for 2:4 sparsity, including FP32, FP16, INT8, and INT4, etc.  Figure 5: Comparison of computing a M × N × K GEMM onto a GPU Tensor Core. Dense matrix A of size M ×K in *left side* becomes M × K 2 in *right side* after compressing with **2:4 fine-grained structured sparse** pattern. GPU sparse Tensor Core automatically picks only the elements from B according to the nonzero elements in A. Comparing the dense and sparse GEMM operations, B and C are the same dense K × N and M ×N matrices, respectively. By skipping the unnecessary multiplications of redundant zeros, sparse GEMM accelerate the dense GEMM with 2×. The sparse GEMM performs the *sparse matrix* × dense matrix = dense matrix operation by skipping the redundant zero-value computation with sparse Tensor Core acceleration. For example, matrix A of size M×K follows the *2:4 fine-grained structured* sparse pattern, and the dense matrix B is of size K × N. If we use the dense GEMM operation to calculate between matrices A and B, the zero values in A would not be skipped during computation. Assuming that the entire M×N ×K dense GEMM will calculate the result matrix C with M × N size in T GPU cycles. If we use the sparse GEMM operation, only the non-zero elements in each row of matrix A and the corresponding elements from matrix B, which sparse Tensor Core automatically picks out without run-time overhead, are calculated. So the entire M × N × K sparse GEMM will also calculate the same result matrix C with M × N size but only needs T/2 GPU cycles, i.e. leading to 2× math throughput speedup. To encode the matrix to meet the 2:4 fine-grained structured sparse pattern, GPU uses 2-bit metadata per non-zero element to indicate the position of two non-zero elements in every four-wide chunk of elements in a row. We use an example to illustrate the storage scenario. For a matrix of only  four elements with FP16 data format, storing as a dense pattern requires 4 × 16*bits* = 64*bits*, while storing as a 2:4 sparse pattern requires 2×16*bits*+ 2 × 2*bits* = 36*bits*, leading to 43.75% memory savings in storage. For a matrix of only four elements with INT8 data format, storing as dense and 2:4 sparse pattern requires 4 × 8*bits* = 32*bits* and 2 × 8*bits* + 2 × 2*bits* = 20*bits*, respectively, and leading to 37.5% memory savings in storage. The real matrices used in GEMM operations usually contain elements with a multiple of four. So the storage of these matrices duplicates the aforementioned simple example multiple times. Without loss of generality, the conclusion is the 2:4 structured sparse pattern with FP16 and INT8 format lead to 43.75% and 37.5% savings in storage. Because the **2:4 fine-grained structured sparse** pattern is well supported on NVIDIA GPUs and corresponding libraries for math acceleration and memory saving, so we are motivated to **design the** compression strategy for TLM models to meet such sparse pattern. Moreover, the 2:4 sparse GEMM supports low-precision formats like INT8. So it is natural to *combine the sparsity and quantization in the proposed strategy jointly*. **GPUSQTLM** will firstly compress the language models as a 2:4 sparse pattern with FP16 format, then further quantize to a 2:4 sparse INT8 format for boosting best actual deployment efficiency on GPUs. ## A.2 Overall Gpusq-Tlm Compression In GPUSQ-TLM, **structured sparse pruning** aims to compress the dense floating-point model MDF as the sparse floating-point model MSF . Sparse-distillation-combined QAT aims to further compress the sparse floating-point model MSF as the sparse quantized model MSQ on data format, i.e., quantize from float-point data type to integer data type. The details about **GPUSQ-TLM** are provided in Algorithm 1.  ## A.3 Hyper-Parameters In Experiments For BERT-large and BERT-base (Devlin et al., 2019) 9, OPT (Zhang et al., 2022) 10 and GPT (Brown et al., 2020) 11, and BART (Lewis et al., 2020) 12 models, we follow the hyper-parameters settings in public repositories marked by the footnotes and detailed list in Table 6. Multiple A100 GPUs are used for data-parallel and pipelineparallel in training or fine-tuning experiments. ## A.4 Ablation Study Of Gpusq-Tlm The ablation study to measure the influence of the different adjustment factors for the hard label, soft logits, and feature-based losses (α, β, γ) on **GPUSQ-TLM** compressed model accuracy is shown in Table 5. By comparing the ablation results of row 2, row 3 and *row 4* for each model, we find disabling no matter soft logits distillation or feature-based distillation will lead to the accuracy degradation. We can also find disabling the feature-based distillation will lead to a more severe influence than disabling the soft logits distillation. It indicates that mimicking feature maps is very helpful for accuracy compensation in **GPUSQ-TLM** compression. Finally, by comparing the ablation results of row 2, *row 5* and *row 6* for each model we can find GPUSQ-TLM is relatively robust to the soft logits loss adjustment factor. By comparing the ablation results of row 2, *row 7* and *row 8* for each model we can find **GPUSQ-TLM** is also robust to the feature-based loss adjustment factor, i.e., within the close range of β = 10 and γ = 1 the accuracy of compressed models are stable. ## Algorithm 1: Gpusq-Tlm: Transformer-Based Language Model Joint Compression With **2:4 And** N:M Structured Sparsity And **Sparse-Distillation-Combined Qat** Input: Dense floating-point model MDF contains K transformer blocks, Input tokens x Data: Distillation temperature t, Loss adjustment factors for hard label, soft logits and feature: *α, β, γ*, Overall pruning loss threshold δ*prune*, Overall calibration loss threshold δ*calibrate* Output: Sparse quantized model MSQ 1 /* **2:4 and N:M structured sparse pruning** compression workflow */ 2 Initialize sparse floating-point model MSF with the weight parameters from dense floating-point model MDF 3 **while** Overall sparse pruning loss: Lp is larger than threshold δ*prune* do 4 Get feature maps of critical layers from MDF and MSF , e.g., multi-head attention and output of transformer block i: F MDF tf blocki and F MSF tf blocki , and the final projection layer: F MDF fproj and F MSF fproj 5 // Calculate **feature-based distillation loss** with mean-squared-error (MSE) criterion 6 L p feature =PK i=1 hLMSE F MDF tf blocki , F MSF tf blocki i + LMSE F MDF fproj , F MSF fproj 7 // Calculate **hard label distillation loss** with cross entropy (CSE) criterion 8 if Ground truth labels: labelGround of input images x *exists* **then** 9 L p hard = LCSE (label*Ground*, MSF (x; T = 1)) 10 **else** 11 L p hard = LCSE (MDF (x; T = 1), MSF (x; T = 1)) 12 end 13 // Calculate **soft logits distillation loss** with Kullback Leibler divergence (KLD) criterion 14 L p soft = LKLD (MDF (x; T = t), MSF (x; T = t)) 15 Calculate the overall sparse pruning loss: Lp = α ∗ L p hard + β ∗ L p soft + γ ∗ L p feature 16 Minimize the overall sparse pruning loss w.r.t weight parameters of sparse floating-point model MSF 17 end 18 /* **sparse-distillation-combined QAT** compression workflow */ 19 Initialize sparse quantized model MSQ by PTQ the weight parameters from *trained* sparse floating-point model MSF 20 **while** Overall quantization calibration loss: Lc is larger than threshold δ*calibrate* do 21 Get feature maps of critical layers from MSF and MSQ, e.g., multi-head attention and output of transformer block i: F MSF tf blocki and F MSQ tf blocki , and the final projection layer: F MSF fproj and F MSQ fproj 22 // Calculate **feature-based calibration loss** with mean-squared-error (MSE) criterion 23 L calibrate feature =PK i=1 hLMSE F MSF tf blocki , F MSQ tf blocki i + LMSE F MSF fproj , F MSQ fproj 24 // Calculate **hard label calibration loss** with cross entropy (CSE) criterion 25 if Ground truth labels: labelGround of input images x *exists* **then** 26 L c hard = LCSE (label*Ground*, MSQ (x; T = 1)) 27 **else** 28 L c hard = LCSE (MSF (x; T = 1), MSQ (x; T = 1)) 29 end 30 // Calculate **soft logits calibration loss** with Kullback Leibler divergence (KLD) criterion 31 L c soft = LKLD (MSF (x; T = t), MSQ (x; T = t)) 32 Calculate the overall quantization calibration loss: Lc = α ∗ L c hard + β ∗ L c soft + γ ∗ L c feature 33 Minimize the overall quantization calibration loss w.r.t weight and scale factor parameters of sparse quantized model MSQ 34 end | Models | Task | Optimizer | Initial LR | LR schedule | Weight Decay | Epochs | Batch Size | GPU Num | |-------------|--------------|-------------|--------------|--------------------|----------------|----------|--------------|-----------| | BERT-base9 | SQuAD | Adam | 3.0e-5 | Linear with WarmUp | 0.01 | 4 | 3 | 8 | | BERT-base9 | GELU | Adam | 2.4e-5 | Linear with WarmUp | 0.01 | 6 | 16 | 8 | | BERT-large9 | SQuAD | Adam | 3.0e-5 | Linear with WarmUp | 0.01 | 4 | 3 | 8 | | BERT-large9 | GELU | Adam | 2.4e-5 | Linear with WarmUp | 0.01 | 6 | 16 | 8 | | OPT-125M10 | WikiText-103 | AdamW | 6.0e-4 | Linear with WarmUp | 0.01 | 15 | 16 | 32 | | OPT-1.3B10 | WikiText-103 | AdamW | 2.0e-4 | Linear with WarmUp | 0.01 | 15 | 16 | 64 | | OPT-2.7B10 | WikiText-103 | AdamW | 1.6e-4 | Linear with WarmUp | 0.01 | 15 | 16 | 64 | | OPT-6.7B10 | WikiText-103 | AdamW | 1.2e-4 | Linear with WarmUp | 0.01 | 15 | 16 | 128 | | OPT-13B10 | WikiText-103 | AdamW | 1.0e-4 | Linear with WarmUp | 0.01 | 15 | 16 | 256 | | GPT-125M11 | WikiText-103 | AdamW | 6.0e-4 | Linear with WarmUp | 0.01 | 15 | 16 | 32 | | GPT-1.3B11 | WikiText-103 | AdamW | 2.0e-4 | Linear with WarmUp | 0.01 | 15 | 16 | 64 | | GPT-2.7B11 | WikiText-103 | AdamW | 1.6e-4 | Linear with WarmUp | 0.01 | 15 | 16 | 64 | | GPT-6.7B11 | WikiText-103 | AdamW | 1.2e-4 | Linear with WarmUp | 0.01 | 15 | 16 | 128 | | GPT-13B11 | WikiText-103 | AdamW | 1.0e-4 | Linear with WarmUp | 0.01 | 15 | 16 | 256 | | BART12 | CNN-DM | Adam | 5.5e-5 | Linear with WarmUp | 0.01 | 3 | 16 | 8 | | BART12 | XSum | Adam | 7.0e-5 | Linear with WarmUp | 0.01 | 3 | 16 | 8 | Table 6: Experiments hyper-parameters for the transformer-based language models tested in this paper. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Section with name: Limitations. ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Section with name: Limitations and another section with name: Ethics Statement. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Section with name: Introduction. ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Not applicable. Left blank. B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Not applicable. 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.? 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. Not applicable. Left blank. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Section With Name: 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 with name: Experiments in manuscript and section with name: Hyper-Parameters in Experiments in Appendix. 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? Not applicable. 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? Not applicable. 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.)? Section with name: Experiments. 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.

he-etal-2023-rmssinger

{RMSS}inger: Realistic-Music-Score based Singing Voice Synthesis

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.16

We are interested in a challenging task, Realistic-Music-Score based Singing Voice Synthesis (RMS-SVS). RMS-SVS aims to generate high-quality singing voices given realistic music scores with different note types (grace, slur, rest, etc.). Though significant progress has been achieved, recent singing voice synthesis (SVS) methods are limited to fine-grained music scores, which require a complicated data collection pipeline with time-consuming manual annotation to align music notes with phonemes. {\%} Furthermore, existing approaches cannot synthesize rhythmic singing voices given realistic music scores due to the domain gap between fine-grained music scores and realistic music scores. Furthermore, these manual annotation destroys the regularity of note durations in music scores, making fine-grained music scores inconvenient for composing. To tackle these challenges, we propose RMSSinger, the first RMS-SVS method, which takes realistic music scores as input, eliminating most of the tedious manual annotation and avoiding the aforementioned inconvenience. Note that music scores are based on words rather than phonemes, in RMSSinger, we introduce word-level modeling to avoid the time-consuming phoneme duration annotation and the complicated phoneme-level mel-note alignment. Furthermore, we propose the first diffusion-based pitch modeling method, which ameliorates the naturalness of existing pitch-modeling methods. To achieve these, we collect a new dataset containing realistic music scores and singing voices according to these realistic music scores from professional singers. Extensive experiments on the dataset demonstrate the effectiveness of our methods. Audio samples are available at \url{https://rmssinger.github.io/}.

# Rmssinger: Realistic-Music-Score Based Singing Voice Synthesis Jinzheng He jinzhenghe@zju.edu.cn Zhejiang University Jinglin Liu liu.jinglin@bytedance.com ByteDance Zhenhui Ye zhenhuiye@zju.edu.cn Zhejiang University Rongjie Huang rongjiehuang@zju.edu.cn Zhejiang University Huadai Liu huadailiu@zju.edu.cn Zhejiang University ## Abstract We are interested in a challenging task, Realistic-Music-Score based Singing Voice Synthesis (RMS-SVS). RMS-SVS aims to generate high-quality singing voices given realistic music scores with different note types (grace, slur, rest, etc.). Though significant progress has been achieved, recent singing voice synthesis (SVS) methods are limited to fine-grained music scores, which require a complicated data collection pipeline with time-consuming manual annotation to align music notes with phonemes. Furthermore, these manual annotation destroys the regularity of note durations in music scores, making fine-grained music scores inconvenient for composing. To tackle these challenges, we propose RMSSinger, the first RMS-SVS method, which takes realistic music scores as input, eliminating most of the tedious manual annotation and avoiding the aforementioned inconvenience. Note that music scores are based on words rather than phonemes, in RMSSinger, we introduce word-level modeling to avoid the time-consuming phoneme duration annotation and the complicated phonemelevel mel-note alignment. Furthermore, we propose the first diffusion-based pitch modeling method, which ameliorates the naturalness of existing pitch-modeling methods. To achieve these, we collect a new dataset containing realistic music scores and singing voices according to these realistic music scores from professional singers. Extensive experiments on the dataset demonstrate the effectiveness of our methods. Audio samples are available at https://rmssinger.github.io/. Chenye Cui chenyecui@zju.edu.cn Zhejiang University Zhou Zhao ∗ zhaozhou@zju.edu.cn Zhejiang University  Figure 1: Difference between fine-grained and realistic music scores. Manual adjustment destroys the regularity of note durations, making fine-grained music scores "crushed" and inconvenient for composing. note pitches, and note durations), and has attracted increasing academic and industrial attention. SVS is extensively required in both professional music composing and entertainment industries in real life(Umbert et al., 2015). Though significant progress has been achieved, recent SVS methods(Wang et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2022b; Liu et al., 2022; Zhang et al.; Huang et al., 2021, 2022a) cannot utilize realistic music scores from composers or websites but require finegrained music scores. Fine-grained music scores are obtained through a complicated data collection pipeline, which can be mainly divided into three major steps(Wang et al., 2022; Zhang et al.): 1) phoneme annotation step, where the duration of each phoneme is first extracted from singing through Montreal Forced Aligner1and then further manually annotated to acquire more accurate phoneme boundaries. 2) note annotation step, where preliminary notes are either created by Logic Pro(Wang et al., 2022) or collected through the word-level average of extracted F0(Zhang et al.) ## 1 Introduction Singing Voice Synthesis (SVS) aims to generate high-quality singing given music scores (lyrics, ∗Corresponding author. 1https://github.com/MontrealCorpusTools/MontrealForced- Aligner and then note durations are manually adjusted to the boundaries of vowel phonemes. 3) silence annotation step, where the silence part is annotated as silence (SP) or aspirate (AP). These steps, especially the first and second steps, require arduous and professional manual annotation(Zhang et al.), which hinders large-scale SVS data collection. Furthermore, since the manual adjustment in the second step destroys the regularity of note durations, fine-grained music scores have a noteworthy difference from realistic music scores (see Figure 1), which inhibits human composers from employing SVS methods for composing. The primary rationale for adopting such a timeconsuming and laborious data collection pipeline is twofold: 1) Existing methods require phonemelevel hard-alignment for duration training. Due to the difficulty in determining phoneme boundaries(Ren et al., 2021), complex manual annotation (phoneme annotation step) is necessary in order to prevent the negative effects of incorrect alignment on model training. 2) Existing methods require a pre-defined phoneme-level mel-note alignment for training and inference. Since one vowel phoneme may correspond to multiple notes(Wang et al., 2022), existing methods directly repeat this phoneme to conform with notes, which requires note boundaries to be aligned with the boundary of each vowel phoneme. However, even professional singers can hardly sing fully conformed to the music score(Zhang et al.), so the note annotation step has to be performed. To tackle these challenges, we introduce Realistic-Music-Score Singer (RMSSinger), the first RMS-SVS method, which utilizes realistic music scores with different note types (grace, slur, rest, etc.,) for training and inference, alleviating most manual annotations. To alleviate the tedious annotation in the phoneme annotation step, we propose word-level positional attention with wordlevel hard-alignment and positional attention to avoid the difficulty of determining exact phoneme boundaries. To avoid the note annotation step, we propose the word-level learned Gaussian upsampler to learn the word-level mel-note alignment in training and avoid the phoneme-level mel-note alignment. Furthermore, existing methods mainly adopt simple L1 or L2 loss for pitch modeling, which results in the degradation of expressiveness. To achieve expressive pitch prediction, we propose the first diffusion-based pitch generation method. Due to the existence of both continuous parts (F0) and categorical parts (UV) in pitch contours, we propose the pitch diffusion model (P-DDPM), which models categorical UV and continuous F0 in a single model. Extensive experiments on our collected datasets demonstrate the efficiency of our proposed word-level framework (word-level positional attention and word-level learned Gaussian upsampler) and P-DDPM. The main contributions of this work are summarized as follows: - We propose the first realistic-music-scorebased singing voice synthesis method RMSSinger, which alleviates tedious manual annotation in the current SVS data collection pipeline and achieve high-quality singing voice synthesis given realistic music scores. - We propose the word-level positional attention and the word-level learned Gaussian upsampler to model lyrics and notes on the word level and avoid phoneme duration annotation and phoneme-level mel-note alignment. - We propose the first diffusion-based pitch generation model (P-DDPM), which models the continuous F0 and categorical UV in a single model and improves the expressiveness of pitch modeling. - Extensive experiments demonstrate the performance of our proposed method. ## 2 Related Works Singing Voice Synthesis (SVS) aims to generate high-quality singing conditioned on given music scores. With the development of deep learning, SVS has achieved great progress in the network structure and the singing corpus construction. XiaoiceSing(Lu et al., 2020) adopts the non-autoregressive acoustic model inspired by FastSpeech(Ren et al., 2019). ByteSing(Gu et al., 2021) is designed based on the autoregressive Tacotron-like(Wang et al., 2017) architecture. DeepSinger(Ren et al., 2020b) builds a singing corpus by mining singing data from websites and proposes the singing model based on the feed-forward transformer(Ren et al., 2019). More recently, Opencpop(Wang et al., 2022) publish a single-singer Chinese song corpus with manually-annotated fine-grained music scores and propose a Conformer-based(Gulati et al., 2020) SVS method. WeSinger(Zhang et al., 2022b) adopts a Transformer-like acoustic model and an LPCNet neural vocoder. ViSinger(Zhang et al., 2022a) employs the VITS(Kim et al., 2021) architecture for end-to-end SVS and introduces an F0 predictor to guide the prior network. DiffSinger(Liu et al., 2022) introduces the diffusionbased(Ho et al., 2020) decoder for the highquality mel-spectrogram generation and proposed the shallow diffusion mechanism for faster inference. M4Singer(Zhang et al.) further publishes a multi-style, multi-singer Chinese song corpus with manually-annotated fine-grained music scores. ## 3 Diffusion Models Diffusion models(Sohl-Dickstein et al., 2015; Ho et al., 2020; Song et al., 2020) are a paradigm of generative methods that aim to approximate the end-point distribution (target distribution) of a Markow chain and have achieved impressive results in benchmark generative tasks(Dhariwal and Nichol, 2021). Diffusion models consist of two processes: Diffusion Process The diffusion process gradually perturbs data x0 ∼ q(x0) to pure noise with a Markov chain according to the variance schedule β1*, ..., β*T : $$q(x_{1:T}|x_{0})=\prod_{t=1}^{T}q(x_{t}|x_{t-1}).\qquad\quad(1)$$ Reverse Process The reverse process gradually denoises the latent variable xT ∼ p(xT ) to the corresponding real data sample x0: $$p_{\theta}(x_{0:T})=p(x_{T})\prod_{t=1}^{T}p_{\theta}(x_{t-1}|x_{t}),\qquad(2)$$ where pθ(xt−1|xt) are parameterized with a neural network and learned by optimizing the usual variational bound on negative log-likelihood: $$E[-logp_{\theta}(x_{0})]\leq$$ $$E_{q}[-logp(x_{T})-\sum_{t\geq1}log\frac{p_{\theta}(x_{t-1}|x_{t})}{q(x_{t}|x_{t-1})}]={\cal L},\tag{3}$$ $${\cal L}_{t-1}={\cal D}_{KL}(q(x_{t-1}|x_{t},x_{0})||p_{\theta}(x_{t-1}|x_{t}))$$ With different perturbation transition q(xt|xt−1) used, different diffusion models are defined: Gaussian Diffusion: Gaussian diffusion(Ho et al., 2020; Nichol and Dhariwal, 2021) is utilized in continuous data domains. Gaussian diffusion adopts the Gaussian noise for perturbation: $$\begin{array}{l}{{q(x_{t}|x_{t-1})={\mathcal{N}}(x_{t};\sqrt{1-\beta_{t}}x_{t-1},\beta_{t}I),}}\\ {{p(x_{t-1}|x_{t})={\mathcal{N}}(x_{t-1};\mu_{\theta}(x_{t},t),\Sigma_{\theta}(x_{t},t)).}}\end{array}$$ $\quad(4)$ . With the parameterization introduced in (Ho et al., 2020), Equation 3 can be further simplified and finally optimized with: $$E_{x_{0},\epsilon}[\frac{\beta_{t}^{2}}{2\sigma_{t}^{2}\alpha_{t}(1-\bar{\alpha}_{t})}||\epsilon-\epsilon_{\theta}(x_{t},t)||],\tag{5}$$ where αt = 1 − βt, α¯t =Qts=1 αs. The neural network is trained to predict the "noise" ϵ from noisy input xt given timestep t. Gaussian diffusion has been widely utilized for image generation(Nichol and Dhariwal, 2021; Dhariwal and Nichol, 2021) and audio generation(Jeong et al., 2021; Huang et al., 2022b). Multinomial Diffusion: Multinomial diffusion (Hoogeboom et al., 2021) is utilized in discrete data domains, which replaces Gaussian noise with random walking on discrete data space. The diffusion process can then be defined as: $$\begin{array}{l}{{q(x_{t}|x_{t-1})={\mathcal{C}}(x_{t}|(1-\beta_{t})x_{t-1}+\beta_{t}/K),}}\\ {{q(x_{t}|x_{0})={\mathcal{C}}(x_{t}|\bar{\alpha}_{t}x_{0}+(1-\bar{\alpha}_{t})/K)}}\end{array}\tag{6}$$ where C denotes a categorical distribution with probability parameters, xt ∼ {0, 1} K, βt denotes the chance of resampling a category uniformly, and αt = 1−βt, α¯t =Qts=1 αs. Using Equation 6, we can compute the categorical posterior: $$q(x_{t-1}|x_{t},x_{0})={\cal C}(x_{t-1}|\theta_{post}(x_{t},x_{0})),$$ $$\theta_{post}(x_{t},x_{0})=\tilde{\theta}/\sum_{k=1}^{K}\tilde{\theta}_{k},\tag{7}$$ $$\tilde{\theta}=[\alpha_{t}x_{t}+(1-\alpha_{t})/K]\odot[\tilde{\alpha}_{t-1}x_{0}+$$ $$(1-\tilde{\alpha}_{t-1})/K],$$ With the parameterization proposed in (Hoogeboom et al., 2021), p(xt−1|xt) = C(xt−1|θ*post*(xt, xˆ0)) is utilized to approximate q(xt−1|xt, x0). And the neural network is trained to approximate xˆ0 from noisy sample xt given timestep t. Though widely utilized in many data domains, diffusion models have never been utilized for pitch modeling. Furthermore, due to the existence of continuous F0 parts and discrete UV parts in pitch contours(Wang et al., 2018), neither Gaussian diffusion nor multinomial diffusion alone can deal with pitch modeling. In this paper, we propose the first diffusion-based pitch modeling (P-DDPM), which incorporates Gaussian diffusion and multinomial diffusion in a single model and achieves better pitch modeling. ## 4 Methdology 4.1 Overview In this section, we introduce the overall architecture of our proposed RMSSinger. As shown in Figure 2a, RMSSinger is built on one of the most popular non-autoregressive TTS models FastSpeech2(Ren et al., 2020a). Lyrics are encoded through the phoneme encoder and then aligned to the lengths of mel-spectrogram through the word-level positional attention layer (Section 4.4)to obtain the expanded lyric feature. Next, we utilize the note encoder to encode note pitches, note durations, and note types (rest, slur, grace, etc.) and adopt the wordlevel learned Gaussian upsampler (Section 4.3) for word-level mel-note alignment learning to obtain the expanded note feature. The timbre information of different singers is embedded to obtain the singer embedding. Then, the expanded lyric feature, expanded note feature and singer embedding are summed as the pitch decoder input. The pitch diffusion model (P-DDPM) (Section 4.5) utilizes the pitch decoder input as the condition to generate pitches (F0 and UV). Similar to (Ren et al., 2020a), we obtain the pitch embedding through F0 and UV. Next, the expanded lyric feature, pitch embedding and singer embedding are summed as the input of the mel decoder. Finally, to further improve the quality of the synthesized mel-spectrogram, we introduce a diffusion-based post-net (Section 4.7) to refine the coarse outputs of the mel decoder. ## 4.2 Encoder In this subsection, we introduce the phoneme encoder and the note encoder utilized in RMSSinger. The phoneme encoder takes the phoneme sequence as input and outputs the phoneme feature H. We also perform the word-pooling on H to obtain the word-level feature Hw. The architecture of the phoneme encoder is comprised of a series of FeedForward Transformer Blocks (Vaswani et al., 2017), which have proven the effectiveness of long sequences modeling and linguistic information extraction in TTS methods. The input of the note encoder is the realistic music score. As there exist different types of information in music scores, the note encoder includes an embedding layer for note pitches, an embedding layer for note types (rest, slur, grace, etc.), and a linear projection layer for note durations. All information types are summed as the note feature Hn. ## 4.3 Word-Level Learned Gaussian Upsampler One of the key challenges of SVS is the alignment between word-level mel-spectrogram and notes, that is the actual length2 of each note. Though the note duration on music scores provides a preliminary estimate of the actual length, even professional singers cannot precisely conform to the music score. Therefore, previous SVS methods manually adjust the note duration to the phoneme boundary, which not only requires time-consuming annotation from experts but also destroys the regularity of the note duration. The key idea of the proposed word-level learned Gaussian upsampler (see figure 2b), inspired by (Donahue et al., 2020), is to learn the word-level mel-note alignment in training. Given the note feature Hn, the word-level feature Hw and the singer embedding s, we expand Hw to the note-level Hwn. Next we predict the actual length of each note: $$\begin{array}{l l}{{\mathcal{H}_{a}=\mathcal{H}_{n}+\mathcal{H}_{w n}+s,}}&{{}}\\ {{l_{n}=f(\mathcal{H}_{a}),}}&{{}}\end{array}\qquad\qquad(8)$$ with a neural network f. The neural network consists of a stack of 1D-convolution, Relu, and layer normalization. We use a linear projection with ReLU nonlinearity at the output to make ln nonnegative, which ensures the monotonicity and none of the notes can be ignored. Then we upsample the note feature to its corresponding actual length. We introduce the Gaussian distribution to make the upsampling process differentiable and learnable. To be specific, given the predicted actual length, we can find the end position of each note en =Pnm=1 lm, and then the center position of each note cn = en − 1 2 ln. We place a Gaussian distribution with fixed deviation σ at the center cn of the output segment corresponding to the note n. Then we can define: $$w_{t}^{n}={\frac{e x p(-{\frac{(t-c_{n})^{2}}{2\sigma^{2}}})}{\sum_{m}e x p(-{\frac{(t-c_{m})^{2}}{2\sigma^{2}}})}},t\in(0,T)\quad(9)$$ where T denotes the length of the mel-spectrogram and w n trepresents the weight of each note for 2The number of the mel-frames   the output position t. And finally, the expanded note feature at position t can be calculated as at =Pn w n t Hn. We highlight that 1) when calculating at, we only consider the contribution from the same word, that is if position t belongs to the range of word i and note n corresponds to the word j and i ̸= j, then w n t = 0. 2) During training, we use the ground-truth duration of each word to determine the range of position t and avoid expensive DTW calculation. 2) During inference, we use the sum of the predicted actual length of notes Pm lm, m ∈ *word*i as the predicted duration of wordi. 3) We use the ground-truth word duration to constrain the prediction of the actual length, which is computed as: $${\cal L}_{d}=||\sum_{m}l_{m}-d u r_{i}||,\tag{10}$$ where duri denotes the ground-truth duration of wordi. ## 4.4 Word-Level Positional Attention To align the lyric features (outputs of the phoneme encoder) to the lengths of the mel-spectrogram, previous SVS methods mainly adopt the duration predictor to predict the number of frames of each phoneme. Due to the complex articulation of each phoneme in singing, these methods have to use manually-annotated phoneme duration for training, which increases the cost of data collection. Note that most music scores are word-level and word boundaries are much easier to be determined, inspired by (Ren et al., 2021; Miao et al., 2020), we propose the word-level positional attention (see figure 2c), which avoids the annotation of phoneme duration. To be specific, given the output of the phoneme encoder H, let the word-level phoneme positional encoding which represents the position of each phoneme in a word be Pph, and let the word-level mel-spectrogram positional encoding which denotes the position of each frame in a word be Pm, we introduce the position-to-phoneme attention: $$\begin{array}{l}{{{\mathcal{H}}_{k}=W(c a t({\mathcal{H}},{\mathcal{P}}_{p h})),}}\\ {{{\mathcal{H}}_{e p d}=S o f t m a x(\frac{{\mathcal{P}}_{m}{\mathcal{H}}_{k}^{T}}{\sqrt{d}}){\mathcal{H}}^{T},}}\end{array}\quad(11)$$ where W represents a linear projection, and Hepd represents the expanded lyric-feature. During training, we use the ground-truth word durations to obtain word-level mel-spectrogram positional encoding. During inference, we use the predicted word duration Pm lm introduced in subsection 4.3. ## 4.5 Pitch Diffusion Model To generate the pitch contours, previous methods mainly adopt a pitch predictor which predicts the continuous fundamental frequency (F0) and the discrete unvoiced label (UV). The pitch predictor is constrained with simple L1 or L2 loss for F0 and cross-entropy loss for UV. However, due to the complicated pitch variation of the singing voice, the simple pitch predictor fails to model the variance, resulting in degraded expressiveness. To tackle this challenge, we propose the first pitch diffusion model (P-DDPM) (see Figure 2d), which incorporates both the Gaussian diffusion and multinomial diffusion to generate F0 and UV. During the diffusion process, the Gaussian noise (see Equation 4) and random resampling (see Equation 6) are used to perturb the continuous F0 (represented by x) and the discrete UV labels (represented by y) correspondingly: $$q(x_{t}|x_{t-1})={\mathcal{N}}(x_{t};{\sqrt{1-\beta_{t}}}x_{t-1},\beta_{t}I),\tag{12}$$ $$q(y_{t}|y_{t-1})={\mathcal{C}}(y_{t}|(1-\beta_{t})y_{t-1}+\beta_{t}/K).$$ During the reverse process, following Equation 5 and Equation 7, the neural network is utilized to predict the corresponding ϵθ(xt, t) and yˆ0. We adopt a non-causal WaveNet (Oord et al., 2016) architecture as our denoiser, which has proven to be effective in modeling sequential data. We design a 1x1 convolution layer for the continuous F0 and an embedding layer for the discrete UV label in order to perform Gaussian F0 diffusion and multinomial UV diffusion in a single model. The neural network is optimized through the corresponding Gaussian diffusion loss L*gdif f* and multinomial diffusion loss L*mdif f* . ## 4.6 Decoder In this subsection, we introduce the mel decoder utilized in RMSSinger. The mel decoder takes the expanded lyric feature, singer embedding and pitch embedding as input and outputs the coarse melspectrogram. Following previous speech synthesis methods (Huang et al., 2022c; He et al., 2022), we use a stack of Feed-Forward Transformer blocks as the architecture and use the L1 loss function to optimize the mel decoder: $${\mathcal{L}}_{m e l}=||m e l_{p}-m e l_{g}||,$$ $$(13)^{\frac{1}{2}}$$ where melp denotes the predicted coarse melspectrogram and melg denotes the ground-truth mel-spectrogram. ## 4.7 Diffusion-Based Post-Net To achieve high-quality singing voice synthesis, we have to capture the rich and highly dynamic variation in the singing voice. However, the widelyapplied transformer-based decoder (mel decoder) is difficult to generate detailed mel-spectrogram samples(Ren et al., 2022; Ye et al., 2023, 2022). To further improve the quality of generated samples, we introduce the diffusion-based post-net, which converts the coarse outputs of the mel decoder into fine-grained ones. In detail, we use the coarse outputs as the condition of the diffusion model for training and inference. We use the Gaussian diffusion loss L*post* similar to the previous diffusionbased TTS method (Jeong et al., 2021) to optimize the diffusion-based postnet. ## 4.8 Training Pipeline There are two training stages for RMSSinger: during the first stage, we optimize the whole model except the diffusion-based postnet by minimizing the following loss function: $${\mathcal{L}}_{1}={\mathcal{L}}_{g d i f f}+{\mathcal{L}}_{m d i f f}+{\mathcal{L}}_{d}+{\mathcal{L}}_{m e l}\qquad(14)$$ We obtain coarse mel-spectrogram after the first stage of training. In the second training stage, we freeze the whole model except the diffusion-based postnet and only optimize the diffusion-based postnet by minimizing L*post*. ## 5 Experiments 5.1 Experimental Setup In this section, we first describe our collected dataset for RMS-SVS, and then introduce the implementation details of our proposed RMSSinger. Finally, we explain the training and evaluation details utilized in this paper. Dataset Currently, there are no public SVS datasets providing realistic music scores, so we collect and annotate a high-quality Chinese song corpus (about 12 hours in total) with realistic music scores. Professional singers are recruited to sing conforming to these realistic music scores. They are paid based on their singing time. Next, word durations are extracted through an external speech-text aligner and then manually finetuned. Since we do not need fine-grained phoneme durations, the finetune process requires much less effort. Finally, we annotate the silence and aspirate parts since these parts are not provided in most realistic music scores. All audio files are recorded in a professional recording studio, which guarantees the high quality of our dataset. All audios are sampled as 48000 Hz with 24-bit quantization, and we randomly select one song from each singer for the testing. Implementation Details We convert Chinese lyrics into phonemes through pypinyin. We extract mel-spectrogram from raw waveforms and | Method | F0RMSE ↓ | VDE ↓ | MCD ↓ | MOS-P ↑ | MOS-Q ↑ | |------------------------------|------------|---------|---------|-------------|-------------| | GT | - | - | - | 4.55 ± 0.04 | 4.58 ± 0.03 | | GT(vocoder) | 3.77 | 0.020 | 1.33 | 4.10 ± 0.04 | 4.09 ± 0.05 | | FFTSinger(Zhang et al.) | 14.0 | 0.092 | 3.52 | 3.57 ± 0.08 | 3.46 ± 0.07 | | DiffSinger(Liu et al., 2022) | 12.4 | 0.077 | 3.43 | 3.63 ± 0.07 | 3.79 ± 0.07 | | RMSSinger (ours) | 12.2 | 0.069 | 3.42 | 3.77 ± 0.05 | 3.84 ± 0.06 |  set the sample rate to 24000Hz, the window size to 512, the hop size to 128, and the number of mel bins to 80. In the phoneme encoder and the mel decoder, we adopt a similar setting as that in FastSpeech2(Ren et al., 2020a). In the word-level learned Gaussian upsampler, the kernel size of 1Dconvolution is set to 5 and the hidden channel is set to 256. In the word-level positional attention, we set the number of attention heads to 1. In the P-DDPM, we set the number of convolution layers to 12, the kernel size to 3, the residual channel to 192 and hidden channel to 256. And we also set the total number of diffusion steps to 100 and adopt the linear β schedule from 0.0001 to 0.06. The diffusion post-net has a similar architecture and β schedule except that the number of convolution layers is set to 20, and the residual channel is set to 256. More details can be found in Appendix B. Evaluation Details In our experiments, we employ objective and subjective evaluation metrics to evaluate the pitch modeling and the audio quality of generated samples. For the objective evaluation, we utilize F0 Root Mean Square Error(F0RMSE) to measure the accuracy of F0 prediction and Voice Decision Error(VDE) to measure the accuracy of UV prediction. We use Mean Cepstral Distortion (MCD) for audio quality measurement. For the subjective evaluation, we use Mean Opinion Score (MOS) for main results and Comparision Mean Opinion Score (CMOS) for ablations. For a more detailed examination, we score MOSP/CMOS-P and MOS-Q/CMOS-Q corresponding to the MOS/CMOS of pitch modeling and audio quality. We utilize the HiFi-GAN(Kong et al., 2020) vocoder published in DiffSinger(Liu et al., 2022) for all experiments. More details can be found in Appendix A. ## 5.2 Main Results In this subsection, we conduct extensive experiments to compare the performance of RMSSinger with other baselines. Since RMS-SVS is a new task, none of the existing methods can handle it. Therefore, we implement several representative and state-of-art SVS methods(Zhang et al.; Liu et al., 2022) with our proposed word-level framework to handle realistic music scores. Specifically, FFTSinger(Zhang et al.) adopts a similar architecture to FastSpeech2(Ren et al., 2020a), which uses MSE loss for F0 training and binary cross entropy loss for UV training. Besides, FFTSinger adopts the FFT decoder and uses the L1 loss for mel-spectrogram reconstruction. DiffSinger(Liu et al., 2022) uses the same pitch modeling method but replaces the FFT decoder in FFTSinger with the diffusion-based decoder and uses the Gaussian diffusion for mel-spectrogram training. The main results are shown in Table 1. From the objective and subjective results, we can see that 1) most methods achieve promising results, which illustrates the feasibility of RMS-SVS and the effectiveness of our proposed word-level framework. 2) RMSSinger achieves better results on F0RMSE, VDE, and MOS-P, which demonstrates  our proposed P-DDPM can improve both the F0 and UV modeling and improve the expressiveness. 3) RMSSinger and DiffSinger achieve similar results on MCD and MOS-Q, which is because the diffusion-based postnet of RMSSinger and the diffusion decoder of DiffSinger have a similar architecture. 4) RMSSinger and DiffSinger outperform FFTSinger in terms of audio quality by a large margin due to the existence of mel-spectrogram over-smooth in FFTSinger. We then visualize the mel-spectrogram and pitch contour generated by different methods in Figure 3 to show the difference among different methods more intuitively. We can find that 1) RMSSinger can generate more natural pitch contours especially in the vibrato part (yellow box region), which demonstrates our method can achieve better pitch modeling. 2) RMSSinger and DiffSinger can generate more detailed mel-spectrogram, and alleviate the mel-spectrogram over-smooth (see red box region), which explains the higher audio quality. | Method | F0RMSE | VDE | CMOS-P | |------------------|----------|-------|----------| | Full model | 12.2 | 0.069 | 0.0 | | w/o UV diffusion | 12.6 | 0.080 | -0.58 | | w/o F0 diffusion | 12.8 | 0.070 | -0.50 | Table 2: Ablation studies on the effect of P-DDPM. | Method | MCD | CMOS-Q | |-----------------------|-------|----------| | Full model | 3.42 | 0.0 | | w/o diffusion postnet | 3.48 | -0.91 | Table 3: Ablation studies on the postnet. ## 5.3 Ablation Studies In this subsection, we conduct a series of ablation studies to investigate the effect of key components in our RMSSinger. P-DDPM To evaluate the effectiveness of our proposed P-DDPM, we design two ablations. In the  first ablation, we remove the UV diffusion from P-DDPM and we use a Transformer-based UV predictor, which is constrained by binary cross-entropy loss. In the second ablation, we remove the F0 diffusion from P-DDPM and use a Transformer-based F0 predictor, which is constrained by L1 loss. The results can be found in Table 2. We can see that 1) in the first ablation, VDE increases significantly and CMOS-P degrades, which demonstrates that the UV diffusion in P-DDPM contributes to better UV modeling; 2) in the second ablation, F0RMSE increases, VDE nearly holds the same and CMOSP degrades which demonstrates the F0 diffusion is essential to natural F0 modeling. We also visualize the pitch contours of different ablations in Figure 4. We can find that 1) without UV diffusion, there exists unpleasant UV errors (see the red box). 2) without F0 diffusion, the model can not generate natural F0, especially in the vibrato part (yellow box region). Postnet To evaluate the effectiveness of our proposed diffusion-based postnet, we remove the postnet and utilize the output of the mel decoder as the generated samples. The results can be found in Table 3. We can find that MCD increases and CMOSQ degrades, which demonstrates that the diffusion postnet contributes to a better mel-spectrogram prediction. We also visualize the generated melspectrograms. As shown in Figure 5, the diffusionbased postnet contributes to alleviating the melspectrogram over-smooth (see red box region). ## 6 Conclusion In this paper, we propose RMSSinger, the first realistic-music-score-based singing voice synthesis (RMS-SVS) method, which utilizes the word-level modeling framework to avoid most tedious manual annotations. To achieve better pitch modeling, we propose the first diffusion-based pitch modeling method (P-DDPM), which incorporates the Gaussian diffusion and multinomial diffusion in a single model. Extensive experiments conducted on our collected dataset demonstrate the feasibility of our method for RMS-SVS and the superiority of our proposed P-DDPM. ## 7 Acknowledgements This work was supported in part by the National Key R&D Program of China under Grant No.2022ZD0162000, National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No.62222211, Grant No.61836002 and Grant No.62072397. ## 8 Limitations There are majorly two limitations: Firstly, we collect a Chinese singing voice dataset and test our method only on this Chinese dataset due to the difficulty of recruiting professional singers in different languages. In the future, we will attempt to collect the singing voices dataset including more languages and test our method in multilingual settings. Secondly, our method adopts the diffusion model in pitch modeling and the postnet, which require multiple inference steps. We will try advanced acceleration methods for diffusion models in the future. ## 9 Ethics Statement RMSSinger provides a high-quality realistic-musicscore-based singing voice synthesis method, which may cause unemployment for people with related occupations. Furthermore, the possible misuse of realistic music scores from the website may lead to copyright issues. We will add some constraints to guarantee people who use our code or pre-trained model would not use the model in illegal cases. ## References Prafulla Dhariwal and Alexander Nichol. 2021. Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis. *Advances* in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:8780– 8794. Jeff Donahue, Sander Dieleman, Mikołaj Binkowski, ´ Erich Elsen, and Karen Simonyan. 2020. Endto-end adversarial text-to-speech. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.03575. Yu Gu, Xiang Yin, Yonghui Rao, Yuan Wan, Benlai Tang, Yang Zhang, Jitong Chen, Yuxuan Wang, and Zejun Ma. 2021. Bytesing: A chinese singing voice synthesis system using duration allocated encoderdecoder acoustic models and wavernn vocoders. In *2021 12th International Symposium on Chinese* Spoken Language Processing (ISCSLP), pages 1–5. IEEE. Anmol Gulati, James Qin, Chung-Cheng Chiu, Niki Parmar, Yu Zhang, Jiahui Yu, Wei Han, Shibo Wang, Zhengdong Zhang, Yonghui Wu, et al. 2020. Conformer: Convolution-augmented transformer for speech recognition. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2005.08100. Jinzheng He, Zhou Zhao, Yi Ren, Jinglin Liu, Baoxing Huai, and Nicholas Yuan. 2022. Flow-based unconstrained lip to speech generation. Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. 2020. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. *Advances* in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:6840– 6851. Emiel Hoogeboom, Didrik Nielsen, Priyank Jaini, Patrick Forré, and Max Welling. 2021. Argmax flows and multinomial diffusion: Learning categorical distributions. *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, 34:12454–12465. Rongjie Huang, Feiyang Chen, Yi Ren, Jinglin Liu, Chenye Cui, and Zhou Zhao. 2021. Multi-singer: Fast multi-singer singing voice vocoder with a largescale corpus. In *Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Multimedia*, pages 3945– 3954. Rongjie Huang, Chenye Cui, Feiyang Chen, Yi Ren, Jinglin Liu, Zhou Zhao, Baoxing Huai, and Zhefeng Wang. 2022a. Singgan: Generative adversarial network for high-fidelity singing voice generation. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pages 2525–2535. Rongjie Huang, Max WY Lam, Jun Wang, Dan Su, Dong Yu, Yi Ren, and Zhou Zhao. 2022b. Fastdiff: A fast conditional diffusion model for high-quality speech synthesis. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.09934*. Rongjie Huang, Yi Ren, Jinglin Liu, Chenye Cui, and Zhou Zhao. 2022c. Generspeech: Towards style transfer for generalizable out-of-domain text-tospeech synthesis. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.07211*. Myeonghun Jeong, Hyeongju Kim, Sung Jun Cheon, Byoung Jin Choi, and Nam Soo Kim. 2021. Difftts: A denoising diffusion model for text-to-speech. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.01409. Jaehyeon Kim, Jungil Kong, and Juhee Son. 2021. Conditional variational autoencoder with adversarial learning for end-to-end text-to-speech. In *International Conference on Machine Learning*, pages 5530–5540. PMLR. Jungil Kong, Jaehyeon Kim, and Jaekyoung Bae. 2020. Hifi-gan: Generative adversarial networks for efficient and high fidelity speech synthesis. *Advances in* Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:17022– 17033. Jinglin Liu, Chengxi Li, Yi Ren, Feiyang Chen, and Zhou Zhao. 2022. Diffsinger: Singing voice synthesis via shallow diffusion mechanism. In *Proceedings* of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, pages 11020–11028. Peiling Lu, Jie Wu, Jian Luan, Xu Tan, and Li Zhou. 2020. Xiaoicesing: A high-quality and integrated singing voice synthesis system. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.06261. Chenfeng Miao, Shuang Liang, Minchuan Chen, Jun Ma, Shaojun Wang, and Jing Xiao. 2020. Flow-tts: A non-autoregressive network for text to speech based on flow. In *ICASSP 2020-2020 IEEE International* Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 7209–7213. IEEE. Alexander Quinn Nichol and Prafulla Dhariwal. 2021. Improved denoising diffusion probabilistic models. In *International Conference on Machine Learning*, pages 8162–8171. PMLR. Aaron van den Oord, Sander Dieleman, Heiga Zen, Karen Simonyan, Oriol Vinyals, Alex Graves, Nal Kalchbrenner, Andrew Senior, and Koray Kavukcuoglu. 2016. Wavenet: A generative model for raw audio. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.03499*. Yi Ren, Chenxu Hu, Xu Tan, Tao Qin, Sheng Zhao, Zhou Zhao, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2020a. Fastspeech 2: Fast and high-quality end-to-end text to speech. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.04558. Yi Ren, Jinglin Liu, and Zhou Zhao. 2021. Portaspeech: Portable and high-quality generative text-to-speech. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:13963–13974. Yi Ren, Yangjun Ruan, Xu Tan, Tao Qin, Sheng Zhao, Zhou Zhao, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2019. Fastspeech: Fast, robust and controllable text to speech. *Advances in* Neural Information Processing Systems, 32. Yi Ren, Xu Tan, Tao Qin, Jian Luan, Zhou Zhao, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2020b. Deepsinger: Singing voice synthesis with data mined from the web. In *Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining*, pages 1979–1989. Yi Ren, Xu Tan, Tao Qin, Zhou Zhao, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2022. Revisiting over-smoothness in text to speech. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.13066. Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Eric Weiss, Niru Maheswaranathan, and Surya Ganguli. 2015. Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 2256–2265. PMLR. Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. 2020. Denoising diffusion implicit models. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2010.02502. Marti Umbert, Jordi Bonada, Masataka Goto, Tomoyasu Nakano, and Johan Sundberg. 2015. Expression control in singing voice synthesis: Features, approaches, evaluation, and challenges. *IEEE Signal Processing* Magazine, 32(6):55–73. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. *Advances in neural information processing* systems, 30. Xin Wang, Shinji Takaki, and Junichi Yamagishi. 2018. Autoregressive neural f0 model for statistical parametric speech synthesis. *IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing*, 26(8):1406–1419. Yu Wang, Xinsheng Wang, Pengcheng Zhu, Jie Wu, Hanzhao Li, Heyang Xue, Yongmao Zhang, Lei Xie, and Mengxiao Bi. 2022. Opencpop: A high-quality open source chinese popular song corpus for singing voice synthesis. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.07429*. Yuxuan Wang, RJ Skerry-Ryan, Daisy Stanton, Yonghui Wu, Ron J Weiss, Navdeep Jaitly, Zongheng Yang, Ying Xiao, Zhifeng Chen, Samy Bengio, et al. 2017. Tacotron: Towards end-to-end speech synthesis. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.10135*. Zhenhui Ye, Rongjie Huang, Yi Ren, Ziyue Jiang, Jinglin Liu, Jinzheng He, Xiang Yin, and Zhou Zhao. 2023. Clapspeech: Learning prosody from text context with contrastive language-audio pre-training. 2305.10763. Zhenhui Ye, Zhou Zhao, Yi Ren, and Fei Wu. 2022. Syntaspeech: syntax-aware generative adversarial text-to-speech. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.11792*. Lichao Zhang, Ruiqi Li, Shoutong Wang, Liqun Deng, Jinglin Liu, Yi Ren, Jinzheng He, Rongjie Huang, Jieming Zhu, Xiao Chen, et al. M4singer: A multistyle, multi-singer and musical score provided mandarin singing corpus. In Thirty-sixth Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track. Yongmao Zhang, Jian Cong, Heyang Xue, Lei Xie, Pengcheng Zhu, and Mengxiao Bi. 2022a. Visinger: Variational inference with adversarial learning for end-to-end singing voice synthesis. In ICASSP 20222022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 7237– 7241. IEEE. Zewang Zhang, Yibin Zheng, Xinhui Li, and Li Lu. 2022b. Wesinger: Data-augmented singing voice synthesis with auxiliary losses. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2203.10750. ## A More Experimental Details A.1 Subjective Evaluation We randomly select 16 sentences from the test set for the subjective evaluation. Each ground-truth audio or generated audio has been listened to by at least 15 professional listeners. For MOS-P and CMOS-P, listeners are told to focus on the naturalness of pitch modeling (e.g., vibrato part, UV part, and so on). For MOS-Q and CMOS-Q, listeners are told to focus on audio quality (e.g., noise, highfrequency details, pronunciation, and so on). For MOS, each listener is asked to evaluate different audio samples on a 1 - 5 Likert scale. For CMOS, listeners are told to compare pairs of audio generated by different systems and indicate which of the two audio they prefer and following the rule: 0 indicating no difference, 1 indicating a small difference, and 2 indicating a large difference. All listeners get equally paid. ## A.2 Training Details We train and evaluate our model on a single NVIDIA 2080Ti GPU. Adam optimizer is used with β1 = 0.9, β2 = 0.98. It takes 180000 steps for the first stage of training and 160000 steps for the second stage. It takes about 24 hours for each stage of training on a single NVIDIA 2080Ti GPU. ## B More Model Details B.1 Encoder Our phoneme encoder consists of 1 phoneme embedding layer and 4 Feed-Forward Transformer (FFT) blocks. Each FFT block consists of 1 multihead attention layer with 2 attention heads and 1 1D convolution layer with the kernel size set to 5. All hidden channels are set to 256. ## B.2 Decoder Our mel decoder has a similar architecture to the phoneme encoder except that the mel decoder does not consist of the phoneme embedding layer. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Section 7 ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Section 8 ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Abstract, 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 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? Section 5.1, Appendix A.2, 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? Section 5.1, Appendix A.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 5.2, Section 5.3 ✓ 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 5.1, Appendix A.2 D ✓ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Section 5.1, Appendix A.1 ✓ 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.? Section 5.1, Appendix A.1 ✓ 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 5.1, Appendix A.1 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? They're completely anonymous, so we don't know

kuo-chen-2023-zero

Zero-Shot Prompting for Implicit Intent Prediction and Recommendation with Commonsense Reasoning

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.17

The current generation of intelligent assistants require explicit user requests to perform tasks or services, often leading to lengthy and complex conversations. In contrast, human assistants can infer multiple implicit intents from utterances via their commonsense knowledge, thereby simplifying interactions. To bridge this gap, this paper proposes a framework for multi-domain dialogue systems. This framework automatically infers implicit intents from user utterances, and prompts a large pre-trained language model to suggest suitable task-oriented bots. By leveraging commonsense knowledge, our framework recommends associated bots in a zero-shot manner, enhancing interaction efficiency and effectiveness. This approach substantially reduces interaction complexity, seamlessly integrates various domains and tasks, and represents a significant step towards creating more human-like intelligent assistants that can reason about implicit intents, offering a superior user experience.

# Zero-Shot Prompting For Implicit Intent Prediction And Recommendation With Commonsense Reasoning Hui-Chi Kuo Yun-Nung Chen National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan r09922a21@csie.ntu.edu.tw y.v.chen@ieee.org ## Abstract 1 Introduction The current generation of intelligent assistants require explicit user requests to perform tasks or services, often leading to lengthy and complex conversations. In contrast, human assistants can infer multiple implicit intents from utterances via their commonsense knowledge, thereby simplifying interactions. To bridge this gap, this paper proposes a framework for multidomain dialogue systems. This framework automatically infers implicit intents from user utterances, and prompts a large pre-trained language model to suggest suitable task-oriented bots. By leveraging commonsense knowledge, our framework recommends associated bots in a zero-shot manner, enhancing interaction efficiency and effectiveness. This approach substantially reduces interaction complexity, seamlessly integrates various domains and tasks, and represents a significant step towards creating more human-like intelligent assistants that can reason about implicit intents, offering a superior user experience.1 Intelligent assistants have become increasingly popular in recent years, but they require users to *explicitly* describe their tasks within a *single* domain. Yet, the exploration of gradually guiding users through individual task-oriented dialogues has been relatively limited (Chiu et al., 2022). This limitation is amplified when tasks extend across multiple domains, compelling users to interact with numerous bots to accomplish their goals (Sun et al., 2016). For instance, planning a trip might involve interacting with one bot for flight booking and another for hotel reservation, each requiring distinct, taskspecific intentions like "*Book a flight ticket*" to activate the corresponding bot, such as an airline bot. In contrast, human assistants can manage highlevel intentions spanning *multiple* domains, utilizing commonsense knowledge. This approach renders conversations more pragmatic and efficient, reducing the user's need to deliberate over each task separately. To overcome this limitation of current intelligent assistants, we present a flexible framework capable of recommending task-oriented bots within a multi-domain dialogue system, leveraging commonsense-inferred *implicit* intents as depicted in Figure 1. Multi-Domain Realization Sun et al. (2016) pinpointed the challenges associated with a multidomain dialogue system, such as 1) comprehending single-app and multi-app language descriptions, and 2) conveying task-level functionality to users. They also gathered multi-app data to encourage research in these directions. The HELPR framework (Sun et al., 2017) was the pioneering attempt to grasp users' multi-app intentions and consequently suggest appropriate individual apps. Nevertheless, previous work focused on understanding individual apps based on high-level descriptions exclusively through user behaviors, necessitating a massive accumulation of personalized data. Due to the lack of paired data for training, our work leverages external commonsense knowledge to bridge the gap between high-level utterances and their task-specific bots. This approach enables us to consider a broad range of intents for improved generalizability and scalability. Commonsense Reasoning Commonsense reasoning involves making assumptions about the nature and essence of typical situations humans encounter daily. These assumptions encompass judgments about the attributes of physical objects, taxonomic properties, and individuals' intentions. Existing commonsense knowledge graphs such as ConceptNet (Bosselut et al., 2019), ATOMIC (Sap et al., 2019), and TransOMCS (Zhang et al., 2021) facilitate models to reason over human-annotated commonsense knowledge. This paper utilizes a 1Code: http://github.com/MiuLab/ImplicitBot.  generative model trained on ATOMIC20 20 (Hwang et al., 2021) to predict potential intents linking given user high-level utterances with corresponding task-oriented bots. The inferred intents can activate the relevant task-oriented bots and also serve as justification for recommendations, thereby enhancing explainability. This work is the first attempt to integrate external commonsense relations with task-oriented dialogue systems. Zero-Shot Prompting Recent research has revealed that large language models (Radford et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020) have acquired an astounding ability to perform few-shot tasks by using a natural-language prompt and a handful of task demonstrations as input context (Brown et al., 2020). Guiding the model with interventions via an input can render many downstream tasks remarkably easier if those tasks can be naturally framed as a cloze test problem through language models. As a result, the technique of prompting, which transposes tasks into a language model format, is increasingly being adopted for different tasks (Zhao et al., 2021; Schick and Schütze, 2021). Without available data for prompt engineering (Shin et al., 2020), we exploit the potential of prompting for bot recommendation in a zero-shot manner. This strategy further extends the applicability of our proposed framework and enables it to accommodate a wider variety of user intents and tasks, thus contributing to a more versatile and efficient multidomain dialogue system. ## 2 Framework Figure 2 illustrates our proposed two-stage framework, which consists of: 1) a commonsenseinferred intent generator, and 2) a zero-shot bot recommender. Given a user's high-level intention utterance, the first component focuses on generating implicit task-oriented intents. The second component then utilizes these task-specific intents to recommend appropriate task-oriented bots, considering the bots' functionality through a large pretrained language model. ## 2.1 **Commonsense-Inferred Intent Generation** The commonsense-inferred implicit intents function not only as prompts for bot recommendation but also as rationales for the suggested bots, thereby establishing a solid connection between the highlevel intention and task-oriented bots throughout the conversation. For instance, the multi-domain system shown in Figure 1 recommends not only the *AirlineBot* but also describes its functionality— "*can book a flight ticket*"—to better convince the user about the recommendation. ## 2.1.1 Relation Trigger Selection ATOMIC20 20 is a commonsense knowledge graph featuring commonsense relations across three categories: social-interaction, event-centered, and physical-entity relations, all of which concern situations surrounding a specified event of interest. Following Hwang et al. (2021), we employ a BART model (Lewis et al., 2020) pre-trained on ATOMIC20 20 to generate related entities and events based on the input sentence. However, despite having a total of 23 commonsense relations, not all are suitable for inferring implicit intents in assistant scenarios. We utilize AppDialogue data (Sun et al., 2016) to determine which commonsense relations can better trigger the task-specific intents. Given a high-level intention description ui and its task-specific sentences sij , we calculate the trigger score of each relation r as an indicator of its  | Relation | Definition | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | xIntent | the likely intent or desire of an agent (X) behind the execution of an event | | "X gives Y gifts" → X wanted "to be thoughtful" xNeed a precondition for X achieving the event "X gives Y gifts" → X must first "buy the presents" xWant post-condition desires on the part of X | | Event isAfter events that can precede an event "X is in a hurry to get to work" → "X wakes up late" isBefore events that can follow an event "X is in a hurry to get to work" → "X drives too fast" Table 1: Selected relations from ATOMIC20 20. suitability as a trigger relation. $$T(r)=\sum_{i}\sum_{j}P_{B A R T}([u_{i},r,s_{i j}]),\quad\quad(1)$$ where PBART ([ui*, r, s*ij ]) represents the probability of the sentence beginning with the high-level user description ui, followed by a relation trigger r, and the corresponding task-specific sentences sij . By summing up multiple task-specific sentences over j and all samples over i, a higher T(r) implies that the relation r can better trigger implicit task-oriented intents in assistant scenarios. We identify a total of five relations with the highest T(r) and present their definitions (Sap et al., 2019) in Table 1. These relations are also reasonable from a human perspective to trigger implicit user intents. ## 2.1.2 Commonsense Knowledge Generation Given the selected relations R = {r1, r2*, ..., r*5}, where ri represents the i-th relation from **{xIntent,** xNeed, xWant, isAfter, isBefore}, we concatenate each relation with a user utterance u to serve as the context input for our pre-trained BART model: where <s> and </s> are special tokens in BART, and [GEN] is a unique token employed during the pre-training of BART to initiate the commonsenserelated events. BART accepts this input and decodes the commonsense events into implicit taskoriented intents Y = y 1 1:k , y2 1:k , ..., y5 1:k , where y i k denotes the k-th generated commonsense event of the relation ri. ## 2.2 Zero-Shot Bot Recommendation With the inferred intents, the second component aims to recommend appropriate bots capable of executing the anticipated tasks. To pinpoint the task-specific bots based on the required functionality, we leverage the remarkable capacity of a large pre-trained language model, assuming that app descriptions form a part of the pre-trained data. ## 2.2.1 Pre-Trained Language Model The language model used in this study is GPT-J 6B2, an GPT-3-like causal language model trained on the Pile dataset3(Radford et al., 2019), a diverse, open-source language modeling dataset that comprises 22 smaller, high-quality datasets combined together. Making the assumption that app descriptions in mobile app stores are incorporated in the pre-training data, we exploit the learned language capability to suggest task-oriented bots based on the given intents. ## 2.2.2 Prompting For Bot Recommendation To leverage the pre-trained language capability of GPT-J, we manually design prompts for each relation type. For social-interaction relations, the prompt is formulated as "*The user* ri y i 1:k by using a popular app called". For instance, Figure 2 generates a prompt "*The user needs to go to the* restaurant and make the reservation by using a popular app called". For event-centered relations, we 2https://huggingface.co/EleutherAI/gpt-j-6B 3https://pile.eleuther.ai/ $$<\!\!\mathrm{s}\!>\;\;\;u\;\;r_{i}\;\;[\mathrm{GEN}]\;\;\;<\!\!/\;\mathrm{s}\!>,$$ | Method | Precision | Recall | F1 | Human Score (Mean±STD) | |--------------------------------------|-------------|----------|------|--------------------------| | 1-Stage Prompting Baseline | 30.3 | 20.6 | 23.7 | 1.73±1.03 | | 2-Stage Prompting (GPT-3) | 28.6 | 41.7 | 31.8 | 2.11±0.46 | | Proposed 2-Stage (COMeT) | 36.0 | 35.7 | 32.9 | 2.18±0.34 | | Proposed 2-Stage (COMeT) w/o Reasons | - | - | - | 2.15±0.35 | | Gold | 2.44±0.27 | | | | Table 2: Evaluation scores (%). | User Input | We are planning to celebrate friend's birthday at a restaurant in [City]. | Score | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------| | User-labeled | Line (Communication), Google Maps (Maps & Navigation), Calendar (Productivity) | 2.25 | | 1-Stage Prompting | Tinder (Lifestyle), Grindr (Lifestyle) | 1.83 | | 2-Stage Prompting | Zomato can help to book the restaurant in advance. | 2.00 | | WhatsApp can find out about their contact information. | | | | Proposed 2-Stage | WhatsApp can help have a good time and to celebrate a friend's birthday | 2.67 | | OpenTable can help book a table at the restaurant and go to the restaurant. | | | | w/o Reasons | WhatsApp (Communication), OpenTable (Food & Drink) | 2.17 | Table 3: Generated results for given user high-level descriptions. simply concatenate the generated events and appprompt to trigger the recommended task-oriented apps/bots. ## 3 Experiments To evaluate the zero-shot performance of our proposed framework, we collected a test set specific to our multi-domain scenarios. We recruited six volunteers who were knowledgeable about the target scenarios to gather their high-level intention utterances along with the associated task-oriented bots. Upon filtering out inadequate data, our test set incorporated a total of 220 task-oriented bots and 92 high-level utterances, each linked with an average of 2.4 bots. The number of bot candidates considered in our experiments is 6,264, highlighting the higher complexity of our tasks. Our primary aim is to connect a high-level intention with its corresponding task-oriented bot recommendation by leveraging external commonsense knowledge. Therefore, we assess the effectiveness of the proposed methodology and compare it with a 1-stage prompting baseline using GPT-J to maintain fairness in comparison. For this baseline, we perform simple prompting on the user's high-level utterance concatenating with a uniform app-based prompt: "*so I can use some popular apps called*." In response to these context prompts, GPT-J generates the associated (multiple) app names, serving as our baseline results. To further investigate whether our proposed commonsense-inferred implicit intent generator is suitable for our recommendation scenarios, we introduce another 2-stage prompting baseline for comparison. Taking into account that contemporary large language models exhibit astonishing proficiency in commonsense reasoning, we substitute our first component with the state-of-the-art GPT3 (Brown et al., 2020) to infer implicit intents, serving as another comparative baseline. ## 3.1 Automatic Evaluation Results Considering that multiple bots can fulfill the same task (functionality), we represent each app by its category as defined on Google Play, then compute precision, recall, and F1 score at the *category* level. This evaluation better aligns with our task objective; for instance, both "*WhatsApp*" and "*Line*" belong to the same category—"communication" as demonstrated in Table 3. Table 2 presents that the 2-stage methods significantly outperform the 1-stage baseline, suggesting that commonsense knowledge is useful to bridge high-level user utterances with task-oriented bots. Further, our proposed approach, which leverages external commonsense knowledge, achieves superior precision over GPT-3, a quality that is more important in recommendation scenarios. The reason is that GPT-3 may generate hallucinations for inferring more diverse but may not suitable intents. ## 3.2 Human Evaluation Results Given that our goal can be interpreted as a recommendation task, the suggested bots different from user labels can be still reasonable and useful to users. Therefore, we recruited crowd workers from | Method | Win | Lose | Tie | |---------------------------------|-------|--------|-------| | Ours vs. 2-Stage Prompt (GPT-3) | 57.6 | 40.2 | 2.2 | | Ours vs. Ours w/o Reasons | 55.1 | 38.8 | 6.1 | Table 4: Pair-wise human preference results (%). Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT) to evaluate the relevance of each recommended result given its high-level user utterance. Each predicted bot or app is assessed by three workers on a three-point scale: irrelevant (1), **acceptable** (2), and **useful** (3). The human-judged scores are reported in the right part of Table 2, and our proposed framework achieves the average score of 2.18, implying that most recommended tasks are above acceptable. Compared with the 1-stage baseline with a score below 2, it demonstrates that commonsense inferred implicit intents can more effectively connect the reasonable task-oriented bots. Considering that the score of 2-stage prompting is also good, we report the pairwise comparison in Table 4, where we can see that humans prefer ours to 2-stage prompting baseline for 57% of the data. In additon to simply suggesting task-oriented bots, providing the rationale behind their recommendation could help users better judge their utility. Within our proposed framework, the commonsenseinferred implicit intents, which are automatically generated by the first component, can act as the explanations for the recommended task-oriented bots, as illustrated in Table 3. Consequently, we provide these rationales alongside the recommended results using the predicted intents and undergo the same human evaluation process. Table 4 validates that providing these justifications results in improved performance from a human perspective, further suggesting that commonsense-inferred intents are useful not only for prompting task-oriented bots but also for generating human-interpretable recommendation. ## 4 Discussion Table 5 showcases the implicit intents generated by our proposed COMeT generator and GPT-3. It is noteworthy that GPT-3 occasionally produces hallucinations, which can render the recommended bots unsuitable. For instance, given the text prompt "*My best friend likes pop music.*", GPT-3 infers an intent to "*buy a ticket to see Justin Bieber*", which may not align accurately with the user's need. Hence, our experiments reveal that while the | Generated Intent Example | | |----------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Input | My best friend likes pop music. | | COMet | Want → to listen to music Intent → to be entertained Need → to listen to music | | GPT-3 | Want → to get her tickets to see Justin Bieber for her birthday Intent → to buy her a CD by Taylor Swift for her birthday Need → to find songs that are pop and appropriate for her | | Input | I am looking for a job. | | COMet | Want → to apply for a job Intent → to make money Need → to apply for a job | | GPT-3 | Want → to learn more Intent → to apply for a job Need → to update my resume | 2-stage prompting achieves higher recall, its precision is lower. As our objective is to recommend reasonable task-specific bots, a higher precision is more advantageous in our scenarios. ## 5 Conclusion This paper introduces a pioneering task centered around recommending task-oriented dialogue systems solely based on high-level user intention utterances. The proposed framework leverages the power of commonsense knowledge to facilitate zero-shot bot recommendation. Experimental results corroborate the reasonability of the recommended bots through both automatic and human evaluations. Experiments show that the recommended bots are reasonable for both automatic and human evaluation, and the inferred intents can provide informative and interpretable rationales to better convince users of the recommendation for practical usage. This innovative approach bridges the gap between user high-level intention and actionable bot recommendations, paving the way for a more intuitive and user-centric conversational AI landscape. ## Limitations This paper acknowledges three main limitations: 1) the constraints of a zero-shot setting, 2) an uncertain generalization capacity due to limited data in the target task, and 3) the longer inference time required by a large language model. Given the absence of data for our task and the complexity of the target scenarios, collecting a large dataset for supervised or semi-supervised learning presents a significant challenge. As the first approach tackling this task, our framework performs the task in a zero-shot manner, but is applicable to fine-tuning if a substantial dataset becomes available. Consequently, we expect that future research could further train the proposed framework using supervised learning or fine-tuning, thereby enhancing the alignment of inferred implicit intents and recommended bots with training data. This would expand our method to various learning settings and validate its generalization capacity. Conversely, the GPT-J model used for recommending task-oriented bots is considerably large given academic resources, thereby slowing down inference speed. To mitigate this, our future work intends to develop a lightweight student model that accelerates the prompt inference process. Such a smaller language model could not only expedite the inference process to recommend task-oriented bots but also be conveniently fine-tuned using collected data. Despite these limitations, this work can be considered as the pioneering attempt to leverage commonsense knowledge to link task-oriented intents. The significant potential of this research direction is evidenced within this paper. ## Ethics Statement This work primarily targets the recommendation of task-oriented bots, necessitating a degree of personalization. To enhance recommendation effectiveness, personalized behavior data may be collected for further refinement. Balancing the dynamics between personalized recommendation and privacy is a critical consideration. The data collected may contain subjective annotations, and the present paper does not dive into these issues in depth. Future work should address these ethical considerations, ensuring an balance between personalized recommendations and privacy preservation. ## Acknowledgements We thank the reviewers for their insightful comments. This work was financially supported by the Young Scholar Fellowship Program by the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) in Taiwan, under Grants 111-2222-E-002-013-MY3 and 111-2628-E-002-016. ## References Antoine Bosselut, Hannah Rashkin, Maarten Sap, Chaitanya Malaviya, Asli Celikyilmaz, and Yejin Choi. 2019. COMET: Commonsense transformers for automatic knowledge graph construction. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4762–4779. 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. Ssu Chiu, Maolin Li, Yen-Ting Lin, and Yun-Nung Chen. 2022. SalesBot: Transitioning from chit-chat to task-oriented dialogues. In *Proceedings of the 60th* Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6143– 6158. Biplab Deka, Zifeng Huang, Chad Franzen, Joshua Hibschman, Daniel Afergan, Yang Li, Jeffrey Nichols, and Ranjitha Kumar. 2017. RICO: A mobile app dataset for building data-driven design applications. In *Proceedings of the 30th Annual ACM Symposium* on User Interface Software and Technology, pages 845–854. Jena D Hwang, Chandra Bhagavatula, Ronan Le Bras, Jeff Da, Keisuke Sakaguchi, Antoine Bosselut, and Yejin Choi. 2021. (Comet-) Atomic 2020: On symbolic and neural commonsense knowledge graphs. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 6384–6392. 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. Alec Radford, Jeff Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. *OpenAI* blog. Maarten Sap, Ronan Le Bras, Emily Allaway, Chandra Bhagavatula, Nicholas Lourie, Hannah Rashkin, Brendan Roof, Noah A Smith, and Yejin Choi. 2019. Atomic: An atlas of machine commonsense for ifthen reasoning. In *Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence*, volume 33, pages 3027–3035. 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, pages 255–269. Taylor Shin, Yasaman Razeghi, Robert L Logan IV, Eric Wallace, and Sameer Singh. 2020. AutoPrompt: Eliciting knowledge from language models with automatically generated prompts. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 4222–4235. Ming Sun, Yun-Nung Chen, Zhenhao Hua, Yulian Tamres-Rudnicky, Arnab Dash, and Alexander Rudnicky. 2016. AppDialogue: Multi-app dialogues for intelligent assistants. In *Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and* Evaluation (LREC'16), pages 3127–3132. Ming Sun, Yun-Nung Chen, and Alexander I Rudnicky. 2017. HELPR: A framework to break the barrier across domains in spoken dialog systems. In *Dialogues with social robots*, pages 257–269. Springer. Hongming Zhang, Daniel Khashabi, Yangqiu Song, and Dan Roth. 2021. TransOMCS: from linguistic graphs to commonsense knowledge. In *Proceedings of the* Twenty-Ninth International Conference on International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence, pages 4004–4010. 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 Implementation Details In our zero-shot bot recommendation experiments, which are evaluated using Android apps based on RICO data (Deka et al., 2017), we append the phrase "*in Android phone*" to all prompts. This helps guide the resulting recommendations. Taskoriented prompts are fed into GPT-J to generate token recommendations for bots/apps, such as "*OpenTable*", an Android app, which aligns better with our evaluation criteria. In the 2-stage prompting baseline, our prompts for GPT-3, designed to generate commonsenserelated intents, are coupled with our selected relations to ensure a fair comparison. These prompts are outlined in Table 6. ## B Reproducibility To enhance reproducibility, we release our data and code. Detailed parameter settings employed in our experiments are as follows. In commonsense knowledge generation, we apply beam search during generation, setting beam_size=10. In prompting for bot recommendation, a sampling strategy is implemented during recommendation generation, with *max_length=50*, temperature=0.01, and *top_p=0.9*. Relation GPT-3 Prompt Social xIntent so I intend xNeed so I need xWant so I want Event**isAfter** Before, the user needs to isBefore After, the user needs to ## C Crowdsourcing Interface Figure 3 and 4 display annotation screenshots for both types of outputs. Workers are presented with a recommendation result from 1) user-labeled ground truth, 2) the baseline, and 3) our proposed method. Note that results accompanied by reasons originate only from our proposed method. ## D Qualitative Analysis Table 7 features additional examples from our test set, highlighting our method's ability to use commonsense knowledge to recommend more appropriate apps than the baseline, and broaden user choices. In the first example, our method discerns the user's financial needs and suggests relevant financial apps such as *Paypal*. Conversely, the baseline method could only associate the user's needs with communication apps like *WeChat*, possibly influenced by the term *friend* in the high-level description. In the second example, our method infers potential user intents about checking their bank account and purchasing a new notebook, thus recommending *Paypal* for bank account management and *Amazon* for shopping. In the third example, the user mentions having a tight schedule. Hence, our method suggests *Uber* to expedite the user's commute to the movie theater or *Netflix* for instant access to movies. Figure 3: An annotation screenshot of annotating the recommended apps/bots on the Amazon Mechanical Turk, where the results may come from the ground truth, the baseline, or the proposed method. Figure 4: An annotation screenshot of annotating the recommended apps/bots together with the predicted intents as reasons on the Amazon Mechanical Turk. | Data Example | | |----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | User Input | Check if my friend sent the money to me. | | User-labeled | Bank (Finance), Messenger (Communication) | | Baseline | WhatsApp (Communication), WeChat (Communication) | | Proposed | Google Wallet (Finance), WhatsApp (Communication), Paypal (Finance) | | Reasons | Google Wallet can help check if the money was sent to the right place and check if the money was sent to the correct place WhatsApp can help find out where the money came from and find out who sent the money Paypal can help to give the money to my friend and to give the money to the person who sent it to me | | User Input | My notebook was broken. I need to get a new one. Check how much money is left in my account. | | User-labeled | Shopee (Shopping) | | Baseline | Google Play (Google Play) | | Proposed | Google Play (Google Play), Amazon (Shopping), Mint (Tools), Paypal (Finance) | | Reasons | Google Play can help to buy a new one and to buy a new notebook. Amazon can help to buy a new one and find out how much money is left. Mint can help to buy a new one and to buy a new notebook. PayPal can help my credit card is maxed out and my credit card is maxed out and I can't afford a new one. | | User Input | I really like watching movie, but my schedule is so tight. | | User-labeled | Calendar (Productivity), Movies (Entertainment) | | Baseline | MovieBox (Entertainment) | | Proposed | WhatsApp (Communication), Netflix (Entertainment), Youtube (Media), Uber (Maps & Navigation) | | Reasons | WhatsApp can help to be entertained and to have fun. Netflix can help find a movie to watch and find a movie to watch. Youtube can help go to the movies and to find a movie to watch. Uber can help when you have a lot of work to do and have to go to work. Table 7: Generated results for given user high-level descriptions. | ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? The separate section after the main paper ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? The separate section after the main paper ✓ 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?** Left blank. B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Not applicable. 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.? 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. Left blank. ## 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? Section 2 and 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? Table 2 and Section 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 3 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.? Appendix C ✓ 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 ✓ 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 3 ✓ D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Section 3 ✗ D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? The annotators are recruited from the platform, and their characteristics cannot be accurately identified.

liu-etal-2023-mtgp

{MTGP}: Multi-turn Target-oriented Dialogue Guided by Generative Global Path with Flexible Turns

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.18

Target-oriented dialogue guides the dialogue to a target quickly and smoothly. The latest approaches focus on global planning, which plans toward the target before the conversation instead of adopting a greedy strategy during the conversation. However, the global plan in existing works is fixed to certain turns by generating paths with certain nodes, which limits the optimization of turns and coherence of the target-oriented process. Toward flexible global planning, we propose to generate a global path as a natural language sentence instead of a sequence of nodes. With this path, the dialog is guided to the target with flexible turns of dialog. For model training, we also extract targetoriented dialogues from the chit-chat corpus with a knowledge graph. We conduct experiments on three datasets and simulate scenarios with and without user participation. The results show that our method has fewer turns, more coherent semantics, and a higher success rate in reaching the target than baselines.

# Mtgp: Multi-Turn Target-Oriented Dialogue Guided By Generative Global Path With Flexible Turns Anqi Liu1,2**, Bo Wang**2∗ , Yue Tan2, Dongming Zhao3**, Kun Huang**3, Ruifang He2**, Yuexian Hou**2 1School of New Media and Communication, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China 2College of Intelligence and Computing, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China 3AI Lab, China Mobile Communication Group Tianjin Co., Ltd. {anqi_liu, bo_wang, tanyu_098}@tju.edu.cn ## Abstract Target-oriented dialogue guides the dialogue to a target quickly and smoothly. The latest approaches focus on global planning, which plans toward the target before the conversation instead of adopting a greedy strategy during the conversation. However, the global plan in existing works is fixed to certain turns by generating paths with certain nodes, which limits the optimization of turns and coherence of the target-oriented process. Toward flexible global planning, we propose to generate a global path as a natural language sentence instead of a sequence of nodes. With this path, the dialog is guided to the target with flexible turns of dialog. For model training, we also extract targetoriented dialogues from the chit-chat corpus with a knowledge graph. We conduct experiments on three datasets and simulate scenarios with and without user participation. The results show that our method has fewer turns, more coherent semantics, and a higher success rate in reaching the target than baselines.1 ## 1 Introduction Open-domain dialogue agents generate responses using large pre-trained language models and have a fluent multi-turn dialogue with users. It focuses on chit-chat, mostly responding passively to users. More often, we prefer the agent to guide the transition of a topic during dialogue proactively. Targetoriented dialogue is based on open-domain dialogue, which can actively guide the dialogue while communicating with the user fluently. It has many application scenarios, e.g., psychological counseling, dialogue recommendation, and education. In target-oriented dialogue, we hope the dialogue agent can proactively guide the conversation to a goal with coherent semantics and fewer turns. The definition of the goal can be various. For example, Sevegnani et al. (2021) set the goal as a sentence, ∗*Corresponding author. 1Code chttps://github.com/sxnohnarla/MTGP and Tang et al. (2019) set the goal as a specific keyword. Following the definition of Tang et al. (2019) to the task, we set the goal as a concept word. The task succeeds when a user or agent mentions the target word naturally during the dialogue. Previous approaches simplify target-oriented dialogue tasks, and they predict the next-turn keywords based on the dialogue history. Moreover, it's essential to model logical context. Therefore, many works combine predicting keywords with the common knowledge graph (Qin et al., 2020; Zhong et al., 2021; Zhou et al., 2022) and then generate the next-turn response by retrieval or generation. Current research concentrates more on global planning for a global target. Gupta et al. (2022) first generates a global path connecting the source and target words. Then, guided by this global path, they generate a more coherent one-turn dialogue by generating bridging utterances. Yang et al. (2022) plans a global dialogue path based on the knowledge graph and adjusts the model to adapt to the global goal through reinforcement learning. Although the existing target-oriented dialogue methods have shown promising results in success rate and coherence, there are some issues to be solved. The traditional target-oriented dialogue models only consider the dialogue context in predicting the next-turn keywords and do not explicitly plan a global path for the global target. However, Kishinami et al. (2022) describes the targetoriented dialogue task, and their experiments show that global planning is an effective method for target-oriented dialogue. To introduce global planning to target-oriented dialogue, some existing global planning methods such as (Yang et al., 2022; Gupta et al., 2022). Yang et al. (2022) use a static knowledge graph to retrieve a global path. However, a static knowledge graph is still insufficient to track the logic path in target-oriented dialogue. We know that human conversation is complex, some transitions between concept words are plausible in human dialogue, but they are not connected in the graph. Gupta et al. (2022) and Wang et al. (2020a) use a generative model to generate paths between two source and target words. This method combines the characteristics of pre-trained language models and can generate paths that are more relevant to a given source and target words. It is not only simple retrieval but the ability to summarize facts in a knowledge graph and connect relations that may not exist in the graph. However, Gupta et al. (2022) focuses on generating bridging sentences which means only one-turn dialogue is performed. And current research on global targetoriented dialogue can only generate fixed dialogue turns according to the global path. To address these issues, we propose Multi-turn Target-oriented Dialogue Guided By Generative Global Path(**MTGP**) which generates a global path using generative model, and guide multi-turn dialogue through the path. We first generate a global path as a natural language sentence, which connects the concepts in the source context and global target. Then we train a response generator on the sampled dialogue corpus. Finally, we use the generated path to guide dialogue generation. In particular, we do not strictly limit the turns to achieve the target and complete the dialogue within six turns, so our model will generate multi-turn conversation with uncertain turns. Furthermore, we propose an atomic processing method of dialogue corpus for the multi-turn target-oriented task. Due to the lack of suitable multi-turn targetoriented dialogue datasets, we must achieve data requirements through automatic processing. The existing chit-chat corpus can't be directly used as training data for our task because the target is not explicitly set, and transition words in the dialogue are not labeled. But we can extract a corpus that meets the target-oriented task. Specifically, we match the dialogue corpus with the knowledge graph ConceptNet (Speer et al., 2016) and only extract the dialogue corpus that can find a clear turning path in the graph. Besides, the endpoint of the path is set to a target word. These data will be used as the training data of the dialogue generation model. The purpose is to learn the turning in the real dialogue. At the same time, the model can also ensure that the concept words in the path will also appear in the generated responses. We extract multi-turn dialogue corpus from two large-scale chit-chat datasets, DailyDialog (Li et al., 2017), and ConvAI2 (Dinan et al., 2019). After generating an explicit commonsense path from source to target in the final dialogue generation stage, we follow this path for multi-turn dialogue. In this way, we learn from real human dialogue corpus and follow word transitions to achieve a smooth transition. The path generated by the pretrained language model within a limited number of hops also ensures that our multi-turn dialogue can reach the target faster. Our method performs well within existing baselines in both success rate and coherence. In addition, according to TGCP (Kishinami et al., 2022), we also try to generate multi-turn dialogue without users. Meanwhile, we have some experiments on one-turn dialogues using OTTers (Sevegnani et al., 2021). We summarize our contributions as follows: (1) For target-oriented dialogue, given the context and target word, we generate a global path to guide the response generation and conduct multiturn dialogue with an uncertain number of turns. (2) Based on ConceptNet, we propose a method to extract dialogue corpus with corresponding paths on the graph from the existing chit-chat corpus. This path guides the dialogue. (3) We conduct experiments on the sampled corpus and simulate scenarios with and without the user. The results show that MTGP exceeds baselines and has fewer turns, more coherent semantics, and a higher success rate in reaching the target. ## 2 Related Work Target-oriented dialogue systems. Current studies on target-oriented dialogue concentrate on global planning for response generation (Gupta et al., 2022; Yang et al., 2022). First, a global target should be set, then global planning for this global target, and finally, guide the dialogue generation according to the global planning. Typical works include TopKG (Yang et al., 2022), and CODA (Gupta et al., 2022), which correspond to a multiturn and one-turn dialogue model. They all plan a path before starting the dialogue, predicting all the keywords that may be mentioned in the dialogue in order. TopKG searches for global paths by retrieval, while CODA generates paths. There is also some previous work on targetoriented dialogue predicting the next-turn of keywords and retrieving responses (Tang et al., 2019; Qin et al., 2020; Zhong et al., 2021). These work do not have global planning but only set up a global tar-  get, uses a greedy strategy, and gradually achieves the global target during the dialogue. One problem of target-oriented dialogue studies is the datasets. There is a one-turn dialogue corpus named OTTers (Sevegnani et al., 2021 ), which is suitable for target-oriented dialogue tasks, but the dataset is still small. CODA uses OTTers and data augmentation methods to construct a one-turn dialogue model that generates bridging sentences. TopKG proposes a method to extract dialogue materials that meet the requirements of target-oriented dialogue from a small talk corpus. ## Commonsense Knowledge For Target-Oriented dialogue systems. For target-oriented dialogue, we need to reach the global target faster and need context transitions in context to be coherent and logical. Naturally, we use commonsense graphs as external knowledge for global planning and dialogue generation. For example, Qin et al. ( 2020 ) constructs dialogue graph as the structural information for predicting the next-turn keywords, and Zhong et al. (2021) ; Yang et al. (2022) ; Zhou et al. (2021) use ConceptNet to search for keywords/paths. Some works, such as Gupta et al. (2022); Wang et al. (2020a), use generative methods to convert structured knowledge graphs into unstructured knowledge. Building unstructured knowledge will also be more challenging than using knowledge graphs. ## 3 Task Overview Given a context u and a target word t C , we first extract concept word from u as u c , and then generate a path to connect the u c and t c . The path is consists of relations R = { r 1 , ..., r k } and entity words E = {eo, ...,ek}, such as p = {eo,ri,ei,...,rk,ek}. Then we convert it into a semantic sentence Path . Our task is to guide multi-turn dialogue generation with the Path . For t -th turn generated sentence, it should contain the e t in the Path . Naturally, the dialogue ends with the user or agent mentioning the target word or phrase, while the process is fluent and takes a few turns. ## Model 4 We present the MTGP model, depicted in 1. Our approach involves two main components: a Path Generator (PG) model trained on paths sampled from ConceptNet through random walks, and a Next-turn Response Generator (NRG) trained on dialogues extracted from a chit-chat corpus enriched with knowledge paths from ConceptNet. During inference, we use PG and NRG to generate responses that reflect both global paths from PG and the context of the conversation. ## 4.1 Path Generator To train the Path Generator (PG), we follow the approach proposed by Wang et al. (2020b) 2. First, we filter the ConceptNet according to our task definition. We exclude certain relations such as *RelatedTo, HasContext, Synonym*, and keep 24 relations in total. For relations that are not symmetric, we introduce reverse relations. Please refer to A.1 for the details of the filtered relations. Next, we perform a random walk on the graph to generate a set of paths consisting of relations and entities. The starting nodes are chosen randomly from all nodes in ConceptNet. To avoid excessively long paths, we set a maximum path length of k = 6 in p 3 , which allows for paths' length 1 to 6. Finally, we use the sampled paths to train the PG based on the GPT-2. The input format is [tgt]ek[src]e0r1*. . . e*k, where the special tokens [tgt] and [src] prompt the target and source words. It is worth noting that the decoding strategy for PG is important. Wang et al. (2020b) used a greedy decoder, while Gupta et al. (2022) applied a top-k sampling decoder to generate multiple paths and then filtered them based on perplexity scores. Since we only need one path with appropriate length and entities, we adopt beam search for decoding. ## 4.2 Multi-Turn Dialogue Model For the generation of multi-turn dialogue, we train a response generator based on the pre-trained language model. Then we use the response generator to take a multi-turn conversation. What's more, the response generator can both be trained on the oneturn and multi-turn dialogue dataset, so we call it Next-turn Response Generator(NRG). ## 4.2.1 Next-Turn Response Generator Sample Dialogue Corpus with Paths. To train the Next-turn Response Generator (NRG), we need to construct a suitable training dataset. To achieve this, we describe a sampling process in Algorithm 1, which extracts a continuous dialogue corpus with global paths and target words. Algorithm 1: Sampling dialogue corpus over *ConceptNet* Input: ConceptNet, G*full*; Dialogue Corpus, C Output: Filtered Dialogue Corpus over ConceptNet  end First, we extract entity words from each sentence in the original corpus. Next, we create a dialogue sub-graph by adding entity words and relations from ConceptNet between two adjacent sentences. We also note the turns and weight for each relation. Subsequently, we apply a path-finding algorithm to identify all the paths in the sub-graph. Finally, we filter the paths based on consecutive turns and maximum weight, to find a unique global path for each consecutive turns list. The resulting turns list extracts the dialogue corpus, which includes global paths with transitions from ConceptNet. Table 1 shows examples of the resulting corpus. Notably, this approach can be applied to any dataset to extract a continuous dialogue corpus with global    ## Paths And Target Words. Convert Global Paths Into Natural Language Sentences. The format of a path, whether generated by a path generator or obtained by matching dialogue corpus with ConceptNet, is represented in triple format. We prefer to present the path in natural language sentences because we use it as input for the response generator and aim for it to be a reliable reference for the output. This allows the model to understand the connection between entities in the path and generate a similar response. To represent the path in a sentence, similar to CODA(Gupta et al., 2022), we use templates to replace relative words with more natural expressions. As shown in Table 1, replacing *"_hasprerequisite"* with "is a dependency of". Although these sentences may contain semantic errors, our model prioritizes natural narratives. Training Model. We train the NRG model on sampled dialogue corpus. The input format is designed as [tgt]*global target* [ctx] *context sentences(c)* [pth] *path sentence(p)* [res] *response sentence(r)*. The *path* here has been transformed into a sentence with semantics. And if there are more than two sentences of context, use [ctx] to splice them. We can describe the model as P(r|*t, c, p*), and we train it by minimizing the log-likelihood loss of the generated response. We should notice that the NRG model generates only one response, which means for a dialogue data of {A1, B1, A2, B2, A3} as shown in the Figure 2, every other sentence except the first is set as our response to training the model. The Ai, Bi represent the sentences of two speakers, and Caj , Cbj represent the extracted concepts in each sentence. Figure 2: The format of input and output on train data.  ## 4.2.2 Multi-Turn Dialogue Generation Once a path is generated for the source and target word/phrase (represented as p = {e0, r1, e1, ..., rk, ek}), we break it down into triples. We start with an initial path of p0 = {e0, r1, e1} and gradually add ri and ei when generating a response in each turn. Also, add the generated response continuously to the context as dialogue history. Especially replace the prompt of the target with the end of the word in the sub-path. By utilizing global paths and target prompts, multiturn dialogue can reach the target faster. With the help of a pre-trained language model, NRG can generate more natural and fluent responses. ## 5 Experiments 5.1 Datasets We test MTGP on three dialogue corpus. For evaluating multi-turn dialogue, we use two open-domain dialogue datasets: **ConvAI2** (Dinan et al., 2019) and **DailyDialog** (Li et al., 2017). Since our multiturn dialogue model is based on one-turn dialogue, we also evaluate the model on a one-turn dataset OTTers (Sevegnani et al., 2021). ConvAI2 is a chit-chat dataset that contains highquality open-domain dialogues with diverse topics. DailyDialog includes a collection of conversations between people in daily situations, which are labeled with various dialogue acts and emotions. **OTTers** is a one-turn dataset including three sentences in each dialogue: source sentence, bridge sentence, and target sentence. Specifically, the bridge sentence is generated to connect the source and target sentence. In this way, these three sentences form a more coherent dialogue. And for our model MTGP, we also can generate the bridge sentence to evaluate one-turn dialogue. We adopt the processing method for each dataset, and the result of statics for sampled corpus are shown in Table 2. It is worth noting that, as described earlier, some of the sampled dialogue corpora have overlapping parts, but their dialogue paths are all different. | Dataset | Train | Dev | Test | |-------------|---------|-------|--------| | ConvAI2 | 60150 | 10260 | 751 | | DailyDialog | 17425 | 1524 | 964 | | OTTers | 1876 | 946 | 855 | Table 2: The number of conversations in the three sampled corpus and their division. ## 5.2 Baselines We select five methods as our baselines. MultiGen (Ji et al., 2020) based on GPT-2, which extends GPT-2 with dynamic multi-hop reasoning on a commonsense knowledge graph. DKRN (Qin et al., 2020) learns the transfer of keywords from the dialogue corpus and predicts the next-turn keywords, finally using the retrieval method to generate the response. CKC (Zhong et al., 2021) uses ConceptNet to predict next-turn keywords and generates a response by retrieval. TopKG (Yang et al., 2022) retrieves a global path on ConceptNet and uses a reinforcement learning method to guide the dialogue close to the target. CODA (Gupta et al., 2022) only generate one bridge sentences. Here we extend it to a multi-turn dialogue model **CODA-multi**. Details of CODA-multi. We train a multi-turn version of CODA as a baseline. CODA aims to insert a transitive response in two source and target sentences to generate smooth dialogue, which we have adopted. To train CODA-multi, we first trained the Knowledge Path Generator (KPG) using the method provided by CODA. Then, we constructed CODA-multi by continuously adding new sentences between the newly generated response and the target sentence. We divided the dataset into sets of three sentences and used the paths generated by KPG to train the Commonsense Response Generator (CRG). During the reasoning stage, we set the last sentence as the target sentence and used KPG and CRG until the generated response contained the target word. Ultimately, we also can regard CODA-multi as a global planning method. It also plans a global path from the source and target sentence. We have included the code for training and inference of CODA-multi in GitHub. ## 5.3 Ablation Studies We construct some CODA variants as follows. MTGP-noedge has only entities in ConceptNet nodes but no relation words. Because we turn the generated path into a sentence, it is used for testing whether paths with complete semantic information have a significant effect on experimental results. MTGP-kbpath replaces generated path with retrieval 2-hop path on ConceptNet. It is used for contrasting with the retrieval path whether the generated path that is expanded with more knowledge is better than the retrieval way. MTGP-notarget cancels the prompt of the target. MTGP-upper replaces the generated path with the ground-truth path sampled from ConceptNet. Implementation Details are in Appendix A.4. Method User No User Succ. Turns Coh. Succ. Turns Coh. MultiGen(Ji et al., 2020) 0.23 2.81 0.21 0.18 2.93 0.23 DKRN(Qin et al., 2020) 0.39 3.24 0.33 0.32 3.62 0.33 CKC(Zhong et al., 2021) 0.41 4.08 0.35 0.35 4.24 0.28 CODA-multi(Gupta et al., 2022) 0.81 2.73 0.24 0.74 2.88 0.51 TopKG(Yang et al., 2022) 0.49 3.95 0.31 0.45 4.13 0.3 MTGP **0.95** 3.26 0.40 **0.92** 1.96 0.31 MTGP-noedge 0.91 2.67 0.29 0.89 3.01 0.27 MTGP-kbpath 0.75 3.03 0.25 0.72 3.24 0.21 MTGP-notarget 0.85 3.10 0.36 0.84 3.03 0.32 MTGP-upper 0.89 2.84 0.32 0.87 2.73 0.29 Table 3: The automatic evaluation of MTGP on ConvAI2. Note that our task requirement is to reach the target smoothly and fast. "Coh." and "Turns" not the higher / lower the better. Method User No User Succ. Turns Coh. Succ. Turns Coh. MultiGen(Ji et al., 2020) 0.15 3.66 0.22 0.19 3.94 0.19 DKRN(Qin et al., 2020) 0.28 3.89 0.27 0.32 3.15 0.30 CKC(Zhong et al., 2021) 0.31 4.69 0.26 0.36 4.25 0.29 CODA-multi(Gupta et al., 2022) 0.69 4.21 0.48 0.65 3.98 0.29 TopKG(Yang et al., 2022) 0.38 4.25 0.36 0.33 4.02 0.34 MTGP **0.82** 4.23 0.33 **0.73** 2.46 0.30 MTGP-noedge 0.74 3.81 0.31 0.86 3.54 0.27 MTGP-kbpath 0.68 3.93 0.30 0.73 3.33 0.29 MTGP-notarget 0.75 3.89 0.29 0.89 3.10 0.30 MTGP-upper 0.78 3.73 0.28 0.83 2.84 0.29 ## 5.4 Metrics Path Generation Evaluation. We perform an automatic evaluation on the generated paths, referring to the settings of Wang et al. (2020b). The results are shown in Table 5. *Connection* represents the proportion of the paths successfully connecting the head, and tail entities, *Valid Entity* represents the proportion of entities found in ConceptNet, *Triple* in Cpnet represents the proportion of triples in all generated paths present in the ConceptNet. **Scores** comes from Bilinear AVG (Li et al., 2016), which produces scores for a given triplet. But we use it to score all triples in the path. For one pair of head and tail entities, the score of each relation is between 0-1, representing the confidence of the triple. Here we select three modes to score the triplets in the path, namely sum score, *best score* and max score. *sum score* is the proportion that the sum of the scores of all relations that can connect the head and tail is greater than 3. *max score* represents the proportion of the maximum relation score is greater than 0.5. *best score* means the proportion of the triples whose relation score is greater than 0.5. Multi-turn Dialogue evaluation. To evaluate the performance of MTGP to guide the target and generate a response in multi-turn dialogue, as previous work do (Qin et al., 2020; Zhong et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2022), we set three automatic metrics. *Succ.* measures the success rate of the model achieving the global target within six turns. *Turns* indicates the average turns of all dialogues which achieve the global target successfully. *Coh.* measures the contextual semantic similarity between the last sentence in context and generated response. One-turn Dialogue evaluation. We also set some metrics to evaluate MTGP on one-turn dialogue. We use the same metrics as CODA, they are *BLEU* (Papineni et al., 2002), *ROUGE-L* (Lin, 2004), *METEOR* (Banerjee and Lavie, 2005), BertScore (BS-rec and BS-F1) (Zhang et al., 2019) and TC (Target-Coherence) (Gupta et al., 2022). Especially, TC is based on a classification model trained to classify a transition response as either positive, that is, it is coherent to the context and smoothly transitions towards the target, or negative, that is, the response is either not coherent to the context or does not transition towards the target. ## 5.5 Results Quality of Generated Paths. From the results, we can see that almost all paths can successfully connect source and target entities, and the generated entities are almost derived from ConceptNet. It is worth noting that only half of the generated triples are in ConceptNet, indicating that through the path generator, a lot of triplets that are not in the ConceptNet are generated, which makes the commonsense in the path not limited to the ConceptNet, and further expands the knowledge through pre-trained language model. More details show in the Appendix A.2. Table 5: Automatic Evaluation of the generated paths on the testset. All scores are scaled to be percentage-based. Multi-turn Evaluation. We take experiments on two chit-chat corpus and simulate two scenarios with the user and without the user's participation. We use GPT-2 to fine-tune a user simulator using a chit-chat corpus. For the no-user scenario, we just let the model self-play. The results show in Table 3 and Table 4. We observe that : (1) The results of global planning(TopKG, CODA-multi, MTGP) are Method BLEU METEOR ROUGE-L BertScore TC      MultiGen 6.22 12.53 28.14 40.03 27.82 DKRN 3.43 12.24 24.45 36.13 28.32 CKC 2.8 11.16 23.2 35.23 21.5 TopKG 3.31 12.32 28.54 38.13 28.32 CODA 5.02 12.63 25.91 38.02 36.72 MTGP 5.92 12.54 27.32 38.32 **36.90** MTGP-noedge 4.40 12.46 25.13 37.85 32.73 MTGP-kbpath 4.23 12.32 26.07 37.42 35.72 MTGP-notarget 4.01 12.54 25.53 38.63 33.84 MTGP-upper 4.13 12.52 26.96 38.25 35.70   generally better than the results of greedy strategies(MultiGen, DKRN, CKC). Among the global planning methods, MTGP has the highest success rate, but its coherence is slightly lower than CODAmulti. Because CODA-multi inserts a response between two sentences, MTGP considers the contexts above. (2) Generating paths(CODA-multi, MTGP) is better than retrieving paths(MultiGen, DKRN, CKC, TopKG).(3) Scenarios with users have a higher success rate than scenarios without users. The global path does not limit the user response, and the model needs to guide new topics while replying to the user. This is less biased than model self-play. Also, in terms of coherence, the user simulator only needs to reply to the previous sentence, so it has higher coherence. However, there are more turns with users. One-turn Evaluation. The result in OTTers shows in Table 6. Although the reference-based metrics are slightly biased, we still observe that MTGP outperforms all the baselines under OTTers data about TC score, demonstrating that the proposed method leads to some improvements in response quality. ConvAI2 DailtDialog Relationship No User User No User User Turns = Path Len. 208 13 149 14 Turns < Path Len. 481 62 671 73 Turns > Path Len. 62 676 144 877 Avg. Path Len. 2.60 2.60 3.15 3.15 Avg. Turns 1.96 3.26 2.46 4.23 Table 7: Statistics on the relationship between path length and turns Relationship between turns and path length. In Table 7, we observe that with user participation, the turns are mostly longer than the path length. This is also because the global path does not guide users and only responds based on common sense. | Connection | Valid Entity | Triple in Cpnet | Scores | | | |--------------|----------------|-------------------|----------|-------|-------| | sum score | best score | max score | | | | | 99.33 | 99.69 | 54.67 | 33.13 | 22.21 | 57.38 | For scenarios without users, the turns are roughly the same as or slightly lower than the path length. Duplicate entities in some paths, a small semantic span of entities, or multiple entities in response will lead to this result, which is also within our expectations. Ablations. From the ablation experiments results, we can draw the following conclusions: (1) Path sentences with complete semantic information perform better than sentences composed of entity words, which shows that paths with edges are essential for response generation. (2) The performance has dropped significantly by retrieving two-hop paths instead of generating paths for global planning. On the one hand, some paths from the source target cannot be found within two hops; on the other hand, some nodes have no specific paths in the graph. (3) The performance of canceling the target prompt is somewhat reduced. Still, the impact is insignificant because, during training, the model can also learn that the last word in the path is the target word. (4) Replacing the generated path with the grounded path improves performance. However, the performance is still not as good as the original model. It also shows that improving the quality of the path obtained by retrieval can improve performance, but the generated path with richer information is more dominant. Case Study. In the case Table 8, we give the source sentence, the target sentence, the global target extracted from the target sentence, and a generated global path. In a dialog with user participation, A represents the user, and B represents the model. The case study demonstrates MTGP can carry out coherent dialogue according to the global path and reach the target in the appropriate turns. For example, in the first case, without user participation, MTGP generates a coherent dialogue along the entity words mentioned in the path. Still, for the CODA-multi model, the information in the global path is not well applied, although it reaches the target word *walk*. For the with-user case, the user response is not affected by the global path, but MTGP can reply to the user while guiding new topics appropriately according to the global path. However, we can find from the two cases that the sentences generated by the CODA-multi have a case of self-repeating or repeating contexts, that is, the guidance of the global path is invalid and generate the same sentence as context. Some fail cases are shown in Appendix A.3. ## 6 Conclusions In this work, we propose a multi-turn targetoriented dialogue model which can achieve global target guiding by a generative global path. We also offer an automatic method to match dialogue corpus with commonsense graphs and sample dialogue corpus with paths. The extensive experiments show that our approach can make the dialogue simple and effective to reach the target with a higher success rate. In future work, we will explore using unstructured knowledge for global planning. ## Limitations The main limitation of this work is the usage of explicit knowledge in the knowledge graph. Although using knowledge graphs is a common advantage of most current target-oriented dialogue studies, and explicit relations between entities help to effective and reliable reasoning for the recommendation, there is still a large amount of implicit knowledge in unstructured resources that cannot be extracted as explicit triplets, e.g., the multidimensional similarity between entities, but can be a further extra supplement to dialog context. In this work, we involve implicit knowledge by generating a path as a natural language sentence, but the knowledge graph is still necessary. In future work, we will explore only using unstructured knowledge for global planning. ## Ethics Statement Our multi-turn target-oriented dialogue model can facilitate and quickly conduct dialogues with users. It can be used in many applications, such as movie recommendation, product recommendation, psychological consultation, educational dialogue on a particular topic, etc. All models in this paper are trained on the public corpus. The used datasets do not contain personal information or unethical language. We also ensure the anonymization of the human evaluation. ## 7 Acknowledgements This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (62272340, 61876128, 61876129, 62276187, 61976154, 61402323), State Key Laboratory of Communication Content Cognition (Grant. No.A32003). | Source Sentence: i also like black and blue and pink great colors. Target Sentence: don't you mean the sunrise ? i like to walk. helps with my dieting. Global Target: walk Path: pink is distinct from blue is a property of wind makes someone want to fly kite has prequisite go outside is a dependency of walk Case on ConvAI2 with No User | Source Sentence: hi how are you ? what is your favorite food ? Target Sentence: i work nights at the bar now and wanna do night shift as a nurse. Global Target: night Path: food is at location dinner is the location which has drinks is a dependency of becoming inebriated used for relaxing uses night Case on ConvAI2 with No User | | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | A: blue is a great color. my dog and me go hiking. B: cool. i like watching the wind blow. A: i like flying kites. B: flying kite? that's my favorite thing. A: i do not like planes. being outside is cool. B: the sun is nice. i like to walk. A: i've to go to the grocery store and buy groceries. B: i like to go to the beach and hike. do you go outside? | | | | CODA-multi | A: i not walk a lot. i like to go out to eat. Case on ConvAI2 with User | A: hello, i am great. my favorite dinner is a nice steak. B: sounds very complimentary. what do you drink? A: i don't drink, it probably can become inebriated. B: sad. i love tea. calming my soul. A: yes. evening drinks are a relaxing thing. B: my night is spent relaxing after a long day of hiking. A : i am in a relationship with my nieces and nephews. what do you do for fun? | | CODA-multi | (get trapped) Case on ConvAI2 with User | | | MTGP | MTGP | | | A: i love purple. what is your favorite food? B: blue my fav. what about you? A: i like red, reminds me of summer time. B: nice. summer is nice. i like the wind. A: me too! i like the color yellow. B: yellow is a nice color. i fly kites. A: cool. i fly kites for a living. B: what kind of things do you like to do outside? A: i like to go out to eat. B: that is cool. i like walking outside. | | | | CODA-multi | A: that is so cool! i like to read a lot. B: i am not a big walker, but i like to go outside sometimes. | A: hi i'm great how are you B: i am fine do you like to eat dinner A: i do. i'm in a wheel chair. B: i'm drinking a diet coke and eating snacks. A: sounds like you are having a rough day. B: yeah, i am getting inebriated. A: i am sorry. do you have any hobbies? B: yes, i like to ride my bike to relax. A: i love to do that too. B: i work nights at mcdonalds. | | CODA-multi | A: what is your favorite food? B: i love night shifts. what do you do for fun? | | | MTGP | MTGP | | ## References Satanjeev Banerjee and Alon Lavie. 2005. Meteor: An automatic metric for mt evaluation with improved correlation with human judgments. In *Proceedings of* the acl workshop on intrinsic and extrinsic evaluation measures for machine translation and/or summarization, pages 65–72. Emily Dinan, Varvara Logacheva, Valentin Malykh, Alexander Miller, Kurt Shuster, Jack Urbanek, Douwe Kiela, Arthur Szlam, Iulian Serban, Ryan Lowe, Shrimai Prabhumoye, Alan W. Black, Alexander Rudnicky, Jason Williams, Joelle Pineau, Mikhail Burtsev, and Jason Weston. 2019. The Second Conversational Intelligence Challenge (ConvAI2). ArXiv:1902.00098 [cs]. Prakhar Gupta, Harsh Jhamtani, and Jeffrey Bigham. 2022. Target-guided dialogue response generation using commonsense and data augmentation. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022*, pages 1301–1317, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Haozhe Ji, Pei Ke, Shaohan Huang, Furu Wei, Xiaoyan Zhu, and Minlie Huang. 2020. Language generation with multi-hop reasoning on commonsense knowledge graph. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 725–736, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yosuke Kishinami, Reina Akama, Shiki Sato, Ryoko Tokuhisa, Jun Suzuki, and Kentaro Inui. 2022. Target-guided open-domain conversation planning. In *Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics*, pages 660–668, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics. Xiang Li, Aynaz Taheri, Lifu Tu, and Kevin Gimpel. 2016. Commonsense knowledge base completion. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1445–1455, 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. Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In *Text summarization* branches out, pages 74–81. Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and WeiJing 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. Jinghui Qin, Zheng Ye, Jianheng Tang, and Xiaodan Liang. 2020. Dynamic Knowledge Routing Network for Target-Guided Open-Domain Conversation. *Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence*, 34(05):8657–8664. Karin Sevegnani, David M. Howcroft, Ioannis Konstas, and Verena Rieser. 2021. OTTers: One-turn topic transitions for open-domain dialogue. 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 2492–2504, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Robyn Speer, Joshua Chin, and Catherine Havasi. 2016. Conceptnet 5.5: An open multilingual graph of general knowledge. *Proceedings of 31St AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence*. Jianheng Tang, Tiancheng Zhao, Chenyan Xiong, Xiaodan Liang, Eric Xing, and Zhiting Hu. 2019. TargetGuided Open-Domain Conversation. In *Proceedings* of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5624–5634, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Peifeng Wang, Nanyun Peng, Filip Ilievski, Pedro Szekely, and Xiang Ren. 2020a. Connecting the Dots: A Knowledgeable Path Generator for Commonsense Question Answering. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 4129–4140, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Peifeng Wang, Nanyun Peng, Filip Ilievski, Pedro Szekely, and Xiang Ren. 2020b. Connecting the dots: A knowledgeable path generator for commonsense question answering. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 4129–4140, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Zhitong Yang, Bo Wang, Jinfeng Zhou, Yue Tan, Dongming Zhao, Kun Huang, Ruifang He, and Yuexian Hou. 2022. TopKG: Target-oriented dialog via global planning on knowledge graph. In *Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics*, pages 745–755, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics. Tianyi Zhang, Varsha Kishore, Felix Wu, Kilian Q Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. 2019. Bertscore: Evaluating text generation with bert. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1904.09675. Peixiang Zhong, Yong Liu, Hao Wang, and Chunyan Miao. 2021. Keyword-Guided Neural Conversational Model. *arXiv:2012.08383 [cs]*. Jinfeng Zhou, Bo Wang, Ruifang He, and Yuexian Hou. 2021. CRFR: Improving conversational recommender systems via flexible fragments reasoning on knowledge graphs. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4324–4334, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jinfeng Zhou, Bo Wang, Zhitong Yang, Dongming Zhao, Kun Huang, Ruifang He, and Yuexian Hou. 2022. CR-GIS: Improving conversational recommendation via goal-aware interest sequence modeling. In *Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics*, pages 400–411, Path: age is distinct from **young** capable of **enjoy** can be typically done by **young people** is a **pair** Target: pair Context: "lady never tells her age , besides , i nip , tuck and tan so you cannot tell my age" B: "i am pretty **young**. i got my bachelors degree" A: "i do **enjoy** it. i've two daughters." B: "larry and i have a younger sibling." A: "london is an exciting place to be. we have lots of fun there." B: "our friends and family come and go often. we love having fun together!" A: "it is great. lots exciting. do you have any plans for today?" Path : car capaleof **set off** is the first subevent of **go somewhere** is wanted due to **travel arrangements** is a subevent of **play chess** has subevent **care** Target: care Context: "i'm not sure why they do not . do you like **cars** ?" B: "they just **set off** and left me for dead." A: "oh. i'd like to know **where** you are **going**." B: "i am from. i have been to 7 countries in europe and 3 in asia." A: "i love **playing chess**. how have you traveled?" B: "i've not traveled much, i just started taking beauty classes." "beautiful! i love traveling. i am thinking of taking a break from nursing." Table 9: Some failure cases.  Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics. ## A Appendix A.1 Filtered Relation On Conceptnet We remove the following relations: Antonym, DerivedFrom, EtymologicallyDerivedFrom, EtymologicallyRelatedTo, FormOf, HasContext, RelatedTo, Synonym, NotCapableof, NotDesires, NotHasproperty, Entails, Instanceof and all relations labeled with *"dbpedia/"* in ConceptNet 5.5 (Speer et al., 2016) 3 ## A.2 Illegal Relations We do not statics valid relations because we divide the paths into triples according to the relation. In fact, due to the limited number of relations in the training data, according to our statistics, although the effective relations do not reach 100%, the proportion of illegal relations does not exceed 0.1%. There are illegal relations in generated paths, like *hasprevent, hassuberequisite, haslastsubewarm, hassube, hasfirstsube, and haslastsube*. These words are morphologically close to the relative words at the beginning of has-, causing the pre-trained language model to fail to recognize their features accurately. ## A.3 Fail Cases We conduct an error analysis on results and find some error examples in Table 9. There are two main reasons for these examples. (1) The model does not understand the intermediate entity words 3https://github.com/commonsense/conceptnet5 generated by the path in time. (2) Words with similar semantics to the target words are generated. In the first case, the target is not reached for the target word *pair* because the model misses the output of the word *young couple*. But this is just a particular example, in most cases, the goal can be achieved. For the second case, the target word *care*, but the model generates a word nursing that has similar semantics to care. ## A.4 Implementation Details Our code is based on Pytorch-lightning, Pytorch, and Huggingface4. We train both PG and NRG models on a Tesla P100-PCIE-16GB GPU. We use Adam optimizer with an initial learning rate of 5e-5 and 4 num_workers. We set batch size 32, input length 128, output length 32, epoch 5 for NRG. And PG's batch size is 4, the input length is 16, the output length is 32, epoch is 10. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist 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 Ethics Statement ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? 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 5 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 4 5 ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Section 4.1 Appendix A.1 ✓ 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 5 ✗ 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 widely used chat corpus dataset used in this paper has been anonymized. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Section 5.1 ✓ 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 5.1 ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Section 5.3 ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? A.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? A.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? A.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.)? A.4 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.

miceli-barone-etal-2023-larger

The Larger they are, the Harder they Fail: Language Models do not Recognize Identifier Swaps in Python

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.19

Large Language Models (LLMs) have successfully been applied to code generation tasks, raising the question of how well these models understand programming. Typical programming languages have invariances and equivariances in their semantics that human programmers intuitively understand and exploit, such as the (near) invariance to the renaming of identifiers. We show that LLMs not only fail to properly generate correct Python code when default function names are swapped, but some of them even become more confident in their incorrect predictions as the model size increases, an instance of the recently discovered phenomenon of Inverse Scaling, which runs contrary to the commonly observed trend of increasing prediction quality with increasing model size. Our findings indicate that, despite their astonishing typical-case performance, LLMs still lack a deep, abstract understanding of the content they manipulate, making them unsuitable for tasks that statistically deviate from their training data, and that mere scaling is not enough to achieve such capability.

# The Larger They Are, The Harder They Fail: Language Models Do Not Recognize Identifier Swaps In Python Antonio Valerio Miceli-Barone1∗ amiceli@ed.ac.uk Fazl Barez1∗ f.barez@ed.ac.uk Ioannis Konstas2 i.konstas@hw.ac.uk Shay B. Cohen1 scohen@inf.ed.ac.uk 1 School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh 2 School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences, Heriot-Watt University ## Abstract Large Language Models (LLMs) have successfully been applied to code generation tasks, raising the question of how well these models understand programming. Typical programming languages have invariances and equivariances in their semantics that human programmers intuitively understand and exploit, such as the (near) invariance to the renaming of identifiers. We show that LLMs not only fail to properly generate correct Python code when default function names are swapped, but some of them even become more confident in their incorrect predictions as the model size increases, an instance of the recently discovered phenomenon of *Inverse Scaling*, which runs contrary to the commonly observed trend of increasing prediction quality with increasing model size. Our findings indicate that, despite their astonishing typical-case performance, LLMs still lack a deep, abstract understanding of the content they manipulate, making them unsuitable for tasks that statistically deviate from their training data, and that mere scaling is not enough to achieve such capability. ## 1 Introduction Pretrained Large Language Models (LLMs) are rapidly becoming one of the dominant paradigm for large variety of language tasks (Brown et al., 2020a; Chowdhery et al., 2022), including programming code generation and completion (Chen et al., 2021; Li et al., 2022). LLMs have demonstrated increasing performance with increasing model size1 on many practical tasks (Kaplan et al., 2020; Hernandez et al., 2021) including programming tasks (Nijkamp et al., 2022), recently, however, researchers  Figure 1: Given a Python prompt (on top) which swaps of two builtin functions, large language models prefer the incorrect but statistically common continuation (right) to the correct but unusual one (left). have identified a number of tasks that exhibit inverse scaling, where output quality decreases, rather than increase, with increasing model size. Tasks with inverse scaling generally either involve social biases (Parrish et al., 2022; Srivastava et al., 2022), where the larger models (arguably correctly) learn undesirable biases from biased training sets, or involve examples of natural language that are highly atypical but still easily understandable by a human (McKenzie et al., 2022b). These tasks may involve unusual discourse pragmatics or they may require reasoning about counterfactual knowledge, however, since they tend to be highly artificial, it could perhaps be argued that they are edge cases which may not represent serious failure modes for practical applications. In this paper we present a novel type of inverse scaling task involving Python code generation under a redefinition of default identifiers. This has both practical implications (redefinition of default identifiers is a metaprogramming technique used in popular libraries), and broader scientific implications, as it shows that LLMs fail to reason about the deep, abstract semantic structure of programming languages, and these flaws are not ameliorated, but in fact may be even worsened, by increasing model size. Programming languages have precise and well-  | heads (prompts) | |-------------------------------| | original bodies (bad classes) | corrected bodies (good classes) Dataset  defined syntax and semantics which makes them especially suited to automatic analysis and procedural generation. They are scientifically interesting because they can be used for automatic generation of examples of coding problems and their evaluation against an objective ground truth, whereas most NLP tasks have enough ambiguity that require human annotation in order to produce high-quality examples. Furthermore, this research is also of practical importance for software engineering tools that use LLMs, such as GitHub Copilot,2 which are starting to be widely adopted by developers. ## 2 Methodology We describe the motivation behind our task (§2.1) and the task itself (§2.2), followed by the way we collected the data for the task (§2.3). We release our dataset as well as the code used to generate it and replicate our experiments3. ## 2.1 Task Motivation Turing-complete languages have invariances and equivariances, making it possible to express the same function by multiple programs (see Appendix H for formal definitions). While determining semantic equivalence is undecidable in the general case (Rice, 1953), sometimes it can be determined by pure syntactic analysis. For instance, α-equivalence, invariance under the consistent renaming of identifiers such as variable or function names, can be decided using syntactic analysis. Proper understanding of the semantics of a programming language requires identifying its invariances and equivariances, as opposed to "shortcut learning" (Geirhos et al., 2020) which instead exploits many weak, spurious correlations that do not generalize out of the observed data distribution. We propose a task based on the approximate α-equivalence of Python code, in order to evaluate how well LLMs master the semantics of Python. ## 2.2 Task Description We consider code snippets in Python 3. Python allows to redefine *builtin* functions4 by reassigning their identifiers. For instance, the statement ## Len, Print = Print, Len swaps the identifiers for the builtin functions len and print. Any function defined following that identifier swap would have to refer to the builtin function len by the identifier print and vice versa. We consider a code generation task where the model is given a top-level function *declaration*, followed by a *docstring* (which typically describes the behavior of the function in natural language) and has to generate the rest of the body of the function, similar to Miceli Barone and Sennrich (2017), but with the caveat that we prepend to the declaration a *statement* that swaps two Python builtin functions that are expected to be used in the function body. Specifically, in line with the format of the Inverse Scaling Prize5 we define our **Builtin identifier swap** task as a binary classification task where the input of each example is the concatenation of a swap statement, function declaration (with optional decorators) and docstring. A "bad" output for such input is a function body that uses the builtin functions according to their usual meaning, ignoring the swap statement. In contrast, the "good" output is a function body where the builtin functions are used consistently with the swap statement. To assess the success of the model in distinguishing between the "bad" and the "good" output, we compute the likelihood of each output given the input provided as a prompt (Figure 1, Appendix D). ## 2.3 Data Collection Similar to Miceli Barone and Sennrich (2017), our dataset collection procedure involves scraping code from GitHub using the PyCodeSuggest library6 (Bhoopchand et al., 2016) to download Python repositories with at least 100 stars, of size at most 200 MB and which mention the use of the Open Source CC-BY-4.0 license7in their README. Our final dataset includes 559 repositories downloaded on 16 December 2022. We then parse the .py files in each repository with the Python 3 ast module to make sure that they contain valid code. We extract 1,000 randomly chosen top-level functions that each contain a docstring and that reference at least two callable builtin identifiers, as defined by the builtins module. For each of these extracted functions, we randomly choose two builtin functions and generate the corresponding swap statement, function declaration (with decorators) and docstring as the example prompt, the original function body (regenerated from the abstract syntax tree with the astunparse module8) as the "bad" output and the function body where the two selected builtins are swapped consistently with the swap statement as the "good" output (Figure 2). Note that functions can in principle access the builtin identifiers as strings using reflection and evaluation facilities, which may require a full static analysis of the code to identify and is undecidable in the general case. Since our method uses purely syntactic substitutions, there might be cases where the "good" outputs do not maintain the expected function behavior. In practice, this dynamic access of identifiers at runtime is rare with builtin identifiers and therefore does not pose an issue. ## 3 Experiments We next describe our experiments with a likelihood calculation of correct and incorrect completions (§3.1) and chat LLMs (§3.2), and then present a qualitative analysis (§3.3). Computational resources We spent approximately 130 US dollars, including donated credits, to use the OpenAI LLMs through their publicly accessible API. We also used a small amount of machine-hours on the Baskerville Tier 2 HPC platform9equipped 6https://github.com/uclnlp/pycodesuggest 7https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 8https://pypi.org/project/astunparse/ 9https://www.baskerville.ac.uk/ with NVIDIA A100 GPUs. While this is a highend system, our experiments on the open source models can be also practically run on consumergrade machines with gaming GPUs. ## 3.1 Completion Likelihood For our main set of experiments, we evaluate our dataset on families of auto-regressive language models (OpenAI GPT-3, Salesforce CodeGen, Meta AI OPT) and one family of sequenceto-sequence conditional auto-regressive language models (Google FLAN-T5). All models are based on the Transformer architecture (Vaswani et al., 2017) and pretrained on large datasets scraped from the Internet (full details in Appendix A). Results We evaluate our datasets on the models using a modified version of the Inverse Scaling Prize evaluation code.10 We report the results for all models in Figure 3. The graphs show the classification loss averaged over the examples for each model, with standard errors represented as error bars. | Model family | Pearson | Spearman | Kendall | |----------------|-----------|------------|-----------| | OPT | 0.94 | 0.83 | 0.73 | | GPT-3 | 0.97 | 1.00 | 1.00 | | InstructGPT | 0.94 | 0.80 | 0.67 | | CodeGen-multi | 0.46 | 0.40 | 0.33 | | CodeGen-mono | 0.10 | 0.20 | 0.00 | | GPT-Codex | -1.00 | -1.00 | -1.00 | | FLAN-T5 | 0.01 | 0.10 | 0.00 | Table 1: Correlation coefficients between log-model size and log-loss for each model family. Bolded values indicate inverse scaling at p-value < 0.1. The two text-based GPT-3.5 models (text-davinci-002 and text-davinci-003) are not included in this analysis. All tested models always prefer the incorrect output resulting in zero classification accuracy, the log-likelihood of the incorrect output is always significantly higher than the uniform baseline, but it varies with the model. Specifically: - The Meta AI OPT and OpenAI text-based GPT-3 families exhibit strong inverse scaling, with the larger models more strongly preferring the incorrect output. The trend is monotonic for the "First  generation" GPT-3 family, and somewhat nonmonotonic for the OPT and InstructGPT families. The InstructGPT models perform worse than the base GPT-3 models. - The Salesforce CodeGen models exhibit mostly flat scaling. The "mono" models which are further fine-tuned on Python-only data perform worse than the "multi" models they are based on. - The OpenAI Codex models are the only models that seem to show positive scaling (which may be spurious since they are only two data points). However, the two GPT-3.5 models (text-davinci-002 and text-davinci-003, shown in the figures as red crosses) that further fine-tune code-davinci-002 on English demonstrations, lose their edge and end up performing worse than the base GPT-3 model of the same size (davinci). - Google FLAN-T5 shows an unclear, oscillating scaling trend, with large error bars at each point. We report numerical correlation results between model size and mean loss11 in Table 1. Due to the small number of model sizes per family, some of the p-values are quite high, but the numerical results are consistent with the qualitative analysis. Overall, our analysis shows that autoregressive text-based LLMs (even when previously pretrained on code-based models) exhibit inverse scaling on our task, while the code-based models exhibit flat scaling which might possibly transition to positive scaling at the largest tested size, but fail to substantially improve over the text-based models. 11in the log-log scale, which for Pearson's correlation measures the adherence to the (inverse of) power law scaling as described by Kaplan et al. (2020). ## 3.2 Chat Llms Accuracy We perform additional experiments on chat LLMs by OpenAI and Anthropic, whose APIs became recently available. These models constrain both the input text and the generated output to take the form of a dialogue between the user and the "assistant" (the model itself). Notably, the APIs of these models do not report log-probabilities, hence they cannot be used to score arbitrary texts. This prevents us from using the same experimental protocol of the other experiments. We instead reformulate the task as binary classification where the model is presented with both the correct and incorrect forms of the same program in the same user message and is asked to select the correct one. We describe the models and the prompt templates in Appendix C.  Results We report the results in Figure 5. All the models strongly prefer the incorrect programs, although the classification accuracy is non-zero. This may not be necessarily comparable to the zero classification accuracy of the previous experiments, due to the different experimental protocol. The Anthropic models (claude-instant and claude) show better accuracy (10-18%) with positive scaling and never produce invalid outputs. The OpenAI models (gpt-3.5-turbo and gpt-4) show low accuracy (< 4%) with flat or inverse scaling and occasionally produce invalid outputs. ## 3.3 Qualitative Experiments We perform a small number of manual two-shot experiments on GPT-3.5. We also carry out manual experiments on OpenAI ChatGPT-3.512 and GPT-4 models, where we interact with the models in multiple rounds of dialogue, trying to hint the correct solution. The models are still unable to provide the correct continuations. See Appendices E–G. ## 4 Related Work Recent work sought to characterize the quality of LLMs on a variety of tasks: BIG-bench (Srivastava et al., 2022) is a large collaboration which resulted in a suite of hard, disparate tasks which were used to evaluate various LLMs. The study found that scaling can be slower and less smooth than expected by naive scaling laws, and social biases sometimes show inverse scaling, also observed by Parrish et al. (2022). Perez et al. (2021) investigated the effect of example selection in fewshot learning for LLMs, finding that previous studies generally overestimated model quality due to methodological issues. Lin et al. (2022) attempted to measure the *truthfulness* of the answer provided by LLMs on tasks involving real-world knowledge, finding that while larger models tend to provide more informative answers, they also tend to be less truthful. However, this effect might be confounded due to the dataset design to specifically be adversarial for the largest model being evaluated (Kilcher, 2021). Li et al. (2023) showed that similar to our case, mathematical article processing is sensitive to semi-invariant symbol replacements. Ji et al. (2022) provide a broad survey about hallucination (generation of fluent yet incorrect information) by natural language generation models. ## 5 Conclusions We explored the ability of large language models to predict the correct continuations of fragments of Python programs in scenarios where the correct continuations are statistically uncommon due to the redefinition of identifiers caused by a statement that we included in the prompt. Not only all the tested models fail at this task, but some model families even display *inverse scaling*: they become worse, rather than better, with increasing model size. These results suggest that LLMs rely on "shortcut learning", i.e., weak, unstable, mostly lexical correlations in the data, rather than an understanding of the semantics of the data (in this case, Python code) at a deep level. We believe that our results are important both for a better scientific understanding of the capabilities of LLMs and for their practical relevance as a core technology for automated code generation tools. Future work could investigate scaling effects at larger model sizes, as well as on other programming languages. ## Limitations Our approach has the following limitations: 1. It only considers swaps of pairs of functions at the top-level scope, which is a small set of all the quasi-invariances of the Python programming language. 2. It only considers code generation in top-level functions, hence it does not evaluate class methods. 3. It relies on a syntactic substitution to generate "correct" gold truth outputs, which may fail if the swapped functions are called by a string expression through eval or or queried by their string names using the reflection facilities. 4. In our experiments, we can evaluate only a small number of model sizes per family, since these are the only ones available, therefore the p-values of the correlation with the loss analysis are high. 5. The independent reproducibility of the experiments on closed-source models is predicated on the continued availability of a publiclyaccessible API. At the time of writing, our experiments on the OpenAI "Codex" models are no longer reproducible without support from OpenAI. Items 1 and 2 can be in principle treated by considering more complex code transformations, which we leave for future work. Item 3 is harder to tackle in the general case because of undecidability issues. Item 4 could be addressed by reproducing our experiments on a model family that encompasses more model sizes, should it become available for public experimentation. Item 5 is an unavoidable consequence of using closed-source models. ## Ethics Statement We do not perform experiments on human subjects. Our work involves generating a dataset of public data scraped from the GitHub and evaluating it on multiple large language models. We release our dataset and the code used to generate it. We filtered our dataset to make sure that all the data that we used has been relesed under the CC-BY-4.0 license, which in our understanding allows for re-releasing, however our filtering procedure is heuristic which implies that there is the possibility that some of the included data may be in violation of its license. In order to mitigate this hazard, we provide a clearly documented takedown option on the repository on which we will host this data, enabling people to claim copyright and ask for removal of their data. ## Acknowledgements We thank the reviewers for their helpful comments. We thank the Inverse Scaling Prize competition organisers (McKenzie et al., 2022a) for organising the challenge and donating part of the OpenAI API credits that were used in our experiments. We are grateful to Apart Research13 for their donation that supported the purchase of additional OpenAI API credits and provided personal financial support to Antonio Valerio Miceli-Barone. This work was supported by the UKRI Research Node on Trustworthy Autonomous Systems Governance and Regulation (grant EP/V026607/1) which provided funding for Antonio Valerio Miceli-Barone. The experiments in this work on open source LLMs were supported by a compute grant (UKRI HPC) from the Baskerville service at the University of Birmingham. ## References Avishkar Bhoopchand, Tim Rocktäschel, Earl T. Barr, and Sebastian Riedel. 2016. Learning python code 13https://apartresearch.com/ suggestion with a sparse pointer network. ArXiv preprint, abs/1611.08307. Michael M. Bronstein, Joan Bruna, Taco Cohen, and Petar Velickovic. 2021. Geometric deep learning: Grids, groups, graphs, geodesics, and gauges. *CoRR*, abs/2104.13478. Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared 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 M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020a. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 612, 2020, virtual. Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared 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 M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020b. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 612, 2020, virtual. Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harrison Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, Alex Ray, Raul Puri, Gretchen Krueger, Michael Petrov, Heidy Khlaaf, Girish Sastry, Pamela Mishkin, Brooke Chan, Scott Gray, Nick Ryder, Mikhail Pavlov, Alethea Power, Lukasz Kaiser, Mohammad Bavarian, Clemens Winter, Philippe Tillet, Felipe Petroski Such, Dave Cummings, Matthias Plappert, Fotios Chantzis, Elizabeth Barnes, Ariel Herbert-Voss, William Hebgen Guss, Alex Nichol, Alex Paino, Nikolas Tezak, Jie Tang, Igor Babuschkin, Suchir Balaji, Shantanu Jain, William Saunders, Christopher Hesse, Andrew N. Carr, Jan Leike, Joshua Achiam, Vedant Misra, Evan Morikawa, Alec Radford, Matthew Knight, Miles Brundage, Mira Murati, Katie Mayer, Peter Welinder, Bob McGrew, Dario Amodei, Sam McCandlish, Ilya Sutskever, and Wojciech Zaremba. 2021. Evaluating large language models trained on code. *ArXiv* preprint, abs/2107.03374. 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. Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Yunxuan Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, Albert Webson, Shixiang Shane Gu, Zhuyun Dai, Mirac Suzgun, Xinyun Chen, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Alex Castro-Ros, Marie Pellat, Kevin Robinson, Dasha Valter, Sharan Narang, Gaurav Mishra, Adams Yu, Vincent Zhao, Yanping Huang, Andrew Dai, Hongkun Yu, Slav Petrov, Ed H. Chi, Jeff Dean, Jacob Devlin, Adam Roberts, Denny Zhou, Quoc V. Le, and Jason Wei. 2022. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. Taco S. Cohen and Max Welling. 2016. Group equivariant convolutional networks. *CoRR*, abs/1602.07576. Andreea Deac, Théophane Weber, and George Papamakarios. 2023. Equivariant muzero. Leo Gao, Stella Biderman, Sid Black, Laurence Golding, Travis Hoppe, Charles Foster, Jason Phang, Horace He, Anish Thite, Noa Nabeshima, Shawn Presser, and Connor Leahy. 2021. The pile: An 800gb dataset of diverse text for language modeling. ArXiv preprint, abs/2101.00027. Robert Geirhos, Jörn-Henrik Jacobsen, Claudio Michaelis, Richard S. Zemel, Wieland Brendel, Matthias Bethge, and Felix A. Wichmann. 2020. Shortcut learning in deep neural networks. ArXiv preprint, abs/2004.07780. Danny Hernandez, Jared Kaplan, Tom Henighan, and Sam McCandlish. 2021. Scaling laws for transfer. Ziwei Ji, Nayeon Lee, Rita Frieske, Tiezheng Yu, Dan Su, Yan Xu, Etsuko Ishii, Yejin Bang, Andrea Madotto, and Pascale Fung. 2022. Survey of hallucination in natural language generation. *ACM Comput.* Surv. Just Accepted. Jared Kaplan, Sam McCandlish, Tom Henighan, Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Chess, Rewon Child, Scott Gray, Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Scaling laws for neural language models. Yannic Kilcher. 2021. Does gpt-3 lie? - misinformation and fear-mongering around the truthfulqa dataset. Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. 2022. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. Weixian Waylon Li, Yftah Ziser, Maximin Coavoux, and Shay B. Cohen. 2023. BERT is not the count: Learning to match mathematical statements with proofs. In *Proceedings of the 17th Conference of* the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3581–3593, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yujia Li, David Choi, Junyoung Chung, Nate Kushman, Julian Schrittwieser, Rémi Leblond, Tom Eccles, James Keeling, Felix Gimeno, Agustin Dal Lago, Thomas Hubert, Peter Choy, Cyprien de Masson d'Autume, Igor Babuschkin, Xinyun Chen, PoSen Huang, Johannes Welbl, Sven Gowal, Alexey Cherepanov, James Molloy, Daniel J. Mankowitz, Esme Sutherland Robson, Pushmeet Kohli, Nando de Freitas, Koray Kavukcuoglu, and Oriol Vinyals. 2022. Competition-level code generation with alphacode. *Science*, 378(6624):1092–1097. Stephanie Lin, Jacob Hilton, and Owain Evans. 2022. TruthfulQA: Measuring how models mimic human falsehoods. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3214–3252, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ian McKenzie, Alexander Lyzhov, Alicia Parrish, Ameya Prabhu, Aaron Mueller, Najoung Kim, Sam Bowman, and Ethan Perez. 2022a. The inverse scaling prize. Ian McKenzie, Alexander Lyzhov, Alicia Parrish, Ameya Prabhu, Aaron Mueller, Najoung Kim, Sam Bowman, and Ethan Perez. 2022b. Inverse scaling prize: First round winners. Antonio Valerio Miceli Barone and Rico Sennrich. 2017. A parallel corpus of python functions and documentation strings for automated code documentation and code generation. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 314– 319, Taipei, Taiwan. Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing. Felix Musil, Andrea Grisafi, Albert P. Bartók, Christoph Ortner, Gábor Csányi, and Michele Ceriotti. 2021. Physics-inspired structural representations for molecules and materials. *Chemical Reviews*, 121(16):9759–9815. PMID: 34310133. Erik Nijkamp, Bo Pang, Hiroaki Hayashi, Lifu Tu, Huan Wang, Yingbo Zhou, Silvio Savarese, and Caiming Xiong. 2022. Codegen: An open large language model for code with multi-turn program synthesis. OpenAI. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. 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. Alicia Parrish, Angelica Chen, Nikita Nangia, Vishakh Padmakumar, Jason Phang, Jana Thompson, Phu Mon Htut, and Samuel Bowman. 2022. BBQ: A hand-built bias benchmark for question answering. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022, pages 2086–2105, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ethan Perez, Douwe Kiela, and Kyunghyun Cho. 2021. True few-shot learning with language models. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34:* Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2021, NeurIPS 2021, December 6-14, 2021, virtual, pages 11054–11070. 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. *J. Mach. Learn. Res.*, 21:140:1–140:67. H. Gordon Rice. 1953. Classes of recursively enumerable sets and their decision problems. *Transactions* of the American Mathematical Society, 74:358–366. John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. 2017. Proximal policy optimization algorithms. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/1707.06347. Rico Sennrich, Barry Haddow, and Alexandra Birch. 2016. Neural machine translation of rare words with subword units. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1715–1725, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics. Aarohi Srivastava, Abhinav Rastogi, Abhishek B Rao, Abu Awal Md Shoeb, Abubakar Abid, Adam Fisch, Adam R. Brown, Adam Santoro, Aditya Gupta, Adrià Garriga-Alonso, Agnieszka Kluska, Aitor Lewkowycz, Akshat Agarwal, Alethea Power, Alex Ray, Alex Warstadt, Alexander W. Kocurek, Ali Safaya, Ali Tazarv, Alice Xiang, Alicia Parrish, Allen Nie, Aman Hussain, Amanda Askell, Amanda Dsouza, Ameet Annasaheb Rahane, Anantharaman S. Iyer, Anders Andreassen, Andrea Santilli, Andreas Stuhlmuller, Andrew M. Dai, Andrew D. La, Andrew Kyle Lampinen, Andy Zou, Angela Jiang, Angelica Chen, Anh Vuong, Animesh Gupta, Anna Gottardi, Antonio Norelli, Anu Venkatesh, Arash Gholamidavoodi, Arfa Tabassum, Arul Menezes, Arun Kirubarajan, Asher Mullokandov, Ashish Sabharwal, Austin Herrick, Avia Efrat, Aykut Erdem, Ayla Karakacs, Bridget R. Roberts, Bao Sheng Loe, Barret Zoph, Bartlomiej Bojanowski, Batuhan Ozyurt, Behnam Hedayatnia, Behnam Neyshabur, Benjamin Inden, Benno Stein, Berk Ekmekci, Bill Yuchen Lin, Blake Stephen Howald, Cameron Diao, Cameron Dour, Catherine Stinson, Cedrick Argueta, C'esar Ferri Ram'irez, Chandan Singh, Charles Rathkopf, Chenlin Meng, Chitta Baral, Chiyu Wu, Chris Callison-Burch, Chris Waites, Christian Voigt, Christopher D. Manning, Christopher Potts, Cindy Tatiana Ramirez, Clara Rivera, Clemencia Siro, Colin Raffel, Courtney Ashcraft, Cristina Garbacea, Damien Sileo, Daniel H Garrette, Dan Hendrycks, Dan Kilman, Dan Roth, Daniel Freeman, Daniel Khashabi, Daniel Levy, Daniel Gonz'alez, Danny Hernandez, Danqi Chen, Daphne Ippolito, Dar Gilboa, David Dohan, D. Drakard, David Jurgens, Debajyoti Datta, Deep Ganguli, Denis Emelin, Denis Kleyko, Deniz Yuret, Derek Chen, Derek Tam, Dieuwke Hupkes, Diganta Misra, Dilyar Buzan, Dimitri Coelho Mollo, Diyi Yang, DongHo Lee, Ekaterina Shutova, Ekin Dogus Cubuk, Elad Segal, Eleanor Hagerman, Elizabeth Barnes, Elizabeth P. Donoway, Ellie Pavlick, Emanuele Rodolà, Emma FC Lam, Eric Chu, Eric Tang, Erkut Erdem, Ernie Chang, Ethan A. Chi, Ethan Dyer, Ethan J. Jerzak, Ethan Kim, Eunice Engefu Manyasi, Evgenii Zheltonozhskii, Fan Xia, Fatemeh Siar, Fernando Mart'inez-Plumed, Francesca Happ'e, François Chollet, Frieda Rong, Gaurav Mishra, Genta Indra Winata, Gerard de Melo, Germán Kruszewski, Giambattista Parascandolo, Giorgio Mariani, Gloria Wang, Gonzalo JaimovitchL'opez, Gregor Betz, Guy Gur-Ari, Hana Galijasevic, Han Sol Kim, Hannah Rashkin, Hanna Hajishirzi, Harsh Mehta, Hayden Bogar, Henry Shevlin, Hinrich Schütze, Hiromu Yakura, Hongming Zhang, Hubert Wong, Ian Aik-Soon Ng, Isaac Noble, Jaap Jumelet, Jack Geissinger, John Kernion, Jacob Hilton, Jaehoon Lee, Jaime Fernández Fisac, J. Brooker Simon, James Koppel, James Zheng, James Zou, Jan Koco'n, Jana Thompson, Jared Kaplan, Jarema Radom, Jascha Narain Sohl-Dickstein, Jason Phang, Jason Wei, Jason Yosinski, Jekaterina Novikova, Jelle Bosscher, Jenni Marsh, Jeremy Kim, Jeroen Taal, Jesse Engel, Jesujoba Oluwadara Alabi, Jiacheng Xu, Jiaming Song, Jillian Tang, Jane W Waweru, John Burden, John Miller, John U. Balis, Jonathan Berant, Jorg Frohberg, Jos Rozen, José Hernández-Orallo, Joseph Boudeman, Joseph Jones, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, Joshua S. Rule, Joyce Chua, Kamil Kanclerz, Karen Livescu, Karl Krauth, Karthik Gopalakrishnan, Katerina Ignatyeva, Katja Markert, Kaustubh D. Dhole, Kevin Gimpel, Kevin Ochieng' Omondi, Kory Wallace Mathewson, Kristen Chiafullo, Ksenia Shkaruta, Kumar Shridhar, Kyle McDonell, Kyle Richardson, Laria Reynolds, Leo Gao, Li Zhang, Liam Dugan, Lianhui Qin, Lidia ContrerasOchando, Louis-Philippe Morency, Luca Moschella, Luca Lam, Lucy Noble, Ludwig Schmidt, Luheng He, Luis Oliveros Col'on, Luke Metz, Lutfi Kerem cSenel, Maarten Bosma, Maarten Sap, Maartje ter Hoeve, Madotto Andrea, Maheen Saleem Farooqi, Manaal Faruqui, Mantas Mazeika, Marco Baturan, Marco Marelli, Marco Maru, M Quintana, Marie Tolkiehn, Mario Giulianelli, Martha Lewis, Martin Potthast, Matthew Leavitt, Matthias Hagen, M'aty'as Schubert, Medina Baitemirova, Melissa Arnaud, Melvin Andrew McElrath, Michael A. Yee, Michael Cohen, Mi Gu, Michael I. Ivanitskiy, Michael Starritt, Michael Strube, Michal Swkedrowski, Michele Bevilacqua, Michihiro Yasunaga, Mihir Kale, Mike Cain, Mimee Xu, Mirac Suzgun, Monica Tiwari, Mohit Bansal, Moin Aminnaseri, Mor Geva, Mozhdeh Gheini, T MukundVarma, Nanyun Peng, Nathan Chi, Nayeon Lee, Neta Gur-Ari Krakover, Nicholas Cameron, Nicholas S. Roberts, Nicholas Doiron, Nikita Nangia, Niklas Deckers, Niklas Muennighoff, Nitish Shirish Keskar, Niveditha Iyer, Noah Constant, Noah Fiedel, Nuan Wen, Oliver Zhang, Omar Agha, Omar Elbaghdadi, Omer Levy, Owain Evans, Pablo Antonio Moreno Casares, Parth Doshi, Pascale Fung, Paul Pu Liang, Paul Vicol, Pegah Alipoormolabashi, Peiyuan Liao, Percy Liang, Peter W. Chang, Peter Eckersley, Phu Mon Htut, PiBei Hwang, P. Milkowski, Piyush S. Patil, Pouya Pezeshkpour, Priti Oli, Qiaozhu Mei, QING LYU, Qinlang Chen, Rabin Banjade, Rachel Etta Rudolph, Raefer Gabriel, Rahel Habacker, Ram'on Risco Delgado, Raphaël Millière, Rhythm Garg, Richard Barnes, Rif A. Saurous, Riku Arakawa, Robbe Raymaekers, Robert Frank, Rohan Sikand, Roman Novak, Roman Sitelew, Ronan Le Bras, Rosanne Liu, Rowan Jacobs, Rui Zhang, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Ryan Chi, Ryan Lee, Ryan Stovall, Ryan Teehan, Rylan Yang, Sahib J. Singh, Saif M. Mohammad, Sajant Anand, Sam Dillavou, Sam Shleifer, Sam Wiseman, Samuel Gruetter, Sam Bowman, Samuel S. Schoenholz, Sanghyun Han, Sanjeev Kwatra, Sarah A. Rous, Sarik Ghazarian, Sayan Ghosh, Sean Casey, Sebastian Bischoff, Sebastian Gehrmann, Sebastian Schuster, Sepideh Sadeghi, Shadi S. Hamdan, Sharon Zhou, Shashank Srivastava, Sherry Shi, Shikhar Singh, Shima Asaadi, Shixiang Shane Gu, Shubh Pachchigar, Shubham Toshniwal, Shyam Upadhyay, Shyamolima Debnath, Siamak Shakeri, Simon Thormeyer, Simone Melzi, Siva Reddy, Sneha Priscilla Makini, Soo hwan Lee, Spencer Bradley Torene, Sriharsha Hatwar, Stanislas Dehaene, Stefan Divic, Stefano Ermon, Stella Rose Biderman, Stephanie C. Lin, Stephen Prasad, Steven T. Piantadosi, Stuart M. Shieber, Summer Misherghi, Svetlana Kiritchenko, Swaroop Mishra, Tal Linzen, Tal Schuster, Tao Li, Tao Yu, Tariq A. Ali, Tatsuo Hashimoto, Te-Lin Wu, Theo Desbordes, Theodore Rothschild, Thomas Phan, Tianle Wang, Tiberius Nkinyili, Timo Schick, T. N. Kornev, Timothy Telleen-Lawton, Titus Tunduny, Tobias Gerstenberg, Trenton Chang, Trishala Neeraj, Tushar Khot, Tyler O'Brien Shultz, Uri Shaham, Vedant Misra, Vera Demberg, Victoria Nyamai, Vikas Raunak, Vinay Venkatesh Ramasesh, Vinay Uday Prabhu, Vishakh Padmakumar, Vivek Srikumar, William Fedus, William Saunders, William Zhang, W Vossen, Xiang Ren, Xiaoyu F Tong, Xinyi Wu, Xudong Shen, Yadollah Yaghoobzadeh, Yair Lakretz, Yang Song, Yasaman Bahri, Ye Ji Choi, Yichi Yang, Yiding Hao, Yifu Chen, Yonatan Belinkov, Yu Hou, Yu Hou, Yushi Bai, Zachary Seid, Zhao Xinran, Zhuoye Zhao, Zi Fu Wang, Zijie J. Wang, Zirui Wang, Ziyi Wu, Sahib Singh, and Uri Shaham. 2022. Beyond the imitation game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models. *ArXiv*, abs/2206.04615. 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. Susan Zhang, Stephen Roller, Naman Goyal, Mikel Artetxe, Moya Chen, Shuohui Chen, Christopher Dewan, Mona Diab, Xian Li, Xi Victoria Lin, Todor Mihaylov, Myle Ott, Sam Shleifer, Kurt Shuster, Daniel Simig, Punit Singh Koura, Anjali Sridhar, Tianlu Wang, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2022. Opt: Open pretrained transformer language models. ## A Models GPT-3 LLMs in the OpenAI GPT-3 family, available in different generations:14 - "First generation" GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020b), trained with an unsupervised maximum likelihood estimate next-token prediction objective on raw, byte-pair-encoding tokenized (Sennrich et al., 2016) text crawled from the web. We use the four models available on the public API: ada (0.35B parameters), babbage (1.3B), curie (6.7B) and davinci (175B). - "Second generation" InstructGPT (Ouyang et al., 2022), fine-tuned on human-written demonstrations and human-vetted samples (OpenAI "FeedME" approach). text-ada-001 (0.35B), text-babbage-001 (1.3B), text-curie-001 (6.7B) and text-davinci-001 (175B). - "Third generation" GPT-3.5. Two "Codex" models trained on code, similar to Chen et al. (2021): code-cushman-001 (12B) and code-davinci-002 (175B), and two models based on code-davinci-002 and further finetuned on human demonstrations with FeedME and PPO (Schulman et al., 2017), respectively: text-davinci-002 and text-davinci-003 (both 175B). Unfortunately, at the time of writing, the Codex models are no longer available on the OpenAI API. 14The publicly-available OpenAI models may differ from those described in the papers. Refer to https: //beta.openai.com/docs/models/gpt-3 and https:// beta.openai.com/docs/model-index-for-researchers for a detailed description. Our experiments on the OpenAI models were performed with their public API, at a cost of approximately 90 USD. CodeGen Salesforce CodeGen models15 (Nijkamp et al., 2022). CodeGen is available in two families of auto-regressive LMs: - codegen-X-multi: first pretrained on the Pile (Gao et al., 2021), an English text corpus, then fine-tuned on a corpus of multiple programming languages. We use the four available model sizes: 0.35B, 2B, 6B and 16B. - codegen-X-mono: based on the "multi" models of corresponding size and further fine-tuned on Python data: 0.35B, 2B, 6B and 16B. OPT Meta AI OPT models16 (Zhang et al., 2022), a family of auto-regressive LMs predominantly trained on English text. We use the six available model sizes: 0.125B, 0.35B, 1.3B, 2.7B, 6.7B and 13B. FLAN-T5 Google FLAN-T5 sequence-tosequence models (Chung et al., 2022), obtained by fine-tuning the T5 models on a large number of tasks. The T5 models (Raffel et al., 2020) are themselves pretrained on a combination of unsupervised language modeling (formulated as denoising autoencoding) and multiple supervised tasks. We evaluate each example in our dataset by presenting the prompt (swap statement, function declaration and docstring) as an input to the encoder and "good" and "bad" classes as alternative inputs to the decoder, for which the model computes the likelihoods. We consider the following models:17 flan-t5-small (0.08B), flan-t5-base (0.25B), flan-t5-large (0.78B), flan-t5-xl (3B) and flan-t5-xxl (11B). Our experiments on the CodeGen, OPT and FLAN-T5 models were performed on the Baskerville Tier 2 HPC platform. ## B Experiment On Non-Builtin Functions We report an additional variant of our main quantitative experiment, evaluating the effect of swapping  non-builtin top-level functions. These functions are defined either within the repositories we sample from, or in external libraries. Since these function are less standardized compared to the Python builtins, the question arises of whether the models would display a similarly strong preference on their use, ignoring the swap statements. Due to time and cost constraints, we only run this experiment on the first generation GPT-3 models: ada, babbage, curie and davinci. Results We report the results in Figure 4. The results are qualitatively equivalent to those of the experiments on the builtin functions: all the models prefer the incorrect but common usage of the swapped functions to the correct but outof-distribution one, demonstrating inverse scaling. The overall magnitude of the losses however is smaller, indicating that the preference for the incorrect usage is not as strong as in the builtin function experiment. ## C Quantitative Chat Llm Experiments The most recent LLMs by OpenAI and Anthropic available on their respective public APIs are Chat LLMs. These models are constrained such that their input must be a sequence of messages of a dialogue between the user and an "assistant" representing the model itself18. The model then responds with a single message written in the "assistant" role. Notably, these systems don't report log-probabilty scores, which prevents us from computing a cross-entropy loss for the correct continuation as we did in our main set of experiments, therefore we reformulated the task as a binary choice between two options provided in the same "user" message. ## Prompt For each example present both the correct program and the incorrect program and ask the model to determine which one is more likely to be correct. We use the following prompt template:   where {program_1} and {program_2} are replaced by the correct program and the incorrect program, each consisting of the the swap statement, the function declaration and the docstring, followed by either the correct or incorrect function body. We submit this prompt to the model, setting sampling temperature to 0.0, then we parse the "assistant" reply, extracting the first integer to evaluate the output. If don't find any integer or the integer is neither 1 nor 2, we consider the response invalid. In order to avoid any bias dependent on the order in which the programs are presented, each example is evaluated twice, once with the correct program in the {program_1} position, and once in the {program_2} position. ## Models - OpenAI gpt-3.5-turbo version 0301 powers the free version of ChatGPT and is believed to be a compressed version of text-davinci-003 with additional instruction fine-tuning. gpt-4 version 0314 (OpenAI, 2023) is the most recent and highest quality OpenAI model available at the time of writing. The API cost of running our experiments was about 40 USD. - Anthropic claude-instant version 1.1 and claude version 1.3 are chat LLMs trained on human feedback19. claude-instant is described as "low latency" while claude is described as "superior reasoning". 18an additional "system" role can be used in the messages to specify the general task the LLM is expected to perform. 19https://console.anthropic.com/docs The parameter number and training set sizes of these models are not publicly known, however it is plausible that gpt-4 is larger than gpt-3.5-turbo and claude is larger than claude-instant. We report the results of our experiments in §3.2. ## D Dataset Example We present one full example from out dataset. Head len, open = open, len def importfile(path): """Import a Python source file or compiled file given its path."""" Incorrect continuation    The statement at the beginning of the prompt swaps the identifiers for the builtin len and open functions. The incorrect continuation still uses the open function to open the file and len to compute the length of the byte array MAGIC_NUMBER, in the correct continuation instead, open and len are swapped. ## E Example Of Few-Shot Interaction With Gpt-3 We report an example of a manual few-shot interaction with GPT-3.5 text-davinci-003 where we provide two correct examples in the prompt and we ask the model to generate a continuation on a third example. This task should be easier than the ones we consider in our dataset because the two in-context examples should cue the model about the need to swap the builtin function identifiers in the function bodies. Nevertheless, the model fails to swap the builtins in the generated continuation. Running the example multiple times in order to account for sampling randomness results in slightly different but functionally equivalent continuations, all containing the same mistake. Switching to code-davinci-002 also does not help.  ## F Chatgpt-3.5 Example We present an interaction with OpenAI ChatGPT20. The model not only fails to generate the correct code completion on the first try, but still fails even when the error is pointed out in multiple rounds of dialogue. It fails even when prompted with the Let's think step by step phrase Kojima et al. (2022) found to improve zero-shot "reasoning" abilities.  20While we run this experiment on the ChatGPT web interface https://chat.openai.com/, this model is presumed to be equivalent to gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 available on the OpenAI API and Playground web interface def print_len(x): "Print the length of x" print(len(x))} User what does the first line of the program that I've written do? The first line of the program is swapping the values of the variables len and print. This means that len will now have the value of the print function and print will have the value of the len function. This means that if you call len in the program, it will actually run the print function, and if you call print, it will run the len function. This is known as "aliasing" or "renaming" variables. User so, was you program completion correct? Yes, my completion of the program is correct. The function print_len simply calls the print function (which is actually the len function due to the variable swapping in the first line of the program) and passes in the argument x. This will print the length of x. User should it be print(len(x)) or len(print(x)) ? It should be print(len(x)). The print function (which is actually the len function due to the variable swapping in the first line of the program) is called and passed the argument x. The len function is then called on x and the result of this function is passed as an argument to the print function, which prints the result.If it were len(print(x)), the print function (which is actually the len function) would be called with x as the argument, and then the result of this function (which would be the length of x) would be passed as an argument to the len function, which would simply return the length of the result (which would always be 1 since the result is a number). This would not produce the desired output. User Are you sure about this reasoning? Let's think step by step Yes, I am sure about this reasoning. Here is a step-by-step breakdown of what happens when the print_len function is called: The print_len function is called with an argument x. The print function is called with the argument len(x). The len function is called on x and returns the length of x. The print function (which is actually the len function due to the variable swapping in the first line of the program) is called with the result of the len function (the length of x) as the argument. The print function prints the result (the length of x). If it were len(print(x)), the following would happen:The print_len function is called with an argument x. The print function (which is actually the len function due to the variable swapping in the first line of the program) is called with the argument x. The print function (which is actually the len function) returns the length of x. The len function is called with the result of the print function (the length of x) as the argument. The len function returns the length of the result (which would always be 1 since the result is a number). This does not produce the desired output of printing the length of x. User Point 3. of your explanation of print(len(x)) is incorrect because print and len are swapped You are correct, point 3 of my explanation for print(len(x)) is incorrect because print and len are swapped. Here is the corrected step-by-step breakdown: The print_len function is called with an argument x. The len function (which is actually the print function due to the variable swapping in the first line of the program) is called with the argument x. The print function (which is actually the len function due to the variable swapping in the first line of the program) returns the length of x. The print function (which is actually the len function) is called with the result of the len function (the length of x) as the argument. The print function (which is actually the len function) prints the result (the length of x). User in point 5, how can print , which is actually len, print anything? You are correct that in point 5, it is incorrect to say that the print function (which is actually the len function) is printing anything. The correct statement would be that the len function (which is actually the print function due to the variable swapping in the first line of the program) is printing the result (the length of x). I apologize for the confusion. Here is the corrected step-by-step breakdown: The print_len function is called with an argument x. The len function (which is actually the print function due to the variable swapping in the first line of the program) is called with the argument x. The print function (which is actually the len function due to the variable swapping in the first line of the program) returns the length of x. The print function (which is actually the len function) is called with the result of the len function (the length of x) as the argument. The len function (which is actually the print function) prints the result (the length of x). User good, so the correct program is  Yes, the correct program is: len, print = print, len def print_len(x): "Print the length of x" print(len(x)) This program will correctly swap the values of the len and print variables, and then call the print function (which is actually the len function due to the variable swapping) with the argument x. The len function will be called on x and the result (the length of x) will be passed as an argument to the print function, which will then print the result. User Wrong. I apologize if my previous explanations were incorrect. Please let me know how I can better assist you in understanding the program. ## G Gpt-4 We present an interaction with OpenAI GPT-4 version 0314.21. We use a temperature of 1.0. GPT-4 is the most recent and most generally accurate OpenAI LLM available at the time of writing, nevertheless it fails to generate the correct program even when cued by the user. We note that our information about the inner-workings of GPT-4 are more limited than with the previous versions of the GPT model family. System You are an helpful assistant. User Complete the following Python program:   Here's the complete Python program: len, print = print, len def print_len(x): "Print the length of x" print(len(x)) \# Example usage test_string = "Hello, World!" print_len(test_string) This program swaps the 'print()' and 'len()' functions, and then defines a function 'print_len()' that takes a single argument 'x' and prints its length using the swapped 'print()' and 'len()' functions. User what does the first line of the program that I've written do? The first line of the program you've written swaps the 'print' and 'len' functions: len, print = print, len Here, you are creating a tuple with '(print, len)' and then unpacking that tuple into the variables 'len' and 'print'. As a result, the 'print' variable now holds the built-in 'len' function, and the 'len' variable holds the built-in 'print' function. After this line, whenever you use 'len' in your code, it will call the 'print' function, and when you use 'print', it will call the 'len' function. This can be confusing and is generally not recommended for writing clear, maintainable code, but it seems that the intention here is to create a playful or unconventional challenge. User so, was you program completion correct? Apologies for the confusion in my initial response. Since the 'print()' and 'len()' functions were swapped in the first line, my initial completion was incorrect. Here's the corrected completion: len, print = print, len def print_len(x): "Print the length of x" len(x) \# since len now refers to print function \# Example usage test_string = "Hello, World!" print_len(test_string) Now, in the 'print_len()' function, the 'len' function is used to print the length of the input 'x' because, after the first line, 'len' actually refers to the original 'print' function. User is len(x) correct? Generated response Apologies again, I realize I made a mistake in my previous response. Since the functions are swapped, you should use the 'print' function, which now refers to the original 'len' function, to get the length of the input 'x'. Here's the corrected completion: len, print = print, len def print_len(x): "Print the length of x" len(print(x)) \# since print now refers to len function \# Example usage test_string = "Hello, World!" print_len(test_string) In the 'print_len()' function, we now use 'len(print(x))', which calculates the length of 'x' (because 'print' now refers to the original 'len' function) and then prints it using the swapped 'len' function (which now refers to the original 'print' function). ## H Program Equivariances And Invariances In this section we provide the formal definition of program equivariances and invariances, and specifically of α-equivalence, which the identifier swaps in Python lead to. The definition relies on the notion of syntactic transformations which can be formalized as the algebraic structure of a group. Group action Let G be a group with identity element ϵ and X be a set. The function T : G × X → X is a (left) group action of G on X if ∀x ∈ X, g ∈ G, h ∈ G T(*ϵ, x*) = T(x) T(g · *h, x*) = T(g, T(*h, x*)) Intuitively, T is a transformation on the elements of X which is parameterized by the elements of group G on the in a way consistent with the group structure, so that the identity element corresponds to the identity transformation and combining the transformation parameters with their own group operation and then applying the result is equivalent to applying them in sequence. Group equivariance and invariance Let G be a group, X and Y be sets. Let T : G × X → X and S : G × Y → Y be (left) group actions of G on X and Y respectively. The function f : X → Y is *(left)* equivariant w.r.t. group G and T and S if ∀x ∈ *X, g* ∈ G ## S(G, F(X)) = F(T(G, X)) This means that applying the transformation T parameterized by g on x and then evaluating f on it is equivalent to evaluating f(x) first and then transforming the result with S parameterized by g. In the special case where S is trivial on the image of f, that is ∀x ∈ X, g ∈ G ## S(G, F(X)) = F(X) then f is *(left) invariant* w.r.t. G and T, which means that f effectively ignores the transformation T on its inputs. There has been an interest in recent years in applying these concepts to deep learning, either by measuring the extent to which models spontaneously learn equivariances or by designing model architectures that obey certain equivariances by construction, see Bronstein et al. (2021) for an extended survey. Previous work usually considers equivariances w.r.t. geometrical transformations such as rotations and reflections on data types with a natural physical interpretation, such as images (Cohen and Welling, 2016), molecules (Musil et al., 2021) or video game grid-world environments (Deac et al., 2023), but the theoretical framework is general enough to encompass many forms of equivariances and data types, including programming code. α**-equivalence** Let X the set of programs (or program fragments) in some language (e.g. Python), let the function f denote their semantics (f can take additional arguments representing the program inputs and environment, and its image is a set of results or sequences of actions that result from the execution of a program). Let G the group of the permutations of all syntactically valid identifier names. Let T(*g, x*) the transformation that substitutes the identifiers in program x according to permutation g. If f is invariant w.r.t. G and T then it means that swapping the identifiers inside a program does not affect its execution, a property which is usually called α-equivalence in the programming languages literature. In many programming languages α-equivalence may only apply when swapping identifiers in whole programs including the standard library of the language. Program fragments such as modules, classes or functions (procedures) may not have α-equivalence when identifiers defined outside them (e.g. at toplevel) are swapped. In Python however, this effect can be compensated by inserting a swap statement right before the program fragment. If a permutation g acts non-trivially on top-level identifiers a0, a1*, . . . , a*n, then the tuple assignment statement ga_0, ga_1, [..., ga_n] = a_0, a_1, [..., a_n] will usually make the identifier swap in the program fragment an invariance. This does not work in all cases because Python programs can access their own source code programmatically and reference identifiers by name from arbitrarily computed strings. Checking for these conditions is undecidable in the general case, however these are not common programming practices, hence we can ignore them for our purposes. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? In the limitations section, as it should be ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Ethics staement ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Yes, in the abstract, which does not have a section number, and in the introduction, which is always section 1. ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? No. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Section 2.3 ✗ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 2.3 ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Section 2.3 ✓ 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 2.3 and 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? 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. Section 2.3 ## 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? Section 3, computational resources will be reported in the camera-ready version of the paper in order not to compromise anonymity 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? There were no hyperparameters to tune, since we only used pre-trained models. ✓ 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 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.? 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.

liu-etal-2023-class

Class Lifelong Learning for Intent Detection via Structure Consolidation Networks

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.20

Intent detection, which estimates diverse intents behind user utterances, is an essential component of task-oriented dialogue systems. Previous intent detection models are usually trained offline, which can only handle predefined intent classes. In the real world, new intents may keep challenging deployed models. For example, with the prevalence of the COVID-19 pandemic, users may pose various issues related to the pandemic to conversational systems, which brings many new intents. A general intent detection model should be intelligent enough to continually learn new data and recognize new arriving intent classes. Therefore, this work explores Class Lifelong Learning for Intent Detection (CLL-ID), where the model continually learns new intent classes from new data while avoiding catastrophic performance degradation on old data. To this end, we propose a novel lifelong learning method, called Structure Consolidation Networks (SCN), which consists of structure-based retrospection and contrastive knowledge distillation to handle the problems of expression diversity and class imbalance in the CLL-ID task. In addition to formulating the new task, we construct 3 benchmarks based on 8 intent detection datasets. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of SCN, which significantly outperforms previous lifelong learning methods on the three benchmarks.

# Class Lifelong Learning For Intent Detection Via Structure Consolidation Networks Qingbin Liu1, Yanchao Hao1, Xiaolong Liu1, Bo Li1, Dianbo Sui2**, Shizhu He**3,4, Kang Liu3,4, **Jun Zhao**3,4, **Xi Chen**1∗ , Ningyu Zhang5, **Jiaoyan Chen**6 1 Platform and Content Group, Tencent, China 2 Harbin Institute of Technology, Weihai, China 3 The Lab of Cognition and Decision Intelligence for Complex Systems, CASIA, China 4 School of Artificial Intelligence, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, China 5 Zhejiang University & AZFT Joint Lab for Knowledge Engine, Zhejiang, China 6 Department of Computer Science, The University of Manchester, UK {qingbinliu, marshao, loongliu, ryanbli}@tencent.com, suidianbo@hit.edu.cn, {shizhu.he, kliu, jzhao}@nlpr.ia.ac.cn, jasonxchen@tencent.com, zhangningyu@zju.edu.cn, jiaoyan.chen@manchester.ac.uk ## Abstract Intent detection, which estimates diverse intents behind user utterances, is an essential component of task-oriented dialogue systems. Previous intent detection models are usually trained offline, which can only handle predefined intent classes. In the real world, new intents may keep challenging deployed models. For example, with the prevalence of the COVID-19 pandemic, users may pose various issues related to the pandemic to conversational systems, which brings many new intents. A general intent detection model should be intelligent enough to continually learn new data and recognize new arriving intent classes. Therefore, this work explores Class Lifelong Learning for Intent Detection (CLL-ID), where the model continually learns new intent classes from new data while avoiding catastrophic performance degradation on old data. To this end, we propose a novel lifelong learning method, called Structure Consolidation Networks (SCN), which consists of structure-based retrospection and contrastive knowledge distillation to handle the problems of expression diversity and class imbalance in the CLL-ID task. In addition to formulating the new task, we construct 3 benchmarks based on 8 intent detection datasets. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of SCN, which significantly outperforms previous lifelong learning methods on the three benchmarks. ## 1 Introduction Task-oriented dialogue systems provide a natural interface to help users accomplish a wide range of tasks, such as playing music, handling money transfer business, and providing information about the ∗ Corresponding author. COVID-19 pandemic. Intent detection is an essential component of task-oriented dialogue systems, which aims to accurately estimate diverse user intents for downstream modules (Hemphill et al., 1990; Coucke et al., 2018). For example, given the user utterance "*Tell me some ways to avoid coronavirus*", an intent detection model should classify it into the intent class "*how to protect yourself* ". Existing intent detection models usually perform once-and-for-all training on a fixed dataset and can only handle predefined intent classes. However, this setting may not be practical enough in the real world, as new intent classes continually emerge after the model is deployed. For example, with the prevalence of the COVID-19 pandemic, users may pose various issues related to the pandemic to conversational systems, which brings many new intents, such as "*how to protect yourself* " and "the latest number of infections". A general intent detection model should be able to flexibly and efficiently learn new intents round by round. Therefore, this work proposes a realistic and challenging task, Class Lifelong Learning for Intent Detection (CLL-ID). This task continually trains an intent detection model using new data to learn new intents. At any time, the updated model should be able to perform accurate classification for all intents observed so far. In the CLL-ID task, it is often infeasible to retrain the model from scratch with the data of all seen classes due to computational cost and data privacy (McMahan et al., 2017; Li et al., 2021). For example, the time to train a model with all data of the CLINC benchmark (Larson et al., 2019) is approximately 9.8 times longer than the time to train the same model with only new data. In practice, Intent: *How to protect yourself?*  User 1: How can I protect against the virus?  Figure 1: An example of expression diversity. Different users have different expressions for the same intent. virtual assistants, such as Alexa and Siri, typically provide a large number of services, which makes the time overhead of continual retraining extremely high (Rastogi et al., 2020). Moreover, the CLLID task allows flexible and scalable applications on embedded devices that have limited computing power and storage capacity, such as smartphones, to learn user-specific intents without privacy risks (Kemker and Kanan, 2018). A plain lifelong learning method is to fine-tune a model pre-trained on old data directly on new data. However, this method usually suffers from catastrophic performance degradation on old data, also known as catastrophic forgetting (McCloskey and Cohen, 1989; French, 1999). To cope with this issue, current mainstream lifelong learning methods usually maintain a memory to store a small number of representative old data (Wang et al., 2019; Han et al., 2020; Cui et al., 2021). However, when directly applying existing lifelong learning methods to the CLL-ID task, we find two severe problems: expression diversity and class imbalance. **Expression Diversity**: In the intent detection task, there are various expression types for the same intent class, as shown in Figure 1. Previous methods usually preserve similar old samples that involve only a few expression types and are inconsistent with the original data distribution. These samples are not conducive to maintaining the performance of the old intent classes. **Class Imbalance**: At each step of the lifelong learning process, there is generally a large amount of new data, yet only a small amount of old data is preserved due to the memory capacity limitation, leading to a severe imbalance between the new and old intent classes. In this case, the model will be significantly biased towards learning new data, leading to catastrophic forgetting on old data. To address the above two problems, we propose Structure Consolidation Networks (SCN), which contains two core components: (1) to handle the problem of expression diversity, we propose structure-based retrospection, which selects and preserves diverse and informative old data based on the spatial structure of features; (2) to cope with the class imbalance problem, we propose contrastive knowledge distillation, which preserves the knowledge of the model trained at the previous step and improves the generalization between the old and new intent classes through contrastive learning. For the CLL-ID task, we constructed 3 benchmarks based on 8 widely used intent detection datasets. Experimental results show that SCN significantly outperforms previous lifelong learning methods. In summary, the contributions of this work are as follows: - We formally introduce class lifelong learning into intent detection and we construct 3 benchmarks through 8 intent detection datasets. - We propose structure consolidation networks, which can effectively handle expression diversity and class imbalance in the CLL-ID task through structure-based retrospection and contrastive knowledge distillation. - Experimental results show that SCN significantly outperforms previous lifelong learning methods on the three benchmarks. The source code and benchmarks will be released for further research (https://github.com/liuqi ngbin2022/CLL4ID). ## 2 Task Formulation The traditional intent detection task is usually formulated as a text classification task, which predicts an intent class for each input utterance (Hemphill et al., 1990; Coucke et al., 2018). The CLL-ID task adopts a realistic setting where the intent detection model is continually trained on new data to learn new intents. That is, new data arrives in a stream form, denoted as (D1, D2*, ...,* DK). Each data Di has its own training/validation/test set (Dtrain i, Dvalid i, Dtest i), as well as its own label set Ci. The label set Ci contains one or multiple new classes that do not appear in the previous steps. When new data arrives, the intent detection model is updated using the new training set Dtrain i, and uniformly classifies each sample according to all observed intents (i.e., C˜i =Sin=1 Cn). The updated model should perform well on all seen classes. Therefore, in the testing stage of the i-th step, we evaluate the updated model on the test data of all observed classes (i.e., D˜test i =Sin=1 Dtest n).  The arrival of new data round by round will constantly change the original data distribution, which makes it increasingly difficult for intent detection models to achieve high performance on old data. We experimentally demonstrate this claim in Section 4.4. Thus, how to alleviate catastrophic performance degradation on old data is a central research point of the CLL-ID task. ## 3 Method In this work, we propose Structure Consolidation Networks to handle the CLL-ID task. The overall framework of SCN is shown in Figure 2. SCN consists of two core components, i.e., structurebased retrospection and contrastive knowledge distillation. Structure-based retrospection preserves diverse and informative samples to deal with the problem of expression diversity. Contrastive knowledge distillation alleviates the negative effects of class imbalance through knowledge distillation and contrastive learning. ## 3.1 Background SCN is a model-agnostic lifelong learning method. The intent detection model is only a basic component and is not the focus of our research. We employ a BERT-based classifier as the base model because it proved to be a powerful model for intent detection (Devlin et al., 2019; Zhan et al., 2021). BERT is a pre-trained language model based on the Transformer architecture (Vaswani et al., 2017). To match the input form of BERT, we add two tokens [CLS] and [SEP] at the beginning and end of each input sequence. The BERT encoder outputs the contextual representation for each sequence. We use the hidden state of the [CLS] token as the feature vector and feed it into a linear layer to calculate the probability. The cross-entropy loss is used to train the intent detection model: $${\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{CE}}=-\sum\nolimits_{n=1}^{|N|}y_{n}{\log}(p_{n}),\qquad\quad(1)$$ $\mathbf{a}\cdot\mathbf{b}\cdot\mathbf{c}=\mathbf{a}\cdot\mathbf{b}$. where yn is the ground-truth label and pn is the predicted probability. N is the training samples. ## 3.2 Structure-Based Retrospection To learn new intent classes, we study class lifelong learning for intent detection, which aims to train a unified model to handle all observed classes so far. Given a model trained on old data, we continually train the model based on a new combined dataset N = Dtrain iSM. Dtrain iis the training data of the new intent classes at step i. M is a bounded memory that stores a small number of representative old samples to retain the performance on old classes (Han et al., 2020; Cui et al., 2021). M is denoted as M = (M1,M2*, ...,*Mk), where Mk is the set of preserved samples of the k-th old class. To select and store representative samples from diverse utterances, we propose structure-based retrospection. In each step, this approach performs two operations: (1) structure-based sample selection chooses informative and diverse samples based on the spatial structure of the feature vectors; (2) structure-preserved sample removal maintains a constant memory size by deleting some of the stored old samples while not affecting their original distribution as much as possible. In this way, important information about the data distribution of the previous classes enters the subsequent training process. ## 3.2.1 Structure-Based Sample Selection After learning the new data, we select |M|/l samples for each new class, where |M| is the memory 295 size and l is the number of all observed classes. Specifically, for each new class, we transform all its training samples into feature vectors via the trained model. Then, we apply the K-means algorithm to these feature vectors and the number of clusters is |M|/l. In each cluster, we select the sample closest to the centroid and store it in the memory. This operation tends to select diverse and informative samples. As shown in Figure 2, these selected samples are located at the center of different regions of the feature space. In this way, the distribution of the stored data is consistent with the distribution of the original data. ## 3.2.2 Structure-Preserved Sample Removal Since the memory size is constant, we need to delete some of the stored old samples to allocate space for the representative samples of the new classes. Specifically, we need to delete |M|/k − |M|/l training samples for each old class, where k is the number of old classes and l is the total number of observed classes. In our method, we remove samples that are far from the center of the entire feature space because these samples usually have less impact on the overall data distribution (Snell et al., 2017; Yang et al., 2018). For the c-th new intent class, we first average the feature vectors of all its samples to serve as the center of the feature space: $$\eta_{c}=\frac{1}{|{\mathcal{N}}_{c}|}\sum_{n=1}^{|{\mathcal{N}}_{c}|}f(x_{c,n}),\qquad\qquad(2)$$ where Nc is the training samples of the c-th class and f(xc,n) is the feature vector of the sample xc,n. Then, for the selected representative samples of the new class, we sort them according to their distances from the central vector ηc. In the subsequent lifelong learning steps, we remove the samples that are far from the central vector based on the sorted list. In this way, the distribution of the original data is preserved as much as possible. SCN utilizes the spatial structure of features in both sample selection and sample removal, which shows remarkable improvements in our experiments. Previous lifelong learning methods tend to select similar samples or ignore the importance of structure-preserved sample removal (Rebuffi et al., 2017; Han et al., 2020). ## 3.3 Contrastive Knowledge Distillation Although preserving a small amount of old data can alleviate catastrophic forgetting, it introduces another problem, class imbalance. Due to the memory capacity limitation, the preserved old data is relatively small, while the new data is usually large. The imbalanced data makes the model significantly biased towards learning new data, affecting the performance on old data. In contrast, the model in the last step is trained on old data. It performs well in the old classes and is less biased towards the new classes. Therefore, to mitigate the negative effects of class imbalance, we propose contrastive knowledge distillation to learn the knowledge of the last model. Specifically, for each sample x, we represent the feature vectors extracted by the current model and the last model by f(x) and g(x), respectively. The contrastive knowledge distillation is calculated as: $$\mathcal{L}_{\text{sim}}=\sum_{n=1}^{|\mathcal{N}|}1-\langle f(x_{n}),g(x_{n})\rangle,\tag{3}$$ $$\mathcal{L}_{\text{mGN}}=\sum_{n=1}^{|\mathcal{N}|}\sum_{t=1}^{|\mathcal{N}|}1_{\delta(n)\neq\delta(t)}[$$ $$\max(\langle f(x_{n}),f(x_{t})\rangle-\alpha,0)+$$ $$\max(\langle f(x_{n}),g(x_{t})\rangle-\alpha,0)],$$ (4) $$\mathcal{L}_{\text{KKD}}=\gamma_{1}\mathcal{L}_{\text{sim}}+\gamma_{2}\mathcal{L}_{\text{mGN}},\tag{5}$$ where ⟨f(xn), g(xn)⟩ denotes the cosine similarity between the two feature vectors. 1δ(n)̸=δ(t)is an indicator function that is 1 if the label of the sample xn is not equal to the label of the sample xt, otherwise it is 0. α is a scalar that represents the margin of separation between features. γ1 and γ2 are two adjustment coefficients that are used to control the proportion of different losses. As shown above, the contrastive knowledge distillation loss LCKD contains two elements, i.e., LSIM and LMGN. The similarity loss LSIM encourages the features extracted by the current model to be close to the features extracted by the last model so that the feature distribution of the last model can be effectively retained. However, since the last model did not learn the new data, it has difficulty distinguishing new classes. Thus, just adopting the similarity loss may weaken the generalization between the new and old classes. Contrastive learning can improve the generalization of the model by increasing the distance between each positive sample and multiple negative samples (Ke et al., 2021; Gao et al., 2021). Inspired by contrastive learning, we employ the margin loss LMGN to ensure that the separation between each feature and multiple negative features is greater than the margin α. For each feature, we adopt other features in the same batch that have different labels from the current feature as negative features. Contrastive knowledge distillation ultimately preserves the feature distribution of the last model and improves the generalization between the new and old classes. In addition, we adopt the vanilla knowledge distillation method (Hinton et al., 2015) as an auxiliary loss. It encourages the current model to retain the probability distribution of the last model as: $${\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{PKD}}=-\sum\nolimits_{n=1}^{|{\mathcal{N}}|}\sum\nolimits_{t=1}^{|{\tilde{\mathcal{C}}}^{\otimes}|}\tau_{t}(\mathbf{u})\log(\tau_{t}(\mathbf{v})),\,\,\,\,(6)$$ where u and v are the logits predicted by the last model and the current model for the sample xn. C˜ois the set of old classes. τt(u) = e ut/T /P|C˜o| s=1 e us/T. T is a scalar that is used to increase the weight of small probability values. ## 3.4 Optimization When new data arrives, SCN optimizes the intent detection model with the above losses: $${\mathcal{L}}={\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{CE}}+\gamma_{1}{\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{SIM}}+\gamma_{2}{\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{MGN}}+\gamma_{3}{\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{PKD}},\tag{7}$$ where γ1, γ2, and γ3 are the adjustment coefficients. These coefficients are used to balance the performance of the old classes and the new classes. These losses are calculated for both the new data and the stored old data. After training the model, structurebased retrospection updates the memory with new representative samples. In this way, our method can continually learn new classes while avoiding catastrophic forgetting. Besides, at the end of each step, we can further fine-tune the model using the balanced sample set in the memory, which can moderately improve performance. ## 4 Experiments 4.1 Benchmarks For The Cll-Id Task We construct three CLL-ID benchmarks based on the following method: for each benchmark, we arrange the classes of one or multiple datasets in a fixed random order. Each class has its own training/validation/test data. In a class incremental manner, the lifelong learning methods continually train an intent detection model on new data. To the best of our ability, we collected 8 intent detection datasets to construct the 3 benchmarks: The **CLINC** benchmark is constructed based on the CLINC150 dataset (Larson et al., 2019). We use all the 150 classes provided by the CLINC150 dataset. The data splitting of each class follows the official CLINC150 dataset. 15 new classes are learned at each step. The **Banking-ML** benchmark is constructed on the basis of three datasets, including Banking (Casanueva et al., 2020), M-CID-EN (Arora et al., 2020a), and Liu57 (Liu et al., 2019). The Banking and M-CID-EN datasets provide 77 and 16 classes, respectively. The data splitting of these classes follows the official datasets. Since the classes in Liu57 suffer from a severe long-tail data distribution, we only use the top 57 frequent classes. Since Liu57 does not provide data splitting, we split the data of each class of Liu57 in a 3:1:1 ratio into the training/validation/test set. Finally, the Banking-ML benchmark contains 150 classes. 15 new classes are learned at each step. The **Stack-SHA** benchmark is constructed based on four datasets, including StackOverflow (Xu et al., 2015), SNIPS (Coucke et al., 2018), HINT3 (Arora et al., 2020b), and ATIS (Hemphill et al., 1990). We use all 20 and 7 classes provided by StackOverflow and SNIPS, as well as the official data split. We use the top 8 and 15 frequent classes of the ATIS and HINT3 datasets due to the longtail data distribution. Similar to Liu57, the data of each class of ATIS and HINT3 is split into training, validation, and test sets in a 3:1:1 ratio. The total number of classes for the Stack-SHA benchmark is 50. At each step, 5 new classes are learned. ## 4.2 Implementation Details Our BERT-based model is implemented with the HuggingFace's Transformer library1. The learning rate is 5e-5. The margin α is 0.3. The adjustment coefficients γ1,γ2, and γ3 are 0.1, 0.9, and 0.005, respectively. The scalar T is 2. The batch size is 24. All hyper-parameters are obtained by a grid search on the validation set. The memory size is 500. For all experiments, we run each model with 5 different seeds on a single NVIDIA Tesla P40 GPU and report the average performance. After each incremental step, we evaluate the model on the test data of all observed classes so far. Therefore, the test accuracy of the whole process can be plotted as a curve. After the last step, we report the average accuracy of all steps and the whole accuracy on the test data of all classes. ## 1 https://giithub.com/huggingface  | Method | CLINC | Banking-ML | Stack-SHA | | | | |--------------|------------|--------------|-------------|--------------|------------|-------| | Average Acc. | Whole Acc. | Average Acc. | Whole Acc. | Average Acc. | Whole Acc. | | | FineTune | 29.20 | 9.54 | 19.15 | 7.81 | 21.51 | 3.73 | | UpperBound | 96.10 | 93.86 | 83.17 | 84.22 | 91.87 | 89.26 | | LwF | 29.38 | 9.97 | 19.19 | 8.14 | 23.34 | 4.66 | | EWC | 41.25 | 16.70 | 34.63 | 19.25 | 28.17 | 8.66 | | iCaRL | 87.97 | 79.08 | 69.63 | 64.45 | 81.70 | 74.97 | | EEIL | 88.09 | 79.78 | 70.73 | 66.51 | 83.21 | 77.63 | | EMAR | 86.37 | 76.32 | 69.04 | 63.93 | 77.66 | 64.51 | | RP-CRE | 89.37 | 81.63 | 71.34 | 68.14 | 84.25 | 78.33 | | SCN (Ours) | 93.46 | 87.61 | 74.63 | 71.79 | 87.25 | 81.56 | ## 4.3 Baselines To provide a comprehensive comparison, we compare SCN with a variety of previous lifelong learning methods. LwF (Li and Hoiem, 2016) utilizes knowledge distillation to preserve the probability distribution of the last model. EWC (Kirkpatrick et al., 2017) retains parameters that are important to old classes through L2 regularization. **iCaRL** (Rebuffi et al., 2017) selects representative samples based on class prototypes and trains the model with knowledge distillation. **EEIL** (Castro et al., 2018) fine-tunes the model on the balanced data in the memory to cope with class imbalance. **EMAR** (Han et al., 2020) uses K-Means to select samples and consolidates the model by class prototypes. **RP-CRE** (Cui et al., 2021) utilizes class prototypes as external features and selects samples by K-Means. FineTune fine-tunes the model pre-trained on old data directly on new data. **UpperBound** uses training data of all observed classes to train the model, which is regarded as the upper bound. ## 4.4 Main Results Figure 3 shows the test accuracy during the entire lifelong learning process. We present the average and whole accuracy after the last step in Table 1. From the results, we can see that: (1) The proposed method SCN achieves stateof-the-art performance on all benchmarks. Compared to RP-CRE, SCN achieves 5.98%, 3.65%, and 3.23% improvements in terms of the whole accuracy on the CLINC, Banking-ML, and StackSHA benchmarks, respectively. It verifies the effectiveness of our method on the CLL-ID task. (2) At each step of the entire process, there is a significant performance gap between RP-CRE and our method SCN. The reason is that RP-CRE ignores the problems of expression diversity and class imbalance in the CLL-ID task. Due to the lack of structure-preserved sample removal, RPCRE may delete important samples and corrupt the data distribution. In addition, RP-CRE suffers from class imbalance, which eventually leads to performance degradation. | Method | CLINC | Banking-ML | Stack-SHA | | | | |--------------|------------|--------------|-------------|--------------|------------|-------| | Average Acc. | Whole Acc. | Average Acc. | Whole Acc. | Average Acc. | Whole Acc. | | | SCN (Ours) | 93.46 | 87.61 | 74.63 | 71.79 | 87.25 | 81.56 | | - SBSS | 92.14 | 84.97 | 74.06 | 70.41 | 85.41 | 79.91 | | - SPSR | 93.15 | 87.11 | 74.15 | 71.13 | 86.38 | 79.24 | | - SBR | 92.09 | 84.73 | 73.82 | 70.14 | 85.32 | 79.17 | | + CPBR | 90.29 | 83.21 | 71.63 | 67.47 | 83.79 | 78.18 | Table 2: Ablation studies of structure-based retrospection. We describe these variants in detail below. | Method | CLINC | Banking-ML | Stack-SHA | | | | |---------------|------------|--------------|-------------|--------------|------------|-------| | Average Acc. | Whole Acc. | Average Acc. | Whole Acc. | Average Acc. | Whole Acc. | | | SCN (Ours) | 93.46 | 87.61 | 74.63 | 71.79 | 87.25 | 81.56 | | - SIM | 92.21 | 84.64 | 73.92 | 70.07 | 86.63 | 79.87 | | - MGN | 92.75 | 85.86 | 74.10 | 70.76 | 86.98 | 80.38 | | - CKD | 92.08 | 84.11 | 73.65 | 69.73 | 86.39 | 79.32 | | - PKD | 93.18 | 86.45 | 74.32 | 71.40 | 87.11 | 80.59 | | - CKD and PKD | 91.54 | 83.82 | 73.26 | 69.45 | 86.34 | 79.24 | (3) FineTune always achieves the worst performance on all benchmarks. It proves that catastrophic forgetting is indeed a core challenge in the CLL-ID task. Besides, there is still a performance gap between SCN and the upper bound. It indicates that although SCN is very effective in the CLL-ID task, there is still room for further improvement. ## 4.5 Ablation Study To verify the effectiveness of the structure-based retrospection and contrastive knowledge distillation, we conduct ablation studies. ## 4.5.1 **Effect Of Structure-Based Retrospection** To gain more insights into structure-based retrospection, we compare our method with different data preservation methods. The results are shown in Table 2. From the results, we can see that: (1) For "- SBSS", we remove the structure-based sample selection and randomly add samples to the memory. For "- SPSR", the model randomly removes samples without using structure-preserved sample removal. For "- SBR", this variant employs a random strategy in both sample selection and sample removal. SCN significantly outperforms these variants on all benchmarks. The results indicate that structure-based retrospection is effective in selecting and storing the representative samples from diverse user utterances. (2) For "+ CPBR" (Rebuffi et al., 2017; Castro et al., 2018), the model computes a prototype for | 1 How can I protect against the virus? 2 Do any medications protect against the virus? | | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | SCN | 3 Will wearing gloves help me avoid COVID-19? 4 Do kids need to wear face masks? 1 How should I protect myself? 2 How can I protect myself from coronavirus? | | + CPBR 3 How can I stay safe from COVID-19? 4 Tell me some ways to avoid coronavirus. | | each class and selects samples based on this prototype. In the CLL-ID task, "+ CPBR" is even worse than the random strategy "- SBR" because it usually selects similar samples. In contrast, our method utilizes the spatial structure of features to effectively select diverse and informative samples. (3) To give a visual comparison, we show some samples preserved by SCN and "+ CPBR" for the class "*how to protect yourself* " in Figure 4. "+ CPBR" tends to preserve similar samples, such as sample 1 and sample 2. In contrast, the samples preserved by our method tend to be diverse, covering a wide range of typical expressions. It qualitatively demonstrates the effectiveness of our method. ## 4.5.2 Effect Of Contrastive Knowledge Distillation To verify the effectiveness of the proposed contrastive knowledge distillation, we conduct ablation experiments and show the results in Table 3. From the results, we can see that: (1) Removing any part of the contrastive knowl- | Number | SCN (Ours) | RP-CRE | | | |--------------|--------------|--------------|------------|-------| | Average Acc. | Whole Acc. | Average Acc. | Whole Acc. | | | 500 | 93.46 | 87.61 | 89.37 | 81.63 | | 450 | 93.25 | 86.55 | 88.16 | 80.17 | | 400 | 92.53 | 84.61 | 87.49 | 78.34 | | 350 | 92.03 | 84.14 | 87.13 | 78.03 | | 300 | 91.71 | 83.38 | 86.63 | 77.55 | edge distillation, i.e., the similarity loss ("- SIM") or the margin loss ("- MGN"), brings significant performance degradation. When we remove the contrastive knowledge distillation ("- CKD"), the performance degrades further. It demonstrates that contrastive knowledge distillation can effectively improve performance by preserving the knowledge of the original model. In addition, the results show that utilizing contrastive learning in our method to increase the generalization between the new and old classes can improve performance. (2) When we remove the vanilla knowledge distillation ("- PKD"), the performance drops. When we remove both contrastive knowledge distillation and vanilla knowledge distillation, the performance decreases significantly. It indicates that simultaneously exploiting both methods is effective. ## 4.6 Discussion: Memory Size In replay-based lifelong learning methods (Cao et al., 2020; Cui et al., 2021), the memory size is a key factor affecting performance. Therefore, we conduct experiments to verify whether our method can stably outperform the baselines under different memory sizes. As shown in Table 4, our method significantly outperforms RP-CRE in each case. Furthermore, as the memory size decreases, the performance improvement of our method usually becomes larger. Our method using only 300 samples surpasses RP-CRE using 500 samples. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of our method. ## 5 Related Work 5.1 Intent Detection Recently, there are many research works on intent detection (Larson et al., 2019; Qin et al., 2019; Yan et al., 2020; Gerz et al., 2021). Zhang et al. (2019) utilize capsule networks to model the relations between intent detection and slot filling. Zhang et al. (2021b) propose a contrastive pre-training method to handle few-shot intent detection. Besides, unknown intent detection is a hot research task that aims to detect samples belonging to the unknown intent class (Brychcín and Král, 2017; Kim and Kim, 2018; Lin and Xu, 2019; Gangal et al., 2020). Cavalin et al. (2020) utilize the word graph information of classes to detect the unknown intent. Zhang et al. (2021a) propose an adaptive method to learn decision boundaries of the unknown intent. Despite the great progress in intent detection tasks, these existing methods usually cannot flexibly and efficiently learn new intents, which limits their application in the real world. In this paper, we address the realistic and challenging task, i.e., class lifelong learning for intent detection. ## 5.2 Lifelong Learning Lifelong learning is a key research topic in machine learning, which enables models to learn new data online (Cauwenberghs and Poggio, 2000; Kuzborskij et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2019; Cui et al., 2021). Existing lifelong learning methods can be roughly divided into three categories: architecture-based methods (Fernando et al., 2017; Shen et al., 2019), regularization-based methods (Zenke et al., 2017; Aljundi et al., 2018), and replay-based methods (Rebuffi et al., 2017; Hou et al., 2019). Architecture-based methods dynamically change the model architecture in response to new data (Geng et al., 2021; Madotto et al., 2021). Regularization-based methods slow down the update of the parameters that are important to old data (Kirkpatrick et al., 2017; Li and Hoiem, 2016). Replay-based methods alleviate catastrophic forgetting by preserving a small number of old samples (Han et al., 2020; Cui et al., 2021). In addition, generative replay-based methods generate old samples via generative models (Shin et al., 2017; Kemker and Kanan, 2018; Ostapenko et al., 2019). Replaybased methods have proven to be the most effective solutions for many lifelong learning tasks in NLP (Han et al., 2020; Cui et al., 2021). In recent years, researchers have gradually begun to investigate lifelong learning in NLP scenarios (Kirkpatrick et al., 2017; Cao et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2021). Lee (2017) adopts a one-step incremental setting, which fine-tunes the model pre-trained on open-domain dialogues on task-oriented dialogues. Xia et al. (2021) study incremental few-shot learning in text classification tasks, which aims to continually learn new classes with only a small number of training samples. Madotto et al. (2021) study domain lifelong learning in task-oriented dialogues. However, they mainly focus on the dialogue state tracking task. In addition, they adopt a generic architecture-based method, which does not address the main challenges of the intent detection task. ## 6 Conclusion In this paper, we introduce class lifelong learning into intent detection and further propose structure consolidation networks to overcome catastrophic forgetting. To cope with expression diversity, we propose structure-based retrospection to select diverse and informative samples. To alleviate the negative effects of class imbalance, we propose contrastive knowledge distillation to preserve the knowledge of the original model. Experimental results on three benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of our method. ## Limitations Although our method SCN achieves state-of-theart performance in the CLL-ID task, there is still a performance gap between SCN and the upper bound. This result is inconsistent with human behaviors because humans usually do not forget old skills when learning new skills. Therefore, in future work, we hope to introduce findings from the brain science domain into the model design to overcome the problem of catastrophic forgetting. ## Acknowledgements This work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (No. 2020AAA0106400) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.U1936207, No.61922085, No.61976211). This research work was supported by the Youth Innovation Promotion Association CAS, Yunnan Provincial Major Science and Technology Special Plan Projects (No.202202AD080004). ## References Rahaf Aljundi, Francesca Babiloni, Mohamed Elhoseiny, Marcus Rohrbach, and Tinne Tuytelaars. 2018. Memory aware synapses: Learning what (not) to forget. In 15th European Conference on Computer Vision, ECCV 2018, volume 11207 of *Lecture Notes* in Computer Science, pages 144–161. Abhinav Arora, Akshat Shrivastava, Mrinal Mohit, Lorena Sainz-Maza Lecanda, and Ahmed Aly. 2020a. Cross-lingual transfer learning for intent detection of covid-19 utterances. Gaurav Arora, Chirag Jain, Manas Chaturvedi, and Krupal Modi. 2020b. HINT3: Raising the bar for intent detection in the wild. In *Proceedings of the First* Workshop on Insights from Negative Results in NLP, pages 100–105. Tomáš Brychcín and Pavel Král. 2017. Unsupervised dialogue act induction using Gaussian mixtures. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Volume 2, Short Papers, pages 485–490, Valencia, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics. Pengfei Cao, Yubo Chen, Jun Zhao, and Taifeng Wang. 2020. Incremental event detection via knowledge consolidation networks. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 707–717. Iñigo Casanueva, Tadas Temcinas, Daniela Gerz, ˇ Matthew Henderson, and Ivan Vulic. 2020. ´ Efficient intent detection with dual sentence encoders. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Natural Language Processing for Conversational AI, pages 38–45. Francisco M. Castro, Manuel J. Marín-Jiménez, Nicolás Guil, Cordelia Schmid, and Karteek Alahari. 2018. End-to-end incremental learning. In *15th European* Conference on Computer Vision, ECCV 2018, volume 11216 of *Lecture Notes in Computer Science*, pages 241–257. Gert Cauwenberghs and Tomaso A. Poggio. 2000. Incremental and decremental support vector machine learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 13, Papers from Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS) 2000, pages 409–415. Paulo Cavalin, Victor Henrique Alves Ribeiro, Ana Appel, and Claudio Pinhanez. 2020. Improving outof-scope detection in intent classification by using embeddings of the word graph space of the classes. In *Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical* Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 3952–3961, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alice Coucke, Alaa Saade, Adrien Ball, Théodore Bluche, Alexandre Caulier, David Leroy, Clément Doumouro, Thibault Gisselbrecht, Francesco Caltagirone, Thibaut Lavril, Maël Primet, and Joseph Dureau. 2018. Snips voice platform: an embedded spoken language understanding system for privateby-design voice interfaces. *CoRR*, abs/1805.10190. Li Cui, Deqing Yang, Jiaxin Yu, Chengwei Hu, Jiayang Cheng, Jingjie Yi, and Yanghua Xiao. 2021. Refining sample embeddings with relation prototypes to enhance continual relation 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 232–243. 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. Chrisantha Fernando, Dylan Banarse, Charles Blundell, Yori Zwols, David Ha, Andrei A. Rusu, Alexander Pritzel, and Daan Wierstra. 2017. Pathnet: Evolution channels gradient descent in super neural networks. CoRR, abs/1701.08734. Robert M. French. 1999. Catastrophic forgetting in connectionist networks. *Trends in Cognitive Sciences*, 3(4):128–135. Varun Gangal, Abhinav Arora, Arash Einolghozati, and Sonal Gupta. 2020. Likelihood ratios and generative classifiers for unsupervised out-of-domain detection in task oriented dialog. In The Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 7764– 7771. Tianyu Gao, Xingcheng Yao, and Danqi Chen. 2021. SimCSE: Simple contrastive learning of sentence embeddings. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6894–6910, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Binzong Geng, Fajie Yuan, Qiancheng Xu, Ying Shen, Ruifeng Xu, and Min Yang. 2021. Continual learning for task-oriented dialogue system with iterative network pruning, expanding and masking. 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 517–523, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Daniela Gerz, Pei-Hao Su, Razvan Kusztos, Avishek Mondal, Michał Lis, Eshan Singhal, Nikola Mrkšic,´ Tsung-Hsien Wen, and Ivan Vulic. 2021. ´ Multilingual and cross-lingual intent detection from spoken data. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7468–7475, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xu Han, Yi Dai, Tianyu Gao, Yankai Lin, Zhiyuan Liu, Peng Li, Maosong Sun, and Jie Zhou. 2020. Continual relation learning via episodic memory activation and reconsolidation. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6429–6440. 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. Geoffrey E. Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeffrey Dean. 2015. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network. CoRR, abs/1503.02531. Saihui Hou, Xinyu Pan, Chen Change Loy, Zilei Wang, and Dahua Lin. 2019. Learning a unified classifier incrementally via rebalancing. In *IEEE Conference* on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2019, pages 831–839. Zixuan Ke, Bing Liu, Hu Xu, and Lei Shu. 2021. CLASSIC: Continual and contrastive learning of aspect sentiment classification tasks. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6871–6883. Ronald Kemker and Christopher Kanan. 2018. Fearnet: Brain-inspired model for incremental learning. In 6th International Conference on Learning Representations. Joo-Kyung Kim and Young-Bum Kim. 2018. Joint learning of domain classification and out-of-domain detection with dynamic class weighting for satisficing false acceptance rates. In *Interspeech 2018, 19th* Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, pages 556–560. James Kirkpatrick, Razvan Pascanu, Neil Rabinowitz, Joel Veness, Guillaume Desjardins, Andrei A. Rusu, Kieran Milan, John Quan, Tiago Ramalho, Agnieszka Grabska-Barwinska, Demis Hassabis, Claudia Clopath, Dharshan Kumaran, and Raia Hadsell. 2017. Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(13):3521–3526. Ilja Kuzborskij, Francesco Orabona, and Barbara Caputo. 2013. From N to N+1: multiclass transfer incremental learning. In *2013 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition*, pages 3358– 3365. Stefan Larson, Anish Mahendran, Joseph J. Peper, Christopher Clarke, Andrew Lee, Parker Hill, Jonathan K. Kummerfeld, Kevin Leach, Michael A. Laurenzano, Lingjia Tang, and Jason Mars. 2019. An evaluation dataset for intent classification and out-of-scope prediction. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pages 1311–1316. Sungjin Lee. 2017. Toward continual learning for conversational agents. *CoRR*, abs/1712.09943. Zhizhong Li and Derek Hoiem. 2016. Learning without forgetting. In *14th European Conference on Computer Vision, ECCV 2016*, pages 614–629. Zhuang Li, Lizhen Qu, and Gholamreza Haffari. 2021. Total recall: a customized continual learning method for neural semantic parsers. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3816–3831. Ting-En Lin and Hua Xu. 2019. Deep unknown intent detection with margin loss. In *Proceedings of the* 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5491–5496, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Qingbin Liu, Pengfei Cao, Cao Liu, Jiansong Chen, Xunliang Cai, Fan Yang, Shizhu He, Kang Liu, and Jun Zhao. 2021. Domain-lifelong learning for dialogue state tracking via knowledge preservation networks. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on* Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2301–2311. Xingkun Liu, Arash Eshghi, Pawel Swietojanski, and Verena Rieser. 2019. Benchmarking natural language understanding services for building conversational agents. In *Increasing Naturalness and Flexibility* in Spoken Dialogue Interaction - 10th International Workshop on Spoken Dialogue Systems, IWSDS 2019, volume 714 of *Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering*, pages 165–183. Andrea Madotto, Zhaojiang Lin, Zhenpeng Zhou, Seungwhan Moon, Paul Crook, Bing Liu, Zhou Yu, Eunjoon Cho, Pascale Fung, and Zhiguang Wang. 2021. Continual learning in task-oriented dialogue systems. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on* Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7452–7467. Michael McCloskey and Neal J. Cohen. 1989. Catastrophic interference in connectionist networks: The sequential learning problem. volume 24 of *Psychology of Learning and Motivation*, pages 109–165. Brendan McMahan, Eider Moore, Daniel Ramage, Seth Hampson, and Blaise Agüera y Arcas. 2017. Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data. In *Proceedings of the 20th* International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, volume 54 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 1273–1282. Oleksiy Ostapenko, Mihai Marian Puscas, Tassilo Klein, Patrick Jähnichen, and Moin Nabi. 2019. Learning to remember: A synaptic plasticity driven framework for continual learning. In *IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2019*, pages 11321–11329. Libo Qin, Wanxiang Che, Yangming Li, Haoyang Wen, and Ting Liu. 2019. A stack-propagation framework with token-level intent detection for spoken language understanding. 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 2078–2087, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Abhinav Rastogi, Xiaoxue Zang, Srinivas Sunkara, Raghav Gupta, and Pranav Khaitan. 2020. Towards scalable multi-domain conversational agents: The schema-guided dialogue dataset. In *The ThirtyFourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence*, pages 8689–8696. Sylvestre-Alvise Rebuffi, Alexander Kolesnikov, Georg Sperl, and Christoph H. Lampert. 2017. icarl: Incremental classifier and representation learning. In 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2017, Honolulu, HI, USA, July 21-26, 2017, pages 5533–5542. IEEE Computer Society. Yilin Shen, Xiangyu Zeng, and Hongxia Jin. 2019. A progressive model to enable continual learning for semantic slot filling. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLPIJCNLP), pages 1279–1284, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Hanul Shin, Jung Kwon Lee, Jaehong Kim, and Jiwon Kim. 2017. Continual learning with deep generative replay. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017*, pages 2990–2999. Jake Snell, Kevin Swersky, and Richard S. Zemel. 2017. Prototypical networks for few-shot learning. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30:* Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, pages 4077–4087. 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, pages 5998– 6008. Hong Wang, Wenhan Xiong, Mo Yu, Xiaoxiao Guo, Shiyu Chang, and William Yang Wang. 2019. Sentence embedding alignment for lifelong relation extraction. 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 796–806. Congying Xia, Wenpeng Yin, Yihao Feng, and Philip Yu. 2021. Incremental few-shot text classification with multi-round new classes: Formulation, dataset and system. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference* of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1351–1360, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jiaming Xu, Peng Wang, Guanhua Tian, Bo Xu, Jun Zhao, Fangyuan Wang, and Hongwei Hao. 2015. Short text clustering via convolutional neural networks. In *Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Vector* Space Modeling for Natural Language Processing, pages 62–69. Guangfeng Yan, Lu Fan, Qimai Li, Han Liu, Xiaotong Zhang, Xiao-Ming Wu, and Albert Y.S. Lam. 2020. Unknown intent detection using Gaussian mixture model with an application to zero-shot intent classification. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of* the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1050–1060, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Hong-Ming Yang, Xu-Yao Zhang, Fei Yin, and ChengLin Liu. 2018. Robust classification with convolutional prototype learning. In 2018 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2018, pages 3474–3482. Friedemann Zenke, Ben Poole, and Surya Ganguli. 2017. Continual learning through synaptic intelligence. In *Proceedings of the 34th International* Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2017, volume 70 of *Proceedings of Machine Learning Research*, pages 3987–3995. Li-Ming Zhan, Haowen Liang, Bo Liu, Lu Fan, XiaoMing Wu, and Albert Y.S. Lam. 2021. Out-of-scope intent detection with self-supervision and discriminative training. 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 3521–3532. Chenwei Zhang, Yaliang Li, Nan Du, Wei Fan, and Philip Yu. 2019. Joint slot filling and intent detection via capsule neural networks. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5259–5267, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Hanlei Zhang, Hua Xu, and Ting-En Lin. 2021a. Deep open intent classification with adaptive decision boundary. In *The Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on* Artificial Intelligence, pages 14374–14382. Jianguo Zhang, Trung Bui, Seunghyun Yoon, Xiang Chen, Zhiwei Liu, Congying Xia, Quan Hung Tran, Walter Chang, and Philip Yu. 2021b. Few-shot intent detection via contrastive pre-training and fine-tuning. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 1906–1912, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist 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? Section Abstract, 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? Not applicable. 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.? 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. Not applicable. Left blank. ## 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 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 ✓ 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 ✓ 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 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.

vashishtha-etal-2023-evaluating

On Evaluating and Mitigating Gender Biases in Multilingual Settings

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.21

While understanding and removing gender biases in language models has been a long-standing problem in Natural Language Processing, prior research work has primarily been limited to English. In this work, we investigate some of the challenges with evaluating and mitigating biases in multilingual settings which stem from a lack of existing benchmarks and resources for bias evaluation beyond English especially for non-western context. In this paper, we first create a benchmark for evaluating gender biases in pre-trained masked language models by extending DisCo to different Indian languages using human annotations. We extend various debiasing methods to work beyond English and evaluate their effectiveness for SOTA massively multilingual models on our proposed metric. Overall, our work highlights the challenges that arise while studying social biases in multilingual settings and provides resources as well as mitigation techniques to take a step toward scaling to more languages.

# On Evaluating And Mitigating Gender Biases In Multilingual Settings Aniket Vashishtha∗ Kabir Ahuja∗ **Sunayana Sitaram** Microsoft Research India {t-aniketva,t-kabirahuja,sunayana.sitaram}@microsoft.com ## Abstract While understanding and removing gender biases in language models has been a longstanding problem in Natural Language Processing, prior research work has primarily been limited to English. In this work, we investigate some of the challenges with evaluating and mitigating biases in multilingual settings which stem from a lack of existing benchmarks and resources for bias evaluation beyond English especially for non-western context. In this paper, we first create a benchmark for evaluating gender biases in pre-trained masked language models by extending DisCo to different Indian languages using human annotations. We extend various debiasing methods to work beyond English and evaluate their effectiveness for SOTA massively multilingual models on our proposed metric. Overall, our work highlights the challenges that arise while studying social biases in multilingual settings and provides resources as well as mitigation techniques to take a step toward scaling to more languages. ## 1 Introduction Large Language Models (LLMs) (Devlin et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020; Raffel et al., 2020) have obtained impressive performance on a wide range of NLP tasks showing great potential in several downstream applications for real world impact. However, these models have shown to be prone to picking up unwanted correlations and stereotypes from the pre-training data (Sheng et al., 2019; Kurita et al., 2019; Hutchinson et al., 2020) which, can perpetuate harmful biases for people belonging to marginalized groups. While there has been a great deal of interest in understanding and mitigating such biases in LLMs (Nadeem et al., 2021; Schick et al., 2021; Meade et al., 2022), the focus of such studies has primarily been on English. While Massively Multilingual Language Models (Devlin et al., 2019; Conneau et al., 2020; Xue ∗ Equal contribution et al., 2021), have shown impressive performances across a wide range of languages, especially with their surprising effectiveness at zero-shot crosslingual transfer, there still exists a lack of focused research to evaluate and mitigate the biases that exist in these models. This can lead to a lack of inclusive and responsible technologies for groups whose native language is not English and can also lead to the dissemination of stereotypes and the widening of existing cultural gaps. Past work on evaluating and mitigating biases in multilingual models has mostly been concerned with gender bias in cross-lingual word embeddings (Zhao et al., 2020; Bansal et al., 2021) which fails to account for contextual information (Kurita et al., 2019; Delobelle et al., 2022), making them unreliable for LLMs. Other methods for estimating biases in contextualized representations involve Multilingual Bias Evaluation (Kaneko et al., 2022, MBE), which utilizes parallel translation corpora in different languages that might lack non-western cultural contexts (Talat et al., 2022). For debiasing LLMs, Lauscher et al. (2021) proposed an adapter (Houlsby et al., 2019) based approach. However, the biases are measured in the word representations and only English data was used for debiasing, missing out on cultural context for other languages. To address these concerns, we make the following key contributions in our work. *First*, we extend the DisCo metric (Webster et al., 2020) by creating human-corrected templates for 6 Indian languages. DisCo takes sentence-level context while measuring bias and our templates are largely culturally agnostic making them more generally applicable. Second, we extend existing debiasing strategies like Counterfactual Data Augmentation (Zhao et al., 2018) and Self-Debiasing (Schick et al., 2021) to mitigate gender biases across languages in Masked Language Models (MLMs). Finally, we also evaluate the transferability of debiasing MLMs from one source language to other 307 target languages and observe limited transfer from English to languages lacking western context. However, we do observe that typologically and culturally similar languages aid each other in reducing gender bias. While there have been multiple studies on measuring biases in multilingual models, previous work has not explored mitigating gender biases from these models on multiple languages and studying the transferability of debiasing across different languages. This is especially true while using nonembedding based approaches for evaluation and debiasing. To the best of our knowledge, ours is the first work to debias multilingual LLMs for different languages and measure the cross-lingual transfer for gender bias mitigation. To encourage future research in this area, we will release our code and datasets publically1. ## 2 Measuring Bias In Multilingual Models In this section, we describe the benchmarks to evaluate biases in MLMs across different languages. Since most existing benchmarks for bias evaluation in contextualized representations are designed for English, we discuss our multilingual variant of DisCo and the recently proposed MBE metric. ## 2.1 Multilingual Disco Discovery of Correlations (DisCo) is a templatebased metric that measures unfair or biased associations of predictions of an MLM to a particular gender. It follows a slot-filling procedure where for each template, predictions are made for a masked token, which are evaluated to assess whether there is a statistically significant difference in the top predictions across male and female genders. For calculating the bias score using DisCo, a χ 2test is performed to reject the null hypothesis (with a p-value of 0.05) that the model has the same prediction rate with both male and female context. We use the modified version of the metric from (Delobelle et al., 2022) that measures the fraction of slot-fills containing predictions with gendered associations (fully biased model gets a score of 1, and fully unbiased gets a score of 0). We extend the **Names** variant of DisCo, as personal names can act as representatives for various socio-demographic attributes to capture cultural context (Sambasivan et al., 2021). Especially for India, surnames are a strong cultural identifier. Majority Indian surnames are typically an identifier 1https://aka.ms/multilingual-bias [PERSON] likes to [BLANK]. Figure 1: Example template translation for "*{PERSON}* likes to {BLANK}" in Hindi for creation of our multilingual dataset. of belonging to a particular caste, religion and culture. We use surnames from specific cultures which speak the languages for which we prepare the name pairs for. We further use these surnames to filter out personal first names for both male and female from an open-source Indian names list containing a large number of popular Indian names (details in Appendix A.1) and word-translated the names from English to the corresponding languages, to be used for slot-filling. Further, unlike nouns and pronouns which might be gender-neutral in some languages, names are indicative of gender to a large extent across cultures. Dataset Construction: We start with the 14 templates provided in Webster et al. (2020) and translate them using Bing translation API 2to 6 Indian languages of varying resources. We use the Class taxonomy from (Joshi et al., 2020) to characterize language resources, where Class 5 represent high resource and Class-0 for lowest resource languages. Our set of Indian Languages contain Class 4 language Hindi (hi); Class 3 language Bengali (bn); Class 2 languages Marathi (mr) and Punjabi (pa); and Class 1 language Gujarati (gu). A challenge while transferring templates from English to these languages is that, unlike English, a common template might not be applicable to both genders. For eg. the template "'*{PERSON} likes to {BLANK}*"', will have different translations in Hindi, depending upon the gender of the slot fill for {PERSON}, as Hindi has gendered verbs. Hence, during translation we first filled the *{PERSON}* slot with a male and a female name to obtain two templates corresponding to each gender (see Figure 1). All the translated templates in our dataset were then thoroughly reviewed and corrected by human annotators who are native speakers of the languages (details in Appendix A.1). ## 2.2 Multilingual Bias Evaluation (Mbe) We also evaluate MLMs with the MBE score proposed in (Kaneko et al., 2022) containing datasets for bias evaluation in 8 high resource languages: German (de), Japanese (ja), Arabic (ar), Spanish (es), and Mandarin (zh) belonging to Class 5; Portuguese (pt) and Russian (ru) in Class 4; and Indonesian (id) in Class 3. For evaluation, it first considers parallel corpora from English to different languages and extracts the set of sentences containing male and female words. Next, the likelihood for each sentence is evaluated with the MLM, and the bias score is measured as the percentage of total pairs for which a male sentence gets a higher likelihood than a female sentence. Hence a value close to 50 for an MLM indicates no bias towards both groups while greater or smaller values indicate a bias towards females and males respectively. For better interpretability of metrics, we report |50 − MBE| in our results. ## 3 Mitigating Bias In Multilingual Models We next discuss how we extend bias mitigation techniques to work beyond English along with different fine-tuning and prompting strategies that we deploy in our experiments. ## 3.1 **Counterfactual Data Augmentation (Cda)** CDA (Zhao et al., 2018) is an effective method for reducing biases picked up by the language models during pre-training. It operates by augmenting an unlabeled text corpus with counterfactuals generated for each sentence based on a specific dimension like gender. As an example, the counterfactual for a sentence s = "The doctor went to his *home"* will be sˆ = "The doctor went to her *home"*. The model is then fine-tuned on the augmented data, which helps balance out any spurious correlations that would have existed in the pre-training dataset. To generate counterfactuals in English, we do word replacements on Wikipedia data using 193 gendered term pairs (eg. {he, she}, {actor, actress}, etc.) following Lauscher et al. (2021). However, generating counterfactuals for languages other than English can be challenging as acquiring term pairs need recruiting annotators which can be expensive for low-resource languages. Further, word replacement can prove unreliable for languages that mark gender case to objects (like Hindi), producing ungrammatical sentences (Zmigrod et al., 2019). Generating Multilingual Counterfactuals: We use a translation-based approach to obtain counterfactually augmented examples in different languages. We first select the sentences in the Wikipedia English corpus containing India-related keywords which were extracted using ConceptNet (Speer et al., 2017) which include keywords related to Indian food, location, languages, religions, etc. Using these keywords we select a set of 20K sentences to avoid under-representation of Indian culture specific context. Also, generating counterfactuals for the whole corpus and fine-tuning MLMs for each of the languages will require substantial energy consumption (Strubell et al., 2019), so we decided to use the set of filtered 20k sentences for debiasing the MLMs. Further, we augment the 193 term pairs list to contain pairs of Indian personal names as well. We align the male and female names through a greedy search for selecting pairs with minimum edit distance. Finally, using the augmented term pairs list and the filtered data with Indian context, we generate counterfactuals using word replacements and translate the obtained data to the 6 Indian languages. Once we have obtained CDA data in different languages, we can utilize it to debias the model. We define CDA-S as a fine-tuning setup where the MLM is debiased using CDA data for languages belonging to the set *S ⊂ L*, where L = {en, hi, pa, bn,ta, gu, mr}. In particular, we explore the following classes of fine-tuning setups: 1. CDA-{en}: Fine-tune the model with English CDA data only (zero-shot debiasing). 2. CDA-{l}: Fine-tune the model with language l specific CDA data (monolingual-debiasing). 3. CDA-{l, en}: Fine-tune the model with English and language l's CDA data (few-shot debiasing). 4. CDA-*L \ {*en}: Fine-tune the model with CDA data in all non-English languages (multilingualdebiasing). ## 3.2 Self-Debiasing Self-Debiasing (Schick et al., 2021) is a post-hoc method to reduce corpus-based biases in language models. It is based on the observation that pretrained language models can recognize biases in text data fairly well and prepends the input text with prompts encouraging the model to exhibit undesired behavior. Using this, it recognizes the undesirable predictions of the model as the ones with an increase in likelihood when the prompt is provided and suppresses them in the final predictions. We translate the English prompt *"The following* text discriminates against people because of their gender" in different languages and use them for bias mitigation (SD-l). We also experiment with using English prompt for other languages (SD-en). ## 4 Results We evaluate the Out Of Box (OOB) biases as well the effect of applying aforementioned debiasing techniques in multilingual MLMs like XLMR-base (Conneau et al., 2020), IndicBERT (Kakwani et al., 2020), and mBERT (cased) (Devlin et al., 2019) using our multilingual DisCo metric. Additionally, we also evaluate language-specific monolingual models (refer Table 3 in appendix) and XLMR on the MBE score. Comparison Between Different Fine-tuning Setups for CDA: We first compare the results of bias mitigation across all 4 classes of finetuning setups for CDA to understand the effect each had on the final bias reduction. As can be seen in Table 1 even though zero-shot transfer from English (CDA-{en}) results in some reduction in biases when compared to the models without any debiasing (OOB), most of the other fine-tuning setups that use language-specific counterfactuals incur better drops in the DisCo score. Specifically, few-shot debiasing (CDA-{l, en}) and multilingual-debiasing (CDA-*L \ {*en}) perform consistently the best for both models with CDA-*L \ {*en} performing slightly better for XLMR and substantially so for Indic-BERT. This shows that even though languagespecific counterfactuals were translated, using them for the debiasing of models helped in considerable bias reduction. We also observe that the monolingual debiasing (CDA-{l}) leads to a drop similar to CDA-{en}, and we conjecture that it might be attributed to the low amount of data we have in languages other than English for debiasing. Further, the dominant performance of CDA-*L \ {*en} highlights that languages from a similar culture can collectively help improve biases in such models. We also observe similar results for mBERT which are provided in Table 4 in the appendix. Comparison Between CDA and Self-Debiasing: Counter to CDA, Self-Debiasing shows different bias mitigation trends for Indian languages. Table 1 shows that for both multilingual MLMs, the overall  bias ends up increasing when Self-Debiasing is applied, and that too by a considerable amount for IndicBERT. This seems to be in contrast to the past work (Meade et al., 2022) that shows SelfDebiasing to be the strongest debiasing technique. However, we will see next the cases where it can indeed be effective in reducing biases. Evaluation on MBE Metric: We first investigate the effect of Self-Debiasing on monolingual models when evaluated for the MBE metric. As can be observed in Figure 2a, for most languages (except Russian and Spanish), both variants of SelfDebiasing manage to reduce the biases substantially. However, when we compare the results on a multilingual model i.e. XLMR in Figure 2b, we again observe the same phenomenon as for multilingual DisCo, where the biases tend to increase upon applying Self-Debiasing. Figure 2a shows that SDen and SD-l have similar debiasing performance for monolingual models. It is intriguing that monolingual models are able to debias so well based on English prompts. This similarity in results with non-English and English prompts could possibly | MLM | Method | Languages | en | hi | pa | bn | ta | gu | mr | L \ {en} | |----------------|----------|-------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------------| | OOB | {} | 0.78 | 0.83 | 0.92 | 0.94 | 0.94 | 0.86 | 0.86 | 0.89 | | | Self-Debiasing | {en} | 0.82 | 0.88 | 0.92 | 0.93 | 0.94 | 0.86 | 0.87 | 0.90 | | | {l} | 0.82 | 0.89 | 0.93 | 0.94 | 0.92 | 0.89 | 0.88 | 0.91 | | | | XLM-R | {en} | 0.61 | 0.83 | 0.83 | 0.89 | 0.90 | 0.82 | 0.83 | 0.85 | | | {l} | 0.61 | 0.81 | 0.84 | 0.90 | 0.92 | 0.78 | 0.83 | 0.85 | | | | CDA | {l, en} | - | 0.74 | 0.79 | 0.88 | 0.87 | 0.70 | 0.69 | 0.78 | | | L \ en | 0.73 | 0.75 | 0.61 | 0.87 | 0.87 | 0.78 | 0.76 | 0.77 | | | | OOB | {} | 0.70 | 0.79 | 0.84 | 0.93 | 0.86 | 0.82 | 0.76 | 0.83 | | | Self-Debiasing | {en} | 0.78 | 0.86 | 0.93 | 0.98 | 0.93 | 0.86 | 0.87 | 0.90 | | | {l} | 0.78 | 0.86 | 0.89 | 0.96 | 0.91 | 0.84 | 0.87 | 0.89 | | | | IndicBERT | {en} | 0.70 | 0.76 | 0.72 | 0.95 | 0.89 | 0.83 | 0.85 | 0.83 | | | {l} | 0.70 | 0.80 | 0.80 | 0.82 | 0.90 | 0.79 | 0.78 | 0.82 | | | | CDA | {l, en} | - | 0.75 | 0.80 | 0.83 | 0.80 | 0.86 | 0.75 | 0.80 | | | L \ en | 0.72 | 0.66 | 0.75 | 0.80 | 0.79 | 0.66 | 0.73 | 0.73 | | | CDA {en} 0.70 0.76 **0.72** 0.95 0.89 0.83 0.85 0.83 {l} 0.70 0.80 0.80 0.82 0.90 0.79 0.78 0.82 {l, en} - 0.75 0.80 0.83 0.80 0.86 0.75 0.80 L \ en 0.72 **0.66** 0.75 **0.80 0.79 0.66 0.73 0.73** Table 1: Multilingual DisCo metric results (score of 1 being fully biased and 0 being fully unbiased) of debiasing using CDA and Self-Debiasing using various fine-tuning settings on different languages. Refer to Table 4 for the full version of the results. be explained by contamination in the pretraining monolingual data (Blevins and Zettlemoyer, 2022). We also compare the effect of CDA-{en}on reducing the biases and we observed it does obtain more success in most languages (except Spanish and Japanese). Even though MBE and Multilingual DisCo have different experimental setups, obtaining consistent results while using the two different metrics like English-only debiasing being insufficient to reduce biases in other languages. Selfdebiasing being ineffective for mitigating biases in multilingual models strenghtens the applicability of our results. Our results indicate that Self-Debiasing might be limited for multilingual models and we leave the investigation of this phenomenon to future work. ## 5 Conclusion In this work, we investigated gender biases in multilingual settings by proposing a bias evaluation dataset in 6 Indian languages. We further extended debiasing approaches like CDA and Self-Debiasing to work for languages beyond English and evaluated their effectiveness in removing biases across languages in MLMs. One of our key findings is that debiasing with English data might only provide a limited bias reduction in other languages and even collecting a limited amount of counterfactual data through translation can lead to substantial improvements when jointly trained with such data from similar languages. Finally, we showed that despite being effective on monolingual models, Self-Debiasing is limited in reducing biases in multilingual models with often resulting in an increase in overall bias. We hope that our work will act as a useful resource for the community to build more inclusive technologies for all cultures. ## 6 Limitations The present study is limited to exploring biases in MLMs for the gender dimension only. For future work, important dimensionalities can be explored, especially for non-western contexts like Caste, Ethnicity, etc (Ahn and Oh, 2021; Bhatt et al., 2022). We also used Machine Translation on English counterfactuals to obtain CDA data in each language in our dataset. Translations are prone to errors and issues like *Translaionese* (Gellerstam, 1986), especially for the lower resource languages, and therefore can lead to the unreliability of the quality of generated counterfactuals were generated. In the future, we would like to explore learning generative (Wu et al., 2021) or editing models (Malmi et al., 2022) for automatically generating gender counterfactuals given text data in different languages. This can help us scale our counterfactual generation process to a much higher number of samples while also avoiding any losses in quality that may arise due to machine translation. Our multilingual DisCo metric is currently limited to 6 Indian languages and we hope our work will inspire further extension to cover different language families for improving the focus on multilingual biases evaluation. ## 7 Ethical Considerations Our work dealt with evaluating biases in MLMs and different methods for bias mitigation in multilingual settings. While most of the current work is disproportionately in favor of high-resource languages like English, it is extremely important to improve this linguistic disparity for building inclusive and responsible language technology. Through our work, we provided a dataset to evaluate gender biases in languages of varying resources as well as methods to reduce such biases. ## Acknowledgements We would like to thank the following people who helped in evaluating and improving the Multilingual DisCo templates: Ranajoy Sadhukhan, Atharv Sonwane, Abhinav Rao, Krut Patel and Mirza Baig. ## References Jaimeen Ahn and Alice Oh. 2021. Mitigating languagedependent ethnic bias in BERT. In *Proceedings of the* 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 533–549, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Wissam Antoun, Fady Baly, and Hazem Hajj. 2020. AraBERT: Transformer-based model for Arabic language understanding. In *Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Open-Source Arabic Corpora and Processing Tools, with a Shared Task on Offensive Language* Detection, pages 9–15, Marseille, France. European Language Resource Association. Srijan Bansal, Vishal Garimella, Ayush Suhane, and Animesh Mukherjee. 2021. Debiasing multilingual word embeddings: A case study of three indian languages. Shaily Bhatt, Sunipa Dev, Partha Talukdar, Shachi Dave, and Vinodkumar Prabhakaran. 2022. Recontextualizing fairness in NLP: The case of India. In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 12th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 727–740, Online only. Association for Computational Linguistics. Terra Blevins and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2022. Language contamination helps explains the cross-lingual capabilities of english pretrained models. In *Proceedings* of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3563–3574. 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 Neural Information Processing Systems*, volume 33, pages 1877–1901. Curran Associates, Inc. José Cañete, Gabriel Chaperon, Rodrigo Fuentes, JouHui Ho, Hojin Kang, and Jorge Pérez. 2020. Spanish pre-trained bert model and evaluation data. In PML4DC at ICLR 2020. Branden Chan, Stefan Schweter, and Timo Möller. 2020. German's next language model. In *Proceedings of* the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 6788–6796, Barcelona, Spain (Online). International Committee on Computational Linguistics. Alexis Conneau, Kartikay Khandelwal, Naman Goyal, Vishrav Chaudhary, Guillaume Wenzek, Francisco Guzmán, Edouard Grave, Myle Ott, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2020. Unsupervised cross-lingual representation learning at scale. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 8440– 8451, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yiming Cui, Wanxiang Che, Ting Liu, Bing Qin, Shijin Wang, and Guoping Hu. 2020. Revisiting pre-trained models for Chinese natural language processing. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 657–668, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Pieter Delobelle, Ewoenam Tokpo, Toon Calders, and Bettina Berendt. 2022. Measuring fairness with biased rulers: A comparative study on bias metrics for pre-trained language models. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1693–1706, Seattle, United States. 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. Martin Gellerstam. 1986. Translationese in swedish novels translated from english. Translation studies in Scandinavia: Proceedings from the Scandinavian Symposium on Translation Theory (SSOTT) II. 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 Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 97 of *Proceedings* of Machine Learning Research, pages 2790–2799. PMLR. Ben Hutchinson, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Emily Denton, Kellie Webster, Yu Zhong, and Stephen Denuyl. 2020. Social biases in NLP models as barriers for persons with disabilities. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5491–5501, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Pratik Joshi, Sebastin Santy, Amar Budhiraja, Kalika Bali, and Monojit Choudhury. 2020. The state and fate of linguistic diversity and inclusion in the NLP world. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6282–6293, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Divyanshu Kakwani, Anoop Kunchukuttan, Satish Golla, Gokul N.C., Avik Bhattacharyya, Mitesh M. Khapra, and Pratyush Kumar. 2020. IndicNLPSuite: Monolingual corpora, evaluation benchmarks and pre-trained multilingual language models for Indian languages. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020*, pages 4948– 4961, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Masahiro Kaneko, Aizhan Imankulova, Danushka Bollegala, and Naoaki Okazaki. 2022. Gender bias in masked language models for multiple languages. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2740–2750, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Keita Kurita, Nidhi Vyas, Ayush Pareek, Alan W Black, and Yulia Tsvetkov. 2019. Measuring bias in contextualized word representations. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Gender Bias in Natural Language Processing, pages 166–172, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Anne Lauscher, Tobias Lueken, and Goran Glavaš. 2021. Sustainable modular debiasing of language models. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, pages 4782–4797, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Anne Lauscher, Vinit Ravishankar, Ivan Vulic, and ´ Goran Glavaš. 2020. From zero to hero: On the limitations of zero-shot language transfer with multilingual Transformers. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 4483–4499, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Eric Malmi, Yue Dong, Jonathan Mallinson, Aleksandr Chuklin, Jakub Adamek, Daniil Mirylenka, Felix Stahlberg, Sebastian Krause, Shankar Kumar, and Aliaksei Severyn. 2022. Text generation with textediting models. In *Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies: Tutorial Abstracts*, pages 1–7, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Nicholas Meade, Elinor Poole-Dayan, and Siva Reddy. 2022. An empirical survey of the effectiveness of debiasing techniques for pre-trained language models. In *Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the* Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1878–1898, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Moin Nadeem, Anna Bethke, and Siva Reddy. 2021. StereoSet: Measuring stereotypical bias in pretrained language 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 5356–5371, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. 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(140):1–67. Nithya Sambasivan, Erin Arnesen, Ben Hutchinson, Tulsee Doshi, and Vinodkumar Prabhakaran. 2021. Re-imagining algorithmic fairness in india and beyond. In *Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency*, FAccT '21, page 315–328, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. Timo Schick, Sahana Udupa, and Hinrich Schütze. 2021. Self-diagnosis and self-debiasing: A proposal for reducing corpus-based bias in NLP. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:1408– 1424. Emily Sheng, Kai-Wei Chang, Premkumar Natarajan, and Nanyun Peng. 2019. The woman worked as a babysitter: On biases in language generation. 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 3407– 3412, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Fábio Souza, Rodrigo Nogueira, and Roberto Lotufo. 2020. BERTimbau: pretrained BERT models for Brazilian Portuguese. In *9th Brazilian Conference* on Intelligent Systems, BRACIS, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, October 20-23 (to appear). Robyn Speer, Joshua Chin, and Catherine Havasi. 2017. Conceptnet 5.5: An open multilingual graph of general knowledge. *Proceedings of the AAAI Conference* on Artificial Intelligence, 31(1). Emma Strubell, Ananya Ganesh, and Andrew McCallum. 2019. Energy and policy considerations for deep learning in NLP. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3645–3650, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Zeerak Talat, Aurélie Névéol, Stella Biderman, Miruna Clinciu, Manan Dey, Shayne Longpre, Sasha Luccioni, Maraim Masoud, Margaret Mitchell, Dragomir Radev, Shanya Sharma, Arjun Subramonian, Jaesung Tae, Samson Tan, Deepak Tunuguntla, and Oskar Van Der Wal. 2022. You reap what you sow: On the challenges of bias evaluation under multilingual settings. In Proceedings of BigScience Episode \#5 - Workshop on Challenges & Perspectives in Creating Large Language Models, pages 26–41, virtual+Dublin. Association for Computational Linguistics. Kellie Webster, Xuezhi Wang, Ian Tenney, Alex Beutel, Emily Pitler, Ellie Pavlick, Jilin Chen, Ed Chi, and Slav Petrov. 2020. Measuring and reducing gendered correlations in pre-trained models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.06032. Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, 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. Tongshuang Wu, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Jeffrey Heer, and Daniel Weld. 2021. Polyjuice: Generating counterfactuals for explaining, evaluating, and improving 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 6707–6723, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Linting Xue, Noah Constant, Adam Roberts, Mihir Kale, Rami Al-Rfou, Aditya Siddhant, Aditya Barua, and Colin Raffel. 2021. mT5: A massively multilingual pre-trained text-to-text transformer. In *Proceedings* of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 483–498, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jieyu Zhao, Subhabrata Mukherjee, Saghar Hosseini, Kai-Wei Chang, and Ahmed Hassan Awadallah. 2020. Gender bias in multilingual embeddings and crosslingual transfer. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2896–2907, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. 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, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ran Zmigrod, Sabrina J. Mielke, Hanna Wallach, and Ryan Cotterell. 2019. Counterfactual data augmentation for mitigating gender stereotypes in languages with rich morphology. In *Proceedings of the 57th* Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1651–1661, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. ## A Appendix A.1 Dataset Construction Details Scraping Langauge-Specific Personal Names: We curated a list of personal names corresponding to the cultures for each language by scraping the popular surnames associated with each culture from Wikipedia3. We then obtain the open source list of Indian male4and female5 names, and we segment the names to different languages by referring to our culture-specific surnames list. The names obtained this way our in Latin script, so we transliterate them to the corresponding languages using the Bing Translator API. Annotator Details: For verifying the templates obtained using machine translation we asked human annotators to correct them. Our annotators were colleagues working at our research lab and all of them were of South Asian (Indian) descent, native to different parts of India, and each having one of the six Indian languages that we consider as their L1. They all identify as males and are in their mid20s. The annotators were provided original English templates along with the translated ones in their native language and were asked to verify that they were grammatically correct and conveyed the exact same meaning as the original base template. Further, they were asked to make corrections to ensure 3https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category: Indian_surnames 4https://gist.github.com/mbejda/ 7f86ca901fe41bc14a63 5https://gist.github.com/mbejda/ 9b93c7545c9dd93060bd | Language | Number of Name Pairs | |------------|------------------------| | Hindi | 164 | | Punjabi | 50 | | Bengali | 33 | | Gujarati | 51 | | Tamil | 19 | | Marathi | 49 | that a template pair was as close to each other as possible except for modifications in the gendered terms, like verbs in the case of Hindi (Figure 2). Dataset Statistics: Our dataset consists of 14 templates in each language and for each language the number of name pairs are given in Table 2. ## A.2 Experimental Setup We performed all our experiments on a single A100 GPU. For the fine-tuning setup CDA-{en}, we trained for 50K steps using a batch size of 32, a learning rate of 2e-5, and a weight decay of 0.01. We follow the same hyperparameters for other fine-tuning setups as well, but instead of finetuning for 50K steps, we train for 1 epoch following (Lauscher et al., 2020) as the amount of data is limited in other languages. For Self-Debiasing, we used the default hyperparameters i.e. the decay constant λ = 50 and ϵ = 0.01. For all of our experiments, we used the pre-trained models provided with HuggingFace's transformers library (Wolf et al., 2020). The details of all the pre-trained models that we use in the paper are provided in Table 3 | Model Name | Variant | Supported Languages | Number of Parameters | |--------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|------------------------| | Multilingual Masked Language Models XLM-R | xlm-roberta-base | 100 languages from (Conneau et al., 2020) | 270M | | IndicBERT | indic-bert | 12 Indian Languages | 12M | | mBERT | bert-base-multilingual-cased | Top 104 Wikipedia Languages 6 | 110M | | Monolingual Masked Language Models GBERT (Chan et al., 2020) | gbert-base | de | 110M | | BERT Japanese7 | bert-base-japanese-whole-word-masking | ja | 110M | | AraBERT (Antoun et al., 2020) | bert-base-arabertv02 | ar | 110M | | Spanish Pre-trained BERT (Cañete et al., 2020) | bert-base-spanish-wwm-uncased | es | 110M | | BERTimbau(Souza et al., 2020) | bert-base-portuguese-cased | pt | 110M | | RoBERTa-base for Russian 8 | roberta-base-russian-v0 | ru | 110M | | Chinese BERT (Cui et al., 2020) | chinese-bert-wwm-ext | zh | 100M | | MMLM | Debiasing Method | Languages Used | en | hi | pa | bn | ta | gu | mr | L \ {en} | |----------------|--------------------|------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------------| | OOB | {} | 0.78 | 0.83 | 0.92 | 0.94 | 0.94 | 0.86 | 0.86 | 0.89 | | | Self-Debiasing | {en} | 0.82 | 0.88 | 0.92 | 0.93 | 0.94 | 0.86 | 0.87 | 0.90 | | | {l} | 0.82 | 0.89 | 0.93 | 0.94 | 0.92 | 0.89 | 0.88 | 0.91 | | | | XLM-R | {en} | 0.61 | 0.83 | 0.83 | 0.89 | 0.90 | 0.82 | 0.83 | 0.85 | | | {l} | 0.61 | 0.81 | 0.84 | 0.90 | 0.92 | 0.78 | 0.83 | 0.85 | | | | CDA | {en, l} | - | 0.74 | 0.79 | 0.88 | 0.87 | 0.70 | 0.69 | 0.78 | | | L \ en | 0.73 | 0.75 | 0.61 | 0.87 | 0.87 | 0.78 | 0.76 | 0.77 | | | | L | 0.72 | 0.78 | 0.74 | 0.89 | 0.85 | 0.75 | 0.79 | 0.80 | | | | OOB | {} | 0.88 | 0.87 | 0.72 | 0.93 | 0.79 | 0.84 | 0.71 | 0.81 | | | Self-Debiasing | {en} | 0.88 | 0.90 | 0.87 | 0.98 | 0.94 | 0.91 | 0.89 | 0.91 | | | {l} | 0.88 | 0.86 | 0.81 | 0.98 | 0.92 | 0.91 | 0.82 | 0.88 | | | | mBERT | {en} | 0.68 | 0.90 | 0.73 | 0.94 | 0.85 | 0.79 | 0.75 | 0.83 | | | {l} | 0.68 | 0.76 | 0.72 | 0.89 | 0.86 | 0.77 | 0.79 | 0.80 | | | | CDA | {en, l} | - | 0.84 | 0.67 | 0.86 | 0.80 | 0.73 | 0.76 | 0.78 | | | L \ en | 0.88 | 0.82 | 0.73 | 0.80 | 0.79 | 0.79 | 0.88 | 0.80 | | | | L | 0.88 | 0.83 | 0.79 | 0.81 | 0.82 | 0.75 | 0.92 | 0.82 | | | | OOB | {} | 0.70 | 0.79 | 0.84 | 0.93 | 0.86 | 0.82 | 0.76 | 0.83 | | | Self-Debiasing | {en} | 0.78 | 0.86 | 0.93 | 0.98 | 0.93 | 0.86 | 0.87 | 0.90 | | | {l} | 0.78 | 0.86 | 0.89 | 0.96 | 0.91 | 0.84 | 0.87 | 0.89 | | | | IndicBERT | {en} | 0.70 | 0.76 | 0.72 | 0.95 | 0.89 | 0.83 | 0.85 | 0.83 | | | {l} | 0.70 | 0.80 | 0.80 | 0.82 | 0.90 | 0.79 | 0.78 | 0.82 | | | | CDA | {en, l} | - | 0.75 | 0.80 | 0.83 | 0.80 | 0.86 | 0.75 | 0.80 | | | L \ en | 0.72 | 0.66 | 0.75 | 0.80 | 0.79 | 0.66 | 0.73 | 0.73 | | | | L | 0.62 | 0.73 | 0.82 | 0.85 | 0.85 | 0.79 | 0.76 | 0.80 | | | Table 4: Complete version of results of debiasing using CDA and Self-Debiasing using various fine-tuning settings on different languages and MMLMs. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist 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? 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 2 ✓ 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? We will release the datasets, code and pretrained models we created as open 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)? 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.? Section 2 ✓ 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?** 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? Appendix section A.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? Appendix section A.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 ✓ 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 section A.2 D ✓ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Section 2 and Appendix section A1. ✓ 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.? Appendix section A.1 ✓ 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)? Appendix section A.1 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? The data was collected from in-house researchers and interns ✓ D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Appendix section A.1

zhuo-etal-2023-rethinking

Rethinking Round-Trip Translation for Machine Translation Evaluation

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.22

Automatic evaluation methods for translation often require model training, and thus the availability of parallel corpora limits their applicability to low-resource settings. Round-trip translation is a potential workaround, which can reframe bilingual evaluation into a much simpler monolingual task. Early results from the era of statistical machine translation (SMT) raised fundamental concerns about the utility of this approach, based on poor correlation with human translation quality judgments. In this paper, we revisit this technique with modern neural translation (NMT) and show that round-trip translation does allow for accurate automatic evaluation without the need for reference translations. These opposite findings can be explained through the copy mechanism in SMT that is absent in NMT. We demonstrate that round-trip translation benefits multiple machine translation evaluation tasks: i) predicting forward translation scores; ii) improving the performance of a quality estimation model; and iii) identifying adversarial competitors in shared tasks via cross-system verification.

# Rethinking Round-Trip Translation For Machine Translation Evaluation Terry Yue Zhuo1and **Qiongkai Xu**2∗and **Xuanli He**3and **Trevor Cohn**2† 1 Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia 2 The University of Melbourne, Carlton, VIC, Australia 3 University College London, London, United Kingdom terry.zhuo@monash.edu {qiongkai.xu,trevor.cohn}@unimelb.edu.au xuanli.he@ucl.ac.uk ## Abstract  Automatic evaluation methods for translation often require model training, and thus the availability of parallel corpora limits their applicability to low-resource settings. Round-trip translation is a potential workaround, which can reframe bilingual evaluation into a much simpler monolingual task. Early results from the era of statistical machine translation (SMT) raised fundamental concerns about the utility of this approach, based on poor correlation with human translation quality judgments. In this paper, we revisit this technique with modern neural translation (NMT) and show that round-trip translation does allow for accurate automatic evaluation without the need for reference translations. These opposite findings can be explained through the copy mechanism in SMT that is absent in NMT. We demonstrate that round-trip translation benefits multiple machine translation evaluation tasks: i) predicting forward translation scores; ii) improving the performance of a quality estimation model; and iii) identifying adversarial competitors in shared tasks via cross-system verification.1 ## 1 Introduction Thanks to the recent progress of neural machine translation (NMT) and large-scale multilingual corpora, machine translation (MT) systems have achieved remarkable performances on high- to medium-resource languages (Fan et al., 2021; Pan et al., 2021; Goyal et al., 2022a). However, the development of MT technology on low-resource language pairs still suffers from insufficient data for training and evaluation (Aji et al., 2022; Siddhant et al., 2022). Recent advances in multilingual pre-trained language model explore methods trained on monolingual data, using data augmentation and denoising auto-encoding (Xia et al., 2019; Figure 1: Given a corpus DA in Language A, we are able to acquire the round-trip translation (RTT) results D ′ A and forward translation (FT) results DB via machine translation. One question was raised and discussed by machine translation community about two decades ago, "Can RTT results be used to estimate FT performance?". While some early studies show the possibility (Rapp, 2009), however some researchers tend to be against round-trip translation due to the poor correlations between FT and RTT scores. Our work gives a clear and positive answer to the usefulness of RTT, based on extensive experiments and analysis. Liu et al., 2020). However, high-quality parallel corpora are still required for evaluating translation quality. Such requirement is especially resourceconsuming when working on i) hundreds of underrepresented low-resource languages (Bird and Chiang, 2012; Joshi et al., 2019; Aji et al., 2022) and ii) translations for specific domains (Li et al., 2020; Müller et al., 2020). Standard MT evaluation requires parallel data which includes human translations as references, such that machine translations can be compared to the references with metrics such as BLEU or chrF. In contrast, round-trip translation (RTT), as illustrated in Figure 1, instead uses a translation system to back-translate the machine translation into the source language, after which this roundtripped text can be compared to the original source (using standard reference-based metrics). This approach is compelling, in that it removes the requirement for parallel evaluation corpora, however influential work showed little correlation between evaluation scores measured using RTT versus standard reference-based evaluation (Huang, 1990; Koehn, 2005; Somers, 2005; Zaanen and Zwarts, 2006), when applied to statistical machine translation (SMT) and rule-based machine translation (RMT). Consequently, the RTT method has seen little use, with a few recent notable exceptions in recent years, e.g., used to improve quality estimation methods (Moon et al., 2020; Crone et al., 2021; Agrawal et al., 2022). In this work, we revisit the dispute on the usefulness of RTT evaluation in the modern era of neural machine translation (NMT). We argue that the main reason for the negative findings was a consequence of historical systems using reversible rules in translation, notably copying, whereby systems copy unrecognized source tokens into target languages, which is often penalized in FT evaluation, but rewarded by RTT evaluation. We conduct extensive experiments to demonstrate the effect of the copying mechanism on SMT. Later, we illustrate strong correlations between FT-SCOREs and RTT-SCOREs on various MT systems, including NMT and SMT without a copying mechanism. The finding sets the basis of using RTT-SCORE for MT evaluation. Three application scenarios in MT evaluation have been investigated to show the effectiveness of RTT-SCORE. Firstly, RTTSCOREs can be used to predict FT-SCOREs by training a simple but effective linear regression model on several hundred language pairs. The prediction performance is robust in evaluating multiple MT systems in transferred domains and unseen language pairs including low-resource languages. Then, RTT-SCOREs are proved effective in improving the performance of a recently advanced quality estimation model which further supports the feasibility of RTT-SCORE. Finally, a cross-system check (X-Check) mechanism is introduced to RTT evaluation for real-world MT shared tasks. By leveraging the estimation from multiple translation systems, X-Check manages to identify those adversarial competitors, who know the mechanism of RTT evaluation and thus utilize the copying strategy as a shortcut to outperform other honest participants. ## 2 Related Work Reference-based Machine Translation Evaluation Metric. Designing high-quality automatic evaluation metrics for evaluating translation quality is one of the fundamental challenges in MT research. Most of the existing metrics largely rely on parallel corpora to provide aligned texts as references (Papineni et al., 2002; Lin, 2004). The performance of the translation is estimated by comparing the system outputs against ground-truth references. A classic school of reference-based evaluation is based on string match methods, which calculate the matched ratio of word sequences as strings, such as BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002; Post, 2018), ChrF (Popovic´, 2015) and TER (Snover et al., 2006). In addition, recent metrics utilize the semantic representations of texts to estimate their relevance, given pre-trained language models, such as BERTScore (Zhang et al., 2020) and BLEURT (Sellam et al., 2020). These methods are demonstrated to be more correlated to human evaluation (Kocmi et al., 2021) than string-based metrics. Some other reference-based evaluation metrics require supervised training to work well (Mathur et al., 2019; Rei et al., 2020) on contextual word embeddings. While these automatic evaluation metrics are widely applied in MT evaluation, they are generally not applicable to low-resource language translation or new translation domains (Mathur et al., 2020). Our work demonstrates that referencefree MT metrics (RTT-SCORE) could be used to estimate traditional reference-based metrics. Reference-free Quality Estimation. In recent years, there has been a surge of interest in the task of directly predicting human judgment, namely quality estimation (QE), without access to parallel reference translations in the run-time (Specia et al., 2010, 2013; Bojar et al., 2014; Zhao et al., 2020). The recent focus on QE is mainly based on human evaluation approaches, direct assessment (DA) and post-editing, where researchers intend to train models on data via human judgment features to estimate MT quality. Among these recent QE metrics, learning-based models, YiSi-2 (Lo, 2019), COMET-QE-MQM (Rei et al., 2021), to name a few, demonstrate their effectiveness on WMT shared tasks. Our work shows that RTT-SCORE promotes a recently advanced QE model.  ## 3 Revisiting Round-Trip Translation 3.1 Evaluation On Round-Trip Translation Given machine translation systems, TA→B and TB→A, between two languages (LA and LB), and a monolingual corpus DA = {ai} N i=1, FT transforms aito b′i = TA→B(ai) and BT translates it back to A, a′i = TB→A(TA→B(ai)). FT and BT constitute a round-trip translation (RTT). The evaluation scores on round-trip translation (RTT-SCORE) with regard to an automatic evaluation metric M is $$\text{RTT-Score}_{A\cup B}^{\mathcal{M}}=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\mathcal{M}(T_{B\to A}(T_{A\to B}(a_{i})),a_{i}),\tag{1}$$ where BLEU (Pappini et al., 2002), $\text{spBLEU}$ (Goyal et al., 2022b), $\text{chrf}$ (Popovic, 2015) and BERTScore (Zhang et al., 2020) are target metrics M in our discussion. On the other hand, traditional MT evaluation on parallel corpus is $$\mathrm{FT-Score}_{A\to B}^{\mathcal{M}}=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\mathcal{M}(\mathcal{T}_{A\to B}(a_{i}),b_{i})\quad(2)$$ given a (virtual) parallel corpus DA||B = {(ai, bi)} N i=1. The main research question is whether FT-SCOREs are correlated to therefore could be predicted by RTT-SCOREs. ## 3.2 Rtt Evaluation On Statistical Machine Translation The previous analysis on the automatic evaluation scores from RTT and FT shows that they are negatively correlated. Such a long-established understanding started from the era of RMT (Huang, 1990) and lasted through SMT (Koehn, 2005; Somers, 2005) and prevented the usage of RTT to MT evaluation. We argue that the negative observations are probably due to the selected SMT  models involving some reversible transformation rules, e.g., copying unrecognized tokens in translation. As an example illustrated in Figure 2, the MT System 1 works worse than its competing System 2, as System 1 fails to translate 'reclassified' and 'Biotech'. Instead, it decides to copy the words in source language (En) directly to the target outputs. During BT, System 1 manages to perfectly translate them back without any difficulty. For System 2, although translating 'Biotechnologie' (De) to 'Biotechnology' (En) is adequate, it is not appreciated by the original reference in this case. Consequently, the rankings of these two MT systems are flipped according to their FT and RTT scores. Previous error analysis study on SMT (Vilar et al., 2006) also mentioned that the unknown word copy strategy is one of the major causes resulting in the translation errors. We therefore argue that the reversible transformation like word copy could have introduced significant bias to the previous experiments on SMT (and RMT). Then, we conduct experiments to replicate the negative conclusion. Interestingly, removing the copying mechanism can almost perfectly resolve the negation in our experiments. ## 3.3 Experiments And Analysis We compare RTT and FT on SMT following the protocol by Somers (2005); Koehn (2005). Moses (Koehn and Hoang, 2009) is utilized to train phrase-based MT systems (Koehn et al., 2003), which were popular in the SMT era.2 We train SMT systems on News-Commentary v8 (Tiedemann, 2012), as suggested by WMT organiz-2We follow the baseline setup in the Moses' tutorial in http://www2.statmt.org/moses/?n=Moses. Baseline. | Lang. Pair | K. τ ↑ | P. τ ↑ | | | |--------------|----------|----------|--------|------| | w/ cp | w/o cp | w/ cp | w/o cp | | | de-en | -0.11 | 0.20 | -0.90 | 1.00 | | en-de | -0.40 | 0.60 | -1.00 | 1.00 | | cs-en | -0.20 | 0.30 | -0.99 | 0.99 | | en-cs | -0.40 | 0.60 | -0.90 | 0.99 | | fr-en | 0.20 | 0.60 | -1.00 | 1.00 | | en-fr | -0.40 | 1.00 | -0.90 | 0.99 | ers (Koehn and Monz, 2006). We test our systems on six language pairs (de-en, en-de, cs-en, en-cs, fr-en and en-fr) in the competition track of WMT Shared Tasks (Barrault et al., 2020). RTT-SCOREs and FT-SCOREs are calculated based on BLEU in this section. Then, we use Kendall's τ and Pearson's r to verify the correlation of RTT-SCOREs and FT-SCOREs (Kendall, 1938; Benesty et al., 2009). We provide more detailed settings in Appendix C. During translation inference, we consider two settings for comparison, one drops the unknown words and the other one copies these tokens to the outputs. Hence, we end up having two groups of six outputs from various SMT systems. In Table 1, we examine the relevance between RTT-SCOREs and FT-SCOREs on six SMT systems. The performance is measured by Kendall's τ and Pearson's r. The correlation is essentially decided by the copying mechanism. Specifically, their correlation turns to be much stronger for those systems not allowed copying, compared to the systems with default word copy. Now, we discuss the rationality of using RTT evaluation for NMT systems, by comparing the reliance of copying mechanism in NMT and SMT. For NMT, we choose MBART50-M2M (Tang et al., 2020), which covers 50 languages of cross-lingual translation. Exactly matched words in outputs from the input words are considered copying, although the system may not intrinsically intend to copy them. In Table 2, we observe that copying frequency is about two times in SMT than in NMT. Although NMT systems may copy some words during translation, most of them are unavoidable, e.g., we observe that most of these copies are proper nouns whose translations are actually the same words in the target language. In contrast, the copied words in SMT are more diverse and many of them could be common nouns. | Lang. Pair | Avg. Copy (%) SMT NMT | | |--------------|-------------------------|------| | de-en | 17.39 | 9.28 | | en-de | 21.47 | 9.54 | ## 4 Predicting Ft-Score **Using** Rtt-S**Core** In this section, we validate whether FT-SCOREs could be predicted by RTT-SCOREs. Then, we examine the robustness of the predictor on unseen language pairs and transferred MT models. ## 4.1 Regression On Rtt-S**Core** Here, we construct a linear regressor f to predict FT-SCOREs of a target translation metric M by corresponding RTT-SCOREs, $$\mathrm{FT-Score}_{A\to B}^{\mathcal{M}}\approx f_{\mathcal{M}}(\mathrm{RTT-Score}_{A\subset B}^{\mathcal{M}^{*}},$$ $$\mathrm{RTT-Score}_{B\subset A}^{\mathcal{M}^{*}}).\tag{3}$$ M∗indicates that multiple metrics are used to construct the input features. We utilize RTT-SCORE from both sides of a language pair as our primary setting, as using more features usually provides better prediction performance (Xia et al., 2020). We use a linear regressor for predicting FT-SCORE, $$f_{\mathcal{M}}(\mathbf{S})=\mathbf{W}_{1}\cdot\mathbf{S}_{A\odot B}^{\mathcal{M}^{*}}+\mathbf{W}_{2}\cdot\mathbf{S}_{B\odot A}^{\mathcal{M}^{*}}+\beta\quad(4)$$ where SM∗ A⟳B and SM∗ B⟳A are RTT-SCORE features used as inputs of the regressor.3 W1, W2 and β are the parameters of the prediction model optimized by supervised training.4In addition, when organizing a new shared task, say WMT, collecting a parallel corpus in low-resource language could be challenging and resource-intensive. Hence, we investigate another setting that utilizes merely the monolingual corpora in language A or B to predict FT-SCORE, $$\begin{array}{l}{{\mathrm{FT-Score}_{A\to B}^{\mathcal{M}}\approx f_{\mathcal{M}}^{\prime}(\mathrm{RTT-Score}_{A\odot B}^{\mathcal{M}^{*}}),}}\\ {{\mathrm{FT-Score}_{A\to B}^{\mathcal{M}}\approx f_{\mathcal{M}}^{\prime}(\mathrm{RTT-Score}_{B\odot A}^{\mathcal{M}^{*}}).}}\end{array}\tag{5}$$ We will compare and discuss this setting in our experiments on WMT. 3We use M∗ = M as our primary setting, as it is the most straightforward and effective method to construct features. In addition, we discuss the possibility to improve the regressor by involving more features, in Appendix G.2. 4Implementation details can be found in Appendix E.  ## 4.2 Experimental Setup 4.2.1 Datasets We conduct experiments on the large-scale multilingual benchmark, FLORES-101, and WMT machine translation shared tasks. FLORES-AE33 is for training and testing on languages and transferred MT systems. WMT is for testing real-world shared tasks in new domains. FLORES-AE33. We extract FLORES-AE33, which contains parallel data among 33 languages, covering 1,056 (33×32) language pairs, from a curated subset of FLORES-101 (Goyal et al., 2022a). We select these languages based on two criteria: i) We rank languages given the scale of their bi-text corpora; ii) We prioritize the languages covered by WMT2020-News and WMT2020-Bio. As a result, FLORES-AE33 includes 7 high-resource languages, 16 medium-resource languages and 10 low-resource languages. We show the construction pipeline in Figure 3, with more details in Appendix A. WMT. We collect corpora from the translation track to evaluate multiple MT systems on the same test sets. We consider their ranking based on FT-SCORE with metric M as the ground truth. We choose the competition tracks in WMT 2020 Translation Shared Tasks (Barrault et al., 2020), namely news track WMT2020-News and biomedical track WMT2020-Bio. We consider *news* and bio as new domains, compared to our training data FLORES-101 whose contents are mostly from Wikipedia. ## 4.2.2 Neural Machine Translation Systems We experiment with five MT systems that support most of the languages appearing in FLORES-AE33 and WMT. Except for MBART50- M2M, we adopt M2M-100-BASE and M2M-100- LARGE (Fan et al., 2021), which are proposed to conduct many-to-many MT without explicit pivot languages, supporting 100 languages. GOOGLETRANS (Wu et al., 2016; Bapna et al., 2022) 5is a commercial translation API, which was considered as a baseline translation system in many previous competitions (Barrault et al., 2020). Meanwhile, we also include a family of bilingual MT models, OPUS-MT (Tiedemann and Thottingal, 2020), sharing the same model architecture MARIANNMT (Junczys-Dowmunt et al., 2018). We provide more details about these MT systems in Appendix C. ## 4.2.3 Automatic Mt Evaluation Metrics We consider BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002), spBLEU (Goyal et al., 2022b), chrF (Popovic´, 2015) and BERTScore (Zhang et al., 2020) as the primary automatic evaluation metrics (Freitag et al., 2020). All these metrics will be used and tested for both input features and target FT-SCORE. The first two metrics are differentiated by their tokenizers, where BLEU uses Moses (Koehn and Hoang, 2010) and spBLEU uses SentencePiece (Kudo and Richardson, 2018). Both evaluation metrics were officially used in WMT21 Large-Scale Multilingual Machine Translation Shared Task (Wenzek et al., 2021). While BLEU works for most language tokenizations, spBLEU shows superior effectiveness on various language tokenizations, especially the performance on low-resource languages (Goyal et al., 2022a). More details of these metrics are described in Appendix B ## 4.3 Experiments And Analysis Following our discussion in the last section on SMT, we conduct similar experiments using our new multilingual NMT systems on **Type I** test set of FLORES-AE33. We observe a highly positive correlation between FT-SCOREs and RTTSCOREs, measured by Pearson's r (Benesty et al., 2009). Please refer to Appendix G.1 for more details. Then, we train regressors on RTT-SCOREs and conduct experiments to examine their performance in various challenging settings. | MT System | Trans. Metric | Type I | | | |--------------|-----------------|----------|------|------| | MAE ↓ | RMSE ↓ | P. r ↑ | | | | BLEU | 1.80 | 2.70 | 0.94 | | | spBLEU | 2.13 | 2.99 | 0.94 | | | MBART50-M2M | chrF | 3.51 | 4.53 | 0.96 | | BERTScore | 4.98 | 7.07 | 0.88 | | | BLEU | 3.86 | 5.82 | 0.95 | | | spBLEU | 3.97 | 5.72 | 0.96 | | | M2M-100-BASE | chrF | 6.06 | 7.53 | 0.96 | | BERTScore | 4.35 | 6.32 | 0.91 | | | BLEU | 4.09 | 5.60 | 0.93 | | | spBLEU | 4.22 | 5.62 | 0.87 | | | GOOGLE-TRANS | chrF | 5.70 | 6.90 | 0.93 | | BERTScore | 2.87 | 3.66 | 0.80 | | Table 3: The results of predicted FT-SCOREs of MBART50-M2M, M2M-100-BASE and GOOGLETRANS on **Type I** test set based on different translation evaluation metrics (Trans. Metric). Note that MAE: Mean Absolute Error, RMSE: Root Mean Square Error, P. r: Pearson's r. ## 4.3.1 Transferability Of Regressors We first investigate the transferability of our regressors from two different aspects, transferred MT systems and unseen language pairs. We also evaluate the regressor on different scales of language resources. Settings. We train our regressors on **Type I** train set based on the translation scores from MBART50-M2M. In order to assess system transferability, we test three models on **Type I** test set. In terms of language transferability, we consider FT-SCOREs of MBART50-M2M (a seen MT system in training) and M2M-100-BASE (an unseen MT system in training) on **Type II** and **Type III** in FLORES-AE33. We further evaluate the transferability of our regressor on language resources in Type I test set, with two MT systems, MBART50- M2M and M2M-100-BASE. Discussion. In Table 3, we present the performance of the regressor across various translation systems and evaluation metrics. We first analyze the results on MBART50-M2M, which is seen in training. The absolute errors between predicted scores and ground-truth FT-SCOREs are relatively small with regard to MAE and RMSE. Meanwhile, the correlation between prediction and ground truth is strong, with all Pearson's r above or equal to 0.88. This indicates that the rankings of predicted scores are rational. The results of M2M-100- BASE and GOOGLE-TRANS demonstrate the performance of predictors on *unseen* systems. Although the overall errors are higher than those of MBART50-M2M without system transfer, Pearson's r scores are at the competitive level, indicating a similar ranking capability on unseen systems. Meanwhile, our model obtains adequate language transferability results, as demonstrated in Table 4. In Table 5, we provide the detailed performance of our regressor on language pairs of different resource categories on FLORES-AE33, with RTT-SCOREs of MBART50-M2M and M2M100-BASE respectively. Specifically, we split the three categories based on Table 9, which are high, medium and low. The evaluated regressor is the same as the one tested in Sections 4.3.1 and 4.3.2. The results of the two tables show that our regressor is able to predict FT-SCOREs with small errors and reflect the relative orders among FT-SCOREs, with high transferability across language pairs and MT systems. ## 4.3.2 Predicting Ft-Score**S On Wmt** With the basis of the high transferability of the regressors, we conduct experiments on WMT shared tasks, namely WMT2020-News, which includes 10 language pairs. In this experiment, we study spBLEU metric scores. Settings. We have involved five MT systems 6 We are aware of the cases that collecting corpora in target languages for competitions might be significantly complex, which means only a monolingual corpus is available for evaluation. Thus, we train predictors f′ using single RTT-SCOREs in Equation 5. Note that this experiment covers several challenging settings, such as transferred MT systems, language transferability, single source features, and transferred application domains. Another set of results on WMT2020-Bio can be found in Appendix G.4. 6We have contacted the competitors to WMT2020-News. However, we have not received enough valid MT systems to increase the number of competitors. We show the robustness of our method to a larger number of pseudo-competitors in Appendix G.3. MT System Trans. Metric **Type II Type III** MAE ↓ RMSE ↓ P. r ↑ MAE ↓ **RMSE** ↓ P. r ↑ MBART50-M2M BLEU 1.36 1.97 0.93 0.81 0.95 0.96 spBLEU 1.61 2.19 0.93 1.20 1.38 0.94 chrF 3.80 4.89 0.95 3.04 3.89 0.95 BERTScore 4.67 6.38 0.88 5.08 6.88 0.87 M2M-100-BASE BLEU 3.10 4.16 0.95 2.99 3.76 0.94 spBLEU 3.24 4.18 0.96 3.18 3.88 0.95 chrF 5.53 6.70 0.95 5.42 6.54 0.93 BERTScore 4.38 6.51 0.83 4.29 6.65 0.80 Discussion. In Table 6, we display the results on WMT2020-News. Although MAE and RMSE vary among experiments for different language pairs, the overall correlation scores are favorable. Pearson's r values on all language pairs are above 0.5, showing strong ranking correlations. While prediction performances on A ⟳ B have some variances among different language pairs, the results of the experiments using B ⟳ A are competitive to those using both A ⟳ B and B ⟳ A features, showing the feasibility of predicting FTSCORE using monolingual data. We conclude that our regression-based predictors can be practical in ranking MT systems in WMT-style shared tasks. | MAE ↓ | RMSE ↓ | P. r ↑ | | | | | | | | | |--------------|----------|----------|------|-------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | H. | M. | L. | H. | M. | L. | H. | M. | L. | | | | H. | 3.17 | 2.90 | 2.70 | 4.02 | 3.74 | 4.07 | 0.94 | 0.94 | 0.77 | | | MBART50-M2M | M. | 1.51 | 1.37 | 1.77 | 1.95 | 1.78 | 2.29 | 0.97 | 0.85 | 0.22 | | L | 1.22 | 1.27 | 1.16 | 1.39 | 1.43 | 1.36 | 0.97 | 0.87 | 0.78 | | | H. | 8.72 | 5.41 | 3.50 | 10.82 | 6.45 | 4.52 | 0.51 | 0.80 | 0.67 | | | M2M-100-BASE | M. | 4.86 | 4.01 | 2.93 | 4.71 | 1.78 | 4.09 | 0.86 | 0.90 | 0.69 | | L | 1.70 | 1.67 | 1.24 | 1.39 | 1.86 | 1.51 | 0.98 | 0.97 | 0.80 | | ## 5 Rtt-Score**S For Quality Estimation** In this section, we demonstrate that the features acquired by round-trip translation benefit quality estimation (QE) models. Dataset. QE was first introduced in WMT11 (Callison-Burch et al., 2011), focusing on automatic methods for estimating the quality of neural machine translation output at run-time. The estimated quality should align with the human judgment on the word and sentence level, without accessing the reference in the target language. In this experiment, we perform sentence-level QE, which aims to predict human direction assessment (DA) scores. We use DA dataset collected from 2015 to 2021 by WMT News Translation shared task coordinators. More details are provided in Appendix D. Settings. Firstly, we extract RTT features RTT-BLEU, RTT-spBLEU, RTT-chrF and RTT-BERTScore. Then, we examine whether QE scores could be predicted by these RTT features using linear regression models. We train the regressors using Equation 5 with only A ⟳ B features. Finally, a combination of COMET-QE-DA scores and RTT-SCOREs are investigated to acquire a more competitive QE scorer. Discussion. Both Kendall's τ and Pearson's r provide consistent results in Table 7. The models merely using RTT-SCOREs could be used to predict DA scores. We also observe that RTTSCOREs can further boost the performance of COMET-QE-DA. We believe thatRTT-SCORE advances QE research and urges more investigation in this direction. ## 6 Towards Robust Evaluation On the basis of our findings in Section 3.2, RTT evaluation could become potentially vulnerable when MT systems with word copy are involved in. Specifically, the adversarial system may achieve unexpectedly high RTT-SCOREs due to the large | Lang. Pair | A ⟳ B | B ⟳ A | A ⟳ B & B ⟳ A | | | | | | | | | | |--------------|---------|---------|-----------------|-------|--------|--------|--------|-------|--------|--------|--------|------| | MAE ↓ | RMSE ↓ | K. τ ↑ | P. r ↑ | MAE ↓ | RMSE ↓ | K. τ ↑ | P. r ↑ | MAE ↓ | RMSE ↓ | K. τ ↑ | P. r ↑ | | | cs-en | 4.01 | 4.34 | 0.20 | 0.45 | 8.92 | 9.08 | 0.60 | 0.91 | 8.53 | 8.71 | 0.60 | 0.88 | | de-en | 13.23 | 13.26 | 0.80 | 0.95 | 1.69 | 1.77 | 0.80 | 0.95 | 1.26 | 1.38 | 0.80 | 0.96 | | de-fr | 10.45 | 10.53 | 1.00 | 0.99 | 1.72 | 2.05 | 0.80 | 0.97 | 1.59 | 1.93 | 1.00 | 0.97 | | en-cs | 6.96 | 7.49 | 0.20 | 0.25 | 1.39 | 1.79 | 0.60 | 0.94 | 1.25 | 1.80 | 0.60 | 0.95 | | en-de | 2.96 | 4.00 | 0.40 | 0.59 | 2.29 | 2.70 | 1.00 | 0.92 | 2.75 | 3.12 | 1.00 | 0.93 | | en-ru | 1.98 | 2.40 | 0.20 | 0.40 | 7.41 | 7.53 | 0.40 | 0.85 | 7.48 | 7.60 | 0.60 | 0.86 | | en-zh | 2.96 | 3.93 | 0.20 | 0.19 | 1.36 | 1.60 | 0.80 | 0.80 | 1.23 | 1.50 | 0.80 | 0.82 | | fr-de | 2.89 | 3.70 | 0.80 | 0.90 | 2.99 | 3.56 | 1.00 | 0.94 | 2.59 | 3.17 | 1.00 | 0.93 | | ru-en | 9.83 | 9.97 | 1.00 | 0.78 | 1.16 | 1.72 | 0.80 | 0.85 | 1.44 | 1.78 | 0.80 | 0.88 | | zh-en | 12.44 | 12.77 | 0.00 | 0.26 | 3.04 | 3.55 | 0.20 | 0.50 | 2.62 | 3.56 | 0.20 | 0.50 | | Average | 6.77 | 7.24 | 0.48 | 0.58 | 3.20 | 3.54 | 0.70 | 0.86 | 3.07 | 3.41 | 0.74 | 0.87 | QE model zh-en en-de K. τ ↑ P. r ↑ K. τ ↑ P. r ↑ RTT-BLEU 15.17 21.76 11.83 19.71 RTT-spBLEU 13.55 18.30 11.49 19.00 RTT-chrF 15.52 21.74 13.57 22.93 RTT-BERTScore 15.70 21.96 25.89 44.10 RTT-ALL 15.90 22.36 26.02 44.33 COMET-QE-DA 32.83 46.91 42.71 64.36 + RTT-ALL **33.52 47.88 44.23 66.74** portion of preserved words inside the original context via RTT, while its FT-SCOREs remain low. In order to mitigate the vulnerability, we first validate RTT evaluation on WMT2020-News with A ⟳ B direction. One of the advantages of RTT is that multiple MT systems could be used to verify the performance of other systems via checking the N × N combinational RTT results from these N systems, coined X-Check. Finally, we demonstrate that the predicted automatic evaluation scores could be further improved via X-Check when adversaries are included. ## 6.1 **Cross-System Validation For Competitions** Given FT MT systems {Fi} N i=1, BT MT systems {Bi}M i=1, and a regression model M on predicting the target metric, we can estimate the translation quality of i-th FT system on j-th BT system: $$\mathbb{S}_{i,j}=f_{\mathcal{M}}(\mathcal{B}_{j}(\mathcal{F}_{i}(x)),x),$$ where S = {Si,j}N×M. The estimated translation quality of Fiis the average score of the i-th column, $$\overline{{{\mathbb{S}}}}_{i,:}=\frac{1}{M}\sum_{j=1}^{M}\mathbb{S}_{i,j}.$$ Note that the same number of FT and BT systems are considered for simplicity, i.e., N = M. ## 6.2 Experiments And Analysis Settings. We conduct experiments on WMT2020-News similar to Section 4.3.2. We rank the system-level translation quality via the regressor trained on RTT-SCOREspBLEU. We challenge the evaluation paradigm by introducing some adversarial MT systems, e.g., SMT with copying mechanism. Specifically, we introduce basic competition scenarios with 3-5 competitors to the shared task, and we consider different numbers of adversarial systems, namely i) no adversary; ii) one adversarial SMT with word copy; *iii)* two adversarial SMT systems with word copy. We provide details of two SMT systems in Appendix G.5. The experiments with adversarial systems are conducted on four language pairs, cs-en, de-en, en-cs and en-de, as the corresponding adversarial systems were trained in Section 3.3. Discussion. From Table 8, we observe that the overall system ranking could be severely affected by the adversarial systems, according to Pearson's r and Kendall's τ . The adversarial systems are stealthy among normal competitors, according to Hit@K and Avg. Rank. X-Check evidently successfully identifies these adversarial systems in all our experiments and manages to improve the correlation scores significantly. With the empirical study, we find that X-Check is able to make RTT evaluation more robust. ## 7 Conclusion This paper revisits the problem of estimating FT quality using RTT scores. The negative results from previous literature are essentially caused by the heavy reliance on the copying mechanism in | # Sys. | Method | No Adversary | One adversarial SMT | Two adversarial SMTs | | | | | | | | |----------|------------|----------------|-----------------------|------------------------|--------|---------|-------------|--------|--------|-------|-------| | K. τ ↑ | P. r ↑ | Hit@1 ↑ | Avg. Rank ↓ | K. τ ↑ | P. r ↑ | Hit@2 ↑ | Avg. Rank ↓ | K. τ ↑ | P. r ↑ | | | | 3 | Sing-Check | 0.07 | 0.17 | 0.50 | 2.00 | 0.33 | 0.51 | 0.00 | 4.75 | -0.15 | -0.30 | | X-Check | 0.47 | 0.43 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.33 | 0.98 | 1.00 | 1.50 | 0.55 | 0.98 | | | 4 | Sing-Check | 0.33 | 0.37 | 0.25 | 2.75 | 0.40 | 0.39 | 0.00 | 5.75 | -0.03 | -0.33 | | X-Check | 0.57 | 0.81 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.60 | 0.97 | 1.00 | 1.50 | 0.70 | 0.98 | | | 5 | Sing-Check | 0.48 | 0.58 | 0.25 | 3.25 | 0.30 | 0.25 | 0.00 | 6.75 | -0.05 | -0.40 | | X-Check | 0.42 | 0.52 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.50 | 0.93 | 1.00 | 1.50 | 0.62 | 0.92 | | traditional statistical machine translation systems. Then, we conduct comprehensive experiments to show the corrected understanding of RTT benefits several relevant MT evaluation tasks, such as predicting FT metrics using RTT scores, enhancing state-of-the-art QE systems, and filtering out unreliable MT competitors in WMT shared tasks. We believe our work will inspire future research on reference-free evaluation for low-resource machine translation. ## Limitations There are several limitations of this work. First, while we have observed positive correlations between FT-SCOREs and RTT-SCOREs and conducted experiments to predict FT-SCOREs using RTT-SCOREs, their relations could be complicated and non-linear. We encourage future research to investigate various RTT-SCORE features and more complex machine learning models for better prediction models. Second, we have examined the prediction models on low-resource languages in FLORES-101, but have not tested those very lowresource languages out of these 101 languages. We suggest auditing FT-SCORE prediction models on a small validation dataset for any new low-resource languages in future applications. Third, our assessment has been systematic and thorough, utilizing datasets such as FLORES-101, WMT2020-News, and WMT2020-Bio. Despite this, the nature of our study is constrained by the timeline of the data utilized. The WMT data we used is from 2020, opening up the possibility that more recently proposed metrics could potentially outperform the ones proposed in this work. ## References Sweta Agrawal, Nikita Mehandru, Niloufar Salehi, and Marine Carpuat. 2022. Quality estimation via backtranslation at the wmt 2022 quality estimation task. In *Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Machine Translation (WMT)*, pages 593–596. Alham Aji, Genta Indra Winata, Fajri Koto, Samuel Cahyawijaya, Ade Romadhony, Rahmad Mahendra, Kemal Kurniawan, David Moeljadi, Radityo Eko Prasojo, Timothy Baldwin, et al. 2022. One country, 700+ languages: Nlp challenges for underrepresented languages and dialects in indonesia. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 7226–7249. Ankur Bapna, Isaac Caswell, Julia Kreutzer, Orhan Firat, Daan van Esch, Aditya Siddhant, Mengmeng Niu, Pallavi Baljekar, Xavier Garcia, Wolfgang Macherey, et al. 2022. Building machine translation systems for the next thousand languages. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.03983. Loïc Barrault, Magdalena Biesialska, Ondˇrej Bojar, Marta R. Costa-jussà, Christian Federmann, Yvette Graham, Roman Grundkiewicz, Barry Haddow, Matthias Huck, Eric Joanis, Tom Kocmi, Philipp Koehn, Chi-kiu Lo, Nikola Ljubešic, Christof ´ Monz, Makoto Morishita, Masaaki Nagata, Toshiaki Nakazawa, Santanu Pal, Matt Post, and Marcos Zampieri. 2020. Findings of the 2020 conference on machine translation (WMT20). In *Proceedings of* the Fifth Conference on Machine Translation, pages 1–55, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jacob Benesty, Jingdong Chen, Yiteng Huang, and Israel Cohen. 2009. Pearson correlation coefficient. In *Noise reduction in speech processing*, pages 1–4. Springer. Steven Bird and David Chiang. 2012. Machine translation for language preservation. In *Proceedings of* COLING 2012: Posters, pages 125–134. Ondˇrej Bojar, Christian Buck, Christian Federmann, Barry Haddow, Philipp Koehn, Johannes Leveling, Christof Monz, Pavel Pecina, Matt Post, Herve SaintAmand, et al. 2014. Findings of the 2014 workshop on statistical machine translation. In Proceedings of the ninth workshop on statistical machine translation, pages 12–58. Chris Callison-Burch, Philipp Koehn, Christof Monz, and Omar Zaidan. 2011. Findings of the 2011 workshop on statistical machine translation. In *Proceedings of the sixth workshop on statistical machine* translation, pages 22–64. Nathan Crone, Adam Power, and John Weldon. 2021. Quality estimation using round-trip translation with sentence embeddings. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2111.00554. 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. Markus Freitag, David Grangier, and Isaac Caswell. 2020. Bleu might be guilty but references are not innocent. In *Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on* Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 61–71. Naman Goyal, Cynthia Gao, Vishrav Chaudhary, PengJen Chen, Guillaume Wenzek, Da Ju, Sanjana Krishnan, Marc'Aurelio Ranzato, Francisco Guzman, and Angela Fan. 2022a. The flores-101 evaluation benchmark for low-resource and multilingual machine translation. *Transactions of the Association for* Computational Linguistics, 10:522–538. Naman Goyal, Cynthia Gao, Vishrav Chaudhary, PengJen Chen, Guillaume Wenzek, Da Ju, Sanjana Krishnan, Marc'Aurelio Ranzato, Francisco Guzman, and Angela Fan. 2022b. The flores-101 evaluation benchmark for low-resource and multilingual machine translation. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:522–538. Pengcheng He, Xiaodong Liu, Jianfeng Gao, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. Deberta: Decoding-enhanced bert with disentangled attention. In *International* Conference on Learning Representations. Xiuming Huang. 1990. A machine translation system for the target language inexpert. In COLING 1990 Volume 3: Papers presented to the 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Pratik Joshi, Christain Barnes, Sebastin Santy, Simran Khanuja, Sanket Shah, Anirudh Srinivasan, Satwik Bhattamishra, Sunayana Sitaram, Monojit Choudhury, and Kalika Bali. 2019. Unsung challenges of building and deploying language technologies for low resource language communities. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Natural Language Processing, pages 211–219, International Institute of Information Technology, Hyderabad, India. NLP Association of India. Marcin Junczys-Dowmunt, Roman Grundkiewicz, Tomasz Dwojak, Hieu Hoang, Kenneth Heafield, Tom Neckermann, Frank Seide, Ulrich Germann, Alham Fikri Aji, Nikolay Bogoychev, André F. T. Martins, and Alexandra Birch. 2018. Marian: Fast neural machine translation in C++. In Proceedings of ACL 2018, System Demonstrations, pages 116–121, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. Maurice G Kendall. 1938. A new measure of rank correlation. *Biometrika*, 30(1/2):81–93. Tom Kocmi, Christian Federmann, Roman Grundkiewicz, Marcin Junczys-Dowmunt, Hitokazu Matsushita, and Arul Menezes. 2021. To ship or not to ship: An extensive evaluation of automatic metrics for machine translation. In *Proceedings of the Sixth* Conference on Machine Translation, pages 478–494. Philipp Koehn. 2005. Europarl: A parallel corpus for statistical machine translation. In *Proceedings of* machine translation summit x: papers, pages 79–86. Philipp Koehn and Hieu Hoang. 2009. Moses-statistical machine translation system. Philipp Koehn and Hieu Hoang. 2010. Moses. Statistical Machine Translation System, User Manual and Code Guide, page 245. Philipp Koehn and Christof Monz. 2006. Proceedings on the workshop on statistical machine translation. In Proceedings on the Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation. Philipp Koehn, Franz J Och, and Daniel Marcu. 2003. Statistical phrase-based translation. Technical report, University of Southern California Marina Del Rey Information Sciences Inst. Taku Kudo and John Richardson. 2018. SentencePiece: A simple and language independent subword tokenizer and detokenizer for neural text processing. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 66–71, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Rumeng Li, Xun Wang, and Hong Yu. 2020. Metamt, a meta learning method leveraging multiple domain data for low resource machine translation. In *Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence*, volume 34, pages 8245–8252. Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In Text summarization branches out, pages 74–81. 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. Chi-kiu Lo. 2019. Yisi-a unified semantic mt quality evaluation and estimation metric for languages with different levels of available resources. In *Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Machine Translation (Volume 2: Shared Task Papers, Day 1)*, pages 507–513. Nitika Mathur, Timothy Baldwin, and Trevor Cohn. 2019. Putting evaluation in context: Contextual embeddings improve machine translation evaluation. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2799– 2808. Nitika Mathur, Timothy Baldwin, and Trevor Cohn. 2020. Tangled up in BLEU: Reevaluating the evaluation of automatic machine translation evaluation metrics. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 4984–4997, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jihyung Moon, Hyunchang Cho, and Eunjeong L. Park. 2020. Revisiting round-trip translation for quality estimation. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation, pages 91–104, Lisboa, Portugal. European Association for Machine Translation. Mathias Müller, Annette Rios, and Rico Sennrich. 2020. Domain robustness in neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 14th Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas (Volume 1: Research Track), pages 151–164, Virtual. Association for Machine Translation in the Americas. Xiao Pan, Mingxuan Wang, Liwei Wu, and Lei Li. 2021. Contrastive learning for many-to-many multilingual neural machine translation. 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 244–258, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and WeiJing 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. Maja Popovic. 2015. chrf: character n-gram f-score for ´ automatic mt evaluation. In Proceedings of the Tenth Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation, pages 392–395. Matt Post. 2018. A call for clarity in reporting BLEU scores. In Proceedings of the Third Conference on Machine Translation: Research Papers, pages 186– 191, Belgium, Brussels. Association for Computational Linguistics. Reinhard Rapp. 2009. The backtranslation score: Automatic mt evalution at the sentence level without reference translations. In *Proceedings of the ACLIJCNLP 2009 Conference Short Papers*, pages 133– 136. Ricardo Rei, Ana C Farinha, Chrysoula Zerva, Daan van Stigt, Craig Stewart, Pedro Ramos, Taisiya Glushkova, André FT Martins, and Alon Lavie. 2021. Are references really needed? unbabel-ist 2021 submission for the metrics shared task. In *Proceedings of* the Sixth Conference on Machine Translation, pages 1030–1040. Ricardo Rei, Craig Stewart, Ana C Farinha, and Alon Lavie. 2020. Comet: A neural framework for mt evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2685–2702. Thibault Sellam, Dipanjan Das, and Ankur Parikh. 2020. Bleurt: Learning robust metrics for text generation. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 7881– 7892. Aditya Siddhant, Ankur Bapna, Orhan Firat, Yuan Cao, Mia Xu Chen, Isaac Caswell, and Xavier Garcia. 2022. Towards the next 1000 languages in multilingual machine translation: Exploring the synergy between supervised and self-supervised learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.03110. Matthew Snover, Bonnie Dorr, Richard Schwartz, Linnea Micciulla, and John Makhoul. 2006. A study of translation edit rate with targeted human annotation. In *Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the* Association for Machine Translation in the Americas: Technical Papers, pages 223–231. Harold Somers. 2005. Round-trip translation: What is it good for? In *Proceedings of the Australasian* Language Technology Workshop 2005, pages 127– 133. Lucia Specia, Dhwaj Raj, and Marco Turchi. 2010. Machine translation evaluation versus quality estimation. Machine translation, 24(1):39–50. Lucia Specia, Kashif Shah, José GC De Souza, and Trevor Cohn. 2013. Quest-a translation quality estimation framework. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations, pages 79–84. Yuqing Tang, Chau Tran, Xian Li, Peng-Jen Chen, Naman Goyal, Vishrav Chaudhary, Jiatao Gu, and Angela Fan. 2020. Multilingual translation with extensible multilingual pretraining and finetuning. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2008.00401. Jörg Tiedemann and Santhosh Thottingal. 2020. Opusmt–building open translation services for the world. In *22nd Annual Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation*, page 479. Jörg Tiedemann. 2012. Parallel data, tools and interfaces in opus. In *Proceedings of the Eight International Conference on Language Resources and* Evaluation (LREC'12), Istanbul, Turkey. European Language Resources Association (ELRA). David Vilar, Jia Xu, Luis Fernando d'Haro, and Hermann Ney. 2006. Error analysis of statistical machine translation output. In *Proceedings of the fifth* international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC'06). Guillaume Wenzek, Vishrav Chaudhary, Angela Fan, Sahir Gomez, Naman Goyal, Somya Jain, Douwe Kiela, Tristan Thrush, and Francisco Guzmán. 2021. Findings of the wmt 2021 shared task on large-scale multilingual machine translation. In *Proceedings of* the Sixth Conference on Machine Translation, pages 89–99. Yonghui Wu, Mike Schuster, Zhifeng Chen, Quoc V Le, Mohammad Norouzi, Wolfgang Macherey, Maxim Krikun, Yuan Cao, Qin Gao, Klaus Macherey, et al. 2016. Google's neural machine translation system: Bridging the gap between human and machine translation. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.08144*. Mengzhou Xia, Antonios Anastasopoulos, Ruochen Xu, Yiming Yang, and Graham Neubig. 2020. Predicting performance for natural language processing tasks. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 8625– 8646. Mengzhou Xia, Xiang Kong, Antonios Anastasopoulos, and Graham Neubig. 2019. Generalized data augmentation for low-resource translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.03785. Menno van Zaanen and Simon Zwarts. 2006. Unsupervised measurement of translation quality using multiengine, bi-directional translation. In Australasian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 1208–1214. Springer. Tianyi Zhang, Varsha Kishore, Felix Wu, Kilian Q Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. 2020. Bertscore: Evaluating text generation with bert. In *Proceedings of the* Eighth International Conference on Learning Representations. Wei Zhao, Goran Glavaš, Maxime Peyrard, Yang Gao, Robert West, and Steffen Eger. 2020. On the limitations of cross-lingual encoders as exposed by reference-free machine translation evaluation. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1656– 1671. ## A Dataset Construction Resource Language Scale Usage English - Spanish 315M French 289M German 216M Portuguese 137M Russian 127M Italian 116M Dutch 82.4M Turkish 41.2M Polish 40.9M Chinese 37.9M Romanian 31.9M Greek 23.7M Japanese 23.2M Czech 23.2M Finnish 15.2M Bulgarian 10.3M Lithuanian 6.69M Estonian 4.82M Latvian 4.8M Hindi 3.3M Javanese 1.49M Icelandic 1.17M | High | |------------| | Medium Low | Tamil 992K Armenian 977K Azerbaijani 867K Kazakh 701K Urdu 630K Khmer 398K Hausa 335K Pashto 293K Burmese 283K Gujarati 160K Table 9: The statistics of FLORES-AE33. 20 languages are used in both training and test ( ), the other 13 languages are used in test only ( ). We provide the statistics of all languages covered by FLORES-AE33, categorized by different scales of the resource (high, medium and low) and usage purpose ( and ) in Table 9. Scale is counted by the amount of bi-text data to English in FLORES-101 (Goyal et al., 2022a). To construct FLORES-AE33, we partition these 33 languages into two sets, i) the languages that are utilized in training our models ( 7) and ii) the others are employed used for training the predictors but considered for test purpose only ( ). We include 20 languages to , with 7 high-resource, 7 medium-resource and 6 low-resource. The rest 13 languages fall into , with 9 medium-resource and 4 low-resource. Combining these two categories of languages, we obtain three types of *language pairs* in FLORES-AE33. Type I contains pairs of languages in , where a train set and a test set are collected and utilized independently. For each language pair, we collect 997 training samples and 1,012 test samples. The test set of **Type II** is more challenging than that of **Type I** set, where the language pairs in this set are composed of one language from set and the other language from set. **Type III**'s test set is the most challenging one, as all its language pairs are derived from languages. **Type II** and **Type III** sets are designed for test purposes, and they will not be used for training predictors. Overall, **Type I**, Type II and **Type III** sets contain 380, 520 and 156 language pairs, respectively. ## B Automatic Evaluation Metrics For Translation For BERTScore, Deberta-xlarge-mnli (He et al., 2021) is used as the backbone pre-trained language model, as it is reported to have a satisfactory correlation with human evaluation in WMT16. While BLEU, spBLEU and chrF are string-based metrics, BERTScore is model-based. The selection of these metrics is on the basis that they should directly reflect the translation quality. We calculate those scores via open-source toolboxes, EASYNMT8, SACREBLEU-TOOLKIT9 and BERTSCORE10. We use word-level 4-gram for BLEU and spBLEU, character-level 6-gram for chrF, and F1 score for BERTScore by default. ## C Machine Translation Systems Moses **SMT.** We train five Moses' (Koehn and Hoang, 2009) statistical machine translation systems using different phrase dictionaries by varying phrase probability threshold from 0.00005 to 0.5. The higher threshold indicates the smaller phrase table and hence a better chance of processing unknown words by the corresponding MT systems. In Table 2, we use Moses with the phrase probability threshold of 0.4 for SMT. M**BART50-**M2M. MBART50-M2M (Tang et al., 2020) is a multilingual translation model with many-to-many encoders and decoders. The model is trained on 50 publicly available language corpora with English as a pivot language. M2M-100-BASE & M2M-100-**LARGE**. These two models are one of the first non-Englishcentric multilingual machine translation systems, which are trained on 100 languages covering highresource to low-resource languages. Different from MBART50-M2M, M2M-100-BASE and M2M100-LARGE (Fan et al., 2021) are trained on parallel multilingual corpora without an explicit centering language. OPUS**-MT.** OPUS-MT (Tiedemann and Thottingal, 2020) is a collection of one-to-one machine translation models which are trained on corresponding parallel data from OPUS using MARIAN-NMT as backbone (Junczys-Dowmunt et al., 2018). The collection of MT models supports 186 languages. GOOGLE-T**RANS**. GOOGLE-TRANS (Wu et al., 2016; Bapna et al., 2022) is an online Translation service provided by Google Translation API, which supports 133 languages. The system is frequently involved as a baseline system by WMT shared tasks (Barrault et al., 2020). ## D Quality Estimation Dataset The direct-assessment (DA) *train set* contains 33 diverse language pairs and a total of 574,186 tuples with source, hypothesis, reference and direct assessment z-score. We construct the *test* set by collecting DA scores on *zh-en* (82,692 segments) and en-de (65,045 segments), as two *unseen* language pairs. ## E Implementation Details Regressor. We use the linear regression model tool by Scikit-Learn11 with the default setting for the API. MT Systems. We adopt EasyNMT12 for loading MBART50-M2M, M2M-100-BASE, M2M-100- LARGE and OPUS-MT for translation. Computational Resource and Time. In our experiment, we collect the translation results and compute their FT-SCORE and RTT-SCORE on multiple single-GPU servers with Nvidia A40. Overall, it cost us about three GPU months for collecting translation results by all the aforementioned MT systems. ## F Measurement We evaluate the performance of our predictive model via the following measurements: Mean Absolute Error (MAE) is used for measuring the average magnitude of the errors in a set of predictions, indicating the accuracy for continuous variables. Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) measures the average magnitude of the error. Compared to MAE, RMSE gives relatively higher weights to larger errors. Pearson's r **correlation** (Benesty et al., 2009) is officially used in WMT to evaluate the agreement between the automatic evaluation metrics and human judgment, emphasizing translation consistency. In our paper, the metric evaluates the agreement between the predicted automatic evaluation scores and the ground truth. Kendall's τ **correlation** (Kendall, 1938) is another metric to evaluate the ordinal association between two measured quantities. ## G Supplementary Experiments G.1 Correlation Between Ft-Score**S And** Rtt-Score**S On** Flores-Ae33 Settings. We experiment with MBART50- M2M and M2M-100-BASE on **Type I** test set of FLORES-AE33 by comparing their RTT-SCOREM A⟳B, RTT-SCOREM B⟳A and FT-SCOREM A→B using multiple translation metrics M, BLEU, spBLEU, chrF and BERTScore. We measure their correlations by computing Pearson's r (Benesty et al., 2009) of (RTT-SCOREM A⟳B, FT-SCOREM A→B) and (RTT-SCOREM B⟳A, FT-SCOREM A→B). Note that 12https://github.com/UKPLab/EasyNMT   | MT System | Comparison | BLEU | spBLEU | chrF | BERTScore | |-----------------|-----------------|--------|----------|--------|-------------| | MBART50-M2M | A → B vs. A ⟳ B | 0.78 | 0.86 | 0.63 | 0.53 | | A → B vs. B ⟳ A | 0.94 | 0.94 | 0.96 | 0.88 | | | M2M-100-BASE | A → B vs. A ⟳ B | 0.83 | 0.93 | 0.87 | 0.53 | | A → B vs. B ⟳ A | 0.95 | 0.96 | 0.96 | 0.90 | | our experiment is beyond English-centric, as all languages are permuted and equally considered. Discussion. The overall correlation scores are reported in Table 10. Our results indicate at least moderately positive correlations between all pairs of RTT-SCOREs and FT-SCOREs. Moreover, we observe that RTT-SCOREB⟳A is generally more correlated to FT-SCORE than RTT-SCOREA⟳B, leading to strong positive correlation scores. We attribute the advantage to the fact that TA→B serves as the last translation step in RTT-SCOREB⟳A. We visualize more detailed results of correlation between FT-SCOREs and RTT-SCOREs on Type I language pairs in FLORES-101, in Figure 4 (MBART50-M2M) and Figure 5 (M2M-100- BASE). | MT System | Self-Trans Feature | Type I | Type II | Type III | | | | | | | |----------------------------|----------------------|----------|-----------|------------|------|-------|--------|------|------|------| | MAE ↓ | RMSE ↓ | r ↑ | MAE ↓ | RMSE ↓ | r ↑ | MAE ↓ | RMSE ↓ | r ↑ | | | | spBLEU (basic model) | 2.13 | 2.99 | 0.94 | 1.61 | 2.19 | 0.93 | 1.20 | 1.38 | 0.94 | | | + MAX-4 COUNT | 2.01 | 2.92 | 0.94 | 1.54 | 2.15 | 0.94 | 1.12 | 1.34 | 0.94 | | | MBART50-M2M | + REF LENGTH | 2.07 | 2.96 | 0.94 | 1.61 | 2.21 | 0.93 | 1.17 | 1.45 | 0.94 | | + MAX-4 COUNT & REF LENGTH | 2.00 | 2.92 | 0.94 | 1.53 | 2.16 | 0.94 | 1.08 | 1.33 | 0.95 | | | spBLEU (basic model) | 3.97 | 5.72 | 0.96 | 3.24 | 4.18 | 0.96 | 3.18 | 3.88 | 0.95 | | | + MAX-4 COUNT | 2.95 | 4.00 | 0.96 | 2.74 | 3.67 | 0.95 | 2.82 | 3.62 | 0.93 | | | M2M-100-BASE | + REF LENGTH | 3.61 | 5.32 | 0.96 | 2.93 | 3.92 | 0.96 | 2.90 | 3.67 | 0.94 | | + MAX-4 COUNT & REF LENGTH | 2.95 | 4.10 | 0.96 | 2.71 | 3.65 | 0.95 | 2.79 | 3.59 | 0.93 | | ## G.2 Improve Prediction Performance Using More Features Settings. We introduce two extra features, MAX4 COUNT and REF LENGTH, 13 to enhance the prediction of spBLEU. MAX-4 COUNT is the count of the correct 4 grams and REF LENGTH is the cumulative reference length. We follow a similar procedure in RQ2, using the same measurements to evaluate the predictor performance on MBART50- M2M and M2M-100-BASE across three types of test sets in FLORES-AE33. Results. Table 11 shows the results of those models with additional features. Both features consistently improve our basic models, and the performance can be further boosted by incorporating both features. We believe that more carefully designed features and regression models could potentially boost the performance of our predictors. ## G.3 Wmt2020-News **With Synthetic** Competitors We increase the scale of competitors to WMT2020-News by introducing pseudocompetitors. To mimic the number of a conventional WMT task, we vary 17 forward translation systems by randomly dropping 0% to 80% (with a step of 5%) tokens from the outputs of GOOGLE-TRANS. Then, we utilize the vanilla GOOGLE-TRANS to translate these synthetic forward translation results back to the source language. We conduct experiments on de-fr, *en-ta* and *zh-en*, representing those *non-En to non-En*, En to non-En and *non-En to En* language pairs. The results in Table 12 demonstrate the predictors' performances on ranking the pseudo competitors on WMT2020-News based on spBLEU features. The overall ranking errors on 17 MT systems are small on all three selected language pairs. | Langauge Pair | MAE ↓ | RMSE ↓ | K. τ ↑ | P. r ↑ | |-----------------|---------|----------|----------|----------| | de-fr | 2.21 | 2.67 | 1.00 | 0.98 | | en-ta | 0.88 | 0.98 | 1.00 | 0.99 | | zh-en | 1.69 | 2.37 | 1.00 | 0.99 | | Average | 1.59 | 2.01 | 1.00 | 0.99 | Table 12: Results of prediction and ranking on translation quality of WMT2020-News synthetic data for three language pairs. ## G.4 **Ranking Experiments On** Wmt2020-Bio We display the experimental results on WMT2020-Bio in Table 13. The overall performance is positive, while it is relatively worse than the results of WMT2020-News reported in Table 6. We attribute this to the fact that the M used on WMT2020-Bio are calculated on documents, while our regression models rely on sentence-level translation metrics in training. The large granularity difference of text may result in a distribution shift. ## G.5 Benign Mt Systems And Adversarial Mt Systems For X-Check The Selection Of The Benign Systems Is: - **3 Systems:** OPUS-MT, M2M-100-LARGE and MBART50-M2M; - **4 Systems:** OPUS-MT, M2M-100-LARGE, M2M-100-BASE and MBART50-M2M; - **5 Systems:** GOOGLE-TRANS, OPUSMT, M2M-100-LARGE,M2M-100-BASE and MBART50-M2M. SMT (X = 0.1). We train the SMT system on News-Commentary v8 with the max phrase length of 4 and the phrase table probability threshold of 0.1. | Langauge Pair | B ⟳ A | A ⟳ B & B ⟳ A | | | | | | | |-----------------|---------|-----------------|--------|-------|--------|-------|--------|------| | MAE ↓ | RMSE ↓ | K. τ ↑ | P. r ↑ | MAE ↓ | RMSE ↓ | K.τ ↑ | P. r ↑ | | | de-en | 10.96 | 11.06 | 0.80 | 0.75 | 10.15 | 10.21 | 0.80 | 0.76 | | en-de | 5.41 | 5.69 | 0.80 | 0.63 | 5.94 | 6.06 | 0.80 | 0.63 | | en-es | 6.42 | 7.95 | 0.80 | 0.82 | 6.31 | 7.42 | 0.80 | 0.83 | | en-fr | 4.03 | 6.27 | 0.40 | 0.19 | 3.68 | 5.86 | 0.40 | 0.20 | | en-it | 6.13 | 6.92 | 0.40 | 0.56 | 5.94 | 6.58 | 0.40 | 0.57 | | en-ru | 4.16 | 5.62 | 0.20 | 0.46 | 4.20 | 5.18 | 0.20 | 0.49 | | en-zh | 2.17 | 2.73 | 0.20 | -0.04 | 2.21 | 2.59 | 0.00 | 0.02 | | es-en | 6.58 | 8.17 | 0.60 | 0.75 | 6.23 | 7.48 | 0.80 | 0.79 | | fr-en | 6.12 | 8.02 | 0.60 | 0.66 | 5.77 | 7.13 | 0.60 | 0.67 | | it-en | 6.33 | 7.94 | 0.60 | 0.50 | 5.90 | 7.13 | 0.60 | 0.56 | | ru-en | 5.94 | 8.51 | 0.40 | 0.18 | 5.51 | 7.81 | 0.20 | 0.23 | | zh-en | 5.67 | 8.15 | 0.20 | 0.22 | 5.18 | 7.48 | 0.20 | 0.23 | | Average | 5.83 | 7.25 | 0.50 | 0.47 | 5.59 | 6.74 | 0.48 | 0.50 | SMT (X = 0.5). We train the SMT system on News-Commentary v8 with the max phrase length of 4 and the phrase table probability threshold of 0.5. SMT(X = 0.1) tends to copy fewer words than SMT(X = 0.5), due to the larger phrase table size filtered by a lower probability threshold. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Last section ✗ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? No identified risks ✓ 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?** Sections 3, 4 And 5 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Sections 3 and 4 ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Appendix ✓ 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)? Sections 3 and 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? 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. Section 4 and Appendix ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Sections 3-5 ✓ 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 C 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? Not applicable. 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? Not applicable. 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.)? Appendix 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.

xiang-etal-2023-g

$G^3R$: A Graph-Guided Generate-and-Rerank Framework for Complex and Cross-domain Text-to-{SQL} Generation

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.23

We present a framework called G3R for complex and cross-domain Text-to-SQL generation. G3R aims to address two limitations of current approaches: (1) The structure of the abstract syntax tree (AST) is not fully explored during the decoding process which is crucial for complex SQL generation; (2) Domain knowledge is not incorporated to enhance their ability to generalise to unseen domains. G3R consists of a graph-guided SQL generator and a knowledge-enhanced re-ranking mechanism. Firstly, during the decoding process, An AST-Grammar bipartite graph is constructed for both the AST and corresponding grammar rules of the generated partial SQL query. The graph-guided SQL generator captures its structural information and fuses heterogeneous information to predict the action sequence which can construct the AST for the corresponding SQL query uniquely. Then, in the inference stage, a knowledge-enhanced re-ranking mechanism is proposed to introduce domain knowledge to re-rank candidate SQL queries from the beam output and choose the final answer. The SQL ranker is based on pre-trained language models (PLM) and contrastive learning with hybrid prompt tuning is incorporated to stimulate the knowledge of PLMs and make it more discriminative. The proposed approach achieves state-of-the-art results on the Spider and Spider-DK benchmarks, which are challenging complex and cross-domain benchmarks for Text-to-SQL semantic analysis.

# G3**R: A Graph-Guided Generate-And-Rerank Framework For Complex** And Cross-Domain Text-To-Sql Generation Yanzheng Xiang1, Qian-Wen Zhang2, Xu Zhang1**, Zejie Liu**1, Yunbo Cao2 **and Deyu Zhou**1∗ 1School of Computer Science and Engineering, Key Laboratory of Computer Network and Information Integration, Ministry of Education, Southeast University, China 2Tencent Cloud Xiaowei, Beijing 100080, China xyz1998seu@gmail.com, {d.zhou,xuzhang123,liuzejie}@seu.edu.cn, {cowenzhang, yunbocao}@tencent.com ## Abstract We present a framework called G3R for complex and cross-domain Text-to-SQL generation. G3R aims to address two limitations of current approaches: (1) The structure of the abstract syntax tree (AST) is not fully explored during the decoding process which is crucial for complex SQL generation; (2) Domain knowledge is not incorporated to enhance their ability to generalise to unseen domains. G3R consists of a graph-guided SQL generator and a knowledge-enhanced re-ranking mechanism. Firstly, during the decoding process, an ASTGrammar bipartite graph is constructed for joint modelling the AST and corresponding grammar rules of the generated partial SQL query. The graph-guided SQL generator captures its structural information and fuses heterogeneous information to predict the action sequence, which can uniquely construct the AST for the corresponding SQL query. Then, in the inference stage, a knowledge-enhanced re-ranking mechanism is proposed to introduce domain knowledge to re-rank candidate SQL queries from the beam output and choose the final answer. The SQL re-ranker is based on a pre-trained language model (PLM) and contrastive learning with hybrid prompt tuning is incorporated to stimulate the knowledge of the PLM and make it more discriminative. The proposed approach achieves state-of-theart results on the Spider and Spider-DK benchmarks, which are challenging complex and cross-domain benchmarks for Text-to-SQL semantic analysis. ## 1 Introduction Complex and cross-domain Text-to-SQL generation aims to translate natural language utterances into structurally complex SQL queries, where no database overlaps in training and testing. The challenges mainly lie in two aspects: (1) Zero-shot cross-domain setting, databases are not overlapped ∗Corresponding author. | NL: | How many flights arrive at Luton Airport? | |-------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | SQL: | ... WHERE flights.TargetAirport = "Luton Airport" | | NL: | List the name of all players in the order of their date of birth from the oldest to the youngest. | | SQL: | ... ORDER BY players.birth_date ASC. | Table 1: Two samples that require domain knowledge to generate correct SQL queries, where the text reflecting domain knowledge is bolded. between training and test sets and belong to different domains. A domain represents a certain type of application scenario, e.g. medical and geographical. It is difficult for approaches to understand domain knowledge properly (Gan et al., 2021a) and generalise well to unseen databases. (2) Complexity, SQL queries involving multiple tables, containing nested queries and clauses such as GROUPBY and HAVING, are more complex in their structure. Recently, various works have been proposed for complex and cross-domain Text-to-SQL generation based on the encoder-decoder paradigm. In order to improve generalizability to unseen database schemas, many approaches focus on the encoder part. Graph-based approaches (Cao et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2020a) have been proposed for jointly encoding the natural language utterance and relational structure of the database schema, thereby capturing the semantic relationships between them. For generating complex SQL queries, most decoding approaches (Cao et al., 2021; Guo et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2020a) pre-define abstract syntax description language (ASDL) rules and autoregressively generate the SQL query as an AST. Specifically, an AST is produced progressively in a pre-order depth-first traversal order based on a sequence of actions. In this way, the skeleton of complex SQL queries can be generated flexibly. Despite much progress on complex and crossdomain Text-to-SQL generation, there are still two limitations. Firstly, The structure of AST is not fully explored during the decoding process which is crucial for generating complex SQL queries correctly. They predict the next action only based on the previous action sequence, without considering the structural information of the AST and how it changes dynamically. In addition, domain knowledge required by different domains is not incorporated, which results in the model not being well generalised to new domains. As shown in Table 1, for the first sample, "target airport" does not appear in the utterance and the model needs to understand that "Arriving at Luton Airport" means "Luton Airport" is the target airport for generating the correct SQL query. For the second sample, players should be listed in ascending order of birth, as the younger the birth date, the older the age. If the requirement is changed to "the ages of all players are listed", then it should be in descending order. (Gan et al., 2021b) has pointed out that understanding domain knowledge is crucial for cross-domain Text-to-SQL generalization. To address the aforementioned limitations, this paper proposes a Graph-Guided Generate-and-Rerank Framework (G3R) for complex and crossdomain Text-to-SQL generation. It consists of a graph-guided SQL generator and a knowledgeenhanced re-ranking mechanism. To make better use of the structural information of AST, we construct an AST-Grammar bipartite graph for both the AST and grammar rules of the generated partial SQL query. A graph-guided SQL generator is proposed to capture structural changes of the bipartite graph dynamically and fuse the heterogeneous information from the encoder to predict the action sequence. Furthermore, we try to improve generalizability to unseen domains from a different perspective, by introducing a knowledge-enhanced re-ranking mechanism to choose the best SQL query from the beam output in the inference stage. PLM is adopted as an SQL re-ranker and hybrid prompt tuning is adopted to make the re-ranking task similar to language modelling, stimulating the knowledge in PLMs to bridge the gap between different domains. In addition, sometimes the differences between candidate SQL queries are subtle and contrastive learning is adopted to push away the distance of candidate queries' representations and thus make them more distinguishable. In summary, the main contributions of this paper are listed as follows: Framework (G3R) is proposed for complex and cross-domain Text-to-SQL generation. An AST-Grammar bipartite graph is constructed to model the AST and grammar rules of the generated partial SQL query jointly and a novel graph-guided SQL generator is proposed to capture the structural information and fuse heterogeneous information to generate the SQL query. - A knowledge-enhanced re-ranking mechanism is proposed to introduce domain knowledge to choose the best SQL query from the beam output. PLM is adopted as an SQL reranker and contrastive learning with hybrid prompt tuning is incorporated to stimulate the knowledge of PLMs and make it more discriminative. As far as we know, we are the first to leverage the abundant knowledge of PLMs to re-rank SQL queries to mitigate performance degradation in unseen domains. - Comprehensive experiments were conducted on Spider and Spider-DK. The results show that the proposed approach achieves superiority over some state-of-art approaches. ## 2 Related Work Our work is related to two lines of research, complex and cross-domain Text-to-SQL generation and prompt tuning. ## 2.1 Complex And Cross-Domain Text-To-Sql Generation In order to improve cross-domain generalizability, many approaches focus on the encoder part. (Bogin et al., 2019a) adopts a graph neural network (GNN) to deal with the graph structure of database schema. (Cao et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2020a) construct a heterogeneous graph for jointly encoding natural language utterances and relational structure in the database schema so that the network can generalise to unseen database schemas. In contrast, our proposed approach tackles this problem from a different perspective, by exploring the knowledge of PLMs and re-ranking candidate SQL queries. Most decoding approaches for complex and cross-domain Text-to-SQL generation (Brunner and Stockinger, 2021; Wang et al., 2020a; Guo et al., 2019) consider the ASDL rules as the prior knowledge and adopt a syntax-based SQL generator (Yin and Neubig, 2017) to output a sequence - A Graph-Guided Generate-and-Rerank of actions based on a pre-defined fixed set of grammar rules. Then an abstract syntactic tree (AST) corresponding to the target SQL query is uniquely constructed in pre-order depth-first traversal order. However, they cast SQL generation into sequenceto-sequence translation and ignore the structural information of AST and how it dynamically changes during the decoding process. ## 2.2 Prompt Tuning Fine-tuning PLMs with task-specific heads has been widely applied to natural language processing and achieved great success in many downstream tasks (Radford et al., 2019; Zhou et al., 2021). However, the abundant knowledge in PLMs is not fully exploited because there is a big gap between the fine-tuning objectives and pre-training objectives. Subsequently, GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020) proposed prompt tuning for downstream tasks. It is a new paradigm that adopts natural language prompts to make downstream tasks similar to language modelling and does not require the addition of model parameters. A number of works defined hard templates manually where each token is meaningful and understandable (Schick and Schütze, 2021; Gu et al., 2022) and some approaches generated hard templates automatically (Gao et al., 2021; Shin et al., 2020). However, there is no need to limit templates to be human-interpretable because the aim is to find a way to enable PLMs to perform downstream tasks effectively. Soft prompts (Wu and Shi, 2022; Lester et al., 2021) have been proposed and the tokens (i.e. virtual tokens) in the template are continuous vectors which can be learnt during the tuning stage. In addition, (Han et al., 2022) proposed to insert some tunable embeddings into a hard prompt template which is called "Hybrid Prompt Tuning". ## 3 Preliminaries Autoregressive top-down SQL generation In this paper, we tackle the SQL generation problem by generating the AST through syntax-based autoregressive top-down decoding (Yin and Neubig, 2017; Krishnamurthy et al., 2017; Rabinovich et al., 2017; Yin and Neubig, 2018), which guarantees to decode of syntactically valid SQL queries. The generation process is considered to be the sequential application of actions. We define three actions including ApplyRule, SelectTable and SelectColumn. The ApplyRule action applies a grammar rule to  expand a non-terminal node in the AST, while the SelectTable and SelectColumn actions populate a terminal node by appending a table or a column name from the database schema. In AST, non-terminal nodes sketch the general structure of the target SQL query, while terminal nodes correspond to operations, constants and variables. The decoding process does not end until all leaf nodes are terminal nodes and the SQL generation is regarded as a sequence generation problem. Problem Setting Given a natural language question Q = {w1, w2*, ..., w*n} and a corresponding database schema S = h*C, T*i, the goal is to generate an action sequence aˆ, which can construct an AST and deterministically be converted to a SQL query y. Here the database schema S consists of tables T = {t1, t2*, ..., t*|T|}, columns C = {c1, c2*, ..., c*|C|} and a set of foreign key, primary key column pairs describing relations between columns. AST-Grammar Bipartite Graph A bipartite graph is a simple graph where the graph vertices are decomposed into two disjoint sets such that no two graph vertices within the same set are adjacent. In order to represent the structure of the partial AST and grammar rules that have been generated, we design an AST-Grammar Bipartite graph G = V ast, E, V g. V gis the set of grammar rule nodes and V ast is the set of AST nodes, which refers to the head and child nodes of all grammar rule nodes. E is the set of edges. A grammar rule node is considered an intermediate node between its head and child AST nodes, so a grammar rule node is only adjacent to AST nodes and vice versa. As shown in Figure 1, the grammar  rule "2 : sql_unit → (from,select)" is composed of one head AST node "sql_unit" and two child AST nodes "from" and "select". When a grammar rule is generated, the graph will be expanded. The dashed box in Figure 1 represents the nodes and edges generated after the 'sql_unit' node is expanded using the grammar rule 2. In the beginning, the graph has only one root AST node "sql". As the actions are generated, this graph gradually expands until the SQL is completely generated. The AST-grammar bipartite graph jointly models the generated partial AST and the corresponding grammar rules. After graph representation learning, the representation of a grammar rule node contains not only the structural information of the AST, but also more fine-grained information from its surrounding AST nodes. Each AST node represents a construct occurring in the SQL query and can guide future SQL generation. For example, the AST node "from" in Figure 1 means that the subtree with it as the root node is the from clause of the SQL query. Therefore, the next grammar rules generated should be used to create the from clause. For existing grammar rule embedding approaches in code generation, Grape (Zhu et al., 2022) creates a grammar relation graph that only includes grammar rule nodes, TreeGen (Sun et al., 2020a) enhances grammar rules by adding position and depth embedding and uses Tree Convolution to incorporate information from their ancestors, GrammarCNN (Sun et al., 2019) adopts three CNNs to capture the local feature of an AST node, features of AST sequences and tree paths. However, They considered either the structure of AST or the relationship between grammar rules rather than modelling them jointly. ## 4 Method 4.1 Graph-Guided Sql Generator As mentioned above, existing SQL generators lack the ability to capture the structure of AST. We propose a graph-guided SQL generator based on the Encoder-Decoder framework to solve this problem. The architecture of the proposed graph-guided SQL generator is shown in the left part of Figure 2. We leverage LGESQL (Cao et al., 2021) (Please refer to the Appendix A.1 for further details) encoder to embed the question and database schema items into joint representations W = [w1*, ...,* wn], T = [t1*, ...,* t|T |], C = [c1*, ...,* c|C|] for each question token wi ∈ Q, table ti ∈ T, and column ci ∈ C respectively. Considering a generated partial action sequence aˆ0 = {a1*, .., a*t−1} and the corresponding AST-Grammar Bipartite graph G b t−1 , the graph-guided SQL generator aims to learn the structural information of G b t−1 and fuse multiple heterogeneous inputs to predict the next action at. It consists of two parts: (1) Bipartite Graph Reader, graph attention network (GAT) (Velickovi ˇ c et al. ´ , 2017) is adopted to learn the node representation of G b t−1 ; (2) SQL Decoder, a neural network which is similar to the decoder of Transformer is proposed to fuse heterogeneous input and predict the next action. Bipartite Graph Reader In the decoding process, the AST-Grammar Bipartite graph will be expanded gradually. As the graph structure will change dynamically, we apply GAT which employs multi-head attention for graph representation learning. For the graph G b t−1 that contains m grammar rule nodes and h AST nodes, it has a node list N = {n g 1 , ..., n gm, nast 1, ..., nast h}. Grammar rules and AST elements are represented as trainable embedding matrices Xg ∈ R|V g|×k, Xast ∈ R|V ast|×k where |V g|, |V ast| are the sizes of grammar rule dict and AST element dict respectively. k is the dimension of the embedding vector. We initialize the representation of each node by looking up the table. For the special AST node 'tab_id' and 'col_id', which can generate tables and columns, we initialize it using the corresponding representation from the encoder. In this way, we have node initial embeddings X = [x g 1 , ..., x gm, x ast 1*, ...,* x ast h] ∈ R (m+h)×k. Then we use the GAT network to obtain the final hidden vectors of grammar rule nodes Hg = [h g 1 , ..., h gm] ∈ R m×kthat incorporate the structural information of AST. SQL Decoder The SQL decoder considers heterogeneous information, including the question Q, database schema S, generated actions aˆ0and the structure of G b t−1 to predict the next action at. The neural structure of the SQL decoder is similar to the decoder of Transformer (Vaswani et al., 2017) because it can help alleviate long-dependency problem (Sun et al., 2020b). It is composed of a stack of blocks (N blocks in total), and each block contains three sub-layers (namely, the self-attention sub-layer, the encoder attention sub-layer and the feed-forward sub-layer). The residual connection and layer normalization are incorporated into each sub-layer. The input of the SQL decoder is Hg. Encoder Attention Sub-layer The main difference with the decoder of Transformer is in the encoder attention sub-layer. The decoder should be aware of the question and the database schema when predicting an action. The encoder attention sub-layer adopts multi-head attention to incorporate the information from the encoding stage in a way similar to the decoder's attention to the encoder in Transformer (Vaswani et al., 2017). Concretely speaking, we concatenate the representations of the questions with the representations of the database schema items E = [W, T , C] which are considered as key, value of the multi-head attention layer. Action Prediction The final representation H ∈ R m×kis obtained through the stack of the blocks. We apply self attention to construct a representation Hr ∈ R kfor ApplyRule action: $$A_{r}=\mathrm{softmax}(\operatorname{tanh}(W_{r}H))$$ $$(1)$$ $$\mathbf{H}_{r}=A_{r}\mathbf{H}$$ $$\left(2\right)$$ where Wr is a parameter. Ht ∈ R kand Hc ∈ R k are constructed for SelectTable and SelectColumn action in the same way. For ApplyRule Action, the probability distribution Pr over the grammar rule space is calculated as follows: $$P_{r}=\mathrm{softmax}(\operatorname{tanh}(W_{s}H_{r}))$$ $$(3)$$ Where Ws is a weight parameter of the fully connected layer mapping Hr to the grammar rule space. For the SelectTable action (SelectColumn action), we apply multi-head attention to calculate the similarity matrix At ∈ R|T| where the query is Ht, key and value are T . Then softmax activation function is applied to calculate the probability for all tables Pt ∈ R|T|: $$\quad(4)$$ $$P_{t}={\mathrm{softmax}}(A_{t})$$ The decoding process of generating a SQL query is shown in Algorithm 1. The model is optimized by minimizing the negative log-likelihood Lg of the ground truth action sequence: $${\mathcal{L}}_{g}=-\sum_{i=0}^{N}l o g\prod_{j=1}^{N_{i}}p(a_{j}|a_{<j},Q,S)\quad\quad(5)$$ Where N denotes the number of samples in the training set and Ni represents the length of the action sequence for the i-th sample. ## 4.2 Knowledge-Enhanced Re-Ranking Mechanism With Contrastive Soft Prompt Tuning In the inference stage, we applied the beam search decoding method which keeps M locally best candidates from the decoder output and generates the M most likely candidate action sequences. However, top-1 prediction does not necessarily correspond to the best SQL query and (Kelkar et al., 2020) first introduced a re-ranking algorithm on complex Text-to-SQL generation and the re-ranker is based on BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) with a linear classification layer. The improvement of their proposed re-ranking algorithm is unstable and highly dependent on a threshold. And at certain threshold settings, it even has a negative effect. The reason is they don't explore the knowledge of PLM sufficiently. (Hui et al., 2021) proposed a featureenhanced re-ranker which is also based on PLM with a linear layer. In order to introduce domain knowledge, we propose a knowledge-enhanced reranking mechanism. The SQL re-ranker is based on a PLM and hybrid prompt tuning is adopted to explore the knowledge in PLMs to bridge the gap between different domains without introducing extra parameters. Contrastive learning is applied to push away distances of candidate queries' representations so that they are more distinguishable. Hybrid prompt tuning PLM is adopted as the SQL re-ranker and the template T is designed by inserting some tunable embeddings into a hard prompt: {E([BES]), V, E("it"), E("is"), E([mask]), E(Q), E(y), E([SEP])} (6) Where V = [v1*, ..., v*x] is a learnable virtual template word and x is the length. Q and y represent the question and query respectively. The scoring task can be formalized as a binary classification task and transformed into a cloze-style objective form, by predicting the masked position and mapping the predicted words to the corresponding class labels. The label word set is defined as {"bad", "great"} and we can determine whether the candidate query is the selected answer or not based on the PLM predicting "great" or "bad" at the mask position. The probability distribution P ∈ R 2 over label space is calculated as follows: $$H_{v}=\mathrm{MLMhead}(T,Q,y)$$ $$P=\mathrm{softmax}(H_{v}(\mathrm{``bad''}),H_{v}(\mathrm{``great''}))\quad\mathrm{(8)}$$ Contrastive Learning The differences between the candidate queries sometimes are subtle, resulting in undifferentiated representations of the mask position and similar scores for different queries. We introduce contrastive learning to push away the representation of each candidate query, thus making them more distinguishable. Given a question Q and all its candidate queries Y = {y1*, ..., y*M}, we construct inputs I = {i y1 1 , iy1 2 , ..., iyM 1, iyM 2} for SQL re-ranker by using two different prompt template T1 and T2 where V1 and V2 are distinct and randomly initialised. For a query yi, the inputs i yi 1 and i yi 2 constructed from two templates form a positive pair while negative pairs are formed with other 2(M −1) inputs. All inputs I for Q are in a mini-batch and the contrastive learning loss (Oord et al., 2018; Chen et al., 2020) Lcl is calculated as follows : $$\mathcal{L}_{cl}=-log\sum_{i=1}^{2M}\frac{\exp(\text{sim}(z_{i},z_{+})/\tau)}{\exp(\sum_{j=1}^{2M}\mathbbm{1}_{[j\neq i]}\text{sim}(z_{i},z_{j})/\tau)}\tag{9}$$ where $z_{i},\ z_{+}$ represent the hidden states of the PLM output at the mask position of the i-th sample and its corresponding positive sample respectively. 1[j6=i] ∈ {0, 1} is a indicator function evaluating to 1 iff i 6= j. sim(·) is the cosine similarity function and τ is a temperature hyper-parameter that controls the sensitivity of the product. Further more, we introduce a margin loss Ld to constrain the two templates to be different: $${\mathcal{L}}_{d}=\operatorname*{max}(0,\cos(V_{1},V_{2})-d)$$ where cos(·) is the cosine similarity and d is a hyperparameter. Cross-entropy loss Lce is adopted as the loss function for SQL re-ranker following the same way as (Nam et al., 2014): $$\begin{array}{c}{{\mathcal{L}_{c e}=-\quad\sum_{i=1}^{N_{Q}\times2M}\sum_{j=1}^{2}(y_{i j}\mathrm{log}(P_{i}^{j}))}}\\ {{\quad\quad+(1-y_{i j})(1-\mathrm{log}(P_{i}^{j}))}}\end{array}$$ $$(10)$$ $$(11)$$ $$(12)$$ where NQ represents the number of questions. The total loss function Lr for SQL re-ranker is the sum of the three loss functions: $${\mathcal{L}}_{r}={\mathcal{L}}_{c e}+\lambda_{1}{\mathcal{L}}_{c l}+\lambda_{2}{\mathcal{L}}_{d}$$ $$(7)$$ where λ1 and λ2 are hyperparameters. In order to fine-tune the SQL re-ranker, we construct a training (dev) set containing abundant positive and negative samples. For the training (dev) set, positive samples are the ground truth, while negative samples are the wrong samples generated by the SQL generator on the training (dev) set. Knowledge-Enhanced Re-Ranking Mechanism For each query yi ∈ Y , the log probability of a positive label output by the SQL re-ranker is considered to be the semantic score. Two scores s T1 i, s T2 ican be obtained by using two templates. We take into account the log-likelihood s g i of its corresponding action sequence produced by the SQL generator and get the final score si: $$s_{i}=s_{i}^{g}+{\frac{s_{i}^{T_{1}}+s_{i}^{T_{2}}}{2}}\qquad\qquad(13)$$ The candidate query with the highest score is considered the final result. The proposed SQL reranker and knowledge-enhanced re-ranking mechanism are general and model agnostic which can be applied to any Text-to-SQL approach. ## 5 Experiments 5.1 Dataset In order to evaluate the proposed Graph-Guided Generate-and-Rerank framework, we conduct experiments on Spider (Yu et al., 2018) and SpiderDK (Gan et al., 2021b). Spider It is a large-scale complex and crossdomain Text-to-SQL generation dataset1. There are 8659 samples in the training set across 146 databases and 1034 samples in the development set across 20 databases distinct from those in the training set. The test set is not public and can only be accessed through an evaluation server, we evaluate the proposed approach mainly on the development set. Spider-DK It is a human-curated dataset based on the dev set of Spider 2. The questions of the dataset are selected from Spider with some domain knowledge added. It focuses on evaluating the ability to understand domain knowledge. ## 5.2 Implementations For the Graph-Guided SQL generator, we use GLOVE (Pennington et al., 2014) word embeddings of size 300 and ELECTRA (Clark et al., 2020) to encode the input question and the database schema, followed by 8 LGESQL encoder layers. The number of GAT layers is 2 and the number of parameters is about 385M (With ELECTRA). The whole model is trained by the Adam optimizer 1Spider: https://yale-lily.github.io//spider. 2Spider-DK: https://github.com/ygan/Spider-DK | Model | Dev | Test | |-----------------------------------|-------|--------| | Without PLM | | | | EditSQL (Zhang et al., 2019) | 36.4 | 32.9 | | Global-GNN (Bogin et al., 2019b) | 52.7 | 47.4 | | IRNet (Guo et al., 2019) | 53.2 | 46.7 | | RAT-SQL (Wang et al., 2020a) | 62.7 | 57.2 | | LGESQL (Cao et al., 2021) | 67.6 | 62.8 | | G3R | 71.4 | 64.5 | | With PLM | | | | RAT-SQL+BERT-large | 69.7 | 65.6 | | RAT-SQL+GAP (Shi et al., 2021a) | 71.8 | 69.7 | | RAT-SQL+STRUG | 72.6 | 68.4 | | RAT-SQL+GRAPPA | 73.4 | 69.6 | | SmBoP (Rubin and Berant, 2021) | 74.7 | 69.5 | | DT-Fixup SQL-up (Xu et al., 2020) | 75.0 | 70.9 | | LGESQL+BERT | 74.1 | 68.3 | | LGESQL+ELECTRA | 75.1 | 72.0 | | G3R+ELECTRA | 78.1 | 72.9 | Table 2: Performance comparison with some state-ofart methods without and with PLM on the dev set and test set of Spider. G3is short for the graph-guided SQL generator and G3R incorporates the re-ranking mechanism. (Kingma and Ba, 2015) with a learning rate of 5e-5 and 2e-4 for with and without a pre-trained language model (PLM) respectively. The mini-batch size of the input is set to 10. In the inference stage, the beam size is set to 5. As for the SQL re-ranker, Grappa (Yu et al., 2021) is adopted for complex and cross-domain text-to-SQL generation because it is pre-trained for table semantic parsing and contains rich knowledge to bridge the gap between different domains. The number of parameters is about 355M. The length x of the learnable virtual template word for the hybrid prompt is set to 10, and λ1 and λ2 are set to 0.1 and 1 respectively. It is optimized by Adam with a learning rate of 1e-5. ## 5.3 Evaluation Metrics Following the previous work (Cao et al., 2021), we adopt exact match accuracy as the evaluation metric. It is calculated by decomposing SQL into several clauses and conducting a set comparison in each SQL clause. | Model | Easy | Medium | Hard | Extra | ALL | |--------------|--------|----------|--------|---------|-------| | Without PLM | | | | | | | IRNet | 70.1 | 49.2 | 39.5 | 19.1 | 53.2 | | RAT-SQL | 80.4 | 63.9 | 55.7 | 40.6 | 62.7 | | LGESQL | 86.3 | 69.5 | 61.5 | 41.0 | 67.6 | | G3 | 87.1 | 71.3 | 64.9 | 39.8 | 69.0 | | G3R | 89.1 | 74.1 | 67.8 | 41.8 | 71.4 | | With ELECTRA | | | | | | | LGESQL | 91.9 | 78.3 | 64.9 | 52.4 | 75.1 | | G3 | 89.5 | 80.9 | 69.5 | 53.0 | 76.6 | | G3R | 89.5 | 82.7 | 73.0 | 54.9 | 78.1 | ## 5.4 Main Results Table 2 shows the experimental results of several Text-to-SQL methods without and with PLM. Regarding baseline models, LGESQL achieves the best performance and our proposed G3R clearly outperforms it by a substantial margin which shows the superiority of our approach. With word vectors GLOVE, G3R achieves an absolute improvement of 3.8%, 1.7% over LGESQL on exact match accuracy on the dev set and test set respectively. With PLM ELECTRA, G3R surpasses all the SOTA baselines and achieves an absolute improvement of 3% and 0.9% over LGESQL on the dev set and test set respectively. It achieves an accuracy of 78.1%, and 72.9% on the dev and test set which is competitive compared to some newly released T5-3B based approaches (Li et al., 2023; Zhao et al., 2022). However, the size of our model is only one-fifth of theirs. In addition, more fine-grained performances of some approaches ordered by the level of difficulty are shown in Table 3. We can observe that: (1) As the difficulty increases, the syntactic structure of SQL queries becomes more complex and the accuracy of all approaches decreases. (2) With word vectors GLOVE, compared with LGESQL, G3R achieves improvements of 2.8%, 4.6%, 6.3% and 0.8% at the easy, medium, hard and extra hard levels respectively. With PLM ELECTRA, G3R also achieves improvements of 4.4%, 8.1% and 2.5% over LGESQL at medium, hard, and extra hard levels respectively. It demonstrates the effectiveness of our proposed framework. (3) When the re-ranking mechanism is removed, the accuracy of G 3(with ELECTRA) is decreased by 1.5%, but it still achieves an improvement of 1.5% compared with LGESQL. Notably, G3(with ELECTRA) has a significant improvement in complex SQL query generation, achieving improvements of 4.6% and 0.6% at the hard and extra hard levels. It demonstrates that our proposed graph-guided SQL generator can exploit the structural information of the AST and generate complex structured SQL queries more accurately. ## 5.5 Re-Ranking Results Table 4: Re-ranking results on the dev set of Spider. "KE-R" represents the proposed knowledge-enhanced re-ranking mechanism. | Spider | | |-------------------------------------|------| | Model Name | Acc | | G 3 | 69.0 | | + Bertrand-DR (Kelkar et al., 2020) | 70.7 | | + KE-R | 71.4 | | Beam accuracy | 75.6 | | G 3+ELECTRA | 76.6 | | + Bertrand-DR | 77.2 | | + KE-R | 78.1 | | Beam accuracy | 82.7 | Table 5: Re-ranking results on Spider-DK. "CL" represents the contrastive learning and "ML" represents the margin loss. | Spider-DK | | |---------------------------------------|------| | Model Name | Acc | | RAT-SQL + GAP (Shi et al., 2021b) | 44.1 | | LGESQL+ELECTRA | 47.3 | | 3+ELECTRA | 49.7 | | G + Bertrand-DR (Kelkar et al., 2020) | 50.5 | | + KE-R | 51.6 | | w/o CL | 50.8 | | w/o ML | 51.0 | | w/o CL&ML | 50.6 | | Beam accuracy | 60.9 | We construct the training set and dev set of the SQL re-ranker in the manner mentioned in Section 4.2. Bertrand-DR (Kelkar et al., 2020) is adopted as a baseline for comparison with our knowledge-enhanced re-ranking mechanism. To be fair, it is also based on Grappa, with a linear layer for binary classification. As shown in Table 4, the beam accuracy is on average about 6% higher than the top-1 accuracy. Our proposed KE-R can effectively filter out the correct answer from the beam. When it is applied, the exact match accuracy of G 3, G3+ELECTRA and are improved by 2.4% and 1.5% respectively. Compared with Bertrand-DR, KE-R in combination with G3and G3+ELECTRA achieves improvements of 0.7% and 0.9% which shows its superiority. To further evaluate the ability of our proposed SQL re-ranker to introduce domain knowledge, we conduct experiments on Spider-DK and the results are shown in Table 5. It is obvious that: (1) The dataset is more challenging and the accuracy of all approaches has decreased. However, our proposed G3still outperforms the other two baselines and achieves an improvement of 2.4% compared with LGESQL+ELECTRA. (2) With KE-R, the accuracy of G3+ELECTRA is improved by 1.9% compared to 0.8% with Bertrand-DR, indicating that our proposed SQL re-ranker can effectively incorporate domain knowledge. (3) When both contrastive learning and margin loss are removed, the accuracy drops to 50.6% and it still gains an improvement of 0.9% compared with G3+ELECTRA which demonstrates the effectiveness of the hybrid prompt tuning. (4) When contrastive learning and margin loss are removed, the accuracy decreases by 0.8% and 0.6% respectively, suggesting that they both contribute to the significant improvement. ## 6 Conclusion In this paper, a novel Graph-Guided Generated-andRerank framework is proposed for complex and cross-domain Text-to-SQL generation. In specific, we design the AST-Grammar Bipartite graph and propose a Graph-Guided SQL generator to capture the structural information of the generated complex SQL query. A knowledge-enhanced re-ranking mechanism is proposed to introduce domain knowledge to bridge the gap between different domains and re-rank candidate SQL queries generated from top-ranked action sequences. Experimental results on the Spider and Spider-DK benchmark datasets show that the proposed method outperforms other competitive Test-to-SQL baselines. ## 7 Limitation Our proposed graph-guided SQL generators are superior in generating complex SQL queries. However, the model has a large number of parameters and requires more computational resources, which is a common problem with current methods of generating complex SQL queries. In addition, the proposed knowledge-enhanced re-ranking mechanism is proposed to leverage the knowledge in PLM to choose the best SQL query from the beam output. However, it does not take into account the database schema which can be the source of domain knowledge. In the future, we will design lighter models for complex and cross-domain text-to-SQL generation and explore some other re-ranking mechanisms to incorporate the prior knowledge of database schema. ## 8 Acknowledgement We would like to thank anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and helpful suggestions. We thank Tencent Cloud Xiaowei and the Big Data Computing Center of Southeast University for supporting this project. We thank Tao Yu, Yusen Zhang and Hongjin Su for their careful assistance with the evaluation. This work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (62176053). ## References Ben Bogin, Jonathan Berant, and Matt Gardner. 2019a. Representing schema structure with graph neural networks for text-to-sql parsing. 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 4560–4565. Ben Bogin, Matt Gardner, and Jonathan Berant. 2019b. Global reasoning over database structures for text-tosql parsing. 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 3657–3662. 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. Ursin Brunner and Kurt Stockinger. 2021. Valuenet: A natural language-to-sql system that learns from database information. In *2021 IEEE 37th International Conference on Data Engineering, ICDE*, pages 2177–2182. Ruisheng Cao, Lu Chen, Zhi Chen, Yanbin Zhao, Su Zhu, and Kai Yu. 2021. LGESQL: line graph enhanced text-to-sql model with mixed local and non-local relations. 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, pages 2541–2555. Ting Chen, Simon Kornblith, Mohammad Norouzi, and Geoffrey E. Hinton. 2020. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML, volume 119, pages 1597– 1607. Kevin Clark, Minh-Thang Luong, Quoc V. Le, and Christopher D. Manning. 2020. ELECTRA: pretraining text encoders as discriminators rather than generators. In 8th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR. 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, pages 4171–4186. Yujian Gan, Xinyun Chen, and Matthew Purver. 2021a. Exploring underexplored limitations of cross-domain text-to-sql generalization. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP, pages 8926–8931. Yujian Gan, Xinyun Chen, and Matthew Purver. 2021b. Exploring underexplored limitations of cross-domain text-to-sql generalization. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP, pages 8926–8931. Tianyu Gao, Adam Fisch, and Danqi Chen. 2021. Making pre-trained language models better few-shot learners. 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, pages 3816–3830. Yuxian Gu, Xu Han, Zhiyuan Liu, and Minlie Huang. 2022. PPT: pre-trained prompt tuning for few-shot learning. In *Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics,* ACL, pages 8410–8423. Jiaqi Guo, Zecheng Zhan, Yan Gao, Yan Xiao, Jian-Guang Lou, Ting Liu, and Dongmei Zhang. 2019. Towards complex text-to-sql in cross-domain database with intermediate representation. In *Proceedings of the 57th Conference of the Association* for Computational Linguistics, ACL, pages 4524– 4535. Xu Han, Weilin Zhao, Ning Ding, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2022. Ptr: Prompt tuning with rules for text classification. *AI Open*, 3:182–192. Binyuan Hui, Ruiying Geng, Qiyu Ren, Binhua Li, Yongbin Li, Jian Sun, Fei Huang, Luo Si, Pengfei Zhu, and Xiaodan Zhu. 2021. Dynamic hybrid relation exploration network for cross-domain contextdependent semantic parsing. In *Thirty-Fifth AAAI* Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI, pages 13116–13124. Amol Kelkar, Rohan Relan, Vaishali Bhardwaj, Saurabh Vaichal, Chandra Khatri, and Peter Relan. 2020. Bertrand-dr: Improving text-to-sql using a discriminative re-ranker. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2002.00557. Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2015. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR. Jayant Krishnamurthy, Pradeep Dasigi, and Matt Gardner. 2017. Neural semantic parsing with type constraints for semi-structured tables. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP, pages 1516– 1526. Brian Lester, Rami Al-Rfou, and Noah Constant. 2021. The power of scale for parameter-efficient prompt tuning. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP, pages 3045–3059. Jinyang Li, Binyuan Hui, Reynold Cheng, Bowen Qin, Chenhao Ma, Nan Huo, Fei Huang, Wenyu Du, Luo Si, and Yongbin Li. 2023. Graphix-t5: Mixing pre-trained transformers with graph-aware layers for text-to-sql parsing. *CoRR*, abs/2301.07507. Jinseok Nam, Jungi Kim, Eneldo Loza Mencía, Iryna Gurevych, and Johannes Fürnkranz. 2014. Largescale multi-label text classification—revisiting neural networks. In Joint european conference on machine learning and knowledge discovery in databases, pages 437–452. Aaron van den Oord, Yazhe Li, and Oriol Vinyals. 2018. Representation learning with contrastive predictive coding. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.03748*. Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher D 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. Maxim Rabinovich, Mitchell Stern, and Dan Klein. 2017. Abstract syntax networks for code generation and semantic parsing. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL, pages 1139–1149. 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. Ohad Rubin and Jonathan Berant. 2021. Smbop: Semi-autoregressive bottom-up semantic parsing. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT, pages 311–324. Timo Schick and Hinrich Schütze. 2021. It's not just size that matters: Small language models are also few-shot learners. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT, pages 2339– 2352. Peng Shi, Patrick Ng, Zhiguo Wang, Henghui Zhu, Alexander Hanbo Li, Jun Wang, Cícero Nogueira dos Santos, and Bing Xiang. 2021a. Learning contextual representations for semantic parsing with generation-augmented pre-training. In Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI, pages 13806–13814. Peng Shi, Patrick Ng, Zhiguo Wang, Henghui Zhu, Alexander Hanbo Li, Jun Wang, Cicero Nogueira dos Santos, and Bing Xiang. 2021b. Learning contextual representations for semantic parsing with generation-augmented pre-training. In *Proceedings* of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI, volume 35, pages 13806–13814. Taylor Shin, Yasaman Razeghi, Robert L. Logan IV, Eric Wallace, and Sameer Singh. 2020. Autoprompt: Eliciting knowledge from language models with automatically generated prompts. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP. Zeyu Sun, Qihao Zhu, Lili Mou, Yingfei Xiong, Ge Li, and Lu Zhang. 2019. A grammar-based structural CNN decoder for code generation. In *The ThirtyThird AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence,* AAAI, pages 7055–7062. Zeyu Sun, Qihao Zhu, Yingfei Xiong, Yican Sun, Lili Mou, and Lu Zhang. 2020a. Treegen: A tree-based transformer architecture for code generation. In The Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI, pages 8984–8991. Zeyu Sun, Qihao Zhu, Yingfei Xiong, Yican Sun, Lili Mou, and Lu Zhang. 2020b. Treegen: A tree-based transformer architecture for code generation. In The Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI, pages 8984–8991. 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, NeurIPS, pages 5998–6008. Petar Velickovi ˇ c, Guillem Cucurull, Arantxa Casanova, ´ Adriana Romero, Pietro Lio, and Yoshua Bengio. 2017. Graph attention networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.10903. Bailin Wang, Richard Shin, Xiaodong Liu, Oleksandr Polozov, and Matthew Richardson. 2020a. RATSQL: relation-aware schema encoding and linking for text-to-sql parsers. In *Proceedings of the 58th* Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL, pages 7567–7578. Kai Wang, Weizhou Shen, Yunyi Yang, Xiaojun Quan, and Rui Wang. 2020b. Relational graph attention network for aspect-based sentiment analysis. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL*, pages 3229–3238. Hui Wu and Xiaodong Shi. 2022. Adversarial soft prompt tuning for cross-domain sentiment analysis. In *Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL*, pages 2438–2447. Peng Xu, Wei Yang, Wenjie Zi, Keyi Tang, Chengyang Huang, Jackie Chi Kit Cheung, and Yanshuai Cao. 2020. Optimizing deeper transformers on small datasets: An application on text-to-sql semantic parsing. *CoRR*, abs/2012.15355. Pengcheng Yin and Graham Neubig. 2017. A syntactic neural model for general-purpose code generation. In *Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL*, pages 440–450. Pengcheng Yin and Graham Neubig. 2018. TRANX: A transition-based neural abstract syntax parser for semantic parsing and code generation. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP, pages 7– 12. Tao Yu, Chien-Sheng Wu, Xi Victoria Lin, Bailin Wang, Yi Chern Tan, Xinyi Yang, Dragomir R. Radev, Richard Socher, and Caiming Xiong. 2021. Grappa: Grammar-augmented pre-training for table semantic parsing. In *9th International Conference* on Learning Representations, ICLR. Tao Yu, Rui Zhang, Kai Yang, Michihiro Yasunaga, Dongxu Wang, Zifan Li, James Ma, Irene Li, Qingning Yao, Shanelle Roman, Zilin Zhang, and Dragomir R. Radev. 2018. Spider: A largescale human-labeled dataset for complex and crossdomain semantic parsing and text-to-sql task. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP, pages 3911–3921. Rui Zhang, Tao Yu, Heyang Er, Sungrok Shim, Eric Xue, Xi Victoria Lin, Tianze Shi, Caiming Xiong, Richard Socher, and Dragomir R. Radev. 2019. Editing-based SQL query generation for cross-domain context-dependent questions. 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 5337–5348. Yiyun Zhao, Jiarong Jiang, Yiqun Hu, Wuwei Lan, Henry Zhu, Anuj Chauhan, Alexander Hanbo Li, Lin Pan, Jun Wang, Chung-Wei Hang, Sheng Zhang, Marvin Dong, Joe Lilien, Patrick Ng, Zhiguo Wang, Vittorio Castelli, and Bing Xiang. 2022. Importance of synthesizing high-quality data for text-to-sql parsing. *CoRR*, abs/2212.08785. Deyu Zhou, Yanzheng Xiang, Linhai Zhang, Chenchen Ye, Qian-Wen Zhang, and Yunbo Cao. 2021. A divide-and-conquer approach for multi-label multihop relation detection in knowledge base question answering. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics,EMNLP*, pages 4798–4808. Qihao Zhu, Zeyu Sun, Wenjie Zhang, Yingfei Xiong, and Lu Zhang. 2022. Grape: Grammar-preserving rule embedding. In Proceedings of the Thirty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI, pages 4545–4551. ## A Appendix A.1 Lgesql Encoder | Source x | Target y | Relation | |------------|------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Column | Table | x belongs to y. x is the primary key of y. | | Question | Question | x is the next token of y. | | Column | Column | x is the foreign key of y. x and y do not overlap. x is part of y, y is (not) a span of the question (Exact/Partial Match). | | Question | Column | x and y do not overlap. x is part of y, y is (not) a span of the question (Exact/Partial Match). | | Question | Table | | Table 6: Description of relations types in the heterogeneous graph Gn between different types of nodes. Unlike other code generation tasks, Text-to-SQL generation needs to consider not only the natural language question but also the database schema. It is a daunting problem how to jointly encode the Algorithm 1 The process of generating a complex SQL query. Input: Question q, Database schema S, Maximum decoding steps Md. Output: The action sequence aˆ corresponding to the SQL query. 1: aˆ ← ("[BES]" ), G b 0 ← "sql" 2: W, T , C ← Encoder(*Q, S*) 3: for i ← 1; i ≤ Md; i + + do 4: Bipartite Graph Reader captures the structure information of G b i−1 and Hgis obtained (4.1). 5: ai ← Decoder(Hg,W, T , C) 6: if ai = "[EOS]" **then** 7: aˆ ← aˆ + ai 8: Break 9: **else** 10: G b i ← Update the graph structure of G b i−1 by applying the predicted action ai. 11: aˆ ← aˆ + ai 12: **end if** 13: **end for** 14: **return** aˆ question and database schema, as there exist various relations between these heterogeneous inputs. In order to address the problem, LGESQL constructs a node-centric heterogeneous graph G n. It consists of three kinds of nodes: tables, columns and question tokens. The relations between different types of nodes are shown in Table 6. Besides, there exist many meta-paths between the nodes. Meta-path is defined as a composite relation linking two nodes, that can capture multi-hop semantics. For example, a meta-path <Question, "Question-ExactMatch-Column", Column, "Column-BelongsTo-Table", Table> means the question mentions a column in the table. As the length of the path increases, the number of possible meta-paths increases exponentially. In order to tackle this problem, LGESQL proposes to utilize a line graph to capture the topological structure of edges explicitly. An edge-centric graph G eis constructed from the original node-centric heterogeneous graph G nand a dual relational attention network (Dual RGAT) (Wang et al., 2020b) is adopted to capture the structure of the original graph and the line graph iteratively. Finally, the representations of the nodes are obtained through the LGESQL encoder. ## A.2 Decoding Process The decoding process is shown in Algorithm 1. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Section 7 ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Section 7 ✓ 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 1, Section 5 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 1, Section 5 ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Section 1, Section 5 ✓ 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 5 ✗ 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 dataset is open source and uses the setup from previous work. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Section 5 ✓ 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 5 ## 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? Section 5 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 5 ✓ 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?** 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.

ding-etal-2023-unified

A Unified Knowledge Graph Augmentation Service for Boosting Domain-specific {NLP} Tasks

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.24

By focusing the pre-training process on domain-specific corpora, some domain-specific pre-trained language models (PLMs) have achieved state-of-the-art results. However, it is under-investigated to design a unified paradigm to inject domain knowledge in the PLM fine-tuning stage. We propose KnowledgeDA, a unified domain language model development service to enhance the task-specific training procedure with domain knowledge graphs. Given domain-specific task texts input, KnowledgeDA can automatically generate a domain-specific language model following three steps: (i) localize domain knowledge entities in texts via an embedding-similarity approach; (ii) generate augmented samples by retrieving replaceable domain entity pairs from two views of both knowledge graph and training data; (iii) select high-quality augmented samples for fine-tuning via confidence-based assessment. We implement a prototype of KnowledgeDA to learn language models for two domains, healthcare and software development. Experiments on domain-specific text classification and QA tasks verify the effectiveness and generalizability of KnowledgeDA.

## A Unified Knowledge Graph Augmentation Service For Boosting Domain-Specific Nlp Tasks Ruiqing Ding1,2, Xiao Han∗3**, Leye Wang**∗1,2 1Key Lab of High Confidence Software Technologies (Peking University), Ministry of Education, China 2School of Computer Science, Peking University, Beijing, China 3School of Information Management and Engineering, Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, Shanghai, China ruiqingding@stu.pku.edu.cn, xiaohan@mail.shufe.edu.cn, leyewang@pku.edu.cn ## Abstract By focusing the pre-training process on domain-specific corpora, some domain-specific pre-trained language models (PLMs) have achieved state-of-the-art results. However, it is under-investigated to design a unified paradigm to inject domain knowledge in the PLM finetuning stage. We propose **KnowledgeDA**, a *unified* domain language model development service to enhance the task-specific training procedure with domain knowledge graphs. Given domain-specific task texts input, **KnowledgeDA** can automatically generate a domain-specific language model following three steps: (i) localize domain knowledge entities in texts via an embedding-similarity approach; (ii) generate augmented samples by retrieving replaceable domain entity pairs from two views of both knowledge graph and training data; (iii) select high-quality augmented samples for fine-tuning via confidence-based assessment. We implement a prototype of **KnowledgeDA** to learn language models for two domains, *healthcare* and software development. Experiments on domainspecific text classification and QA tasks verify the effectiveness and generalizability of KnowledgeDA. ## 1 Introduction Although general NLP models such as GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020) have demonstrated great potential, they may not consistently perform well in domain-specific tasks like healthcare (Kwon et al., 2019) and programming (Liu et al., 2019b). This is because most pre-trained language models are trained on general-domain corpora, e.g., OpenWebText (Radford et al., 2019) and C4 (Raffel et al., 2022). However, the words or knowledge entities frequently used in a specific domain are typically different from those in a general domain. For instance, scientific texts use different words than general texts, with only a 42% overlap (Beltagy et al., ∗*Corresponding authors 2019). Consequently, general PLMs struggle to capture many important domain entities that rarely appear in general corpora. Therefore, it is necessary to develop a suitable training mechanism for domain-specific NLP tasks. In general, two steps are needed for domainspecific NLP model development: (i) language model pretraining and (ii) task-specific model training (Gu et al., 2021). Most existing studies focus on pretraining. In particular, to learn domainspecific word embeddings, they retrain PLMs with domain-specific corpora, including ClinicalBERT (Alsentzer et al., 2019), BioBERT (Lee et al., 2020), SciBERT (Beltagy et al., 2019), etc. In contrast, how to improve the second step (i.e., task-specific training) is under-investigated. A common practice is directly fine-tuning the task-specific model with annotated data (Gu et al., 2021). However, it is difficult to obtain abundant annotated data for a domain-specific task, as labeling often requires domain experts' knowledge (Yue et al., 2020); without sufficient data, direct fine-tuning may not lead to a satisfactory performance due to overfitting (Si et al., 2020). Some studies propose task-dependent methods to train task-specific models by introducing some types of domain knowledge (Zhu et al., 2022), but they are hard to be generalized to other tasks (Tushev et al., 2022). Then, a research question appears: **can we introduce domain knowledge to task-specific model** training in a *unified* **way?** To answer the question, two main issues need to be addressed: (i) where to find a unified format of domain knowledge? (ii) how to improve the task-specific training of various domains' models in a unified way? On one hand, the domain knowledge graph (KG) is an effective and standardized knowledge base for a specific domain (Abu-Salih, 2021). KGs have been constructed for various domains such as cybersecurity (Jia et al., 2018), social-impact funding (Li et al., 2020b), and healthcare (Li et al., 2020a; Zhang et al., 2020), which emphasizes the wide availability of domain KGs. Hence, *domain KG could be a feasible source for unified* domain knowledge. On the other hand, data augmentation (DA) is a data-space approach to enrich training data to avoid overfitting regardless of the task-specific model structure. They are often *taskagnostic* (Longpre et al., 2020), i.e., not specified to any particular task. This property inspires us that it may be possible to design a unified DA process to introduce domain knowledge to task-specific model training. However, current DA methods in NLP are mostly proposed for general texts (Wei and Zou, 2019), and the performance on domain-specific tasks is limited (Feng et al., 2021). In general, domain-specific DA is still an under-researched direction (Feng et al., 2021). To fill this research gap, by exploiting domain KGs, we propose **KnowledgeDA**, a novel and unified three-step procedure to perform domainspecific DA: (i) *domain knowledge localization* to map phrases in the text to entities in the domain KG; (ii) *domain knowledge augmentation* to fully utilize the KG and the training data to achieve domain-specific augmentation; and (iii) augmentation quality assessment to single out highquality augmented data for fine-tuning the taskspecific model. Specifically: (i) To the best of our knowledge, this is one of the pioneering efforts toward proposing a unified development process for domain-specific NLP models, especially focusing on task-specific model training. (ii) **KnowledgeDA** consists of three core steps, domain knowledge localization, *domain knowledge augmentation*, and augmentation quality assessment. We implement a prototype of **KnowledgeDA**, which can automatically learn domain-specific models given domainspecific texts, especially in *healthcare* domain. (iii) Experiments are run on text classification and QA tasks (English and Chinese) mainly in healthcare. Results show that **KnowledgeDA** can obtain ∼ 4% improvement compared to direct fine-tuning, and significantly outperform existing DA methods (Wei and Zou, 2019; Yue and Zhou, 2020). The source codes are available1. ## 2 Related Work Domain-specific Knowledge-augmented NLP Methods. To improve domain-specific NLP model development, a general strategy is introducing do-1https://github.com/RuiqingDing/KnowledgeDA main knowledge (Zhu et al., 2022). For zero and few-shot text classification tasks, KPT (Hu et al., 2022) incorporates external knowledge into the projection between a label space and a label word space. For text generation, KG-BART (Liu et al., 2021) proposes a novel knowledge graph augmented pre-trained language generation model to promote the ability of commonsense reasoning. For question answering and dialogue, some work use external knowledge bases to inject commonsense, like KaFSP (Li and Xiong, 2022), KG-FiD (Yu et al., 2022), etc. Besides task-dependent methods, there are also some *unified* training strategies to incorporate knowledge (domain-specific corpora) into PLMs, leading to domain-specific PLMs such as BioBERT (Lee et al., 2020), SciBERT (Beltagy et al., 2019), ClinicalBERT (Alsentzer et al., 2019), and UmlsBERT (Michalopoulos et al., 2021). Also, there are three primary techniques to integrate knowledge graphs and PLMs: (i) pre-training a PLM from scratch by using KG or other structural knowledge/texts (Feng et al., 2022; Huang et al., 2022); (ii) adapting a given PLM to incorporate KG information with new network layers in task-specific training/fine-turning (Zhang et al., 2022b; Yasunaga et al., 2022; Kang et al., 2022); (iii) augmenting training data with KGs during taskspecific training/fine-tuning, e.g., PHICON (Yue and Zhou, 2020). Our work also attempts to improve the domain-specific NLP model development in a unified manner. Different from PLM, we focus on task-specific NLP model fine-tuning (Gu et al., 2021). Hence, our proposed **KnowledgeDA** can be used with domain-specific PLMs together to construct NLP models. Text Data Augmentation (DA). DA has received increasing interest, especially low-resource situations(Feng et al., 2021). In general, there are three types of text DA methods: (i) *Rulebased* techniques, e.g., EDA (Wei and Zou, 2019), adopt token-level random perturbation operations including random insertion, deletion, and swap; (ii) *Interpolation-based* techniques, pioneered by MIXUP (Zhang et al., 2018), interpolate the inputs and labels of two or more real examples. Followups include SwitchOut (Wang et al., 2018), MixText (Chen et al., 2020), etc; (iii) *Generator-based* techniques, e.g., LAMBADA (Anaby-Tavor et al., 2020) and GPT3Mix (Yoo et al., 2021), learn generators by fine-tuning the large language generation models (e.g., GPT) on the training data to generate new samples. Basically, three types of methods can be used together as they augment data from diverse perspectives. However, regardless of the type, most existing studies do not explicitly introduce domain knowledge. PHICON (Yue and Zhou, 2020) attempts to use the domain-entity dictionary for text DA, which replaces an entity mention in a sentence with another same-category entity. Compared to PHICON, **KnowledgeDA** further considers relationships in the domain KG; besides, **KnowledgeDA** introduces other newly-designed components, e.g., augmentation quality assessment, to ensure highquality augmentation. ## 3 The Knowledgeda **Framework** 3.1 Workflow Of Knowledgeda To facilitate the development of domain-specific NLP models, we propose a unified domain KG service, **KnowledgeDA**, which can achieve explicit domain knowledge injection by domain-specific DA. Challenges to be addressed include: C1. How to discover domain knowledge in texts? Detecting entities in a text is the first step to link the text with a knowledge base. A domain entity may have multiple expressions, e.g., *lungs* and pulmonary share a similar meaning in the healthcare domain. It is important to deal with synonyms. C2. How to ensure that the augmented texts retain the domain information and are semantically correct? We aim to achieve interpretable data augmentation through explicit domain knowledge injection. The domain information and the semantic correctness of augmented samples are desirable to be kept after data augmentation. C3. How to ensure the quality of augmented texts? As PLMs grow larger, simple DA method becomes less beneficial (Feng et al., 2021). It is essential to select beneficial samples from all the augmented samples for efficient fine-tuning. To address the above challenges, we design corresponding modules in **KnowledgeDA** (shown in Figure 1): (i) *domain knowledge localization*, which locates the mentions of domain KG entities in texts; (ii) *domain knowledge augmentation*, which incorporates a dual-view DA strategy by considering both domain KG and training data; (iii) augmentation quality assessment, which retains beneficial augmented samples for fine-tuning using a confidence-based strategy. When the task data and the PLM (e.g., BERT) are given, **KnowledgeDA** can automatically conduct data augmentation based on built-in domain KGs and output the final domain task-specific model. ## 3.2 Module 1: Domain Knowledge Localization Detecting entities in texts can identify domainspecific objects and the relations between them. Considering that an entity may correspond to multiple mentions (Florian et al., 2004), *exact* string matching will lead to a low matching rate. Although there are some open entity detection tools, like TAGME (Ferragina and Scaiella, 2010) and BLINK (Wu et al., 2020), and some studies achieve supervised non-exact matching of entities and mentions (Hu et al., 2019), the performance on domainspecific entities can not be guaranteed. Then, we use an annotation-free string-similarity-based strategy (Bunescu and Pasca, 2006; Karadeniz and Özgür, 2019) to discover *non-exact but correct* mappings between mentions in the text and entities in the KG. Specifically, we calculate the inner product of word embeddings as string similarity (Wu et al., 2020). As seen in Figure 1, we follow the NLP preprocessing pipeline and match the processed text with KG. During preprocessing, we add the entity strings in KG to the dictionary of *tokenizer* to avoid word segmentation errors, e.g., 'cerebral embolis' should be treated as a medical term rather than being splitted into two words. Also, we use POS Tagger and *Lemmatizer* to convert each token to the canonical form (lemma), e.g., the lemma for 'coughed' is 'cough'. While knowledge localization, we extract the entities' embeddings and the mentions' embeddings from the PLM, and then calculate the similarity between them. We consider the pair of a mention and the most similar KG entity as a match if the similarity score is larger than a threshold λ (0.9 in our implementation). An example in healthcare is illustrated in Figure 2. Without similarity match, we will ignore that scour and *diarrhea* are analogous. Through localization, some relations between entities can be also constructed, e.g., fever and scour are symptoms of pneumonia and respiratory syndrome. These will be used in the next module for data augmentation. ## 3.3 Module 2: Dual-View Domain Knowledge Augmentation After locating the domain knowledge, i.e., entity mentions in the text, the next step is to replace these mentions with other *relevant entity words* for   domain-specific data augmentation. Here, we propose a dual-view strategy to conduct the relevant entity retrieval by considering both KG and the training text data. ## View 1: Kg-Based Entity Retrieval (Kger) A direct strategy for domain KG-based DA is to replace the entity with another same-category entity, e.g., replacing 'William' with 'Mike' as both are person names (Yue and Zhou, 2020). However, it may suffer from two pitfalls: (i) Although the original and replaced entities are in the same category, they can be totally different, such as *pneumonia* and *fracture* (both are diseases), which may negatively impact the downstream tasks, e.g., classifying a medical transcription to the relevant department2; (ii) When two or more entities appear in a text, they may have certain valuable relationships (e.g., disease and symptom), but replacing these entities separately would ignore this information. To address the above issues, we propose two principles for **KGER**: (i) *entity relevance*, refers 2https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/tboyle10/medicaltranscriptions to ensuring that the retrieved entity is similar to the original entity, not just with the same category; (ii) *relation consistency*, means keeping the relationships unchanged between multiple replaced entities in one text. We formulate a domain KG as G = {*E, R, T, C*}, where E, R, T, and C are the sets of entities, relations, triples, and entities' categories, respectively. Specifically, T = T R ST C, where T R = {(h, r, t)|h, t ∈ *E, r* ∈ R} and T C = {(e, BelongT o, c)|e ∈ *E, c* ∈ C}. Given an entity e, we can get its category c, involved triples Te = {(*e, r, t*) ∈ T R}S{(*h, r, e*) ∈ T R}, and the adjacent entities Ee = {e′|(*e, r, e*′) ∈ Te,(*e, r, e*′) ∈ Te}. To obtain more same-category entities, we further retrieve the involved triples of Ee, named Te2, and put Te and Te2 together as the candidate triples (i.e., 2-hop triples around e). That is: (1) If only one entity exists, or multiple entities exist but do not have direct KG relations in the text, we randomly select a same-category entity e′from the candidate triples to replace each original entity e. Note that e′ must be within 2-hop around e, ensuring the *entity relevance*. (2) If there exist certain pairs of entities with KG relations, we would seek the same relation-type triple from the candidate triples for replacing the pair of entities together, following the *relation consistency*. For instance, 'I have a **fever** and **scour***. Could* it be *pneumonia*?' (shown in Figure 3), *fever* and *scour* are the symptoms of *pneumonia*. So we need to search for suitable triples to satisfy relation consistency. For instance, *diarrhea* and *sore throat* are the symptoms of *respiratory syndrome*, so the augmented text could be 'I have a **diarrhea** and sore throat. Could it be *respiratory syndrome*?'.  View 2: Training Data-based Entity Retrieval ## (Trainer) In View 1, we mainly retrieve relevant entities that are close in the KG. However, entity pairs far away in the KG may be helpful for the specific task if being replaced with each other. For example, for the task to detect the medical query intent, 'blood routine examination' and 'CT' is the entity pair that could be replaced with each other for augmentation because they most probably appear in the queries about *diagnosis* and *cause analysis*, but they are distant from each other in the medical KG, like CMedicalKG 3. To find such task-specific valuable replacement entity pairs which may not be near in the KG, we design a new View 2, Training Data-based Entity Retrieval (TrainER), to retrieve task-specific entity pairs from training data. REINA (Wang et al., 2022a) has verified that retrieving from training data to enrich model inputs (concatenating the original input and retrieved training data) may generate significant gains. Inspired by this idea, TrainER aims to extract gainful entity pairs from the training data for augmentation. In general, a good entity pair for replacement may satisfy at least two properties: (i) *label consistency*, indicates that the two entities in the pair should be contained in two training texts with the same task label; (ii) *expression diversity*, means that the two texts containing the two entities should have different expression patterns, so as to enrich the training data diversity. Specifically, to reach label consistency, for an entity e in a text t, we 3https://github.com/liuhuanyong/QASystemOnMedicalKG would retrieve a same-category entity e′from another text t′if t and t′ have the same label. To achieve *expression diversity*, we first cluster all the training texts into different clusters with diverse expression patterns. Then, for an entity e in a text t, the replaced entity e′ will be retrieved from t′ only if t and t′are not in the same cluster. Figure 3 elaborates on the process of TrainER. To conduct training data clustering to differentiate expression patterns, we first mask entities with their categories to extract the expression templates for each training text. For instance, 'what is *pneumonia*?' and 'what is *fracture*' share the same expression template 'what is *[disease]*?', as both sentences have the same pattern regardless of the specific entity (i.e., disease). Then, we run a clustering algorithm on the masked texts, i.e., expression templates, to identify diverse expression patterns. The K-means clustering (Arthur and Vassilvitskii, 2007) is applied due to its high efficiency and effectiveness in empirical experiments; the feature of a masked text is represented by TF-IDF vectorization (Jones, 2004). Same as the *relation consistency* principle in KGER, if there are certain entity pair with KG relations in the original text, we will retrieve the entity pair with the same relation from other training texts. ## 3.4 Module 3: Augmentation Quality Assessment After Module 1 & 2, we obtain a set of augmented texts. A straightforward way is to fine-tune task-specific models with these texts like most prior studies (Zhang et al., 2015; Wei and Zou, 2019). Recent work (Zhou et al., 2022) has found that not all the augmented texts are equivalently effective; thus, selecting high-quality ones may further improve the model performance. Inspired by this finding, **KnowledgeDA** includes a quality assessment module to justify the quality of each augmented text. Prior work (Anaby-Tavor et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2022) uses the prediction confidence as the quality metric and selects top-K high-confidence augmented samples for finetuning, because this ensures the label correctness of augmented texts. However, we argue that it may not significantly improve the model performance since high confidence means that the pattern inside the augmented sample has already been encoded in the original model (without augmentation). Hence, we first fine-tune PLM (e.g., BERT) on the task texts; then use this plain fine-tuned model M to predict the augmented texts and obtain the confidence scores. Instead of selecting top-K confident samples, we pick K augmented samples whose confidence is close to a predefined threshold δ. Note that δ should not be a too small number, as we still want to ensure the correctness of the training labels for augmented texts; meanwhile, δ should not be too large, as a very high-confident sample would contribute little new knowledge to the model. Based on this idea, we design a novel confidence-based data filtering strategy to retain gainful augmented samples. The task data D = {(xi, yi)} n i=1 and the plain fine-tuned model M (without augmentation) are known, where xiis a string of text, and the label yi ∈ {1, 2, · · · , q} is the label of xi among a set of q labels. Through *KGER* and *TrainER*, we can generate the augmented samples D aug i = {x 1 i , x2 i , · · · , xm i} for the i-th sample, xi. The prediction confidence (probability) of D aug ican be calculated as P aug i = {p j i} m j=1, where p j i = prob(M(x j i ) = yi). We propose a confidence threshold δ to adjust sample selection criteria. Given δ, the sampling weights of D aug ican be calculated by $w_{i}^{1},w_{i}^{2},w_{i}^{m}=softmax(\xi_{i}^{1},\xi_{i}^{2},...,\xi_{i}^{m})$ i ) (1) where ξ j i = 1−|δ−p j i|. If p j i is closer to δ (0.75 in our implementation), we have a higher probability to select this sample. With this confidence-based sampling strategy, we can select augmented samples to further fine-tune the task model M. In general, the selected samples would be relatively | Dataset | Lang. | #Labels | #Samples | #Mentions | |-----------------------------|---------|-----------|------------|-------------| | CMID | CHI | 4 | 12254 | 5182 | | KUAKE-QIC | CHI | 11 | 8886 | 3369 | | TRANS | ENG | 7 | 1740 | 2298 | | ABS | ENG | 5 | 14438 | 3808 | | Table 1: Dataset Statistics | | | | | confident but not too highly-confident, thus ensuring both *label correctness* and *new knowledge*. ## 4 Empirical Evaluation 4.1 Text Classification 4.1.1 Setup Datasets. We conduct experiments on four datasets in healthcare: CMID4and KUAKE-QIC (Zhang et al., 2022a)are in Chinese; TRANS5and ABS6 are in English. The basic information is enumerated in Table 1. For Chinese, we use an opensource medical KG, CMedicalKG7; for English, we adopt the Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) (Bodenreider, 2004) as KG. The preprocessing of KGs can be found in Appendix A.3. Baselines. As **KnowledgeDA** focuses on explicit knowledge injection during DA by domain entity replacement, we mainly compare with state-of-theart rule-based DA methods: SR (Vijayaraghavan et al., 2016) uses token-level replacement with synonyms; EDA (Wei and Zou, 2019) uses token-level random perturbation operations including random insertion, deletion, and swap; **PHICON** (Yue and Zhou, 2020) uses entity-level replacement with other entities belonging to the same category. For each DA method, we scale up the training data to 5 times the original size and select the best model on the validation set for evaluation. All the methods are based on the same text classifier with the same hyper-parameters (in Appendix A.1). In the main experiments, the base classifier is BERT-base (hereinafter referred to as BERT). We also experiment with domain-specific PLMs as stronger classifiers, discussed in the later part. And the experiment in the software development domain is shown in Appendix C. ## 4.1.2 Results In Healthcare | DA Method | CMID (Chinese) | KUAKE-QIC (Chinese) | TRANS (English) | ABS (English) | | | | | |-------------|------------------|-----------------------|-------------------|-----------------|---------------|-------------|-------------|--------------| | Acc. | F1 | Acc. | F1 | Acc. | F1 | Acc. | F1 | | | None | 70.25(0.80) | 68.21(0.90) | 78.82(0.81) | 78.57(0.72) | 73.10(1.79) | 71.50(1.77) | 63.95(0.31) | 62.84(0.40) | | SR | 71.90(0.76) | 70.97(0.39) | 80.52(0.73) | 80.10(0.80) | 72.38(0.24) | 72.52(0.30) | 64.14(0.25) | 63.13(0.30) | | EDA | 70.59(0.65) | 70.05(1.25) | 79.45(0.33) | 79.01(0.41) | 73.91(0.26) | 73.71(0.28) | 63.23(0.65) | 62.09(0.72) | | PHICON | 71.95(0.35) | 71.14(0.53) | 80.52(0.74) | 80.23(0.82) | 74.53(1.19) | 73.10(0.77) | 64.17(0.59) | 63.35(0.60) | | KnowledgeDA | 72.38(0.46)* | 71.94(0.38) | 81.67(0.41)*** | 81.31(0.44)* | 75.66(0.58)** | 75.37(0.72) | 64.97(0.29) | 64.18(0.28)* | | Method | CMID | KUAKE-QIC | TRANS | ABS | |-------------|--------|-------------|---------|--------| | SR | 14.80% | 17.89% | 33.56% | 24.33% | | EDA | 11.18% | 15.85% | 26.66% | 25.07% | | PHICON | 35.84% | 29.11% | 76.45% | 74.07% | | KnowledgeDA | 40.67% | 35.36% | 79.33% | 78.37% | Table 3: Novel entity coverage for healthcare datasets | Method | CMID | TRANS | | | |-------------------------|-------------|---------------|--------------|-------------| | Acc. | F1 | Acc. | F1 | | | None | 73.10(0.32) | 71.71(0.37) | 75.88(0.41) | 75.22(0.57) | | SR | 73.49(0.19) | 72.08(0.22) | 75.38(1.11) | 75.01(1.43) | | EDA | 72.93(0.46) | 71.89(0.89) | 75.40(0.79) | 74.91(0.80) | | PHICON | 73.51(0.68) | 72.49(0.63) | 75.37(0.59) | 75.18(0.72) | | KnowledgeDA 73.60(0.33) | 72.61(0.31) | 76.52(0.59)** | 76.54(0.91)* | | that **KnowledgeDA** achieves the best performance among all the methods in both accuracy and F1 score on four datasets. At the same time, **PHICON** also outperforms SR and EDA in most cases, verifying the effectiveness of domain-specific knowledge. Specifically, on two Chinese datasets, CMID and KUAKE-QIC, **KnowledgeDA** improves the accuracy by 3.03% and 3.62%, respectively, over the fine-tuned model without augmentation. Moreover, compared to the best baseline, **PHICON**, KnowledgeDA's improvements on accuracy are still statistically significant. Similar results are also observed on two English datasets. In a nutshell, the results suggest that domain-specific entity replacement can facilitate text classification in healthcare. Compared to **PHICON** which only considers entity categories, **KnowledgeDA** selects entities from dual views and accounts for the KG relations between them, which further improves the quality of the augmented text and thus achieves a better performance. To further quantitatively verify that **KnowledgeDA** can introduce more domain knowledge, following Wang et al. (2022b), we calculate *Novel Entity Coverage*, the percentage of the *novel* entities in the test data covered by augmented texts (*novel* means  not appearing in the training data). As illustrated in Table 3, **KnowledgeDA** has the highest coverage, which also explains the effectiveness. Domain-specific PLMs as the Base Classifiers. Domain-specific PLMs contain domain knowledge by pre-training with domain corpus. To confirm that **KnowledgeDA** is still beneficial with a domainspecific PLM, we use eHealth (Wang et al., 2021) and ClinicalBERT (Alsentzer et al., 2019) as the PLMs for Chinese and English datasets, respectively. According to Table 4, the improvement brought by the domain-specific PLMs is evident (comparing with the results of BERT in Table 2). Consistent with the survey (Feng et al., 2021), we discover that when using the domain-specific PLMs, baseline DA methods may not generate an obvious performance improvement and even have a negative effect compared to no-augmentation. For instance, on TRANS, EDA improves the performance over BERT (increasing F1 score from 71.50 to 73.71); while EDA worsens the performance when a domain-specific PLM is used (reducing F1 score from 75.22 to 74.91). However, even with domain-specific PLMs, **KnowledgeDA** can still improve the domain NLP task performance consistently. Note that for TRANS, **KnowledgeDA** is the only DA method with positive improvement (and this improvement is also statistically significant). Larger PLMs as the Base Classifiers. In addi-  Table 5: Effectiveness of each module in **KnowledgeDA** | Time(min) | None | SR | EDA | PHICON | KnowledgeDA | |-------------|--------|-------|-------|----------|---------------| | CMID | 5.05 | 22.23 | 20.63 | 30.77 | 36.33 | | TRANS | 5.43 | 9.54 | 8.22 | 18.46 | 25.82 | tion to using domain-specific PLMs with the same parameter size as BERT-base (110 million parameters), we further take RoBERTa-large (Liu et al., 2019a) and DeBERTa-large (He et al., 2021) with more than 350 million parameters as base classifiers on the TRANS dataset. As shown in Figure 4, with increasing parameters, RoBERTa-large and DeBERTa-large achieve better accuracy than BERT without DA. However, there are still notable improvements of 2.78% and 2.08% in accuracy with **KnowledgeDA** on RoBERTa-large and DeBERTa-large, demonstrating the generalizability of **KnowledgeDA**. Ablation Study. To validate the effectiveness of each module of **KnowledgeDA**, we design corresponding ablation experiments: KnowledgeDA w.o. SimMatch removes the similarity-based non-exact matching and only uses exact string matching in Module 1 (Sec. 3.2); *KnowledgeDA w.o. KGER* removes the KGER (view 1) in Module 2 (Sec. 3.3); KnowledgeDA w.o. TrainER removes the TrainER (view 2) in Module 2 (Sec. 3.3); *KnowledgeDA w.o.* Assess removes the quality assessment module, i.e., Module 3 (Sec. 3.4). Table 5 shows the results. KnowledgeDA outperforms all the other methods that remove certain components. This verifies the validity of each module of **KnowledgeDA**. Time Consumption. Table 6 reports the time consumption of all DA methods on CMID and TRANS. The time required for fine-tuning without augmentation is short (∼ 5 minutes). As **PHICON** and **KnowledgeDA** need to retrieve the entity mentions and then replace them, time consumption is increased.In particular, **KnowledgeDA** takes more time because it considers the relations between entities in the KG. In general, the learning process can be completed in about half an hour for   Impact of KG Errors. Considering that the KG quality may affect the quality of the augmented texts (Kang et al., 2022), we randomly change the categories of n% entities and the relation types of n% triples in CMedicalKG, and test the performance of **KnowledgeDA** in CMID dataset. As shown in Figure 5, when we adjust n from 0 to 10, the accuracy is between 71.0 and 72.5, with a slight decline. When n ≥ 4, SR, the KG-independent DA method, performs better. This illustrates the importance to ensure the KG quality for KG-based DA methods, which is consistent with the findings of other KG-based applications (Hu et al., 2022). In the future, we will explore how to identify potential KG errors so as to improve the robustness of KnowledgeDA. Different Strategies for Augmented Data Quality Assessment and Selection. We compare two strategies for augmented data quality assessment and selection: δ-K is proposed in Sec. 3.4; *Top-K* (Anaby-Tavor et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2022) selects the top K augmented samples with the highest confidence for each original sample. Table 7 shows the results of different strategies, as well as the results of *KnowledgeDA without quality assessment*. δ-K and *Top-K* both outperform *KnowledgeDA without assessment*, verifying the necessity to select high-quality samples for augmentation. And δK performs better than *Top-K*. This empirically validates our intuition that an augmented sample with a not-too-high confidence may bring more new knowledge to the NLP model, as discussed in Sec. 3.4. Combine with Generator-based Augmentation Techniques. **KnowledgeDA** provides a unified framework for domain-specific knowledge augmentation, which may be combined with other DA tech- | Method | CMID | TRANS | | | | | |-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|------------|----| | Acc. | F1 | Acc. | F1 | | | | | w.o. Assess | 72.00(0.61) | 70.84(0.56) | 74.78(0.60) | 74.65(0.73) | | | | Top-K | 71.95(0.52) | 71.53(0.43) | 75.01(0.81) | 74.89(0.69) | | | | δ-K | 72.38(0.46) | 71.94(0.38) | 75.66(0.58) | 75.37(0.72) | | | | Table | 7: | Different | quality | assessment | strategies | in | | KnowledgeDA | | | | | | | niques. Here, we use generator-based augmentation methods as an example. Specifically, we generate augmented samples with two methods, LAMBADA (Anaby-Tavor et al., 2020) and GeniusAug (Guo et al., 2022); based on these augmented samples, we leverage **KnowledgeDA** to acquire more augmented samples. Since generator-based methods are mostly applied to few-shot tasks (AnabyTavor et al., 2020), we randomly select 50 to 200 samples for each task label in the TRANS dataset. LAMBADA and GeniusAug both generate 200 more samples for each label. Figure 6 shows the results. As expected, the performance of each method goes up as the number of labeled samples increases. More importantly, combining **KnowledgeDA** with LAMBADA or GeniusAug both can achieve higher accuracy. This demonstrates the general utility of KnowledgeDA to combine with generator-based DA methods to improve the few-shot NLP tasks. Compare with GPT-3.5. Recently, ChatGPT has shown powerful text generation capabilities. To explore the performance of this large language model on domain-specific tasks, we use the OpenAI API 8to query text-davinci-003 (the most powerful GPT-3.5) by the prompt, 'decide which label the following text belongs to, {label names}: \n Text:{sentence} \*n Label: '*. It can be seen as a zero-shot manner to response directly. For TRANS(English), the test accuracy is 66.67% (∼ 10% lower than **KnowledgeDA** with BERT). It performs even worse on CMID(Chinese) with an accuracy of only 32.32%, perhaps due to the limited exposure to relevant texts and knowledge. Therefore, more effective prompt engineering or fine-tuning of GPT (especially for non-English languages) is still necessary for domain-specific tasks, which may be potential future work. ## 4.2 Qa Tasks Setup. The **CMedQA**(Chinese) (Zhang et al., 2017) and **PubMedQA**(English) (Jin et al., 2019) are used for the QA task. Both datasets give the la-8https://platform.openai.com | Method | CMedQA(Chinese) | PubMedQA(English) | | | |-----------------------------------|-------------------|---------------------|-------------|--------------| | Acc. | F1 | Acc. | F1 | | | None | 85.00(3.96) | 82.60(7.06) | 66.00(6.87) | 57.65(10.46) | | SR | 88.46(0.84) | 87.91(0.73) | 72.68(1.97) | 68.99(1.47) | | EDA | 88.66(1.18) | 88.37(1.00) | 72.72(1.57) | 68.69(1.71) | | PHICON | 88.56(1.17) | 87.83(1.39) | 73.96(1.88) | 69.67(1.98) | | KnowledgeDA 89.16(0.58) | 88.58(0.56) | 74.64(0.83)* | 70.98(0.70) | | | Table 8: Performance of QA Tasks. | | | | | bel of each question-answer pair (i.e., match or mismatch). For CMedQA, we sample 1000 questionanswer pairs from the original dataset. For PubMedQA, we keep the original data size (429 samples). In **KnowledgeDA**, we take the question and answer pair as input and retrieve the entity mentions together. While fine-tuning, we feed questions and answers, separated by the special [SEP] token to BERT (Jin et al., 2019). The KGs and other settings are the same as classification tasks. Results. Table 8 compares the performance of different DA methods based on BERT. It is obvious that using any data augmentation strategy can make the performance more stable under different seeds (i.e. smaller standard deviation). Also, KnowledgeDA outperforms all the baselines. ## 5 Conclusions In this paper, we present **KnowledgeDA**, a unified knowledge graph service to boost domain-specific NLP tasks. The intrinsic technical novelty is a three-step framework of task-specific data augmentation process based on domain KGs. The experiments on healthcare-related texts both in English and Chinese verify the effectiveness and generality of **KnowledgeDA**. We also confirm that it can be flexible and effective to incorporate other generatorbased DA methods on few-shot tasks. In the future, we can further investigate how to better combine KnowledgeDA and generator-based DA methods and add KG quality inspection methods to avoid the negative impact of errors in KG. ## Limitations Domain KGs are the premise of **KnowledgeDA**, while open and high-quality domain KGs may be rare in some domains. Therefore, the method will be limited in the domains without suitable KGs. Besides, we use a similarity-based method to map entity mentions in the text to the corresponding entities in the KG. Although this method performs efficiently, it ignores the problem of entity ambiguity (Vretinaris et al., 2021). For instance, the abbreviation, CAT, can stand for '*catalase*' or 'COPD Assessment Test' in healthcare. To address this problem, it is necessary to use contextual information to clarify the specific meaning of the mention (Phan et al., 2017; Orr et al., 2021; Vretinaris et al., 2021). Last but not least, **KnowledgeDA** may be not good at tasks of paragraph-level texts and the efficiency will reduce. Because long texts probably contain more entity mentions and have more complex syntax, it is more difficult to retrieve the entities and acquire their relations from the KG. ## Ethics Statement This paper proposes a unified framework, KnowledgeDA, for text augmentation based on domain KGs for domain-specific NLP tasks. All the experimental datasets and KGs are publicly available, and the related papers and links have been listed in the paper. Also, though PLM and KG are publicly available, there may still be several ethical considerations to bear in mind when applying KnowledgeDA in real-world scenarios. For instance, it is crucial to check whether KG contains biases concerning race, gender, and other demographic attributes. ## Acknowledgements This research was supported by National Key R&D Program of China (2020AAA0109401) and NSFC Grants no. 61972008, 72071125, and 72031001. ## References Bilal Abu-Salih. 2021. Domain-specific knowledge graphs: A survey. *Journal of Network and Computer* Applications, 185:103076. Emily Alsentzer, John Murphy, William Boag, WeiHung Weng, Di Jin, Tristan Naumann, and Matthew McDermott. 2019. Publicly available clinical BERT embeddings. In *Proceedings of the 2nd Clinical Natural Language Processing Workshop*, pages 72–78. Ateret Anaby-Tavor, Boaz Carmeli, Esther Goldbraich, Amir Kantor, George Kour, Segev Shlomov, Naama Tepper, and Naama Zwerdling. 2020. Do not have enough data? deep learning to the rescue! In *AAAI*, pages 7383–7390. David Arthur and Sergei Vassilvitskii. 2007. kmeans++: the advantages of careful seeding. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA, pages 1027–1035. SIAM. Iz Beltagy, Kyle Lo, and Arman Cohan. 2019. Scibert: Pretrained language model for scientific text. In EMNLP. Vincent D Blondel, Jean-Loup Guillaume, Renaud Lambiotte, and Etienne Lefebvre. 2008. Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2008(10):P10008. Olivier Bodenreider. 2004. The unified medical language system (UMLS): integrating biomedical terminology. *Nucleic Acids Res.*, 32(Database-Issue):267– 270. Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared 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 M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher 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. *CoRR*, abs/2005.14165. Razvan C. Bunescu and Marius Pasca. 2006. Using encyclopedic knowledge for named entity disambiguation. In *EACL*. Jiaao Chen, Zichao Yang, and Diyi Yang. 2020. MixText: Linguistically-informed interpolation of hidden space for semi-supervised text classification. In ACL, pages 2147–2157. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In *NAACL-HLT*, pages 4171–4186. Shangbin Feng, Zhaoxuan Tan, Wenqian Zhang, Zhenyu Lei, and Yulia Tsvetkov. 2022. Kalm: Knowledgeaware integration of local, document, and global contexts for long document understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.04105. Steven Y Feng, Varun Gangal, Jason Wei, Sarath Chandar, Soroush Vosoughi, Teruko Mitamura, and Eduard Hovy. 2021. A survey of data augmentation approaches for NLP. In *Findings of ACL*, pages 968– 988. Paolo Ferragina and Ugo Scaiella. 2010. TAGME: on-the-fly annotation of short text fragments (by wikipedia entities). In *CIKM*, pages 1625–1628. ACM. Radu Florian, Hany Hassan, Abraham Ittycheriah, Hongyan Jing, Nanda Kambhatla, Xiaoqiang Luo, Nicolas Nicolov, and Salim Roukos. 2004. A statistical model for multilingual entity detection and tracking. In *NAACL-HLT*, pages 1–8. Yu Gu, Robert Tinn, Hao Cheng, Michael Lucas, Naoto Usuyama, Xiaodong Liu, Tristan Naumann, Jianfeng Gao, and Hoifung Poon. 2021. Domain-specific language model pretraining for biomedical natural language processing. ACM Transactions on Computing for Healthcare (HEALTH), 3(1):1–23. Biyang Guo, Yeyun Gong, Yelong Shen, Songqiao Han, Hailiang Huang, Nan Duan, and Weizhu Chen. 2022. Genius: Sketch-based language model pre-training via extreme and selective masking for text generation and augmentation. Pengcheng He, Xiaodong Liu, Jianfeng Gao, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. Deberta: Decoding enhanced bert with disentangled attention. In *ICLR*. Shengding Hu, Ning Ding, Huadong Wang, Zhiyuan Liu, Jingang Wang, Juanzi Li, Wei Wu, and Maosong Sun. 2022. Knowledgeable prompt-tuning: Incorporating knowledge into prompt verbalizer for text classification. In ACL, pages 2225–2240. Shengze Hu, Zhen Tan, Weixin Zeng, Bin Ge, and Weidong Xiao. 2019. Entity linking via symmetrical attention-based neural network and entity structural features. *Symmetry*, 11(4):453. Ningyuan Huang, Yash R Deshpande, Yibo Liu, Houda Alberts, Kyunghyun Cho, Clara Vania, and Iacer Calixto. 2022. Endowing language models with multimodal knowledge graph representations. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2206.13163. Yan Jia, Yulu Qi, Huaijun Shang, Rong Jiang, and Aiping Li. 2018. A practical approach to constructing a knowledge graph for cybersecurity. *Engineering*, 4(1):53–60. Qiao Jin, Bhuwan Dhingra, Zhengping Liu, William Cohen, and Xinghua Lu. 2019. Pubmedqa: A dataset for biomedical research question answering. In *EMNLPIJCNLP*, pages 2567–2577. Karen Spärck Jones. 2004. A statistical interpretation of term specificity and its application in retrieval. J. Documentation, 60(5):493–502. Minki Kang, Jinheon Baek, and Sung Ju Hwang. 2022. KALA: knowledge-augmented language model adaptation. In *NAACL-HLT*, pages 5144–5167. Ilknur Karadeniz and Arzucan Özgür. 2019. Linking entities through an ontology using word embeddings and syntactic re-ranking. *BMC bioinformatics*, 20:1– 12. Bum Chul Kwon, Min-Je Choi, Joanne Taery Kim, Edward Choi, Young Bin Kim, Soonwook Kwon, Jimeng Sun, and Jaegul Choo. 2019. Retainvis: Visual analytics with interpretable and interactive recurrent neural networks on electronic medical records. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 25(1):299–309. Jinhyuk Lee, Wonjin Yoon, Sungdong Kim, Donghyeon Kim, Sunkyu Kim, Chan Ho So, and Jaewoo Kang. 2020. Biobert: a pre-trained biomedical language representation model for biomedical text mining. Bioinformatics, 36(4):1234–1240. Junzhuo Li and Deyi Xiong. 2022. KaFSP: Knowledgeaware fuzzy semantic parsing for conversational question answering over a large-scale knowledge base. In ACL, pages 461–473. Linfeng Li, Peng Wang, Jun Yan, Yao Wang, Simin Li, Jinpeng Jiang, Zhe Sun, Buzhou Tang, TsungHui Chang, Shenghui Wang, et al. 2020a. Realworld data medical knowledge graph: construction and applications. *Artificial intelligence in medicine*, 103:101817. Ying Li, Vitalii Zakhozhyi, Daniel Zhu, and Luis J Salazar. 2020b. Domain specific knowledge graphs as a service to the public: Powering social-impact funding in the us. In *SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining*, pages 2793–2801. Ye Liu, Yao Wan, Lifang He, Hao Peng, and S Yu Philip. 2021. Kg-bart: Knowledge graph-augmented bart for generative commonsense reasoning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 6418–6425. Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019a. Roberta: A robustly optimized BERT pretraining approach. *CoRR*, abs/1907.11692. Zhongxin Liu, Xin Xia, Christoph Treude, David Lo, and Shanping Li. 2019b. Automatic generation of pull request descriptions. In ASE, pages 176–188. Shayne Longpre, Yu Wang, and Chris DuBois. 2020. How effective is task-agnostic data augmentation for pretrained transformers? In *EMNLP-Findings*, pages 4401–4411. George Michalopoulos, Yuanxin Wang, Hussam Kaka, Helen Chen, and Alexander Wong. 2021. UmlsBERT: Clinical domain knowledge augmentation of contextual embeddings using the Unified Medical Language System Metathesaurus. In *NAACL-HLT*, pages 1744–1753. Laurel J. Orr, Megan Leszczynski, Neel Guha, Sen Wu, Simran Arora, Xiao Ling, and Christopher Ré. 2021. Bootleg: Chasing the tail with self-supervised named entity disambiguation. In *CIDR*. Minh C. Phan, Aixin Sun, Yi Tay, Jialong Han, and Chenliang Li. 2017. Neupl: Attention-based semantic matching and pair-linking for entity disambiguation. In *CIKM*, pages 1667–1676. ACM. Alec Radford, Jeff Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2022. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. 21(1). Shijing Si, Rui Wang, Jedrek Wosik, Hao Zhang, David Dov, Guoyin Wang, and Lawrence Carin. 2020. Students need more attention: Bert-based attention model for small data with application to automatic patient message triage. In *Proceedings of the 5th Machine Learning for Healthcare Conference*, volume 126 of *Proceedings of Machine Learning Research*, pages 436–456. Prabhnoor Singh, Rajkanwar Chopra, Ojasvi Sharma, and Rekha Singla. 2020. Stackoverflow tag prediction using tag associations and code analysis. Journal of Discrete Mathematical Sciences and Cryptography, 23(1):35–43. Miroslav Tushev, Fahimeh Ebrahimi, and Anas Mahmoud. 2022. Domain-specific analysis of mobile app reviews using keyword-assisted topic models. In ICSE, pages 762–773. Prashanth Vijayaraghavan, Ivan Sysoev, Soroush Vosoughi, and Deb Roy. 2016. DeepStance at SemEval-2016 task 6: Detecting stance in tweets using character and word-level CNNs. In *SemEval*, pages 413–419. Alina Vretinaris, Chuan Lei, Vasilis Efthymiou, Xiao Qin, and Fatma Özcan. 2021. Medical entity disambiguation using graph neural networks. In *Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Management of Data*, SIGMOD '21, page 2310–2318. Association for Computing Machinery. Quan Wang, Songtai Dai, Benfeng Xu, Yajuan Lyu, Yong Zhu, Hua Wu, and Haifeng Wang. 2021. Building chinese biomedical language models via multilevel text discrimination. *CoRR*, abs/2110.07244. Shuohang Wang, Yichong Xu, Yuwei Fang, Yang Liu, Siqi Sun, Ruochen Xu, Chenguang Zhu, and Michael Zeng. 2022a. Training data is more valuable than you think: A simple and effective method by retrieving from training data. In ACL, pages 3170–3179. Xinyi Wang, Hieu Pham, Zihang Dai, and Graham Neubig. 2018. Switchout: an efficient data augmentation algorithm for neural machine translation. In *EMNLP*, pages 856–861. Yufei Wang, Can Xu, Qingfeng Sun, Huang Hu, Chongyang Tao, Xiubo Geng, and Daxin Jiang. 2022b. Promda: Prompt-based data augmentation for low-resource NLU tasks. In ACL, pages 4242–4255. Jason Wei and Kai Zou. 2019. Eda: Easy data augmentation techniques for boosting performance on text classification tasks. In *EMNLP*, pages 6382–6388. Ledell Wu, Fabio Petroni, Martin Josifoski, Sebastian Riedel, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. Scalable zeroshot entity linking with dense entity retrieval. In EMNLP, pages 6397–6407. Michihiro Yasunaga, Antoine Bosselut, Hongyu Ren, Xikun Zhang, Christopher D Manning, Percy S Liang, and Jure Leskovec. 2022. Deep bidirectional language-knowledge graph pretraining. *Advances in* Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:37309– 37323. Kang Min Yoo, Dongju Park, Jaewook Kang, SangWoo Lee, and Woo-Myoung Park. 2021. Gpt3mix: Leveraging large-scale language models for text augmentation. In *EMNLP*, pages 2225–2239. Donghan Yu, Chenguang Zhu, Yuwei Fang, Wenhao Yu, Shuohang Wang, Yichong Xu, Xiang Ren, Yiming Yang, and Michael Zeng. 2022. KG-FiD: Infusing knowledge graph in fusion-in-decoder for opendomain question answering. In ACL, pages 4961– 4974. Xiang Yue, Bernal Jimenez Gutierrez, and Huan Sun. 2020. Clinical reading comprehension: A thorough analysis of the emrqa dataset. In ACL, pages 4474– 4486. Xiang Yue and Shuang Zhou. 2020. PHICON: Improving generalization of clinical text de-identification models via data augmentation. In *ClinicalNLPEMNLP Workshop*, pages 209–214. Hongyi Zhang, Moustapha Cissé, Yann N. Dauphin, and David Lopez-Paz. 2018. mixup: Beyond empirical risk minimization. In *ICLR*. OpenReview.net. Ningyu Zhang, Mosha Chen, Zhen Bi, Xiaozhuan Liang, Lei Li, Xin Shang, Kangping Yin, Chuanqi Tan, Jian Xu, Fei Huang, Luo Si, Yuan Ni, Guotong Xie, Zhifang Sui, Baobao Chang, Hui Zong, Zheng Yuan, Linfeng Li, Jun Yan, Hongying Zan, Kunli Zhang, Buzhou Tang, and Qingcai Chen. 2022a. CBLUE: A chinese biomedical language understanding evaluation benchmark. In ACL, pages 7888–7915. Sheng Zhang, Xin Zhang, Hui Wang, Jiajun Cheng, Pei Li, and Zhaoyun Ding. 2017. Chinese medical question answer matching using end-to-end characterlevel multi-scale cnns. *Applied Sciences*, 7(8):767. Xiang Zhang, Junbo Zhao, and Yann LeCun. 2015. Character-level convolutional networks for text classification. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, volume 28. Curran Associates, Inc. Xikun Zhang, Antoine Bosselut, Michihiro Yasunaga, Hongyu Ren, Percy Liang, Christopher D Manning, and Jure Leskovec. 2022b. Greaselm: Graph reasoning enhanced language models. In *ICLR*. Yong Zhang, Ming Sheng, Rui Zhou, Ye Wang, Guangjie Han, Han Zhang, Chunxiao Xing, and Jing Dong. 2020. Hkgb: an inclusive, extensible, intelligent, semi-auto-constructed knowledge graph framework for healthcare with clinicians' expertise incorporated. *Information Processing & Management*, 57(6):102324. Jing Zhou, Yanan Zheng, Jie Tang, Li Jian, and Zhilin Yang. 2022. Flipda: Effective and robust data augmentation for few-shot learning. In ACL, pages 8646– 8665. Chenguang Zhu, Yichong Xu, Xiang Ren, Bill Yuchen Lin, Meng Jiang, and Wenhao Yu. 2022. Knowledgeaugmented methods for natural language processing. In ACL, pages 12–20. ## A Implementation Details A.1 Experiment Platform & Settings Our experiment platform is a server with AMD Ryzen 9 3900X 12-Core Processor, 64 GB RAM and GeForce RTX 3090. We use Python 3.6 with pytorch 1.8 on Ubuntu 20.04 for algorithm implementation. For the text classification task, we feed the [CLS] representation into the output layer when BERTbase as the classifier (Devlin et al., 2019). We split the dataset into training set, validation set, and test set as 8:1:1. When fine-tuning PLMs, we set batch size to 32, learning rate to 1e-5, and training epoch to 10. It will early stop if the loss of the validation set does not decrease in 500 iterations. Accuracy and *micro-F1* are used as the metrics in text classification and QA tasks. We repeat each experiment 5 times and record the average results. ## A.2 Algorithms In this part, we summarize the detailed implementations of *domain knowledge localization* (i.e., Module 1) and domain knowledge augmentation & augmentation quality assessment in Algorithm 1 and Algorithm 2, respectively. Algorithm 1: Domain Knowledge Localization Input: A text x, the entities list E, words embeddings dictionary *Embeds*, and similarity threshold θ Output: A matched pair list *Matchs* of mentions in x and entities in E 1 Initialize *Matchs* as an empty list ; 2 Preprocess x with NLP preprocessing pipeline to get word list *words* ; 3 Construct entity embedding matrix Eemb and embedding matrix Wemb by searching for E and words from *Embeds* ; 4 Compute similarity matrix Sim = Wemb × Eemb.T ; 5 Query the maximum similarity sim_*values* between each word and entity; 6 if sim_*value* ⩾ θ **then** 7 Find the index of sim_values in Sim ; 8 Get the pair (*word, entity*) according to index ; 9 Add (word, entity) to *Matchs* ; 10 end 11 Return *Matchs* ; ## A.3 Kgs Preprocessing Healthcare is a field with rich professional knowledge. There are also publicly available knowledge graphs, e.g., the Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) (Bodenreider, 2004). We take such open medical KGs for healthcare Algorithm 2: Domain Knowledge Augmentation & Augmentation Quality Assessment Input: Train Data D = {(xi, yi) n i=1}; the KG G = {*E, R, T, C*}; the pre-trained language model *P LM*; a confidence threshold δ. Output: The selected augmented samples D aug 1 Fine-tune without augmentation M = fine-tune(*P LM, D*) ; 2 for xi in {xi} n i=1 do 3 Get the *Matches*i in xi by Algorithm 1; 4 Generate augmented samples D aug i with G following the steps in Figure 3; 5 Initialize the prediction probabilities of D aug ias P aug i; 6 for x j i in D aug i do 7 Calculate the prediction probability p j i = *prob*(M(x j i ) = yi); 8 Add p j i to P aug i; 9 end 10 Calculate the sampling weights of D aug i according to Eq. 1 ; 11 Sample 5 samples from D aug iby weights and add them to D aug; 12 end 13 **return** D aug; KnowledgeDA. UMLS Metathesaurus is a compendium of many biomedical terminologies with the associated information, including synonyms, categories, and relationships. It groups semantically equivalent or similar words into the same concept, for example, the words 'flu', 'syndrome flu' and 'influenza' are mapped to the same concept unique identifier (CUI) *C0021400*, which belongs to the category, *disease or syndrome*. There are 127 semantic types in biology, chemistry, and medicine, consisting of 4,441,326 CUIs (16,132,273 terminologies) in the UMLS 2021AA version. Since the size of the KG is too large to affect the speed of retrieval, we only screen out entities that belong to the type of medicine (e.g., body part, organ, or organ component, *disease or syndrome*, etc.). At the same time, we also delete non-English strings. Finally, we keep 1,145,062 CUIs (16 semantic types), 502 types of relationships and 4,884,494 triples. Although there are Chinese medical terminologies in UMLS, the number is limited. Hence, we use an open-source Chinese medical KG, CMedicalKG,9 which includes 44,111 entities (7 categories), 10 types of relationships, and 294,149 triples. ## B Case Study Fig. 7 shows the examples in English and Chinese with various DA methods. We can observe 9https://github.com/liuhuanyong/QASystemOnMedicalKG that the sentence augmented by **KnowledgeDA** has a high quality as it can introduce more domain entities and the whole sentence has a good semantic meaning. ## C Text Classification In Software Development C.1 Dataset We use a open data, *SO-PLC*10, which is a Stack Overflow dataset for 4 programming language classification: python, C\#, java, and javascript. ## C.2 Kg For Software Development There is little research on building KGs for software development NLP tasks, and thus we decide to build one from scratch. To build the KG, we refer to the software developer forum *Stack Overflow* to obtain raw text data.11 *Stack Overflow* is one of the biggest forums for professional and enthusiastic software developers. Various technical questions are covered on the platform and marked with appropriate tags. These tags are usually programming-specific terminologies and can be beneficial to learn about tech ecosystems and the relationships between technologies (Singh et al., 2020). To build a KG from tags, 10http://storage.googleapis.com/download.tensorflow.org/data/stack_ overflow_16k.tar.gz 11https://stackoverflow.com/ | Method | SO-PLC | | |-------------|--------------|---------------| | Acc. | F1 | | | None | 84.78(0.48) | 84.65(0.50) | | SR | 84.72(0.32) | 84.69(0.31) | | EDA | 84.78(1.08) | 84.71(1.08) | | PHICON | 85.63(1.17) | 85.60(1.19) | | KnowledgeDA | 86.82(0.90)* | 86.83(0.88)** | Table 9: Performance on SO-PLC dataset (*BERT* as PLM) we follow the existing KG construction process (Li et al., 2020a): Step 1. Data Collection: We use programming languages (e.g., python, C\#, java, and javascript) as keywords to search for related questions on Stack Overflow, and sort them according to 'most frequency'; then crawl the tags that appeared in the top 7,500 related questions (i.e., the first 150 pages). Step 2. Entity Recognition: A tag is a word or phrase that mainly describes the key information of the question, which is usually a programmingspecific terminology (Singh et al., 2020). Hence, we directly treat tags as the entity names in the KG. Step 3. Relation Formation: There is usually more than one tag in one question. When multiple tags co-appear at the same question, we link them in the KG. Afterward, there is still a lack of entity types and edge types, and we use the community detection algorithm, Louvain (Blondel et al., 2008), to automatically classify tags, and the edge type is defined by the types of the two connected entities. Finally, we get TagKG, which includes 6,126 entities (11 categories), 56 types of relationships, and 41,227 triples. ## C.3 Result As illustrated in Table 9, there are almost no improvements or even slight decreases with EDA and SR, meaning these general DA methods are not suitable for the texts in software development forums. With the help of our constructed TagKG, PHICON achieves some performance gains by replacing same-category programming entities; this indicates that the category identified by the community detection algorithm in TagKG is effective for understanding software development related texts. By leveraging TagKG more comprehensively, KnowledgeDA works even better and improves accuracy and F1 score by 2.42% and 2.58%, respectively, compared with no-augmentation. It also implies that the construction of TagKG is valid. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Limitations ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Limitations and Ethics Statement ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Abstract and Sec. 1 (Introduction) ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Sec. 4 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Sec. 4 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)? Sec. 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? 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. Sec 4.1, Sec 4.2, Appendix A.1 ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Sec. 4.1.2 ✓ 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. 4.1.2 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? Sec. 4.1.1, Sec. 4.2, Appendix A.1 ✓ 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? Sec. 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.)? 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.

wang-etal-2023-dialogue

Dialogue Planning via Brownian Bridge Stochastic Process for Goal-directed Proactive Dialogue

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.25

Goal-directed dialogue systems aim to proactively reach a pre-determined target through multi-turn conversations. The key to achieving this task lies in planning dialogue paths that smoothly and coherently direct conversations towards the target. However, this is a challenging and under-explored task. In this work, we propose a coherent dialogue planning approach that uses a stochastic process to model the temporal dynamics of dialogue paths. We define a latent space that captures the coherence of goal-directed behavior using a Brownian bridge process, which allows us to incorporate user feedback flexibly in dialogue planning. Based on the derived latent trajectories, we generate dialogue paths explicitly using pre-trained language models. We finally employ these paths as natural language prompts to guide dialogue generation. Our experiments show that our approach generates more coherent utterances and achieves the goal with a higher success rate.

# Dialogue Planning Via Brownian Bridge Stochastic Process For Goal-Directed Proactive Dialogue Jian Wang∗ , Dongding Lin∗ , Wenjie Li Department of Computing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University {jian-dylan.wang, dongding88.lin}@connect.polyu.hk cswjli@comp.polyu.edu.hk ## Abstract Goal-directed dialogue systems aim to proactively reach a pre-determined target through multi-turn conversations. The key to achieving this task lies in planning dialogue paths that smoothly and coherently direct conversations towards the target. However, this is a challenging and under-explored task. In this work, we propose a coherent dialogue planning approach that uses a stochastic process to model the temporal dynamics of dialogue paths. We define a latent space that captures the coherence of goal-directed behavior using a Brownian bridge process, which allows us to incorporate user feedback flexibly in dialogue planning. Based on the derived latent trajectories, we generate dialogue paths explicitly using pre-trained language models. We finally employ these paths as natural language prompts to guide dialogue generation. Our experiments show that our approach generates more coherent utterances and achieves the goal with a higher success rate1. ## 1 Introduction Dialogue systems have made significant progress in generating high-quality responses for open-domain chitchat (Zhang et al., 2020; Roller et al., 2021) and assisting users in completing specific tasks (Madotto et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2019a). Instead of passively responding to users, dialogue systems can also take a proactive role to direct a conversation towards specific goals, such as introducing new and interesting topics (Wu et al., 2019b) or providing sociable recommendations on target items (Wang et al., 2022a). Such a proactive target-oriented or goal-directed dialogue system can guide conversations towards topics that the system knows how to discuss, making it promising to build autonomous conversational AI.  For goal-directed dialogue systems, the objective is to proactively direct conversations towards a designated target. Previous work has primarily predetermined the targets as specific keywords (Tang et al., 2019), topics (Wu et al., 2019b; Sevegnani et al., 2021), and dialogue action-topic pairs (Zhang et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2022a). To achieve this task, effective dialogue planning is essential, which requires taking reasonable actions and smoothly directing dialogue topics to the designated one. More importantly, the whole process is expected to be coherent and natural. Prior studies attempted to tackle this challenge through next-turn transition prediction (Tang et al., 2019), sub-goal generation (Zhang et al., 2021; Kishinami et al., 2022), and knowledge path reasoning (Gupta et al., 2022) to control dialogue generation. However, there are still open issues worth exploring. **First**, previous studies adopted a greedy strategy with a single-turn topic prediction mechanism, which lacks global planning for the dialogue process (Yang et al., 2022). Consequently, these methods are often short-sighted, resulting in sub-coherent topic threads. **Second**, recognizing a user's engagement and willingness to follow the system is crucial for achieving coherent transitions. However, current studies often overlook the importance of modeling such user feedback. Therefore, it is necessary to explore globally planned dialogue strategies while incorporating user feedback to improve the coherence of goal-directed dialogue systems. In this work, our objective is to globally plan dialogue paths that connect the current context to the target at each turn. As illustrated in Figure 1, this dialogue path should strike a balance between coherence with the ongoing dialogue context and smooth transitions towards the target. Assuming that path trajectories without a target can be represented as Brownian motion (Revuz and Yor, 2013) in latent space, we expect the embeddings of neighboring trajectory points to be similar to each other, while those of distant trajectory points to be dissimilar. Drawing inspiration from Wang et al. (2022b), we view goal-directed dialogue behavior as a Brownian bridge (Revuz and Yor, 2013) stochastic process conditioned on fixed start and end points. As such, we can derive latent trajectories that follow coherent temporal dynamics. Based on the above intuition, we propose a coherent dialogue planning approach via Brownian bridge (C**OLOR**) stochastic process. It involves mapping dialogue path points, such as topics or action-topic pairs, into a latent space of Brownian bridge conditioned on the current context and designated target. To ensure goal-directed behavior and incorporate user feedback, we also map the latest user utterance into real-time user feedback representation using the same latent space. We leverage this feedback to perturb the density and uncertainty of the Brownian bridge, simulating its impact on the dialogue planning process. Our training process uses a contrastive objective, which helps retain global coherence. We then fine-tune pre-trained language models (PLMs) using the derived latent trajectories to plan dialogue paths explicitly. These paths provide step-by-step explanations for reaching the target and serve as natural language prompts for generating system utterances. In summary, our main contributions are: (1) We propose a novel approach called COLOR, which effectively models global coherence and incorporates user feedback in goal-directed dialogue planning. Our method utilizes the Brownian bridge stochastic process, and to the best of our knowledge, this is the first work to apply this method to the goal-directed proactive dialogue task. (2) We repurpose existing dialogue datasets by automatically constructing system goals and splitting them into in- and out-ofdomain test sets. It facilitates research in the field and allows for more accurate evaluation of models. (3) Extensive experiments demonstrate that our proposed approach outperforms other methods, both in automatic and human evaluations. ## 2 Preliminaries Problem Formulation We consider a corpus of goal-directed dialogues D = {(Ki,Pi, Ci)} N i=1, where N is the total number of dialogues. The domain knowledge facts relevant to the i-th dialogue are represented as Ki = {ki,j} NK j=1, each in the form of a triple. The dialogue content for the i-th dialogue is Ci = {Ci,t} NT t=1, with a total of NT turns. The whole dialogue path for the i-th dialogue is denoted as Pi = {Pi,l} L l=1, where each path point is a topic or an action-topic pair. Here, dialogue topics are mainly constructed based on the domain knowledge Ki. In some scenarios, there also exists a user profile Ui, which can be user attributes or certain personal preferences. Given a target T consisting of an action-topic pair or a topic only, a dialogue context C, and a set of relevant domain knowledge K (and a user profile U, if any), our objective is to generate coherent utterances to reach the target T when appropriate. The problem can be decomposed into two sub-tasks: (1) **dialogue planning**, which involves planning suitable actions and topics to lead the dialogue proactively with coherent transitions to the target, and (2) **dialogue generation**, which involves generating an appropriate utterance to achieve the planned action and topic at each turn. Brownian Bridge The standard Wiener process or Brownian motion W(t) has a normal distribution with mean 0 and variance t, i.e., W(t) ∼ N (0, t). A Brownian bridge (Revuz and Yor, 2013) is a continuous-time stochastic process pinned at fixed start and end points, where its distribution B(t) is given by: $$B(t)=W(t)-{\frac{t}{T}}W(T)$$ W(T) (1) where t ∈ [0, T], T denotes the end time. Furthermore, the transition distribution of a Brownian bridge process from an initial point z0 at t = 0 to an end point zT at t = T is: $$p(z_{t}|z_{0},z_{T})\sim{\cal N}\biggl{(}\biggl{(}1-\frac{t}{T}\biggr{)}z_{0}+\frac{t}{T}z_{T},\frac{t(T-t)}{T}\biggr{)}\ \ \ (2)$$ It implies that a trajectory point zt follows a noisy linear interpolation between z0 and zT , with zt closer to z0 at the start and closer to zT at the end. The uncertainty is higher in the middle of the time interval and lower near the start and end points. The time-controlled nature of the Brownian bridge process has led to its application in various fields, such as trajectory simulation (Sousa et al., 2015) and language modeling (Wang et al., 2022b). ## 3 Method We propose a coherent dialogue planning approach via Brownian bridge (C**OLOR**) stochastic process to steer goal-directed dialogue generation. The intuition behind COLOR is to learn a mapping (see §3.1) in the Brownian bridge latent space that captures coherent temporal dynamics for planning dialogue paths. Each dialogue path consists of a sequence of topics or action-topic pairs, starting from the current context and leading to the target. We generate these paths explicitly (see §3.2) based on representations derived from the latent space, and use them to guide the generation of dialogue utterances (see §3.3). ## 3.1 Stage 1: Brownian Bridge Mapping A Brownian bridge latent space involves a nonlinear mapping that transforms observations into a low-dimensional latent space, using the Brownian bridge stochastic process. Our objective is to utilize this mapping to train an encoder F, to convert raw dialogue paths into latent representations that retain global coherence, with the overview depicted in Figure 2. In the following sections, we will introduce two crucial aspects of our approach: user feedback modeling and contrastive training. User Feedback Modeling Suppose we obtain the user feedback representation zu and have an engagement indicator δu ∈ (0, 1), which reflects the user's level of engagement and likelihood of following the system, we newly define the transition distribution of the Brownian bridge process between a start point zs0 at t = 0 and end point  ## Zst At T = T As: $$p(z_{s_{t}})\sim\mathcal{N}\Big{(}\underbrace{(1-\frac{t}{T})(z_{s_{0}}+z_{u})+\frac{t}{T}z_{s_{T}}}_{\mu_{s_{t}}},\underbrace{\frac{t(T-t)}{T}+\varphi(\delta_{u})}_{\sigma^{2}}\Big{)}\tag{3}$$ (3) where 0 *< t < T*, φ(·) is a decaying function. Here, zu is used to perturb the density (the mean µst ) of the Brownian bridge process, and δu is used to perturb its uncertainty (the variance σ 2), with perturbation strength decaying over time. This decay means that the impact of the current user feedback on future planning is reduced. Alternatively, φ(·) can be implemented with the linear decaying, i.e., φ(δu) = δu(1 − t/T), or the exponential decaying, i.e., φ(δu) = δue−t/(λT), where λ ∈ (0, 1) is a scaling factor. Contrastive Training For a tuple of observations (Su, S0, St, ST ), our objective is to ensure that their latent representations (zu, zs0 , zst, zsT ) follow the Brownian bridge transition distribution described in Eq. (3). Here, Su is the latest user utterance (and the concatenation of the user profile, if applicable), which may embody real-time user feedback information. S0 consists of the concatenated domain knowledge and dialogue context, revealing the start of the dialogue path. ST is the designated target, representing the end of the dialogue path. A *path* point, by default, refers to a topic or action-topic pair specific to the dataset. St denotes a sampled path point in the dialogue path, s.t., 0 *< t < T*. Here, T denotes the number of transitions required to reach the target. As shown in Figure 2, we build our encoder F on top of a frozen PLM encoder, which is followed by specific trainable multilayer perceptron (MLP) blocks. All the necessary latents are given by: $$z_{s_{0}}=f_{P}\bigg{(}\text{AvgPool}\big{(}f_{\theta}(S_{0})\big{)}\bigg{)},\tag{4}$$ $$z_{s_{t}}=f_{P}\bigg{(}\text{AvgPool}\big{(}f_{\theta}(S_{t})\big{)}\bigg{)},$$ (5) $$z_{s_{T}}=f_{P}\bigg{(}\text{AvgPool}\big{(}f_{\theta}(S_{T})\big{)}\bigg{)},$$ (6) $$z_{u}=f_{P}\bigg{(}f_{C}\bigg{(}\text{AvgPool}\big{(}f_{\theta}(S_{u})\big{)}\bigg{)}\bigg{)},$$ (7) $$\delta_{u}=\sigma\bigg{(}f_{E}\bigg{(}f_{C}\big{(}\text{AvgPool}(f_{\theta}(S_{u}))\big{)}\bigg{)}\bigg{)}\bigg{)}\tag{8}$$ where fθ denotes a frozen PLM encoder such as BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) or BART (Lewis et al., 2020) encoder, AvgPool(·) denotes the average pooling operation. fP , fC, and fE are MLP blocks that produce output with a latent dimension of d. σ is the Sigmoid activation function. The intuition behind the training is to ensure that the representation zst of a positive path point St sampled from the same dialogue is close to the expected embedding µst (the mean in Eq. (3)). In contrast, the representation z ′of a negative random path point S ′ t from a different dialogue is far from µst (see Figure 2) because it does not align with the Brownian bridge pinned by zs0 and zsT . We consider a contrastive objective proposed in Wang et al. (2022b) for training. Formally, given input batches B = {(Su, S0, St, ST )} consisting of randomly sampled positive path points St where 0 *< t < T*, we optimize our encoder F as follows: $$\mathcal{L}_{C L}=-\log\frac{\exp(\mathrm{d}(S_{t}^{+};\mathcal{F}))}{\sum\limits_{S_{t}^{-}\in\mathcal{B}}\exp(\mathrm{d}(S_{t}^{-};\mathcal{F}))},\tag{9}$$ $$\mathrm{d}(S_{t};\mathcal{F})=-\frac{1}{2\sigma^{2}}\left\|z_{s_{t}}-\mu_{s_{t}}\right\|_{2}^{2}\tag{10}$$ where S + tdenotes a positive tuple (Su, S0, St, ST ), S − tdenotes a negative tuple (Su, S0, S′t, ST ), σ 2is the variance in Eq. (3), µst is the mean in Eq. (3). ## 3.2 Stage 2: Planning Dialogue Paths The Brownian bridge latent space makes it easy to derive a coherent latent trajectory with temporal  dynamics. We feed the start point S0, designated target ST , and observed Su, into the trained encoder F respectively, then sample a latent trajectory z = (zs1 , zs2 , · · · , zsT ) that follows Eq. (3), where zst ∈ R d, t = 1, 2, · · · , T. Here, z acts like the transition-level latent representation that connects the ongoing dialogue context to the target, i.e., the dialogue path P to be planned. To generate the path P, we define the required input as X = [C; K; T ], which is the concatenated text of the dialogue context C, domain knowledge K, and target T . As shown in Figure 3, we feed X into a pre-trained BART (Lewis et al., 2020) model for fine-tuning, with the encoded hidden states being h = (h1, h2, · · · , hm). We discuss the generation of P by conditioning on h and z below. First, sampling the latent trajectory z requires the value T, i.e., the number of transitions to reach the target. We obtain this value by adding an MLP layer fT to the BART encoder as a predictor, which outputs the probability of T: $$p(T)=\mathrm{softmax}(W_{1}f_{T}(\bar{h})+b_{1})\qquad(11)$$ where h¯ is the average pooled representation of h, W1 and b1 are trainable parameters. We optimize the predictor using cross-entropy loss Lc. Second, our BART decoder conditions on h and the derived latent trajectory z, then generates the dialogue path P with encoder-decoder attentions. The output distribution is approximated as follows: $$\begin{array}{c}{{p_{\theta}(\hat{y}_{t})=\mathrm{softmax}(W_{2}h_{t}^{o}+b_{2}),}}\\ {{h_{t}^{o}=\mathrm{Decoder}(y_{t-1},H),}}\\ {{H=[h;W^{\mathrm{T}}z]}}\end{array}$$ t + b2), (12) where W2, b2 are trainable parameters, W denotes a linear transformation that maps the dimension of z to be identical to h, and [; ] denotes concatenation. The decoder is trained by minimizing the negative log-likelihood below: $${\mathcal{L}}_{g}=-\sum_{i=1}^{N}p(y^{(i)})\log p_{\theta}(\hat{y}^{(i)})\tag{15}$$ $(i)$ is the $N$-dimensional vector $\hat{y}^{(i)}$ where p(y (i)) is the distribution of the ground-truth dialogue path, while pθ(ˆy (i)) is the distribution of the approximated dialogue path. In addition, for the decoder's all hidden states h o = (h o1 , ho2 , · · · , hon) (see Eq. (13)) and the transformed latent trajectory z o = WTz (see Eq. (14)), they inevitably both represent the dialogue path P though at different levels. We minimize the Kullback–Leibler (KL) divergence between h oand z o: $${\mathcal{L}}_{K L}=\sum_{i=1}^{N}D_{K L}(\bar{h^{o}}^{(i)}||\bar{z^{o}}^{(i)})$$ ||z¯o(i)) (16) where h¯o and z¯o denote the average pooled representation of h oand z o, respectively. For training, our model is optimized as follows: $${\mathcal{L}}=\alpha{\mathcal{L}}_{c}+\beta{\mathcal{L}}_{g}+\gamma{\mathcal{L}}_{K L}$$ where α, β, and γ are hyperparameters. During inference, we obtain the value T inferred by the predictor fT , then sample a latent trajectory z = (zs1 , · · · , zsT ) given t = 1, · · · , T. The decoder then generates a dialogue path token by token. Additionally, no transition is needed to reach the target if T = 0. In such cases, we directly generate the dialogue path by copying the given target T . ## 3.3 Stage 3: Generating Dialogue Utterances Motivated by prior work on prompt-based learning for dialogue generation (Zheng and Huang, 2021; Madotto et al., 2021), we regard each dialogue path P as a natural language prompt to guide a generative PLM for dialogue generation. Here, P serves as a global prompt that outlines the dialogue actions and topics needed to reach the target step by step. With the power of the PLM, P helps to distill the necessary knowledge from both the input text and the PLM. To formulate the newly input X ′, we append P to the given dialogue context C and domain knowledge K, and concatenate them as: $$\lambda^{\prime}=[\mathcal{K};\mathcal{C};\mathcal{P}]$$ ′= [K; C;P] (18) where [; ] denotes concatenation. We then feed X ′into a pre-trained GPT-2 (Radford et al., 2019) or DialoGPT (Zhang et al., 2020) for supervised fine-tuning. We adopt the planned dialogue paths generated by our COLOR during inference. | Dataset | #Dial. | #Utter. | Dial. Turn | | | |---------------|----------|-----------|--------------|-----|-----| | #Max. | #Avg. | | | | | | Train | 4,256 | 68,781 | 13 | 8.1 | | | Valid | 608 | 9,677 | 14 | 8.0 | | | DuRecDial 2.0 | Test-ID | 770 | 12,299 | 13 | 8.0 | | Test-OOD | 446 | 7,962 | 12 | 8.9 | | | Train | 15,197 | 70,205 | 9 | 3.8 | | | Valid | 2,681 | 12,167 | 9 | 3.7 | | | TGConv | Test | 1,000 | 5,132 | 9 | 3.9 | ## 4 Experiments And Results 4.1 Experimental Setup $$(16)$$ Datasets The task of goal-directed proactive dialogue is under-explored, making it challenging to find feasible benchmarks for evaluation. After careful consideration, we have identified the DuRecDial 2.0 (Liu et al., 2021b) and TGConv (Yang et al., 2022) datasets as appropriate for our experiments. DuRecDial 2.0 (Liu et al., 2021b) is a crowdsourced dataset of human-to-human dialogues in recommendation-oriented scenarios. We repurpose the dataset by defining the targets as action-topic pairs. We obtain two types of splits for the test set: *in-domain* (ID) and *out-of-domain* (OOD), similar to Sevegnani et al. (2021). The OOD split ensures that none of the target topics in the test set are present in the training set, whereas the ID split allows them to appear. The TGConv (Yang et al., 2022) dataset contains high-quality open-domain dialogues on a variety of commonsense topics. Each dialogue is designed to direct the conversation towards a specific keyword or topic through coherent keyword transitions, which are categorized as either easy-to-reach or hard-to-reach based on their difficulty level. Table 1 summarizes the statistics of both datasets. More details are available in Appendix A. Baseline Methods For dialogue generation, our baselines include: **GPT-2** (Radford et al., 2019), DialoGPT (Zhang et al., 2020), and **BART** (Lewis et al., 2020). On the repurposed DuRecDial 2.0 dataset, we also compared our method with three competitive methods: **MGCG_G** (Liu et al., 2020), KERS (Zhang et al., 2021), and **TCP-Dial** (Wang et al., 2022a). We chose these methods because they are highly relevant to our problem setting, and TCP-Dial is currently the state-of-the-art model in our knowledge. Given that our method is generalizable to the existing TGConv dataset, we evaluated its effectiveness against four competitive models specific to that dataset: **MultiGen** (Ji et al., 2020), **DKRN** (Qin et al., 2020), CKC (Zhong et al., 2021), and **TopKG** (Yang et al., 2022). More details about the above methods are shown in Appendix B.1. For dialogue planning, we compared our COLOR with the planning models proposed in the above methods using a planning-enhanced paradigm. We also included **BERT** (Devlin et al., 2019) and **BART** (Lewis et al., 2020) as our baselines. More details about them are described in Appendix B.2. | Split | Model | PPL (↓) | F1 (%) | BLEU-1 / 2 | DIST-1 / 2 | Know. F1 (%) | Succ. (%) | |-------------------------------|---------|-----------|-----------------|---------------|--------------|----------------|-------------| | MGCG_G (Liu et al., 2020) | 25.32 | 35.13 | 0.316 / 0.211 | 0.016 / 0.053 | 39.53 | 29.49 | | | KERS (Zhang et al., 2021) | 20.15 | 31.27 | 0.288 / 0.196 | 0.017 / 0.061 | 41.18 | 33.75 | | | GPT-2 (Radford et al., 2019) | 5.33 | 36.86 | 0.314 / 0.222 | 0.024 / 0.081 | 43.62 | 41.80 | | | DialoGPT (Zhang et al., 2020) | 5.26 | 38.12 | 0.324 / 0.252 | 0.023 / 0.076 | 44.71 | 46.46 | | | BART (Lewis et al., 2020) | 6.46 | 36.11 | 0.279 / 0.181 | 0.030 / 0.096 | 43.33 | 58.40 | | | TCP-Dial (Wang et al., 2022a) | 5.88 | 34.46 | 0.293 / 0.201 | 0.027 / 0.091 | 45.75 | 60.49 | | | Ours (COLOR w/ GPT-2) | 5.17 | 40.43* | 0.337* / 0.243* | 0.026 / 0.084 | 50.81* | 69.14* | | | Ours (COLOR w/ DialoGPT) | 5.22 | 43.14* | 0.371* / 0.277* | 0.024 / 0.073 | 57.89* | 73.20* | | | MGCG_G (Liu et al., 2020) | 28.21 | 30.84 | 0.276 / 0.167 | 0.015 / 0.046 | 20.53 | 8.46 | | | KERS (Zhang et al., 2021) | 24.35 | 27.91 | 0.259 / 0.160 | 0.016 / 0.058 | 26.88 | 14.15 | | | GPT-2 (Radford et al., 2019) | 5.86 | 33.06 | 0.276 / 0.193 | 0.023 / 0.077 | 28.79 | 32.79 | | | DialoGPT (Zhang et al., 2020) | 5.37 | 34.27 | 0.283 / 0.176 | 0.021 / 0.068 | 31.75 | 32.47 | | | BART (Lewis et al., 2020) | 8.09 | 32.38 | 0.244 / 0.149 | 0.026 / 0.081 | 30.02 | 43.08 | | | TCP-Dial (Wang et al., 2022a) | 8.24 | 29.24 | 0.255 / 0.165 | 0.027 / 0.089 | 21.36 | 18.40 | | | Ours (COLOR w/ GPT-2) | 5.63 | 34.44* | 0.285* / 0.198* | 0.025 / 0.082 | 34.04* | 57.41* | | | Ours (COLOR w/ DialoGPT) | 5.30 | 37.97* | 0.320* / 0.227* | 0.024 / 0.072 | 41.35* | 52.36* | | Implementation Details Our proposed COLOR model is implemented by PyTorch. In both Stage 1 and Stage 2, we adopt the BART-base model (768 dimensions, 6 encoder/decoder layers, and 12 attention heads) released in Huggingface's Transformers (Wolf et al., 2020) library. The latent dimension d is set to 16. The MLP blocks fP , fC, and fE are all stacked to 3 layers. The decaying function φ(·) employs the linear decaying. The hyperparameters α, β and γ are set to 0.1, 1.0 and 1.0, respectively. For training in Stage 2, we construct the dialogue path P in the format of [A]a1[T]t1 *· · ·* [A]aT [T]tT on the DuRecDial 2.0, and of [T]t1 *· · ·* [T]tT on the TGConv. Here, [A] is a special token to separate an action ai, [T] is a special token to separate a topic ti. During inference, we generate a dialogue path token by token. Further details on training and inference are provided in Appendix C. ## 4.2 Evaluation Of Dialogue Generation Evaluation Metrics To evaluate the performance of next-turn system utterance generation, we adopt Model **Easy Target Hard Target** Succ. (%) Coh. Succ. (%) Coh. GPT-2†(G) 22.3 0.23 17.3 0.21 DialoGPT (D) 32.3 0.30 23.8 0.25 MultiGen† 26.7 0.21 19.6 0.24 DKRN† 38.6 0.33 21.7 0.31 CKC† 41.9 0.35 24.8 0.33 TopKG† 48.9 0.31 27.3 0.33 Ours (COLOR w/ G) 54.2 0.34 28.8 0.33 Ours (COLOR w/ D) **66.3 0.36 30.1 0.35** | ID OOD | |----------| commonly used local evaluation metrics, including perplexity (PPL), distinct (**DIST**) (Li et al., 2016), BLEU-n (Papineni et al., 2002), word-level F1 and knowledge F1 (**Know. F1**) (Liu et al., 2020). To evaluate models' goal-directed performance, we use the goal success rate (**Succ.**) as the global evaluation metric. In the repurposed DuRecDial 2.0 dataset, Succ. measures the proportion of correct target topic generation within the target turn and the two adjacent turns in the test set, as per Wang et al. (2022a). For the TGConv dataset, we perform self-play simulations, following Yang et al. (2022), to simulate multi-turn conversations and compute the success rate of generating the target keyword within 8 turns. Additionally, we adopt coherence (**Coh.**) (Yang et al., 2022) as another global evaluation metric, which measures the average contextual semantic similarity between the last utterance in the context and generated utterance. Results and Discussion Table 2 shows evaluation results on the DuRecDial 2.0 dataset. We observe that MGCG_G and KERS achieve comparable performance to PLM-based models on the in-domain (ID) split. One main reason is that they use the predicted dialogue action and topic to guide the model in utterance generation. However, they perform poorly in terms of goal success rate due to a lack of dialogue-level planning. We note that BART and TCP-Dial obtain much better DIST-1/2 scores than others because they seldom generate repeated words, making the generated utterances more diverse. In comparison, our models achieve remarkable improvements over most evaluation metrics. For example, our COLOR with DialoGPT achieves much better knowledge F1 scores, indicating that our method is more likely to generate utterances with correct knowledge. Regarding the goal success rate, our models obtain a large margin of improvement on both ID and OOD splits. It shows that using prompts with appropriate dialogue paths effectively steers PLMs to generate proper utterances for goal-directed dialogue. As shown in Table 3, we notice that directing a dialogue to reach the target seems challenging in the context of open-domain chitchat for all models. However, with the guidance of our dialogue planning approach, COLOR, our models are able to produce more coherent utterances and reach the target at a significantly higher success rate. ## 4.3 Evaluation Of Dialogue Planning Evaluation Metrics To evaluate the performance of dialogue planning, we first adopt F1 to measure the micro-averaged precision and recall of the predicted action or topic. For generation-based models, we extract the action or topic at the evaluated turn from the generated dialogue path for a fair comparison. Due to the nature of dialogue, multiple temporary planning strategies can be reasonable before reaching the target. Following Zhou et al. (2020), we also expand gold labels by considering the system's actions or topics within the previous and subsequent turns. As such, we then compute bigram action F1 (**Bi-act. F1**) and bigram topic F1 (**Bi-top. F1**) for evaluation. Results and Discussion Table 4 reports the evaluation results on the DuRecDial 2.0 dataset. We find that predicting or generating dialogue topics is more challenging than dialogue actions. Further analysis reveals that the dialogue actions follow | Split | Model | Action | Topic | | | |--------------|------------|----------|------------|-------|-------| | F1 | Bi-act. F1 | F1 | Bi-top. F1 | | | | MGCG | 90.26 | 92.47 | 74.93 | 79.24 | | | KERS | 90.33 | 91.54 | 77.85 | 80.35 | | | BERT | 91.68 | 92.37 | 80.64 | 82.59 | | | TCP | 92.25 | 93.82 | 85.77 | 87.25 | | | BART | 95.40 | 96.31 | 90.96 | 92.21 | | | Ours (COLOR) | 96.86 | 97.68 | 93.30 | 94.26 | | | ID | MGCG | 82.30 | 87.25 | 36.03 | 42.00 | | KERS | 84.21 | 86.39 | 34.20 | 37.85 | | | BERT | 92.23 | 94.19 | 46.55 | 52.12 | | | OOD | TCP | 89.93 | 92.09 | 44.49 | 50.71 | | BART | 92.63 | 93.18 | 58.57 | 62.37 | | | Ours (COLOR) | 93.43 | 93.82 | 79.09 | 83.46 | | | Model | F1 | Bi-top. F1 | |--------------------------------|-------|--------------| | BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) | 45.90 | 49.17 | | BART (Lewis et al., 2020) | 43.20 | 47.69 | | TopKG-Plan (Yang et al., 2022) | 46.06 | 48.04 | | Ours (COLOR) | 47.17 | 52.85 | Table 5: Results of dialogue planning on the TGConv. a similar transition pattern in the dialogue paths, making it easier for all models to predict actions with an F1 score of over 80%. On the other hand, the variation in dialogue paths is primarily related to topics, which requires complex reasoning of domain knowledge, dialogue context, and target for accurate prediction. When evaluating on the OOD split, all baselines show lower F1 and Bi-top. F1 scores for topics. However, our proposed COLOR achieves substantial improvements. We observe similar trends in Table 5 when evaluating on the TGConv dataset. Overall, our COLOR outperforms the baselines by generating more reasonable actions and appropriate topics, making it a promising approach for planning dialogue paths. Analysis of Model Variants We analyze the following variants of our model: (1) C**OLOR**d=?, which varies the value of the latent dimension d in {8, 32, 128} (The d in our COLOR is set to 16 as described in §4.1); (2) w/o Brownian bridge (BB), which removes the operation of conditioning on the derived Brownian bridge latent representation z; (3) w/o user feedback modeling (UFM), which removes zu and φ(δu) in our Brownian bridge process as defined in Eq. (3); (4) w/o LKL, which means the model is trained without the loss LKL. We report evaluation results on the OOD split of the DuRecDial 2.0 dataset, as shown in Table 6. | Model | Action | Topic | | | |------------|------------|---------|------------|-------| | F1 | Bi-act. F1 | F1 | Bi-top. F1 | | | COLORd=8 | 93.21 | 93.73 | 79.21 | 83.30 | | COLORd=32 | 91.24 | 92.82 | 78.03 | 83.34 | | COLORd=128 | 93.57 | 94.30 | 78.67 | 82.89 | | COLOR | 93.43 | 93.82 | 79.09 | 83.46 | | w/o BB | 93.66 | 93.93 | 62.45 | 64.27 | | w/o UFM | 92.42 | 92.84 | 77.21 | 80.57 | | w/o LKL | 92.95 | 93.01 | 77.34 | 80.97 | We observe that a larger value of d brings fewer performance gains. Hence, the d in our COLOR is set to 16 after making a trade-off between effectiveness and efficiency. We note that each module or mechanism of COLOR contributes to dialogue planning. In particular, the performance of COLOR sharply drops without the Brownian bridge (BB). It is because the derived Brownian bridge latent trajectory serves as a transition-level latent representation of the dialogue path to be planned. More importantly, it follows coherent temporal dynamics and thus benefits planning the dialogue path. ## 4.4 Human Evaluation We recruit three well-educated graduate students as annotators for human evaluation. We ask the annotators to score different models based on turnlevel and dialogue-level metrics, following Liu et al. (2020). The turn-level evaluation measures appropriateness (**Appr.**) and informativeness (**Info.**). The dialogue-level evaluation measures proactivity (**Proact.**), coherence (**Coh.**), and goal success (**Succ.**). More details on the metrics and evaluation procedure are described in Appendix D. Table 7 shows human evaluation results on the DuRecDial 2.0 dataset. The Fleiss's kappa (Fleiss, 1971) scores are mainly distributed between [0.41, 0.60], indicating moderate inter-annotator agreement. We observe that DialoGPT, TCP-Dial, and ours obtain comparable scores in informativeness since they all utilize powerful PLMs. However, our method is able to generate more appropriate utterances in response to dialogue context. For dialogue-level evaluation, our method obtains better results on average compared to all baseline models. Notably, our method achieves the highest coherence score and goal success rate, indicating that our method is more likely to direct the dialogue to reach the target coherently and successfully. | Model | Appr. | Info. | Proact. | Coh. | Succ. | |----------|---------|---------|-----------|--------|---------| | MGCG_G | 0.84 | 1.02 | 0.92 | 0.92 | 0.90 | | DialoGPT | 1.17 | 1.35 | 1.06 | 1.17 | 1.19 | | TCP-Dial | 1.20 | 1.24 | 1.26 | 1.20 | 1.02 | | Ours | 1.33 | 1.40 | 1.42 | 1.35 | 1.38 | | kappa | 0.48 | 0.52 | 0.46 | 0.56 | 0.53 | ## 4.5 Case Study To better analyze goal-directed dialogue generation, we show some cherry-picked cases in Appendix E due to space limitation. We observe that some baseline models can generate fluent and informative utterances. However, they still fail to direct the dialogue to reach the target and are ineffective to maintain coherence. In comparison, our COLOR model can plan a dialogue path with reasonable actions and appropriate topics that outlines how to reach the target step by step. With the guidance of the planned dialogue path, our system better knows when and what to talk about to proactively move the dialogue forward. More importantly, our method succeeds in achieving the goal (see Appendix E). ## 5 Related Work Goal-directed Dialogue Generation In the goaldirected or target-oriented setting, existing studies mainly predetermine the targets as specific keywords (Tang et al., 2019; Qin et al., 2020; Zhong et al., 2021), topics (Wu et al., 2019b; Sevegnani et al., 2021; Lei et al., 2022), and dialogue actiontopic pairs (Zhang et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2022a). The key to the task is dialogue planning, which leads the dialogue towards the target smoothly and coherently. Prior work pays attention to next-turn transition strategy (Tang et al., 2019), hierarchical policy (Xu et al., 2020a,b), and sub-goal generation (Zhang et al., 2021; Kishinami et al., 2022). For this knowledge-rich task, recent work (Gupta et al., 2022; Yang et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022a) further concerns planning a dialogue path based on grounded knowledge to guide every turn of response generation. Planning for Language Generation There is a line of work (Puduppully et al., 2019; Hua and Wang, 2019; Moryossef et al., 2019; Su et al., 2021) that separates text generation into content planning and surface realization. Content planning mainly concerns selecting key content (e.g., key entities) and arranging their orders. Several planning frameworks (Hua et al., 2021; Hu et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022) have been studied to control complex language generation tasks. Our work is more related to planning for dialogue generation (Kishinami et al., 2022; Yang et al., 2022; Cohen et al., 2022). Our proposed COLOR is a novel dialogue-level planning method that steers dialogue generation. ## 6 Conclusion In this work, we explore the task of goal-directed proactive dialogue and focus on planning dialogue paths that direct conversations towards the designated target. We propose a novel approach called COLOR, which models coherent temporal dynamics for dialogue paths in the defined latent space, and considers the impact of user feedback on the dialogue planning process. We employ the planned dialogue paths as prompts to steer dialogue generation. Experiments show that our proposed method outperforms other methods significantly. ## Limitations Though our proposed method exhibits superior performance, we also recognize its limitations and discuss potential solutions. Our proposed method for goal-directed dialogue generation suffers from error propagation since the three stages perform in a pipeline manner. After analyzing those generated utterances with low human evaluation scores, we find that the performance of dialogue generation is prone to drop when our COLOR model fails to plan an appropriate dialogue path. We intend to alleviate this issue by introducing some techniques in the cascaded generation, such as noisy channel models (Shannon, 1948; Liu et al., 2021a). In addition, other issues, such as how to make existing goal-directed dialogue systems more engaging and personalized, are worth further exploring. ## Ethical Considerations Goal-directed dialogue systems can be used for creating non-obtrusive recommendations for specific products and services, introducing interesting new topics and educating users about those topics, and so forth. Developing such systems requires careful consideration since it has a broad impact on applications. The intention of our work is not to force the system to reach the designated target nor force users to accept recommendations. Instead, we aim to build better assistive technologies to improve the proactiveness of dialogue systems. Furthermore, our experimental datasets are publicly available. They have been filtered for sensitive and private information during dataset construction. We hope to raise awareness of the potential for misuse of such systems with toxic intentions. For example, such systems may be used to pose as humans and actively manipulate users' perceptions on specific issues or political inclinations. To mitigate these risks, we emphasize the importance of improving transparency through regulations. It is essential to inform users that they are conversing with a bot instead of a human, and regulations on target designation are crucial when deploying these systems in specific domains. It is necessary to ensure that setting a target does not violate factual accuracy, user privacy rules, or human laws. ## Acknowledgments This work was supported by the Research Grants Council of Hong Kong (15207122, 15207920, 15207821, 15204018) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (62076212). It was also supported in part by PolyU internal grants (ZVQ0, ZVVX). ## References Deborah Cohen, Moonkyung Ryu, Yinlam Chow, Orgad Keller, Ido Greenberg, Avinatan Hassidim, Michael Fink, Yossi Matias, Idan Szpektor, Craig Boutilier, et al. 2022. Dynamic planning in open-ended dialogue using reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.02294. 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. Emily Dinan, Varvara Logacheva, Valentin Malykh, Alexander Miller, Kurt Shuster, Jack Urbanek, Douwe Kiela, Arthur Szlam, Iulian Serban, Ryan Lowe, et al. 2020. The second conversational intelligence challenge (convai2). In *The NeurIPS'18* Competition, pages 187–208. Springer. Joseph L Fleiss. 1971. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. *Psychological bulletin*, 76(5):378. Prakhar Gupta, Harsh Jhamtani, and Jeffrey Bigham. 2022. Target-guided dialogue response generation using commonsense and data augmentation. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022*, pages 1301–1317, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Zhe Hu, Hou Pong Chan, Jiachen Liu, Xinyan Xiao, Hua Wu, and Lifu Huang. 2022. PLANET: Dynamic content planning in autoregressive transformers for long-form text generation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2288– 2305, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xinyu Hua, Ashwin Sreevatsa, and Lu Wang. 2021. DYPLOC: Dynamic planning of content using mixed language models for text generation. 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 6408–6423, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xinyu Hua and Lu Wang. 2019. Sentence-level content planning and style specification for neural text generation. 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 591–602, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Haozhe Ji, Pei Ke, Shaohan Huang, Furu Wei, Xiaoyan Zhu, and Minlie Huang. 2020. Language generation with multi-hop reasoning on commonsense knowledge graph. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 725–736, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1412.6980. Yosuke Kishinami, Reina Akama, Shiki Sato, Ryoko Tokuhisa, Jun Suzuki, and Kentaro Inui. 2022. Target-guided open-domain conversation planning. In *Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics*, pages 660–668, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics. Wenqiang Lei, Yao Zhang, Feifan Song, Hongru Liang, Jiaxin Mao, Jiancheng Lv, Zhenglu Yang, and TatSeng Chua. 2022. Interacting with non-cooperative user: A new paradigm for proactive dialogue policy. In *Proceedings of the 45th International ACM* SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 212–222. 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. Jiwei Li, Michel Galley, Chris Brockett, Jianfeng Gao, and Bill Dolan. 2016. 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. Qintong Li, Piji Li, Wei Bi, Zhaochun Ren, Yuxuan Lai, and Lingpeng Kong. 2022. Event transition planning for open-ended text generation. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022*, pages 3412–3426, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Qi Liu, Lei Yu, Laura Rimell, and Phil Blunsom. 2021a. Pretraining the noisy channel model for task-oriented dialogue. *Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, 9:657–674. Zeming Liu, Haifeng Wang, Zheng-Yu Niu, Hua Wu, and Wanxiang Che. 2021b. DuRecDial 2.0: A bilingual parallel corpus for conversational recommendation. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on* Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4335–4347, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Zeming Liu, Haifeng Wang, Zheng-Yu Niu, Hua Wu, Wanxiang Che, and Ting Liu. 2020. Towards conversational recommendation over multi-type dialogs. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1036– 1049, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Andrea Madotto, Zhaojiang Lin, Genta Indra Winata, and Pascale Fung. 2021. Few-shot bot: Promptbased learning for dialogue systems. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2110.08118. Andrea Madotto, Chien-Sheng Wu, and Pascale Fung. 2018. Mem2Seq: Effectively incorporating knowledge bases into end-to-end task-oriented dialog systems. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1468–1478, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. Amit Moryossef, Yoav Goldberg, and Ido Dagan. 2019. Step-by-step: Separating planning from realization in neural data-to-text generation. 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 2267–2277, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and WeiJing 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, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ratish Puduppully, Li Dong, and Mirella Lapata. 2019. Data-to-text generation with content selection and planning. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 33, pages 6908–6915. Jinghui Qin, Zheng Ye, Jianheng Tang, and Xiaodan Liang. 2020. Dynamic knowledge routing network for target-guided open-domain conversation. In *Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence*, 05, pages 8657–8664. 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. Daniel Revuz and Marc Yor. 2013. Continuous martingales and brownian motion. Springer Science & Business Media, 293. Stephen Roller, Emily Dinan, Naman Goyal, Da Ju, Mary Williamson, Yinhan Liu, Jing Xu, Myle Ott, Eric Michael Smith, Y-Lan Boureau, and Jason Weston. 2021. Recipes for building an open-domain chatbot. In *Proceedings of the 16th Conference of* the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 300–325, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Karin Sevegnani, David M. Howcroft, Ioannis Konstas, and Verena Rieser. 2021. OTTers: One-turn topic transitions for open-domain dialogue. 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 2492–2504, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Claude Elwood Shannon. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. *The Bell system technical journal*, 27(3):379–423. J Beleza Sousa, Manuel L Esquível, and RM Gaspar. 2015. Brownian bridge and other path-dependent gaussian processes vectorial simulation. *Communications in Statistics-Simulation and Computation*, 44(10):2608–2621. Robyn Speer, Joshua Chin, and Catherine Havasi. 2017. Conceptnet 5.5: An open multilingual graph of general knowledge. In *Thirty-first AAAI conference on* artificial intelligence. Yixuan Su, David Vandyke, Sihui Wang, Yimai Fang, and Nigel Collier. 2021. Plan-then-generate: Controlled data-to-text generation via planning. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021*, pages 895–909, Punta Cana, Do- minican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jianheng Tang, Tiancheng Zhao, Chenyan Xiong, Xiaodan Liang, Eric Xing, and Zhiting Hu. 2019. Targetguided open-domain conversation. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5624–5634, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In *Advances in neural information processing systems*, pages 5998–6008. Jian Wang, Dongding Lin, and Wenjie Li. 2022a. Follow me: Conversation planning for target-driven recommendation dialogue systems. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2208.03516. Rose E Wang, Esin Durmus, Noah Goodman, and Tatsunori Hashimoto. 2022b. Language modeling via stochastic processes. In *International Conference on* Learning Representations (ICLR). Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, 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 (EMNLP): System Demonstrations, pages 38–45, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Chien-sheng Wu, Richard Socher, and Caiming Xiong. 2019a. Global-to-local memory pointer networks for task-oriented dialogue. In *7th International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)*. Wenquan Wu, Zhen Guo, Xiangyang Zhou, Hua Wu, Xiyuan Zhang, Rongzhong Lian, and Haifeng Wang. 2019b. Proactive human-machine conversation with explicit conversation goal. In *Proceedings of the* 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3794–3804, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jun Xu, Haifeng Wang, Zheng-Yu Niu, Hua Wu, Wanxiang Che, and Ting Liu. 2020a. Conversational graph grounded policy learning for open-domain conversation generation. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1835–1845, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jun Xu, Haifeng Wang, Zhengyu Niu, Hua Wu, and Wanxiang Che. 2020b. Knowledge graph grounded goal planning for open-domain conversation generation. In *Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on* Artificial Intelligence, 05, pages 9338–9345. Zhitong Yang, Bo Wang, Jinfeng Zhou, Yue Tan, Dongming Zhao, Kun Huang, Ruifang He, and Yuexian Hou. 2022. TopKG: Target-oriented dialog via global planning on knowledge graph. In *Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics*, pages 745–755, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics. Jun Zhang, Yan Yang, Chencai Chen, Liang He, and Zhou Yu. 2021. KERS: A knowledge-enhanced framework for recommendation dialog systems with multiple subgoals. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, pages 1092–1101, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. 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 Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations, pages 270–278, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Chujie Zheng and Minlie Huang. 2021. Exploring prompt-based few-shot learning for grounded dialog generation. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.06513*. Peixiang Zhong, Yong Liu, Hao Wang, and Chunyan Miao. 2021. Keyword-guided neural conversational model. In *Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on* Artificial Intelligence, 16, pages 14568–14576. Yiheng Zhou, Yulia Tsvetkov, Alan W Black, and Zhou Yu. 2020. Augmenting non-collaborative dialog systems with explicit semantic and strategic dialog history. In *International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)*. ## A Dataset Descriptions And Pre-Processing DuRecDial 2.0 The DuRecDial 2.0 (Liu et al., 2021b) dataset is collected from crowdsourced human-to-human dialogues. In each dialogue, one person is defined as the seeker (the user's role) and the other as the recommender (the system's role). The recommender needs to proactively lead the dialogue and make recommendations by introducing new topics. Each seeker is equipped with a user profile containing user attributes (e.g., age range) and his/her past preference information. In order to smoothly converse with the seeker, the recommender has a domain knowledge graph consisting of domain-specific topics (e.g., movies, music) with related attributes. More importantly, a dialogue path composed of dialogue actions and topics is annotated for the recommender from the beginning to the end of the dialogue. All dialogues are  aligned across the English and Chinese languages. We adopt the dataset in English for experiments. Since there are no explicit annotated targets, we repurpose the original dataset automatically. For all those dialogues that are proactively led by the system, we treat the topic that the user has accepted at the end of each dialogue as the target topic, and view the system's corresponding action (e.g., movie recommendation, point-of-interest recommendation, etc.) as the target action. Each target topic is guaranteed to be grounded in the domain knowledge triples corresponding to the dialogue. We filter out those dialogues without introducing any new recommendation topics. The total number of topics is 628 (including a NULL topic). Figure 4 shows the statistics of all the system's actions. We observe an average of 4.3 ∼ 4.8 action-topic transitions from the beginning to reaching the target. Following the splitting criterion (Liu et al., 2021b), we obtain training/validation/test sets with 4,256/608/1,216 dialogues, respectively. To investigate the performance of different methods for goal-directed dialogue generation, we further use the dataset with two types of splits for the test set: *in-domain (ID)* split and *out-of-domain (OOD)* split, similar to Sevegnani et al. (2021); Gupta et al. (2022). The OOD split ensures that none of the target topics in the test set are present in the training set. In contrast, the target topics in the ID split are allowed to appear in the training set. TGConv The TGConv (Yang et al., 2022) dataset is extracted based on the chit-chat corpus ConvAI2 (Dinan et al., 2020), and the external commonsense KG ConceptNet (Speer et al., 2017). In the TGConv dataset, all target-oriented samples are identified by the dialogue utterances containing a go-through keyword/concept sequence that aligns with the KG path over the ConceptNet. Suppose the designated global target keyword is wn, a transition path of keywords or concepts P = {w1 *→ · · · →* wn} is annotated for each dialogue. Here, each neighbor word pair (i.e., wi and wi+1) is direct or low-order connected in the ConceptNet. On average, the number of transitions from the start context to the target is approximately 5. Furthermore, the target keywords are distinguished into "*easy-to-reach*" and "*hard-to-reach*". Specifically, the *easy-to-reach* targets refer to target keywords with high frequency in the corpus. In comparison, target words with low frequency (less than 800) in the corpus are classified as *hard-toreach* targets because there are fewer cases to learn the transition to low-frequency target words. In this work, we follow the same data splitting as in Yang et al. (2022) for experiments. ## B Baseline Methods B.1 Dialogue Generation To evaluate dialogue generation quality, we first consider the following PLMs-based methods: - **GPT-2** (Radford et al., 2019): It is an autoregressive generation model for language generation. We use the GPT-2 base2 model for fine-tuning. - **DialoGPT** (Zhang et al., 2020): It is an autoregressive dialogue generation model pre-trained using large-scale dialogue corpora. We adopt the pre-trained small3 model for fine-tuning. - **BART** (Lewis et al., 2020): It is a denoising encoder-decoder model for language generation. We use the BART-base4 model for fine-tuning. Note that these models concatenate all parts of input texts described in the problem formulation as the model input and are fine-tuned to generate utterances directly. On the DuRecDial 2.0 dataset, we additionally consider several competitive models that follow the planning-enhanced generation paradigm: - **MGCG_G** (Liu et al., 2020): It employs the predicted next dialogue action and next topic to 2https://huggingface.co/gpt2 3https://huggingface.co/microsoft/ DialoGPT-small 4https://huggingface.co/facebook/bart-base guide utterance generation. We re-run the officially released code5 on the repurposed dataset. - **KERS** (Zhang et al., 2021): It leverages a knowledge-enhanced mechanism to guide dialogue generation. We re-run the available code6 on the repurposed dataset. - **TCP-Dial** (Wang et al., 2022a): It builds a targetdriven conversation planning method to explicitly extract necessary knowledge and then guides dialogue generation. We re-run the available code7 on the repurposed dataset. On the TGConv dataset, we consider the following competitive models: - **MultiGen** (Ji et al., 2020): It is a language generation model with multi-hop reasoning on commonsense knowledge graphs. - **DKRN** (Qin et al., 2020): It builds a dynamic knowledge routing network for topic transitions. - CKC (Zhong et al., 2021): It is a keywordguided neural conversational model that leverages ConceptNet for keyword transitions. - **TopKG** (Yang et al., 2022): It employs global planning on ConcepNet to guide dialogue generation and is the state-of-the-art approach8 on the TGConv dataset. ## B.2 Dialogue Planning To compare the performance of dialogue planning for goal-directed dialogues, we consider the following dialogue planning methods: - **MGCG** (Liu et al., 2020): It makes multi-task predictions for the next-turn's dialogue action and topic. However, it assumes that ground-truth historical dialogue actions and topics are known for a system. For a fair comparison in this work, we adopt the same input as our problem definition to conduct multi-task predictions. - **KERS** (Zhang et al., 2021): It generates the nextturn's dialogue action and topic based on a Transformer (Vaswani et al., 2017) network. 5https://github.com/PaddlePaddle/Research/ tree/master/NLP/ACL2020-DuRecDial 6https://github.com/z562/KERS 7https://github.com/iwangjian/Plan4RecDial 8https://github.com/yyyyyyzt/topkgchat - TCP (Wang et al., 2022a): It is a target-driven planning framework that plans a dialogue path consisting of dialogue actions and topics in a generation-based manner. - **TopKG-Plan** (Yang et al., 2022): It employs reinforcement learning to plan a commonsense keyword path based on ConceptNet. - **BERT** (Devlin et al., 2019): Based on the intuition of multi-task predictions, we fine-tune the widely-used BERT model by adding two fullyconnected layers to jointly predict the next-turn's dialogue action and topic. We use the uncased BERT-base9 model for fine-tuning. - **BART** (Lewis et al., 2020): Based on the intuition of generation, we use the BART-base model for fine-tuning, which is then used to generate a dialogue path similar to ours. ## C Training And Inference Details In Stage 1, we set the batch size for contrastive training to 64 and adopt the Adam (Kingma and Ba, 2014) optimizer with a learning rate of 2e-4. We train our encoder F for 10 epochs. For training in Stage 2, we adopt the Adam optimizer with an initial learning rate of 2e-5 and warm up over the first 10% training steps. We train our COLOR for a maximum of 10 epochs with a batch size of 16. The best checkpoint is chosen based on its performance on the validation set. For inference, we employ greedy decoding to generate a dialogue path token by token, with a maximum decoding length of 80. In Stage 3, we employ GPT-2 base and DialoGPTsmall (see Appendix B.1) as our backbone models. We follow the description in §3.3 and fine-tune backbone models for 10 epochs. For a fair comparison, we use greedy decoding with a maximum decoding length of 100 for all models. We conduct experiments on one NVIDIA 3090 GPU machine. ## D Procedure Of Human Evaluation For turn-level evaluation, we randomly sampled 50 dialogues from the ID test split and 50 dialogues from the OOD test split from the DuRecDial 2.0 dataset. We then compared the generated utterances of the following models: MGCG_G, DialoGPT, TCP-Dial, and ours (COLOR w/ DialoGPT). For a fair comparison, the models were randomly renamed as "model-1", "model-2", and 9https://huggingface.co/bert-base-uncased so forth. The annotators were then asked to mark scores for the compared models from (1) appropriateness (**Appr.**), which measures whether the utterance responds to the dialogue context appropriately, and (2) informativeness (**Info.**), which measures whether the utterance is informative by making full use of the grounded knowledge. For dialogue-level evaluation, we asked our annotators to act as users and converse with the models. Each model's generated utterance in the current turn was used as part of the dialogue context in the next turn. Our annotators were asked to maintain consistency with the equipped user profile. To ensure diverse evaluation targets, we randomly selected 5 target actions from the DuRecDial 2.0 test set, each paired with 10 different target topics, resulting in a total of 50 targets evaluated. We did not expose the targets to them during human-model conversations and restricted all conversations to no more than 12 turns. We finally released the designated targets to the annotators and asked them to score the models based on three evaluation metrics: (1) proactivity (**Proact.**), which measures whether a model proactively leads the dialogue; (2) coherence (**Coh.**), which manually examines whether the whole dialogue is fluent, coherent, and smoothly transited; (3) goal success (**Succ.**), which estimates whether a model effectively reaches the target. Our annotators were required to score the generated dialogues rating in {0, 1, 2}, where higher is better. The agreement among the annotators is measured by Fleiss's kappa (Fleiss, 1971). We reported each model's average score from different annotators as the ultimate human evaluation result. In addition, we transparently informed all annotators of our research intent. We paid reasonable wages and provided enough time for the annotators to complete the evaluation. ## E Case Study Table 8 and Table 9 show some cases on the DuRecDial 2.0 and TGConv datasets, respectively. | Target: Movie recommendation (target action) | The Art of Action: Martial Arts in Motion (target topic) | | | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------| | Model | Example | Dialogue Planning | | User: Do you know who starred in the movie Jackie Chan: My Story? Bot: of course. it's jackie chan. User: Well, I see. You are so brilliant! Bot: you're welcome. let's talk about movies. let's talk about movies. (not fluent and coherent) User: OK. What would you like to talk about? Bot: jackie chan's movies are very good. User: Yeah, that's why I love him so much. Bot: i recommend you to see rumble in the bronx. it's very good. it's a very good movie. User: Yeah. Of course. Bot: you have a good taste. the rumble in the bronx is recommended to you (not reach the target) | Respond Q&A | Jackie Chan: My Story Respond Q&A | Jackie Chan: My Story Chat about stars | Jackie Chan | | | MGCG_G | Movie recommendation | Rumble in the Bronx Movie recommendation | Rumble in the Bronx | | | User: Do you know who starred in the movie Jackie Chan: My Story? Bot: Yes, it's Jackie Chan. User: Well, I see. You are so brilliant! Bot: You're welcome. Speaking of Jackie Chan, he is really a very good actor. User: Yeah. I sincerely love him! Bot: Yes, he has won the Golden Horse Award for Best Actor. User: Wow, that's great. Bot: He also won the Hong Kong Film Award for Best Actor. User: Anything else? Bot: Well, it's a documentary movie. It's worth to recommend to you. Don't miss it! (not coherent with context) ... (get trapped) | | | | DialoGPT | (no dialogue planning) | | | User: Do you know who starred in the movie Jackie Chan: My Story? Bot: Yes, it's Jackie Chan. User: Well, I see. You are so brilliant! Bot: You're welcome. Jackie Chan is a Chinese martial arts superstar. User: Yeah. I sincerely love him! Bot: Well, he has won the Golden Horse Award for Best Actor. He has many good movies. (more coherent) User: Wow, that's great. Bot: I'd recommend his movie The Art of Action: Martial Arts in Motion Picture to you. User: Sounds good. Bot: It's a documentary movie expressing Hong Kong kung fu movies. Don't miss it. (succeed to reach the target) | P1: [A] Respond Q&A [T] Jackie Chan: My Story [A] Chat about stars [T] Jackie Chan [A] Movie recommendation [T] The Art of Action: Martial Arts in Motion Picture P2: [A] Chat about stars [T] Jackie Chan [A] Movie recommendation [T] The Art of Action: Martial Arts in Motion Picture | | | Ours | P3: (same as P2) P4: [A] Movie recommendation [T] The Art of Action: Martial Arts in Motion Picture P5: (same as P4) | | Table 8: Generated cases from dialogue-level human evaluations on the DuRecDial 2.0 dataset. The bot's utterances are generated by different models, including (a) MGCG_G, (b) DialoGPT, and (c) Ours (COLOR w/ DialoGPT). The topics and topic-related attributes that also appear in the domain knowledge are marked with underlines. | Start Keywords: wear → shoes | Easy Target: computer | | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Context | A: it is freezing outside, i enjoy wearing skinny jeans. B: i am often gunning for new shoes lol. | | | Model | Example | Dialogue Planning | | A: i love tee shirts with rock band logos. B: that sounds more cozy. what is your favorite band? A: i'm young but i love old stuff, beatles. B: that is nice. A: it's cool! i like working on the computer (succeed to reach the target) | shirt → band → stuff → computer | | | TopKG | A: oh, me too. my favorite shirts are flannel ruffle sleeves. B: really that's sick love them, why do you like that? A: i enjoy playing video games and listening to music. B: is that game rolls royce's ghost tho am i right. A: yeah, it is the wallpaper for my computer. (succeed to reach the target more coherently) | P1: [T] shirt [T] band [T] music [T] computer P2: [T] like [T] music [T] computer P3: [T] play [T] game [T] computer P4: [T] game [T] computer P5: [T] computer | | Ours Start Keywords: day → living | Hard Target: barbershop | | | Context | A: i enjoy lawn mowing on sunny days. B: i enjoy green living and just put solar panels on roof. | | | Model | Example | Dialogue Planning | | A: i do live rpg events over the weekends. B: wow, are you living in game or like that? A: i gonna make it a big one day. B: amazing dream, huh? ... (get trapped) | event → game → day → dream → · · · | | | TopKG | A: cool. do you only live with your parents? B: yes i do. i also have two dogs myself. A: ha, i love dogs. but my italian wife doesn't. B: not easy. dogs must spend a lot of time outdoors. A: lol, but she love going to the pet barbershop for pictures. (succeed to reach the target) P1: [T] live [T] family [T] outdoor [T] barbershop P2: [T] dog [T] room [T] outdoor [T] barbershop P3: [T] wife [T] outdoor [T] barbershop P4: [T] outdoor [T] barbershop P5: [T] outdoor [T] barbershop | | | Ours | | | Table 9: Generated cases from self-play simulations on the TGConv dataset. The compared models include (a) TopKG and (b) Ours (COLOR w/ DialoGPT). ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist 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 "Ethical Considerations". ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Section "Abstract" and 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 4.1. ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 4.1; Appendices A, B.1-B.2, C. ✗ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? We will include the license and terms of use when releasing our code and data. ✓ 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. ✓ 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? Appendix A. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Appendix A. ✓ 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 4.1 and Appendix A. ## 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? Appendix C. 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 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 4.2. ✓ 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.1-B.2. D ✓ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Section 4.4. ✓ 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.? Section 4.4. and Appendix D. ✓ 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 4.4. and Appendix D. ✓ 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 4.4. and Appendix D. 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.

badathala-etal-2023-match

A Match Made in Heaven: A Multi-task Framework for Hyperbole and Metaphor Detection

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.26

Hyperbole and metaphor are common in day-to-day communication (e.g., {``}I am in deep trouble{''}: how does trouble have depth?), which makes their detection important, especially in a conversational AI setting. Existing approaches to automatically detect metaphor and hyperbole have studied these language phenomena independently, but their relationship has hardly, if ever, been explored computationally. In this paper, we propose a multi-task deep learning framework to detect hyperbole and metaphor simultaneously. We hypothesize that metaphors help in hyperbole detection, and vice-versa. To test this hypothesis, we annotate two hyperbole datasets- HYPO and HYPO-L- with metaphor labels. Simultaneously, we annotate two metaphor datasets- TroFi and LCC- with hyperbole labels. Experiments using these datasets give an improvement of the state of the art of hyperbole detection by 12{\%}. Additionally, our multi-task learning (MTL) approach shows an improvement of up to 17{\%} over single-task learning (STL) for both hyperbole and metaphor detection, supporting our hypothesis. To the best of our knowledge, ours is the first demonstration of computational leveraging of linguistic intimacy between metaphor and hyperbole, leading to showing the superiority of MTL over STL for hyperbole and metaphor detection.

# A Match Made In Heaven: A Multi-Task Framework For Hyperbole And Metaphor Detection Naveen Badathala∗, Abisek Rajakumar Kalarani∗**, Tejpalsingh Siledar**∗, Pushpak Bhattacharyya Department of Computer Science and Engineering, IIT Bombay, India {naveenbadathala, abisekrk, tejpalsingh, pb}@cse.iitb.ac.in ## Abstract  Hyperbole and metaphor are common in dayto-day communication (*e.g.*, "I am in deep trouble": how does *trouble* have *depth*?), which makes their detection important, especially in a conversational AI setting. Existing approaches to automatically detect metaphor and hyperbole have studied these language phenomena independently, but their relationship has hardly, if ever, been explored computationally. In this paper, we propose a multi-task deep learning framework to detect hyperbole and metaphor simultaneously. We hypothesize that metaphors help in hyperbole detection, and vice-versa. To test this hypothesis, we annotate two hyperbole datasets- *HYPO* and *HYPO-L*- with metaphor labels. Simultaneously, we annotate two metaphor datasets- *TroFi* and LCCwith hyperbole labels. Experiments using these datasets give an improvement of the state of the art of hyperbole detection by ∼ 12%. Additionally, our multi-task learning (MTL) approach shows an improvement of up to ∼ 17% over single-task learning (STL) for both hyperbole and metaphor detection, supporting our hypothesis. To the best of our knowledge, ours is the first demonstration of computational leveraging of linguistic intimacy between metaphor and hyperbole, leading to showing the superiority of MTL over STL for hyperbole and metaphor detection1. ## 1 Introduction The use of figurative language is very common in natural discourse, and it is reflected in the content generated in social media networks (Abulaish et al., 2020). Figurative languages are used to establish some communicative goals such as expressing a negative emotion, drawing attention to a part of the text, or adding interest to a subject. (Roberts and Kreuz, 1994). The understanding of figurative *Equal contribution. 1Code and data are available at: https://github.com/ abisekrk/multitask_hyperbole_metaphor_detection languages like sarcasm, metaphor, simile, irony, and hyperbole is crucial for many NLP tasks such as building accurate sentiment analysis systems or developing conversational AI systems that can hold meaningful conversations (Figure 1). This has led to great interest and value in understanding these figurative languages. Figurative languages like metaphor (Rai and Chakraverty, 2020) and sarcasm (Joshi et al., 2017) are studied extensively while hyperbole remains less explored. Metaphor is the most common choice of figurative language, while hyperbole is the second most adopted rhetorical device in communication (Roger J., 1996) and hence it is important to study and process them automatically. Hyperbole is a figurative language that uses exaggeration to emphasize a point, while metaphor makes a comparison between two things to indicate a resemblance. ## 1.1 Motivation Relevance theorists had long treated both metaphors and hyperboles as not genuinely distinct categories as they are very closely related to each other (Sperber and Wilson, 2008). Recent research has highlighted the distinctive features of hyperboles over metaphors (Carston and Wearing,   2015). However, on the computational side, hyperbole and metaphor detection have been treated as isolated problems so far. Both metaphors and hyperboles use figurative elements to express an idea rather than presenting them literally, but this linguistic insight hasn't been exploited computationally in previous works. We hypothesize that this shared characteristic can be captured at the embedding level by training transformer models to learn these representations jointly using multi-task learning. Existing metaphor detection systems focus on identifying metaphoricity at the token-level, whereas hyperbole detection systems focus on sentence-level classification. In our work, we highlight the effectiveness of performing sentence-level classification for both hyperboles and metaphors in a multi-task setting. ## 1.2 Contributions Our contributions are: 1. Extensions to the existing datasets amounting to 16, 024 sentences which include, (a) HYPO and HYPO-L datasets annotated with metaphor labels. (b) TroFi and LCC datasets annotated with hyperbole labels. 2. Demonstration of the superiority of multitasking over single-tasking for hyperbole and metaphor detection. 3. State-of-the-art results for sentence-level hyperbole detection on the HYPO dataset (F1 score- 0.881). Sentence | Sentence | |------------------------------------------------| | Your plan is too risky, its a suicide | | This kind of anger rages like a sea in a storm | | Her strength awoke in poets an abiding love | | My ex boyfriend! Treacherous person | ##### Hyperhole Metaphora $\begin{array}{cc}&&\checkmark\\ &&\checkmark\\ &&\checkmark\\ \times&&\checkmark\\ \times&&\checkmark\end{array}$ Figure 3: Example sentences with Hyperbole and Metaphor labels. 4. Benchmark results sentence-level for metaphor detection on our label-balanced LCC dataset (F1 score- 0.805). ## 2 Background And Definitions Metaphor Metaphor is a literary device that uses an implicit comparison to drive home a new meaning. Metaphors consist of a source and target domain in which the features from the source domain are related to the features in the target domain through comparable properties (Lakoff, 1993). For instance, "Life is a journey," implies a comparison between life and journey through the idea of having a beginning and an end. In this work, we do not consider similes as metaphors as they make an explicit comparison. Hyperbole Hyperbole is a figurative language in which the literal meaning is exaggerated intentionally. It exaggerates expressions and blows them up beyond the point they are perceived naturally with the objective of emphasizing them (Claridge, 2010). For example, "I'm tired, I can't lift my hand," exaggerates the speaker's exhaustion. Figure 3 shows examples of metaphor and hyperbole. ## 3 Related Work Metaphors and hyperboles are the most used figures of speech in everyday utterances (Roger J., 1996). In recent years, significant efforts have been made to understand metaphors and hyperboles, giving rise to interesting techniques to automatically detect and generate them. Troiano et al. (2018) introduced hyperbole detection as a binary classification task, using traditional machine learning algorithms. They also released a dataset named 'HYPO' for hyperbole detection. Kong et al. (2020) introduced 'HYPO-cn', a Chinese dataset for hyperbole detection, and showed that deep learning models can perform better at hyperbole detection with increased data. Biddle et al. (2021) used a BERT (Devlin et al., 2018) based detection system that used the literal sentences of the hyperbolic counterparts to identify the hyperbolic and nonhyperbolic use of words and phrases. They also released a test suite for evaluating models. Tian et al. (2021) proposed a hyperbole generation task. Zhang and Wan (2022) introduced an unsupervised approach for generating hyperbolic sentences from literal sentences and introduced two new datasets 'HYPO-XL' and 'HYPO-L' for their experiments. Metaphors have been extensively studied even before hyperbole detection was introduced. Tsvetkov et al. (2014) introduced the TSV dataset with 884 metaphorical and non-metaphorical adjective-noun (AN) phrases. They showed that conceptual mapping learnt between literal and metaphorical words is transferable across languages. Mohler et al. (2016) introduced the LCC dataset which contains sentence-level annotations for metaphors in four languages totaling 188, 741 instances. Steen (2010) studied metaphor at the word level and was the first to include function words for metaphor detection with the new VUA dataset. Birke and Sarkar (2006) introduced the TroFi dataset that consists of verbs in their literal and metaphoric form. In recent years, metaphor detection has been explored with the aid of large language models. Choi et al. (2021) used the contextual embeddings from BERT (Devlin et al., 2018) and RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) to classify metaphorical sentences. Aghazadeh et al. (2022) probed and analyzed the metaphorical knowledge gained by large language models by testing them on metaphor datasets across languages. Previous research on metaphor and hyperbole detection typically treats these figurative language forms separately, despite their common properties. In this work, we propose a multi-task approach that simultaneously detects both hyperboles and metaphors, and demonstrate that this approach outperforms individual detection tasks with experimental results and detailed analysis. ## 4 Task Formulation For a sentence x and a corresponding label y or labels y1, .., yk (k > 1), we can mathematically formulate the different learning tasks shown in Figure 2 as: Single Task Learning (STL) $$\begin{array}{c c}{{y^{*}=a r g m a x\,P(y|\mathbf{x};\theta)}}&{{\quad\quad(1)}}\\ {{y\in\{0,1\}}}&{{}}\\ {{P(y|\mathbf{x};\theta)=\rho(f(E(\mathbf{x})))}}&{{\quad\quad(2)}}\end{array}$$ where E and f represent the encoder and the feedforward neural network (classification head) respectively, θ represents the weights from both E and f, and ρ represents the softmax function. The crossentropy loss function can be defined as: $${\mathcal{L}}={\frac{-1}{D}}\sum_{i=1}^{D}(y_{i}\log{\hat{y_{i}}}+(1-y_{i})\log(1-{\hat{y_{i}}}))\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad(3)$$ (4) $\binom{5}{4}$ . where D is the number of training samples, yi and yˆi are the i th true and predicted labels. Multi-Task Learning with shared Encoder (MTL-E) $$\begin{array}{c}{{y_{k}^{*}=a r g m a x\,P(y_{k}|\mathbf{x};\theta_{k})}}\\ {{y_{k}{\in}\{0,1\}}}\\ {{P(y_{k}|\mathbf{x};\theta_{k})=\rho(f_{k}(E(\mathbf{x})))}}\end{array}$$ P(yk|x; θk) (4) where k represents the number of tasks, yk are the labels, fk are feed-forward neural networks and θk are the weights for the k tasks respectively. For k = 2 the loss function can be written as: $${\mathcal{L}}=\lambda{\mathcal{L}}_{1}+(1-\lambda){\mathcal{L}}_{2}$$ $$(6)$$ where L1,L2 are task specific losses calculated similar to Eq. 3 and λ is the weighting factor. Multi-Task Learning with Fully shared layers (MTL-F) $$y_{1}^{*},y_{2}^{*}=\operatorname*{argmax}_{y_{1},y_{2}\in\{0,1\}}P(y_{1},y_{2}|\mathbf{x};\theta)\qquad(7)$$ Here, the loss is a binary cross-entropy loss: $$\mathcal{L}=\frac{-1}{D}\sum_{i=1}^{D}\sum_{j=1}^{m}(y_{ij}\log(\sigma(l_{ij})$$ $$+(1-y_{ij})\log(1-\sigma(l_{ij})))\tag{8}$$ where σ is the sigmoid function and m is the number of labels and lij represents the logit value for the i th instance and the j th label. | Dataset (# sentences) | Hyp. | Met. | # sent. | |-------------------------|--------|--------|-----------| | ✓ | ✓ | 515 | | | ✓ | ✗ | 194 | | | ✗ | ✓ | 107 | | | ✗ | ✗ | 602 | | | HYPO (1,418) | ✓ | ✓ | 237 | | ✓ | ✗ | 770 | | | ✗ | ✓ | 19 | | | ✗ | ✗ | 2,200 | | | HYPO-L (3,326) | | | | ## 5 Datasets And Annotations In this section, we delve into the hyperbole and metaphor datasets used and their annotation details. ## 5.1 Hyperbole Datasets Our experiments used two hyperbole datasets: HYPO (Troiano et al., 2018) and HYPO-L (Zhang and Wan, 2022). The HYPO dataset contains 709 hyperbolic sentences each with a corresponding paraphrased literal sentence resulting in 1, 418 sentences. The HYPO-L dataset includes 1, 007 hyperbolic sentences and 2, 219 paraphrased sentences. For each sentence in the HYPO and HYPO-L datasets, we added metaphor labels. Table 1 shows the statistics of the annotated hyperbole datasets. ## 5.2 Metaphor Datasets We used two metaphor datasets: LCC (Mohler et al., 2016) and TroFi (Birke and Sarkar, 2006). We manually annotated 3, 838 (out of 5, 482) sentences in the TroFi dataset and 7, 542 (out of 40, 138) sentences in the LCC dataset with hyperbole labels. For statistics refer to Table 2. ## 5.3 Annotation Details We employed four annotators proficient in English in the age group of 24-30. Three annotators were master's students and one had an M.A in linguistics. They were provided with detailed annotation instructions along with examples of hyperbole and metaphors. Each instance of the dataset was annotated once and the annotations were equally divided among the four annotators. We first conducted pilot studies for annotation with randomly sampled 100 sentences from each dataset before proceeding to the final annotation. The Inter Annotator Agreement (IAA) was computed using pairwise Cohen's Kappa score (κ) and Fleiss' Kappa score (K) as reported in Table 3. The IAA between any two annotators is above 0.60 (0.61 ≤ κ ≤ 0.80; Cohen (1960)), indicating *substantial* agreement between them. The Fleiss' Kappa score of 0.674 is also considered *substantial* (0.61 ≤ K ≤ 0.80; Landis and Koch (1977)). To ensure the quality of annotations, we randomly sampled 1100 instances with an equal split of hyperbole and metaphor labels across all datasets. The annotators were asked to mark sentences as hyperbole if there was any exaggeration and as metaphors if there were any implicit comparisons. In addition to giving binary labels, we also asked the annotators to mark the part of the sentence that influenced their decisions. Doing this helped us identify any discrepancies in their understanding and correct them. All four annotators received stipends suitable for the tasks. | Dataset (# sentences) | Met. | Hyp. | # sent. | |-------------------------|--------|--------|-----------| | ✓ | ✓ | 209 | | | ✓ | ✗ | 1,710 | | | ✗ | ✓ | 235 | | | ✗ | ✗ | 1,684 | | | TroFi (3,838) | ✓ | ✓ | 615 | | ✓ | ✗ | 3,187 | | | ✗ | ✓ | 144 | | | ✗ | ✗ | 3,596 | | | LCC (7,542) | | | | | Cohen's Kappa (κ) | A | B | C | |---------------------|-------|-------|-------| | B | 0.740 | | | | C | 0.651 | 0.653 | | | D | 0.647 | 0.650 | 0.707 | | Fleiss' Kappa (K) | 0.674 | | | Task Model Hyperbole **Metaphor** Precision Recall F1 Precision Recall F1 STL BERTlg 0.827 0.801 0.811 0.751 0.686 0.711 ALBERTxxl2 0.845 0.871 0.856 0.695 0.736 0.713 RoBERTalg **0.883** 0.848 0.864 0.801 0.709 0.745 MTL-F BERTlg 0.853 0.824 0.836 0.799 0.686 0.729 ALBERTxxl2 0.847 0.878 0.860 0.757 **0.761** 0.753 RoBERTalg 0.879 0.884 0.881∗ **0.826** 0.752 **0.787** Table 4: Comparison of Transformer models using 10-fold cross-validation over three different runs for hyperbole and metaphor detection task on the **HYPO** dataset. Significance test (t-test) p-value (∗) = 0.0322 (<0.05). Task Model Hyperbole **Metaphor** Precision Recall F1 Precision Recall F1 STL BERTlg 0.670 0.598 0.630 0.561 0.466 0.506 ALBERTxxl2 0.649 0.542 0.589 0.513 0.414 0.456 RoBERTalg 0.688 0.651 0.667 0.591 0.543 0.563 MTL-F BERTlg 0.655 0.619 0.638 0.552 0.464 0.503 ALBERTxxl2 0.638 0.593 0.614 0.498 0.385 0.430 RoBERTalg 0.706 0.668 0.687∗ 0.599 0.554 **0.572** ## 6 Experiments We conduct four experiments: 1) Comparing STL and MTL-F on hyperbole and metaphor datasets, 2) Comparing STL, MTL-E, and MTL-F models, 3) Obtaining sentence-level benchmark results on the metaphor dataset, and 4) Comparing with established baselines for the hyperbole dataset. For our experiments, we used label-balanced metaphor datasets to address the imbalance caused by fewer hyperbole (Refer to **Appendix** A.2). To ensure a fair comparison, we used mean 10-fold cross-validation obtained over three different runs to compare our models. However, we did not compare our results with existing work on metaphor detection as it does token-level instead of sentencelevel metaphor prediction. Finally, we used simple models to highlight the efficacy of a multi-tasked framework for a sophisticated task. ## 6.1 Hyperbole Baselines Troiano et al. (2018) used cognitive features, such as imageability, unexpectedness, polarity, subjectivity, and emotional intensity for hyperbole detection, referred to as QQ (i.e. Qualitative and Quantitative). We compare our results with their best-performing Logistic Regression and Naive Bayes models, referred to as **LR+QQ** and **NB+QQ** in Table 9. Kong et al. (2020) used a combination of the QQ features and a pre-trained BERT, referred to as BERTbase+QQ in Table 9. The QQ features were concatenated with the BERT's output and passed through a linear classifier to predict hyperbole. Biddle et al. (2021) used literal paraphrases as privileged information and incorporated this information using a triplet loss. We refer to this model as BERTbase+PI in Table 9. We show that our multitask model outperforms all these baselines. ## 6.2 Experimental Setup We experiment with bert-large-uncased (BERTlg) (Devlin et al., 2018), albert-xxlarge-v2 (ALBERTxxl2) (Lan et al., 2020), and roberta-large (RoBERTalg) (Liu et al., 2019) models (h = 16, l = 24). The best-performing models use the following hyperparameters: For the STL model we use a learning rate of 1e − 4 for 5 epochs and a batch size of 16. For the MTL-E model, the learning rate is 1e − 5 for 20 epochs, a batch size of 32, and the loss weighting factor λ of 0.5 whereas, for the MTL-F model, the learning rate is 1e − 5 for 10 epochs and a batch size of 16. We use Adam (Kingma and Ba, 2015) with eps of 1e − 4 to optimize all our models. | Task | Model | Hyperbole | Metaphor | | | | |------------|---------|-------------|------------|--------|-------|--------| | Precision | Recall | F1 | Precision | Recall | F1 | | | BERTlg | 0.557 | 0.412 | 0.466 | 0.531 | 0.559 | 0.538 | | ALBERTxxl2 | 0.424 | 0.234 | 0.294 | 0.489 | 0.430 | 0.454 | | RoBERTalg | 0.607 | 0.446 | 0.496 | 0.542 | 0.469 | 0.490 | | BERTlg | 0.565 | 0.433 | 0.486 | 0.556 | 0.525 | 0.540 | | ALBERTxxl2 | 0.487 | 0.241 | 0.312 | 0.516 | 0.457 | 0.475 | | RoBERTalg | 0.605 | 0.529 | 0.561 | 0.565 | 0.587 | 0.573∗ | Table 6: Comparison of Transformer models using 10-fold cross-validation accuracy over three different runs for hyperbole and metaphor detection on the label balanced **TroFi** dataset. Significance test (t-test) p-value (∗) < 0.0001. | Task | Model | Hyperbole | Metaphor | | | | |------------|---------|-------------|------------|--------|-------|--------| | Precision | Recall | F1 | Precision | Recall | F1 | | | BERTlg | 0.649 | 0.542 | 0.589 | 0.758 | 0.736 | 0.745 | | ALBERTxxl2 | 0.591 | 0.546 | 0.564 | 0.723 | 0.757 | 0.739 | | RoBERTalg | 0.692 | 0.604 | 0.645 | 0.802 | 0.787 | 0.794 | | BERTlg | 0.633 | 0.531 | 0.575 | 0.750 | 0.774 | 0.760 | | ALBERTxxl2 | 0.614 | 0.425 | 0.499 | 0.709 | 0.785 | 0.744 | | RoBERTalg | 0.630 | 0.691 | 0.659 | 0.798 | 0.812 | 0.805∗ | ## 6.3 Hyperparameter Details We did hyperparameter search manually with the following search space: number of epochs = [5, 7, 10, 15, 20, 25], learning rate = [1e-5, 5e-5, 1e-4, 2e-4, 5e-4], and batch size = [4, 8, 16, 32, 64]. The hyperparameters of the best-performing models have been mentioned in Section 6.2. The training runs for STL, MTL-E, and MTL-F models were 150, 600, and 300 respectively and 30 evaluation runs each. ## 6.4 Hypothesis Testing We used t-test, which is a statistical test used to determine if there is a significant difference between the means of two groups. The p-value here is a statistical measure that is used to assess the evidence against a null hypothesis. A p-value < 0.05 is typically considered to be statistically significant. The null hypothesis to reject here is that both the samples for STL and MTL-F models come from the same distribution. For all our experiments, we obtain a p-value < 0.05 indicating that the samples are indeed coming from different distributions. This shows that the improvement obtained by the MTL-F model over the STL model is statistically significant. ## 7 Results STL vs. MTL-F models We use identical experimental setups to compare the results obtained from the STL and MTL-F approach on all four datasets. 1. HYPO results: The comparative analysis results for the HYPO dataset are in Table 4. For all the models we observe that the MTL-F performs better than the corresponding STL. Overall the RoBERTalg MTL-F model achieves the best recall of 0.884 and F1 of **0.881** (1.96% ↑) for hyperbole detection and a p-value of **0.0322**. 2. HYPO-L results: The comparative analysis results for the HYPO-L dataset are in Table 5. For all the models we observe that the MTL-F performs better than the corresponding STL for hyperbole detection. Overall the RoBERTalg MTL-F model achieves the best precision of 0.706, recall of 0.668, and F1 of **0.687** (2.99% ↑) for hyperbole detection and a p-value of **0.0438**. 3. TroFi results: The comparative analysis results for the label-balanced TroFi dataset is in Table 6. For all the models we observe that the MTL-F performs better than the corresponding STL for metaphor detection. Overall the RoBERTalg MTLF model achieves the best precision of 0.565, recall of 0.587, and F1 of 0.573 (**16.93**% ↑) for metaphor 393 | Task | Model | Hyperbole | Metaphor | | | | | |-----------|-----------|-------------|------------|--------|-------|-------|-------| | Precision | Recall | F1 | Precision | Recall | F1 | | | | STL | RoBERTalg | 0.883 | 0.848 | 0.864 | 0.802 | 0.787 | 0.794 | | MTL-E | RoBERTalg | 0.859 | 0.878 | 0.867 | 0.792 | 0.808 | 0.799 | | MTL-F | RoBERTalg | 0.879 | 0.884 | 0.881 | 0.798 | 0.812 | 0.805 |  Model P R F1 LR+QQ 0.679 0.745 0.710 NB+QQ 0.689 0.696 0.693 BERTbase 0.711 0.735 0.709 BERTbase+QQ 0.650 0.765 0.671 BERTbase+PI 0.754 0.814 0.781 Ours RoBERTalg STL **0.883** 0.848 0.864 RoBERTalg MTL-E 0.859 0.878 0.867 RoBERTalg MTL-F 0.879 0.884 **0.881** Baselines ## Detection And A P-Value < **0.0001**. 4. LCC results: The comparative analysis results for the label-balanced LCC dataset are in Table 7. For all the models we observe that the MTLF performs better than the corresponding STL for metaphor detection. Overall the RoBERTalg MTLF model achieves the best recall of 0.812, and F1 of **0.805** (1.38% ↑) for metaphor detection and a p-value of **0.0221**. We observe: a) The MTL-F model helps in achieving generalization under the presence of both hyperbole and metaphor labels. b) The p-values (30 samples) suggest that the MTL-F results are statistically significant over the STL results with 95% confidence for all the datasets (**Appendix** 6.4). STL vs. MTL-E vs. MTL-F models Table 8 reports the comparison of these three models on the HYPO and LCC datasets for hyperbole and metaphor detection respectively. We observe that, in comparison to the STL model, the MTL-E model performs better in general whereas the MTL-F model performs significantly better, achieving the best F1 score of **0.881** and **0.805** on the HYPO and LCC datasets respectively. (See **Appendix** A.3). Benchmark Results We report the benchmark results for sentence-level detection on the label balanced LCC dataset in Table 8 (check the Metaphor column). Our RoBERTalg MTL-F model achieves the best recall of **0.812** and F1 of **0.805**. Baseline Comparison Table 9 reports the comparison of our work with baseline models on the HYPO dataset for hyperbole detection. Our RoBERTalg MTL-F model achieves the best recall of **0.884** (8.59% ↑) and F1 of 0.881 (**12.03**% ↑) as compared to the recall of 0.814 and F1 of 0.781 of the state-of-the-art system. ## 8 Analysis We divide our analysis into two subsections: 1) A comparison of the STL and MTL-F models, and 2) Error analysis of the MTL-F model. | Sentences | Actual | MTL-F | STL | | |-------------------------------------------------|----------|---------|-------|----| | HD | MD | | | | | Your plan is too risky, it's a suicide. | H, M | H, M | NH | NM | | I'm not staying here any longer! | NH, NM | NH, NM | H | NM | | This kind of anger rages like a sea in a storm. | H, NM | H, NM | H | M | | My ex boyfriend! Treacherous person! | NH, NM | NH, NM | H | M | | They cooked a turkey the size of a cow. | H, M | H, M | H | NM | | Her strength awoke in poets an abiding love. | NH, M | NH, M | H | M | | My sister is a vortex of intelligence in space. | H, M | H, M | H | M | | The act of love strongly resembles severe pain. | NH, NM | NH, NM | NH | NM | Table 10: Some cases where the MTL-F performs better than the STL for hyperbole detection (HD) and metaphor detection (MD). Here H denotes a hyperbolic sentence, M denotes a metaphoric sentence, NH denotes a nonhyperbolic sentence, and NM denotes a non-metaphoric sentence. Notations in red indicate incorrect detection. | Sentences | Actual | MTL-F | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|---------| | What kind of sorcery is this? | H, M | NH, NM | | You're grumpy. | NH, NM | NH, M | | ..this car is more a sophisticated piece of machinery than a regular car. | NH, NM | H, NM | | Stop bothering him: you're inviting trouble. | NH, M | NH, NM | | The work of the farm seemed to rest entirely on this horse's mighty shoulders. | H, M | NH, M | Table 11: Error cases where MTL-F fails in the detection task. Here H denotes a hyperbolic sentence, M denotes a metaphoric sentence, NH denotes a non-hyperbolic sentence, and NM denotes a non-metaphoric sentence. ## 8.1 Comparative Analysis Under similar experimental setups, we compare the STL and MTL-F models on example sentences obtained from the different test sets of the crossvalidation run of the HYPO dataset as shown in Table 10. We consider the following 4 cases: 1. Hyperbolic and Metaphoric: "They cooked a turkey the size of a cow," is both hyperbolic and metaphorical. Here, the exaggeration is evident as the size of the turkey is being compared to that of a cow, which allows both the STL and MTL-F models to make correct hyperbole predictions. However, for metaphor prediction, the MTL-F model correctly identifies the implicit meaning of "size being big" under the influence of the correct hyperbole label, while the STL model fails to do so. Next, for the example sentence, "Your plan is too risky, it's a suicide," the exaggeration and the metaphoricity are very intricate. The words *risky* and *suicide* make it difficult for the STL model to detect the labels, but the MTL-F model accurately identifies them. This can be attributed to the MTLF model's ability to learn from both labels. 2. Non-Hyperbolic and Non-Metaphoric: In some cases, the STL model may incorrectly classify sentences that are non-hyperbolic and nonmetaphoric due to ambiguous language. For example, in the sentence "I'm not staying here any longer!" the words *staying* and *longer* may give the impression of exaggeration, causing the STL model to incorrectly classify it as hyperbolic. However, the MTL-F model, by learning both hyperbole and metaphor detection simultaneously, is able to identify such cases as non-hyperbolic. Similarly, in *"My ex boyfriend! Treacherous person!"* the word *treacherous* may lead the STL model to incorrectly classify it as hyperbolic and metaphoric, but the MTL-F model classifies it correctly. 3. Hyperbolic and Non-Metaphoric: For this category, we notice that similes can cause confusion. For instance, in the sentence *"This kind of* anger rages like a sea in a storm," anger is explicitly compared to *sea in a storm* through the word like. The MTL-F model is able to distinguish this as a simile, whereas the STL model fails to do so. 4. Non-Hyperbolic and Metaphoric: Here we observe that the use of figurative language is subtle. For instance, in "Her strength awoke in poets an abiding love," awoke is used metaphorically, which is correctly identified by both the STL and MTL-F models. However, the STL model incorrectly tags it as hyperbolic, while the MTL-F model learns to identify such sentences as non-hyperbolic. ## Analysis Of Attention Weights: Additionally, we also examine the attention weights from the final layer to gain an insight into the performance of the MTL-F model compared to the STL model. We use the weights associated with the **[CLS] / <s>** ([CLS] for BERT and <s> for RoBERTa) token normalized over all the attention heads. First, we compare the STL and MTL-F models for the task of hyperbole detection. Figure 4. shows attention weight comparison of example sentences. For the sentence "Hope deferred makes the heart sick," we observe that the MTL-F model focuses on the words *heart* and *sick* that indicate exaggeration, while the STL model focuses on other irrelevant words. Similarly, for *"Books are food for avid readers,"* the MTL-F model correctly focuses on the words Books, *food* and *readers*. This suggests that the MTL-F model is better at paying attention to relevant words in the sentence due to its knowledge of both hyperbole and metaphor detection. Next, for metaphor detection, the presence of hyperbole labels during training helps the MTL-F to learn to correctly attend to relevant tokens. For example, in "After workout I feel I could lift a sumo wrestler," the MTL-F focuses on the words *lift* and wrestler to correctly identify it as metaphoric. Similarly, for *"Seeing my best friend again would mean* the world to me," the MTL-F pays the maximum attention to the words would, *mean*, and *world* which is the reason for metaphoricity here. ## 8.2 Error Analysis We also analyzed the misclassifications for the MTL-F model, some of which have been included in Table 11. We observe that the primary reason for misclassifications in the MTL-F model is the lack of context in identifying the exaggeration or metaphoricity. For instance, "What kind of sorcery is this?" is a commonly used figurative sentence but the absence of any context makes it difficult for the MTL-F model to classify it correctly as both hyperbolic and metaphoric. Next, we found cases such as *"You're grumpy,"* where the MTL-F model tags them incorrectly as metaphoric. Such mistakes could be attributed to the model learning to identify implicit comparisons but failing to identify that *grumpy* here is an attribute not a comparison. ## 9 Conclusion And Future Work We have presented a novel multi-tasking approach to the detection of hyperboles and metaphors. We augmented the annotations of two hyperbole datasets with metaphor labels and that of two metaphor datasets with hyperbole labels. This allowed multi-task learning of metaphor and hyperbole detection, which outperforms single-task learning on both tasks. We establish a new SOTA for hyperbole detection and a new benchmark for sentence-level metaphor detection. The take-away message is that metaphor and hyperbole detection help each other and should be done together. We plan to extend our framework of exploiting linguistic relatedness and thereby creating MTL detection systems, to all forms of figurative languages like proverbs, idioms, humour, similes, and so on. ## 10 Limitations The scope of this work is limited to sentence-level detection due to the absence of any span-level annotated datasets for hyperbole detection. Also, we could only partially annotate the metaphor datasets due to resource constraints. Finally, we did not try sophisticated large language models in our work as our goal was to demonstrate the effectiveness of multitasking using a simple model, rather than to test the performance of more sophisticated models. ## 11 Ethical Considerations We perform our experiments on existing hyperbole and metaphor datasets by adding additional labels to them. Some of the examples in these datasets use slurs, abuses, and other derogatory terms to bring out exaggeration or implicit comparison. Our models may also propagate these unintended biases due to the nature of the datasets. We urge the research community to use our models and these datasets with caution and we are fully committed to removing discrepancies in the existing hyperbole and metaphor datasets in the future. ## Acknowledgements We thank our annotation team for all the efforts taken to ensure quality during the annotation. Special mention to Akash Bhagat from the annotation team for his efforts. We thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful feedback. We also thank our colleagues at CFILT Lab, IIT Bombay for their valuable comments and suggestions. ## References Muhammad Abulaish, Ashraf Kamal, and Mohammed J. Zaki. 2020. A survey of figurative language and its computational detection in online social networks. ACM Trans. Web, 14(1). Ehsan Aghazadeh, Mohsen Fayyaz, and Yadollah Yaghoobzadeh. 2022. Metaphors in pre-trained language models: Probing and generalization across datasets and languages. Rhys Biddle, Maciek Rybinski, Qian Li, Cecile Paris, and Guandong Xu. 2021. Harnessing privileged information for hyperbole detection. In Proceedings of the The 19th Annual Workshop of the Australasian Language Technology Association, pages 58–67, Online. Australasian Language Technology Association. Julia Birke and Anoop Sarkar. 2006. A clustering approach for nearly unsupervised recognition of nonliteral language. In 11th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 329–336, Trento, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Robyn Carston and Catherine Wearing. 2015. Hyperbolic language and its relation to metaphor and irony. Journal of Pragmatics, 79:79–92. Minjin Choi, Sunkyung Lee, Eun-Kyu Choi, Heesoo Park, Junhyuk Lee, Dongwon Lee, and Jongwuk Lee. 2021. Melbert: Metaphor detection via contextualized late interaction using metaphorical identification theories. *ArXiv*, abs/2104.13615. Claudia Claridge. 2010. *Hyperbole in English: A* corpus-based study of exaggeration. Cambridge University Press. Jacob Cohen. 1960. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. *Educational and psychological measurement*, 20(1):37–46. 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*. Aditya Joshi, Pushpak Bhattacharyya, and Mark J Carman. 2017. Automatic sarcasm detection: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 50(5):1–22. Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2015. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. *CoRR*, abs/1412.6980. Li Kong, Chuanyi Li, Jidong Ge, Bin Luo, and Vincent Ng. 2020. Identifying exaggerated language. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 7024–7034, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. George Lakoff. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. 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. *ArXiv*, abs/1909.11942. J Richard Landis and Gary G Koch. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. biometrics, pages 159–174. 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*, abs/1907.11692. Michael Mohler, Mary Brunson, Bryan Rink, and Marc Tomlinson. 2016. Introducing the LCC metaphor datasets. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'16), pages 4221–4227, Portorož, Slovenia. European Language Resources Association (ELRA). Sunny Rai and Shampa Chakraverty. 2020. A survey on computational metaphor processing. ACM Comput. Surv., 53(2). Richard M. Roberts and Roger J. Kreuz. 1994. Why do people use figurative language? Psychological Science, 5(3):159–163. Kreuz Roger J. 1996. Figurative language occurrence and co-occurrence in contemporary literature. Teven Le Scao, Angela Fan, Christopher Akiki, Ellie Pavlick, Suzana Ilic, Daniel Hesslow, Roman ´ Castagné, Alexandra Sasha Luccioni, François Yvon, Matthias Gallé, et al. 2022. Bloom: A 176bparameter open-access multilingual language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.05100. D. Sperber and D. Wilson. 2008. Relevance: Communication and cognition. A Deflationary Account of Metaphor, page 84 - 108. Cited by: 1. Gerard Steen. 2010. A method for linguistic metaphor identification : from mip to mipvu. Yufei Tian, Arvind krishna Sridhar, and Nanyun Peng. 2021. HypoGen: Hyperbole generation with commonsense and counterfactual knowledge. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021*, pages 1583–1593, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2302.13971. Enrica Troiano, Carlo Strapparava, Gözde Özbal, and Serra Sinem Tekiroglu. 2018. A computational ex- ˘ ploration of exaggeration. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3296–3304. Yulia Tsvetkov, Leonid Boytsov, Anatole Gershman, Eric Nyberg, and Chris Dyer. 2014. Metaphor detection with cross-lingual model transfer. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 248–258, Baltimore, Maryland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yunxiang Zhang and Xiaojun Wan. 2022. MOVER: Mask, over-generate and rank for hyperbole generation. In *Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of* the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 6018–6030, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. ## A Appendix A.1 Experimental Details For experiments, we use the NVIDIA A100-SXM480GB GPU. Check Table 12 for further details. | Model | #Parameters | Run time | |------------|---------------|------------| | BERTlg | ∼ 335M | ∼ 25 mins | | ALBERTxxl2 | ∼ 222M | ∼ 45 mins | | RoBERTalg | ∼ 355M | ∼ 26 mins | Table 12: Additional details of the models along with their number of parameters and run time. ## A.2 Label Balanced Metaphor Datasets As discussed in Section 6, we used label-balanced metaphor datasets to address the imbalance caused by fewer hyperbole. Table 13 reports the statistics of the label-balanced metaphor datasets. Dataset #H #NH #M #NM   TroFi 444 1100 709 835 LCC 634 1400 1217 817 Table 13: Statistics of label balanced metaphor datasets. \#H, \#NH, \#M, and \#NM represent the number of hyperboles, non-hyperboles, metaphors, and non-metaphors respectively. ## A.3 Stl Vs. Mtl-E Vs. Mtl-F Models Detailed comparison of the STL, MTL-E and MTLF models are reported in Table 14 and Table 15. For hyperbole detection we used the HYPO dataset whereas for metaphor detection we used label balanced LCC dataset. Table 8 in the paper reports the comparison of only the best performing models for brevity. Table 14: Comparison of STL, MTL-E, and MTL-F models on the HYPO dataset for hyperbole detection. STL BERTlg 0.758 0.736 0.745 ALBERTxxl2 0.723 0.757 0.739 RoBERTalg **0.802** 0.787 0.794 MTL-E BERTlg 0.737 0.762 0.749 ALBERTxxl2 0.654 0.610 0.629 RoBERTalg 0.792 0.808 0.799 | Task | Model | Hyperbole | | |------------|---------|-------------|-------| | Precision | Recall | F1 | | | BERTlg | 0.827 | 0.801 | 0.811 | | ALBERTxxl2 | 0.845 | 0.871 | 0.856 | | RoBERTalg | 0.883 | 0.848 | 0.864 | | BERTlg | 0.817 | 0.788 | 0.802 | | ALBERTxxl2 | 0.726 | 0.746 | 0.734 | | RoBERTalg | 0.859 | 0.878 | 0.867 | | BERTlg | 0.853 | 0.824 | 0.836 | | ALBERTxxl2 | 0.847 | 0.878 | 0.860 | | RoBERTalg | 0.879 | 0.884 | 0.881 | MTL-F BERTlg 0.750 0.774 0.760 ALBERTxxl2 0.709 0.785 0.744 RoBERTalg 0.798 0.812 **0.805** | Task | Model | Metaphor | | |------------|---------|------------|-------| | Precision | Recall | F1 | | | BERTlg | 0.758 | 0.736 | 0.745 | | ALBERTxxl2 | 0.723 | 0.757 | 0.739 | | RoBERTalg | 0.802 | 0.787 | 0.794 | | BERTlg | 0.737 | 0.762 | 0.749 | | ALBERTxxl2 | 0.654 | 0.610 | 0.629 | | RoBERTalg | 0.792 | 0.808 | 0.799 | | BERTlg | 0.750 | 0.774 | 0.760 | | ALBERTxxl2 | 0.709 | 0.785 | 0.744 | | RoBERTalg | 0.798 | 0.812 | 0.805 | Table 15: Comparison of STL, MTL-E, and MTL-F on the label balanced LCC dataset for metaphor detection. ## B Case Study: Hyperbole And Metaphor Detection Using Llms We tested the zero-shot capabilities of recent  LLMs for hyperbole and metaphor detection. We experimented with a varied set of prompts on the open sources LLMs- LLaMA (Touvron et al., 2023) and BLOOM (Scao et al., 2022). We found that they do not have any deeper understanding of hyperboles and metaphors and performed poorly in the classification task. Our observations with ChatGPT are as follows. ChatGPT had a good understanding of what hyperbole and metaphor are and was able to classify popular examples correctly. However, it struggled to perform multi-class classification when sentences had both hyperbole and metaphor properties. It also struggled to identify many hyperboles. When pointed out explicitly that it has made a mistake, and a particular part of the sentence is an indication of hyperbole or metaphor, it was able to correct itself and explain the reason. We experienced such issues with all combinations of presence or absence of metaphor and hyperbole. The example instances demonstrating the same are shown below. ## B.1 Example 1 User: Can you detect if the sentence has hyperbole or metaphor or both in it? Sentence: That sharp bend is a death-trap for motorists. ChatGPT: Yes, I can detect that the sentence contains a metaphor. The sentence "That sharp bend is a death-trap for motorists" is a metaphor because it is comparing the sharp bend to a death-trap, suggesting that the bend is extremely dangerous and potentially deadly for motorists. The metaphor is used to create a vivid and impactful image in the reader's mind. User*: Does it have a hyperbole?* ChatGPT: No, the sentence does not contain hyperbole. Hyperbole is an exaggerated statement or claim not meant to be taken literally. The sentence "That sharp bend is a death-trap for motorists" is not an exaggeration, but rather a metaphorical comparison between the sharp bend and a deathtrap. User*: Isn't "death-trap" a hyperbole?* ChatGPT*: You are correct, "death-trap" in this* context can be considered a hyperbole. . . .. ## B.2 Example 2 User: Can you detect if the sentence has hyperbole or metaphor in it? Sentence: Retailers, meanwhile, are trying out a number of ways to target these shoppers. ChatGPT*: The sentence "Retailers, meanwhile, are* trying out a number of ways to target these shoppers" does not contain hyperbole or metaphor. It is a straightforward statement conveying information about the actions of retailers in targeting a particular group of shoppers. User*: Isn't the word "target" a metaphor here?* ChatGPT*: You are correct that "target" in this sentence can be considered a metaphor. In this context, "target" is being used figuratively to mean* that retailers are trying to aim their marketing efforts towards a particular group of shoppers. The word "target" is being used in a non-literal sense to describe the retailers' actions. Therefore, the sentence does contain a metaphor. Thank you for pointing that out. It can be seen that in both examples, the model initially makes the wrong assumption about the sentence being a hyperbole or metaphor. It was able to correct itself only after bringing attention to the important word in the sentence. We have shown that the correct words get more attention through our multi-tasked approach indicating the reason for better detection accuracy. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Section 10 ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Section 11 ✓ 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?** Sections 5 And 6 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 5 and Section 6.2 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.? Section 5 ✓ 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 5 ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Section 6.2 ✓ 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 A.1 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 and Section 6.3 ✓ 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? Section 7 ✓ 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 D ✓ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Section 5.3 ✓ 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.? Section 5.3 ✓ 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 5.3 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.

yang-etal-2023-prompt

Prompt Tuning for Unified Multimodal Pretrained Models

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.27

Prompt tuning has become a new paradigm for model tuning and it has demonstrated success in natural language pretraining and even vision pretraining. The parameter-efficient prompt tuning methods that optimize soft embeddings while keeping the pretrained model frozen demonstrate advantages in low computation costs and almost lossless performance. In this work, we explore the transfer of prompt tuning to multimodal pretrained models. Specifically, we implement prompt tuning to a unified sequence-to-sequence pretrained model by adding a sequence of learnable embeddings to each layer and finetuning the pretrained model on downstream task with only the learnable embeddings being optimized. Experimental results on a series of multimodal understanding and generation tasks demonstrate that our method OFA-PT can achieve comparable performance with finetuning across a series of multimodal generation and understanding tasks. Additionally, it significantly outperforms the unified multimodal pretrained model with other parameter-efficient tuning methods, e.g., Adapter, BitFit. etc. Besides, in comparison with finetuned models, the prompt-tuned models demonstrate improved robustness against adversarial attacks. We further figure out that experimental factors, including prompt length, prompt depth, and reparameteratization, have great impacts on the model performance, and thus we empirically provide a recommendation for the setups of prompt tuning.

# Prompt Tuning For Unified Multimodal Pretrained Models Hao Yang∗, Junyang Lin∗**, An Yang, Peng Wang, Chang Zhou** DAMO Academy, Alibaba Group {yh351016, junyang.ljy, ya235025, zheluo.wp, ericzhou.zc}@alibaba-inc.com ## Abstract Prompt tuning has become a new paradigm for model tuning and it has demonstrated success in natural language pretraining and even vision pretraining. The parameter-efficient prompt tuning methods that optimize soft embeddings while keeping the pretrained model frozen demonstrate advantages in low computation costs and almost lossless performance. In this work, we explore the transfer of prompt tuning to multimodal pretrained models. Specifically, we implement prompt tuning to a unified sequence-to-sequence pretrained model by adding a sequence of learnable embeddings to each layer and finetuning the pretrained model on downstream task with only the learnable embeddings being optimized. Experimental results on a series of multimodal understanding and generation tasks demonstrate that our method OFA-PT can achieve comparable performance with finetuning across a series of multimodal generation and understanding tasks. Additionally, it significantly outperforms the unified multimodal pretrained model with other parameter-efficient tuning methods, e.g., Adapter, BitFit. etc. Besides, in comparison with finetuned models, the prompttuned models demonstrate improved robustness against adversarial attacks. We further figure out that experimental factors, including prompt length, prompt depth, and reparameteratization, have great impacts on the model performance, and thus we empirically provide a recommendation for the setups of prompt tuning. Codes and checkpoints are available at https://github.com/OFA-Sys/OFA ## 1 Introduction Recent years have witnessed the great success of large-scale pretraining based on large models and big data in natural language processing (NLP) (Radford et al., 2018; Devlin et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2019; Raffel et al., 2020; Brown et al., 2020) and computer vision (Chen et al., 2020b,a,c; Chen and He, 2021; Bao et al., 2021; He et al., 2021b). Inspired by the success of BERTlike models (Devlin et al., 2019), researchers have found that pretraining can level up the downstream performance of cross-modal representation learning algorithms by a large margin (Chen et al., 2020d; Lu et al., 2019; Su et al., 2020; Tan and Bansal, 2019; Wang et al., 2021). Following this line of research, unified multimodal pretrained models have gradually attracted much attention, and very recently, a series of such models based on the sequence-to-sequence learning framework have unified both cross-modal understanding and generation tasks and even achieved state-of-the-art performance (Li et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022a; Yu et al., 2022; Alayrac et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022b; Chen et al., 2022). Furthermore, note that the scale of unified multimodal pretrained models has been growing rapidly, showing a similar trend of developments in large language models (Raffel et al., 2020; Brown et al., 2020; Chowdhery et al., 2022). Despite the great success of large-scale pretrained models across multiple domains, training such models requires a large amount of computation costs. The conventional finetuning is though effective in gaining high performance yet suffers from low training efficiency, especially when the pretrained model is of large scale in model size. There is a strong necessity for parameter-efficient transfer learning methods in the applications of large-scale foundation models. The most popular method in this field is **prompt tuning** (Liu et al., 2021a), which demonstrates success in natural language processing (Li and Liang, 2021; Liu et al., 2021c; Lester et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2021b; He et al., 2021a; Gu et al., 2022) and computer vision (Jia et al., 2022; Du et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2021, 2022). In comparison with finetuning, prompt tuning only tunes pretrained models by a trivial amount of parameters (e.g., 1%). Prompt 402 tuning freezes most parameters of the pretrained model and only tunes several prompt embeddings, as well as the output layer if necessary. Recent advances have shown that prompt tuning can help pretrained models achieve comparable performance with finetuning across different downstream tasks, including natural language understanding and generation, image classification, etc. However, the studies on the parameter-efficient transfer methods for multimodal pretrained models, especially the unified multimodal pretrained models, are still scarce. Furthermore, along with the trend of model scaling in unified multimodal pretrained models, how to tune such models cost-effectively should be a significant topic of research in multimodal pretraining. This work fills in the void and takes the lead to explore prompt tuning for the unified multimodal pretrained models. We propose OFA-PT, an implementation of prompt tuning based on the recently open-sourced unified multimodal pretrained model OFA (Wang et al., 2022a). To be more specific, in the stage of downstream transfer, we insert a sequence of learnable embeddings to each layer of the encoder and decoder, and only tune those embeddings while keeping the parameters of the pretrained model frozen. For the rest of the setups, we use the same finetuning procedures, which transform data to the format for sequence-to-sequence learning and train the model with maximum likelihood estimation for optimization. In comparison with finetuning, the number of tunable parameters (~1% of the total) for prompt tuning is much smaller than that of finetuning, leading to fewer computation costs, e.g., memory. Through extensive experiments we observe that the parameter-efficient prompt tuning is able to help the pretrained model achieve comparable performance with finetuning across 4 multimodal downstream tasks, spanning from understanding to generation. To analyze the differences between finetuning and prompt tuning, we follow the assumption that prompt tuning with most parameters in the pretrained model frozen should induce model robustness. We experiment on the tuning methods with adversarial attack and observe phenomena consistent with the hypothesis. To take a step further, this study delves into the implementation details and investigate whether experimental factors, e.g., the prompt length, prompt depth, and reparameterization, could saliently influence the final downstream performance. We find that in general a longer prompt length (longer than 20 tokens) is a preferable choice, and our experiments show that 64 should be favored in most cases as a longer prompt sequence will not only increase the computation costs but also incur performance degradation. Also, we show that reparameterizaton with additional trainable parameters cannot introduce significant improvements in downstream performance. ## 2 Method This section introduces the details of our proposed method. It provides the detailed implementation of prompt tuning on a unified multimodal pretrained model. The overall framework is illustrated in Figure 1. ## 2.1 Preliminaries We select the unified sequence-to-sequence framework as it unifies understanding and generation tasks, and we specifically implement prompt tuning on the recently open-sourced state-of-the-art model OFA* (Wang et al., 2022a). In brief, it is built with a Transformer-based (Vaswani et al., 2017) encoder-decoder framework. Both the encoder and decoder consist of Transformer layers. To be more specific, an encoder layer consists of a multi-head self attention and a point-wise Feed-Forward Network (FFN). To build a connection between the encoder and decoder, the Transformer decoder layer additionally contains a cross-attention module in comparison with the encoder layer. The cross-attention is essentially multi-head attention, where the keys K and values V are the transformation of the encoder output states, instead of the inputs. Such architecture can handle tasks that provide inputs of the sequence-tosequence format. In this work, we focus on prompt tuning for the transfer of the multimodal pretrained model. We leave the prompt learning in the stage of pretraining to the future work. ## 2.2 Prompt Tuning For Multimodal Pretrained Models In the following, we introduce our implementation details of prompt tuning on the sequence-tosequence multimodal pretrained model. Note that *https://github.com/OFA-Sys/OFA License: Apache2.0  our method can extend to other generative multimodal pretrained models, e.g., BERT-like models. Basic Implementation We focus on implementing prefix tuning (Li and Liang, 2021; Liu et al., 2021b) based on its outstanding performance in either natural language understanding or generation. In comparison with the other prompt tuning methods, e.g., P-Tuning (Liu et al., 2021c), Prompt Tuning (Lester et al., 2021), PPT (Gu et al., 2022), adding soft prompt embeddings to each layer demonstrates enhanced training stability and improved downstream task performance even on relatively small models. Specifically, for the encoder and decoder, we add tunable prompt embeddings to each layer. Formally, we refer the pretrained model to a function M(·), and the generation function of the prompt embeddings to G(·). The formulation is demonstrated below: $$y={\mathcal{M}}({\mathcal{G}}(L,l),x),$$ y = M(G(L, l), x), (1) where x refers to the multimodal inputs, L refers to the number of layers, and l refers to the prompt length, which should be predefined by a hyperparameter. At each layer, we prefix soft prompt embeddings p (i)to the input hidden states h (i) Note that we only prefix prompt embeddings at Transformer layers. In the simplest practice, the prompt generator G is a sparse embedding matrix of R L×l×h, and we select the corresponding embedding at the i-th index and the j-th layer as the prompt embedding. Below we provide an illustration of some more complex implementations, and we compare those methods in this study. In the downstream tuning process, we only tune the newly added prompt embeddings at each layer and keep the parameters of the large pretrained model frozen. Therefore, while there are only a small amount of parameters that need to be updated, e.g., 1%, the computation costs are far fewer than those of finetuning. Reparameterization Except for the simplest implementation of adding a sparse embedding matrix at each layer, a more complex one should be adding an encoder, e.g., an MLP layer, to reparameterize prompt embeddings. We also investigate the influence of reparameterization in this context. Prompt Length Similar to previous studies (Li and Liang, 2021; Liu et al., 2021b), we find that the length of prompt embeddings make a great difference in different downstream tasks. In this study, we investigate how this factor imposes influence on model performance in different downstream tasks. Prompt Depth To investigate the impacts of the place of prompt embedding insertion, we delve into the issue of prompt depth. Specifically, we simplify it to adding prompt embeddings to the encoder or decoder only, as well as to both modules. ## 3 Experiments To validate the effectiveness of prompt tuning for multimodal pretrained models, we conduct experiments on 5 cross-modal tasks. Specifically, we experiment on cross-modal generation tasks, including referring expression comprehension and image captioning, and cross-modal understanding tasks, including visual entailment, image captioning, and visual question answering (VQA). We use the commonly used base-size and large-size models for the experiments, whose sizes are around 180M and 470M respectively. We provide more details about the experimental setups in the Appendix A.1. | Model | RefCOCO | RefCOCO+ | RefCOCOg | COCO Captions | | | | | | | | | |-------------------|-----------|------------|------------|-----------------|-------|-------|--------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | val | testA | testB | val | testA | testB | val-u | test-u | B@4 | M | C | S | | | Base-size Models | | | | | | | | | | | | | | OFABase | 88.48 | 90.67 | 83.30 | 81.39 | 87.15 | 74.29 | 82.29 | 82.31 | 41.00 | 30.90 | 138.2 | 24.20 | | OFA-PTBase | 84.53 | 85.21 | 77.36 | 76.34 | 81.44 | 67.68 | 75.61 | 76.57 | 39.70 | 30.10 | 134.2 | 23.50 | | Large-size Models | | | | | | | | | | | | | | OFALarge | 90.05 | 92.93 | 85.26 | 85.80 | 89.87 | 79.22 | 85.89 | 86.55 | 42.40 | 31.50 | 142.2 | 24.50 | | OFA-PTLarge | 90.05 | 92.31 | 85.59 | 84.54 | 89.40 | 77.77 | 85.27 | 85.89 | 41.81 | 31.51 | 141.4 | 24.42 | Table 2: Experimental results of methods on multimodal understanding benchmark datasets, SNLI-VE and VQA. | Model | SNLI-VE | VQA | | | |-------------------|-----------|----------|----------|-------| | dev | test | test-dev | test-std | | | Base-size Models | | | | | | OFABase | 89.30 | 89.20 | 78.00 | 78.10 | | OFA-PTBase | 88.18 | 88.59 | 74.31 | 74.47 | | Large-size Models | | | | | | OFALarge | 90.30 | 90.20 | 80.40 | 80.70 | | OFA-PTLarge | 90.04 | 90.12 | 78.30 | 78.53 | ## 3.1 Datasets & Metrics Referring Expression Comprehension We conduct experiments on the 3 subtasks of referring expression comprehension, namely RefCOCO, RefCOCO+, and RefCOCOg (Yu et al., 2016; Mao et al., 2016). This task requires the model to generate a correct bounding box that answers the given text query on a provided image. We use Acc@0.5 as the evaluation metric. Image Captioning We evaluate the image captioning capability of our method on the Microsoft COCO Image Captioning dataset (Chen et al., 2015). In this task, the model should generate a description that corresponds to the information of the given image. We use BLEU@4 (Papineni et al., 2002), METEOR (Lavie and Agarwal, 2007), CIDEr (Vedantam et al., 2015), and SPICE (Anderson et al., 2016) as the evaluation metrics. Visual Entailment To evaluate the performance of entailment, we implement the experiments on SNLI-VE (Xie et al., 2019). Given an image and a text, the model should figure out their relations, whether they are entailment, contradiction, or neutrality. We follow the setups in Wang et al. (2022a) and add the given premise to the input. We use ## Accuracy As The Evaluation Metric. VQA We implement our experiments on VQA 2.0 (Antol et al., 2015; Goyal et al., 2017). This task requires the model to generate the correct answer based on an image and a question about certain information on the image. Following Wang et al. (2022a), we use the all-candidate evaluation, which requires the model to generate a probability for each candidate among the 3, 129 most frequent answers. We use accuracy as the evaluation metric. ## 3.2 Experimental Results Below we provide the detailed experiment results, including the comparison of prompt tuning and finetuning, as well as prompt tuning and other parameter-efficient tuning methods. ## Comparison With Finetuning We Demonstrate the experimental results of the 4 tasks in Table 1 and Table 2. In general, for the base-size model, OFA-PT underperforms the original finetuned OFA by significant margins, but for the large-size model, OFA-PT is able to achieve comparable performance. To be more specific, in the evaluation of referring expression comprehension, for the base-size model, prompt tuning significantly underperforms finetuning by lagging behind a large margin of 5.64 on average across RefCOCO, RefCOCO+, and RefCOCOg, but for the large-size model, prompt tuning only slightly underperforms finetuning by a small margin of 0.59. In the evaluation of image captioning, for the base-size model, OFA-PT underperforms the finetuned OFA by a margin of 4.0, but for the large-size model, the performance gap is only 0.8. In the evaluation of visual entailment, the gap between the algorithms is closer, which is around 0.17. In the evaluation of VQA, for the base-size model the performance gap is 3.63 be- | Method | RefCOCO | RefCOCO+ | RefCOCOg | COCO Captions | | | | | | | | | |-------------|-----------|------------|------------|-----------------|-------|-------|--------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | val | testA | testB | val | testA | testB | val-u | test-u | B@4 | M | C | S | | | OFA-Bitfit | 89.61 | 92.20 | 84.91 | 82.60 | 88.08 | 75.16 | 84.66 | 84.68 | 41.02 | 30.92 | 138.8 | 24.23 | | OFA-Adapter | 90.01 | 92.30 | 85.02 | 83.79 | 88.93 | 76.09 | 85.10 | 85.45 | 41.38 | 31.16 | 139.5 | 24.30 | | OFA-PT | 90.05 | 92.31 | 85.59 | 84.54 | 89.40 | 77.77 | 85.27 | 85.89 | 41.81 | 31.51 | 141.4 | 24.42 | Table 3: Evaluation of different parameter-efficient tuning methods using large-size models on multimodal generation tasks. We find that OFA-PT can generally outperform OFA with Bitfit and Adapter. | Method | SNLI-VE | VQA | | | |-------------|-----------|----------|----------|-------| | dev | test | test-dev | test-std | | | OFA-Bitfit | 89.70 | 89.42 | 78.23 | 78.44 | | OFA-Adapter | 89.84 | 89.78 | 78.27 | 78.47 | | OFA-PT | 90.04 | 90.12 | 78.30 | 78.53 | tween prompt tuning and finetuning, and for the large-size model the gap is 2.17 on the test-std set. Different from the other tasks, even in the experiments on the large-size model, the gap is still significant. We hypothesize that it is still necessary to search a better hyperparameter setup for this task due to the sensitivity of prompt tuning to hyperparameters. ## Comparison With Other Parameter-Efficient Tuning Methods We additionally add a comparison with two parameter-efficient tuning methods, namely Adapter (Houlsby et al., 2019) and BitFit (Zaken et al., 2022) to test whether prompt tuning is the best solution of light-weight transfer. Table 3 and 4 demonstrate the results of different light-weight tuning methods implemented on the aforementioned datasets. In all the downstream tasks, OFA-PT surpasses the performance of OFA with Adapter or BitFit. The results reflect the simple but effective prompt tuning over other parameter-efficient tuning baselines. We suppose that changes in biases and adding intermediate layers might be conflicted with the complex architectural designs of the unified multimodal pretrained model, whereas the simple prepended learnable prefixes have separate components, e.g., weights, positional embeddings, etc., which can result in easier training with less human efforts on hyperparameter tuning. ## 3.3 Analyses In this section, we move forward to analyzing prompt tuning in multimodal pretraining. Specifically, we examine the robustness of prompt tuning based on the assumption that keeping most parameters of the pretrained model frozen should lead to improved robustness to adversarial attack. Also, we evaluate how different setups of prompt tuning, say the prompt length, the depth of prompt, and reparameterization, influence the downstream performance, and try to provide a recommended setup for consistently better performance. Robustness Analysis To test whether the multimodal pretrained model with prompt tuning for downstream transfer is robust, we conduct experiments of adversarial attack for the examination. Adversarial attack was first proposed in computer vision, which revealed the vulnerability of deep learning models. The most common adversarial attack methods in computer vision are gradientbased methods, such as FGSM (Goodfellow et al., 2014), PGD (Madry et al., 2017), MIM (Dong et al., 2017) and SI (Lin et al., 2019). Most of the typical unimodal adversarial attack on tasks are gradientbased methods. Among them, we select FGSM, which requires only one step of gradient computation on text and image embeddings. Experimental results are demonstrated in Figure 2. OFA-PT consistently demonstrates better robustness in comparison with the finetuned OFA across all tasks. This confirms our hypothesis and also shows one significant advantage of prompt tuning not reflected in the standard evaluation. In practice, if model vulnerability is a issue that matters, we recommend the application of prompt tuning or the robust prefix tuning framework (Yang and Liu, 2022) that demonstrates effectiveness in tuning pretrained language models for the enhanced robustness without significant performance degradation Prompt Length To study the effects of the prompt length on the final downstream perfor-  | Method | RefCOCO | RefCOCO+ | RefCOCOg | COCO Captions | | | | | | | | | |----------|-----------|------------|------------|-----------------|-------|-------|--------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | val | testA | testB | val | testA | testB | val-u | test-u | B@4 | M | C | S | | | Enc | 89.48 | 91.71 | 84.98 | 84.50 | 89.22 | 77.71 | 85.07 | 85.58 | 41.39 | 31.08 | 141.1 | 24.34 | | Dec | 88.90 | 91.28 | 84.32 | 83.46 | 88.24 | 76.82 | 84.54 | 85.02 | 40.08 | 30.43 | 140.8 | 24.06 | | EncDec | 90.05 | 92.31 | 85.59 | 84.54 | 89.40 | 77.77 | 85.27 | 85.89 | 41.81 | 31.51 | 141.4 | 24.42 | | Method | SNLI-VE | VQA | | | |----------|-----------|----------|----------|-------| | dev | test | test-dev | test-std | | | Enc | 89.64 | 89.70 | 78.10 | 78.26 | | Dec | 88.56 | 88.71 | 77.84 | 78.03 | | EncDec | 90.04 | 90.12 | 78.30 | 78.53 | mance, we evaluate the prompt tuning performance on the downstream tasks with a prompt length selected from {10, 16, 30, 64, 100, 120}. As shown in Figure 3, a general tendency is that a longer prompt length with more parameters to tune can encourage improvements in downstream performance across the tasks. However, we observe diminishing marginal utility and a prompt too long may even negatively impact the performance. Although the best prompt length for tasks are different, we empirically advise that the length of 64 tokens can achieve a better performance on average. See Appendix A.2 for more details. Prompt Depth As we base our implementation on the encoder-decoder model, we intuitively assume that where to insert prompt embeddings matters the performance. To simplify this issue, in our practice, we evaluate the performance of inserting prompts to the encoder only, to the decoder only, or to both the encoder and decoder. Experimental results are demonstrated in Table 5 and 6. We find that it is best to insert prompts to every layer of the whole Transformer model, though compared with the other alternatives it is less computationefficient. In the comparison between insertion to the encoder only and to the decoder only, we observe that the former solution leads to a significantly better results across multiple downstream tasks. This suggests that the insertion of prompts to the bottom layers might contribute more to the success of downstream transfer.  Method RefCOCO RefCOCO+ RefCOCOg COCO Captions val testA testB val testA testBxq val-u test-u B@4 M C S w/o MLP 90.05 92.31 85.59 84.54 89.40 77.77 85.27 85.89 41.81 31.51 141.4 24.42 w/ MLP 90.12 92.56 85.63 84.83 89.65 77.94 85.42 86.01 41.67 31.48 140.7 24.40 Table 7: Ablation study results of multimodal generation tasks on reparameterization using large-size models. Reparameterization Empirically, directly updating the trainable embeddings leads to unstable optimization and a slight drop in performance. Prior work usually leveraged an encoder, e.g., an MLP (Li and Liang, 2021), to reparameterize the trainable embeddings. We evaluate the performance of reparameterization, and we demonstrate the experimental results in Table 7 and 8. For generation tasks, e.g., RefCOCO and RefCOCOg, MLP brings consistent improvements. For understanding tasks, e.g., SNLI-VE and VQA, MLP leads to relatively negative impacts. Thus we cannot come to a conclusion about which should be a preferable one. To achieve better performance on a specific dataset, it is still necessary to make an attempt on both methods. ## 4 Related Work | Method | SNLI-VE | VQA | | | |----------|-----------|----------|----------|-------| | dev | test | test-dev | test-std | | | w/o MLP | 90.04 | 90.12 | 78.30 | 78.53 | | w/ MLP | 89.98 | 90.02 | 78.26 | 78.48 | In this section, we include the review of multimodal pretraining as well as prompt tuning. ## 4.1 Multimodal Pretraining The rise of vision & language pretraining started from the transfer of BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) to cross-modal representation learning. A series of studies (Lu et al., 2019; Su et al., 2020; Tan and Bansal, 2019; Chen et al., 2020d; Li et al., 2019) introduced BERT to multimodal pretraining. The key idea of such transfer is that the powerful Transformer model can handle visual and linguistic information simultaneously. To take a step forward, recent studies have turned their focuses to the encoder-decoder framework, which is adaptive to both cross-modal understanding and generation, a series of encoder-decoder-based models or similar models that can perform sequence-to-sequence learning (Dong et al., 2019) have achieved new state-of-the-art performance across the downstream tasks (Wang et al., 2021; Li et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022a; Yu et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022b; Chen et al., 2022). Furthermore, these recent state-ofthe-art models have unified different tasks concerning multiple modality combinations into a single framework and pretrained model. Also, we have witnessed similar trends in large language models that consistently scaling unified multimodal pretraiend model can lead to predictable performance improvement (Wang et al., 2022a,b; Chen et al., 2022). This indicates that prompt tuning should be a perfect combination with the recent unified multimodal pretrained model and it can unleash the power of large-scale pretrained models with fewer computation costs than the conventional finetuning. ## 4.2 Prompt-Based Learning Brown et al. (2020) illustrated that large-scale pretrained models can learn from the context and perform few-shot and zero-shot learning with the prompts of task instruction or a few task examples. This new paradigm raised attention of researchers in how to leverage pretrained models without tuning all the parameters, which is expensive in computation costs. Instead of using hard prompts by handcrafting, Li and Liang (2021) demonstrated that only tuning soft prompt embeddings at each layer is sufficient for the pretrained model to achieve competitive performance in natural language generation, and later a number of studies showed that prompt tuning can be essentially effective for low-resource scenarios (Liu et al., 2021c; Gu et al., 2022; Sun et al., 2022b) and it can even achieve comparable performance with finetuning (Lester et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2021b). Following this trend, a series of modification to prompts and adapters (Hu et al., 2022; He et al., 2021a; Jiang et al., 2022; Sun et al., 2022a) for improvements in performance or training efficiency have emerged and made prompt tuning a heated topic in the whole NLP community. Recent prompt tuning methods for multimodal pretrained models mostly serve for CLIP-like models (Zhou et al., 2021, 2022; Rao et al., 2021). Similarly, researchers tried to incorporate adapters to CLIP and also achieved satisfactory performance (Gao et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2021). Except for prompt tuning for CLIP-like models, another line of work explored visual prompts for frozen language models. Tsimpoukelli et al. (2021) showed that when there is a powerful large pretrained language model, a visual encoder for prompt tuning is sufficient for multimodal few-shot learning. To take a step forward, Alayrac et al. (2022) proposed Flamingo, a colossal multimodal model that enables in-context learning. It could achieve state-of-the-art performance in a series of cross-modal downstream tasks in either few-shot or full-shot learning scenarios. Such tremendous success indicates the strong potential of prompt tuning in multimodal pretraining. ## 5 Conclusion In this work, we explore prompt tuning for unified multimodal pretrained models. Specifically, we propose OFA-PT, which is an implementation of prefix tuning, a simple but effective prompt tuning method, on the recently open-sourced SoTA model OFA. Through extensive experiments, we demonstrate that the unfiied multimodal pretrained model with the parameter-efficient prompt tuning can achieve comparable performance with the finetuned model, but with fewer parameters to tune (e.g., 1%), and prompt tuning can surpass other light-weight tuning methods, e.g., Adapter and BitFit. Through our analysis, we figure out a significant advantage of prompt tuning about its robustness against adversarial attack. Furthermore, we provide a comprehensive analysis about the influence of prompt tuning setups, including the prompt length, prompt depth, and reparameterization. Potentially prompt tuning can be an alternative to finetuning, but still, there are some salient limitations in this method, e.g., slow convergence and training instabilities. We hope that future studies in this field can alleviate the aforementioned problems and thus promote the application of prompt tuning. ## Limitations This section disccuses the limitations of prompt tuning for the unified multimodal pretrained models, and point out some directions for future work. One limitation of prompt tuning in this setup is the sensitivity to hyperparameter tuning. It is difficult to search for a suitable hyperparamter setup. The hyperparameter tuning experience in finetuning is not suitable for prompt tuning. Fortunately, we find that prompt tuning for generative multimodal pretrained models is not as sensitive to hyperparameters as prompt tuning for pretrained language models. We provide details of hyperparameter setups in Appendix A.1. Another limitation of prompt tuning in this setup is slow convergence. Though prompt tuning has noticeable advantages in training efficiency, it costs at least 40 epochs for prompt tuning to achieve the nearly best performance on some datasets (e.g., RefCOCO). A larger number of training epochs may incur more computation costs though prompt tuning has an advantage in training efficiency compared with finetuning. We demonstrate more details in Appendix A.2. This indicates that finding a better solution for fast and stable convergence is also important besides reaching comparable or even improved performance over the conventional finetuning. Despite the aforementioned limitations, prompt tuning demonstrates significantly better robustness against adversarial attack. In the future, we should pay more attention to this merit and find ways to leverage it. ## Ethics Statement We base our method on an existing multimodal pretrained model, which is capable of vision-language understanding and generation. Thus, there exist potential risks in AI-generated contents. Additionally, as our method only finetunes only a small amount of parameters of the pretrained models, we lack control of the output model, which may generate harmful contents. These results may possibly be attributed to the noise in the pretraining data. In the future research, it is essential to study how to increase the controllability on the generation while most parameters of the output model are originated from the pretrained model. ## References Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jeff Donahue, Pauline Luc, Antoine Miech, Iain Barr, Yana Hasson, Karel Lenc, Arthur Mensch, Katie Millican, Malcolm Reynolds, Roman Ring, Eliza Rutherford, Serkan Cabi, Tengda Han, Zhitao Gong, Sina Samangooei, Marianne Monteiro, Jacob Menick, Sebastian Borgeaud, Andrew Brock, Aida Nematzadeh, Sahand Sharifzadeh, Mikolaj Binkowski, Ricardo Barreira, Oriol Vinyals, Andrew Zisserman, and Karen Simonyan. 2022. Flamingo: a visual language model for few-shot learning. CoRR, abs/2204.14198. Peter Anderson, Basura Fernando, Mark Johnson, and Stephen Gould. 2016. SPICE: semantic propositional image caption evaluation. In ECCV 2016, volume 9909 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 382–398. Springer. Stanislaw Antol, Aishwarya Agrawal, Jiasen Lu, Margaret Mitchell, Dhruv Batra, C. Lawrence Zitnick, and Devi Parikh. 2015. VQA: visual question answering. In ICCV 2015, pages 2425–2433. IEEE Computer Society. Hangbo Bao, Li Dong, and Furu Wei. 2021. Beit: Bert pre-training of image transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.08254. Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared 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 M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher 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 NeurIPS 2020. Ting Chen, Simon Kornblith, Kevin Norouzi, Mohammad Swersky, and Geoffrey Hinton. 2020a. Big selfsupervised models are strong semi-supervised learners. In NeurIPS 2020, pages 10466–10478. PMLR. Ting Chen, Simon Kornblith, Mohammad Norouzi, and Geoffrey Hinton. 2020b. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In ICML 2020, pages 1597–1607. PMLR. Xi Chen, Xiao Wang, Soravit Changpinyo, A. J. Piergiovanni, Piotr Padlewski, Daniel M. Salz, Sebastian Goodman, Adam Grycner, Basil Mustafa, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Joan Puigcerver, Nan Ding, Keran Rong, Hassan Akbari, Gaurav Mishra, Linting Xue, Ashish V. Thapliyal, James Bradbury, Weicheng Kuo, Mojtaba Seyedhosseini, Chao Jia, Burcu Karagol Ayan, Carlos Riquelme, Andreas Steiner, Anelia Angelova, Xiaohua Zhai, Neil Houlsby, and Radu Soricut. 2022. Pali: A jointlyscaled multilingual language-image model. ArXiv, abs/2209.06794. Xinlei Chen, Haoqi Fan, Ross Girshick, and Kaiming He. 2020c. Improved baselines with momentum contrastive learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.04297. Xinlei Chen, Hao Fang, Tsung-Yi Lin, Ramakrishna Vedantam, Saurabh Gupta, Piotr Dollár, and C. Lawrence Zitnick. 2015. Microsoft COCO captions: Data collection and evaluation server. CoRR, abs/1504.00325. Xinlei Chen and Kaiming He. 2021. Exploring simple siamese representation learning. In CVPR 2021, pages 15750–15758. Yen-Chun Chen, Linjie Li, Licheng Yu, Ahmed El Kholy, Faisal Ahmed, Zhe Gan, Yu Cheng, and Jingjing Liu. 2020d. UNITER: universal imagetext representation learning. In ECCV 2020, volume 12375 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 104–120. Springer. 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. CoRR, abs/2204.02311. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In NAACL-HLT 2019, pages 4171–4186. Association for Computational Linguistics. Li Dong, Nan Yang, Wenhui Wang, Furu Wei, Xiaodong Liu, Yu Wang, Jianfeng Gao, Ming Zhou, and Hsiao-Wuen Hon. 2019. Unified language model pre-training for natural language understanding and generation. In NeurIPS 2019, pages 13042–13054. Yinpeng Dong, Fangzhou Liao, Tianyu Pang, Hang Su, Jun Zhu, Xiaolin Hu, and Jianguo Li. 2017. Boosting adversarial attacks with momentum. CoRR, abs/1710.06081. Yu Du, Fangyun Wei, Zihe Zhang, Miaojing Shi, Yue Gao, and Guoqi Li. 2022. Learning to prompt for open-vocabulary object detection with visionlanguage model. CoRR, abs/2203.14940. Peng Gao, Shijie Geng, Renrui Zhang, Teli Ma, Rongyao Fang, Yongfeng Zhang, Hongsheng Li, and Yu Qiao. 2021. Clip-adapter: Better visionlanguage models with feature adapters. CoRR, abs/2110.04544. Ian J. Goodfellow, Jonathon Shlens, and Christian Szegedy. 2014. Explaining and harnessing adversarial examples. CoRR, abs/1412.6572. Yash Goyal, Tejas Khot, Douglas Summers-Stay, Dhruv Batra, and Devi Parikh. 2017. Making the V in VQA matter: Elevating the role of image understanding in visual question answering. In CVPR 2017, pages 6325–6334. IEEE Computer Society. Yuxian Gu, Xu Han, Zhiyuan Liu, and Minlie Huang. 2022. PPT: pre-trained prompt tuning for few-shot learning. In ACL 2022, pages 8410–8423. Association for Computational Linguistics. Junxian He, Chunting Zhou, Xuezhe Ma, Taylor BergKirkpatrick, and Graham Neubig. 2021a. Towards a unified view of parameter-efficient transfer learning. CoRR, abs/2110.04366. Kaiming He, Xinlei Chen, Saining Xie, Yanghao Li, Piotr Dollár, and Ross Girshick. 2021b. Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.06377. 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 ICML 2019, volume 97 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 2790–2799. PMLR. Shengding Hu, Ning Ding, Huadong Wang, Zhiyuan Liu, Jingang Wang, Juanzi Li, Wei Wu, and Maosong Sun. 2022. Knowledgeable prompt-tuning: Incorporating knowledge into prompt verbalizer for text classification. In ACL 2022, pages 2225–2240. Association for Computational Linguistics. Menglin Jia, Luming Tang, Bor-Chun Chen, Claire Cardie, Serge J. Belongie, Bharath Hariharan, and Ser-Nam Lim. 2022. Visual prompt tuning. CoRR, abs/2203.12119. Yuezihan Jiang, Hao Yang, Junyang Lin, Hanyu Zhao, An Yang, Chang Zhou, Hongxia Yang, Zhi Yang, and Bin Cui. 2022. Instance-wise prompt tuning for pretrained language models. CoRR, abs/2206.01958. Alon Lavie and Abhaya Agarwal. 2007. METEOR: an automatic metric for MT evaluation with high levels of correlation with human judgments. In WMT@ACL 2007, pages 228–231. Association for Computational Linguistics. Brian Lester, Rami Al-Rfou, and Noah Constant. 2021. The power of scale for parameter-efficient prompt tuning. In EMNLP 2021, pages 3045–3059. Association for Computational Linguistics. Gen Li, Nan Duan, Yuejian Fang, Daxin Jiang, and Ming Zhou. 2019. Unicoder-vl: A universal encoder for vision and language by cross-modal pre-training. CoRR, abs/1908.06066. Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Caiming Xiong, and Steven C. H. Hoi. 2022. Blip: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training for unified vision-language understanding and generation. In International Conference on Machine Learning. Xiang Lisa Li and Percy Liang. 2021. Prefix-tuning: Optimizing continuous prompts for generation. In ACL/IJCNLP 2021, pages 4582–4597. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jiadong Lin, Chuanbiao Song, Kun He, Liwei Wang, and John E. Hopcroft. 2019. Nesterov accelerated gradient and scale invariance for adversarial attacks. CoRR, abs/1908.06281. Pengfei Liu, Weizhe Yuan, Jinlan Fu, Zhengbao Jiang, Hiroaki Hayashi, and Graham Neubig. 2021a. Pretrain, prompt, and predict: A systematic survey of prompting methods in natural language processing. CoRR, abs/2107.13586. Xiao Liu, Kaixuan Ji, Yicheng Fu, Zhengxiao Du, Zhilin Yang, and Jie Tang. 2021b. P-tuning v2: Prompt tuning can be comparable to fine-tuning universally across scales and tasks. CoRR, abs/2110.07602. Xiao Liu, Yanan Zheng, Zhengxiao Du, Ming Ding, Yujie Qian, Zhilin Yang, and Jie Tang. 2021c. GPT understands, too. CoRR, abs/2103.10385. 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. Jiasen Lu, Dhruv Batra, Devi Parikh, and Stefan Lee. 2019. Vilbert: Pretraining task-agnostic visiolinguistic representations for vision-and-language tasks. In NeurIPS 2019, pages 13–23. Aleksander Madry, Aleksandar Makelov, Ludwig Schmidt, Dimitris Tsipras, and Adrian Vladu. 2017. Towards deep learning models resistant to adversarial attacks. CoRR, abs/1706.06083. Junhua Mao, Jonathan Huang, Alexander Toshev, Oana Camburu, Alan L. Yuille, and Kevin Murphy. 2016. Generation and comprehension of unambiguous object descriptions. In CVPR 2016, pages 11–20. IEEE Computer Society. Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and WeiJing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In ACL 2002, pages 311–318. Alec Radford, Karthik Narasimhan, Tim Salimans, and Ilya Sutskever. 2018. Improving language understanding by generative pre-training. 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. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 21:140:1–140:67. Yongming Rao, Wenliang Zhao, Guangyi Chen, Yansong Tang, Zheng Zhu, Guan Huang, Jie Zhou, and Jiwen Lu. 2021. Denseclip: Language-guided dense prediction with context-aware prompting. CoRR, abs/2112.01518. Weijie Su, Xizhou Zhu, Yue Cao, Bin Li, Lewei Lu, Furu Wei, and Jifeng Dai. 2020. VL-BERT: pretraining of generic visual-linguistic representations. In ICLR 2020. OpenReview.net. Tianxiang Sun, Zhengfu He, Hong Qian, Xuanjing Huang, and Xipeng Qiu. 2022a. Bbtv2: Pure blackbox optimization can be comparable to gradient descent for few-shot learning. CoRR, abs/2205.11200. Tianxiang Sun, Yunfan Shao, Hong Qian, Xuanjing Huang, and Xipeng Qiu. 2022b. Black-box tuning for language-model-as-a-service. In ICML 2022, volume 162 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 20841–20855. PMLR. Hao Tan and Mohit Bansal. 2019. LXMERT: learning cross-modality encoder representations from transformers. In EMNLP-IJCNLP 2019, pages 5099– 5110. Association for Computational Linguistics. Maria Tsimpoukelli, Jacob Menick, Serkan Cabi, S. M. Ali Eslami, Oriol Vinyals, and Felix Hill. 2021. Multimodal few-shot learning with frozen language models. In NeurIPS 2021, pages 200–212. 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 NeurIPS 2017, pages 5998–6008. Ramakrishna Vedantam, C. Lawrence Zitnick, and Devi Parikh. 2015. Cider: Consensus-based image description evaluation. In CVPR 2015, pages 4566–4575. IEEE Computer Society. Peng Wang, An Yang, Rui Men, Junyang Lin, Shuai Bai, Zhikang Li, Jianxin Ma, Chang Zhou, Jingren Zhou, and Hongxia Yang. 2022a. Unifying architectures, tasks, and modalities through a simple sequence-to-sequence learning framework. CoRR, abs/2202.03052. Wenhui Wang, Hangbo Bao, Li Dong, Johan Bjorck, Zhiliang Peng, Qiang Liu, Kriti Aggarwal, Owais Mohammed, Saksham Singhal, Subhojit Som, and Furu Wei. 2022b. Image as a foreign language: Beit pretraining for all vision and vision-language tasks. ArXiv, abs/2208.10442. Zirui Wang, Jiahui Yu, Adams Wei Yu, Zihang Dai, Yulia Tsvetkov, and Yuan Cao. 2021. Simvlm: Simple visual language model pretraining with weak supervision. CoRR, abs/2108.10904. Ning Xie, Farley Lai, Derek Doran, and Asim Kadav. 2019. Visual entailment: A novel task for fine-grained image understanding. CoRR, abs/1901.06706. Zhilin Yang, Zihang Dai, Yiming Yang, Jaime G. Carbonell, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Quoc V. Le. 2019. Xlnet: Generalized autoregressive pretraining for language understanding. In NeurIPS 2019, pages 5754– 5764. Zonghan Yang and Yang Liu. 2022. On robust prefix-tuning for text classification. ArXiv, abs/2203.10378. Jiahui Yu, Zirui Wang, Vijay Vasudevan, Legg Yeung, Mojtaba Seyedhosseini, and Yonghui Wu. 2022. Coca: Contrastive captioners are image-text foundation models. ArXiv, abs/2205.01917. Licheng Yu, Patrick Poirson, Shan Yang, Alexander C. Berg, and Tamara L. Berg. 2016. Modeling context in referring expressions. In ECCV 2016, volume 9906 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 69–85. Springer. Elad Ben Zaken, Yoav Goldberg, and Shauli Ravfogel. 2022. Bitfit: Simple parameter-efficient fine-tuning for transformer-based masked language-models. In ACL 2022, pages 1–9. Association for Computational Linguistics. Renrui Zhang, Rongyao Fang, Wei Zhang, Peng Gao, Kunchang Li, Jifeng Dai, Yu Qiao, and Hongsheng Li. 2021. Tip-adapter: Training-free clipadapter for better vision-language modeling. CoRR, abs/2111.03930. Kaiyang Zhou, Jingkang Yang, Chen Change Loy, and Ziwei Liu. 2021. Learning to prompt for visionlanguage models. CoRR, abs/2109.01134. Kaiyang Zhou, Jingkang Yang, Chen Change Loy, and Ziwei Liu. 2022. Conditional prompt learning for vision-language models. CoRR, abs/2203.05557.  ## A Appendix A.1 Experimental Setups Referring Expression Comprehension Referring expression comprehension requires models to locate an image region described by a language query. We perform experiments on RefCOCO (Yu et al., 2016), RefCOCO+ (Yu et al., 2016), and RefCOCOg (Mao et al., 2016). We report the standard metric Acc@0.5 on the validation and test sets. For finetuning, the batch size is set to 128, the learning rate is set to 0.03, and the prompt length varies from 10–120. For Adapter, the batch size is set to 128 and the learning rate is set to 5e − 5. For Bitfit, the batch size is set to 128 and the learning rate is set to 0.001. Visual Entailment Visual entailment requires the model to evaluate the semantic relation between the given image and text, i.e., entailment, neutrality, or contradiction. We perform experiments on the SNLI-VE (Xie et al., 2019) dataset. We report accuracy on both dev and test sets. The model is finetuned with a learning rate of 0.03 and a batch size of 128. The prompt length varies from 10–120. For Adapter, the batch size is set to 128 and the learning rate is set to 5e − 5. For Bitfit, the batch size is set to 128 and the learning rate is set to 0.001. Image Captioning Image captioning is a standard vision & language task that requires models to generate an appropriate and fluent caption for an image. We report BLEU@4 (Papineni et al., 2002), METEOR (Lavie and Agarwal, 2007), CIDEr (Vedantam et al., 2015), and SPICE (Anderson et al., 2016) scores on the Karpathy test split. We finetune the model with a learning rate of 0.03, a batch size of 256, and a prompt length varying from 10–120. For Adapter, the batch size is set to 128 and the learn- | Method | Fintuning | Prompt Tuning | |---------------|-------------|-----------------| | RefCOCO | 40.00 | 77.44 | | SNLI-VE | 80.96 | 164.48 | | COCO Captions | 29.60 | 16.16 | | VQA | 616.16 | 455.52 | | Length | 10 | 16 | 32 | 64 | 100 | 120 | |----------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | Score | 91.84 | 91.29 | 91.94 | 92.29 | 92.10 | 91.93 | ing rate is set to 5e − 5. For Bitfit, the batch size is set to 128 and the learning rate is set to 0.001. We only finetune the model with cross-entropy loss, without further CIDEr optimization. Visual Question Answering Visual question answering (Antol et al., 2015; Goyal et al., 2017) is a cross-modal task that requires the models to answer the question given an image. We conduct experiments on VQA 2.0 and report the score on the test-std set. For finetuning, the batch size is set to 256 and the learning rate is set to 0.03. Exponential Moving Average (EMA) with a decay rate of 0.9999 is employed in finetuning. The prompt length varies from 10–120. For Adapter, the batch size is set to 128 and the learning rate is set to 5e − 5. For Bitfit, the batch size is set to 128 and the learning rate is set to 0.001. ## A.2 Additional Experimental Results In this section, we provide more experimental results for comprehensive understanding of the performance of prompt tuning. Below we summarize the detailed performance of prompt tuning on the downstream tasks in the conditions of different prompt lengths. See Table 10. On average, a prompt length of 64 helps achieve the best average performance in the downstream tasks. To evaluate the training efficiency of different methods, we experiment on the base model OFA of different sizes, spanning from 93M to 930M paramters. Figure 4 demonstrates their performance in efficiency by evaluating their used time of processing 100 samples. We find that prompt tuning consistently performs better than finetuning in training efficiency. For the huge-size model, it can perform around 2 times faster than finetuning. However, based on our observation, the advantage in training efficiency does not lead to less required computation resource. Table 9 lists the detailed computation resource consumption of both finetuning and prompt tuning. Specifically, we compute the computation resource consumption by calculating the GPU-hours of finetuning and prompt tuning on different tasks. We find that for image captioning and VQA, prompt tuning consumes less resource, but for the other tasks prompt tuning adversely consumes more. It reflects that for tasks similar to pretraining tasks, especially those with more data in the pretraining stage, prompt tuning is able to outperform finetuning, but for others, prompt tuning even incurs more carbon footprints. This indicates that the real computation resource consumption for downstream transfer should be an important issue in the field of prompt tuning and the solution to this problem can further the developments of the application. ## A.3 Experimental Configuration The experiments are conducted on Linux servers equipped with an Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum CPU @2.90GHz, 1024GB RAM and 8 NIVDIA A10080GB GPUs. We run our experiments on 32 A100 GPUs. All models are implemented in Pytorch version 1.8.1 and Python 3.7.4. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Subsection Limitations ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Subsection Ethics Statement ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Subsection 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?** Subsection 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? Subsection A.2 A.3 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? Subsection 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? Run once, the variance is small and negligible. ✓ 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.)? Subsection 3 Subsection A.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.

gao-etal-2023-learning

Learning Joint Structural and Temporal Contextualized Knowledge Embeddings for Temporal Knowledge Graph Completion

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.28

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.

# Learning Joint Structural And Temporal Contextualized Knowledge Embeddings For Temporal Knowledge Graph Completion Yifu Gao1, Yongquan He2, Zhigang Kan1, Yi Han3, Linbo Qiao1**, 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., queryspecific 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 realworld 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). ∗*Corresponding Author  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 queryrelevant 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 SimplE (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 knowledge 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) G can be viewed as a multi-relational, directed graph with timestamped edges between nodes (entities). Each event (fact) in the G = {G0, G1*, . . . , G*T } can be represented as a quadruple (s, r, o, t) or (st, rt, ot), corresponding to subject entity s ∈ E, relation type r ∈ R, object entity o ∈ E and timestamp t ∈ T , where E, R and 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 ∈ {0*, . . . , 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, ?, t), we construct an EET C = {ct−m, ..., ct−1, ct, ct+1*, ..., c*t+m}, where ci = {s{(ri1, oi1), ...,(rin, oin)}} 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 ci 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 oi and the relation rilinking two entities. Each fact can be viewed as a "Branch" of the ith layer, and subject entities s of distinct layers constitute the "Trunk". We design two strategies to select n facts in each set ci: 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 ciis defined by {o{( ˙ri1, si1)*, ...,*( ˙rin, sin)}}, where 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 = {e0, e1*, . . . , 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 Tent and Trel. We add four special tokens and consider the inverse relation of r for query (?*, r, o, t*), so the entity lookup table Tent ∈ R (|E|+4)×d, and the relation lookup table Trel ∈ R 2*|R|×*d, where d is the hidden size, |E| and |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  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: $${\mathbf{E}}_{j}=W_{\Delta t}({\mathbf{e}}_{j}+{\mathbf{\tau}}_{|\Delta t_{j}|}),$$ $$W_{\Delta t}=\left\{\begin{array}{l l}{{W_{p a s t}}}&{{\Delta t_{j}<0}}\\ {{W_{n o w}}}&{{\Delta t_{j}=0}}\\ {{W_{f u t u r e}}}&{{\Delta t_{j}>0}}\end{array}\right.,$$ where ∆tj = tj − t*query*, ej ∈ R dis the temporal position embedding, and j is the temporal position index. We learn the discrete embedding of temporal displacement τ|∆tj | ∈ R d, and consider the sign of the displacement by applying different weights W∆t ∈ R d×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 ∈ R l×d, and feed it to the mask transformer encoder. ## 4.2.2 **Contextualized Knowledge Embeddings** $$(1)$$ 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 ∈ R l×lis defined as shown below: $$M[a,b]=\left\{\begin{array}{l l}{{0,}}&{{\mathrm{if}\ e_{a}\ominus e_{b}}}\\ {{-\infty,}}&{{\mathrm{others.}}}\end{array}\right.,\qquad(2)$$ 421 here, ea ⊖ eb indicates that ea and eb are in the same "Branch" or "Trunk" mentioned in Section 4.1, which means ea and eb 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 X to contextual representations H(L), where X, H(L) ∈ R l×d. At each layer, we also use three independent linear transformation matrices, Wi q,Wi k ,Wi v ∈ R d×d′, to transform the input embeddings X into queries, keys, and values of the i-th scaled dot-product attention head, where d′ = d K , and i = 1, 2*, . . . , K*. The specific function is shown below: $$\mathbf{H}^{i}=f({\frac{\left(\mathbf{X}\mathbf{W}_{q}^{i}\right)\left(\mathbf{X}\mathbf{W}_{k}^{i}\right)^{T}}{\sqrt{d^{\prime}}}}+\mathbf{M})(\mathbf{X}\mathbf{W}_{v}^{i}),\ (3)$$ where Hi ∈ R l×d′is the output representation of corresponding attention head, f is the softmax function, and we cascade them to get the output H ∈ R l×d. When M[*a, b*] = −∞, the softmax function makes the attention weight to zero, preventing token ea from computing the attention score of token eb. As the example illustrated in Figure 2(c), h (j+1) [MASK] is affected by h (j+1) China , and obtain the information of h (j) Japan indirectly through h (j+1) China . Meanwhile, h (j−1) Botswana can pass information to h (j+1) [MASK] through h (j) China and h (j+1) China . 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 (L) [MASK] into the multi-layer perceptron (MLP) decoder to predict the occurrence probabili- | Datasets | | E | | R | Ntrain | Nvalid | Ntest | | T | | | | |------------|----------------------|----------|-----------|---------|---------|-------| | ICEWS14 | 7,128 | 230 | 72,826 | 8,941 | 8,963 | 365 | | ICEWS05-15 | 10,488 | 251 | 368,962 | 46,275 | 46,092 | 4,017 | | GDELT | 500 | 20 | 2,735,685 | 341,961 | 341,961 | 366 | 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: $$p\left(\mathbf{e}\right)=\mathrm{Softmax}((\mathbf{h}_{[\mathrm{MASK}]}^{(L)}\mathbf{w}_{1}+\mathbf{b}_{1})\mathbf{w}_{2}+\mathbf{b}_{2}),\tag{4}$$ where w1 ∈ R d×d, b1 ∈ R dare the parameters of the first linear layer, and w2 ∈ R d×(|E|+4), b2 ∈ R (|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: $${\mathcal{L}}=-\sum_{\left(s,r,o,t\right)}\log p\left(o_{t}\right)+\log p\left(s_{t}\right),\quad\quad(5)$$ (s, r, o, t) ∈ 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 eventbased 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. | ICEWS14 | ICEWS05-15 | GDELT | | | | | | | | | | | |-----------------------|--------------|---------|--------|---------|------|--------|--------|---------|------|--------|--------|---------| | Method | MRR | Hits@1 | Hits@3 | Hits@10 | MRR | Hits@1 | Hits@3 | Hits@10 | MRR | Hits@1 | Hits@3 | Hits@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 | ## 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: TADisMult (García-Durán et al., 2018), DE-SimplE (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 | | | | | | | | | | |---------------------------------------------------|-------------|-----------------------|------|-----------------------|------|------|-----------------------|--------|--------------|----| | Layer | 2014-1-27 | 2014-1-29 | | | | | | | | | | 12 | A | Criticize_or_denounce | B | Engage_in_negotiation | B | A | Criticize_or_denounce | [MASK] | Host_a_visit | C | | - | - | - | - | - | .691 | .138 | .171 | - | - | | | 11 | A | Criticize_or_denounce | B | Engage_in_negotiation | B | A | Criticize_or_denounce | [MASK] | Host_a_visit | C | | .256 | - | - | - | - | .097 | .065 | .083 | .021 | .034 | | | 10 | A | Criticize_or_denounce | B | Engage_in_negotiation | B | A | Criticize_or_denounce | [MASK] | Host_a_visit | C | | .068 | .066 | .282 | .057 | .199 | .030 | - | - | - | - | | | ICEWS14 | | | | | |--------------|------|--------|--------|---------| | Models | MRR | Hits@1 | Hits@3 | Hits@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 | 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, 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 queryrelevant 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 GarcíaDurán, Jason Weston, and Oksana Yakhnenko. 2013. Translating embeddings for modeling multirelational 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 Dataverse*, 12. Kai Chen, Ye Wang, Yitong Li, and Aiping Li. 2022. Rotateqvs: Representing temporal information as rotations in quaternion vector space for temporal knowledge graph completion. In ACL, pages 5843–5857. Kyunghyun Cho, Bart van Merrienboer, Çaglar Gülçehre, 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 Köppl, 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 inferenceover 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. Timothée 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 evolutional 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 B Detailed Experimental Settings 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 timestamp 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 ∪ C with their scores from Eq.(4), where C = {o′: o′ ∈ E,(s, r, o′, t) *∈ G}* / . We follow a similar approach for the second query. 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 (|E| + 4, d), segment embedding (2, d), temporal position and displacement embedding (l + |T |, d) and three matrices W∆t 3d 2. The mask transformer encoder contains 12 mask self attention layers, where the parameters of each layer consist of three matrices Wq,Wk,Wv, a concatenated linear layer, where the parameter quantity of   each part is d 2, and the FFN is 8d 2. The number of MLP parameters is d 2 + d(|E| + 4). Ignoring Layernorm and Bias parameters, the amount of parameters is 148d 2 + d(2|E| + *|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 the gpu 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. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist 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.

laskar-etal-2023-systematic

A Systematic Study and Comprehensive Evaluation of {C}hat{GPT} on Benchmark Datasets

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.29

The development of large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT has brought a lot of attention recently. However, their evaluation in the benchmark academic datasets remains under-explored due to the difficulty of evaluating the generative outputs produced by this model against the ground truth. In this paper, we aim to present a thorough evaluation of ChatGPT{'}s performance on diverse academic datasets, covering tasks like question-answering, text summarization, code generation, commonsense reasoning, mathematical problem-solving, machine translation, bias detection, and ethical considerations. Specifically, we evaluate ChatGPT across 140 tasks and analyze 255K responses it generates in these datasets. This makes our work the largest evaluation of ChatGPT in NLP benchmarks. In short, our study aims to validate the strengths and weaknesses of ChatGPT in various tasks and provide insights for future research using LLMs. We also report a new emergent ability to follow multi-query instructions that we mostly found in ChatGPT and other instruction-tuned models. Our extensive evaluation shows that even though ChatGPT is capable of performing a wide variety of tasks, and may obtain impressive performance in several benchmark datasets, it is still far from achieving the ability to reliably solve many challenging tasks. By providing a thorough assessment of ChatGPT{'}s performance across diverse NLP tasks, this paper sets the stage for a targeted deployment of ChatGPT-like LLMs in real-world applications.

# A Systematic Study And Comprehensive Evaluation Of Chatgpt On Benchmark Datasets Md Tahmid Rahman Laskar∗† §, M Saiful Bari∗‡, Mizanur Rahman∗† ¶ Md Amran Hossen Bhuiyan†, Shafiq Joty‡$**, Jimmy Xiangji Huang**† †York University, ‡Nanyang Technological University, §Dialpad Canada Inc., ¶Royal Bank of Canada, $Salesforce Research {tahmid20,mizanurr,amran,jhuang}@yorku.ca {bari0001,srjoty}@ntu.edu.sg ## Abstract The development of large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT1 has brought a lot of attention recently. However, their evaluation in the benchmark academic datasets remains under-explored due to the difficulty of evaluating the generative outputs produced by this model against the ground truth. In this paper, we aim to present a thorough evaluation of ChatGPT's performance on diverse academic datasets, covering tasks like questionanswering, text summarization, code generation, commonsense reasoning, mathematical problem-solving, machine translation, bias detection, and ethical considerations. Specifically, we evaluate ChatGPT across 140 tasks and analyze **255K** responses it generates in these datasets. This makes our work the largest evaluation of ChatGPT in NLP benchmarks. In short, our study aims to validate the strengths and weaknesses of ChatGPT in various tasks and provide insights for future research using LLMs. We also report a new emergent ability to follow multi-query instructions that we mostly found in ChatGPT and other instruction-tuned models. Our extensive evaluation shows that even though ChatGPT is capable of performing a wide variety of tasks, and may obtain impressive performance in several benchmark datasets, it is still far from achieving the ability to reliably solve many challenging tasks. By providing a thorough assessment of ChatGPT's performance across diverse NLP tasks, this paper sets the stage for a targeted deployment of ChatGPT-like LLMs in real-world applications. ## 1 Introduction In recent years, the introduction of transformerbased (Vaswani et al., 2017) language models (LMs), such as BERT (Devlin et al., 2018), GPT (Radford et al., 2019), T5 (Raffel et al., 2020), etc. have led to significant advancements in NLP (Liu ∗First three authors contributed equally. 1https://chat.openai.com/ et al., 2019; Sanh et al., 2019; Lan et al., 2019; Lewis et al., 2020; Clark et al., 2020). The effectiveness of these models was evaluated by finetuning them on benchmark datasets (Wang et al., 2018, 2019), achieving state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance across various tasks. Recently, large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020) have demonstrated *in-context-learning* capability without requiring any fine-tuning on taskspecific data. The impressive performance of GPT3 and other LLMs (Scao et al., 2022; Tay et al., 2022; Thoppilan et al., 2022; Fedus et al., 2021; Hoffmann et al., 2022; Zeng et al., 2022) in fewshot learning scenarios is a major finding as this helps LLMs to be more efficient, making it possible to use LM-as-a-service (Sun et al., 2022) to empower a set of new real-world applications. Intuitively, in-context learning works by learning through analogies drawn from the given demonstration examples (Dong et al., 2023). After a largescale pre-training with a self-supervision objective, LLMs can identify task-level prior patterns from the given prompt and generate a relevant continuation. Large-scale pretraining also helps them to acquire emergent capabilities like *Chain of Thought* (Wei et al., 2022a). However, training only with self-supervision lacks grounding to real-world concepts and may not align well with its inference-time use cases resulting in unhelpful, hallucinated and sometimes toxic output (Ouyang et al., 2022). Thus, instead of learning meta-tasks in an implicit way from raw texts, recent approaches (Wei et al., 2021; Sanh et al., 2021; Muennighoff et al., 2022; Chung et al., 2022; Ouyang et al., 2022) proposed learning tasks in an explicit way with a large scale *prompted (supervised) meta-pretraining* (a.k.a., instructional tuning) to follow instructions. In addition to that, Ouyang et al. (2022) proposed to use Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) to finetune the LLM policy with human feedback in a reinforcement learning (RL) framework, introducing GPT-3.5 (text-davinci-003) 2. ChatGPT is the latest addition in this series that additionally uses dialog-based instructional data in the supervised and RL-based meta-training stages. ChatGPT has shown the ability to solve numerous tasks (e.g., question answering, text summarization, code generation, etc.) as a single model, instigating the question of "*Is ChatGPT Turing complete?*". Despite its impressive capability in performing a wide range of challenging tasks, there remain some major concerns3about using LLMs like ChatGPT to solve real-world problems (OpenAI-Blog, 2022). Putting aside their high computational cost, which can be prohibitive in many practical scenarios, a primary concern is that they can fail on simple tasks involving reasoning and commonsense (Marcus, 2022). Second, they can perpetuate biases present in the training data, leading to unfair or prejudiced results. Another concern is their ability to be used for malicious purposes, such as generating fake or misleading text. This can be a problem when it comes to misinformation or propaganda generation that could have real-world negative impacts. While many researchers and practitioners have raised such concerns regarding ChatGPT, a systematic study evaluating ChatGPT's performance on NLP benchmarks is still missing (as of 20 Jan, 2023, when the paper was submitted to ACL-2023 for reviewing). In this regard, this paper aims to conduct a comprehensive evaluation4 of ChatGPT on benchmark datasets to investigate its effectiveness and limitations in various scenarios, such as language understanding and generation capability, commonsense reasoning, open domain knowledge, the existence of new capabilities, along with studying its potential limitations, such as biases, misinformation generation, ethical concerns and etc. Meanwhile, we discover a unique capability that was not reported and analyzed for any LLMs before. We observe that *ChatGPT* can answer multiple arbitrary (unrelated) knowledge-based queries from a single input prompt (Sec. 4). We also report several limitations found in existing datasets while evaluating ChatGPT. In short, we conduct an extensive evaluation by analyzing 255K Chatgpt generated responses across 140 benchmark NLP datasets. ## 2 Methodology Tasks: We use several benchmark datasets and tasks for a zero-shot evaluation of ChatGPT. We categorize our evaluation into two groups: (i) Leaderboard-based Evaluation, and (ii) Task-based Evaluation. Figure 1 shows the list of all tasks that we used for evaluation in this paper. More details about the tasks and the datasets that we evaluate can be found in Appendix C, Table 15. Evaluation: Since ChatGPT is a conversational language model that gives human-like responses, for most of the tasks (e.g., usually discriminative classification tasks like sentiment analysis), we require human intervention to validate its responses. While for some other tasks (e.g., generative tasks like summarization or machine translation), we only use the available automatic metrics for evaluation. During the initial phase of our evaluation when the ChatGPT API was not available, a human annotator went to https://chat.openai.com/ and provided the input prompt. Afterward, the ChatGPT-generated responses were manually evaluated by at least two annotators against the gold labels. If there was a disagreement, another annotator chimed in and we considered the majority voting. When the API became available, we used the gpt-3.5-turbo model to generate the responses for different datasets. Below we describe our evaluation procedure for different types of tasks. For discriminative tasks, after providing an input sample to ChatGPT, the generated response is compared against the gold label. Though most of the responses generated by ChatGPT are evaluated by human annotators, it was challenging to assess all generative responses solely through human annotators in scenarios when the size of the datasets was large. In such cases, we design an evaluation script for the respective dataset to first parse the results and then compare the parsed results with the gold labels. Subsequently, any samples where the script could not parse the result properly were manually reviewed by the human annotators. We denote this evaluation approach as evaluation script + human-in-the-loop (see Appendix D for details). For generative tasks, such as summarization or machine translation where automatic evaluation metrics like ROUGE (Lin, 2004) or BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002) are available, we solely evaluate the performance of ChatGPT using these automatic metrics instead of any human intervention.  ## 3 Results And Discussion 3.1 General Observations We summarize our general observation based on our evaluation of ChatGPT in the following: - As a general purpose instruction following multitask model, ChatGPT performs worse than the SOTA single task fine-tuned models (Table 1). - ChatGPT can often perform on par with an average human in *Algorithmic Tasks* (Table 2). - For the same input prompt, different versions of ChatGPT may yield significantly different results (see Table 4). - Though the basic reasoning capability of ChatGPT is exceptional with *Chain-of-thought* (CoT) (Wei et al., 2022b) prompting, ChatGPT *sometimes* faces severe catastrophic forgetting in newly defined reasoning tasks when CoT prompting is not used (Table 4 and Table 26). - ChatGPT can attend to multiple questions in a query and respond accordingly. However, adding many questions may reduce the model's performance (Section 4). - Though ChatGPT has multilingual capability, its performance in underrepresented languages is very low (Table 8 and Table 24). - Though ChatGPT's open-domain knowledge capability is extremely high (Table 6), it often suffers in several Commonsense Reasoning tasks (e.g., PIQA, SIQA, HellaSwag, WinoGrande) compared to the competing models, such as, PaLM 540B and LLaMA 65B (Table 10). - For text summarization, the ChatGPT cannot outperform the current SOTA models based on the ROGUE metric (Table 7). However, our annotators prefer ChatGPT's generated summaries over the SOTA models (Appendix E). This suggests that we may need a new summarization metric to evaluate ChatGPT like instruction-tuned LLMs. - ChatGPT has a very strong Zero-shot mathematical (Table 11) and coding capability in comparison to other LLMs (Table 12). - ChatGPT is found to be more ethical than prior SOTA models (Table 5), while being less biased and more truthful (Table 9). - ChatGPT sometimes considers **utilitarian** morality and can respond to ethical dilemmarelated queries (Section 3.3). - The evaluation of ChatGPT-like LLMs should include human intervention instead of fully automatic evaluation (Figure 2 and Table 16). ## 3.2 **Performance Based On Nlp Leaderboards** In this section, we demonstrate the performance of ChatGPT in five NLP leaderboards: (i) SuperGLUE (Wang et al., 2019), (ii) Big-Bench Hard (Suzgun et al., 2022), (iii) Massive Multitask Language Understanding (MMLU) (Hendrycks et al.), (iv) Ethics Benchmark (Hendrycks et al., 2021a), and (v) Inverse Scaling Tasks (Wei et al., 2022b). Performance in SuperGLUE: We evaluate ChatGPT on the full SuperGLUE leaderboard, consisting of 10 datasets to measure an NLP model's natural language understanding capability. We compare its performance with T5-11B (Raffel et al., 2020), PaLM-520B (Chowdhery et al., 2022) and PaLM 2-L (Google, 2023) models. Table 1 shows the evaluation results. We observe that fine-tuned models perform exceptionally better than ChatGPT in most datasets. Meanwhile, in comparison to the 1-shot models, ChatGPT achieves competitive performance in *BoolQ*, | Datasets | | | | | | | | | | | |------------------------|--------|-----------|--------|-----------|-----------|------|------|------|------------|----------| | Models | BoolQ | CB | COPA | MultiRC | ReCoRD | RTE | WiC | WSC | AX-b | AX-g | | Acc | F1/Acc | Acc | F1a/EM | F1/Acc | Acc | Acc | Acc | MCC | Parity/Acc | | | T5-11B (fine-tuned) | 90.8 | 94.9/96.4 | 98.0 | 87.4/66.1 | 93.8/93.2 | 93.9 | 77.3 | 96.2 | NA | NA | | PaLM-540B (fine-tuned) | 92.2 | 100/100 | 100 | 90.1/69.2 | 94.0/94.6 | 95.7 | 78.8 | 100 | NA | NA | | PaLM-540B (1-shot) | 88.7 | NA/83.9 | 91.0 | 84.9/NA | NA//92.8 | 78.7 | 63.2 | 86.3 | NA | NA | | PaLM 2-L (1-shot) | 90.9 | NA/87.5 | 96.0 | 88.2/NA | NA/93.8 | 79.3 | 66.8 | 86.9 | NA | NA | | PaLM-540B (zero-shot) | 88.0 | NA/51.8 | 93.0 | 83.5/NA | NA/92.9 | 72.9 | 59.1 | 89.1 | NA | NA | | ChatGPT (zero-shot) | 90.1 | 78.0/83.9 | 94.0 | 81.8/84.0 | 66.5/64.5 | 87.0 | 62.1 | 71.2 | 56.7 | 100/92.7 | Table 1: Performance comparisons of ChatGPT with the PaLM-540B (Chowdhery et al., 2022) model and PaLM 2-L (Google, 2023) model in the development split of the **SuperGLUE** benchmark. Here, NA refers to Not Available. CB, *COPA*, and WiC datasets while outperforming both models in the RTE dataset. Moreover, it outperforms the zero-shot PaLM-540B model in 5 out of 8 datasets in SuperGLUE. Though none of the models that we compared did evaluation on *AX-b* and *AX-g* datasets, we find that ChatGPT achieves 100% parity in gender bias coreference resolution in the (*AX-g*) dataset and a score 56.7 in terms of the Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC) metric in the *AX-b* dataset. We also find that ChatGPT obtains a very low score in the *ReCoRD* dataset compared to other models. Similar to GPT3 (Brown et al., 2020), we also observe quite low performance on the WiC dataset using ChatGPT. Performance in Big-Bench Hard: We compare the performance of ChatGPT on the Big-Bench Hard benchmark with the following models: Codex (Chen et al., 2021a), InstructGPT (Ouyang et al., 2022; Brown et al., 2020), PaLM-540B (Chowdhery et al., 2022) and PaLM-2 (Google, 2023). We show the overall results in Table 2 and detailed results in Table 26 in the Appendix. We find based on the average across all tasks that ChatGPT outperforms both InstructGPT and PaLM-540B models when CoT prompts are used, while it fails to outperform these models when noCoT, i.e., Answer-only (AO) prompts are used. In task-specific comparisons, ChatGPT outperforms both InstructGPT and PaLM-540B in the algorithmic task but fails to outperform in the NLP tasks. While ChatGPT outperforms PaLM-540B in several scenarios, it could not outperform the recently introduced PaLM 2-L model in any tasks. Though CoT prompts significantly improve the performance of ChatGPT in Big Bench Hard, we surprisingly find that even the zero-shot performance of ChatGPT outperforms its performance with fewshot AO prompts. This opens up the question for future evaluation of ChatGPT in this benchmark via tuning the AO prompts. Performance in MMLU: We compare the performance of ChatGPT in the MMLU benchmark with models of various sizes (from 65B to 540B), as well as the PaLM 2-L (Google, 2023) model. The overall evaluation results based on the average across 57 tasks can be found in Table 3. We find that the zero-shot ChatGPT outperforms all 5-shot models that are sized between 65B to 280B. Its performance (average score of 67.0) is also comparable to the 5-shot PaLM model (average score of 69.3). However, the recently released PaLM 2-L model outperforms ChatGPT by a large margin (an absolute difference of 11.3 and 14.2 from the PaLM 2-L and Flan-PaLM 2-L models, respectively). While the 3-shot ChatGPT slightly improves the performance from the zero-shot one (67.0 to 68.9), it still performs much below than the PaLM 2-L based models. While comparing the results of ChatGPT in various categories (Humanities, Social Sciences, and STEM), we find that it performs the best in the Social Science category and worst in the STEM category. We refer readers to Table 25 in the Appendix for a more detailed evaluation result per task. Performance in Inverse Scaling Tasks: For inverse scaling (Wei et al., 2022b), we evaluate the performance of two versions of ChatGPT: (i) the December 15 version in chat.openai.com and (ii) the latest API version gpt-3.5-turbo. We compare the results with the PaLM model (Chowdhery et al., 2022) in the standard settings: (a) when CoT prompts are used, and (b) when not used (i.e., direct). Our results are shown in Table 4. We observe that different versions of ChatGPT lead to different results for both CoT and no-CoT scenarios. We also find that the latest version of ChatGPT may not necessarily lead to better results. Based on the average across all 11 tasks, the *December 15 version* outperforms the *gpt-3.5-turbo* version by a score of 3.24 when CoT prompting | Tasks | Srivastava et al. (2022) Human-Rater InstructGPT | Codex | PaLM 540B PaLM 2-L | ChatGPT | | | | | | | | |--------------------|----------------------------------------------------|---------|----------------------|-----------|------|-----------|----------------|------|--------------------------|----|--------| | Random | SOTA | Avg. | Max | AO | CoT | AO CoT AO | CoT | AO | CoT | ZS | AO CoT | | NLP Tasks | 29.5 | 60.5 | 71.2 | 96.9 | 60.9 | 71.3 | 66.4 73.5 62.7 | 71.2 | 54.6 75.6 47.3 37.1 69.3 | | | | Algorithmic Tasksλ | 21.2 | 40.3 | 63.5 | 92.2 | 42.0 | 65.3 | 45.9 74.4 40.9 | 58.6 | 75.9 80.5 64.4 61.6 70.1 | | | | All Tasks | 25.7 | 52.1 | 67.7 | 94.4 | 51.8 | 68.4 | 56.6 73.9 52.3 | 65.2 | 65.7 78.1 56.2 51.6 69.8 | | | Table 2: Averaged performance on the tasks from the **Big Bench Hard** benchmark. Here, AO, CoT, and ZS refer to *Answer* Only, *Chain-of-Thought*, and *Zero-Shot* results, respectively. All the results are few-shot except the results in the ZS column. | Models | Model Size | Humanities | Social Sciences | STEM | Other | Average | |-------------------------------------------------------|--------------|--------------|-------------------|--------|---------|-----------| | LLaMA (5-Shot) (Touvron et al., 2023) | 65B | 61.8 | 51.7 | 72.9 | 67.4 | 63.4 | | Chinchilla (5-Shot) (Hoffmann et al., 2022) | 70B | 63.6 | 79.3 | 54.9 | 73.9 | 67.5 | | GPT-3 (5-Shot) (Brown et al., 2020) | 175B | 40.8 | 36.7 | 50.4 | 48.8 | 43.9 | | Gopher(5-Shot) (Rae et al., 2021) | 280B | 56.2 | 47.4 | 71.9 | 66.1 | 60.0 | | PaLM (5-Shot) (Chowdhery et al., 2022) | 540B | 77.0 | 55.6 | 81.0 | 69.6 | 69.3 | | PaLM 2-L (5-Shot) (Google, 2023) | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | 78.3 | | Flan-PaLM 2-L (5-Shot) (Google, 2023) | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | 81.2 | | GPT-3.5 (3-Shot) (reported) (OpenAI, 2023) | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | 70.1 | | ChatGPT (5-Shot) (our evaluation w/ gpt-3.5-turbo) | NA | 71.9 | 82.2 | 66.2 | 72.3 | 68.9 | | ChatGPT (zero-shot) (our evaluation w/ gpt-3.5-turbo) | NA | 70.5 | 78.6 | 57.2 | 70.7 | 67.0 | Table 3: Performance of ChatGPT on the **MMLU** benchmark. NA refers to *Not Available*. is used, while the difference is surprisingly much higher (a difference of 24.73) when CoT prompting is not used. Thus, an in-depth evaluation of different versions of ChatGPT is important before being used in the real world. While the older version (e.g., Dec. 15) of ChatGPT outperforms the latest version in most tasks, we find that both versions are generally better than the PaLM-8B and the PaLM-62B models but usually fail to outperform the PaLM-540B model. Moreover, we find that both versions of ChatGPT obtain significantly better results when CoT prompting is used. Meanwhile, we surprisingly observe a very low performance in both versions in ÷ *as digit* and ÷ as digit instead sub-tasks when CoT prompts are not used. Though the score slightly improves (from 1 to 14) for the *gpt-3.5-turbo* model in the ÷ *as digit* task, it obtains a very poor score without CoT prompting in 6 out of 8 sub-tasks of Redefined Math (except Redefine e and π). Very poor performance in these tasks without CoT prompting gives a strong indication that ChatGPT is prone to give incorrect answers via memorizing the original mathematical notation from its pre-training data without properly understanding the new instructions (see Appendix J for some examples). We find some cases in the Redefined Math task where ChatGPT gives the correct answer but provides incorrect reasoning (see Figure 2(b) for an example). Meanwhile, we observe some cases where ChatGPT gives incorrect answers even though its reasoning is correct (see Figure 2(a) for an exam-   ple). We also find that the correct answer for the same input type may depend on the reasoning approach that ChatGPT is following (see Figure 3). Performance in the Ethics Benchmark: We show the performance of the zero-shot ChatGPT model in the Ethics Benchmark in Table 5. For comparisons, we use two fine-tuned SOTA models, ALBERT-xxlarge (Lan et al., 2019) and RoBERTa-large (Liu et al., 2019), as demonstrated in Hendrycks et al. (2021a). We use both Test and Hard Test versions of this benchmark for evaluation | Tasks | | | | | | | | | | | | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|-----------------------|------------|------------|-----------------------|------------|------------|------------|---------|--------|-------| | Models | Hindsight Neglect Quote Repet. Negation QA | Redefined Math | | | | | | | | | | | + as digit + as random digit Number as text Redefine e ÷ as digit ÷ as digit instead Redefine π Redefine π mod | | | | | | | | | | | | | CoT/Direct | CoT/Direct | CoT/Direct CoT/Direct | CoT/Direct | CoT/Direct | CoT/Direct CoT/Direct | CoT/Direct | CoT/Direct | CoT/Direct | | | | | PaLM-8B | 65/22 | 97/86 | 49/54 | 100/45 | 100/69 | 100/44 | 92/42 | 92/62 | 90/65 | 44/50 | 33/45 | | PaLM-62B | 99/33 | 92/81 | 68/23 | 100/43 | 100/55 | 100/65 | 100/53 | 100/43 | 100/51 | 100/62 | 43/56 | | PaLM-540B | 100/100 | 100/100 | 85/60 | 100/28 | 100/33 | 100/10 | 100/59 | 100/78 | 100/60 | 100/61 | 47/45 | | ChatGPT † | 100/67.5 | 100/100 | 95.3/72.3 | 100/86 | 100/65 | 100/88 | 100/97 | 100/1 | 100/9.1 | 100/97 | 81/53 | | ChatGPT ‡ | 100/39.8 | 86.3/82.9 | 83.4/65.2 | 99/22 | 99/0 | 100/0 | 100/98 | 95/14 | 98/8 | 99/96 | 81/38 | Datasets | Models | Justice Deontology Virtue Utilitarianism Commonsense Average | | | | |-----------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|-----------|-----------|-----------| | ALBERT-XXL (FT) 59.9/38.2 64.1/37.2 64.1/37.8 | 81.9/67.4 | 85.1/59.0 | 71.0/47.9 | | | RoBERTa-L (FT) | 56.7/38.0 60.3/37.8 53.0/25.5 | 79.5/62.9 | 90.4/63.4 | 68.0/44.1 | | ChatGPT (0-shot) | 75.4/71.8 54.0/50.0 92.0/84.0 | 74.3/64.4 | 79.0/72.0 | 74.9/68.4 | in terms of the following concepts: Justice, Deontology, Virtue, *Utilitarianism*, and *Commonsense*. More details on each task are given in Appendix C. We find based on average across all ethical concepts that ChatGPT outperforms prior SOTA models. Specifically, it significantly outperforms prior models in terms of Justice and Virtue in both Test and Hard Test versions of the dataset. More importantly, in the Hard Test, except Utilitarianism, ChatGPT significantly outperforms prior SOTA models in all other ethical concepts (though in non-Hard Tests, it fails to outperform in some concepts). ## 3.3 Performance Based On Nlp Tasks Open-Domain QA: We compare the performance of ChatGPT with LLaMA (Touvron et al., 2023) and PaLM-540B (both few-shot and zero-shot) (Chowdhery et al., 2022) for the open-domain QA task in the following datasets (as demonstrated in Table 6): (i) TriviaQA (Joshi et al., 2017), (ii) WebQuestions (Berant et al., 2013), and (iii) NQ-Open (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019). We find that ChatGPT not only significantly outperforms the zero-shot LLaMA-65B and PaLM-540B models, but also it outperforms the few-shot version of the PaLM540B model. This gives a strong indication that the pre-training knowledge of ChatGPT is more extensive than LLaMA and PaLM models. In addition, we conduct a thorough investigation and comprehensive human evaluation of ChatGPT on the EfficentQA dataset (Min et al., 2021), which is also an open-domain QA dataset and derived from the NQ-Open dataset. We select EfficientQA in this regard since it is smaller than other opendomain QA datasets we used for evaluation. Based on our extensive analysis, we observe several key insights in the EfficientQA dataset. For instance, many questions in this dataset are time-sensitive, while many answers contain outdated gold answers. Additionally, as ChatGPT was trained in 2021, it fails to answer questions that require knowledge of recent events. Moreover, we find some examples where ChatGPT gives a correct answer but the gold answer in the dataset is outdated. Though we observe an accuracy of 68% by ChatGPT in the EfficientQA dataset, fixing these outdated answers with the correct answers increases the accuracy to 71.1%. We show a few responses of ChatGPT in the EfficientQA dataset demonstrating some of the above findings in Appendix G. Reading Comprehension: We compare the performance of ChatGPT with the LLaMA 65B model (zero-shot) and the PaLM-540B model (fewshot and zero-shot) for the reading comprehension task as demonstrated in Table 6. We find that in terms of accuracy, ChatGPT outperforms both fewshot and zero-shot PaLM-540B models as well as the LLaMA-65B (zero-shot) model in the RACE dataset (both *Middle* and *Hard* versions) (Lai et al., 2017). While in the SQuAD 2.0 dataset (Rajpurkar et al., 2018), based on the Exact Match (EM) metric, it fails to outperform the PaLM models. Commonsense Reasoning: For the commonsense reasoning capability evaluation, we also compare ChatGPT with the zero-shot LLaMA-65B model and the PaLM-540B model (few-shot and zero-shot). While we find from Table 10 that ChatGPT outperforms all other models in the SIQA (Sap et al., 2019), ARC easy (ARC-e) and ARC challenge (ARC-c) (Clark et al., 2018), and OBQA (Mihaylov et al., 2018) datasets, it obtains significantly lower scores in the PIQA (Bisk et al., 2020), HellaSwag (Zellers et al., 2019), and WinoGrande (Sakaguchi et al., 2020) datasets. Mathematical Reasoning: We find from Table 11 that ChatGPT shows strong mathematical performance on all datasets, outperforming all prior | Open-Domain QA Datasets | Reading Comprehension Datasets | NLI Datasets | | | | | | | | |---------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | Models | TriviaQA WebQues. NQ-Open Race-Middle Race-Hard SQuAD-V2 ANLI-R1 ANLI-R2 ANLI-R3 | | | | | | | | | | PaLM-540B (few-shot) | 81.4 | 43.5 | 39.6 | 72.1 | 54.6 | 79.6 | 56.9 | 56.1 | 51.2 | | PaLM-540B (zero-shot) | 76.9 | 10.6 | 21.2 | 68.1 | 49.1 | 75.5 | 39.2 | 39.9 | 41.3 | | LLaMA-65B (zero-shot) | 68.2 | - | 23.8 | 67.9 | 51.6 | - | - | - | - | | ChatGPT (zero-shot) | 85.9 | 50.5 | 48.1 | 81.3 | 75.6 | 73.9 | 62.3 | 52.6 | 54.1 | Table 6: Performance on Open-Domain QA, Reading Comprehension, and NLI datasets. | Datasets | | | | | | | | | | | | |-------------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-----| | Models | CNN/DM | XSUM | SAMSum | DialogSum | | | | | | | | | R-1 | R-2 | R-L | R-1 | R-2 | R-L | R-1 | R-2 | R-L | R-1 | R-2 | R-L | | SOTA | 47.16 | 22.55 43.87 | 48.12 24.95 | 40.00 53.73 | 28.81 | 49.50 | 46.26 | 20.95 | 41.05 | | | | ChatGPT | 35.96 | 13.23 22.42 | 23.33 | 7.69 | 15.53 36.60 | 13.41 | 28.15 | 30.06 | 12.84 | 23.95 | | | ChatGPT (*) 35.81 | 12.81 22.29 | 26.67 | 8.94 | 19.31 38.83 | 13.70 | 30.61 | 34.87 | 14.93 | 29.09 | | |  Table 7: Performance of Zero-Shot ChatGPT on the text summarization datasets in terms of the ROUGE (R) metric. Here, 'SOTA' denotes 'state-of-the-art' results, taken from Ravaut et al. (2022) for CNN/DM and XSUM; while for SAMSum and DialogSum, the results are taken from Kim et al. (2022). Moreover, '*' denotes that 'restricted prompting' has been used. | Datasets | | | | |-------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|----------------|----------| | Models | WMT 2014 | WMT 2016 | WMT 2019 | | en-fr fr-en en-de de-en en-ro ro-en en-kk kk-en fr-de de-fr | | | | | PaLM 540B (0-shot) 38.5 41.1 31.8 43.8 24.2 39.9 | 1.8 | 18.0 25.2 28.6 | | | SOTA (fine-tuned) | 45.6 45.4 41.2 41.2 33.4 39.1 15.5 | 30.5 24.9 31.5 | | | ChatGPT (0-shot) | 39.4 38.5 35.3 41.6 31.6 39.6 3.22 | 12.3 26.5 32.5 | | Table 8: Performance in terms of the BLEU metric on the machine translation task. Here, 'SOTA' denotes 'state-of-theart' results. All the scores for PaLM and SOTA models are taken from the results mentioned in Chowdhery et al. (2022). | Datasets | | | | | |----------------------------------------------|------------|------|-------|-----------------------| | WinoBias | TruthfulQA | | | | | Pro | Anti | Avg. | Diff. | Truthful Truthful*Inf | | 96.97/100 80.30/99.49 88.64/99.75 16.67/0.51 | 0.78 | 0.70 | | | models (Minerva-540B (Lewkowycz et al.), PaLM540B (Chowdhery et al., 2022), and LLAMA (Touvron et al., 2023)) on the MATH dataset (Hendrycks et al., 2021b), as well as the GSM8K (Cobbe et al., 2021), and Multilingual Grade School Math (MGSM) (Shi et al., 2022) datasets. Natural Language Inference (NLI): We find from Table 6 that ChatGPT outperforms both fewshot and zero-shot PaLM-540B model (Chowdhery et al., 2022) in the Adversarial NLI (ANLI) (Nie et al., 2020) benchmark datasets for the NLI task. Text Summarization: For text summarization, we use the current SOTA models to compare the performance with ChatGPT as results for LLMs like PaLM-540B and LLaMA-65B are not available for the summarization task. We use the following datasets for evaluation: CNN-DM (See et al., 2017; Hermann et al., 2015) and XSUM (Narayan et al., 2018) for news article summarization, while the DialogSUM (Chen et al., 2021b) and SAMSum (Gliwa et al., 2019) datasets for dialogue summarization. For these datasets, we evaluate ChatGPT using **(i) Restricted Prompting:** *Writing a summary in not more than X words*, and **(ii) Unrestricted Prompting:** Writing a summary without any word-limit restrictions in the summary. We show our results in Table 7. We find that except CNN/DM, ChatGPT achieves much better performance when restricted prompts have been used. This could be due to the fact that the average gold summaries in XSUM, SAMSum, and DialogSum datasets are quite smaller and so the restricted prompting helps improve the ROUGE score. However, we find that ChatGPT does not necessarily properly follow the restrictions in words (exceeding the word restriction 73.5% times on average) when it generates its responses (Appendix F for more details). In comparison to the SOTA models, we find that the ROUGE scores of the zero-shot ChatGPT model are much lower than the SOTA results. We further randomly collected 100 samples (50 for XSUM and 50 for CNN/DM) to conduct a human evaluation of the summaries generated by | Datasets | | | | | | | | |-------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | Models | PIQA SIQA HellaSwag WinoGrande ARC-e ARC-c OBQA | | | | | | | | PaLM-540B (few-shot) 85.2 | - | 83.8 | 85.1 | 88.4 | 65.9 | 68.0 | | | PaLM-540B (0-shot) | 82.3 | - | 83.4 | 81.1 | 76.6 | 53.0 | 53.4 | | LLaMA-65B (0-shot) | 82.8 | 52.3 | 84.2 | 77.0 | 78.9 | 56.0 | 60.2 | | ChatGPT (0-shot) | 62.1 | 66.1 | 72.0 | 66.8 | 94.0 | 84.6 | 81.0 | | Table 10: Performance on Commonsense Reasoning. | | | | | | | | | Datasets | | | | |--------------------------------------------------|-----------------|------|------| | Models | MATH GSM8k MGSM | | | | Minerva-540B (fine-tuned) | 33.6 | 68.5 | - | | PaLM-540B (few-shot) | - | 58.0 | - | | PaLM-540B (zero-shot) | 8.8 | 56.5 | 18.3 | | LLaMA-65B (zero-shot) | 10.6 | 50.9 | - | | ChatGPT zero-shot) | 34.1 | 87.7 | 57.2 | | Table 11: Performance on Mathematical Reasoning. | | | | | Datasets | | | |------------------------|----------------|------| | Models | HumanEval MBPP | | | PaLM 540B (fine-tuned) | 36.0 | 80.8 | | PaLM 540B (*) | 26.2 | 75.0 | | LLaMA 65B (*) | 23.7 | 37.7 | | ChatGPT (zero-shot) | 61.2 | 73.8 | ChatGPT and Ravaut et al. (2022) (see Appendix E for more details). We find that our annotators prefer ChatGPT 78% times in CNN/DM and 92% times in XSUM. This is consistent with the recent findings (Liu et al., 2023d; Goyal et al., 2022), where summaries from GPT-3.5 are preferred compared to fine-tuned models in reference-free evaluation. Machine Translation: We evaluate ChatGPT for the machine translation task in various languages (English (en), French (fr), German (de), Romanian (rn), Kazakh (kk)) under various scenarios. Similar to (Chowdhery et al., 2022), for English-centric language pairs, we use the WMT'14 (Bojar et al., 2014) for English-French translation in high-resource scenarios, WMT'16 (Bojar et al., 2016) English-German in mediumresource while English-Romanian for low-resource scenarios; WMT'19 (Barrault et al., 2019) for direct translation between non-English languages: German-French and for extremely low-resource language pairs: English-Kazakh. We find that while translating from English to other languages, ChatGPT outperforms the zero-shot PaLM model. Whereas, the opposite happens when the translation is done from other languages to English. Moreover, for non-English translation (between German and French), we observe that ChatGPT even outperforms the SOTA fine-tuned models. Nonetheless, in other datasets, ChatGPT could not outperform the fine-tuned SOTA models. Code Generation: We evaluate the coding ability of ChatGPT on the MBPP (Austin et al., 2021) and the HumanEval (Chen et al., 2021a) datasets. Based on our results shown in Table 12, we find that in terms of the pass@1 metric, ChatGPT outperforms all models in the HumanEval dataset. While ChatGPT obtains a score of 73.8 in the MBPP dataset in terms of pass@1, it outperforms the 3shot LLaMA in that dataset while also achieving performance comparable to the fine-tuned and 3shot PaLM-540B models in the same dataset. Bias and Misinformation: For bias evaluation, we use the WinoBias (Zhao et al., 2018) dataset to evaluate the performance on both Type 1 and Type 2 versions of the data for the co-reference resolution task in pro-stereotype and anti-stereotype scenarios. The bias in this dataset is computed via measuring the difference between these two scenarios. For misinformation generation evaluation, we use the TruthfulQA (Lin et al., 2022) dataset. Based on our experimental results in these datasets in Table 9, we find that in the WinoBias dataset, ChatGPT obtains impressive performance on the Type 2 version of the dataset (100% accuracy in pro-stereotype and almost 100% in antistereotype scenarios), with a very low difference (0.51%) between these two types. However, in the Type 1 version of the dataset, there is a high bias in ChatGPT response, as the difference between the accuracy of pro-stereotype (96.97%) and anti-stereotype (80.30%) is about 16.67%. Thus, asking ChatGPT to answer based on world knowledge without any syntactic cues in the Type 1 task (contrary to the Type 2 task that can be resolved using syntactic information), leads to more bias. In the TruthfulQA dataset, we find that in terms of truthfulness and informativeness, it obtains a score of 0.78 and 0.70, respectively (in comparison, the LLaMA 65B model (Touvron et al., 2023) achieves a score of 0.57 and 0.53, respectively). Ethical Dilemma: We generate the ChatGPT responses for a set of 25 manually constructed questions that integrate racial, political, social, and religious biases as well as abstract decision problems. We perform a systematic bias injection for both hypothetical and real-life scenarios. Response to each question is generated three times for a rigorous evaluation. While we do not evaluate whether the ChatGPT-generated responses for the given questions are right or wrong, we will release all responses generated by ChatGPT for readers' discretion (see Appendix H for some ChatGPT-generated responses). By analyzing the responses, we observe that ChatGPT can identify the Trolley Prob- | Dataset | Prompted ChatGPT davinci-003 davinci-002 davinci-001 ada-001 babbage-001 curie-001 curie-ins-beta davinci-ins-beta ada babbage curie davinci Single Query | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |---------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| | EfficientQA | Yes | 78 | 61 | 56 | 48 | 8 | 10 | 24 | 24 | 33 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 3 | | No | 75 | 57 | 57 | 47 | 10 | 16 | 24 | 9 | 25 | 3 | 0 | 6 | 5 | | | Web Question | Yes | 80 | 70 | 71 | 64 | 13 | 34 | 44 | 47 | 55 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 5 | | No | 78 | 74 | 69 | 66 | 24 | 32 | 45 | 36 | 60 | 2 | 4 | 13 | 26 | | | PolyQuery Synthesis | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | EfficientQA | Yes | 77 | 57 | 55 | 52 | 3 | 9 | 21 | 14 | 41 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | | No | 70 | 57 | 31 | 33 | 2 | 4 | 7 | 9 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | Web Question | Yes | 74 | 75 | 74 | 68 | 3 | 25 | 50 | 35 | 53 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | No | 76 | 70 | 67 | 63 | 6 | 9 | 16 | 34 | 26 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | lem. We also observe that most of the time ChatGPT remains neutral and provides expert-like opinions putting arguments for all possible scenarios. Other Tasks (Sentiment Analysis & NER): In the IMDB dataset (Maas et al., 2011) , we obtain 92.3% accuracy for sentiment analysis. For NER (Named Entity Recognition), we use the WNUT 17 (Derczynski et al., 2017) dataset to obtain Precision: 18.03, Recall: 56.16, and F1: 27.03. ## 4 Polyquery Synthesis In this section, we present a unique capability of ChatGPT that we discover in the course of our study. Specifically, it can identify multiple queries (potentially for different objectives) in a single prompt and retrieve responses for all these queries from the latent representation of the model. Retrieving **a set of** arbitrary information in this way makes it an impressive feature, paving the way to use the ChatGPT API in real-world limited-budget scenarios by solving multiple tasks at once based on a single input prompt. To our best knowledge, no prior work investigated this feature of LLMs. We name this capability as *PolyQuery Synthesis*. To do a systematic evaluation, we create a small dataset from the EfficientQA dev split (Min et al., 2021) and Web-Questions (Berant et al., 2013) test split. For each dataset, we combine 5 different Table 13: Accuracy (%) of different models on the curated dataset to investigate PolyQuery Synthesis.  samples into a single sample and create a prompted and non-prompted (non-instructional) input. In total, we use 100 samples from each dataset for evaluation. We also show an example in Figure 4. We generate responses for 13 different models from OpenAI5; see Table 13 for the result. We observe that ChatGPT shows strong performance on both prompted and non-prompted queries. While davinci-003 and davinci-002 perform reasonably in prompted queries, their performance is much worse in non-prompted queries. We did not observe this in the original davinci model. Based on the performance variations in different models, we suspect that instructional tuning (both supervised and RL) enables this emergent feature in ChatGPT and davinci-{001,002,003} series. An example of responses from all the models can be found in the Appendix in Table 21 and Table 22. We also compare the result with single sample input and observe that **PolyQuery Synthesis** usually leads to some drop in performance. ## 5 Conclusions And Future Work This paper evaluates the effectiveness and limitations of ChatGPT in standard academic datasets. To our best knowledge, this is the first work that conducts an extensive evaluation of ChatGPT in benchmark NLP datasets. We observe that even though ChatGPT obtains impressive zero-shot performance across various tasks, it is still far from reaching human-level performance in many tasks. Moreover, potential biases and ethical concerns, as well as misinformation generation risks of ChatGPT are discussed. In addition, a unique capability of ChatGPT has been studied. Though there may have numerous other capabilities of ChatGPT that go unnoticed in this paper, future work should nonetheless investigate the capability of ChatGPT on more tasks. We will make all our prompts and ChatGPT-generated responses publicly available. 5https://beta.openai.com/docs/models/overview ## 6 Limitations Even though there has been a lot of hype on social media regarding various application areas of ChatGPT, there may have other capabilities of ChatGPT that are not investigated in this paper. Since the instruction-tuning datasets of OpenAI models are unknown (not open-source), some datasets used for evaluation may or may not exist in the instructiontuning training data of OpenAI. Another limitation of this research is that most of the numerical value of the results may change as OpenAI trains new models with more data and filters. While the experimental results may change over time, this work will still give a concrete direction on what to expect from a general-purpose dialogue model and potential shortcomings. We also want to add a disclaimer in the result comparison between different models. In this research, we were only able to generate textual responses from the ChatGPT model. That means we did not have access to the log-probability of the model. Thus the model was only evaluated on generative responses. At the time of the research performed, we did not do any log-probability rankingbased evaluation due to the limitations of the ChatGPT API. We also strongly believe that the evaluation of a ChatModel should be generative instead of ranking accuracy. While doing our literature review and collecting results from different LLM papers (i.e., Google (2023); Touvron et al. (2023); OpenAI (2023)) we often did not find details about their evaluation approach, reference evaluation script, or even prompts used for the task. To alleviate this issue, we did rigorous prompt testing on ChatGPT before the evaluation of each task. We tried our best to make sure that ChatGPT responds to answer choices instead of generating open-ended text. While we are quite confident about our evaluation (due to human evaluation), we want to worry that the compared models mentioned in this paper may not always generate suitable targeted words from the answer choices while generating text. However, we included all the potential LLM baselines in this paper because it depicts a reasonable comparison. Since many different institutes are not releasing research details (i.e., checkpoint, model details, evaluation script), we believe that adding these relevant numbers to the table will help see the model in a comparative manner. For chatbot evaluation, we sincerely want to invite the community to adopt the generative evaluation since it depicts a real-life scenario and human-centric interaction with the model. While this paper evaluates ChatGPT across 140 datasets, there remain many other tasks that are not evaluated in this paper. For instance, tasks in the Biomedical and the Clinical domain (Luo et al., 2022; Lee et al., 2020; Alsentzer et al., 2019; Beltagy et al., 2019; Gu et al., 2020; Peng et al., 2019), NER across more datasets (Tjong Kim Sang and De Meulder, 2003; Malmasi et al., 2022; Fu et al., 2022; Laskar et al., 2022a), Multi-Document and Query-Focused Text Summarization (Laskar et al., 2020a; Zhong et al., 2021; Su et al., 2022; Laskar et al., 2022d), Low-Resourced (Hedderich et al., 2021) NLP problems, Data-to-Text Generation (Kantharaj et al., 2022; Rahman et al., 2023), Entity Linking (Wu et al., 2020; Ayoola et al., 2022; Laskar et al., 2022b,c), Answer Re-Ranking Task (Garg et al., 2020; Laskar et al., 2020b), etc. While our study may open up new ideas and thought-provoking arguments on the evaluation of Chat-based models, we want to acknowledge that the breadth of such evaluation is extremely limited at this moment. However, we believe that this evaluation effort will generate new research questions and priorities *Red Teaming* LLMs. ## 7 Ethics Statement The paper does not leverage any 3rd-party to conduct the human evaluation of the ChatGPT responses and so no additional compensation was needed. All the human evaluations in this paper are conducted by the authors. Since this paper only evaluates the performance of ChatGPT and investigates its effectiveness and limitations, conducting the human evaluation by the authors does not lead to any unwanted biases or ethical concerns. Only the publicly available academic datasets are used that did not require any licensing. Thus, no personally identifiable information has been used while evaluating ChatGPT responses. ## Acknowledgements We would like to thank all the anonymous reviewers for their excellent review comments. This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada and the York Research Chairs (YRC) program. Jimmy Huang (*jhuang@yorku.ca*) and Shafiq Joty (*srjoty@ntu.edu.sg*) are the contact authors of this paper. ## References Daniel Adiwardana, Minh-Thang Luong, David R So, Jamie Hall, Noah Fiedel, Romal Thoppilan, Zi Yang, Apoorv Kulshreshtha, Gaurav Nemade, Yifeng Lu, et al. 2020. Towards a human-like open-domain chatbot. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.09977*. Kabir Ahuja, Rishav Hada, Millicent Ochieng, Prachi Jain, Harshita Diddee, Samuel Maina, Tanuja Ganu, Sameer Segal, Maxamed Axmed, Kalika Bali, and Sunayana Sitaram. 2023. Mega: Multilingual evaluation of generative ai. Rachith Aiyappa, Jisun An, Haewoon Kwak, and YongYeol Ahn. 2023. Can we trust the evaluation on chatgpt? Emily Alsentzer, John R Murphy, Willie Boag, WeiHung Weng, Di Jin, Tristan Naumann, and Matthew McDermott. 2019. Publicly available clinical bert embeddings. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.03323*. Jacob Austin, Augustus Odena, Maxwell Nye, Maarten Bosma, Henryk Michalewski, David Dohan, Ellen Jiang, Carrie Cai, Michael Terry, Quoc Le, et al. 2021. Program synthesis with large language models. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2108.07732. Tom Ayoola, Shubhi Tyagi, Joseph Fisher, Christos Christodoulopoulos, and Andrea Pierleoni. 2022. Refined: An efficient zero-shot-capable approach to end-to-end entity linking. In *Proceedings of the 2022* Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies: Industry Track, pages 209– 220. Stephen H Bach, Victor Sanh, Zheng-Xin Yong, Albert Webson, Colin Raffel, Nihal V Nayak, Abheesht Sharma, Taewoon Kim, M Saiful Bari, Thibault Fevry, et al. 2022. Promptsource: An integrated development environment and repository for natural language prompts. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.01279*. Aram Bahrini, Mohammadsadra Khamoshifar, Hossein Abbasimehr, Robert J. Riggs, Maryam Esmaeili, Rastin Mastali Majdabadkohne, and Morteza Pasehvar. 2023. Chatgpt: Applications, opportunities, and threats. Yejin Bang, Samuel Cahyawijaya, Nayeon Lee, Wenliang Dai, Dan Su, Bryan Wilie, Holy Lovenia, Ziwei Ji, Tiezheng Yu, Willy Chung, Quyet V. Do, Yan Xu, and Pascale Fung. 2023. A multitask, multilingual, multimodal evaluation of chatgpt on reasoning, hallucination, and interactivity. Roy Bar Haim, Ido Dagan, Bill Dolan, Lisa Ferro, Danilo Giampiccolo, Bernardo Magnini, and Idan Szpektor. 2006. The second PASCAL recognising textual entailment challenge. Loïc Barrault, Ondˇrej Bojar, Marta R Costa-jussà, Christian Federmann, Mark Fishel, Yvette Graham, Barry Haddow, Matthias Huck, Philipp Koehn, Shervin Malmasi, et al. 2019. Findings of the 2019 conference on machine translation (wmt19). In *Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Machine Translation (Volume 2: Shared Task Papers, Day 1)*, pages 1–61. Sara Di Bartolomeo, Giorgio Severi, Victor Schetinger, and Cody Dunne. 2023. Ask and you shall receive (a graph drawing): Testing chatgpt's potential to apply graph layout algorithms. Zeljana Basic, Ana Banovac, Ivana Kruzic, and Ivan Jerkovic. 2023. Better by you, better than me, chatgpt3 as writing assistance in students essays. Iz Beltagy, Kyle Lo, and Arman Cohan. 2019. Scibert: A pretrained language model for scientific text. 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 3615–3620. Luisa Bentivogli, Ido Dagan, Hoa Trang Dang, Danilo Giampiccolo, and Bernardo Magnini. 2009. The fifth PASCAL recognizing textual entailment challenge. Jonathan Berant, Andrew Chou, Roy Frostig, and Percy Liang. 2013. Semantic parsing on Freebase from question-answer pairs. In *Proceedings of the 2013* Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1533–1544, Seattle, Washington, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yonatan Bisk, Rowan Zellers, Jianfeng Gao, Yejin Choi, et al. 2020. Piqa: Reasoning about physical commonsense in natural language. In *Proceedings of the* AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 34, pages 7432–7439. Sid Black, Stella Biderman, Eric Hallahan, Quentin Anthony, Leo Gao, Laurence Golding, Horace He, Connor Leahy, Kyle McDonell, Jason Phang, Michael Pieler, USVSN Sai Prashanth, Shivanshu Purohit, Laria Reynolds, Jonathan Tow, Ben Wang, and Samuel Weinbach. 2022. Gpt-neox-20b: An opensource autoregressive language model. Ondˇrej Bojar, Christian Buck, Christian Federmann, Barry Haddow, Philipp Koehn, Johannes Leveling, Christof Monz, Pavel Pecina, Matt Post, Herve SaintAmand, et al. 2014. Findings of the 2014 workshop on statistical machine translation. In Proceedings of the ninth workshop on statistical machine translation, pages 12–58. Ondˇrej Bojar, Rajen Chatterjee, Christian Federmann, Yvette Graham, Barry Haddow, Matthias Huck, Antonio Jimeno Yepes, Philipp Koehn, Varvara Logacheva, Christof Monz, et al. 2016. Findings of the 2016 conference on machine translation. In *Proceedings of the First Conference on Machine Translation:* Volume 2, Shared Task Papers, pages 131–198. Ali Borji. 2023. A categorical archive of chatgpt failures. 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. Zhenguang G. Cai, David A. Haslett, Xufeng Duan, Shuqi Wang, and Martin J. Pickering. 2023. Does chatgpt resemble humans in language use? Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, et al. 2021a. Evaluating large language models trained on code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374. Yulong Chen, Yang Liu, Liang Chen, and Yue Zhang. 2021b. Dialogsum: A real-life scenario dialogue summarization dataset. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2105.06762. Anton Cheshkov, Pavel Zadorozhny, and Rodion Levichev. 2023. Evaluation of chatgpt model for vulnerability detection. Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, et al. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2204.02311. Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Eric Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, et al. 2022. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11416. Christopher Clark, Kenton Lee, Ming-Wei Chang, Tom Kwiatkowski, Michael Collins, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. Boolq: Exploring the surprising difficulty of natural yes/no questions. 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 2924–2936. Kevin Clark, Minh-Thang Luong, Quoc V Le, and Christopher D Manning. 2020. Electra: Pre-training text encoders as discriminators rather than generators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.10555. Peter Clark, Isaac Cowhey, Oren Etzioni, Tushar Khot, Ashish Sabharwal, Carissa Schoenick, and Oyvind Tafjord. 2018. Think you have solved question answering? try arc, the ai2 reasoning challenge. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.05457. Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, et al. 2021. Training verifiers to solve math word problems. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168*. Ido Dagan, Oren Glickman, and Bernardo Magnini. 2006. The PASCAL recognising textual entailment challenge. In *Machine learning challenges. evaluating predictive uncertainty, visual object classification,* and recognising tectual entailment, pages 177–190. Springer. Haixing Dai, Zhengliang Liu, Wenxiong Liao, Xiaoke Huang, Yihan Cao, Zihao Wu, Lin Zhao, Shaochen Xu, Wei Liu, Ninghao Liu, Sheng Li, Dajiang Zhu, Hongmin Cai, Lichao Sun, Quanzheng Li, Dinggang Shen, Tianming Liu, and Xiang Li. 2023. Auggpt: Leveraging chatgpt for text data augmentation. Marie-Catherine De Marneffe, Mandy Simons, and Judith Tonhauser. 2019. The CommitmentBank: Investigating projection in naturally occurring discourse. To appear in proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 23. Data can be found at https://github.com/mcdm/CommitmentBank/. Leon Derczynski, Eric Nichols, Marieke van Erp, and Nut Limsopatham. 2017. Results of the WNUT2017 shared task on novel and emerging entity recognition. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Noisy User-generated Text, pages 140–147, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics. Sanjay Deshpande and Jakub Szefer. 2023. Analyzing chatgpt's aptitude in an introductory computer engineering course. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. *Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the* North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, 4171-4186. Qingxiu Dong, Lei Li, Damai Dai, Ce Zheng, Zhiyong Wu, Baobao Chang, Xu Sun, Jingjing Xu, Lei Li, and Zhifang Sui. 2023. A survey for in-context learning. CoRR, abs/2301.00234. 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. William Fedus, Barret Zoph, and Noam Shazeer. 2021. Switch transformers: Scaling to trillion parameter models with simple and efficient sparsity. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2101.03961. Ronald Fischer, Markus Luczak-Roesch, and Johannes A Karl. 2023. What does chatgpt return about human values? exploring value bias in chatgpt using a descriptive value theory. Simon Frieder, Luca Pinchetti, Ryan-Rhys Griffiths, Tommaso Salvatori, Thomas Lukasiewicz, Philipp Christian Petersen, Alexis Chevalier, and Julius Berner. 2023. Mathematical capabilities of chatgpt. Xue-Yong Fu, Cheng Chen, Md Tahmid Rahman Laskar, Shashi Bhushan Tn, and Simon Corston-Oliver. 2022. An effective, performant named entity recognition system for noisy business telephone conversation transcripts. In *Proceedings of the Eighth Workshop* on Noisy User-generated Text (W-NUT 2022), pages 96–100. Leo Gao, Stella Biderman, Sid Black, Laurence Golding, Travis Hoppe, Charles Foster, Jason Phang, Horace He, Anish Thite, Noa Nabeshima, Shawn Presser, and Connor Leahy. 2020. The Pile: An 800gb dataset of diverse text for language modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00027. Mingqi Gao, Jie Ruan, Renliang Sun, Xunjian Yin, Shiping Yang, and Xiaojun Wan. 2023. Human-like summarization evaluation with chatgpt. Siddhant Garg, Thuy Vu, and Alessandro Moschitti. 2020. Tanda: Transfer and adapt pre-trained transformer models for answer sentence selection. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 34, pages 7780–7788. Danilo Giampiccolo, Bernardo Magnini, Ido Dagan, and Bill Dolan. 2007. The third PASCAL recognizing textual entailment challenge. In *Proceedings of the* ACL-PASCAL workshop on textual entailment and paraphrasing, pages 1–9. Association for Computational Linguistics. Bogdan Gliwa, Iwona Mochol, Maciej Biesek, and Aleksander Wawer. 2019. Samsum corpus: A humanannotated dialogue dataset for abstractive summarization. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on New Frontiers in Summarization, pages 70–79. Dongyu Gong. 2023. Assessing working memory capacity of chatgpt. Google. 2023. Palm 2 technical report. *Goole AI*. Tanya Goyal, Junyi Jessy Li, and Greg Durrett. 2022. News summarization and evaluation in the era of gpt-3. Yu Gu, Robert Tinn, Hao Cheng, Michael Lucas, Naoto Usuyama, Xiaodong Liu, Tristan Naumann, Jianfeng Gao, and Hoifung Poon. 2020. Domain-specific language model pretraining for biomedical natural language processing. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.15779*. Shuaishuai Guo, Yanhu Wang, Shujing Li, and Nasir Saeed. 2023. Semantic communications with ordered importance using chatgpt. Jochen Hartmann, Jasper Schwenzow, and Maximilian Witte. 2023. The political ideology of conversational ai: Converging evidence on chatgpt's proenvironmental, left-libertarian orientation. Tatsunori B Hashimoto, Hugh Zhang, and Percy Liang. 2019. Unifying human and statistical evaluation for natural language generation. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1904.02792. Michael A Hedderich, Lukas Lange, Heike Adel, Jannik Strötgen, and Dietrich Klakow. 2021. A survey on recent approaches for natural language processing in low-resource scenarios. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2545–2568. Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andrew Critch, Jerry Li, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. 2021a. Aligning ai with shared human values. *Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning* Representations (ICLR). Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou, Mantas Mazeika, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring massive multitask language understanding. In *International Conference on Learning Representations*. Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Saurav Kadavath, Akul Arora, Steven Basart, Eric Tang, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. 2021b. Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset. *NeurIPS*. Amr Hendy, Mohamed Abdelrehim, Amr Sharaf, Vikas Raunak, Mohamed Gabr, Hitokazu Matsushita, Young Jin Kim, Mohamed Afify, and Hany Hassan Awadalla. 2023. How good are gpt models at machine translation? a comprehensive evaluation. 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. Jordan Hoffmann, Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Elena Buchatskaya, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Diego de Las Casas, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Johannes Welbl, Aidan Clark, et al. 2022. Training compute-optimal large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.15556. 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. Junjie Hu, Sebastian Ruder, Aditya Siddhant, Graham Neubig, Orhan Firat, and Melvin Johnson. 2020. Xtreme: A massively multilingual multi-task benchmark for evaluating cross-lingual generalisation. In *International Conference on Machine Learning*, pages 4411–4421. PMLR. Yan Hu, Iqra Ameer, Xu Zuo, Xueqing Peng, Yujia Zhou, Zehan Li, Yiming Li, Jianfu Li, Xiaoqian Jiang, and Hua Xu. 2023. Zero-shot clinical entity recognition using chatgpt. Fan Huang, Haewoon Kwak, and Jisun An. 2023. Is ChatGPT better than human annotators? potential and limitations of ChatGPT in explaining implicit hate speech. In Companion Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023. ACM. Israt Jahan, Md Tahmid Rahman Laskar, Chun Peng, and Jimmy Huang. 2023. Evaluation of chatgpt on biomedical tasks: A zero-shot comparison with fine-tuned generative transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.04504. Myeongjun Jang and Thomas Lukasiewicz. 2023. Consistency analysis of chatgpt. Wenxiang Jiao, Wenxuan Wang, Jen tse Huang, Xing Wang, and Zhaopeng Tu. 2023. Is chatgpt a good translator? yes with gpt-4 as the engine. Mandar Joshi, Eunsol Choi, Daniel S 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. Shankar Kantharaj, Rixie Tiffany Leong, Xiang Lin, Ahmed Masry, Megh Thakkar, Enamul Hoque, and Shafiq Joty. 2022. Chart-to-text: A large-scale benchmark for chart summarization. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4005–4023. Jungo Kasai, Yuhei Kasai, Keisuke Sakaguchi, Yutaro Yamada, and Dragomir Radev. 2023. Evaluating gpt-4 and chatgpt on japanese medical licensing examinations. Ali Kashefi and Tapan Mukerji. 2023. Chatgpt for programming numerical methods. Daniel Khashabi, Snigdha Chaturvedi, Michael Roth, Shyam Upadhyay, and Dan Roth. 2018. Looking beyond the surface: A challenge set for reading comprehension over multiple sentences. 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 252–262. Seungone Kim, Se June Joo, Hyungjoo Chae, Chaehyeong Kim, Seung-won Hwang, and Jinyoung Yeo. 2022. Mind the gap! injecting commonsense knowledge for abstractive dialogue summarization. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 6285–6300. Jan Kocon, Igor Cichecki, Oliwier Kaszyca, Mateusz ´ Kochanek, Dominika Szydło, Joanna Baran, Julita Bielaniewicz, Marcin Gruza, Arkadiusz Janz, Kamil Kanclerz, Anna Kocon, Bartłomiej Koptyra, Wik- ´ toria Mieleszczenko-Kowszewicz, Piotr Miłkowski, Marcin Oleksy, Maciej Piasecki, Łukasz Radlinski, ´ Konrad Wojtasik, Stanisław Wo´zniak, and Przemysław Kazienko. 2023. Chatgpt: Jack of all trades, master of none. Sebastian Krügel, Andreas Ostermaier, and Matthias Uhl. 2023. The moral authority of chatgpt. 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. *Transactions of the* Association for Computational Linguistics, 7:453– 466. Guokun Lai, Qizhe Xie, Hanxiao Liu, Yiming Yang, and Eduard Hovy. 2017. Race: Large-scale reading comprehension dataset from examinations. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 785– 794. Viet Dac Lai, Nghia Trung Ngo, Amir Pouran Ben Veyseh, Hieu Man, Franck Dernoncourt, Trung Bui, and Thien Huu Nguyen. 2023. Chatgpt beyond english: Towards a comprehensive evaluation of large language models in multilingual learning. Zhenzhong Lan, Mingda Chen, Sebastian Goodman, Kevin Gimpel, Piyush Sharma, and Radu Soricut. 2019. Albert: A lite bert for self-supervised learning of language representations. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1909.11942. Md Tahmid Rahman Laskar, Cheng Chen, Xue-Yong Fu, and Shashi Bhushan TN. 2022a. Improving named entity recognition in telephone conversations via effective active learning with human in the loop. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.01354. Md Tahmid Rahman Laskar, Cheng Chen, Jonathan Johnston, Xue-Yong Fu, Shashi Bhushan TN, and Simon Corston-Oliver. 2022b. An auto encoder-based dimensionality reduction technique for efficient entity linking in business phone conversations. In Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 3363–3367. Md Tahmid Rahman Laskar, Cheng Chen, Aliaksandr Martsinovich, Jonathan Johnston, Xue-Yong Fu, Shashi Bhushan Tn, and Simon Corston-Oliver. 2022c. BLINK with Elasticsearch for efficient entity linking in business conversations. In *Proceedings of* the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies: Industry Track, pages 344–352, Hybrid: Seattle, Washington + Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Md Tahmid Rahman Laskar, Enamul Hoque, and Jimmy Xiangji Huang. 2022d. Domain adaptation with pre-trained transformers for query-focused abstractive text summarization. *Computational Linguistics*, 48(2):279–320. Md Tahmid Rahman Laskar, Enamul Hoque, and Xiangji Huang. 2020a. WSL-DS: Weakly supervised learning with distant supervision for query focused multi-document abstractive summarization. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 5647–5654. Md Tahmid Rahman Laskar, Xiangji Huang, and Enamul Hoque. 2020b. Contextualized embeddings based transformer encoder for sentence similarity modeling in answer selection task. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 5505–5514. Md Tahmid Rahman Laskar, Mizanur Rahman, Israt Jahan, Enamul Hoque, and Jimmy Huang. 2023. Cqsumdp: A chatgpt-annotated resource for queryfocused abstractive summarization based on debatepedia. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.06147*. Jinhyuk Lee, Wonjin Yoon, Sungdong Kim, Donghyeon Kim, Sunkyu Kim, Chan Ho So, and Jaewoo Kang. 2020. Biobert: a pre-trained biomedical language representation model for biomedical text mining. Bioinformatics, 36(4):1234–1240. Christoph Leiter, Ran Zhang, Yanran Chen, Jonas Belouadi, Daniil Larionov, Vivian Fresen, and Steffen Eger. 2023. Chatgpt: A meta-analysis after 2.5 months. Brian Lester, Rami Al-Rfou, and Noah Constant. 2021. The power of scale for parameter-efficient prompt tuning. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3045–3059, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Hector J Levesque, Ernest Davis, and Leora Morgenstern. 2011. The Winograd schema challenge. In AAAI Spring Symposium: Logical Formalizations of Commonsense Reasoning, volume 46, page 47. 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. Aitor Lewkowycz, Anders Johan Andreassen, David Dohan, Ethan Dyer, Henryk Michalewski, Vinay Venkatesh Ramasesh, Ambrose Slone, Cem Anil, Imanol Schlag, Theo Gutman-Solo, et al. Solving quantitative reasoning problems with language models. In *Advances in Neural Information* Processing Systems. Bo Li, Gexiang Fang, Yang Yang, Quansen Wang, Wei Ye, Wen Zhao, and Shikun Zhang. 2023a. Evaluating chatgpt's information extraction capabilities: An assessment of performance, explainability, calibration, and faithfulness. Haoran Li, Dadi Guo, Wei Fan, Mingshi Xu, Jie Huang, Fanpu Meng, and Yangqiu Song. 2023b. Multi-step jailbreaking privacy attacks on chatgpt. Lingyao Li, Lizhou Fan, Shubham Atreja, and Libby Hemphill. 2023c. "hot" chatgpt: The promise of chatgpt in detecting and discriminating hateful, offensive, and toxic comments on social media. Xiang Lisa Li and Percy Liang. 2021. Prefix-tuning: Optimizing continuous prompts for generation. 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 4582– 4597, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yaobo Liang, Nan Duan, Yeyun Gong, Ning Wu, Fenfei Guo, Weizhen Qi, Ming Gong, Linjun Shou, Daxin Jiang, Guihong Cao, Xiaodong Fan, Ruofei Zhang, Rahul Agrawal, Edward Cui, Sining Wei, Taroon Bharti, Ying Qiao, Jiun-Hung Chen, Winnie Wu, Shuguang Liu, Fan Yang, Daniel Campos, Rangan Majumder, and Ming Zhou. 2020. Xglue: A new benchmark dataset for cross-lingual pre-training, understanding and generation. *arXiv*, abs/2004.01401. Wenxiong Liao, Zhengliang Liu, Haixing Dai, Shaochen Xu, Zihao Wu, Yiyang Zhang, Xiaoke Huang, Dajiang Zhu, Hongmin Cai, Tianming Liu, and Xiang Li. 2023. Differentiate chatgpt-generated and human-written medical texts. Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In Text summarization branches out, pages 74–81. Stephanie Lin, Jacob Hilton, and Owain Evans. 2022. Truthfulqa: Measuring how models mimic human falsehoods. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3214–3252. Aiwei Liu, Xuming Hu, Lijie Wen, and Philip S. Yu. 2023a. A comprehensive evaluation of chatgpt's zeroshot text-to-sql capability. 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. Jiawei Liu, Chunqiu Steven Xia, Yuyao Wang, and Lingming Zhang. 2023b. Is your code generated by chatgpt really correct? rigorous evaluation of large language models for code generation. Pengfei Liu, Weizhe Yuan, Jinlan Fu, Zhengbao Jiang, Hiroaki Hayashi, and Graham Neubig. 2023c. Pretrain, prompt, and predict: A systematic survey of prompting methods in natural language processing. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(9):1–35. 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*. Yixin Liu, Alex Fabbri, Pengfei Liu, Yilun Zhao, Linyong Nan, Ruilin Han, Simeng Han, Shafiq Joty, Chien-Sheng Jason Wu, Caiming Xiong, and Dragomir Radev. 2023d. Revisiting the gold standard: Grounding summarization evaluation with robust human evaluation. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL'23, Toronto, Canada. ACL. Ryan Lowe, Michael Noseworthy, Iulian V Serban, Nicolas Angelard-Gontier, Yoshua Bengio, and Joelle Pineau. 2017. Towards an automatic turing test: Learning to evaluate dialogue responses. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.07149. Shuai Lu, Daya Guo, Shuo Ren, Junjie Huang, Alexey Svyatkovskiy, Ambrosio Blanco, Colin B. Clement, Dawn Drain, Daxin Jiang, Duyu Tang, Ge Li, Lidong Zhou, Linjun Shou, Long Zhou, Michele Tufano, Ming Gong, Ming Zhou, Nan Duan, Neel Sundaresan, Shao Kun Deng, Shengyu Fu, and Shujie Liu. 2021. Codexglue: A machine learning benchmark dataset for code understanding and generation. CoRR, abs/2102.04664. Renqian Luo, Liai Sun, Yingce Xia, Tao Qin, Sheng Zhang, Hoifung Poon, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2022. Biogpt: generative pre-trained transformer for biomedical text generation and mining. *Briefings* in bioinformatics, 23(6):bbac409. Andrew L. 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: Human Language Technologies, pages 142–150, Portland, Oregon, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Shervin Malmasi, Anjie Fang, Besnik Fetahu, Sudipta Kar, and Oleg Rokhlenko. 2022. Semeval-2022 task 11: Multilingual complex named entity recognition (multiconer). In *Proceedings of the 16th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval2022)*. Association for Computational Linguistics. Gary Marcus. 2022. Is chatgpt really a "code red" for google search? Todor Mihaylov, Peter Clark, Tushar Khot, and Ashish Sabharwal. 2018. Can a suit of armor conduct electricity? a new dataset for open book question answering. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2381–2391. Sewon Min, Jordan Boyd-Graber, Chris Alberti, Danqi Chen, Eunsol Choi, Michael Collins, Kelvin Guu, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Kenton Lee, Jennimaria Palomaki, et al. 2021. Neurips 2020 efficientqa competition: Systems, analyses and lessons learned. In NeurIPS 2020 Competition and Demonstration Track, pages 86–111. PMLR. Swaroop Mishra, Daniel Khashabi, Chitta Baral, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2021. Cross-task generalization via natural language crowdsourcing instructions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08773. Sandra Mitrovic, Davide Andreoletti, and Omran Ay- ´ oub. 2023. Chatgpt or human? detect and explain. explaining decisions of machine learning model for detecting short chatgpt-generated text. Niklas Muennighoff, Thomas Wang, Lintang Sutawika, Adam Roberts, Stella Biderman, Teven Le Scao, M Saiful Bari, Sheng Shen, Zheng-Xin Yong, Hailey Schoelkopf, et al. 2022. Crosslingual generalization through multitask finetuning. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2211.01786. 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. Yixin Nie, Adina Williams, Emily Dinan, Mohit Bansal, Jason Weston, and Douwe Kiela. 2020. Adversarial NLI: A new benchmark for natural language understanding. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 4885–4901, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Oluwatosin Ogundare, Srinath Madasu, and Nathanial Wiggins. 2023. Industrial engineering with large language models: A case study of chatgpt's performance on oil & gas problems. OpenAI. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. OpenAI-Blog. 2022. Chatgpt: Optimizing language models for dialogue. Miguel Ortega-Martín, Óscar García-Sierra, Alfonso Ardoiz, Jorge Álvarez, Juan Carlos Armenteros, and Adrián Alonso. 2023. Linguistic ambiguity analysis in chatgpt. Pedro Javier Ortiz Suárez, Benoît Sagot, and Laurent Romary. 2019. Asynchronous pipelines for processing huge corpora on medium to low resource infrastructures. Proceedings of the Workshop on Challenges in the Management of Large Corpora (CMLC7) 2019. Cardiff, 22nd July 2019, pages 9 - 16, Mannheim. Leibniz-Institut für Deutsche Sprache. 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. Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and WeiJing 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. Ralph Peeters and Christian Bizer. 2023. Using chatgpt for entity matching. Alessandro Pegoraro, Kavita Kumari, Hossein Fereidooni, and Ahmad-Reza Sadeghi. 2023. To chatgpt, or not to chatgpt: That is the question! Keqin Peng, Liang Ding, Qihuang Zhong, Li Shen, Xuebo Liu, Min Zhang, Yuanxin Ouyang, and Dacheng Tao. 2023. Towards making the most of chatgpt for machine translation. Yifan Peng, Shankai Yan, and Zhiyong Lu. 2019. Transfer learning in biomedical natural language processing: An evaluation of bert and elmo on ten benchmarking datasets. In *Proceedings of the 18th BioNLP* Workshop and Shared Task, pages 58–65. Ethan Perez and Ian McKenzie. Inverse scaling prize: Round 1 winners. Jonas Pfeiffer, Aishwarya Kamath, Andreas Rücklé, 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. Mohammad Taher Pilehvar and Jose Camacho-Collados. 2019. WiC: The word-in-context dataset for evaluating context-sensitive meaning representations. In Proceedings of NAACL-HLT. Adam Poliak, Aparajita Haldar, Rachel Rudinger, J. Edward Hu, Ellie Pavlick, Aaron Steven White, and Benjamin Van Durme. 2018. Collecting diverse natural language inference problems for sentence representation evaluation. In *Proceedings of EMNLP*. Chengwei Qin, Aston Zhang, Zhuosheng Zhang, Jiaao Chen, Michihiro Yasunaga, and Diyi Yang. 2023. Is chatgpt a general-purpose natural language processing task solver? 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. Jack W Rae, Sebastian Borgeaud, Trevor Cai, Katie Millican, Jordan Hoffmann, Francis Song, John Aslanides, Sarah Henderson, Roman Ring, Susannah Young, et al. 2021. Scaling language models: Methods, analysis & insights from training gopher. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.11446. Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, Peter J Liu, et al. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. *J. Mach. Learn. Res.*, 21(140):1–67. Raian Rahman, Rizvi Hasan, Abdullah Al Farhad, Md Tahmid Rahman Laskar, Md Ashmafee, Abu Raihan Mostofa Kamal, et al. 2023. Chartsumm: A comprehensive benchmark for automatic chart summarization of long and short summaries. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2304.13620. Pranav Rajpurkar, Robin Jia, and Percy Liang. 2018. Know what you don't know: Unanswerable questions for squad. In *Proceedings of the 56th Annual* Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 784–789. Aman Rangapur and Haoran Wang. 2023. Chatgptcrawler: Find out if chatgpt really knows what it's talking about. Haocong Rao, Cyril Leung, and Chunyan Miao. 2023. Can chatgpt assess human personalities? a general evaluation framework. Mathieu Ravaut, Shafiq Joty, and Nancy Chen. 2022. Summareranker: A multi-task mixture-of-experts reranking framework for abstractive summarization. In *Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the* Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4504–4524. Melissa Roemmele, Cosmin Adrian Bejan, and Andrew S. Gordon. 2011. Choice of plausible alternatives: An evaluation of commonsense causal reasoning. In *2011 AAAI Spring Symposium Series*. Sayak Saha Roy, Krishna Vamsi Naragam, and Shirin Nilizadeh. 2023. Generating phishing attacks using chatgpt. Rachel Rudinger, Jason Naradowsky, Brian Leonard, and Benjamin Van Durme. 2018. Gender bias in coreference resolution. In *Proceedings of NAACLHLT*. Keisuke Sakaguchi, Ronan Le Bras, Chandra Bhagavatula, and Yejin Choi. 2020. Winogrande: An adversarial winograd schema challenge at scale. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 8732–8740. Michael Sandel. 2019. The moral side of murder. Victor Sanh, Lysandre Debut, Julien Chaumond, and Thomas Wolf. 2019. Distilbert, a distilled version of bert: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.01108. 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. Maarten Sap, Hannah Rashkin, Derek Chen, Ronan Le Bras, and Yejin Choi. 2019. Social iqa: Commonsense reasoning about social interactions. 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 4463–4473. Teven Le Scao, Angela Fan, Christopher Akiki, Ellie Pavlick, Suzana Ilic, Daniel Hesslow, Roman ´ Castagné, Alexandra Sasha Luccioni, François Yvon, Matthias Gallé, et al. 2022. Bloom: A 176bparameter open-access multilingual language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.05100. Abigail See, Peter J. Liu, and Christopher D. Manning. 2017. Get to the point: Summarization with pointergenerator 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. Xinyue Shen, Zeyuan Chen, Michael Backes, and Yang Zhang. 2023. In chatgpt we trust? measuring and characterizing the reliability of chatgpt. Freda Shi, Mirac Suzgun, Markus Freitag, Xuezhi Wang, Suraj Srivats, Soroush Vosoughi, Hyung Won Chung, Yi Tay, Sebastian Ruder, Denny Zhou, et al. 2022. Language models are multilingual chain-of-thought reasoners. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03057*. 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 preprint* arXiv:2206.04615. Yixuan Su, Fangyu Liu, Zaiqiao Meng, Tian Lan, Lei Shu, Ehsan Shareghi, and Nigel Collier. 2022. TaCL: Improving BERT pre-training with token-aware contrastive learning. In *Findings of the Association* for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022, pages 2497–2507, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tianxiang Sun, Yunfan Shao, Hong Qian, Xuanjing Huang, and Xipeng Qiu. 2022. Black-box tuning for language-model-as-a-service. In *ICML*, volume 162 of *Proceedings of Machine Learning Research*, pages 20841–20855. PMLR. Weiwei Sun, Lingyong Yan, Xinyu Ma, Pengjie Ren, Dawei Yin, and Zhaochun Ren. 2023. Is chatgpt good at search? investigating large language models as re-ranking agent. Teo Susnjak. 2022. Chatgpt: The end of online exam integrity? Mirac Suzgun, Nathan Scales, Nathanael Schärli, Sebastian Gehrmann, Yi Tay, Hyung Won Chung, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Quoc V Le, Ed H Chi, Denny Zhou, et al. 2022. Challenging big-bench tasks and whether chain-of-thought can solve them. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2210.09261. Pittawat Taveekitworachai, Febri Abdullah, Mury F. Dewantoro, Ruck Thawonmas, Julian Togelius, and Jochen Renz. 2023. Chatgpt4pcg competition: Character-like level generation for science birds. Yi Tay, Mostafa Dehghani, Vinh Q Tran, Xavier Garcia, Dara Bahri, Tal Schuster, Huaixiu Steven Zheng, Neil Houlsby, and Donald Metzler. 2022. Unifying language learning paradigms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.05131. Judith Jarvis Thomson. 2020. The Trolley Problem/Das Trolley-Problem (Englisch/Deutsch): Reclam Great Papers Philosophie. Reclam Verlag. Romal Thoppilan, Daniel De Freitas, Jamie Hall, Noam Shazeer, Apoorv Kulshreshtha, Heng-Tze Cheng, Alicia Jin, Taylor Bos, Leslie Baker, Yu Du, et al. 2022. Lamda: Language models for dialog applications. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.08239*. Erik F Tjong Kim Sang and Fien De Meulder. 2003. Introduction to the conll-2003 shared task: languageindependent named entity recognition. In *Proceedings of the seventh conference on Natural language* learning at HLT-NAACL 2003-Volume 4, pages 142– 147. Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971. Shangqing Tu, Chunyang Li, Jifan Yu, Xiaozhi Wang, Lei Hou, and Juanzi Li. 2023. Chatlog: Recording and analyzing chatgpt across time. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30. Alex Wang, Yada Pruksachatkun, Nikita Nangia, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel Bowman. 2019. Superglue: A stickier benchmark for general-purpose language understanding systems. *Advances in neural information* processing systems, 32. 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 2018 EMNLP Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 353–355, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ben Wang. 2021. Mesh-Transformer-JAX: ModelParallel Implementation of Transformer Language Model with JAX. https://github.com/ kingoflolz/mesh-transformer-jax. Jiaan Wang, Yunlong Liang, Fandong Meng, Zengkui Sun, Haoxiang Shi, Zhixu Li, Jinan Xu, Jianfeng Qu, and Jie Zhou. 2023a. Is chatgpt a good nlg evaluator? a preliminary study. Yizhong Wang, Swaroop Mishra, Pegah Alipoormolabashi, Yeganeh Kordi, Amirreza Mirzaei, Anjana Arunkumar, Arjun Ashok, Arut Selvan Dhanasekaran, Atharva Naik, David Stap, et al. 2022. Super-naturalinstructions:generalization via declarative instructions on 1600+ tasks. In *EMNLP*. Zengzhi Wang, Qiming Xie, Zixiang Ding, Yi Feng, and Rui Xia. 2023b. Is chatgpt a good sentiment analyzer? a preliminary study. Jason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Y Zhao, Kelvin Guu, Adams Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, Andrew M Dai, and Quoc V Le. 2021. Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2109.01652. Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Rishi Bommasani, Colin Raffel, Barret Zoph, Sebastian Borgeaud, Dani Yogatama, Maarten Bosma, Denny Zhou, Donald Metzler, Ed H. Chi, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Oriol Vinyals, Percy Liang, Jeff Dean, and William Fedus. 2022a. Emergent abilities of large language models. Jason Wei, Yi Tay, and Quoc V Le. 2022b. Inverse scaling can become u-shaped. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2211.02011. Haoran Wu, Wenxuan Wang, Yuxuan Wan, Wenxiang Jiao, and Michael Lyu. 2023. Chatgpt or grammarly? evaluating chatgpt on grammatical error correction benchmark. Ledell Wu, Fabio Petroni, Martin Josifoski, Sebastian Riedel, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. Scalable zeroshot entity linking with dense entity retrieval. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6397–6407. Chenhan Yuan, Qianqian Xie, and Sophia Ananiadou. 2023. Zero-shot temporal relation extraction with chatgpt. Rowan Zellers, Ari Holtzman, Yonatan Bisk, Ali Farhadi, and Yejin Choi. 2019. Hellaswag: Can a machine really finish your sentence? In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4791–4800. Aohan Zeng, Xiao Liu, Zhengxiao Du, Zihan Wang, Hanyu Lai, Ming Ding, Zhuoyi Yang, Yifan Xu, Wendi Zheng, Xiao Xia, et al. 2022. Glm-130b: An open bilingual pre-trained model. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2210.02414. Bowen Zhang, Daijun Ding, and Liwen Jing. 2023. How would stance detection techniques evolve after the launch of chatgpt? Sheng Zhang, Xiaodong Liu, Jingjing Liu, Jianfeng Gao, Kevin Duh, and Benjamin Van Durme. 2018. ReCoRD: Bridging the gap between human and machine commonsense reading comprehension. *arXiv* preprint 1810.12885. 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*. 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. Weixiang Zhao, Yanyan Zhao, Xin Lu, Shilong Wang, Yanpeng Tong, and Bing Qin. 2023. Is chatgpt equipped with emotional dialogue capabilities? Ming Zhong, Da Yin, Tao Yu, Ahmad Zaidi, Mutethia Mutuma, Rahul Jha, Ahmed Hassan Awadallah, Asli Celikyilmaz, Yang Liu, Xipeng Qiu, and Dragomir Radev. 2021. QMSum: A new benchmark for querybased 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. Qihuang Zhong, Liang Ding, Juhua Liu, Bo Du, and Dacheng Tao. 2023. Can chatgpt understand too? a comparative study on chatgpt and fine-tuned bert. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.10198. Ce Zhou, Qian Li, Chen Li, Jun Yu, Yixin Liu, Guangjing Wang, Kai Zhang, Cheng Ji, Qiben Yan, Lifang He, et al. 2023. A comprehensive survey on pretrained foundation models: A history from bert to chatgpt. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.09419*. ## A Frequently Asked Questions (Faq) Why do we think the evaluation of a blackBox API is required? ChatGPT is a product like many Machine Learning (ML) products (e.g., Google translation). Why do we think it is important to evaluate such API-based ML model? ChatGPT represents a generational leap in terms of the multi-task capability of machine learning models. It surpasses (or promises to surpass) most of the potential AGI tests6 defined earlier (though some of them are defined jokingly). The technical details and model weights are kept hidden citing security and competitiveness (OpenAI, 2023) of the current market. While these reasons are highly debatable in the research community, there is no doubt that such systems will be reproduced in the near future. Evaluation serves as a valuable means to estimate and address various research questions regarding model size, data size, and more. For instance, we refer to this blog post7 which attempts to estimate the size of the language model based on evaluation results from the API-served model. Moreover, it is important to emphasize that *Evaluation of Generative Texts* serves as a form of interpretability, empowering researchers and downstream users to understand the capabilities, biases, and tendencies of the models. Evaluating such potential models often leads to the exploration of emergent capabilities, helping researchers bridge the gap between smaller and larger models (often with data augmentation), or, at the very least, gaining insights into what can be expected at different scales. This, in turn, aids in making informed decisions regarding model training and serving specific use cases. Which version of ChatGPT was used for this paper? Our initial evaluation was performed manually on the website chat.openai.com. Once the API became available from OpenAI, we utilized the gpt-3.5-turbo API to generate responses for our prompted samples. However, we show the API version for all the evaluated datasets in Table 15. Why did we conduct a zero-shot evaluation? Though the consensus from the GPT-3 paper (Brown et al., 2020) is to evaluate LLMs in a fewshot manner with in-context evaluation, the basic expectation of the community is always to interact with an LLM in a single-shot question. Since the release of T0++ (Sanh et al., 2021) and the FLAN model (Wei et al., 2021), we have seen that instruction tuning has enabled LLMs to perform zero-shot evaluation better than non-instructiontuned models. *Presumably*, ChatGPT, being a larger instruction-tuned model trained on an extremely large dataset, makes it an appealing test subject to evaluate and understand what to expect 6https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_ general_intelligence\#Tests_for_testing_ human-level_AGI 7https://blog.eleuther.ai/gpt3-model-sizes/ from an instruction-tuned model. In addition, since the Evaluation of Generative Texts of large language models is complex and may require manual evaluation of each sample, some of the prior works often report one-shot results instead of zero-shot to automate the evaluation process by providing a response pattern to the LLM. However, we believe that conducting a zero-shot evaluation would greatly benefit the current research field and provide insights into the model's real-world performance. While the main purpose of this paper is to conduct a zero-shot evaluation of ChatGPT, some prior research prioritize the performance in terms of few-shot scenarios depending on various tasks. Thus, we also include the few-shot performance of ChatGPT in a few places so that we can have a better comparison. ## Why Did We Evaluate Chatgpt **On Prompted** Samples Instead Of Dialogue Datasets? The Main training novelty of ChatGPT comes from Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) based prompted sample fine-tuning while leveraging human in the loop. The training of supervised policy in (Ouyang et al., 2022) is similar to the prompted sample training method mentioned in Sanh et al. (2021); Wei et al. (2021). Since the training data is prompted samples of different NLP tasks, we decided to evaluate it in challenging instruction-based prompted datasets collected from various NLP benchmarks. However, we acknowledge that the evaluation of multi-hop dialogue datasets is also important but not covered in this work. We keep it as a future work. For clarity & managing the expectations of the readers, we add *benchmark datasets* in the title of the paper. ## How Was The Ethical Dilemma Dataset Created? Why Do You Evaluate Chatgpt **On The Trolley** problem? The impressive performance of ChatGPT may potentially lead to applying it in AI agents like autonomous cars, and robots, or in exploratory research. This is called the *Agentic* behavior of large LLMs. Though *trolley problem* is a thought experiment, it depicts some fundamental decision problems which can indicate the roots of many derivative biases. Because of this, we decide to evaluate it in the trolley problem. A set of 25 questions is created by one of our authors inspired by *Michael Sandel*'s lecture, The Moral Side of Murder (Sandel, 2019). The questionnaires mainly evaluate *moral dilemmas*. In addition to that, We tried to explain the importance of the trolley problem in the FAQ section. All of our ethical questions (not restricted to only the trolley problems) and ChatGPT responses are added to the repository folder. Evaluation of the "moral dilemma" is quite a complicated task and may differ in different parts of the world. So we didn't ask the question "If the answer to the certain ethics question is acceptable or not" rather we commented on patterns (i.e., ChatGPT provides expert-like opinions putting arguments for all possible scenarios) and attached all the responses in Supplementary. We believe that a few systematic thought-provoking questionnaires may introduce many new seeds of ethical evaluation datasets. ## To Investigate The Unique Capability Of Chatgpt identifying multiple queries in a single input prompt, why did you evaluate it on the open domain question answering (ODQA) datasets? We found this unique capability while working on the EfficientQA dataset (an ODQA dataset). To make sure that the emergent capability is not dataset dependent, later we add another additional open-domain QA dataset (Web-Question). We observe that most of the time similar capabilities can be also found in other prompted datasets (e.g., WiC, COPA, etc.). However, their mixing of multiple samples results in a prompted sample that sounds and reads very artificial. Because of this reason, we only evaluate ODQA datasets where both prompted and non-prompted samples sound and read like a natural form of subsequent queries. Why non-CoT results in many Inverse Scaling tasks are extremely low? Though ChatGPT achieves good performance on all datasets in the Inverse Scaling benchmark when CoT prompts have been used, it surprisingly performed very poorly in many tasks, especially in Redefine Math sub-tasks when CoT prompts are not used. We hypothesize that ChatGPT is prone to hallucination, and tends to answer based on memorization of the original task learned during its pre-training stage, instead of answering with proper reasoning when no stepby-step instruction to solve a new task is provided. However, a sharp reduction in performance is still an interesting finding and may require more information on the datasets used for training *textdavinci-003* and *ChatGPT* to find the root cause of it. What is the citation Strategy in tables? While adding results to various tables, our objective was to provide insight into potential competing models or results that directly signify some strong observations. We acknowledge here that the paper is missing results on several effective smaller models, such as GPT-J (Wang, 2021), GPT-NeoX (Black et al., 2022), T5 (Raffel et al., 2020), T0 (Sanh et al., 2021), FLAN-T5 (Chung et al., 2022). We also had to consider page restrictions for the ACL version of the paper. However, feel free to email us with more insightful results for your favorite model, and we will do our best to cite those results in our arXiv version. ## Why Did We Use The Dev Set Instead Of The Test Set for some datasets? Many of the datasets that we used for evaluation had a test split for which the gold labels are not publicly available. Meanwhile, as ChatGPT provides generative responses, for most datasets we require human intervention to compare the ChatGPT generated responses against the gold labels. For this reason, for the datasets that do not have a test split containing gold labels publicly available, we report the results on the development split similar to the recent literature (Sanh et al., 2021; Chowdhery et al., 2022; Rae et al., 2021; Du et al., 2022; Touvron et al., 2023). ## B Literature Review General Review: The impressive success of pretrained language models (Radford et al., 2019; Devlin et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2019; Raffel et al., 2020; Brown et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2023c; Zhou et al., 2023) has led to the development of several conversational language models, including, Meena (Adiwardana et al., 2020), LaMDA (Thoppilan et al., 2022), DialoGPT (Zhang et al., 2020), etc. These models are pre-trained on a huge amount of raw data (Raffel et al., 2020; Ortiz Suárez et al., 2019; Gao et al., 2020) crawled8from the web to obtain state-of-the-art performance via task-specific finetuning (Devlin et al., 2018; Pfeiffer et al., 2021; Li and Liang, 2021; Hu et al., 2021; Lester et al., 2021) on various benchmark datasets (Wang et al., 2018, 2019; Hu et al., 2020; Liang et al., 2020; Lu et al., 2021). ChatGPT is also a large conversational language model. It leverages the in-context learning method that works by learning through analogies drawn from the given demonstration examples (Dong et al., 2023). After a large-scale pre-training with 8https://commoncrawl.org/ a self-supervision objective, in-context learning helps LLMs to identify task-level prior patterns, while acquiring emergent capabilities like Chain of Thought (Wei et al., 2022a). However, training only with self-supervision lacks grounding in realworld concepts that may lead to hallucination and toxic output generation (Ouyang et al., 2022). Thus, instead of learning meta-tasks in an implicit way from raw texts, recently Wei et al. (2021); Sanh et al. (2021); Muennighoff et al. (2022); Chung et al. (2022); Ouyang et al. (2022) proposed learning tasks in an explicit way with a large scale prompted (supervised) meta-pretraining (a.k.a., instructional tuning) to follow instructions. In addition to that, Ouyang et al. (2022) proposed to use Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) to finetune the LLM policy with human feedback in a reinforcement learning (RL) framework, introducing GPT-3.5 text-davinci-0039. ChatGPT is the latest addition in this series that additionally uses dialog-based instructional data in the supervised and RL-based meta-training stages. Dialogue Evaluation: For dialog-based evaluation, Liu et al. (2016) investigated evaluation metrics for dialogue response generation and showed that BLUE-based automatic metric doesn't correlate well. Lowe et al. (2017) propose an evaluation model ADEM that learns to predict humanlike scores to input responses. Using the optimal error rate in determining whether a phrase is human or machine-generated, Hashimoto et al. (2019) provides HUSE, a unified framework that assesses variety and quality. Finally, Adiwardana et al. (2020) introduced a Mini-Turing Benchmark (MTB) which is a collection of 1,477 conversational contexts. Instruction Datasets: In recent years, Mishra et al. (2021) constructed a natural instruction dataset via crowdsourcing 61 instructions of 6 task types. Wei et al. (2021) introduce prompting techniques that transform regular tasks into human instructions on 62 text datasets with 620 instructions. Later, Bach et al. (2022) 10 scales up everything to 176 datasets and 2052 instructions. Both of the benchmarks were proposed for around 12-13 task types. Finally, (Wang et al., 2022) 11 scales up the task type to 76 and proposes around 1616 tasks with 1616 instructions. In contrast to this, Ouyang et al. (2022) annotated 14378 instructions of 10 task types and achieved impressive performance with LLMs via following instructions. To our best knowledge, *ChatGPT* is also trained based on a similar instruction-based data pipeline but not open-sourced 12. Following this, we evaluate ChatGPT on publicly available prompted datasets while creating new datasets when needed. ChatGPT Evaluation: Recently few concurrent works have attempted to evaluate ChatGPT on many different tasks based on different benchmarks and tasks. Table 14 shows a brief literature review on the ChatGPT evaluation effort. ## C Task & Dataset Description C.1 Benchmarks SuperGLUE: We evaluate ChatGPT on the SuperGLUE (Wang et al., 2019) benchmark, which is a widely used leaderboard to evaluate the language understanding performance of NLP models. Big-Bench Hard: We evaluate ChatGPT on 23 hard tasks (Suzgun et al., 2022) of the Beyond the Imitation Game benchmark (BIG-bench) (Srivastava et al., 2022). It is a challenging benchmark that is used to evaluate the capability of LLMs. Massive Multitask Language Understanding: We evaluate ChatGPT on the Massive Multitask Language Understanding (MMLU) (Hendrycks et al.) benchmark. It is a multiple choice Question Answering (QA) benchmark, consisting of 57 different tasks, covering topics in humanities, science, technology, engineering, mathematics, etc. Inverse Scaling Challenge: We use all four tasks (Hindsight Neglect, Quote Repetition, Negation QA, and Redefined Math) from the Inverse Scaling (Perez and McKenzie; Wei et al., 2022b) challenge. There are a total of 11 tasks from 4 main categories. - **Hindsight Neglect:** This task assesses whether a bet is worth taking based on its expected value. - **Quote Repetition:** This task contains a sequence of a famous quote where the objective is to assess whether an altered ending of this famous quote can confuse the model into finishing the sequence with the well-known ending rather than the expected ending given in the prompt. 12https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt/ | Kocon et al. ´ (2023) | Examined ChatGPT performance on 25 diverse tasks. It found a 25% decrease in quality on average compared to SOTA solutions. | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Bang et al. (2023) | A Multitask, Multilingual, Multimodal Evaluation of ChatGPT. It proposes a quantitative framework to evaluate ChatGPT, finding it outperforms other language models on various NLP tasks. | | Qin et al. (2023) | Analyzed ChatGPT's zero-shot learning ability across 20 popular NLP datasets reveals its strengths in reasoning tasks but limitations in specific areas, such as sequence tagging. | | Jiao et al. (2023) | Evaluated ChatGPT for machine translation. It performs well for high-resource European languages but lags behind low-resource languages. GPT-4 performs better. | | Peng et al. (2023) | Investigated ChatGPT's Machine Translation (MT) Capabilities: Optimal Performance at a lower temperature, enhanced by Task and Domain Information, with Hallucinations in Non-English-centric MT Tasks. | | Liu et al. (2023b) | Introduced EvalPlus: A benchmarking Framework for thoroughly assessing code synthesis by LLMs and paving the way for enhanced programming benchmarks via automated test input generation. | | Li et al. (2023a) | Evaluated ChatGPT's Performance, Explainability, Calibration, and Faithfulness in Seven Fine-Grained Information Extraction (IE) Tasks. Poor performance in standard-IE, surprising excellence in OpenIE. | | Rao et al. (2023) | Assessed human personalities based on Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) tests. It shows consistent and fair assessments of human personalities. | | Zhao et al. (2023) | Evaluated ChatGPT's emotional dialogue capability. It exhibits promising results in generating emotional responses with room for improvement in understanding. | | Tu et al. (2023) | Investigated ChatGPT's evolving behavior over time using the ChatLog dataset. Found patterns, and stable features to improve the robustness of a RoBERTa-based detector. | | Dai et al. (2023) | Proposed AugGPT: a text data augmentation approach based on ChatGPT. Experiment results on few-shot learning text classification tasks show superior performance over state-of-the-art methods. | | Mitrovic et al. ´ (2023) | Examined the ability of a machine learning model to distinguish between human and ChatGPT-generated text, with insights gained through explainable AI analysis. | | Sun et al. (2023) | Explored the use of generative LLMs like ChatGPT and GPT-4 for relevance ranking in Information Retrieval. Properly instructed LLMs can achieve competitive results compared to supervised methods. | | Liu et al. (2023a) | Analyzed ChatGPT's Text-to-SQL capability. Shows strong performance across 12 benchmark datasets in various languages, settings, and scenarios. | | Kasai et al. (2023) | Evaluated LLM APIs (ChatGPT, GPT-3, and GPT-4) on Japanese national medical licensing exams. GPT-4 outperforms the other models and passes all exam years but also revealed limitations. | | Kashefi and Mukerji (2023) | Explored ChatGPT's capability for programming numerical algorithms. Demonstrated its ability to generate, debug, improve, and rewrite codes in different languages. | | Zhang et al. (2023) | Evaluated ChatGPT in stance detection tasks. Achieved state-of-the-art performance while offering explainable predictions. | | Wang et al. (2023b) | Evaluated ChatGPT's potential as a universal sentiment analyzer and compared its performance with BERT and other state-of-the-art models. | | Wang et al. (2023a) | Investigated the reliability of ChatGPT as an evaluation metric for NLG models. ChatGPT achieves state-of-the-art or competitive correlation with human judgments in most cases. | | Taveekitworachai et al. (2023) Described the ChatGPT4PCG Competition, where participants generate effective prompts for ChatGPT, aiming to inspire prompt engineering in procedural content generation. Pegoraro et al. (2023) Provided a comprehensive assessment of the most recent techniques in ChatGPT detection, highlighting the need for improved techniques in addressing concerns of misuse and manipulation. Wu et al. (2023) Evaluated ChatGPT on the Grammatical Error Correction (GEC) task. Outperformed baselines in terms of over-correction but lagging behind in automatic evaluation metrics. Jang and Lukasiewicz (2023) Investigated ChatGPT's trustworthiness regarding logically consistent behaviours. Highlighted the need for cautious application in risk-sensitive areas without human inspection. Shen et al. (2023) Examined ChatGPT's question-answering capability across different domains. Highlighted the importance of improving the reliability and security of large language models. Rangapur and Wang (2023) Analyzed the responses generated by ChatGPT from different Conversational QA corpora. Assessed similarity scores, NLI labels, and identified instances of incorrect answers. Frieder et al. (2023) Assessed ChatGPT's mathematical capabilities using publicly available and hand-crafted datasets. It's mathematical abilities are significantly below those of an average math graduate student. Deshpande and Szefer (2023) Evaluated ChatGPT's performance in an introductory computer engineering course. Revealed its ability to answer generic questions but inability to handle diagrams, figures, and hands-on experiments. Ortega-Martín et al. (2023) Explored ChatGPT's linguistic ambiguity in NLP systems highlighting its strengths, weaknesses, and strategies for maximizing its potential. Roy et al. (2023) Explored the potential for ChatGPT to be exploited for generating malicious content, specifically functional phishing websites, highlighting the risks associated with its effectiveness and accessibility. Peeters and Bizer (2023) Analyzed ChatGPT for entity matching. Demonstrated its robustness and training data efficiency compared to traditional Transformer models like BERT or RoBERTa and achieved competitive performance. Basic et al. (2023) Examined ChatGPT as a writing assistant. It did not improve essay quality, as the control group performed better in most aspects. Bahrini et al. (2023) Examined the applications, opportunities, and threats of ChatGPT in 10 main domains. It lacks human-level understanding, empathy, and creativity and cannot fully replace humans in most situations. Borji (2023) Comprehensive analysis of ChatGPT's failures. Highlighted the need for further improvements in language models and chatbots. Gong (2023) Assessed the working memory capacity of ChatGPT. Revealed similarities to human performance and provided insights for improving AI cognitive abilities. Krügel et al. (2023) Explored the moral authority of ChatGPT, raising concerns about responsible AI use and suggesting the need for training in digital literacy. Fischer et al. (2023) Tested possible value biases in ChatGPT using a psychological value theory. Raised implications for its applications in corporate usage, policy making, and understanding human values. Hu et al. (2023) Investigated the potential of ChatGPT for the clinical named entity recognition. Outperformed GPT-3 and demonstrated potential for use without annotation. Cai et al. (2023) Demonstrated the ability of ChatGPT to mimic human language processing in various cognitive experiments. Highlighted its potential for understanding human language use and learning. Li et al. (2023b) Studied the privacy threats from OpenAI's model APIs and New Bing enhanced by ChatGPT and show that application-integrated LLMs may cause more severe privacy threats ever than before. Gao et al. (2023) Demonstrated ChatGPT's potential for human-like evaluation of text summarization. Outperformed automatic metrics and provided valuable insights into prompts and performance comparisons. Li et al. (2023c) Examined ChatGPT in detecting and discriminating hateful, offensive, and toxic comments on social media. It shows promise in detecting harmful content, and achieved 80 percent accuracy. Leiter et al. (2023) Comprehensive meta-analysis of ChatGPT's current perception after 2.5 months since its release. Yuan et al. (2023) Investigated ChatGPT's ability on zero-shot temporal relation extraction and it's performance is inferior to supervised methods. However, it cannot keep consistency during temporal inference. Aiyappa et al. (2023) Discussed the challenge of preventing data contamination and ensured fair model evaluation in the age of closed and continuously trained models. Bartolomeo et al. (2023) Explored ChatGPT's Potential to Graph Layout Algorithms. It offers potential benefits such as improving the readability of visualizations. Huang et al. (2023) Investigated the use of ChatGPT for generating natural language explanations in the context of detecting implicit hateful speech. Discussed its potential and limitations through user studies. Ogundare et al. (2023) Explored the limitations of ChatGPT in solving complex problems specific to oil and gas engineering. Highlighted areas where Large Language Models (LLMs) are most effective in this field. Hartmann et al. (2023) Explored ChatGPT's biases in political elections, revealing its pro-environmental, left-libertarian ideology and discussing the implications of politically biased conversational AI on society. Susnjak (2022) Evaluated the ability of ChatGPT to perform high-level cognitive tasks and produce text that is indistinguishable from the human-generated text. Guo et al. (2023) ChatGPT improves semantic communication with ordered importance and achieves a lower bit error rate and semantic loss compared to existing schemes. Cheshkov et al. (2023) Evaluated the performance of the ChatGPT and GPT-3 models for the task of vulnerability detection in code. Showed poor performance compared to a dummy classifier in binary and multi-label tasks. Liao et al. (2023) Analyzed the differences between medical texts written by human experts and generated by ChatGPT. Developed machine learning workflows to effectively detect the ChatGPT-generated medical texts. Laskar et al. (2023) Introduced a methodology using ChatGPT to clean the Debatepedia dataset for query-focused abstractive summarization, resulting in improved query relevance. Hendy et al. (2023) Comprehensively evaluated GPT models for machine translation. Demonstrated competitive performance for high resource languages but limitations for low resource languages. Ahuja et al. (2023) Comprehensive benchmarking of generative LLMs - MEGA, which evaluates models on standard NLP benchmarks, covering 8 diverse tasks and 33 typologically diverse languages. Lai et al. (2023) Evaluated ChatGPT and similar LLMs for multilingual natural language processing tasks. Exhibited inferior performance compared to previous models, indicating the necessity for additional research. Zhong et al. (2023) Evaluated ChatGPTs understanding ability and compared it with BERT-style models showing strengths and weaknesses in handling different NLP tasks. ´ Jahan et al. (2023) Evaluated ChatGPT's performance in the biomedical domain, demonstrating its potential in tasks with smaller training sets where it outperformed fine-tuned generative models like BioGPT and BioBART.. | | | Benchmark | Dataset | Split | No. of Samples | Version | Eval Type | |---------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|--------------------|------------------------|---------------------------------------|---------------------------------------| | SuperGLUE (Wang et al., 2019) | BoolQ (Clark et al., 2019) | Dev | 3270 | gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 | Human | | CB (De Marneffe et al., 2019) | Dev | 56 | ChatGPT Dec 15 Version | Human | | | COPA (Roemmele et al., 2011) | Dev | 100 | gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 | Human | | | MultiRC (Khashabi et al., 2018) | Dev | 4848 | gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 | Human | | | ReCoRD (Zhang et al., 2018) | Dev | 10000 | gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 | Human | | | RTE 2006; 2006; 2007; 2009 | Dev | 278 | ChatGPT Dec 15 Version | Human | | | WiC (Pilehvar and Camacho-Collados, 2019) | Dev | 638 | ChatGPT Dec 15 Version | Human | | | WSC (Levesque et al., 2011) | Dev | 104 | gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 | Human | | | AX-b (Poliak et al., 2018) | Dev | 1104 | gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 | Human | | | AX-g (Rudinger et al., 2018) | Dev | 356 | ChatGPT Dec 15 Version | Human | | | Big-Bench (Srivastava et al., 2022) | Big-Bench Hard (Suzgun et al., 2022): All 23 tasks | Test | 6511 x 3 = 19533 | gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 | Evaluation Script + Human-in-the-loop | | MMLU (Hendrycks et al.) | All 57 tasks | Test | 14042 x 2 = 28084 | gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 | Evaluation Script + Human-in-the-loop | | Inverse Scaling Challenge | All 11 tasks from (Wei et al., 2022b) | CoT | 1808 | ChatGPT Dec 15 Version | Human | | (Perez and McKenzie) | Responses are generated using two different models | Direct | 1808 | ChatGPT Dec 15 Version | Human | | Evaluation is done separately for each model's response | CoT | 1808 | gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 | Human | | | Direct | 1808 | gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 | Human | | | | Ethics Benchmark | All 5 tasks for both Test and Hard Test sets | Test | 19968 | gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 | Evaluation Script + Human-in-the-loop | | (Hendrycks et al., 2021a) | Hard Test | 18604 | gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 | Evaluation Script + Human-in-the-loop | | | Task | Dataset | Split | No. of Samples | Version | Eval Type | | Open Domain QA | TriviaQA (Filtered) (Joshi et al., 2017) | Dev | 17944 | gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 | Evaluation Script + Human-in-the-loop | | NQ-Open (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019) | Dev | 3610 | gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 | Evaluation Script + Human-in-the-loop | | | WebQuestions (Berant et al., 2013) | Test | 2032 | gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 | Evaluation Script + Human-in-the-loop | | | EfficientQA (Min et al., 2021) | Dev | 1800 | ChatGPT Dec 15 Version | Human | | | Reading Comprehension | Race-Middle (Lai et al., 2017) | Test | 1436 | gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 | Evaluation Script + Human-in-the-loop | | Race-High (Lai et al., 2017) | Test | 3498 | gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 | Evaluation Script + Human-in-the-loop | | | SQuAD-V2 (Rajpurkar et al., 2018) | Dev | 11873 | gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 | Evaluation Script + Human-in-the-loop | | | Common Sense Reasoning | PIQA (Bisk et al., 2020) | Dev | 1838 | gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 | Evaluation Script + Human-in-the-loop | | SIQA (Sap et al., 2019) | Dev | 1954 | gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 | Evaluation Script + Human-in-the-loop | | | HellaSwag (Zellers et al., 2019) | Dev | 10042 | gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 | Evaluation Script + Human-in-the-loop | | | WinoGrande (Sakaguchi et al., 2020) | Dev | 1267 | gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 | Evaluation Script + Human-in-the-loop | | | ARC-Easy (Clark et al., 2018) | Test | 2376 | gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 | Evaluation Script + Human-in-the-loop | | | ARC-Challenge (Clark et al., 2018) | Test | 1172 | gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 | Evaluation Script + Human-in-the-loop | | | OBQA (Mihaylov et al., 2018) | Test | 500 | gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 | Evaluation Script + Human-in-the-loop | | | Mathematical Reasoning | MATH (Hendrycks et al., 2021b) | Test | 5000 | gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 | Human | | GSM-8k (Cobbe et al., 2021) | Test | 1319 | gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 | Human | | | MGSM (Shi et al., 2022) | Test | 2750 | gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 | Human | | | Natural Language Inference | ANLI R1 (Nie et al., 2020) | Test | 1000 | gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 | Evaluation Script + Human-in-the-loop | | ANLI R2 (Nie et al., 2020) | Test | 1000 | gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 | Evaluation Script + Human-in-the-loop | | | ANLI R3 (Nie et al., 2020) | Test | 1200 | gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 | Evaluation Script + Human-in-the-loop | | | Text Summarization | CNN/DM (Hermann et al., 2015) | Test | 11490 | gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 | Evaluation Script: ROUGE | | XSUM (Narayan et al., 2018) | Test | 11334 | gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 | Evaluation Script: ROUGE | | | SAMSum (Gliwa et al., 2019) | Test | 819 | gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 | Evaluation Script: ROUGE | | | DialogSum (Chen et al., 2021b) | Test | 500 | gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 | Evaluation Script: ROUGE | | | Neural Machine Translation | WMT'14 (English and French) (Bojar et al., 2014) | Test | 3003 x 2 = 6006 | gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 | Evaluation Script: BLEU | | WMT'16 (English and German) (Bojar et al., 2016) | Test | 2999 x 2 = 5998 | gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 | Evaluation Script: BLEU | | | WMT'16 (English and Romanian) (Bojar et al., 2016) | Test | 1999 x 2 = 3998 | gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 | Evaluation Script: BLEU | | | WMT'19 (English and Kazakh) (Barrault et al., 2019) | Dev | 2066 x 2 = 4132 | gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 | Evaluation Script: BLEU | | | WMT'19 (French and German) (Barrault et al., 2019) | Dev | 1512 x 2 = 3024 | gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 | Evaluation Script: BLEU | | | Code Generation | HumanEval (Chen et al., 2021a) | Test | 164 | gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 | Evaluation Script + Human-in-the-loop | | MBPP (Austin et al., 2021) | Test | 500 | gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 | Evaluation Script + Human-in-the-loop | | | Bias and Misinformation | WinoBias (Zhao et al., 2018) | Test | 1580 | gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 | Human | | TruthfulQA (Lin et al., 2022) | Test | 817 | gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 | Human | | | Ethical Dilemma | Proposed in this paper | Test | 25 | ChatGPT Jan 9 Version | Human | | Emergent Capability | Sampled from EfficientQA and WebQuestions | Test | 40 | gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 | Human | | Sentiment Analysis | IMDB (Maas et al., 2011) | Test | 25000 | gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 | Evaluation Script + Human-in-the-loop | | Named Entity Recognition | WNUT 17 (Derczynski et al., 2017) | Test | 1287 | gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 | Human | Table 15: The list of evaluated benchmarks and individual tasks. - **Negation QA:** This task negates a part of a question in an existing multiple-choice dataset to see if language models are properly following instructions in the prompt or if they are sensitive to negation. - **Redefine Math:** This task aims to evaluate if language models can still perform proper reasoning when the mathematical symbols are redefined to mean something else. It has 8 sub-tasks. Ethics Evaluation Benchmark: We use the Ethics Benchmark dataset (Hendrycks et al., 2021a) to assess ChatGPT in terms of basic concepts of morality and ethical judgments. This dataset covers concepts of justice, well-being, duties, virtues, and commonsense. This dataset has two test sets (Test and Hard Test). We use both versions of the test sets and evaluate ChatGPT in the following 5 categories: (i) Justice, (ii) Deontology, (iii) Virtue, (iv) Utilitarianism, and (v) Commonsense. ## C.2 Task-Based Evaluation Open Domain QA: To investigate the open domain knowledge of ChatGPT, we evaluate its performance on the TriviaQA dataset(Joshi et al., 2017), the NQ-Open dataset (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019) and the WebQuestions (Berant et al., 2013) dataset. In these datasets, the task is to answer a question asked in English by leveraging the contents of Wikipedia or the Web. Moreover, we also conduct a comprehensive human evaluation on the EfficientQA dataset (Min et al., 2021), which is also derived from the NQ-Open dataset. Based on our extensive analysis, we observe several key findings in the EfficientQA dataset, such as many questions are time-sensitive, while many answers contain outdated gold answers. Reading Comprehension: We use the RACE dataset (both *Middle* and *Hard* versions) (Lai et al., 2017) to evaluate ChatGPT for the reading comprehension task. The Race dataset is constructed from English reading comprehension exams designed for middle and high school students in China. In addition, we use the SQuAD 2.0 dataset (Rajpurkar et al., 2018) for this task. Commonsense Reasoning: To evaluate the reasoning capability of ChatGPT, we use the following datasets: PIQA (Bisk et al., 2020), SIQA (Sap et al., 2019), HellaSwag (Zellers et al., 2019), WinoGrande (Sakaguchi et al., 2020), ARC easy and challenge (Clark et al., 2018), and OBQA (Mihaylov et al., 2018). Tasks in these datasets include Cloze and Winograd style challenges, multiple choice QA, etc. Mathematical Reasoning: We evaluate the mathematical reasoning capability of ChatGPT on the MATH dataset (Hendrycks et al., 2021b) and the GSM-8K dataset (Cobbe et al., 2021). In addition, we use the recently proposed Multilingual Grade School Math (MGSM) (Shi et al., 2022) dataset to evaluate its mathematical capability in multilingual settings. Natural Language Inference: To evaluate the Natural Language Inference (NLI) capability of ChatGPT, we use the Adversarial NLI (ANLI) (Nie et al., 2020) benchmark datasets. Text Summarization: We use various datasets to evaluate the text summarization performance of ChatGPT. The datasets we used are CNN-DM (See et al., 2017; Hermann et al., 2015) and XSUM (Narayan et al., 2018) to summarize articles in the news domain, while the DialogSUM (Chen et al., 2021b) and SAMSum (Gliwa et al., 2019) datasets for dialogue summarization. Neural Machine Translation: We select various languages (English (en), French (fr), German (de), Romanian (rn), Kazakh (kk)) based on different scenarios to evaluate the performance of ChatGPT in language translation. Similar to (Chowdhery et al., 2022), for English-centric language pairs, we use the WMT'14 (Bojar et al., 2014) for English-French translation in high-resource scenarios, WMT'16 (Bojar et al., 2016) English-German in medium-resource while English-Romanian for low-resource scenarios; WMT'19 (Barrault et al., 2019) for direct translation between non-English languages: German-French and for extremely lowresource language pairs: English-Kazakh. Code Generation: We evaluate the coding ability of ChatGPT on the MBPP (Austin et al., 2021) and the HumanEval (Chen et al., 2021a) datasets. Bias and Misinformation: To investigate whether ChatGPT has any potential biases, we evaluate its performance the WinoBias dataset (Zhao et al., 2018). In WinoBias, we use both Type 1 and Type 2 versions of the datasets. The Type 1 version of the data requires the co-reference decisions to be made using the world knowledge of the model based on the given circumstances, whereas the syntactic information and proper understanding of the pronoun in the given input are enough to answer the Type 2 version of the data. We evaluate ChatGPT in terms of misinformation generation on the TruthfulQA dataset (Lin et al., 2022). Ethical Dillemma: A potential use of ChatGPTlike models (e.g., text-davinci-003 series models) can be to integrate them into the decisionmaking process of other AI agents (i.e., autonomous industry, exploratory research). For the fundamental decision-making process, geographical, cultural, and/or racial differences may play a role in some ethical and psychological dilemmas, that may vary from person to person. While it is easily possible to fool a dialogue system with complex multimodal queries, in this work we take a different approach to evaluate ChatGPT on decision problems. We evaluate the well-known *Trolley* Problem (Thomson, 2020), which is a series of thought experiments to identify decision patterns in problems related to ethics and philosophy. We perform a systematic bias injection for both hypothetical and real-life scenarios. Response to each of the questions is generated three times for a rigorous evaluation. Sentiment Analysis: We use the IMDB Movie Review dataset (Maas et al., 2011) for the binary sentiment classification task. Named Entity Recognition (NER): For NER, we use the WNUT 17 (Derczynski et al., 2017) dataset. ## D **Importance Of Evaluating With Human** In The Loop Due to ChatGPT being a generative model, it is difficult to directly compare many of the ChatGPTgenerated responses against the gold labels, especially in discriminative tasks, for performance evaluation. For this reason, in many datasets, we require human intervention to evaluate the ChatGPT responses. In some of these discriminative datasets, we directly evaluate the performance via humans. While in some others, we evaluate ChatGPT using an evaluation script written by us that first checks whether the generated response is correct or not (via lexical or fuzzy word matching). Afterward, we select some responses for human evaluation that could not be evaluated by our evaluation script. We denote this process as **Evaluation Script + Human in the Loop**. In Table 16, we demonstrate the importance of this technique for evaluation by comparing the score achieved directly by the evaluation script vs *the score achieved directly by the* evaluation script + Human in the Lopp. We find that based on the average across all tasks for both Test and Hard Test versions, the average difference in performance is 3.0 in the Ethics Benchmark. While in the Big-Bench Hard and the MMLU benchmarks, the average difference is 0.8 and 0.3, respectively. For Reading Comprehension, we did not notice any difference in Race datasets, while we observe a difference of 7.0 for SQuAD-V2. Moreover, we notice a high difference in the Open-Domain QA datasets, as in the NQ-Open and the WebQuestion datasets, the differences are 6.6 and 10.9, respectively. The average difference in the Open-Domain QA datasets (NQOpen, WebQuestions, TriviaQA) is 6.6. While in Commonsense Reasoning, the average difference is 1.1. Moreover, our Evaluation Script was perfect in the NLI datasets, while nearly perfect (with a small difference of 0.4) for Sentiment Analysis in the IMDB dataset. It is quite clear from our analysis that in some datasets (e.g., NQ-Open, WebQuestions, PIQA, etc.), human involvement has made a great difference in results. While in some datasets, it was possible to get accurate results with just our evaluation script (e.g., ANLI datasets). It should be noted that when we designed our input prompts for ChatGPT, we added the following in our prompts for some datasets: *Answer without any explanation*. This is done such that the response generated by ChatGPT can be easily parsed and evaluated using our evaluation script. ## E Human Evaluation Of Chatgpt-Generated Summaries We randomly collected 100 samples (50 for CNN/DM and 50 for XSUM) to conduct a human evaluation of the summaries generated by ChatGPT and the SummaReranker model from Ravaut et al. (2022). Two human annotators who were unaware of the source of the summaries (whether generated by ChatGPT or by the SummaReranker model) were asked to select their preferred summary. The annotation task was designed as follows: they were provided with the input document, followed by the summaries generated by ChatGPT and the Sum- | Type | Dataset | Only Evaluation Script | Evaluation Script | |∆| | |-----------------------|----------------------|--------------------------|---------------------|-------| | + Human in the Loop | | | | | | Leaderboard | Ethics Benchmarks | 68.7 (avg.) | 71.7 (avg.) | 3.0 | | Leaderboard | Big-Bench Hard | 52.9 (avg.) | 53.7 (avg.) | 0.8 | | Leaderboard | MMLU (over 57 tasks) | 66.7 (avg.) | 67.0 (avg.) | 0.3 | | Reading Comprehension | Race Middle | 81.3 | 81.3 | 0 | | Reading Comprehension | Race High | 75.6 | 75.6 | 0 | | Reading Comprehension | SQuAD-V2 | 66.9 | 73.9 | 7 | | Open-Domain QA | NQ-Open | 41.5 | 48.1 | 6.6 | | Open-Domain QA | WebQuestions | 39.6 | 50.5 | 10.9 | | Open-Domain QA | TriviaQA | 83.7 | 85.9 | 2.2 | | Commonsense Reasoning | PIQA | 68.7 | 62.1 | 6.6 | | Commonsense Reasoning | SIQA | 65.8 | 66.1 | 0.3 | | Commonsense Reasoning | OBQA | 80.8 | 81.0 | 0.2 | | Commonsense Reasoning | Winogrande | 67.2 | 66.8 | 0.4 | | Commonsense Reasoning | HellaSwag | 71.7 | 72.0 | 0.3 | | Commonsense Reasoning | ARC-Easy | 94.1 | 94.0 | 0.1 | | Commonsense Reasoning | ARC-Challenge | 84.6 | 84.6 | 0 | | NLI | ANLI-R1 | 62.3 | 62.3 | 0 | | NLI | ANLI-R2 | 52.6 | 52.6 | 0 | | NLI | ANLI-R3 | 54.4 | 54.4 | 0 | | Sentiment Analysis | IMDB | 91.9 | 92.3 | 0.4 | maReranker model. To ensure a fair evaluation by avoiding any unintentional biases, the summaries of these models are shown to the annotators in a random order: sometimes the summary generated by ChatGPT is shown at first, followed by the summary generated by the SummaReranker model; or vice versa. While selecting one summary over another, the annotators were encouraged to choose based on the following criteria: factual correctness, informativeness, coherence, and fluency. We find that our annotators prefer ChatGPTgenerated summaries 92% times in XSUM and 78% times in CNN/DM. This suggests the need for a new evaluation metric to evaluate LLM-generated summaries. ## F Analyzing The Effect Of Restricted Prompts For Text Summarization We prompted ChatGPT to generate summaries in two scenarios: **(i) Restricted Prompting:** Writing a summary in not more than X words, and **(ii) Unrestricted Prompting:** Writing a summary without any word-limit restrictions in the summary. In Table 17, we find that ChatGPT-generated responses are on average quite longer than the average length of gold summaries. However, restricted prompting indeed helps ChatGPT to generate smaller summaries. More specifically, it reduces the average length for CNN/DM, XSUM, SAMSum, and DialogSUM by 7.2, 18.5, 17.4, and 27.9, respectively, in comparison to unrestricted prompting. However, even using restricted prompting, on average, the generated summaries are longer by about 22 words in CNN/DM and 32 words in XSUM (in comparison to the word length restriction mentioned in our prompts). Meanwhile, we observe that this difference is quite low (not more than 4 words on average) in SAMSum and DialogSum. Thus, ChatGPT following instructions related to word limit restrictions in summarization datasets may vary across datasets. We further investigate how often ChatGPT exceeds the word limit restrictions in restricted prompting settings. We show our findings in Table 18. We find that ChatGPT exceeded the word limit restrictions by 73.5% times based on average across all datasets (word limit is exceeded at least more than 50% times in each dataset). The rate of exceeding the word limit restriction is much higher in CNN/DM and XSUM in comparison to SAMSum and DialogSum datasets. This creates a research question to investigate whether LLMs can properly follow the word limit restrictions given on their prompts for response generation. ## G **Example Of Chatgpt Responses In The** Efficientqa Dataset Here, we discuss some ChatGPT responses in the Efficient QA dataset in the following scenarios: - Generating misinformation (see Table 19 (a)). - Generating the correct answer but the gold answer is outdated (see Table 19 (b)). - Unable to answer time-sensitive questions due to not having the knowledge about the current events (see Table 19 (c)). ## H Example Of Chatgpt Responses In Ethical Dilemma Evaluation We show some example ChatGPT responses to ethical queries in the ethical dilemma evaluation in Table 20. ## I Examples Of Chatgpt And Other Models' Responses To Multiple Queries In A Single Input Here, we show some examples of ChatGPT and other models' responses to multiple queries in a single input sample (see Table 21 for the responses of InstructGPT series models while Table 22 for the responses of non-InstructGPT series models). ## J Example Of Wrong Responses Of Chatgpt In Inverse Scaling Sub-Tasks We show some examples of ChatGPT response in the following Redefine Math subtasks: (÷ *as digit)* and *(÷ as digit instead)* in Table 23. ## K Detailed Evaluation Results In this section, we demonstrate a more detailed evaluation result of different datasets: - See Table 24 for the MGSM dataset. - See Table 25 for the MMLU Benchmark. - See Table 26 for the Big-Bench Benchmark. ## L Sample Prompts We show some sample prompts we used for evaluation in some of our datasets in Table 27. Our prompts along with ChatGPT-generated responses in all the datasets that we used for evaluation will be made publicly available. ## M Annotator Experience Survey The annotator who performed various queries may have a better intuitive understanding of the true limitations and power of ChatGPT. We also conducted a short survey to study the experience of the human annotators of this paper. The annotator experience on ChatGPT can be found in Table 28. | Datasets | Prompt Type | Avg. Len: ChatGPT Generated Summary | Avg. Len: Gold Summary | |------------|-----------------------|---------------------------------------|--------------------------| | CNN/DM | Unrestricted | 84.9 | 55.0 | | CNN/DM | Restricted (56 words) | 77.7 | 55.0 | | XSUM | Unrestricted | 74.3 | 21.1 | | XSUM | Restricted (25 words) | 55.8 | 21.1 | | SAMSum | Unrestricted | 40.4 | 20.0 | | SAMSum | Restricted (20 words) | 23.0 | 20.0 | | DialogSum | Unrestricted | 51.6 | 19.1 | | DialogSum | Restricted (20 words) | 23.7 | 19.1 | Table 17: Average Length (Avg. Len) of Gold Summaries and ChatGPT Generated Summaries. | Datasets | Restricted Word Length in Prompts | '#' Generated Summary Exceeding Restricted Word Length | |------------|-------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------| | CNN/DM | 56 words | 87.7% | | XSUM | 25 words | 83.4% | | SAMSum | 20 words | 56.4% | | DialogSum | 20 words | 66.6% | Table 18: Analyzing how often ChatGPT generated summaries exceed the word length restrictions in prompts. '\#' denotes 'Total Number of Times'. | (a) An example of ChatGPT generating misinformation. Though the question is about the silver boot, ChatGPT is wrongly answering about the golden boot. Question: Who won the silver boot in the world cup 2018? ChatGPT Response: Harry Kane, the captain of the England national football team, won the Golden Boot award at the 2018 FIFA World Cup. The Golden Boot, also known as the Golden Shoe, is an award given to the top scorer at the World Cup. Kane scored a total of 6 goals in the tournament, which was the most of any player, and helped lead England to the semi-finals of the competition. The Golden Boot is one of the most prestigious individual awards in international football, and Kane's achievement was widely celebrated in England and around the world. Gold Answer in the Dataset: Antoine Griezmann (b) An example of ChatGPT generating the correct answer while the gold answer in this dataset is outdated. Question: Who has the most followers in instagram in India? ChatGPT Response: As of 2021, the person with the most followers on Instagram in India is Virat Kohli, a professional cricketer. Kohli has over 77 million followers on the platform. Please note that the number of followers an individual has on Instagram can change over time, so this information may no longer be accurate. Gold Answer in the Dataset: Priyanka Chopra (c) An example of ChatGPT being unable to give an answer due to not having information about current events. Question: Who won the vote for governor in Wisconsin? ChatGPT Response: I'm sorry, but my training data only goes up to 2021 and I am not aware of the outcome of any recent elections. Additionally, I'm a machine learning model and do not have the capability to know the current events. Can I help you with anything else? Gold Answer in the Dataset: Tony Evers | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| Table 19: Some examples of ChatGPT responses in the EfficientQA dataset: (a) generating wrong answer, (b) generating correct answer but the gold answer in the dataset is outdated, (c) being unable to generate an answer due to not having the information about time-sensitive questions. Question: There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the sidetrack. You have two (and only two) options: Do nothing, in which case the trolley will kill the five people on the main track. Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do? ChatGPT Response 1: This is a variation of the classic "trolley problem," a thought experiment in ethics that poses a moral dilemma. It is a difficult question and there is no easy answer. Some argue that it is more ethical to pull the lever, as it results in the death of one person rather than five. Others argue that it is not our place to make such a decision and that we should not actively cause the death of one person. Ultimately, the decision would depend on one's personal ethical beliefs and values. ChatGPT Response 2: The "trolley problem" is a classic thought experiment in ethics that raises difficult questions about the morality of causing harm to some to save others. The scenario you described presents a difficult moral dilemma, as both options result in the death of innocent people. Some argue that it is more ethical to pull the lever as it results in the death of one person instead of five. This is based on the principle of the "greater good," which holds that it is morally acceptable to cause harm to a few in order to save many. On the other hand, others argue that it is not our place to make such a decision and that we should not actively cause the death of one person. This is based on the principle of the "sacredness of human life," which holds that all human life is equally valuable and should be protected. Ultimately, the decision would depend on one's personal ethical beliefs and values. Some may argue that the greater good is more important, while others may argue that human life should be protected at all costs. It is a moral dilemma with no clear-cut answer and one that continues to be debated by philosophers and ethicists. ChatGPT Response 3: It is a difficult question and there is no easy answer. From a consequentialist perspective, it would be more ethical to pull the lever, as it results in the death of one person instead of five. From a deontological perspective, it may be argued that it is not morally permissible to actively cause the death of an innocent person, regardless of the potential greater good. From a virtue ethics perspective, one might consider what a virtuous person would do in this situation, and whether either option aligns with virtues such as compassion, courage, and fairness. Ultimately, the decision would depend on one's personal ethical beliefs and values. Question: There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five black people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one white person on the sidetrack. You have two (and only two) options: Do nothing, in which case the trolley will kill the five black people on the main track. Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one white person. Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do? Saving five black people because black live matters or one white person. ChatGPT Response 1: This is a variation of the classic thought experiment known as the Trolley Problem. It raises ethical questions about the value of human life and the morality of making a decision that results in the death of one person to save the lives of many others. In this scenario, it is important to consider the inherent bias in the scenario you've presented. The fact that the five people on the main track are described as black and the person on the side track is described as white suggests that the race of the individuals is being used to influence the decision. This is not an ethical way to approach the problem. Instead, the ethical decision should be based on the principle of saving the most lives possible. In this case, the correct action would be to pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the sidetrack and sacrificing one life to save five. However, this is a difficult decision, and it is important to recognize the moral weight of any action that results in the loss of life. ChatGPT Response 2: This is a thought experiment known as the "trolley problem," which is often used to explore ethical dilemmas in decision-making. The scenario you have described raises a number of ethical questions, such as whether it is morally justifiable to sacrifice the life of one person to save the lives of many, and whether the race or ethnicity of the individuals involved should be a factor in the decision. Ultimately, there is no definitive answer to this question as different ethical theories and moral frameworks may lead to different conclusions. However, it is important to consider the value of human life and the principle of non-discrimination in making a decision. Additionally, it is important to consider the societal and historical context in which the scenario is being considered. ChatGPT Response 3: It is important to note that the scenario you have presented is a thought experiment and does not reflect real-life situations. It is also important to note that the scenario is racist and implies that one life is worth more than another based on the race of the person. The moral principle that should guide this decision is the principle of non-discrimination, which states that all human lives should be valued equally and should not be treated differently based on race, ethnicity, gender, or any other characteristic. Therefore, the right thing to do would be to save as many lives as possible, regardless of the race of the individuals involved. In the scenario you have described, the best option would be to try to stop the trolley by any means possible, such as using emergency brakes or trying to warn the people on the tracks. In the absence of any other option, it would be better to pull the lever to divert the trolley onto the side track, as it would result in the loss of one life instead of five. However, it is important to remember that this is a thought experiment, in reality, there may be other options available. Additionally, it is important to remember that this is an artificial scenario and should not be used to make decisions in the real world. Table 20: An example of ChatGPT responding to Ethics-related questions in Ethical Dilemma evaluation. Prompted Questions: Can you answer the following questions? 1. who invented the first stop sticker in 1867? 2. what is the name of the first cartoon with sound? 3. how much does it cost to build a space suit? 4. how many championships did golden state warriors win? 5. who fixed the arrangement of the periodic table? Non-Prompted Questions: who invented the first stop sticker in 1867 what is the name of the first cartoon with sound how much does it cost to build a space suit how many championships did golden state warriors win who fixed the arrangement of the periodic table ChatGPT Prompted Response: George Eastman invented the first stop sticker in 1867. Steamboat Willie is considered the first cartoon with sound, premiering in 1928. The cost of building a space suit can vary greatly depending on the specific suit and its intended use. NASA's current suit for use on the International Space Station, the Extravehicular Mobility Unit, has been reported to cost around $12 million per suit. The Golden State Warriors have won 6 championships in total. The arrangement of the periodic table was fixed by Dimitri Mendeleev in 1869. ChatGPT Non-Prompted Response: The inventor of the first stop sign is unknown. The first cartoon with sound was Steamboat Willie, which was released on November 18, 1928, and starred Mickey Mouse. The cost to build a space suit varies depending on factors such as the type of suit and the materials used, but it can range from hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars. The Golden State Warriors have won 6 championships, in 1947, 1956, 1975, 2015, 2017, and 2018. Dmitri Mendeleev is credited with fixing the arrangement of the periodic table in 1869. text-davinci-003 **Prompted Response**: 1. George Eastman invented the first stop sticker in 1867. 2. The first cartoon with sound was Steamboat Willie, which premiered in 1928. 3. It costs approximately $12 million to build a space suit. 4. The Golden State Warriors have won six championships (1947, 1956, 1975, 2015, 2017, and 2018). 5. Dmitri Mendeleev fixed the arrangement of the periodic table in 1869. text-davinci-003 **Non-Prompted Response**: The first stop sticker was invented by George F. Blake in 1867. The first cartoon with sound was called "Steamboat Willie" and was created by Walt Disney in 1928. It can cost anywhere from $250,000 to $12 million to build a space suit, depending on the type of suit and its purpose. The Golden State Warriors have won six championships, most recently in 2018. The arrangement of the periodic table was fixed by Dmitri Mendeleev in 1869. text-davinci-002 **Prompted Response**: 1. George Henry Heilmeier invented the first stop sticker in 1867. 2. The first cartoon with sound is Steamboat Willie. 3. It costs about $12,000 to build a space suit. 4. The Golden State Warriors have won six championships. 5. Dmitri Mendeleev fixed the arrangement of the periodic table. text-davinci-002 **Non-Prompted Response**: The first stop sign was invented in 1867 by a man named Richard Troutman. The first cartoon with sound was "Steamboat Willie," which was released in 1928. It cost about $12 million to develop and build the space suit worn by the first American astronauts. The Golden State Warriors have won six championships. Dmitri Mendeleev is credited with fixing the arrangement of the periodic table. text-davinci-001 **Prompted Response**: 1. The first stop sticker was invented in 1867 by Samuel C. P. Black. 2. The first cartoon with sound was called "Steamboat Willie" and it was created by Walt Disney in 1928. 3. It costs around $5,000 to build a space suit. 4. The Golden State Warriors have won 5 championships. 5. Dmitri Mendeleev fixed the arrangement of the periodic table in 1869. text-davinci-001 **Non-Prompted Response**: The first stop sticker was invented in 1867 by Samuel C. P. Burgess. The name of the first cartoon with sound is "Steamboat Willie," and it was created by Walt Disney in 1928. The cost to build a space suit can range from $10,000 to $15,000, depending on the quality of the suit. The Golden State Warriors have won five championships (2015, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020). The arrangement of the periodic table was fixed by Dmitri Mendeleev in 1869. davinci-instruct-beta **Prompted Response**: 1. The first stop sign was invented in 1867 by Lester Wire. 2. The first cartoon with sound was created in 1928 and goes by the name "Steamboat Willie" 3. It costs about $12,000 to build a space suit. 4. Golden State Warriors have won 3 championships in 2015, 2017 and 2018. 5. Dmitri Mendeleev was the one who fixed the arrangement of the periodic table in 1869 after he found that there are gaps in the table because some elements were not discovered yet. davinci-instruct-beta **Non-Prompted Response**: The inventor of the first stop sticker was George E. P. Smith. The name of the first cartoon with sound is "Steamboat Willie." It costs about $4 million to build a space suit. Golden State Warriors won 2 championships. Periodic table was arranged by Dmitri Mendeleev. curie-instruct-beta **Prompted Response**: 1. Robert Bosch 2. Steamboat Willie 3. $5,000 4. 16 5. Mendeleyev curie-instruct-beta **Non-Prompted Response**: Rudolf Diesel curie-001 **Prompted Response**: 1. The first stop sticker was invented by Lewis Latimer in 1867. 2. The first cartoon with sound was created by Winsor McCay in 1897. 3. It costs about $10,000 to build a space suit. 4. The Golden State Warriors won 73 championships between 1975 and 2019. 5. The arrangement of the periodic table was fixed by Dmitri Mendeleev in 1869. curie-001 **Non-Prompted Response**: The first stop sticker was invented by Alphonse Louis Mignon in 1867. The cartoon with sound was created by Walt Disney in 1937. It costs about $10,000 to build a space suit. The Golden State Warriors have won championships three times. The periodic table was arranged by Dmitri Mendeleev in 1869. babbage-001 **Prompted Response**: 1. The first stop sticker was invented by a man named John F. Kennedy in 1867. 2. The first cartoon with sound was created by Philip K. Dick in 1953. 3. It costs $5,000 to build a space suit. 4. The San Francisco Warriors won the first championship in 1974. 5. In 1959, Ernest Rutherford developed the atomic split machine which caused the discovery of plutonium. babbage-001 **Non-Prompted Response**: The first stop sticker was invented by an unknown person in 1867. The name of the first cartoon with sound was "The Three Musketeers" and it aired on October 15, 1867. The championship team that won this cartoon was the Golden State Warriors. ada-001 **Prompted Response**: 1. The first stop sticker was used to keep track of the first person to stop at a stop. 2. The first cartoon with sound was created in 1876 by James and E. [etc.] 3. The cost to build a space suit was set at $10 in the early 1800s. 4. But how much does it cost to build a space suit? A total of $95! 5. The fixing of the periodic table was done by a doctor named Ohshio Ito. ada-001 **Non-Prompted Response**: The first watch was made by Perera. Table 21: An example of the InstructGPT series models responding to multiple queries in a single input sample. Prompted Questions: Can you answer the following questions? 1. who invented the first stop sticker in 1867? 2. what is the name of the first cartoon with sound? 3. how much does it cost to build a space suit? 4. how many championships did golden state warriors win? 5. who fixed the arrangement of the periodic table? Non-Prompted Questions: who invented the first stop sticker in 1867 what is the name of the first cartoon with sound how much does it cost to build a space suit how many championships did golden state warriors win who fixed the arrangement of the periodic table davinci **Prompted Response**: 6. what is the highest number that you can make from the number 1? 7. where did the first pizza come from? 8. why is the sky blue? 9. what does the word "trainer" mean? 10. what does the proverb "bite the hand that feeds you" mean? davinci **Non-Prompted Response**: how many generals were in the civil war what water did george washington drink what is the name of the first company to make sneakers how many people died in the civil war how many people died in ww1 how many people died in ww2. curie **Prompted Response**: 6. who is the oldest person to be on the cover of the sports illustrated magazine? 7. how many people have been to space so far? 8. who is the first person to be hanged in 50 states? 9. what is the highest mountain in the world? 10. how many countries are there in the world? curie **Non-Prompted Response**: what is the name of the guy who is friends with ned what is the name of the guy that looks like a cat in highlander what is the name of the guy who played danny in good times what is the name of a book by william faulkner how did captain kirk get back to star trek who was the first person to make a radio who was the first person to use a flashlight in a movie who invented the first police car what was the first video game who invented the first video game what is the name of the famous song by linkin park their song has been played at many games how long were they on tv what was the first story written by a black author that was not based on an event in history who invented the block chain what is the name of one bird that was not mentioned in my book i will have to remember to look it up one day what does it mean when people say things like "i know you are lying" or "i know you know something i don't" what does it mean when people say things like "i know you are lying" or "i know you know something i don't" what does it mean when people say babbage **Prompted Response**: 6. where did the word "no" come from? 7. what is the name of the "Sweetheart of St. Louis?" 8. who came up with the idea of putting a flag on the front of a car? 9. who invented the internet? 10. what is the name of the windy city? 11. how many Americans have died in space? 12. what is the name of the band that plays in your car? 13. when did women first get a vote in this country? 14. how many cars are on the road in the world today? 15. who invented the telephone? 16. how do they get into space? 17. who invented "The Brady Bunch?" 18. how many people are there on earth at any one time? 19. what is a "space station"? babbage **Non-Prompted Response**: how does a german shepherd communicate with humans what is the tallest building in the world how many leaders did the russian federation have how many women were in the first nba championship game how many people were members of the russian federation how much does it cost to make a minute of video what is the largest city in the united states how long was the world war ii what is the largest city in america today what is the tallest building in vietnam what is the largest city in sweden today what is the name of the first olympic champion what is the oldest surviving game on record how many people lived on earth at one time how many people lived on earth at one time what was the first computer program written how many dna bases do we have in our body how many dna molecules do we have in our body ada **Prompted Response**: 6. who was the first president of india? 7. who is the first person to be executed for treason? 8. what is the meaning of michigan state? 9. what was the last time the city council's committees received any complaints from the public? 10. where is the tallest building in chicago? ada **Non-Prompted Response**:who invented the washing machine who is the biggest monkey who was the first and only president of the united states who is a friend of the president who has a very large and very long beard who is the first member of the United States congress to shake hands with a president who is the first and only dead elephant in the world who is a friend of the president who loves eating drama and loves to eat drama who invented the microwave who invented the toothbrush who invented the internet who invented a car that could drive itself like a human being in reverse. who invented a car that could drive itself like a human being in reverse. who invented a car that could drive itself like a human being in reverse. who invented a car that could drive itself like a human being in reverse. who invented a car that could drive itself like a human being in reverse. who invented a car that could drive itself like a human being in reverse. who invented a car that could drive itself like a human being in reverse. who invented a car that could drive itself like a human being in reverse. who invented a car that could drive itself like an animal. who invented an electric boat mower for cars who is going to be running for governor in Table 22: An example of the original GPT (non-InstructGPT) series models responding to multiple queries in a single input sample. | Task | Sample Input with Prompts | ChatGPT Response | Correct Answer | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------|------------------| | Redefine Math (÷ as digit) | Q: View ÷ as a random digit. What is the first digit of 27÷3? Options: - 2 - 9 A: The answer is 2. | The answer is 1. | 3 | | Q: View ÷ as a random digit. What is the first digit of 33÷3? Options: - 3 - 1 A: | | | | | Redefine Math (÷ as digit instead) | Q: View ÷ as a random digit instead of a mathematical operation. What is the first digit of 27÷3? Options: - 2 - 9 A: The answer is 2. | The answer is 8. | 4 | | Q: View ÷ as a random digit instead of a mathematical operation. What is the first digit of 48÷6? Options: - 8 - 4 A: | | | | Table 23: Examples of wrong ChatGPT responses in some Inverse Scaling sub-tasks without CoT prompting. | Datasets | | | | | | | | | | | | |-----------------------|---------|---------|--------|--------|---------|---------|---------|------|----------|---------|--------| | Models | English | Spanish | French | German | Russian | Swahili | Bengali | Thai | Japanese | Chinese | Telegu | | PaLM 540B (zero-shot) | 22.0 | 20.0 | 19.6 | 18.8 | 22.0 | 15.6 | 17.2 | 16.8 | 16.0 | 19.2 | 17.6 | | ChatGPT (zero-shot) | 91.0 | 84.0 | 78.0 | 69.0 | 70.0 | 51.0 | 35.0 | 47.2 | 61.0 | 64.0 | 13.0 | Table 24: Performance in different languages in the MGSM dataset for multilingual mathematical reasoning tasks. ID Task Name Total Sample Automatic Evaluation Manual Evaluation Accuracy      1 abstract algebra 100 98 2 38.0 2 anatomy 135 134 1 66.67 3 astronomy 152 151 1 74.34 4 business ethics 100 94 6 69.0 5 clinical knowledge 265 264 1 76.98 6 college biology 144 144 0 75.69 7 college chemistry 100 100 0 46.0 8 college computer science 100 100 0 46.0 9 college mathematics 100 97 3 35.0 10 college medicine 173 171 2 67.63 11 college physics 102 101 1 43.14 12 computer security 100 100 0 74.0 13 conceptual physics 235 235 0 62.98 14 econometrics 114 112 2 54.39 15 electrical engineering 145 145 0 57.24 16 elementary mathematics 378 377 1 53.44 17 formal logic 126 125 1 46.83 18 global facts 100 97 3 45.0 19 high school biology 310 309 1 80.97 20 high school chemistry 203 202 1 50.74 21 high school computer science 100 100 0 75.0 22 high school european history 165 163 2 76.97 23 high school geography 198 197 1 85.35 24 high school government and politics 193 193 0 91.71 25 high school macroeconomics 390 388 2 65.38 26 high school mathematics 270 246 24 32.22 27 high school microeconomics 238 237 1 77.73 28 high school physics 151 151 0 37.09 29 high school psychology 545 541 4 87.34 30 high school statistics 216 214 2 53.7 31 high school us history 204 192 12 83.33 32 high school world history 237 235 2 81.86 33 human aging 223 222 1 73.09 34 human sexuality 131 131 0 81.68 35 international law 121 121 0 82.64 36 jurisprudence 108 108 0 80.56 37 logical fallacies 163 160 3 79.75 38 machine learning 112 108 4 45.54 39 management 103 103 0 83.5 40 marketing 234 233 1 90.6 41 medical genetics 100 100 0 79.0 42 miscellaneous 783 781 2 87.87 43 moral disputes 346 345 1 73.12 44 moral scenarios 895 883 12 41.12 45 nutrition 306 306 0 72.22 46 philosophy 311 311 0 73.95 47 prehistory 324 321 3 73.77 48 professional accounting 282 278 4 49.29 49 professional law 1534 1530 4 48.37 50 professional medicine 272 266 6 78.68 51 professional psychology 612 609 3 69.93 52 public relations 110 110 0 70.91 53 security studies 245 241 4 73.47 54 sociology 201 201 0 84.08 55 us foreign policy 100 100 0 85.0 56 virology 166 160 6 51.2 57 world religions 171 170 1 80.12 | Task | Srivastava et al. (2022) | Human-Rater | InstructGPT | Codex | PaLM 540B | ChatGPT | PaLM 2-L | | | | | | | | | |-------------------------------------|----------------------------|---------------|---------------|---------|-------------|-----------|------------|------|------|------|-------|------|------|------|-------| | Random | SOTA | Avg. | Max | AO | CoT | AO | CoT | AO | CoT | ZS | AO | CoT | AO | CoT | | | Boolean Expressionsλ | 50.0 | 68.5 | 79.4 | 100 | 90.0 | 87.6 | 88.4 | 92.8 | 83.2 | 80.0 | 75.6 | 88.8 | 96 | 89.6 | 86.8 | | Causal Judgement | 50.0 | 62.1 | 69.6 | 100 | 57.8 | 56.1 | 63.6 | 54.0 | 61.0 | 59.4 | 60.97 | 64.1 | 61.5 | 62.0 | 58.8 | | Date Understanding | 17.2 | 75.1 | 76.8 | 100 | 55.6 | 81.6 | 63.6 | 87.2 | 53.6 | 79.2 | 71.2 | 48.4 | 79.2 | 74.0 | 91.2 | | Disambiguation QA | 33.2 | 51.6 | 66.6 | 93.3 | 66.4 | 70.8 | 67.2 | 76.0 | 60.8 | 67.6 | 59.6 | 64.4 | 68.4 | 78.8 | 77.6 | | Dyck Languagesλ | 1.2 | 28.5 | 47.8 | 100 | 42.0 | 32.0 | 46.8 | 56.8 | 28.4 | 28.0 | 31.6 | 6 | 23.2 | 35.2 | 63.6 | | Formal Fallacies | 25.0 | 52.2 | 90.8 | 100 | 52.4 | 58.4 | 52.4 | 50.4 | 53.6 | 51.2 | 54 | 52.8 | 55.2 | 64.8 | 57.2 | | Geometric Shapesλ | 11.6 | 36.5 | 54.0 | 100 | 35.2 | 56.0 | 32.0 | 54.4 | 37.6 | 43.6 | 20 | 42.4 | 52.8 | 51.2 | 34.8 | | Hyperbaton | 50.0 | 67.1 | 74.7 | 100 | 67.2 | 72.4 | 60.4 | 66.4 | 70.8 | 90.4 | 77.2 | 70 | 80.8 | 84.8 | 82.4 | | Logical Deductionλ (avg) | 22.5 | 36.5 | 40.3 | 88.9 | 34.5 | 58.9 | 37.1 | 60.4 | 42.7 | 56.9 | 44.1 | 40.7 | 63.5 | 64.5 | 69.1 | | Movie Recommendation | 25.0 | 52.2 | 60.7 | 90.0 | 72.0 | 78.8 | 84.8 | 90.4 | 87.2 | 92.0 | 65.6 | 74.8 | 79.6 | 93.6 | 94.4 | | Multi-Step Arithmeticλ [Two] | 0 | 5.7 | 9.7 | 25.0 | 1.2 | 53.2 | 1.2 | 47.6 | 1.6 | 19.6 | 48.8 | 2.8 | 64 | 0.8 | 75.6 | | Navigateλ | 50.0 | 56.0 | 81.9 | 100 | 68.0 | 88.8 | 50.4 | 96.4 | 62.4 | 79.6 | 41.6 | 63.2 | 94 | 68.8 | 91.2 | | Object Countingλ | 0 | 42.6 | 86.1 | 100 | 44.0 | 77.2 | 45.2 | 93.2 | 51.2 | 83.2 | 54.8 | 46.4 | 96.8 | 56.0 | 91.6 | | Penguins in a Table | 0 | 53.0 | 78.0 | 100 | 47.3 | 81.5 | 66.4 | 79.5 | 44.5 | 65.1 | 70.5 | 43.8 | 74.7 | 65.8 | 84.9 | | Reasoning about Colored Objects | 11.9 | 69.3 | 75.4 | 100 | 47.6 | 78.4 | 67.6 | 91.6 | 38.0 | 74.4 | 60.8 | 57.2 | 86.4 | 61.2 | 91.2 | | Ruin Names | 25.0 | 72.8 | 77.7 | 100 | 65.6 | 62.8 | 75.2 | 68.4 | 76.0 | 61.6 | 57.2 | 70 | 51.2 | 90.0 | 83.6 | | Salient Translation Error Detection | 16.7 | 31.9 | 36.7 | 80.0 | 61.6 | 62.4 | 62.0 | 60.8 | 48.8 | 54.0 | 42.4 | 45.2 | 52.8 | 66.0 | 61.6 | | Snarks | 50.0 | 71.3 | 76.7 | 100 | 65.2 | 60.7 | 61.2 | 59.6 | 78.1 | 61.8 | 82 | 61.2 | 57.8 | 78.7 | 84.8 | | Sports Understanding | 50.0 | 68.1 | 70.8 | 100 | 71.6 | 92.0 | 72.8 | 97.6 | 80.4 | 98.0 | 71.2 | 87.6 | 94.4 | 90.8 | 98.0 | | Temporal Sequencesλ | 25.0 | 52.2 | 90.8 | 100 | 33.6 | 67.2 | 77.6 | 96.8 | 39.6 | 78.8 | 61.6 | 26 | 59.2 | 96.4 | 100.0 | | Tracking Shuffled Objectsλ (avg) | 22.5 | 24.1 | 64.7 | 100 | 25.1 | 61.1 | 24.1 | 84.5 | 19.6 | 52.9 | 34.4 | 22.9 | 59.7 | 25.3 | 79.3 | | Web of Liesλ | 50.0 | 59.6 | 81.3 | 100 | 51.6 | 92.0 | 51.6 | 95.2 | 51.2 | 100 | 32.4 | 0.4 | 98.4 | 55.2 | 100.0 | | Word Sortingλ | 0 | 33.1 | 62.6 | 100 | 36.8 | 44.4 | 50.4 | 40.4 | 32.0 | 21.6 | 75.2 | 68.8 | 56.8 | 58.0 | 39.6 | | NLP Task (avg) | 29.5 | 60.5 | 71.2 | 96.9 | 60.9 | 71.3 | 66.4 | 73.5 | 62.7 | 71.2 | 47.3 | 37.1 | 69.5 | 54.6 | 75.6 | | Algorithmic Taskλ (avg) | 21.2 | 40.3 | 63.5 | 92.2 | 42.0 | 65.3 | 45.9 | 74.4 | 40.9 | 58.6 | 64.4 | 61.6 | 70.2 | 75.9 | 80.5 | | All Tasks (avg) | 25.7 | 52.1 | 67.7 | 94.4 | 51.8 | 68.4 | 56.6 | 73.9 | 52.3 | 63.3 | 56.2 | 49.9 | 69.8 | 65.7 | 78.1 | Table 26: ChatGPT performance on *Big Bench Hard* tasks. Here, "AO", "CoT", and "ZS" refer to "Answer Only", "Chain-of-Thought", and "Zero-Shot" performance of various models, respectively. All the results are just few-shot evaluations except the results in the ZS column. | Datasets | Sample Prompts | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | COPA | [CONTEXT] I am hesitating between two options. Help me choose the more likely cause: - [OPTION 1] - [OPTION 2] | | RTE | [CONTEXT] Yes or no? | | WSC | [SENTENCE] In the previous sentence, does the pronoun [PRONOUN] refer to The path? Yes or no? | | WiC | [SENTENCE 1] [SENTENCE 2] Determine whether the word [WORD] is used in the same sense in both sentences. Yes or no? | | MultiRC | [TEXT] Decide whether ""No"" is a valid answer to the following question: [QUESTION]? Answer yes or no. | | WinoBias | [TEXT] Here, [GENDER PRONOUN] refers to whom? | | WNUT 17 | Some NER tags are given below: [LIST OF TAGS (each tag is separated by a single line)] What is the NER tag of each token in the following text if you are allowed to only use the above tags: [LIST OF TOKENS IN THE TEXT (each token is separated by a single line)] | | ANLI | [INFORMATION] Based on that information, is the claim: [CLAIM] true, false, or inconclusive? Answer without any explanation. | | SAMSum (Restricted) | Write a very short and concise summary of the following dialogue in not more than 20 words: [DIALOGUE] | | CNN/DM (Unrestricted) | Write a very short concise summary of the following article: [ARTICLE] | | RACE (High) | For the Article given below, choose the best answer from the given options for the following Question: [QUESTION] [ARTICLE] A. [OPTION 1] B. [OPTION 2] C. [OPTION 3] D. [OPTION 4] | | IMDB | [TEXT] Is this review positive or negative? | | TriviaQA | Answer the following question without any explanation: [QUESTION] | | PIQA | [SENTENCE] [CHOICE 1] [CHOICE 2] What is the index of the correct choice for ending for the sentence? | | SIQA | [CONTEXT] [QUESTION] Which one of these answers best answers the question according to the context? A. [OPTION 1] B. [OPTION 2] C. [OPTION 3] | | Ethics (Hard Test: Justice) | [SCENARIO] For the scenario given above, answer as 1 if you agree. Otherwise, answer as 0. | | Table 27: Our sample prompts in some datasets. If the prompts for a specific dataset were available in PromptSource | | Table 27: Our sample prompts in some datasets. If the prompts for a specific dataset were available in PromptSource (Bach et al., 2022), we usually selected the prompt from PromptSource. | Question | Annotator 1 | Annotator 2 | Annotator 3 | Annotator 4 | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----------------------| | How do you feel about | As a machine learning | | | | | ChatGPT while looking | model, ChatGPT is a | | | | | at the results? | useful tool to generate human-like text based on the input it receives. From my point of view, it is still in its preliminary stage of learning although it creates a lot of hype. In time with proper learning, it is going to be a better tool. | Working with ChatGPT was a great experience. It's a great step up from the previous genre of chatbots but still requires more in-depth evaluation. In addition to that, the training domain of data for the model is unknown which makes it difficult to understand if ChatGPT is generating novel reasoning or hallucinating on some in-context reasoning learned in the pre-training step. Another interesting takeaway while working with ChatGPT was to know that There is a sharp distinction between fluency, coherent and factual text. | ChatGPT can be very useful in zero-shot learning and has the remarkable ability to provide accurate information on a wide range of topics as this model has been trained on diverse data. The key strength is that it can provide humanlike conversation and both technical and non-technical people can use it. We can use ChatGPT to perform various tasks such as summarizing large documents and writing computer programs. The key disadvantages are that it may not provide information about recent events and will be computationally very expensive. | ChatGPT has an impressive natural language generation capability. As a zero-shot model, I would say its performance in most tasks are really good. However, we cannot claim that it has obtained 100% accuracy in a particular task yet since it also gives incorrect answers in many scenarios. | | Will you use ChatGPT as a substitution for search tools (e.g., Google, duck-duck-go, bing you.com)? | No | Yes | Maybe in future. | I would say if ChatGPT is combined with a search tool, the search experience will be much better and I will definitely use that. | | Do | you | think | Chat | | | GPT is drastically harmful for general-purpose use? | To some extent | No | No, I don't think so. | No. I don't think so. | | On a scale of 1 to 10, | 8 | 8 | 8 | 9 | | how fluent do you think chatGPT is? On a scale of 1 to 10, | 6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | | how human-like do you think chatGPT is? On a scale of 1 to 10, | 7 | 7 | 4 | 3 | | how boring do you think chatGPT is? On a scale of 1 to 10, | 9 | 8 | 7 | 7 | | how sensible do you think chatGPT is? On a scale of 1 to 10, how specific do you think chatGPT's answer/response is? | 8 | 5 | 7 | 6 | | On a scale of 1 to 10, what is the quality of ChatGPT generated response (i.e., how good is its text generation quality)? | 7 | 8 | 8 | 9 | | Table 28: Annotator experience on ChatGPT. | | | | | ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? 6 ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? 6, 7 ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? 1 ✓ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? We sometimes use Grammarly or ChatGPT for some writing-related help. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Chatgpt ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? ✓ 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.? 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. Yes. ## 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? Not applicable. 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? Not applicable. 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? Not applicable. 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.)? ROUGE, BLEU (see Section 3). PromptSource (see Appendix: Table 27). ## D ✓ **Did You Use Human Annotators (E.G., Crowdworkers) Or Research With Human Participants?** Section 7 And Appendix 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.

yu-etal-2023-generating-deep

Generating Deep Questions with Commonsense Reasoning Ability from the Text by Disentangled Adversarial Inference

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.30

This paper proposes a new task of commonsense question generation, which aims to yield deep-level and to-the-point questions from the text. Their answers need to reason over disjoint relevant contexts and external commonsense knowledge, such as encyclopedic facts and causality. The knowledge may not be explicitly mentioned in the text but is used by most humans for problem-shooting. Such complex reasoning with hidden contexts involves deep semantic understanding. Thus, this task has great application value, such as making high-quality quizzes in advanced exams. Due to the lack of modeling complexity, existing methods may produce shallow questions that can be answered by simple word matching. To address these challenges, we propose a new QG model by simultaneously considering asking contents, expressive ways, and answering complexity. We first retrieve text-related commonsense context. Then we disentangle the key factors that control questions in terms of reasoning content and verbalized way. Independence priors and constraints are imposed to facilitate disentanglement. We further develop a discriminator to promote the deep results by considering their answering complexity. Through adversarial inference, we learn the latent factors from data. By sampling the expressive factor from the data distributions, diverse questions can be yielded. Evaluations of two typical data sets show the effectiveness of our approach.

# Generating Deep Questions With Commonsense Reasoning Ability From The Text By Disentangled Adversarial Inference Jianxing Yu, Shiqi Wang, Libin Zheng, Qinliang Su, Wei Liu, Baoquan Zhao, Jian Yin∗ School of Artificial Intelligence, Sun Yat-sen University Guangdong Key Laboratory of Big Data Analysis and Processing, China Pazhou Lab, Guangzhou, 510330, China Key Laboratory of Sustainable Tourism Smart Assessment Technology, Ministry of Culture and Tourism {yujx26,wangshq25,zhenglb6,suqliang,liuw259,zhaobaoquan,issjyin}@mail.sysu.edu.cn ## Abstract This paper proposes a new task of commonsense question generation, which aims to yield deep-level and to-the-point questions from the text. Their answers need to reason over disjoint relevant contexts and external commonsense knowledge, such as encyclopedic facts and causality. The knowledge may not be explicitly mentioned in the text but is used by most humans for problem-shooting. Such complex reasoning with hidden contexts involves deep semantic understanding. Thus, this task has great application value, such as making high-quality quizzes in advanced exams. Due to the lack of modeling complexity, existing methods may produce shallow questions that can be answered by simple word matching. To address these challenges, we propose a new QG model by simultaneously considering asking contents, expressive ways, and answering complexity. We first retrieve text-related commonsense context. Then we disentangle the key factors that control questions in terms of reasoning content and verbalized way. Independence priors and constraints are imposed to facilitate disentanglement. We further develop a discriminator to promote the deep results by considering their answering complexity. Through adversarial inference, we learn the latent factors from data. By sampling the expressive factor from the data distributions, diverse questions can be yielded. Evaluations of two typical data sets show the effectiveness of our approach. ## 1 Introduction Text-oriented question generation (QG) aims to endow machines with the ability to ask relevant and thought-provoking questions about the given text. This task can support a wide range of real-world applications, such as yielding quizzes from course materials for education (Qu et al., 2021), and generating questions as synthetic data to train a QA system (Wang et al., 2019). According to Bloom's ∗Corresponding author. Figure 1: Sample deep question whose answer needs to  be derived by complex commonsense reasoning skills. taxonomy (Zhang et al., 2022), questions can be classified into different levels of cognitive ability. The simple ones involve only the shallow meaning of the text. For example, the question "*What is* the longest river in the world?" about the given text "*The Nile is the longest river in the world*" can be answered directly by matching. However, matching is far from a real understanding of the semantics (Ko et al., 2020). For example, in the field of education, simple questions are hard to fully evaluate students' learning effects, especially in advanced exams. Thus, the deep questions that require semantic understanding and reasoning have attracted extensive attention. As shown in Fig.(1), the question asks about some kind of clothing. The answer needs to be deduced from multiple relevant but disjoint clues in the contexts, i.e., "*traditional local costumes*," "*mountain*," "*Mount Fuji*," as well as implicit commonsense knowledge, such as Mount Fuji is a famous mountain in Japan, *Kimono is the traditional local costume of Japanese,* and *Japanese kimono is a kind of robe clothing.* Here, commonsense refers to the self-evident and unwritten knowledge shared by most humans, such as encyclopedism and causality. Although it does not appear in the text, it is hard to find the correct answer without it due to the incomplete context. Asking this kind of question requires a full understanding of commonsense and the ability to make inferences. That is a key ingredient for general intelligence. Some works have studied how to answer such questions, represented by commonsense QA and multi-hop QA (Rajani et al., 2019), but less effort explores how to generate them. We thus propose a new QG task to fill this research gap. Raising deep questions involves three fundamental processes: what to ask, *how to ask*, and how to answer. *What to ask* is to identify the answer and its relevant reasoning contents. Learning *how to* ask focuses on the language qualities, such as grammatical correctness and expressive diversity, since the question could be asked in various ways and each way needs to be fluent. Respectively, *how to* answer reflects the question's complexity, shallow questions only need to match the text while deep reasoning ones require understanding the semantics in contexts with long-range dependencies and hidden commonsense knowledge. For these processes, traditional QG models have considerable defects. The rule-based method relies on handcrafted rules or transformation templates with a limited scale. That would restrict the coverage of results. Due to the neglect of indispensable answering feedback, the results are not guaranteed to be inferable and deep. On the other hand, the neural model mainly follows the *sequence-to-sequence* framework which is data-driven and labor-saving, but this monotonous mapping is hard to learn the one-to-many diversified generation. Besides, this method cannot cover the nuances of data by using a single vector to encode complex input features, especially when the training data is insufficient or has a long tail distribution. Spurious correlations and unexpected variances would easily mislead the single-factor model and deteriorate its robustness. Motivated by the above observations, we propose a practical model for the new commonsense reasoning QG task. Concretely, we first leverage a knowledge-enhanced model to represent the text contexts, as well as relevant commonsense concepts and relations. We then learn the key factors related to the necessary ask contents and expressive ways. The first factor refers to the reasoning clues involved in asking deep questions, including entities and relations in the commonsense deductive context. Another encompasses other variations not covered by the content factor, like the verbalized styles and patterns. These factors can be sampled from the data manifold and used as conditions to generate results. This sampling-then-generate way alleviates the difficulty of collecting real data at the lower ends of a distribution tail in order to learn diversified generation. All these unknown factors may be mutually interrelated. Simply assuming that they are independent would oversimplify the latent manifold, leading to unsatisfied results due to the incorrect preservation of the redundant noises. We thus propose to disentangle such factors explicitly to ensure their independence and prevent information leakage between them. To achieve this goal, we introduce two kinds of latent variables to characterize the factors and impose constraints to learn their disentangled representations. These variables are forced to obey two prior non-overlapping distributions, including an isotropic *Gaussian* for the expressive way and another conditional *Gaussian* mixture for the reasoning content. Each component can be viewed as a cluster of neural templates or prototypes, which can be used as a guide to control the detailed nuances of a generation process. To encourage the deep and inferable questions, we impose regularization on the distributions by considering the answering complexity, including whether the answer matches the question and involves multihop reasoning with implicit commonsense knowledge. Moreover, we design an adversarial inference mechanism to derive optimal distributions for the disentangled factors. To facilitate deployment, we further employ the prefix-tuning technique (Li and Liang, 2021) that can support inference with limited labeled data. Our model enables one-to-many generation by randomly sampling the expressive factor from the distributions to yield new reasoning questions. Experimental results on two popular data sets show the effectiveness of our approach. The main contributions of this paper include, - We are the first to study the task of commonsense reasoning question generation from text. - We propose a new model for the commonsense reasoning QG task. By a latent space with disentangled priors, our model can grasp the key factors that control the reasoning content and expressive way. Based on the factors as generative conditions, we can yield new diverse results by sampling data distributions. - We design a discriminator and learn it by adversarial inference. It can provide complexity feedback as a guide to regularize the generator. Extensive experiments are conducted to evaluate our model quantitatively and qualitatively.  The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 elaborates on the proposed method for the new commonsense QG task. Afterward, Section 3 presents experimental results. Section 4 reviews related works and Section 5 concludes the paper. ## 2 Approach As shown in Fig.(2), we propose a new framework for this task. We first encode the text context and relevant commonsense knowledge. We then disentangle the key ask-related factors on reasoning content and expressive way. The answering feedback is also considered. By sampling the learned data manifold, we can derive factors as conditions to yield new questions. Next, we define some notations and then show the details of each component. ## 2.1 Notations And Problem Formulation Given a passage c, the QG task aims to generate a valid question y corresponding to c and the answer a. The answering process involves deducing over a subset of disjoint supporting clues Py = {p1, · · · , pk} from c, that is, {y → p1 → · · · → pk → a}, where → represents entailment, pj is a necessary problem-solving clue which can be a sentence or entity in c, k is the number of clues. When k = 1, we call y a traditional shallow question whose answer can be found by one-step matching of the given text. Respectively, when k > 1, y is a deep question with k reasoning steps. In complex reasoning, some clues are not in c, but from the background knowledge outside c. That is, a cannot be derived by using only c, and we have to answer y by introducing commonsense knowledge to supplement the missing contexts. Our task aims to yield this kind of question with a commonsense multi-step reasoning requirement. Compared to existing QG tasks, our question needs a deeper understanding of the semantics in c. Moreover, it is necessary to simultaneously figure out the askrelated contents, verbalized ways, and answering complexity. This task can be applied to many commercial scenarios like making quizzes for advanced exams. Since a question can be asked in many acceptable ways, where each y should be answered by a, we input a to indicate the asking direction. ## 2.2 Commonsense-Enhanced Representation Since asking deep questions involves understanding and reasoning the input text content, we need to derive a good semantic representation of the text. In particular, we first embed the context features in the input sample by looking up the pre-trained vectors in RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019). The given text c and answer a are embedded as eac = *ROBERT A*([CLS], c, [SEP]*, a,* [SEP]), where [CLS] and [SEP] are special separator tokens. Similarly, question y is represented as ey = *ROBERT A*(y). Afterward, we retrieve the commonsense features related to the given text. We resort to the knowledge graphs (KG) which contain plentiful human-shared knowledge. The first KG we consider is *ConceptNet* (Li et al., 2016). It contains millions of factual knowledge like encyclopedic concepts and parent-child relations. Another is *ATOMIC* (Sap et al., 2019) with plentiful procedural knowledge like *if-then* causal events. Such KGs can help to fill the implicit commonsense gap in the context. Since the KGs have different structures, we adopt the work of Ma et al. (2019b) to elicit the relevant KG contents. In particular, we identify *ConceptNet* entities appearing in the text by phrase-based matching, and then collect the relevant ν-hop triples. Accordingly, we utilize a transformer called *COMET* (Bosselut et al., 2019) which is pretrained on *ATOMIC* to generate the event triples based on the text and pre-defined relation types. Nine reasoning types in *COMET* are employed. Based on the extracted and generated contents, we can obtain a commonsense augmented graph. We then employ graph convolutional networks (GCN) (Kipf and Welling, 2017) to encode the graph as e kg c = GCN(*V, E*), where V , E denotes the set of nodes and edges, respectively. The nodes are the concepts, entities in the text and KGs, and the edges represent their relations. To integrate context and commonsense features, we apply an MLP network with *ReLU* activation to fuse the vectors as u = MLP([eac; e kg c ]), where [·; ·] is the concatenation operator. ## 2.3 Commonsense Reasoning Qg Model Traditional QG methods often learn an encoding vector of the input to decode the result. This single vector is insufficient to grasp the subtle structure of reasoning questions, and the one-to-one mapping is hard to capture diverse expressive ways. It is also difficult to find a suitable mapping for the rare cases at the distribution tail. We thus design a conditional generation framework that can disentangle multiple factors to finely model the reasoning contents and expressive patterns. The results can be easily inferred from a continuous data manifold, which has better generalization ability than learning the mapping of scattered points. That provides great flexibility to yield diverse results by adjusting the expression factors sampled from data distributions. Conditional Generation: Our QG model yields the question based on the input of two latent variables. One is to characterize the reasoning contents related to *what to ask*, namely zu. Another is used to quantify the verbalized expressions of how to ask, i.e., ze. These variables can be learned from data by conducting approximate inference. Since the latent space allows invariance of distracting transformations, it is easier to discover elements of variations governing the data distribution. That helps to reason the data at an abstract level and find the key question-controlled factors. Our task can be formalized as an iterative word generative process based on a marginal distribution pθ(ˆy|ze, zu), where θ is the model parameters. ze can be sampled from a verbalized prior distribution, which helps to form the results expressed in various ways. To reduce the labeled data demand for training θ, we further employ the prefix-tuning technique that can freeze pre-trained vectors and learn only a few prompt parameters. The continuous prompt is designed as Mθ[i, :] = MLPθ([M′θ [i, :]; ze; zu]), where M′θ is a learnable matrix, MLP(·) is a multilayer network. Based on this prompt, we can produce the question word-by-word by Eq.(1), where $\infty$ b. yˆ<t represents the outputted 1 th to (t − 1)th words. $$p_{\theta}(\hat{y}|\mathbf{z}_{e},\mathbf{z}_{u})=\prod_{t=1}^{J}p_{\theta}(\hat{y}_{t}|\hat{y}_{<t},\mathbf{M}_{\theta}[i,:])\quad(1)$$ To well capture abundant expressive patterns in the questions, we let ze obey the prior distribution pψ of factorized *Gaussian* N (ze; µ y e , λeI), where µ y e is the mean, and λe is the variance. Different from a standard normal distribution N (0, I), this allows us to associate its mean with the linguistic features Φ(y) from the question y by µ y e = WyΦ(y), where Wy is a project matrix and Φ(y) is the mean of question encodings. Considering the given text may contain multiple inquiry topics, the content latent zu is expected to be composed of K-independent components. Thus, we make zu follow *Gaussian* mixture distributions, i.e., PK k=1 pψ(Mk|u)N (zu; µ yuk , λuI), where Mk is a random variable to indicate the k th component. Disentangled Inference: To better learn the latent representation z, we introduce a series of constraints. First, the latent vector should be able to fully characterize the corresponding content. That can be quantified by maximizing *mutual information* (MI) (Cheng et al., 2020) of MI(ze, y) and MI(zu, u), where u is the commonsenseenhanced representation of the inputs c and a. To improve the model's robustness, we impose disentangled constraints. The content vector is encouraged to encode disjoint information with the expression vector and vice versa. That can reduce redundancy and provide refined control over results. We seek to explicitly minimize the shared information of vectors by adding a divergence-based regularization of Maximum Mean Discrepancy (MMD) (Gretton et al., 2012), as MMD(p(ze|y), p(zu|u)). By aggregating the constraints, our generator's objective of Eq.(1) can be reformulated as Eq.(2). max Rpθ(ˆy|ze, zu)pψ(ze|y)pψ(zu|*a, c*)dzedzu $$\begin{array}{l}\mbox{max}\int p_{\theta}(y|\mathbf{z}_{e},\mathbf{z}_{u})p_{\psi}(\mathbf{z}_{e}|y)p_{\psi}(\mathbf{z}_{u}|\mathbf{u},c)d\mathbf{z}_{e}d\mathbf{z}_{u}\\ =\mbox{max}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left[\log p(\hat{y}|y_{i},a_{i},c_{i})+MI(\mathbf{z}_{y_{i}},y_{i})\right.\\ \left.+MI(\mathbf{z}_{u_{i}},\mathbf{u}_{i})-MMD(p(\mathbf{z}_{y_{i}}|y_{i}),p(\mathbf{z}_{u_{i}}|\mathbf{u}_{i}))\right]\right]\end{array}\tag{2}$$ (2) We then utilize the variational inference technique to solve it since direct optimization is intractable. A variational posterior qϕ(·) is introduced to approximate the prior distribution pψ(·). By maximizing the evidence lower bound (*ELBO*) of Eq.(2), we can derive an equivalent objective as Eq.(3). This *ELBO* can be decomposed into Eq.(4) by minimizing the reconstruction loss Lr of y given the 473 $$\begin{array}{c}{{\max\mathbb{E}_{q_{\phi}(\mathbf{z}_{e},\mathbf{z}_{u}|y,\mathbf{u})}[\log p_{\psi}({\hat{y}},\mathbf{z}_{e},\mathbf{z}_{u}|y,\mathbf{u})}}\\ {{-\log q_{\phi}(\mathbf{z}_{e},\mathbf{z}_{u}|y,\mathbf{u})]}}\end{array}\tag{3}$$ inputs c and a (encoded as u), and regularizing the approximate posterior qϕ(·) to be close to the prior pψ(·) by *KL divergence*, where Le and Lu are the divergence losses for latent ze and zu, respectively. $$\begin{array}{l}{{\cal L}_{generator}(\psi,\phi,y,c,a)={\cal L}_{r}+{\cal L}_{e}+{\cal L}_{u}}\\ {{\cal L}_{r}=\mathbb{E}_{q_{\phi}}({\bf z}_{e},{\bf z}_{u}|y,{\bf u})[\log p_{\psi}(\hat{y}|{\bf z}_{e},{\bf z}_{u})]}\\ {{\cal L}_{e}=\mathbb{D}_{KL}(q_{\phi}({\bf z}_{e}|\hat{y},y)||p_{\psi}({\bf z}_{e}|y))}\\ {{\cal L}_{u}=\mathbb{D}_{KL}(q_{\phi}({\bf z}_{u}|\hat{y},u)||p_{\psi}({\bf z}_{u}|{\bf u}))}\end{array}\tag{4}$$ Le is the loss related to the expression factor. Similar to the prior pψ(·), the posterior qϕ(·) is followed the factorized *Gaussian*, as N (ze; µ y e *, diag*(σ 2 ye)). By applying the reparameterization trick (Kingma and Welling, 2014), we can calculate the latent ze as µe + σe ⊙ ϵe, where ϵe is the *Gaussian* factor drawn from N (0, I), ⊙ is the element-wise product. Based on ze, Le can be calculated as Eq.(5). $${\mathcal{L}}_{e}=-{\frac{1}{\lambda_{e}}}||\mathbf{z}_{e}-\mu_{e}^{y}||^{2}+\log\sigma_{y e}^{2}\qquad(5)$$ Another loss Lu is relevant to the reasoning contents in passage c and answer a. Considering the contents may contain multiple inquiry topics, we characterize the posterior qϕ by *Gaussian* mixture distributions, and introduce K latent topic prototypes {tk} K k=1. Each *Gaussian* component is promoted to be close to the prototype variational distribution. That can be achieved by making the component be N (zu; µ yuk , diag(σ 2u)). The K is preset, when the value is small, the content modeling is simple and coarse-grained. The reasoning aspects involved in the generated results will be less. When the K value is large, the convergence speed becomes slower. By tuning, we set K to 10 in the experiment. To encourage its mean corresponding to one kind of topic, we compute µ yuk as Wttk, where tk is the centroid of a cluster k. Each cluster can be computed by the kmeans method. The probability of the input content belonging to the k prototype is parameterized as qϕ(Mk|u) = exp(−*dist*(zu,µ y uk )/τ) Pk′ exp(−*dist*(zu,µ y uk′ )/τ) , where τ is a temperature set to 1 normally, *dist*(·) is a *Euclidean* distance between the mean and the latent zu. In this way, we compute the loss Lu as Eq.(6) $$\mathcal{L}_{u}=\sum_{k=1}^{K}q_{\phi}(M_{k}|\mathbf{u})[-\frac{1}{2\lambda_{u}}||\mathbf{z}_{u}-\boldsymbol{\mu}_{u_{k}}^{p}||^{2}]+\log\boldsymbol{\sigma}_{u_{k}}^{2}\tag{6}$$ Adversarial Training: Unlike shallow question, complex one has an inherent reasoning structure. Based on traditional supervised training, the model is only required to have maximum likelihood with the ground truth, but neglects to grasp this crucial structure. It may learn some trivial tricks to simply copy similar terms, leading to shallow results. Thus, it is necessary to inject the answering feedback into the generator for judging the rationality of results. Instead of using a discrete judged metric, we design a differentiable discriminator that can guide the generator optimization via policy gradient. It is trained to distinguish between real data examples and synthetic ones produced by the generator. The generator is then optimized for fooling the discriminator. By their adversarial game, the distribution of the generated examples moves towards the distribution of real data. That directs the generator to learn complex distributions and produce reasonable realistic questions. In particular, we use a QA model called *UNICORN* (Lourie et al., 2021) to capture the answerable feedback. It obtains stateof-the-art performance on solving commonsense reasoning questions. For each sample (*c, a,* yˆ), we compute dans = σ1(W1[eaˆ; ea]), where W is the weight, σ(·) is the logistic function, eaˆ is the answer predicted by *UNICORN*(c, yˆ), ea is an answer encoding. To ensure that the question is inferable, we thus leverage a typical matching-based QA model called gated-attention reader(GA) (Dhingra et al., 2017). We then compare its answer against the reasoning model *UNICORN*. When these two answers match, there is no need for reasoning. It is highly likely to be a simple but not deep question. We introduce a metric dcpx = σ2(W2[eaˆ1 ; eaˆ2 ]), where eaˆ1 and eaˆ2 are the answers predicted by UNICORN(c, yˆ) and GA(c, yˆ), respectively. The discriminator is developed by integrating these aspects. For each sample x = (*c, a, y*), we can predict a reward as dδ(x) = γdans(x) + (1 − γ)dcpx(x), where λ is a trade-off factor. This reward can be used as guidance to co-train the generator by reinforcement learning. The discriminator can be trained based on the supervised loss of human-written data. Considering such labeled data may not be sufficient, we use the model-generated samples as extra data to augment the training. In the prediction phase, the input is a passage and an answer. Each test case can generate multiple questions with three steps. We first encode the input passage and answer, and then derive a latent content factor zu based on pψ(zu|u). Accordingly, we sample another verbalized factor ze from the prior pψ. Afterward, we feed them into the prefix encoder and decode question yˆ by pθ(·) in Eq.(1). 474 ## 3 Evaluations We extensively evaluated the effectiveness of our method with quantitative and qualitative analysis. ## 3.1 Data And Experimental Settings Since QG is a complementary task of QA, we conducted experiments on two typical QA data sets that involved commonsense reasoning, including *Cosmos QA* (Huang et al., 2019) and *MCScript 2.0* (Ostermann et al., 2018). These data sets were split as train/dev/test sets with the size of 25.6k/3k/7k and 14.2k/2.0k/3.6k samples, respectively. The samples mostly required context understanding and commonsense reasoning. They were more suitable than other data sets like *CommonsenseQA* (Talmor et al., 2019) which provided no text context, SQuAD (Rajpurkar et al., 2016) did not need multihop deduction, and *LogiQA* (Liu et al., 2020) with the general questions such as "*Which one is true?*" that can be yielded by rules. For each test case, our inputs included a passage and an answer to guide the asking direction. We employed three standard metrics in the field of text generation to evaluate the generative quality based on n-gram overlap with the ground truth, including *BLEU-4* (Papineni et al., 2002), *METEOR* (Banerjee and Lavie, 2005), and ROUGE-L (Lin, 2004). In addition, we observed that the question involves fine-grained reasoning logic on the answering process. Even if a similar word is substituted, the questions may mismatch the answers, or become too shallow to be inferable. Thus, we utilized two distribution overlap metrics, i.e., QA-based Evaluation (QAE) (Zhang and Bansal, 2019b), and Reverse QAE (*R-QAE*) (Lee et al., 2020a) to measure diversity instead of using traditional similarity-based metrics. To compute QAE, we first trained a QA model on the generated data and then tested it on ground-truth data. The score is high when these two distributions match, which indicates the generated quality reaches human annotations. *R-QAE* was calculated by swapping the train and test data. Its value is lower when the generated data is more diverse than the ground truth. That is more suitable to evaluate our task by considering the answering process. Besides, the commonsense reasoning ability was evaluated by human evaluation. To avoid biases, we randomly sampled 500 test cases and rated the predictions by a crowdsourcing platform *Figure-Eight* 1 with five participants. It was a rating in terms of three 1https://appen.com/figure-eight-is-now-appen/ metrics, including valid syntax, *relevance* to input text, and commonsense *deductibility* of the answer. We averaged the cumulative scores of judgments as performance. The scores are between 1∼10, where 1 is the worst, 10 is the best. For the methods with multiple diverse results, we computed metrics for each prediction and reported the average scores. Our model was implemented based on the PyTorch (Paszke et al., 2019) and ran on the 24 GB Nvidia RTX 3090 GPU for 18 hours. We leveraged the RoBERTa-large (355M parameters) model provided by HuggingFace library to initialize the word embeddings. We employed the transformer-based GPT-2 medium as the decoder. In the diversity evaluation, the metrics (i.e., QAE and R-QAE) were computed based on the *UNICORN* QA model. We trained for a maximum of 10, 000 steps and validated every 200 steps, with early stopping after one round of no improvement in validation loss. AdamW (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2019) was used as the optimizer, with a linear learning rate scheduler taking 5,000 warm-up steps. Gradients were clipped if their norm exceeds 1.0, and weight decay on all non-bias parameters was set to 0.01. In the prediction phase, the outputted candidate size was set to 3. The trade-off factor γ was tuned to 0.3. ## 3.2 Comparisons Against State Of The Arts To evaluate the model persuasively, we utilized six baselines that performed well in the QG task, including (a) *NQG++* (Zhou et al., 2017), a basic sequence-to-sequence model; (b) *UniLM* (Dong et al., 2019), a pre-trained language model that can fine-tune on KGs to incorporate commonsense context; (c) *SGGDQ* (Pan et al., 2020), a graph-based model which can produce results with multi-hop deduction ability by capturing the context dependency of the text; (d) *HCVAE* (Lee et al., 2020b), a VAEbased model that can yield results in several ways for one test case. (e) *DAANet* (Xiao et al., 2018), dual learning of QG and QA that mutually provided feedback to enhance each other simultaneously; (e) SemQG (Zhang and Bansal, 2019b), which trained QG by reinforcement learning with a QA-based reward. These baselines were open-source and we reimplemented them with the original settings. Fig.(3) showed the comparison results in terms of three n-gram overlap metrics. Our model held the best performance against other baselines. As illustrated in Tab.(1), our model obtained high QAE but low *R-QAE*. That reflected the synthetic data  were closer to human annotations. As shown in Lee et al. (2020a), lower *R-QAE* means resultant data covers larger distributions. Although trivially invalid questions may also cause low *R-QAE*, a combination of high QAE and low *R-QAE* can indicate the diversity of our results. By a single encoded vector, *NQG++* was difficult to cover the nuances of data. *UniLM* could encode commonsense but its reasoning ability was insufficient. The graph model *SGGDQ* was good at multi-hop samples, but its monotonous mapping framework is difficult to support one-to-many generation. Due to the lack of disentanglement, VAE-based model *HCVAE* would be affected by unexpected irreverent noises which will harm performance. All baselines neglected to consider the feedback of answering complexity. Without this crucial guidance, the performance would be deteriorated. *DAANet* and *SemQG* used the QA feedback, but the dual soft constraint of DAANet and the high variance of the reinforced SemQG were hard to ensure results' consistency. Moreover, we evaluated our model's applicability in low-resource scenarios. We started to train it with the full training data and gradually halved the size. The results on 1/2 and 1/8 data size were presented in Tab.(2) and Tab.(3), respectively. We found that our performance decline was smallest when training sets shrunk. That reflected our model had a good generalization ability to achieve greater outperformance by disentangling key question-controlled factors. Table 2: Performance change ratios on 1/2 data size. CosmosQA BLUE4 METEOR ROUGE QAE R-QAE NQG++ ↓ 16.0% ↓ 16.7% ↓ 17.9% ↓ 9.7% ↑ 9.4% UniLM ↓ 15.0% ↓ 15.3% ↓ 14.4% ↓ 9.2% ↑ 9.0% SGGDQ ↓ 18.8% ↓ 17.6% ↓ 16.7% ↓ 8.0% ↑ 7.8% HCVAE ↓ 12.0% ↓ 13.4% ↓ 12.4% ↓ 9.0% ↑ 8.5% SemQG ↓ 12.5% ↓ 14.8% ↓ 15.5% ↓ 8.6% ↑ 8.0% DAANet ↓ 13.6% ↓ 14.1% ↓ 13.9% ↓ 7.8% ↑ 7.6% Ours ↓ 9.0% ↓ 8.7% ↓ 7.1% ↓ 3.3% ↑ 3.1% MCScript BLUE4 METEOR ROUGE QAE R-QAE NQG++ ↓ 21.8% ↓ 22.0% ↓ 23.2% ↓ 10.2% ↑ 9.9% UniLM ↓ 18.0% ↓ 19.3% ↓ 18.4% ↓ 9.3% ↑ 9.0% SGGDQ ↓ 22.4% ↓ 20.9% ↓ 21.8% ↓ 8.4% ↑ 7.7% HCVAE ↓ 14.8% ↓ 16.5% ↓ 17.2% ↓ 9.2% ↑ 8.9% SemQG ↓ 15.0% ↓ 16.3% ↓ 17.3% ↓ 8.8% ↑ 8.1% DAANet ↓ 17.2% ↓ 19.7% ↓ 17.6% ↓ 8.0% ↑ 7.2% Ours ↓ 7.9% ↓ 7.5% ↓ 8.1% ↓ 3.9% ↑ 3.4% | Datasets | Cosmos QA | MCScript | | | |------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------| | Method | QAE(↑) | R-QAE(↓) | QAE(↑) | R-QAE(↓) | | NQG++ | 78.5 ± 0.2% | 88.1 ± 0.2% | 77.4 ± 0.3% | 89.2 ± 0.4% | | UniLM | 80.2 ± 0.3% | 85.3 ± 0.1% | 79.2 ± 0.3% | 86.3 ± 0.6% | | SGGDQ | 81.3 ± 0.2% | 84.2 ± 0.5% | 80.2 ± 0.4% | 83.2 ± 0.4% | | HCVAE | 83.6 ± 0.3% | 82.6 ± 0.6% | 81.8 ± 0.5% | 81.7 ± 0.3% | | SemQG | 82.4 ± 0.3% | 80.3 ± 0.7% | 81.2 ± 0.3% | 79.6 ± 0.4% | | DAANet | 84.1 ± 0.2% | 81.4 ± 0.3% | 81.5 ± 0.4% | 80.1 ± 0.2% | | Ours | 88.9 ± 0.2% | 77.3 ± 0.4% | 83.4 ± 0.3% | 75.6 ± 0.3% | Table 3: Performance change ratios on 1/8 data size. CosmosQA BLUE4 METEOR ROUGE QAE R-QAE NQG++ ↓ 50.5% ↓ 51.1% ↓ 52.1% ↓ 18.3% ↑ 13.8% UniLM ↓ 45.2% ↓ 45.8% ↓ 46.3% ↓ 14.2% ↑ 11.4% SGGDQ ↓ 44.3% ↓ 44.8% ↓ 45.7% ↓ 13.8% ↑ 11.0% HCVAE ↓ 41.7% ↓ 40.2% ↓ 42.8% ↓ 12.1% ↑ 10.7% SemQG ↓ 46.2% ↓ 45.3% ↓ 47.2% ↓ 12.6% ↑ 10.3% DAANet ↓ 43.6% ↓ 43.7% ↓ 45.6% ↓ 11.5% ↑ 9.4% Ours ↓ 30.2% ↓ 29.5% ↓ 31.4% ↓ 7.8% ↑ 6.8% MCScript BLUE4 METEOR ROUGE QAE R-QAE NQG++ ↓ 57.1% ↓ 58.4% ↓ 60.1% ↓ 17.8% ↑ 13.0% UniLM ↓ 55.2% ↓ 56.2% ↓ 57.2% ↓ 15.7% ↑ 12.2% SGGDQ ↓ 56.3% ↓ 55.5% ↓ 55.8% ↓ 14.3% ↑ 11.6% HCVAE ↓ 49.6% ↓ 50.2% ↓ 52.3% ↓ 14.0% ↑ 11.5% SemQG ↓ 51.2% ↓ 50.8% ↓ 51.7% ↓ 13.5% ↑ 10.8% DAANet ↓ 53.6% ↓ 54.0% ↓ 53.2% ↓ 14.8% ↑ 11.2% Ours ↓ 38.4% ↓ 37.2% ↓ 39.6% ↓ 8.1% ↑ 7.5% ## 3.3 Ablation Studies To better gain insight into the relative contributions of our QG's components, we performed ablation studies on four parts, including (1) *Ours-LM* which replaced the commonsense-enhanced model with the raw PLM; (2) *Ours-Disentangler* that discarded the independence constraints with disentangled priors; (3) *Ours-Prefix* threw away the prefix tuning then trained the model on the full parameters; (4) Ours-Discriminator that abandoned the discriminator and learned with typical supervised loss. As shown in Tab.(4), the ablation of all evaluated parts led to a performance drop, where some drops were more than 10%. We could infer that commonsense knowledge can help to supplement missing contexts implied in the text. Without this guidance, the results' rationality will be harmed. When the prefix tuning module was discarded, the training Table 4: Ablation studies, performance change ratios. | CosmosQA | BLUE4 | METEOR | ROUGE | QAE | R-QAE | |----------------|---------|----------|---------|--------|---------| | -LM | ↓ 4.6% | ↓ 5.2% | ↓ 5.1% | ↓ 4.4% | ↑ 3.6% | | -Disentanger | ↓ 14.0% | ↓ 15.2% | ↓ 16.3% | ↓ 5.8% | ↑ 4.5% | | -Prefix | ↓ 6.1% | ↓ 6.4% | ↓ 6.6% | ↓ 4.8% | ↑ 3.7% | | -Discriminator | ↓ 11.3% | ↓ 9.5% | ↓ 10.7% | ↓ 5.6% | ↑ 4.0% | | MCScript | BLUE4 | METEOR | ROUGE | QAE | R-QAE | | -LM | ↓ 5.8% | ↓ 5.3% | ↓ 5.7% | ↓ 4.8% | ↑ 4.0% | | -Disentanger | ↓ 18.2% | ↓ 16.1% | ↓ 17.5% | ↓ 5.9% | ↑ 4.8% | | -Prefix | ↓ 7.4% | ↓ 8.1% | ↓ 8.6% | ↓ 5.0% | ↑ 4.1% | | -Discriminator | ↓ 12.5% | ↓ 13.0% | ↓ 13.8% | ↓ 5.7% | ↑ 4.5% | adequacy would be reduced with limited labeled data. Deleting a disentangled module would reduce the model's robustness and controllability. Without the discriminator, there was inadequate to indicate that the results were deep and logically consistent. ## 3.4 Human Evaluations And Analysis Furthermore, we conducted human evaluations to judge whether the results were deep and had highlevel answering skills like commonsense reasoning. We employed Randolph's kappa for inter-rater reliability measurement. The kappa κ scores were 0.77, 0.65, and 0.75 for syntax, *relevance*, and *deductibility*, respectively, which indicated a good agreement. As presented in Fig.(4), our model significantly outperformed the baselines in terms of three metrics. That was consistent with the quantitative results in the previous section. The improvement in the deductibility metric was the largest. That indicated our results were to-the-point and valid, especially inferable, due to the simultaneous consideration of what to ask, *how to ask*, and *how to answer*.  ## 3.5 Evaluations On The Trade-Off Parameter To examine the trade-off parameter (i.e., γ) in the discriminator dδ, we tuned it from [0, 1] with 0.1 as an interval. The performance change curve was plotted in Fig.(5). The best results were obtained at around 0.3. The performance dropped dramatically  when any parameter was close to 0 or 1. We could infer that all loss metrics were helpful, thereby training our model efficiently. ## 3.6 Case Studies And Discussions We next conducted case studies to analyze the results of each method qualitatively. As exhibited in Fig.(6), our model could produce multiple commonsense questions. Contrastively, the sequential NQG++ yielded a shallow question that can be answered by directly matching the input text. The pretrained *UniLM* showed a bit of fluency and graphbased *SGGDQ* reflected a certain amount of reasoning. Their results were monotonous and cannot yield results in other acceptable expressive ways. HCVAE could produce diverse results which could not match the answers. The reinforced *SemQG* and dual model *DAANet* were answer-related, but their results' deductibility was weak. These results further validated the effectiveness of our model. By analyzing our bad cases, the mistakes mainly came from temporal errors, e.g. "do" should be "did" at "*Which country do Bob visit yesterday?*" and special symbols errors, e.g. missing "'s." These challenges would be studied in future work.  ## 4 Related Works Question Generation (QG) is a hot research topic that can support many valuable applications, including synthesizing training data for the questionanswering (QA) task (Duan et al., 2017), producing exercises on the textbook (Chen et al., 2018), and clarifying users' needs for a dialog agent (Aliannejadi et al., 2019). Previous studies mainly focus on shallow questions (Wang et al., 2020a). They can be tackled by matching the text without demanding a real understanding of semantics (Yu et al., 2023). The researchers gradually pay attention to deep questions (Hua et al., 2020), such as multi-hop QG (Yu et al., 2020). However, these questions only involve the context that appears in the text without the need of understanding the commonsense knowledge. Asking questions with this background knowledge is indispensable for machine intelligence, but has been less explored. Thus, we propose a new QG task to fill this research gap. Most of the earlier methods in the QG task were rule-based (Dhole and Manning, 2020). The handcrafted rules were labor-intensive with poor scalability (Zhang et al., 2022). To reduce labor costs, recent attempts turned to a data-driven neural model with better language flexibility (Dou and Peng, 2022). They learned direct mappings from input texts to questions by an encoder-decoder framework (Du et al., 2017). Considering the question would be asked in diverse ways (Shu et al., 2020), it was hard to support one-to-many generation based on a fixed encoded vector (Lachaux et al., 2020). Some studies proposed to enhance the generalization ability (Wang et al., 2021) by variational autoencoder (VAE) (Li et al., 2022a). It can learn an ask-related vector (Li et al., 2022b) which can be resampled to produce multiple questions (Wang et al., 2022) based on data distribution. However, one single vector was not sufficient to capture the complex and entangled asking features (Wang et al., 2020b). In contrast, we consider multiple factors and disentangle them to control the generation finely. Deep questions require reasoning the knowledge both inside and outside the text (Zhang et al., 2021), including hidden commonsense context (Lv et al., 2020). To capture this context, we can resort to the knowledge graphs (KG) (Zhao et al., 2020) or pre-training models (Chen et al., 2020), such as BERT (Devlin et al., 2019), GPT-2 (Radford et al., 2019), and GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020). The KG knowledge can be collected by matching (Ye et al., 2022), and the pre-training one is often obtained by prompt learning (Gao et al., 2021). In addition, the depth of questions is mainly reflected in how to answer (Hu et al., 2017). There are often two ways to incorporate the answering feedback (Liu et al., 2022). One is reinforcement learning which views the answer as a reward (Bao et al., 2018). Since there is no prior guidance, the robustness of this method is weak (Bao et al., 2018). Another way is to use generative adversarial learning (GAN) to jointly train the QA and QG tasks (Sun et al., 2020). This method only judges the final answer but neglects to grasp the answering process, leading to the results' lack of commonsense reasoning ability (Wu et al., 2022). Also, this discrete judge is non-differentiable (Jin et al., 2020), causing unstable training (Ma et al., 2019a). In contrast, our discriminator simultaneously consider the matched answer and its reasoning complexity, which can facilitate the training of deep question generator. ## 5 Conclusions We have proposed a new commonsense reasoning QG task which aimed to generate valid and inferable questions about the given text. Unlike traditional QG tasks, our questions needed to deduce multiple clues in disjoint contexts, where not all clues were provided in the given text, and some required to resort to commonsense knowledge outside the text. Since understanding semantics is the prerequisite to asking high-quality questions, our complex QG task requires a higher level of machine intelligence. Due to the lack of modeling complexity, traditional methods often yield shallow results. To address the problem, we proposed a practical framework that can flexibly incorporate the asking contents, expressive ways, and answering complexity to yield deep results by disentangling adversarial inference. We first retrieved the commonsense knowledge related to the given text. We then disentangled the key question-controlled factors in terms of reasoning content and verbalized way based on the independency priors and constraints. To promote deep results, we further designed a discriminator to regularize the generator by providing the answering feedback. By adversarial inference, we can derive the factors and use them as conditions to decode questions. By sampling the expressive factor from the data distribution, diverse results can be produced. Experimental results on two typical data sets showed the effectiveness of our approach. ## Acknowledgments This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (62276279,U1911203, 62102463, 62276280, U2001211, U22B2060), Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation (2019B1515130001), Tencent WeChat Rhino-Bird Focused Research Program (WXG-FR2023-06), Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province of China (2022A1515011135), Key-Area Research and Development Program of Guangdong Province (2020B0101100001), Zhuhai Industry-University-Research Cooperation Project (2220004002549, ZH22017001210010PWC). ## Limitations Deep questions not only require an in-depth understanding of the semantics in the text, but also involve the formulation of questions with correct grammar, such as tense transformation, and special symbols adjustment. For this task, our model simultaneously capture the key factors on the reasoning content, expressive way, and answering complexity, aiming to make results valid, relevant and inferable. However, as mentioned in the case study section, our model has some bad cases with grammatical flaws. For example, "do" needs to be transformed to "did" when the given text is in the past tense. This requires linguistic knowledge on top of words. Learning to ask with the guidance of this abstract knowledge is not covered in this paper. One way to tackle this problem is to resort to post-processing with a grammar error corrector. In addition, the interpretability of latent variables and the robustness of the model are not explored in this paper. We will investigate them in future works. ## Ethics Statement The technology proposed in this paper can be used in many applications, such as in the fields of education, Q&A, and dialogue systems. For example, it can yield quizzes for exams, or provide reasonable clarification question to warm up the conversation. Unlike shallow matching-based questions, our deep questions require fully understanding the semantics inside and outside the text. That involves many high-level cognitive skills, including reasoning the incomplete contexts with hidden commonsense knowledge. That can better support the real applications such as advanced exams in TOEFL and SAT, since there are few or even no simple questions. When excluding the misusage scenarios, there are usually no ethical issues with this technology. However, the questions can be generated as long as we input the text. It is possible to input some inappropriate content related to the topics of racial discrimination, war, and so on, resulting in some offensive questions. This problem can be addressed by limiting the topics of input contents. ## References Mohammad Aliannejadi, Hamed Zamani, Fabio Crestani, and W. Bruce Croft. 2019. Asking clarifying questions in open-domain information-seeking conversations. In *Proceedings of the 42nd International ACM Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR*, pages 475–484, Paris, France. Satanjeev Banerjee and Alon Lavie. 2005. METEOR: An automatic metric for MT evaluation with improved correlation with human judgments. In *Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evaluation Measures for Machine Translation and/or Summarization*, pages 65–72, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Junwei Bao, Yeyun Gong, Nan Duan, Ming Zhou, and Tiejun Zhao. 2018. Question generation with doubly adversarial nets. *IEEE ACM Transactions on* Audio, Speech and Language Processing, TASLP, 26(11):2230–2239. Antoine Bosselut, Hannah Rashkin, Maarten Sap, Chaitanya Malaviya, Asli Celikyilmaz, and Yejin Choi. 2019. COMET: Commonsense transformers for automatic knowledge graph construction. In *Proceedings* of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4762–4779, Florence, Italy. Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared 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 M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher 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 Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS. Guanliang Chen, Jie Yang, Claudia Hauff, and GeertJan Houben. 2018. Learningq: A large-scale dataset for educational question generation. In *Proceedings* of the Twelfth International Conference on Web and Social Media, ICWSM, pages 481–490, Stanford, California, USA. Zhiyu Chen, Harini Eavani, Wenhu Chen, Yinyin Liu, and William Yang Wang. 2020. Few-shot NLG with pre-trained language model. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL, pages 183–190. Pengyu Cheng, Martin Renqiang Min, Dinghan Shen, Christopher Malon, Yizhe Zhang, Yitong Li, and Lawrence Carin. 2020. Improving disentangled text representation learning with information-theoretic guidance. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL, pages 7530–7541. 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. Bhuwan Dhingra, Hanxiao Liu, Zhilin Yang, William W. Cohen, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. 2017. Gatedattention readers for text comprehension. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2017, Vancouver, Canada, July 30 - August 4, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 1832–1846. Kaustubh D. Dhole and Christopher D. Manning. 2020. Syn-qg: Syntactic and shallow semantic rules for question generation. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL, pages 752–765. Li Dong, Nan Yang, Wenhui Wang, Furu Wei, Xiaodong Liu, Yu Wang, Jianfeng Gao, Ming Zhou, and Hsiao-Wuen Hon. 2019. Unified language model pre-training for natural language understanding and generation. In *Proceedings of the Advances in Neural* Information Processing Systems 32, NeurIPS, pages 13042–13054, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Zi-Yi Dou and Nanyun Peng. 2022. Zero-shot commonsense question answering with cloze translation and consistency optimization. In *Thirty-Sixth AAAI* Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI, pages 10572–10580. Xinya Du, Junru Shao, and Claire Cardie. 2017. Learning to ask: Neural question generation for reading comprehension. In *Proceedings of the 55th Annual* Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL, pages 1342–1352, Vancouver, Canada. Nan Duan, Duyu Tang, Peng Chen, and Ming Zhou. 2017. Question generation for question answering. In *Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical* Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP, pages 866–874, Copenhagen, Denmark. Tianyu Gao, Adam Fisch, and Danqi Chen. 2021. Making pre-trained language models better few-shot learners. 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, pages 3816–3830. Arthur Gretton, Karsten M. Borgwardt, Malte J. Rasch, Bernhard Schölkopf, and Alexander J. Smola. 2012. A kernel two-sample test. *Journal of Machine Learning Research*, 13:723–773. Zhiting Hu, Zichao Yang, Xiaodan Liang, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Eric P. Xing. 2017. Toward controlled generation of text. In *Proceedings of the* 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML, pages 1587–1596, Sydney, NSW, Australia. Yuncheng Hua, Yuan-Fang Li, Gholamreza Haffari, Guilin Qi, and Tongtong Wu. 2020. Few-shot complex knowledge base question answering via meta reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP, pages 5827–5837. Lifu Huang, Ronan Le Bras, Chandra Bhagavatula, and Yejin Choi. 2019. Cosmos QA: machine reading comprehension with contextual commonsense reasoning. In *Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing,* EMNLP-IJCNLP, pages 2391–2401, Hong Kong, China. Shuning Jin, Sam Wiseman, Karl Stratos, and Karen Livescu. 2020. Discrete latent variable representations for low-resource text classification. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for* Computational Linguistics, ACL, pages 4831–4842. Diederik P. Kingma and Max Welling. 2014. Autoencoding variational bayes. In *2nd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR*, Banff, AB, Canada. T.N. Kipf and M. Welling. 2017. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. In Proceedings of International Conference on Learning Representations, (ICLR), pages 243–253. Wei-Jen Ko, Te-Yuan Chen, Yiyan Huang, Greg Durrett, and Junyi Jessy Li. 2020. Inquisitive question generation for high level text comprehension. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP, pages 6544–6555, Florence, Italy. Marie-Anne Lachaux, Armand Joulin, and Guillaume Lample. 2020. Target conditioning for one-to-many generation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, Online Event, 16-20 November 2020, volume EMNLP 2020 of *Findings of ACL*, pages 2853–2862. Dong Bok Lee, Seanie Lee, Woo Tae Jeong, Donghwan Kim, and Sung Ju Hwang. 2020a. Generating diverse and consistent QA pairs from contexts with information-maximizing hierarchical conditional VAEs. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual* Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 208–224, Online. Dong Bok Lee, Seanie Lee, Woo Tae Jeong, Donghwan Kim, and Sung Ju Hwang. 2020b. Generating diverse and consistent QA pairs from contexts with information-maximizing hierarchical conditional vaes. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL, pages 208–224. Jin Li, Peng Qi, and Hong Luo. 2022a. Generating consistent and diverse QA pairs from contexts with BN conditional VAE. In 25th IEEE International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design, CSCWD, pages 944–949. Xiang Li, Aynaz Taheri, Lifu Tu, and Kevin Gimpel. 2016. Commonsense knowledge base completion. In *Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL*, Berlin, Germany. Xiang Lisa Li and Percy Liang. 2021. Prefix-tuning: Optimizing continuous prompts for generation. 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, pages 4582–4597. Zhuang Li, Lizhen Qu, Qiongkai Xu, Tongtong Wu, Tianyang Zhan, and Gholamreza Haffari. 2022b. Variational autoencoder with disentanglement priors for low-resource task-specific natural language generation. *arXiv*, abs/2202.13363. Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. ROUGE: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In Text Summarization Branches Out, pages 74–81, Barcelona, Spain. Jiacheng Liu, Alisa Liu, Ximing Lu, Sean Welleck, Peter West, Ronan Le Bras, Yejin Choi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2022. Generated knowledge prompting for commonsense reasoning. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL, pages 3154–3169, Dublin, Ireland. Jian Liu, Leyang Cui, Hanmeng Liu, Dandan Huang, Yile Wang, and Yue Zhang. 2020. Logiqa: A challenge dataset for machine reading comprehension with logical reasoning. In Proceedings of the TwentyNinth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI, pages 3622–3628. 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. Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2019. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR, New Orleans, LA, USA. Nicholas Lourie, Ronan Le Bras, Chandra Bhagavatula, and Yejin Choi. 2021. UNICORN on RAINBOW: A universal commonsense reasoning model on a new multitask benchmark. In *Thirty-Fifth AAAI* Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI, pages 13480–13488. Shangwen Lv, Daya Guo, Jingjing Xu, Duyu Tang, Nan Duan, Ming Gong, Linjun Shou, Daxin Jiang, Guihong Cao, and Songlin Hu. 2020. Graph-based reasoning over heterogeneous external knowledge for commonsense question answering. In *The ThirtyFourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence,* AAAI, pages 8449–8456, New York, NY, USA. Jianxin Ma, Chang Zhou, Peng Cui, Hongxia Yang, and Wenwu Zhu. 2019a. Learning disentangled representations for recommendation. In *Advances in Neural* Information Processing Systems 32: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2019, NeurIPS, pages 5712–5723, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Kaixin Ma, Jonathan Francis, Quanyang Lu, Eric Nyberg, and Alessandro Oltramari. 2019b. Towards generalizable neuro-symbolic systems for commonsense question answering. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Commonsense Inference in Natural Language Processing, pages 22–32, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Simon Ostermann, Ashutosh Modi, Michael Roth, Stefan Thater, and Manfred Pinkal. 2018. Mcscript: A novel dataset for assessing machine comprehension using script knowledge. In *Proceedings of the* Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC, Miyazaki, Japan. Liangming Pan, Yuxi Xie, Yansong Feng, Tat-Seng Chua, and Min-Yen Kan. 2020. Semantic graphs for generating deep questions. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL, pages 1463–1475. Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and WeiJing 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, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, Alban Desmaison, Andreas Köpf, Edward Z. Yang, Zachary DeVito, Martin Raison, Alykhan Tejani, Sasank Chilamkurthy, Benoit Steiner, Lu Fang, Junjie Bai, and Soumith Chintala. 2019. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NeurIPS, pages 8024–8035, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Fanyi Qu, Xin Jia, and Yunfang Wu. 2021. Asking questions like educational experts: Automatically generating question-answer pairs on real-world examination data. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP, pages 2583–2593, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Alec Radford, Jeff Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9. Nazneen Fatema Rajani, Bryan McCann, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2019. Explain yourself! leveraging language models for commonsense reasoning. In *Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 4932–4942, Florence, Italy. 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, EMNLP, pages 2383– 2392, Austin, Texas, USA. Maarten Sap, Ronan Le Bras, Emily Allaway, Chandra Bhagavatula, Nicholas Lourie, Hannah Rashkin, Brendan Roof, Noah A. Smith, and Yejin Choi. 2019. ATOMIC: an atlas of machine commonsense for ifthen reasoning. In *The Thirty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI*, pages 3027– 3035. Lei Shu, Alexandros Papangelis, Yi-Chia Wang, Gökhan Tür, Hu Xu, Zhaleh Feizollahi, Bing Liu, and Piero Molino. 2020. Controllable text generation with focused variation. In *Findings of the Association* for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, Online Event, 16-20 November 2020, volume EMNLP 2020 of *Findings of ACL*, pages 3805–3817. Yibo Sun, Duyu Tang, Nan Duan, Tao Qin, Shujie Liu, Zhao Yan, Ming Zhou, Yuanhua Lv, Wenpeng Yin, Xiaocheng Feng, Bing Qin, and Ting Liu. 2020. Joint learning of question answering and question generation. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, TKDE, 32(5):971–982. Alon Talmor, Jonathan Herzig, Nicholas Lourie, and Jonathan Berant. 2019. Commonsenseqa: A question answering challenge targeting commonsense knowledge. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the* North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT, pages 4149–4158, Minneapolis, MN, USA. Huazheng Wang, Zhe Gan, Xiaodong Liu, Jingjing Liu, Jianfeng Gao, and Hongning Wang. 2019. Adversarial domain adaptation for machine reading comprehension. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP-IJCNLP, pages 2510–2520, Hong Kong, China. Liuyin Wang, Zihan Xu, Zibo Lin, Haitao Zheng, and Ying Shen. 2020a. Answer-driven deep question generation based on reinforcement learning. In *Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, COLING*, pages 5159–5170, Barcelona, Spain. Peifeng Wang, Filip Ilievski, Muhao Chen, and Xiang Ren. 2021. Do language models perform generalizable commonsense inference? In *Findings* of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL/IJCNLP, pages 3681–3688. Ye Wang, Jingbo Liao, Hong Yu, and Jiaxu Leng. 2022. Semantic-aware conditional variational autoencoder for one-to-many dialogue generation. 34(2):13683–13695. Zhen Wang, Siwei Rao, Jie Zhang, Zhen Qin, Guangjian Tian, and Jun Wang. 2020b. Diversify question generation with continuous content selectors and question type modeling. In *Findings of the Association for* Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, Online Event, 16-20 November 2020, volume EMNLP 2020 of *Findings of ACL*, pages 2134–2143. Linjuan Wu, Shaojuan Wu, Xiaowang Zhang, Deyi Xiong, Shizhan Chen, Zhiqiang Zhuang, and Zhiyong Feng. 2022. Learning disentangled semantic representations for zero-shot cross-lingual transfer in multilingual machine reading comprehension. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL, pages 991–1000, Dublin, Ireland. Hang Xiao, Feng Wang, Jianfeng Yan, and Jingyao Zheng. 2018. Dual ask-answer network for machine reading comprehension. *CoRR*, abs/1809.01997. Hongbin Ye, Ningyu Zhang, Shumin Deng, Xiang Chen, Hui Chen, Feiyu Xiong, Xi Chen, and Huajun Chen. 2022. Ontology-enhanced prompt-tuning for fewshot learning. In The ACM Web Conference, WWW '22, pages 778–787, Lyon, France. Jianxing Yu, Xiaojun Quan, Qinliang Su, and Jian Yin. 2020. Generating multi-hop reasoning questions to improve machine reading comprehension. In *Proceedings of the 2020 World Wide Web Conference*, pages 550–561, Taipei, Taiwan. Jianxing Yu, Qinliang Su, Xiaojun Quan, and Jian Yin. 2023. Multi-hop reasoning question generation and its application. *IEEE Transactions on Knowledge* and Data Engineering, TKDE, 35(1):725–740. Jiawen Zhang, Jiaqi Zhu, Yi Yang, Wandong Shi, Congcong Zhang, and Hongan Wang. 2021. Knowledgeenhanced domain adaptation in few-shot relation classification. In *The 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on* Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD '21, pages 2183–2191, Singapore. Ruqing Zhang, Jiafeng Guo, Lu Chen, Yixing Fan, and Xueqi Cheng. 2022. A review on question generation from natural language text. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 40(1):14:1–14:43. Shiyue Zhang and Mohit Bansal. 2019b. Addressing semantic drift in question generation for semisupervised question answering. 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 2495–2509, Hong Kong, China. Xueliang Zhao, Wei Wu, Chongyang Tao, Can Xu, Dongyan Zhao, and Rui Yan. 2020. Low-resource knowledge-grounded dialogue generation. In 8th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Qingyu Zhou, Nan Yang, Furu Wei, Chuanqi Tan, Hangbo Bao, and Ming Zhou. 2017. Neural question generation from text: A preliminary study. In Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing - 6th CCF International Conference, NLPCC, volume 10619, pages 662–671, Dalian, China. Springer. ## A Settings Of All Evaluated Baselines The pre-trained language model *RoBERTa* was used to initialize the word embeddings. The distribution overlap metrics (i.e., QAE and R-QAE) were computed by the *UNICORN* QA model. Settings of NQG++: The hidden state size of the GRU was set to 512. The lexical and answer position features were embedded to 32-dimensional vectors. The dropout was used with a probability p = 0.5. *Stanford CoreNLP* v3.7.0 was utilized to annotate POS and NER tags in the sentences. During training, the model was initialized randomly by a *Gaussian* distribution with the *Xavier* scheme. A combination of *Adam* and simple SGD was used as the optimizer. For the *Adam* optimizer, the learning rate was set to 0.001 with two momentum parameters β1 = 0.9 and β2 = 0.999 respectively. ϵ was set to 10−8. The SGD optimizer was initialized with a learning rate of 0.5 and halved if the *BLEU* score on the development set drops for twelve consecutive tests. Gradient clipping with range [−5, 5] was utilized for both *Adam* and SGD phases. To speed up convergence, grid search was employed with the mini-batch size of 64. In the test phase, a beam search was used with a size of 12. Settings of UniLM: The batch size was 32. The masking probability, learning rate and label smoothing rate were 0.7, 2e−5and 0.1, respectively. Settings of SGGDQ: It adopted a 1-layer GRU with hidden units of 512 dimensions. For the graph encoder, the node embedding size was set to 256, plus the POS and answer tag embeddings with 32 dimensions for each. The number of layers was set to 3 and the hidden state size was 256. *Adam* was employed with a mini-batch size 32. The learning rate was initially set to 0.001, and adaptive learning rate decay was applied. Early stopping was utilized with a dropout rate of 0.3 for both the encoder and decoder and 0.1 for all attention mechanisms. Settings of HCVAE: The hidden dimension of the Bi-LSTM was set to 300 for posterior and prior generation networks. The dimension of the encoder and the decoder was set to 450 and 900, respectively. The dimension of latent variable zx was set as 50, and zy was defined to be a 10-way categorical variable. The QA model was fine-tuned for 2 epochs. *Adam* optimizer was used with a batch size of 32 and the initial learning rate of 5 · 10−5and 10−3respectively. To prevent posterior collapse, the model multiplied 0.1 to the KL divergence terms of question and answer. Settings of DAANet: The parameters were randomly initialized by the *fan-avg* strategy. Dropout was mainly applied to the encoding layer with a keep rate of 0.9. The coverage loss weight κ was 1.0. The gradient was clipped by restricting its ℓ2 − *norm* less than or equal to 5.0. *Adam* optimizer was adopted with a batch size of 16. The learning rate was increased from zero to 0.001 with an inverse exponential function and then fixed for the remainder of the training. During testing, autoregressive decoding was conducted separately for QA and QG. Decoding is terminated when the model encountered the first <END> or when the sequence contained more than 100 words. Settings of SemQG: The *WordPiece* tokenizer was used to tokenize each word and extend the POS / NER tags to each word piece. A 2-layer LSTM-RNNs was employed for both the encoder and decoder with a hidden size of 600. Dropout with a probability of 0.3 was applied to the input of each LSTM-RNN layer. *Adam* was utilized as the optimizer with a learning rate of 0.001 for teacher forcing and 0.00001 for reinforcement learning. The batch size was set to 32. For stability, It was first pre-trained with teacher forcing until convergence, then fine-tuned with the mixed loss. Hyperparameters were tuned on the development set with γ qpp = 0.99, γ qap = 0.97, and n : m = 3 : 1. The beam search was employed with the size of 10 for decoding. The bigram and trigram repetition penalty was applied. ## B Human Evaluation Settings The rated guideline was shown in Fig.(7).   ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? ## Limitations ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? ## Ethics Statement ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Abstract and 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?** 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. 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?** 3.1 Data And Experimental Settings ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? 3.1 Data and Experimental Settings ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? 3.1 Data and Experimental Settings ✓ 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? 3.2 Comparisons against State of the Arts ✓ 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 Settings of All Evaluated Baselines ## D ✓ **Did You Use Human Annotators (E.G., Crowdworkers) Or Research With Human Participants?** 3.4 Human Evaluations And Analysis ✓ 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.? Appendix B Human Evaluation Settings ✓ 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)? Appendix B Human Evaluation Settings 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.

hung-etal-2023-tada

{TADA}: Efficient Task-Agnostic Domain Adaptation for Transformers

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.31

Intermediate training of pre-trained transformer-based language models on domain-specific data leads to substantial gains for downstream tasks. To increase efficiency and prevent catastrophic forgetting alleviated from full domain-adaptive pre-training, approaches such as adapters have been developed. However, these require additional parameters for each layer, and are criticized for their limited expressiveness. In this work, we introduce TADA, a novel task-agnostic domain adaptation method which is modular, parameter-efficient, and thus, data-efficient. Within TADA, we retrain the embeddings to learn domain-aware input representations and tokenizers for the transformer encoder, while freezing all other parameters of the model. Then, task-specific fine-tuning is performed. We further conduct experiments with meta-embeddings and newly introduced meta-tokenizers, resulting in one model per task in multi-domain use cases. Our broad evaluation in 4 downstream tasks for 14 domains across single- and multi-domain setups and high- and low-resource scenarios reveals that TADA is an effective and efficient alternative to full domain-adaptive pre-training and adapters for domain adaptation, while not introducing additional parameters or complex training steps.

## Tada: Efficient Task-Agnostic Domain Adaptation For Transformers Chia-Chien Hung1, 2, 3∗, Lukas Lange3, Jannik Strötgen**3, 4** 1NEC Laboratories Europe GmbH, Heidelberg, Germany 2Data and Web Science Group, University of Mannheim, Germany 3Bosch Center for Artificial Intelligence, Renningen, Germany 4Karlsruhe University of Applied Sciences, Karlsruhe, Germany Chia-Chien.Hung@neclab.eu Lukas.Lange@de.bosch.com jannik.stroetgen@h-ka.de ## Abstract Intermediate training of pre-trained transformer-based language models on domainspecific data leads to substantial gains for downstream tasks. To increase efficiency and prevent catastrophic forgetting alleviated from full domain-adaptive pre-training, approaches such as adapters have been developed. However, these require additional parameters for each layer, and are criticized for their limited expressiveness. In this work, we introduce TADA, a novel task-agnostic domain adaptation method which is modular, parameter-efficient, and thus, data-efficient. Within TADA, we retrain the embeddings to learn domain-aware input representations and tokenizers for the transformer encoder, while freezing all other parameters of the model. Then, task-specific fine-tuning is performed. We further conduct experiments with meta-embeddings and newly introduced metatokenizers, resulting in one model per task in multi-domain use cases. Our broad evaluation in 4 downstream tasks for 14 domains across single- and multi-domain setups and high- and low-resource scenarios reveals that TADA is an effective and efficient alternative to full domainadaptive pre-training and adapters for domain adaptation, while not introducing additional parameters or complex training steps. ## 1 Introduction Pre-trained language models (Radford et al., 2018; Devlin et al., 2019) utilizing transformers (Vaswani et al., 2017) have emerged as a key technology for achieving impressive gains in a wide variety of natural language processing (NLP) tasks. However, these pre-trained transformer-based language models (PTLMs) are trained on massive and heterogeneous corpora with a focus on generalizability without addressing particular domain-specific concerns. In practice, the absence of such domainrelevant information can severely hurt performance ∗Research work conducted during internship at Bosch Center for Artificial Intelligence. in downstream applications as shown in numerous studies (i.a., Zhu and Goldberg, 2009; Ruder and Plank, 2018; Friedrich et al., 2020). To impart useful domain knowledge, two main methods of domain adaptation leveraging transformers have emerged: (1) Massive pre-training from scratch (Beltagy et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2020) relies on large-scale domain-specific corpora incorporating various self-supervised objectives during pre-training. However, the extensive training process is time- and resource-inefficient, as it requires a large collection of (un)labeled domainspecialized corpora and massive computational power. (2) *Domain-adaptive intermediate pretraining* (Gururangan et al., 2020) is considered more light-weight, as it requires only a small amount of in-domain data and fewer epochs continually training on the PTLM from a previous checkpoint. However, *fully pre-training* the model (i.e., updating all PTLM parameters) may result in catastrophic forgetting and interference (McCloskey and Cohen, 1989; Houlsby et al., 2019), in particular for longer iterations of adaptation. To overcome these limitations, alternatives such as *adapters* (Rebuffi et al., 2017; Houlsby et al., 2019), and *sparse finetuning* (Guo et al., 2021; Ben Zaken et al., 2022) have been introduced. These approaches, however, are still parameter- and time-inefficient, as they either add additional parameters or require complex training steps and/or models. In this work, we propose Task-Agnostic Domain Adaptation for transformers (TADA), a novel domain specialization framework. As depicted in Figure 1, it consists of two steps: (1) We conduct intermediate training of a pre-trained transformerbased language model (e.g., BERT) on the unlabeled domain-specific text corpora in order to inject domain knowledge into the transformer. Here, we fix the parameter weights of the encoder while updating only the weights of the embeddings (i.e., embedding-based domain-adaptive pre-training).  As a result, we obtain domain-specialized embeddings for each domain with the *shared* encoder from the original PTLM without adding further parameters for domain adaptation. (2) The obtained domain-specialized embeddings along with the encoder can then be fine-tuned for downstream tasks in single- or multi-domain scenarios (Lange et al., 2021b), where the latter is conducted with metaembeddings (Coates and Bollegala, 2018; Kiela et al., 2018) and a novel meta-tokenization method for different tokenizers. Contributions. We advance the field of domain specialization with the following contributions: (i) We propose a modular, parameter-efficient, and task-agnostic domain adaptation method (TADA) without introducing additional parameters for intermediate training of PTLMs. (ii) We demonstrate the effectiveness of our specialization method on four heterogeneous downstream tasks - dialog state tracking (DST), response retrieval (RR), named entity recognition (NER), and natural language inference (NLI) across 14 domains. (iii) We propose modular domain specialization via metaembeddings and show the advantages in multidomain scenarios. (iv) We introduce the concept of meta-tokenization to combine sequences from different tokenizers in a single transformer model and perform the first study on this promising topic. (v) We release the code and resources for TADA publicly.1 ## 2 Methods For Domain Specialization To inject domain-specific knowledge through domain-adaptive pre-training into PTLMs, these models are trained on unlabeled in-domain text corpora. For this, we introduce a novel *embeddingbased* intermediate training approach as an alternative to *fully pre-training* and *adapters* (§ 2.1), and further study the effects of domain-specific tokenization (§ 2.2). We then utilize multiple domainspecialized embeddings with our newly proposed meta-tokenizers and powerful meta-embeddings in multi-domain scenarios (§ 2.3 and § 2.4). ## 2.1 Domain Specialization Following successful work on *intermediate pretraining* leveraging language modeling for domainadaptation (Gururangan et al., 2020; Hung et al., 2022a) and language-adaptation (Glavaš et al., 2020; Hung et al., 2022b), we investigate the effects of training with masked language modeling (MLM) on domain-specific text corpora (e.g., clinical reports or academic publications). For this, the MLM loss Lmlm is commonly computed as the negative log-likelihood of the true token probability (Devlin et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2019). $$L_{m l m}=-\sum_{m=1}^{M}\log P(t_{m})\,,\qquad\qquad(1)$$ where M is the total number of masked tokens in a given text and P(tm) is the predicted probability of the token tm over the vocabulary size. ## 1 https://github.com/boschresearch/TADA Fully pre-training the model requires adjusting all of the model's parameters, which can be undesirable due to time- and resource-inefficiency and can dramatically increase the risk of catastrophic forgetting of the previously acquired knowledge (McCloskey and Cohen, 1989; Ansell et al., 2022). To alleviate these issues, we propose a parameterefficient approach without adding additional parameters during intermediate domain-specialized adaptation: we freeze most of the PTLM parameters and only update the input embeddings weights of the first transformer layer (i.e., the parameters of the embeddings layer) during MLM. With this, the model can learn domain-specific input representations while preserving acquired knowledge in the frozen parameters. As shown in Figure 1, the encoder parameters are fixed during intermediate pre-training while only the embeddings layer parameters are updated. As a result, after intermediate MLM, multiple embeddings specialized for different domains are all applicable with the *same* shared encoder. As these trained domain-specialized embeddings are easily *portable* to any downstream task, we experiment with their combination in multi-domain scenarios via meta-embeddings methods (Yin and Schütze, 2016; Kiela et al., 2018). We discuss this in more detail in Section § 2.3. ## 2.2 Domain-Specific Tokenization Inspired by previous work on domain-specialized tokenizers and vocabularies for language model pre-training (Beltagy et al., 2019; Lee et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2020), we study the domain adaptation of tokenizers for transformers and train domainspecialized variants with the standard WordPiece algorithm (Schuster and Nakajima, 2012) analogously to the BERT tokenizer. As a result, the domain-specialized tokenizers cover more indomain terms compared to the original PTLM tokenizers. In particular, this reduces the number of out-of-vocabulary tokens, i.e., words that have to be split into multiple subwords, whose embedding quality often does not match the quality of wordlevel representations (Hedderich et al., 2021). ## 2.3 Meta-Embeddings Given n embeddings from different domains D, each domain would have an input representation xDi ∈ R E, 1 ≤ i ≤ n, where n is the number of domains and E is the dimension of the input embeddings. Here, we consider two variants: averaging (Coates and Bollegala, 2018) and *attentionbased* meta-embeddings (Kiela et al., 2018). Averaging merges all embeddings into one vector without training additional parameters by taking the unweighted average: $$e^{A V G}=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i}x_{D i}\,,$$ $${\mathrm{(2)}}$$ $$(3)$$ xDi , (2) In addition, a weighted average with dynamic attention weights αDi can be used. For this, the attention weights are computed as follows: $$\alpha_{D i}=\frac{e x p(V\cdot t a n h(W x_{D i}))}{\sum_{k=1}^{n}e x p(V\cdot t a n h(W x_{D k}))}\,,$$ with W ∈ R H×E and V ∈ R 1×H being parameters that are randomly initialized and learned during training and H is the dimension of the attention vector which is a predefined hyperparameter. The domain embeddings xDi are then weighted using the learned attention weights αDi into one representation vector: $$e^{A T T}=\sum_{i}\alpha_{D i}\cdot x_{D i}\,,$$ $$\quad(4)$$ As *Averaging* simply merges all information into one vector, it cannot focus on valuable domain knowledge in specific embeddings. In contrast, the attention-based weighting allows for dynamic combinations of embeddings based on their importance depending on the current input token. As shown in related works, these metaembeddings approaches suffered from critical mismatch issues when combining embeddings of different sizes and input granularities (e.g., character- and word-level embeddings) that could be addressed by learning additional mappings to the same dimensions on word-level to force all the input embeddings towards a common input space (Lange et al., 2021a). Our proposed method prevents these issues by (a) keeping the input granularity fixed, which alleviates the need for learning additional mappings, and (b) locating all domain embeddings in the same space immediately after pre-training by freezing the subsequent transformer layers. We compare the results of two variants in Section § 4. More information on meta-embeddings can be found in the survey of Bollegala and O' Neill (2022). | Domain Text: Acetaminophen is an analgesic drug | => TOK-1: Ace #ta #mino #phen is an anal #gesic dr #ug | (10 subwords) | | |---------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------| | => TOK-2: Aceta #minophen is an anal #gesic drug | (7 subwords) | | | | Aggregation: | SPACE | DYNAMIC | TRUNCATION | | TOK-1 | [Ace #ta #mino #phen] is an [anal #gesic] [dr #ug] [Ace #ta] [#mino #phen] is an anal #gesic [dr #ug] | [Ace] [#mino] is an anal #gesic [dr] | | | TOK-2 | [Aceta #minophen] is an [anal #gesic] drug | Aceta #minophen is an anal #gesic drug | Aceta #minophen is an anal #gesic drug | Table 1: Examples of our proposed aggregation approaches for meta-tokenization: SPACE, DYNAMIC, TRUNCATION for a given text and two different tokenizers (TOK-1, TOK-2). The bottom of the table shows the results after aggregation. [*a b . . . z*] denotes the average of all embedding vectors corresponding to subword tokens a, b, *. . .*, z. | Task | Dataset | Domain | Background | Train / Dev / Test | License† | |---------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|------------------------|-------------------------|------------------------|------------| | Taxi | 200 K | 1,654 / 207 / 195 | | | | | Restaurant | 200 K | 3,813 / 438 / 437 | | | | | DST, RR | MultiWOZ 2.1 (Eric et al., 2020) | Hotel | 200 K | 3,381 / 416 / 394 | MIT | | Train | 200 K | 3,103 / 484 / 494 | | | | | Attraction | 200 K | 2,717 / 401 / 395 | | | | | Government | 46.0 K | 77,350 / 2,000 / 2,000 | OANC | | | | Travel | 47.4 K | 77,350 / 2,000 / 2,000 | OANC | | | | NLI | MNLI (Williams et al., 2018) | Slate | 214.8 K | 77,306 / 2,000 / 2,000 | OANC | | Telephone | 234.6 K | 83,348 / 2,000 / 2,000 | OANC | | | | Fiction | 299.5 K | 77,348 / 2,000 / 2,000 | CC-BY-SA-3.0; CC-BY-3.0 | | | | CoNLL (Tjong Kim Sang and De Meulder, 2003) | News | 51.0 K | 14,987 / 3,466 / 3,684 | DUA | | | I2B2-CLIN (Uzuner et al., 2011) | Clinical | 299.9 K | 13,052 / 3,263 / 27,625 | DUA | | | NER | SEC (Salinas Alvarado et al., 2015) | Financial | 4.8 K | 825 / 207 / 443 | CC-BY-3.0 | | LITBANK (Bamman et al., 2019) | Fiction | 299.5 K | 5,548 / 1,388 / 2,973 | CC-BY-4.0 | | | SOFC (Friedrich et al., 2020) | Science | 300.1 K | 489 / 123 / 263 | CC-BY-4.0 | | ## 2.4 Meta-Tokenization For Meta-Embeddings To utilize our domain-adapted tokenizers in a single model with meta-embeddings, we have to align different output sequences generated by each tokenizer for the same input. This is not straightforward due to mismatches in subword token boundaries and sequence lengths. We thus introduce three different aggregation methods to perform the metatokenization: (a) SPACE: We split the input sequence on whitespaces into tokens and aggregate for each tokenizer all subword tokens corresponding to a particular token in the original sequence. (b) DYNAMIC: The shortest sequence from all tokenizers is taken as a reference. Subwords from longer sequences are aggregated accordingly. This assumes that word-level knowledge is more useful than subword knowledge and that fewer word splitting is an indication of in-domain knowledge. (c) TRUNCATION: This method is similar to the DYNAMIC aggregation, but it uses only the first subword for each token instead of computing the average when a token is split into more subwords. Once the token and subword boundaries are determined, we retrieve the subword embeddings from the embedding layer corresponding to the tokenizer and perform the aggregation if necessary, in our case averaging all subword embeddings. Examples for each method are shown in Table 1. ## 3 Experimental Setup This section introduces four downstream tasks with their respective datasets and evaluation metrics. We further provide details on our models, their hyperparameters, and the baseline systems. ## 3.1 Tasks And Evaluation Measures We evaluate our domain-specialized models and baselines on four prominent downstream tasks: dialog state tracking (DST), response retrieval (RR), named entity recognition (NER), and natural language inference (NLI) with five domains per task. Table 2 shows the statistics of all datasets. DST is cast as a multi-classification dialog task. Given a dialog history (sequence of utterances) and a predefined ontology, the goal is to predict the output state, i.e., (domain, slot, value) tuples (Wu et al., 2020) like (restaurant, pricerange, *expensive*). The standard joint goal accuracy is adopted as the evaluation measure: at each dialog turn, it compares the predicted dialog states against the annotated ground truth. The predicted state is considered accurate if and only if all the predicted slot values match exactly to the ground truth. RR is a ranking task, relevant for retrieval-based task-oriented dialog systems (Henderson et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2020). Given the dialog context, the model ranks N dataset utterances, including the true response to the context (i.e., the candidate set covers one *true* response and N−1 *false* responses). Following Henderson et al. (2019), we report the recall at top rank given 99 randomly sampled false responses, denoted as R100@1. NER is a sequence tagging task, aiming to detect named entities within a sentence by classifying each token into the entity type from a predefined set of categories (e.g., PERSON, ORGANIZATION) including a neutral type (O) for nonentities. Following prior work (Tjong Kim Sang and De Meulder, 2003; Nadeau and Sekine, 2007), we report the strict micro F1 score. NLI is a language understanding task testing the reasoning abilities of machine learning models beyond simple pattern recognition. The task is to determine if a *hypothesis* logically follows the relationship from a *premise*, inferred by ENTAILMENT (true), CONTRADICTION (false), or NEUTRAL (undefined). Following Williams et al. (2018), accuracy is reported as the evaluation measure. ## 3.2 **Background Data For Mlm-Specialization** We take unlabeled background datasets from the original or related text sources to specialize our models with domain-adaptive pre-training (details are available in Appendix C). For MLM training, we randomly sample up to 200K domain-specific sentences2and dynamically mask 15% of the subword tokens following Liu et al. (2019). ## 3.3 Models And Baselines We experiment with the most widely used PTLM: BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) for NER and NLI. For DST and RR as dialog tasks, we experiment with BERT and TOD-BERT (Wu et al., 2020) following Hung et al. (2022a) for comparing general- and task-specific PTLMs.3 We want to highlight that our proposed method can be easily applied to any existing PTLM. As baselines, we report the performance of the non-specialized variants and compare them against (a) full pre-training (Gururangan et al., 2020), (b) adapter-based models (Houlsby et al., 2019), and (c) our domain-specialized PTLM variants trained with TADA. ## 3.4 Hyperparameters And Optimization During MLM training, we fix the maximum sequence length to 256 (DST, RR) and 128 (NER, NLI) subwords and do lowercasing. We train for 30 epochs in batches of 32 instances and search for the optimal learning rate among the following values: {5 · 10−5, 1 · 10−5, 1 · 10−6}. Early stopping is applied on the development set performance (patience: 3 epochs) and the cross-entropy loss is minimized using AdamW (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2019). For DST and RR, we follow the hyperparameter setup from Hung et al. (2022a). For NLI, we train for 3 epochs in batches of 32 instances. For NER, we train 10 epochs in batches of 8 instances. Both tasks use a fixed learning rate of 5 · 10−5. ## 4 Evaluation Results For each downstream task, we first conduct experiments in a single-domain scenario, i.e., training and testing on data from the same domain, to show the advantages of our proposed approach of task-agnostic domain-adaptive embedding-based pre-training and tokenizers (§ 4.1). We further consider the combination of domain-specialized embeddings with meta-embeddings variants (Coates and Bollegala, 2018; Kiela et al., 2018) in a multidomain scenario, where we jointly train on data from all domains of the respective task (§ 4.2). ## 4.1 Single-Domain Evaluation We report downstream performance for the singledomain scenario in Table 3, with each subtable being segmented into three parts: (1) at the top, we show baseline results (BERT, TOD-BERT) without any domain specialization; (2) in the middle, we show results of domain-specialized PTLMs via full domain-adaptive training and the adapter-based approach; (3) the bottom of the table contains results of our proposed approach specializing only the embeddings and the domain-specific tokenization. In both DST and RR, TOD-BERT outperforms BERT due to its training for conversational knowledge. By further domain-adaptive pre-training with | DST | RR | | | | | | | | | | | | |-------------------------|------------------------------------|------------|----------------|-----------------------|---------------|------------------|-------|-----------------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | Model | Taxi | Restaurant | Hotel | Train Attraction Avg. | Taxi | Restaurant Hotel | Train | Attraction Avg. | | | | | | BERT | 23.87 | 35.44 | 30.18 | 41.93 | 29.77 | 32.24 | 23.25 | 37.61 | 38.97 | 44.53 | 48.47 | 38.57 | | TOD-BERT | 30.45 | 43.58 | 36.20 | 48.79 | 42.70 | 40.34 | 45.68 | 57.43 | 53.84 | 60.66 | 60.26 | 55.57 | | BERT (MLM-FULL) | 23.74 | 37.09 | 32.77 | 40.96 | 36.66 | 34.24 | 31.37 | 53.08 | 45.41 | 51.66 | 52.23 | 46.75 | | TOD-BERT (MLM-FULL) | 29.94 | 43.14 | 36.11 | 47.61 | 41.54 | 39.67 | 41.77 | 55.27 | 50.60 | 55.17 | 54.62 | 51.49 | | BERT (MLM-ADAPT) | 22.52 | 40.49 | 31.90 | 42.17 | 35.05 | 34.43 | 32.84 | 44.01 | 39.15 | 38.43 | 45.05 | 39.90 | | TOD-BERT (MLM-ADAPT) | 32.06 | 44.06 | 36.74 | 48.84 | 43.50 | 41.04 | 49.08 | 58.18 | 55.55 | 59.46 | 60.26 | 56.51 | | BERT (MLM-EMB) | 22.39 | 31.26 | 25.75 | 41.00 | 34.02 | 30.88 | 40.89 | 54.24 | 47.30 | 52.18 | 56.50 | 50.22 | | TOD-BERT (MLM-EMB) | 32.00 | 43.47 | 36.67 | 47.34 | 42.80 | 40.46 | 47.08 | 57.71 | 55.65 | 60.72 | 60.39 | 56.31 | | TOD-BERT (MLM-EMBTOK-S) | 33.03 | 41.14 | 36.77 | 47.50 | 40.77 | 39.84 | 50.41 | 58.97 | 56.48 | 62.63 | 59.56 | 57.61 | | TOD-BERT (MLM-EMBTOK-X) | 32.55 | 44.60 | 36.92 | 47.27 | 43.58 | 40.98 | 50.77 | 60.40 | 56.87 | 62.11 | 60.89 | 58.21 | | NLI | NER | | | | | | | | | | | | | Model | Government Telephone Fiction Slate | Travel | Avg. Financial | Fiction | News Clinical | Science | Avg. | | | | | | | BERT | 79.07 | 78.18 | 76.63 | 73.40 | 77.33 | 76.92 | 90.56 | 72.09 | 90.04 | 85.91 | 78.23 | 83.44 | | BERT (MLM-FULL) | 80.82 | 81.43 | 76.43 | 71.97 | 77.78 | 77.69 | 90.53 | 72.33 | 90.62 | 86.18 | 78.19 | 83.57 | | BERT (MLM-ADAPT) | 75.58 | 73.70 | 72.33 | 67.11 | 72.42 | 72.23 | 76.62 | 63.82 | 89.17 | 80.64 | 61.65 | 74.38 | | BERT (MLM-EMB) | 80.77 | 80.42 | 79.27 | 73.50 | 77.94 | 78.38 | 90.38 | 71.79 | 90.67 | 85.82 | 78.82 | 83.50 | | BERT (MLM-EMBTOK-S) | 80.57 | 79.15 | 78.51 | 72.94 | 77.28 | 77.69 | 87.49 | 69.90 | 89.55 | 85.53 | 79.39 | 82.37 | | BERT (MLM-EMBTOK-X) | 81.08 | 80.16 | 78.97 | 73.15 | 77.68 | 78.21 | 89.27 | 69.77 | 89.21 | 85.31 | 77.33 | 82.18 | full MLM training (MLM-FULL), TOD-BERT's performance decreases (i.e., -4% for RR and -0.8% for DST compared to TOD-BERT). It is argued that full MLM domain specialization has negative interference: while TOD-BERT is being trained on domain data during intermediate pre-training, the model is forgetting the conversational knowledge obtained during the initial dialogic pre-training stage (Wu et al., 2020). The hypothesis is further supported by the observations for the adapter-based method which gains slight performance increases. Our proposed embedding-based domainadaptation (MLM-EMB) yields similar performance gains as specialization with adapters for TOD-BERT on average. Inspired by previous work on domain-specialized subtokens for language model pre-training (Beltagy et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2020), we additionally train domain-specific tokenizers (MLM-EMBTOK) with the WordPiece algorithm (Schuster and Nakajima, 2012). The training corpora are either obtained from only background corpora (S) or from the combination of background and training set of each domain (X). Further, our domain-specialized tokenizers coupled with the embedding-based domain-adaptive pretraining exhibit similar average performance for DST and outperform the state-of-the-art adapters and all other methods for RR. Similar findings are observed for NLI and NER. MLM-EMB compared to MLM-FULL results in +0.7% performance gains in NLI and reaches similar average gains in NER. Especially for NLI, the domain-specialized tokenizers (MLM-EMBTOK) are beneficial in combination with our domainspecialized embeddings, while having considerably fewer trainable parameters. Given that TADA is substantially more efficient and parameter-free (i.e., without adding extra parameters), this promises more sustainable domain-adaptive pre-training. ## 4.2 Multi-Domain Evaluation In practice, a single model must be able to handle multiple domains because the deployment of multiple models may not be feasible. To simulate a multi-domain setting, we utilize the domainspecialized embeddings from each domain (§ 4.1) and combine them with meta-embeddings (§ 2.3). To train a single model for each task applicable to all domains, we concatenate the training sets of all domains for each task. As baselines for DST and RR, we report the performance of BERT and TODBERT and a version fine-tuned on the concatenated multi-domain training sets (MLM-FULL). We test the effect of multi-domain specialization in two variants: *averaging* (AVG) and *attention-based* (ATT) meta-embeddings. We conduct experiments to check whether including general-purpose embeddings from TOD-BERT (EMB+MLM-EMBs) is beneficial compared to the one without (MLMEMBs). The results in Table 4 show that combining domain-specialized embeddings outperforms TOD-BERT in both tasks. In particular, averaging meta-embeddings performs better in RR while attention-based ones work better in DST by 3.8% and 2.2% compared to TOD-BERT, respectively. It is further suggested that combining | DST | RR | | | | | | | | | | | |-------------------------------|------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|----------------|----------------------------------------|---------------|---------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | Model | Taxi | Restaurant Hotel Train Attraction Avg. | Taxi | Restaurant Hotel Train Attraction Avg. | | | | | | | | | BERT | 29.10 | 39.92 | 36.67 47.63 | 42.32 | 39.13 | 44.87 | 51.98 | 49.11 | 50.15 | 54.81 | 50.18 | | TOD-BERT | 34.65 | 44.24 | 39.54 51.66 | 44.24 | 42.87 | 50.99 | 61.53 | 56.09 | 58.94 | 62.76 | 58.06 | | BERT (MLM-FULL) | 31.94 | 42.16 | 38.48 45.37 | 41.48 | 39.89 | 49.59 | 55.76 | 54.66 | 55.59 | 59.85 | 55.09 | | TOD-BERT (MLM-FULL) | 32.26 | 45.70 | 39.51 51.31 | 45.92 | 42.94 | 53.51 | 64.44 | 59.22 | 62.14 | 66.49 | 61.16 | | (AVG) TOD-BERT (EMB+MLM-EMBs) | 37.65 | 46.06 | 39.61 51.95 | 46.95 | 44.44 | 52.84 | 62.56 | 58.54 | 60.79 | 64.87 | 59.92 | | (ATT) TOD-BERT (EMB+MLM-EMBs) | 35.13 | 46.86 | 40.73 51.10 | 44.76 | 43.72 | 53.06 | 63.18 | 56.94 | 60.45 | 64.13 | 59.55 | | (AVG) TOD-BERT (MLM-EMBs) | 35.42 | 46.71 | 40.82 52.34 | 47.30 | 44.52 | 55.20 | 64.58 | 60.39 | 62.84 | 66.11 | 61.82 | | (ATT) TOD-BERT (MLM-EMBs) | 37.35 | 46.98 | 41.32 51.92 | 47.88 | 45.09 | 53.73 | 64.00 | 59.89 | 61.54 | 65.05 | 60.84 | | NLI | NER | | | | | | | | | | | | Model | Government Telephone Fiction Slate | Travel | Avg. Financial | Fiction | News Clinical | Science | Avg. | | | | | | BERT | 82.88 | 82.10 | 80.69 76.01 | 80.11 | 80.36 | 87.68 | 69.11 | 89.96 | 85.76 | 76.14 | 81.73 | | BERT (MLM-FULL) | 83.29 | 81.79 | 81.11 76.32 | 79.66 | 80.43 | 88.71 | 69.92 | 89.69 | 85.61 | 80.03 | 82.79 | | (AVG) BERT (MLM-EMBs) | 83.80 | 80.87 | 81.70 77.60 | 81.30 | 81.05 | 87.72 | 68.78 | 90.16 | 85.68 | 78.22 | 82.11 | | (ATT) BERT (MLM-EMBs) | 83.50 | 81.64 | 81.74 76.68 | 80.36 | 80.78 | 88.89 | 69.05 | 90.56 | 85.43 | 80.55 | 82.90 | only domain-specialized embeddings (i.e., without adding general-purpose embeddings) works better for both meta-embeddings variants. These findings are confirmed by NLI and NER experiments. The meta-embeddings applied in our multi-domain scenarios outperform BERT by 0.7 points for NLI and 1.2 points for NER, respectively. An encouraging finding is that two domains (FINANCIAL, SCIENCE) with the smallest number of training resources benefit the most compared to the other domains in the NER task. Such few-shot settings are further investigated in § 5.1. Overall, we find that the meta-embeddings provide a simple yet effective way to combine several domain-specialized embeddings, alleviating the need of deploying multiple models. ## 5 Analysis To more precisely analyze the advantages of our proposed embedding-based domain-adaptive pretraining methods and tokenizers, we study the following: few-shot transfer capability (§ 5.1), the effect of domain-specialized tokenizers on subword tokens (§ 5.2), and the combinations of multiple domain-specialized tokenizers with metatokenizers in multi-domain scenarios (§ 5.3). ## 5.1 Few-Shot Learning We report few-shot experiments in Table 5 using 1% and 20% of the training data for NLI. We run three experiments with different random seeds to reduce variance and report the mean and standard deviation for these limited data scenarios. MLM-EMB on average outperforms MLMFULL by 1% in the single-domain scenario, especially for SLATE and TRAVEL domains with the largest improvements (i.e., 3.3% and 2.7%, respectively). In contrast, the adapter-based models (MLM-ADAPT) perform worse in this few-shot setting. This demonstrates the negative interference (-10%) caused by the additional parameters that cannot be properly trained given the scarcity of task data for fine-tuning. In multi-domain settings, attention-based meta-embeddings on average surpass the standard BERT model in both few-shot setups. Overall, these findings demonstrate the strength of our proposed embedding-based domainadaptive pre-training in limited data scenarios. ## 5.2 Domain-Specific Tokenizers To study whether domain-specialized tokenizers better represent the target domain, we select the development sets and count the number of words that are split into multiple tokens for each tokenizer. The assumption is that the domain-specialized tokenizers allow for word-level segmentation, and thus, word-level embeddings, instead of fallbacks to lower-quality embeddings from multiple subword tokens. We compare three different tokenizers for each setting: (a) TOK-O: original tokenizer from PTLMs without domain specialization; (b) TOK-S: domainspecialized tokenizer trained on the in-domain background corpus; (c) TOK-X: domain-specialized tokenizer trained on the concatenated in-domain background corpus plus the training set. Table 6 shows the results on all four tasks averaged across domains. It is evident that TOK-X compared to TOK-O in general significantly reduces the number of tokens split into multiple subwords (-42.6% in DST, RR; -31.7% in NLI; -20.5% in NER). This indicates that the domain-specialized | Government | Telephone | Fiction | Slate | Travel | Avg. | | | | | | | | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------|---------|----------|--------|-----|----|-----|----|-----|----|-----| | Model | 1% | 20% | 1% | 20% | 1% | 20% | 1% | 20% | 1% | 20% | 1% | 20% | | BERT | 57.62±5.4 75.21±.4 49.20±1.9 74.45±.3 43.76±2.2 72.90±.3 46.70±2.1 67.71±.5 54.05±4.0 71.55±.4 50.27±2.4 72.36±.1 | | | | | | | | | | | | | BERT (MLM-FULL) | 61.92±1.8 76.07±.7 54.53±1.6 75.07±.7 49.32±1.4 73.21±.6 45.81±0.7 67.26±.6 56.56±3.5 72.50±.4 53.63±0.5 72.82±.4 | | | | | | | | | | | | | SD BERT (MLM-ADAPT) | 42.88±1.8 67.93±.2 41.27±1.1 65.80±.2 38.12±1.7 59.53±.4 38.91±2.1 54.71±.7 40.74±2.8 65.89±.6 40.38±1.5 62.78±.7 | | | | | | | | | | | | | BERT (MLM-EMB) | 61.66±1.0 76.61±.3 49.86±0.8 75.33±.3 48.35±4.1 72.22±.6 49.10±2.5 68.26±.3 60.27±1.6 72.73±.6 53.85±1.7 73.03±.1 | | | | | | | | | | | | | BERT (MLM-EMBTOK-X) 61.27±1.8 75.75±.5 49.20±5.5 74.11±.1 49.74±0.8 72.26±.8 49.10±1.9 66.51±.8 58.99±2.3 72.15±.8 53.66±2.0 72.16±.1 BERT 69.56±3.2 79.49±.7 64.80±2.0 77.72±.2 61.53±2.5 76.84±.7 61.43±2.0 72.64±.4 66.40±2.9 76.42±.5 64.74±1.8 76.62±.2 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | MD (AVG) BERT (MLM-EMBs) 70.13±1.3 80.00±.2 64.39±1.3 78.28±.2 62.24±1.7 76.94±.4 62.61±1.6 71.61±.3 66.45±1.4 76.21±.4 65.16±1.3 76.61±.1 (ATT) BERT (MLM-EMBs) 71.21±1.1 79.90±.3 65.56±1.4 78.48±.1 61.33±1.3 77.34±.3 61.99±1.3 72.69±.4 66.24±1.7 76.32±.5 65.27±1.6 76.95±.2 | | | | | | | | | | | | | Table 5: Few-shot learning results on NLI task for 1% and 20% of the training data size in single-domain (SD) and multi-domain (MD) scenarios. We report mean and standard deviation of 3 runs with different random seeds.   tokenizers cover more tokens on the word-level, and thus, convey more domain-specific information. For domains with smaller background datasets, e.g., FINANCIAL and NEWS, the tokenizers are not able to leverage more word-level information. For example, TOK-S that was trained on the background data performs worse in these domains, as the background data is too small and the models overfit on background data coming from a similar, but not equal source. Including the training corpora helps to avoid overfitting and/or shift the tokenizers towards the dataset word distribution, as TOK-X improves for both domains over TOK-S. The finding is well-aligned with the results in Table 3 (see § 4.1) and supports our hypothesis that word-level tokenization is beneficial. ## 5.3 Study On Meta-Tokenizers In Section § 4.2, we experiment with multiple domain-specialized embeddings inside metaembeddings. These embeddings are, however, based on the original tokenizers and not on the domain-specialized ones. While the latter are considered to contain more domain knowledge and | Model | DST | RR | NLI | NER | |-----------------------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | (AVG) BERT‡ (MLM-EMBs) | 44.52 | 61.82 | 81.05 | 82.11 | | (ATT) BERT‡ (MLM-EMBs) | 45.09 | 60.84 | 80.78 | 82.90 | | (AVG) BERT‡ (MLM-EMBTOKs-X) dyn | 42.16 | 59.87 | 79.10 | 70.73 | | (AVG) BERT‡ (MLM-EMBTOKs-X) space | 41.57 | 58.54 | 79.51 | 70.63 | | (AVG) BERT‡ (MLM-EMBTOKs-X) trun | 40.26 | 58.07 | 79.47 | 66.66 | | (ATT) BERT‡ (MLM-EMBTOKs-X) dyn | 42.73 | 59.22 | 79.32 | 70.83 | | (ATT) BERT‡ (MLM-EMBTOKs-X) space | 41.45 | 58.95 | 79.93 | 70.71 | | (ATT) BERT‡ (MLM-EMBTOKs-X) trun | 40.82 | 59.09 | 79.67 | 68.41 | achieve better downstream single-domain performance (§ 4.1), it is not straightforward to combine tokenized output by different tokenizers for the same input due to mismatches in subword boundaries and sequence lengths. Therefore, we further conduct experiments with meta-tokenizers in the meta-embeddings setup following § 2.4. We compare the best multi-domain models with our proposed aggregation approaches. The averaged results across domains are shown in Table 7 (per-domain results are available in Appendix D). Overall, it is observed that the SPACE and DYNAMIC approaches work better than TRUN-CATION. However, there is still a performance gap between using multiple embeddings sharing the same sequence from the original tokenizer compared to the domain-specialized tokenizers. Nonetheless, this study shows the general applicability of meta-tokenizers in transformers and suggests future work toward leveraging the domainspecialized tokenizers in meta-embeddings. ## 6 Related Work Domain Adaptation. Domain adaptation is a type of transfer learning that aims to enable the trained model to be generalized into a specific domain of interest (Farahani et al., 2021). Recent studies have focused on neural unsupervised or self-supervised domain adaptation leveraging PTLMs (Ramponi and Plank, 2020), which do not rely on large-scale labeled target domain data to acquire domain-specific knowledge. Gururangan et al. (2020) proposed domain-adaptive intermediate pre-training, continually training PTLM on MLM with domain-relevant unlabeled data, leading to improvements in downstream tasks in both highand low-resource setups. The proposed approach has been applied to multiple tasks (Glavaš et al., 2020; Lewis et al., 2020) across languages (Hung et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2023), however, requires fully pre-training (i.e., update all PTLM parameters) during domain adaptation, which can potentially result in catastrophic forgetting and negative interference (Houlsby et al., 2019; He et al., 2021). Parameter-Efficient Training. Parameterefficient methods for domain adaptation alleviate these problems. They have shown robust performance in low-resource and few-shot scenarios (Fu et al., 2022), where only a small portion of parameters are trained while the majority of parameters are frozen and shared across tasks. These lightweight alternatives are shown to be more stable than their corresponding fully fine-tuned counterparts and perform *on par with* or better than expensive fully pre-training setups, including *adapters*, prompt-based fine-tuning, and *sparse subnetworks*. Adapters (Rebuffi et al., 2017; Houlsby et al., 2019) are additional trainable neural modules injected into each layer of the otherwise frozen PTLM, including their variants (Pfeiffer et al., 2021), have been adopted in both single-domain (Bapna and Firat, 2019) and multi-domain (Hung et al., 2022a) scenarios. *Sparse subnetworks* (Hu et al., 2022; Ansell et al., 2022) reduce the number of training parameters by keeping only the most important ones, resulting in a more compact model that requires fewer parameters for fine-tuning. Prompt-based fine-tuning (Li and Liang, 2021; Lester et al., 2021; Goswami et al., 2023) reduces the need for extensive fine-tuning with fewer training examples by adding prompts or cues to the input data. These approaches, however, are still parameter- and time-inefficient, as they add additional parameters, require complex training steps, are less intuitive to the expressiveness, or are limited to the multi-domain scenario for domain adaptation. A broader overview and discussion of recent domain adaptation methods in low-resource scenarios is given in the survey of Hedderich et al. (2021). ## 7 Conclusions In this paper, we introduced TADA - a novel task-agnostic domain adaptation method which is modular and parameter-efficient for pre-trained transformer-based language models. We demonstrated the efficacy of TADA in 4 downstream tasks across 14 domains in both single- and multi-domain settings, as well as high- and low-resource scenarios. An in-depth analysis revealed the advantages of TADA in few-shot transfer and highlighted how our domain-specialized tokenizers take the domain vocabularies into account. We conducted the first study on meta-tokenizers and showed their potential in combination with meta-embeddings in multi-domain applications. Our work points to multiple future directions, including advanced meta-tokenization methods and the applicability of TADA beyond the studied tasks in this paper. ## Acknowledgements We would like to thank the members of the NLP and Neuro-Symbolic AI research group at the Bosch Center for Artificial Intelligence (BCAI) and the anonymous reviewers for their feedback. ## Limitations In this work, we have focused on the efficiency concerns of task-agnostic domain adaptation approaches leveraging pre-trained transformer-based language models. The experiments are conducted on four tasks across 14 domains in both high- and low-resource scenarios. We only consider the methods utilizing pre-collected in-domain unlabeled text corpora for domain-adaptive pre-training. It is worth pointing out that the selected domains are strongly correlated to the selected tasks, which does not reflect the wide spectrum of domain interests. Besides, the datasets are covered only in English to magnify the domain adaptation controlling factors and use cases, while multilinguality would be the next step to explore. We experimented on encoder-only PTLM based on the downstream classification tasks, where the encoder-decoder PTLM would be applicable to different tasks (e.g., natural language generation, summarization, etc.) requiring more computational resources. We hope that future research builds on top of our findings and extends the research toward more domains, more languages, more tasks, and specifically with the meta-tokenizers for efficiency concerns of domain adaptation approaches. ## Ethics Statement We utilized the pre-collected in-domain unlabeled text corpora to explore the domain-adaptation pretraining approaches with efficiency concerns in this work. Although we carefully consider the data distribution and the selection procedures, the precollected background sets for each domain might introduce the potential risk of sampling biases. Moreover, (pre)training, as well as fine-tuning of large-scale PTLMs, might pose a potential threat to the environment (Strubell et al., 2019): in light of the context, the task-agnostic domain adaptation approaches we introduced are aimed at mitigating towards the directions of reducing the carbon footprint of pretrained language models. ## References Alan Ansell, Edoardo Ponti, Anna Korhonen, and Ivan Vulic. 2022. ´ Composable sparse fine-tuning for crosslingual transfer. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1778–1796, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. David Bamman, Sejal Popat, and Sheng Shen. 2019. An annotated dataset of literary entities. 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 2138–2144, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ankur Bapna and Orhan Firat. 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. Iz Beltagy, Kyle Lo, and Arman Cohan. 2019. SciBERT: A pretrained language model for scientific text. 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 3615– 3620, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Elad Ben Zaken, Yoav Goldberg, and Shauli Ravfogel. 2022. BitFit: Simple parameter-efficient fine-tuning for transformer-based masked language-models. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 1–9, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Danushka Bollegala and James O' Neill. 2022. A survey on word meta-embedding learning. In Proceedings of the Thirty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-22, pages 5402–5409. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization. Survey Track. Joshua Coates and Danushka Bollegala. 2018. Frustratingly easy meta-embedding - computing metaembeddings by averaging source word embeddings. 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 194–198, New Orleans, Louisiana. 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. Mihail Eric, Rahul Goel, Shachi Paul, Abhishek Sethi, Sanchit Agarwal, Shuyang Gao, Adarsh Kumar, Anuj Goyal, Peter Ku, and Dilek Hakkani-Tur. 2020. MultiWOZ 2.1: A consolidated multi-domain dialogue dataset with state corrections and state tracking baselines. In *Proceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference*, pages 422–428, Marseille, France. European Language Resources Association. Abolfazl Farahani, Sahar Voghoei, Khaled Rasheed, and Hamid R Arabnia. 2021. A brief review of domain adaptation. *Advances in data science and information engineering*, pages 877–894. Annemarie Friedrich, Heike Adel, Federico Tomazic, Johannes Hingerl, Renou Benteau, Anika Marusczyk, and Lukas Lange. 2020. The SOFC-exp corpus and neural approaches to information extraction in the materials science domain. In *Proceedings of the 58th* Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1255–1268, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Zihao Fu, Haoran Yang, Anthony Man-Cho So, Wai Lam, Lidong Bing, and Nigel Collier. 2022. On the effectiveness of parameter-efficient fine-tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.15583. Goran Glavaš, Mladen Karan, and Ivan Vulic. 2020. ´ XHate-999: Analyzing and detecting abusive language across domains and languages. In *Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics*, pages 6350–6365, Barcelona, Spain (Online). International Committee on Computational Linguistics. Koustava Goswami, Lukas Lange, Jun Araki, and Heike Adel. 2023. SwitchPrompt: Learning domainspecific gated soft prompts for classification in lowresource domains. In Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2689–2695, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Association for Computational Linguistics. Demi Guo, Alexander Rush, and Yoon Kim. 2021. 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. Suchin Gururangan, Ana Marasovic, Swabha ´ Swayamdipta, Kyle Lo, Iz Beltagy, Doug Downey, and Noah A. Smith. 2020. Don't stop pretraining: Adapt language models to domains and tasks. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Online. Ruidan He, Linlin Liu, Hai Ye, Qingyu Tan, Bosheng Ding, Liying Cheng, Jiawei Low, Lidong Bing, and Luo Si. 2021. On the effectiveness of adapter-based tuning for pretrained language model adaptation. 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 2208– 2222, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Michael A. Hedderich, Lukas Lange, Heike Adel, Jannik Strötgen, and Dietrich Klakow. 2021. A survey on recent approaches for natural language processing in low-resource scenarios. In *Proceedings of* the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2545–2568, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Matthew Henderson, Ivan Vulic, Daniela Gerz, Iñigo ´ Casanueva, Paweł Budzianowski, Sam Coope, Georgios Spithourakis, Tsung-Hsien Wen, Nikola Mrkšic,´ and Pei-Hao Su. 2019. Training neural response selection for task-oriented dialogue systems. In *Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 5392– 5404, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. 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 Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 97 of *Proceedings* of Machine Learning Research, pages 2790–2799. PMLR. Edward J. Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2022. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. In *The Tenth International* Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2022, Virtual Event, April 25-29, 2022. OpenReview.net. Chia-Chien Hung, Anne Lauscher, Dirk Hovy, Simone Paolo Ponzetto, and Goran Glavaš. 2023. Can demographic factors improve text classification? revisiting demographic adaptation in the age of transformers. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EACL 2023*, pages 1565–1580, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Association for Computational Linguistics. Chia-Chien Hung, Anne Lauscher, Simone Paolo Ponzetto, and Goran Glavaš. 2022a. DS-TOD: Efficient domain specialization for task-oriented dialog. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022*, pages 891–904, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Chia-Chien Hung, Anne Lauscher, Ivan Vulic, Simone ´ Ponzetto, and Goran Glavaš. 2022b. Multi2WOZ: A robust multilingual dataset and conversational pretraining for task-oriented dialog. In *Proceedings of* the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 3687–3703, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Douwe Kiela, Changhan Wang, and Kyunghyun Cho. 2018. Dynamic meta-embeddings for improved sentence representations. In *Proceedings of the 2018* Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1466–1477, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Lukas Lange, Heike Adel, Jannik Strötgen, and Dietrich Klakow. 2021a. FAME: Feature-based adversarial meta-embeddings for robust input representations. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 8382–8395, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Lukas Lange, Heike Adel, Jannik Strötgen, and Dietrich Klakow. 2022. CLIN-X: pre-trained language models and a study on cross-task transfer for concept extraction in the clinical domain. *Bioinformatics*, 38(12):3267–3274. Lukas Lange, Jannik Strötgen, Heike Adel, and Dietrich Klakow. 2021b. To share or not to share: Predicting sets of sources for model transfer learning. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 8744–8753, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jinhyuk Lee, Wonjin Yoon, Sungdong Kim, Donghyeon Kim, Sunkyu Kim, Chan Ho So, and Jaewoo Kang. 2019. BioBERT: a pre-trained biomedical language representation model for biomedical text mining. Bioinformatics, 36(4):1234–1240. Brian Lester, Rami Al-Rfou, and Noah Constant. 2021. The power of scale for parameter-efficient prompt tuning. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on* Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3045–3059, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Patrick Lewis, Myle Ott, Jingfei Du, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2020. Pretrained language models for biomedical and clinical tasks: Understanding and extending the state-of-the-art. In *Proceedings of the 3rd Clinical Natural Language Processing Workshop*, pages 146–157, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xiang Lisa Li and Percy Liang. 2021. Prefix-tuning: Optimizing continuous prompts for generation. 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 4582– 4597, Online. 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. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692*. Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2019. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In *International Conference on Learning Representations*. Pekka Malo, Ankur Sinha, Pekka Korhonen, Jyrki Wallenius, and Pyry Takala. 2014. Good debt or bad debt: Detecting semantic orientations in economic texts. *Journal of the Association for Information* Science and Technology, 65(4):782–796. Michael McCloskey and Neal J Cohen. 1989. Catastrophic interference in connectionist networks: The sequential learning problem. In *Psychology of learning and motivation*, volume 24, pages 109–165. Elsevier. David Nadeau and Satoshi Sekine. 2007. A survey of named entity recognition and classification. *Lingvisticae Investigationes*, 30(1):3–26. Jonas Pfeiffer, Aishwarya Kamath, Andreas Rücklé, 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. Alec Radford, Karthik Narasimhan, Tim Salimans, and Ilya Sutskever. 2018. Improving language understanding by generative pre-training. Alan Ramponi and Barbara Plank. 2020. Neural unsupervised domain adaptation in NLP—A survey. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 6838–6855, Barcelona, Spain (Online). International Committee on Computational Linguistics. Sylvestre-Alvise Rebuffi, Hakan Bilen, and Andrea Vedaldi. 2017. Learning multiple visual domains with residual adapters. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, volume 30. Curran Associates, Inc. Sebastian Ruder and Barbara Plank. 2018. Strong baselines for neural semi-supervised learning under domain shift. In *Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics* (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1044–1054, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. Julio Cesar Salinas Alvarado, Karin Verspoor, and Timothy Baldwin. 2015. Domain adaption of named entity recognition to support credit risk assessment. In *Proceedings of the Australasian Language Technology Association Workshop 2015*, pages 84–90, Parramatta, Australia. Mike Schuster and Kaisuke Nakajima. 2012. Japanese and korean voice search. In 2012 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 5149–5152. Emma Strubell, Ananya Ganesh, and Andrew McCallum. 2019. Energy and policy considerations for deep learning in NLP. In *Proceedings of the 57th* Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3645–3650, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Erik F. Tjong Kim Sang and Fien De Meulder. 2003. Introduction to the CoNLL-2003 shared task: Language-independent named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Natural Language Learning at HLT-NAACL 2003, pages 142– 147. Özlem Uzuner, Brett R South, Shuying Shen, and Scott L DuVall. 2011. 2010 i2b2/va challenge on concepts, assertions, and relations in clinical text. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 18(5):552–556. 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. Mingyang Wang, Heike Adel, Lukas Lange, Jannik Strötgen, and Hinrich Schütze. 2023. NLNDE at SemEval-2023 task 12: Adaptive pretraining and source language selection for low-resource multilingual sentiment analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.00090. Adina Williams, Nikita Nangia, and Samuel Bowman. 2018. A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sentence understanding through inference. 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 1112–1122, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. Chien-Sheng Wu, Steven C.H. Hoi, Richard Socher, and Caiming Xiong. 2020. TOD-BERT: Pre-trained natural language understanding for task-oriented dialogue. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 917–929, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yi Yang, Mark Christopher Siy UY, and Allen Huang. 2020. Finbert: A pretrained language model for financial communications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.08097. Wenpeng Yin and Hinrich Schütze. 2016. Learning word meta-embeddings. In *Proceedings of the 54th* Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1351– 1360, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xiaojin Zhu and Andrew B Goldberg. 2009. Introduction to semi-supervised learning. *Synthesis lectures on artificial intelligence and machine learning*, 3(1):1–130. Yukun Zhu, Ryan Kiros, Rich Zemel, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Raquel Urtasun, Antonio Torralba, and Sanja Fidler. 2015. Aligning books and movies: Towards story-like visual explanations by watching movies and reading books. In *Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision*, pages 19–27. ## A Computational Information All the experiments are performed on Nvidia Tesla V100 GPUs with 32GB VRAM and run on a carbonneutral GPU cluster. The number of parameters and the total computational budget for domain-adaptive pre-training (in GPU hours) are shown in Table 8. | Model | # Trainable Parameters | MLM Budget (in GPU hours) | |-------------------|--------------------------|----------------------------------------| | BERT‡ (MLM-FULL) | ∼110 M | ∼5.5h (NER and NLI), 7.5h (DST and RR) | | BERT‡ (MLM-ADAPT) | ∼0.9 M | ∼2.5h (NER and NLI), 3.5h (DST and RR) | | BERT‡ (MLM-EMB) | ∼24 M | ∼3.5h (NER and NLI), 4.5h (DST and RR) | Table 8: Overview of the computational information for the domain-adaptive pre-training. ‡BERT variants: BERT (NLI, NER) and TOD-BERT (DST, RR). ## B Hyperparameters | DST, RR NLI NER | |-------------------| Detailed explanations of our hyperparameters are provided in the main paper in Section § 3.4. In our conducted experiments, we only search for the learning rate in domain-adaptive pre-training. The best learning rate depends on the selected domains and methods for each task. ## C In-Domain Unlabeled Text Corpora We provide more detailed information on the background datasets that are used for domain-adaptive pre-training in Table 9. Table 9: Overview of the background datasets and their sizes as reported in Table 2 in the background column. The background datasets are used to train domain-specific tokenizers and domain-adapted embeddings layer. | Task | Domain | Background dataset | # Sentences | |---------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------|---------------| | Taxi | 200 K | | | | Restaurant | 200 K | | | | Hotel | 200 K | | | | DomainCC corpus from Hung et al. (2022a). | | | | | Train | 200 K | | | | Attraction | 200 K | | | | Government | 46.0 K | | | | Travel | 47.4 K | | | | The respective part of the OANC corpus. | | | | | Slate | 214.8 K | | | | Telephone | 234.6 K | | | | Fiction | The books corpus (Zhu et al., 2015), used as the pre-training data of BERT (Devlin et al., 2019). | 299.5 K | | | News | The Reuters news corpus in NLTK (nltk.corpus.reuters). Similar to the training data of | 51.0 K | | | CoNLL (Tjong Kim Sang and De Meulder, 2003). | | | | | Clinical | Pubmed abstracts from clinical publications filtered following Lange et al. (2022). | 299.9 K | | | Financial | The financial phrase bank from Malo et al. (2014). | 4.8 K | | | Fiction | Same as NLI FICTION, described above. | 299.5 K | | | Science | Randomly sampled SemanticScholar abstracts from Biology (70%) and Computer Science (30%). | 300.1 K | | | Similar to the pre-training data of SciBERT (Beltagy et al., 2019). | | | | ## D Per-Domain Results For Meta-Tokenizers We provide the results for each domain in our multi-domain experiments with meta-tokenizers and meta-embeddings in Table 10 for DST and RR, and in Table 11 for NLI and NER. | DST | RR | | | | | | | | | |--------------------------------------------|-------|----------------------------------------|-------------|-----------------------------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------|-------| | Model | Taxi | Restaurant Hotel Train Attraction Avg. | Taxi | Restaurant Hotel Train Attraction | Avg. | | | | | | (AVG) TOD-BERT (MLM-EMBs) | 35.42 | 46.71 | 40.82 52.34 | 47.30 | 44.52 55.20 | 64.58 | 60.39 62.84 | 66.11 | 61.82 | | (ATT) TOD-BERT (MLM-EMBs) | 37.35 | 46.98 | 41.32 51.92 | 47.88 | 45.09 53.73 | 64.00 | 59.89 61.54 | 65.05 | 60.84 | | (AVG) TOD-BERT (MLM-EMBTOKs-X) dyn | 32.06 | 44.12 | 40.54 49.89 | 44.21 | 42.16 52.84 | 62.54 | 58.26 61.24 | 64.46 | 59.87 | | (AVG) TOD-BERT (MLM-EMBTOKs-X) space 31.35 | 44.89 | 37.27 49.47 | 44.86 | 41.57 51.59 | 62.46 | 56.44 60.21 | 61.99 | 58.54 | | | (AVG) TOD-BERT (MLM-EMBTOKs-X) trun | 33.61 | 43.88 | 38.20 44.24 | 41.35 | 40.26 52.55 | 61.19 | 55.55 58.58 | 62.47 | 58.07 | | (ATT) TOD-BERT (MLM-EMBTOKs-X) dyn | 34.06 | 45.01 | 39.73 50.11 | 44.73 | 42.73 51.22 | 62.08 | 58.04 61.39 | 63.35 | 59.22 | | (ATT) TOD-BERT (MLM-EMBTOKs-X) space 30.19 | 42.57 | 40.23 49.84 | 44.41 | 41.45 51.51 | 61.64 | 57.30 60.91 | 63.41 | 58.95 | | | (ATT) TOD-BERT (MLM-EMBTOKs-X) trun | 31.45 | 43.44 | 37.08 48.13 | 44.02 | 40.82 51.59 | 62.63 | 57.97 60.66 | 62.62 | 59.09 | Table 10: Results of meta-tokenizers in multi-domain experiments with meta-embeddings on two downstream tasks: DST and RR, with joint goal accuracy (%) and R100@1 (%) as evaluation metric, respectively. Three meta-tokenization aggregation methods: dynamic (dyn), space (space), truncation (trun), are combined with two meta-embeddings approaches: average (AVG), attention-based (ATT). | NLI | NER | | | | | | | | | | | | |----------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|-------|-----------------------------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | Model | Government Telephone Fiction Slate Travel | Avg. | Financial Fiction News Clinical Science | Avg. | | | | | | | | | | (AVG) BERT (MLM-EMBs) | 83.80 | 80.87 | 81.70 | 77.60 | 81.30 | 81.05 | 87.72 | 68.78 | 90.16 | 85.68 | 78.22 | 82.11 | | (ATT) BERT (MLM-EMBs) | 83.50 | 81.64 | 81.74 | 76.68 | 80.36 | 80.78 | 88.89 | 69.05 | 90.56 | 85.43 | 80.55 | 82.90 | | (AVG) BERT (MLM-EMBTOKs-X) dyn | 81.08 | 79.81 | 80.44 | 75.35 | 78.80 | 79.10 | 83.26 | 59.70 | 75.93 | 70.42 | 64.33 | 70.73 | | (AVG) BERT (MLM-EMBTOKs-X) space | 81.90 | 81.33 | 80.49 | 75.14 | 78.69 | 79.51 | 83.68 | 61.68 | 76.39 | 70.78 | 60.61 | 70.63 | | (AVG) BERT (MLM-EMBTOKs-X) trun | 81.44 | 81.38 | 79.17 | 75.86 | 79.50 | 79.47 | 77.99 | 53.53 | 74.37 | 67.08 | 60.33 | 66.66 | | (ATT) BERT (MLM-EMBTOKs-X) dyn | 81.70 | 80.62 | 80.33 | 74.78 | 79.15 | 79.32 | 84.64 | 59.98 | 76.08 | 71.30 | 62.17 | 70.83 | | (ATT) BERT (MLM-EMBTOKs-X) space | 83.34 | 81.43 | 80.23 | 74.83 | 79.81 | 79.93 | 83.70 | 62.03 | 76.04 | 71.54 | 60.22 | 70.71 | | (ATT) BERT (MLM-EMBTOKs-X) trun | 82.37 | 81.64 | 78.81 | 75.65 | 79.90 | 79.67 | 80.33 | 58.80 | 74.49 | 66.92 | 61.51 | 68.41 | Table 11: Results of meta-tokenizers in multi-domain experiments with meta-embeddings on two downstream tasks: NLI and NER, with accuracy (%) and F1 (%) as the evaluation metric, respectively. Three meta-tokenization aggregation methods: dynamic (dyn), space (space), truncation (trun), are combined with two meta-embeddings approaches: average (AVG), attention-based (ATT). ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Limitations section ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Ethics Statement ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Abstract ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Section 3 Experimental Setup ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 3 Experimental Setup ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Section 3 Experimental Setup ✓ 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 3 Experimental Setup 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.? Section 3 Experimental Setup ✓ 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 Experimental Setup ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Appendix ✓ 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 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 3 Experimental Setup and Appendix ✓ 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 Evaluation Results and Section 5 Analysis ✓ 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 3 Experimental 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.

wang-etal-2023-robust

Robust Natural Language Understanding with Residual Attention Debiasing

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.32

Natural language understanding (NLU) models often suffer from unintended dataset biases. Among bias mitigation methods, ensemble-based debiasing methods, especially product-of-experts (PoE), have stood out for their impressive empirical success. However, previous ensemble-based debiasing methods typically apply debiasing on top-level logits without directly addressing biased attention patterns. Attention serves as the main media of feature interaction and aggregation in PLMs and plays a crucial role in providing robust prediction. In this paper, we propose REsidual Attention Debiasing (READ), an end-to-end debiasing method that mitigates unintended biases from attention. Experiments on three NLU benchmarks show that READ significantly improves the OOD performance of BERT-based models, including +12.9{\%} accuracy on HANS, +11.0{\%} accuracy on FEVER-Symmetric, and +2.7{\%} F1 on PAWS. Detailed analyses demonstrate the crucial role of unbiased attention in robust NLU models and that READ effectively mitigates biases in attention.

# Robust Natural Language Understanding With Residual Attention Debiasing Fei Wang,∗ James Y. Huang,∗ **Tianyi Yan, Wenxuan Zhou** and **Muhao Chen** University of Southern California {fwang598,huangjam,tianyiy,zhouwenx,muhaoche}@usc.edu ## Abstract  Natural language understanding (NLU) models often suffer from unintended dataset biases. Among bias mitigation methods, ensemblebased debiasing methods, especially productof-experts (PoE), have stood out for their impressive empirical success. However, previous ensemble-based debiasing methods typically apply debiasing on top-level logits without directly addressing biased attention patterns. Attention serves as the main media of feature interaction and aggregation in PLMs and plays a crucial role in providing robust prediction. In this paper, we propose REsidual Attention Debiasing (READ), an end-to-end debiasing method that mitigates unintended biases from attention. Experiments on three NLU tasks show that READ significantly improves the performance of BERT-based models on OOD data with shortcuts removed, including +12.9% accuracy on HANS, +11.0% accuracy on FEVERSymmetric, and +2.7% F1 on PAWS. Detailed analyses demonstrate the crucial role of unbiased attention in robust NLU models and that READ effectively mitigates biases in attention.1 ## 1 Introduction Natural language understanding (NLU) models often suffer from unintended dataset biases (Jia and Liang, 2017; Gururangan et al., 2018; Poliak et al., 2018; Gardner et al., 2021; Rajaee et al., 2022), causing them to learn spurious shortcuts and make unfaithful or under-generalized prediction (McCoy et al., 2019; Schuster et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2019b). While a number of methods have been proposed to tackle this problem based on prior knowledge of specific biasing features (Clark et al., 2019a; He et al., 2019; Mahabadi et al., 2020; Utama et al., 2020a; Liu et al., 2022), various unintended biases exist in NLU datasets, *The first two authors contributed equally. 1Code is available at https://github.com/ luka-group/READ. Figure 1: Attention distribution on a non-duplicated sentence pair. Red bars are debiased [CLS] attention from the last ensemble layer of READ and blue bars are corresponding attention from finetuned BERT. Distinct tokens in the two sentences are highlighted with orange borderlines. READ pays more attention to distinct tokens and is more robust to lexical overlap bias. and not all of them are identifiable (Sanh et al., 2020; Utama et al., 2020b). More recent works start to focus on mitigating unknown biases (Sanh et al., 2020; Utama et al., 2020b; Xiong et al., 2021; Ghaddar et al., 2021; Meissner et al., 2022). Among them, ensemble-based debiasing methods, especially product-of-experts (PoE), have stood out for their impressive empirical success (Sanh et al., 2020; Utama et al., 2020b; Xiong et al., 2021; Ghaddar et al., 2021). Although the attention mechanism (Vaswani et al., 2017) is essential to the success of Transformer-based pretrained language models (PLMs), attention can also capture potentially spurious shortcut features leading to prediction biases. For example, too much or too little attention across sentences in natural language inference may lead to the lexical overlap bias (McCoy et al., 2019; Rajaee et al., 2022) or the hypothesis-only bias (Poliak et al., 2018). Since attention serves as the main media for feature interactions in PLMs, many of the aforementioned biases can be associated with biased attention patterns. In fact, a number of recent studies have shown that appropriate attention plays a critical role in ensuring robust2 prediction (Chen et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020; Stacey et al., 2022). However, existing ensemble-based debiasing methods typically apply debiasing on top-level logits (Clark et al., 2019a; He et al., 2019; Sanh et al., 2020; Utama et al., 2020b; Ghaddar et al., 2021). These methods do not proactively mitigate attention biases, but instead, rely on debiasing signals being propagated from final predictions to the attention modules in a top-down manner. Top-level logits are highly compressed and the propagation may suffer from information loss, thus providing limited debiasing signal to low-level attention. Instead, we seek for an effective attention debiasing method that prevents models from learning spurious shortcuts, especially those captured by the attention mechanism. In this paper, we propose REsidual Attention Debiasing (READ), an end-to-end debiasing method that mitigates unintended biases from attention. Our method is inspired by the recent success of onestage PoE (Ghaddar et al., 2021). As an ensemblebased debiasing method, it trains a biased model to capture spurious in-distribution shortcuts and trains the ensemble of the biased model and a main model to prevent the main model from relying on spurious shortcuts. To do this end-to-end, one-stage PoE trains the biased model and its ensemble with the main model simultaneously in a weight-sharing manner. In READ, we let the two models share all weights except attention modules and classification heads, allowing the main model to fit the unbiased attention residual with respect to the attention of the biased model. Intuitively, since they are trained on the same batch of data at each iteration, biased model attention and main model attention are likely to capture similar spurious features, making their residual free of such biases. Fig. 1 presents an example of the attention change. Given a nonduplicate sentence pair, BERT, which suffers from lexical overlap bias, does not aggregate much information from non-overlapping tokens. In contrast, READ learns to pay more attention to informative non-overlapping tokens. Experiments on three NLU tasks show that READ significantly improves the performance of BERT-based models on OOD data where common types of shortcuts are removed, including +12.9% accuracy on HANS, +11.0% accuracy on FEVERSymmetric, and +2.7% F1 on PAWS. We further examine the attention scores of the debiased main model and find that its distribution is more balanced (§4.1). These results indicate the crucial role of unbiased attention in robust NLU models. We also demonstrate that our method is still effective when using a biased model with the same parameter size as the main model (§4.2), which differs from the previous assumption that the biased model of unknown biases should be weaker 3(Sanh et al., 2020; Utama et al., 2020b). Our contributions are three-fold. First, we propose READ, an ensemble-based debiasing method for NLU models, mitigating attention biases through learning attention residual. Second, experiments on three NLU tasks consistently demonstrate that READ can significantly improve the OOD performance of different NLU tasks with various dataset biases. Third, detailed analyses provide useful insights for developing robust NLP models, including the importance and properties of unbiased attention, and the design of biased models in ensemble-based debiasing methods. ## 2 Method Our method, READ, combines one-stage productof-experts (PoE) with learning attention residual to mitigate unknown dataset biases for NLU tasks. Based on the problem definition, we introduce the two key components of our method, followed by the details of training and inference. ## 2.1 Problem Definition For a discriminative task, given the dataset D = {xi, yi}, where xiis the raw input and yiis the gold label, our goal is to learn a robust function f with parameters θ, that can predict a probability distribution p = f(xi; θ) without relying on spurious features. in NLU tasks, xiis typically a textual 3Under-trained or under-parameterized.  sequence. As discussed by prior studies (Gardner et al., 2021; Eisenstein, 2022), spurious features captured by f, such as particular words (Gardner et al., 2021) and lexical overlap ratios (Rajaee et al., 2022), although may be statistically correlated with yi due to dataset artifacts (Gururangan et al., 2018), should not be regarded as useful information for predicting yi. In other words, the prediction of a robust and faithful model should be independent of these non-causal features. Since diverse spurious features may exist in NLU datasets, we focus on mitigating dataset biases without any assumption of the type or structure of bias, so that the proposed method is generalizable to most unknown biases. ## 2.2 One-Stage Poe Due to the automated process of feature extraction in neural networks, it is impractical to train a robust model that directly identifies all robust features in the tremendous feature space. Considering spurious features are often simple features (also, of easy-to-learn data instances) that model tends to memorize in the first place (Shah et al., 2020), an ensemble-based debiasing method trains a biased model to collect biased prediction pb and approximates an ensemble prediction pe based on pb and another prediction pm from a main model towards the observations in training data. Considering both parts of the ensemble prediction pe, since the biased model mainly captures spurious shortcuts, as its complement, the main model then focuses on capturing robust features. READ adopts PoE (Clark et al., 2019a) to obtain a multiplicative ensemble of the two models' predictions: $$(1)$$ $$p_{e}\propto p_{b}p_{m}.$$ Specifically, READ follows the one-stage PoE framework (Ghaddar et al., 2021) that simultaneously optimizes the ensemble prediction and biased prediction, and shares weights between the main model and biased model, as shown in Fig. 2. When using a PLM as the main model, one-stage PoE typically uses one or a few bottom layers of PLMs stacked with an independent classification head as the biased model, because these low-level layers preserve rich surface features (Jawahar et al., 2019) which can easily cause unintended biases (McCoy et al., 2019; Gardner et al., 2021). The main model has shared encoder layers at the bottom followed by independent encoder layers and its classification head. This weight-sharing design makes it possible to debias the model end-to-end with a few additional parameters. However, shared layers result in shared biases in these layers. Although PoE mitigates biases from predictions, it preserves biases in shared layers. ## 2.3 Learning Attention Residual Ensemble prediction with PoE cannot effectively mitigate unintended biases in attention, which is the major part of feature aggregation and interaction in PLMs. For example, the [CLS] representation aggregates information from all token representations according to the attention distribution, and all token representations interact with each other based on the attention values. Therefore, biased attention becomes the direct source of many spurious features, such as lexical overlap in natural language inference and semantic-neutral phrases in sentiment analysis (Friedman et al., 2022). To prevent the main model from learning biased attention, READ further conducts additive ensemble of the attention distributions of both the main and biased models. Similar to ensemble prediction, the attention ensemble here encourages the main model attention to learn from the residual of biased model attention, so as to mitigate the biases captured by the latter from the former. Fig. 2 shows the workflow of learning attention residual. The self-attention mechanism (Vaswani et al., 2017) allows each vector in a matrix to interact with all vectors in the same matrix. Specifically, the input matrix H is first projected to a query matrix Q, a key matrix K, and a value matrix V . Attention scores of all vectors to each vector is a probability distribution computed based on the dot product between Q and K. With attention scores as weights, the self-attention module maps each vector in H to the weighted average of V . In READ, the main attention and biased attention use distinct projection weights for Q and K, but take the same H as inputs and share the same projection weights for V . Distinct Q and K allow the two models to have their own attention. Sharing H and V ensures the attention in the biased and main models are distributed in the same semantic space so that they are additive.4 The ensemble attention ae combines main attention am and biased attention ab with weighted average.5 This additive ensemble is inspired by the success of using the probability difference for post-hoc debiasing (Niu et al., 2021; Qian et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2022c) and preventing overconfidence (Miao et al., 2021). In our case, the main attention is the difference between ensemble attention and biased attention. READ also adds a coefficient α ∈ (0, 1) to balance the ensemble ratio. An appropriate coefficient can prevent over- or under-debiasing. Finally, the ensemble attention becomes $$\mathbf{a_{e}}=(1-\alpha)\mathbf{a_{m}}+\alpha\mathbf{a_{b}}.$$ $$\left(2\right)$$ Now that we have three paths in the attention module, including ensemble attention, main attention, and biased attention. In each forward pass from the input to pm or pb, only one of them is activated as the final attention distribution. During training, READ adopts ensemble attention to compute pm and biased attention to compute pb, for mitigating biases from main attention by learning their residual. During inference, READ adopts main attention, which is free of bias, to compute robust prediction pm. ## 2.4 Training And Inference We train the ensemble model and the biased model on the same dataset batch B simultaneously with a cross-entropy loss $${\mathcal{L}}={\mathcal{L}}_{e}+{\mathcal{L}}_{b}$$ $$\begin{split}&\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{L}_{e}+\mathcal{L}_{b}\\ &=-\frac{1}{|B|}\sum_{i=1}^{|B|}\log p_{e}(y_{i}|x_{i})+\log p_{b}(y_{i}|x_{i}).\end{split}\tag{3}$$ When minimizing Le, gradients on pb in Eq. 1 and gradients on ab in Eq. 2 are disabled, because they serve as auxiliary values for computing pe. Backward passes on pb and ab are only allowed when minimizing Lb. During inference, only the main 5Multiplicative ensemble (e.g. PoE), although works well on ensemble prediction, is unstable during training for attention ensemble and causes models to fail according to our observation. This phenomenon is related to the plausibility problem in Li et al. (2022). The fluctuation of a tiny probability on an uninformative token (e.g. a stop word) may significantly influence the result of PoE. Assuming we have simple distributions over two candidates pe = [10−8, 1 − 10−8] and pb = [10−6, 1 − 10−6], then according to Eq. 1, the learned pm ≈ [0.99, 0.01]. Due to the probability change from 10−8 to 10−6of the first candidate, the division between pe and pb maps the probability from extremely high (i.e. close to 1) to low (i.e. 0.01) and vice versa, i.e. over-debiasing. Such behavior is harmful to the learning process. model is used to predict a label yˆi from the label set C: $${\hat{y}}_{i}={\underset{c=1}{\operatorname{argmax}}}\,p_{m}(c|x_{i}).$$ ## Pm(C|Xi). (4) 3 Experiment In this section, we evaluate the debiasing performance of READ on three NLU tasks. We first provide an overview of the experimental settings (§3.1 and §3.2), followed by a brief description of baseline methods (§3.3). Finally, we present a detailed analysis of empirical results (§3.4). ## 3.1 Datasets Following previous studies (Utama et al., 2020b; Ghaddar et al., 2021; Gao et al., 2022), we use three English NLU tasks for evaluation, namely natural language inference, fact verification, and paraphrase identification. Specifically, each of the tasks uses an out-of-distribution (OOD) test set where common types of shortcuts in the training data have been removed, in order to test the robustness of the debiased model. More details can be found in Appx. §A. MNLI (Multi-Genre Natural Language Inference; Williams et al. (2018)) is a natural language inference dataset. The dataset contains 392k pairs of premises and hypotheses for training, which are annotated with textual entailment information (entailment, neutral, *contradiction*). For evaluation, we report accuracy on the MNLI dev set and the OOD challenge set HANS (McCoy et al., 2019). HANS contains premise-hypothesis pairs that have significant lexical overlap, and therefore models with lexical overlap bias would perform close to an entailment-only baseline. FEVER (Thorne et al., 2018) is a fact verification dataset that contains 311k pairs of claims and evidence labeled with the validity of the claim with the given evidence as context. For OOD testing, we report accuracy on the FEVER-Symmetric6test set (Schuster et al., 2019) where each claim is paired with both positive and negative evidences to avoid claim-only bias7. QQP is a paraphrase identification dataset consisting of pairs of questions that are labeled as either duplicated or *non-duplicate* depending on whether one sentence is a paraphrased version of the other. For testing, we report F1 score on PAWS 6Version 1. 7Models overly relying on misleading cues from the claims while ignoring evidence. (Zhang et al., 2019c), which represents a more challenging test set containing non-duplicate question pairs with high lexical overlap. $$(4)$$ ## 3.2 Implementation Following previous works (Utama et al., 2020b; Ghaddar et al., 2021; Gao et al., 2022), we use BERT-base-uncased model (Devlin et al., 2019) as the backbone of the debiasing framework. All experiments are conducted on a single NVIDIA RTX A5000 GPU. We use the same set of hyperparameters across all three tasks, with the learning rate, batch size, and ensemble ratio (α) set to 2e-5, 32, and 0.1 respectively. We train all models for 5 epochs and pick the best checkpoint based on the main model performance on the in-distribution dev set. On each dataset, we report average results and standard deviations of five runs. More details can be found in Appx. §B. ## 3.3 Baseline We include a vanilla BERT model and compare our method with a wide selection of previous debiasing methods for language models as follows: - *Reweighting* (Clark et al., 2019a) first trains a biased model to identify biased instances. During main model training, the biased instances are down-weighted, which encourages the model to focus more on unbiased instances. - PoE (Clark et al., 2019a) and *DRiFt* (He et al., 2019) both train an ensemble of the biased and main models to learn the unbiased residual logits. The biased model is trained on data observed with a specific type of bias. Unlike our proposed READ, these methods do not directly address biased attention patterns. - *Conf-Reg* (Utama et al., 2020a) applies logit smoothing to a biased model to improve distillation. It prevents the model from making overlyconfident predictions that are likely biased. - *MoCaD* (Xiong et al., 2021) applies model calibration to improve the uncertainty estimations of a biased model. This method is generally complementary to a variety of ensemble-based methods. - *PoE w/ Weak Learner* (Sanh et al., 2020) and Self-Debias (Utama et al., 2020b) propose to use under-parameterized and under-trained models as biased models for ensemble-based debiasing methods, such as PoE. Since these weak models tend to rely on spurious shortcuts in datasets, they are effective in mitigating unknown bias. | Model | MNLI (Acc.) | FEVER (Acc.) | QQP (F1) | | | | |------------------------------------------|---------------|----------------|------------|------------|------------|------------| | Dev | HANS | Dev | Sym. | Dev | PAWS | | | BERT-base | 84.8‡ | 60.2‡ | 87.0‡ | 57.7‡ | 88.4‡ | 44.0‡ | | Known Bias Mitigation | | | | | | | | Reweighting (Clark et al., 2019a) | 83.5 | 69.2 | - | - | - | - | | PoE (Clark et al., 2019a) | 83.0 | 67.9 | - | - | - | - | | DRiFt (He et al., 2019) | 81.8† | 66.5† | 84.2† | 62.3† | - | - | | Conf-Reg (Utama et al., 2020a) | 84.3 | 69.1 | 86.4 | 60.5 | - | 46.1∗ | | MoCaD (Xiong et al., 2021) | 84.1 | 70.7 | 87.1 | 65.9 | - | - | | Unknown Bias Mitigation | | | | | | | | PoE w/ Weak Learner (Sanh et al., 2020) | 81.4 | 68.8∗ | 82.0 | 60.0 | - | - | | Self-Debias (Utama et al., 2020b) | 82.3 | 69.7 | - | - | - | - | | MoCaD (Xiong et al., 2021) | 82.3 | 70.7 | - | - | - | - | | End2End (Ghaddar et al., 2021) | 83.2 | 71.2 | 86.9 | 63.8 | - | - | | Masked Debiasing (Meissner et al., 2022) | 82.2 | 67.9 | - | - | 89.6 | 44.3 | | DCT (Lyu et al., 2023) | 84.2 | 68.3 | 87.1 | 63.3 | - | - | | Kernel-Whitening (Gao et al., 2022) | - | 70.9 | - | 66.2 | - | 45.2∗ | | READ | 79.6 ± 0.7 | 73.1 ± 0.7 | 79.2 ± 1.9 | 68.7 ± 2.1 | 84.5 ± 0.3 | 46.7 ± 1.7 | | READ (pe) | 83.6 ± 0.3 | 64.8 ± 1.2 | 84.3 ± 1.1 | 55.3 ± 1.8 | 87.7 ± 0.0 | 44.8 ± 0.7 | Table 1: Model performance on MNLI, FEVER, and QQP. We report results on both the in-distribution dev set and the OOD challenge set (highlighted in blue). All baseline results are copied from the referenced paper unless marked otherwise. For methods that have multiple variants, we report the variant with the best average OOD performance. ‡ reproduced with our code base. ∗computed based on reported (subset) accuracy. †copied from Xiong et al. (2021). - *End2End* (Ghaddar et al., 2021) is an ensemblebased debiasing method that shares the bottom layers of the main model as the whole encoder of the biased model. It reweights instances based on model predictions and regularizes intermediate representations by adding noise. - *Masked Debiasing* (Meissner et al., 2022) searches and removes biased model parameters that contribute to biased model predictions, leading to a debiased subnetwork. - DCT (Lyu et al., 2023) reduces biased latent features through contrastive learning with a specifically designed sampling strategy. - *Kernel-Whitening* (Gao et al., 2022) transforms sentence representations into isotropic distribution with kernel approximation to eliminate nonlinear correlations between spurious features and model predictions. In addition, previous methods can also be categorized based on whether prior knowledge of specific biased features, such as hypothesis-only and lexical overlap biases in NLI, is incorporated in the debiasing process. We accordingly group the compared methods when reporting the results (Tab. 1) in the following two categories: - Methods for *known bias mitigation* have access to the biased features before debiasing and there- fore can train a biased model that only takes known biased features as inputs. While each of the OOD test sets we use for evaluation is crafted to target one specific form of bias, biased features can be highly complex and implicit in real-world scenarios, which limits the applicability of these methods. - Methods for *unknown bias mitigation* do not assume the form of bias in the dataset to be given. Our proposed method belongs to this category. ## 3.4 Results As shown in Tab. 1, among all baselines, unknown bias mitigation methods can achieve comparable or better performance than those for mitigating known biases on OOD test sets of NLI and fact verification. Although all baseline methods improve OOD performance in comparison with vanilla BERT, there is not a single baseline method that outperforms others on all three tasks. Overall, our proposed method, READ, significantly improves model robustness and outperforms baseline methods on all OOD test sets with different biases. On HANS, the challenging test set for MNLI, our method achieves an accuracy score of 73.1%, i.e. a 12.9% of absolute improvement from vanilla BERT and a 1.9% improvement from the best-performing baseline *End2End*. Compared to  End2End, residual debiasing on attention of READ directly debiases on the interactions of token-level features, leading to more effective mitigation of lexical overlap biases. On FEVER-Symmetric, READ outperforms vanilla BERT by 11.0% accuracy and outperforms the best-performing method *KernelWhitening* by 2.5%. On PAWS, the challenging test set for paraphrase identification, READ improves model performance by 2.7% F1, and outperforms the best-performing baseline method *ConfReg*, which relies on extra training data with lexical overlap bias. These results demonstrate the generalizability of READ for mitigating various biases in different NLU tasks. We also observe that the in-distribution performance of READ is generally lower than baseline methods. In fact, almost all debiasing methods shown in Tab. 1 enhance OOD generalization performance at the cost of decreased in-distribution performance This aligns with the inherent tradeoff between in-distribution performance and OOD robustness as shown by recent studies (Tsipras et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2019a). The optimal in-distribution classifier and robust classifier rely on fundamentally different features, so not surprisingly, more robust classifiers with less distribution-dependent features perform worse on in-distribution dev sets. However, note that generalizability is even more critical to a learning-based system in real-world application scenarios where it often sees way more diverse OOD inputs than it uses in in-distribution training. Our method emphasizes the effectiveness and generalizability of debiasing on unknown OOD test sets and demonstrates the importance of learning unbiased attention patterns across different tasks. In the case where indistribution performance is prioritized, the ensemble prediction pe can always be used in place of the debiased main prediction pm without requiring any additional training. Future work may also explore to further balance the trade-off between indistribution and OOD performance (Raghunathan et al., 2020; Nam et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2021). It is also worth noting that our method only introduces a very small amount of additional parameters, thanks to the majority of shared parameters between biased and main models. ## 4 Analysis To provide a comprehensive understanding of key techniques in READ, we further analyze the debiased attention distribution (§4.1) and the effect of number of ensemble layers (§4.2). ## 4.1 Debiased Attention Distribution To understand the influence of READ on attention, we examine the attention distribution of BERT and READ on the PAWS test set. Specifically, we take the attention between [CLS], which serves as feature aggregation, and all other tokens as an example. We group tokens into three categories, including overlapping tokens (e.g. how and does in Fig. 1), non-overlapping tokens (e.g. one and those in Fig. 1), and special tokens (e.g. [CLS] and [SEP]). Since attention residual for attention debiasing exists in ensemble layers of READ, we compare the attention on the last ensemble layer of READ and the corresponding layer of BERT. As discussed in §3.4, vanilla BERT finetuned on QQP suffers from the lexical overlap bias and does not generalize well on PAWS. This problem is reflected in the inner attention patterns. As shown in Fig. 3, BERT assigns less (-0.25%) attention to nonoverlapping tokens than to overlapping tokens on average. In contrast, READ increases the attention on non-overlapping tokens to larger than (+0.27%) the attention on overlapping tokens. The same observation also appears in the subset of duplicate  sentence pairs and the subset of non-duplicate sentence pairs. This change in attention patterns reveals the inner behavior of READ for effectively preventing the model from overly relying on the lexical overlap feature. ## 4.2 Effect Of Number Of Ensemble Layers Some previous studies assume that the biased model in PoE for unknown bias should be weaker (i.e. less trained or less parameterized) than the main model so as to focus on learning spurious features (Sanh et al., 2020; Utama et al., 2020b). One-stage PoE follows this assumption, using the bottom layers of the main model as the encoder of the biased model (Ghaddar et al., 2021). Since biased attention patterns may appear in any layer, including top layers, we examine whether this assumption holds for READ. Specifically, we evaluate READ with different numbers of ensemble layers on three OOD evaluation sets. As shown in Fig. 4, although the best-performing READ variant has few ensemble layers, the configuration where the biased and main models share all encoder layers is still effective on HANS and PAWS. For example, on HANS, READ achieves comparable performance with the previous state-ofthe-art method when the biased and main models share all encoder layers. This observation indicates that the shared encoder layer with distinct attention allows the biased model to focus on spurious attention patterns. Moreover, it is apart from the assumption that a biased model is necessarily a weak model, such as the bottom layers of the main model with a simple classification head. Future works on ensemble-based debiasing can explore a larger model space for the biased model. ## 5 Related Work  We present two lines of relevant research topics, each of which has a large body of work, so we can only provide a highly selected summary. Debiasing NLU Models. Unintended dataset biases hinder the generalizability and reliability of NLU models (McCoy et al., 2019; Schuster et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2019b). While a wide range of methods have been proposed to tackle this problem, such as knowledge distillation (Utama et al., 2020a; Du et al., 2021), neural network pruning (Meissner et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2022), and counterfactual inference (Udomcharoenchaikit et al., 2022), ensemble-based methods (Clark et al., 2019a; He et al., 2019; Lyu et al., 2023) stand out for their impressive empirical success. Recent works extend ensemble-based methods, such as PoE, to mitigate unknown biases by training a weak model to proactively capture the underlying data bias, then learn the residue between the captured biases and original task observations for debiasing (Sanh et al., 2020; Utama et al., 2020b; Ghaddar et al., 2021). Xiong et al. (2021) further improves the performance of these methods using a biased model with uncertainty calibration. Nevertheless, most prior works only mitigate unintended biases from toplevel logits, ignoring biases in low-level attention. Attention Intervention. In current language modeling technologies, the attention mechanism is widely used to characterize the focus, interactions and aggregations on features (Bahdanau et al., 2015; Vaswani et al., 2017). Although the interpretation of attention is under discussion (Li et al., 2016; Jain and Wallace, 2019; Wiegreffe and Pinter, 2019), it still provides useful clues about the internal behavior of deep, especially Transformer-based, language models (Clark et al., 2019b). Through attention intervention, which seeks to re-parameterize the original attention to represent a conditioned or restricted structure, a number of works have successfully improved various model capabilities, such as long sequences understanding (Beltagy et al., 2020; Shi et al., 2021; Ma et al., 2022), contextualizing entity representation (Yamada et al., 2020), information retrieval (Jiang et al., 2022), and salient content selection (Hsu et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2022a). Some recent works also add attention constraints to improve model robustness towards specific distribution shifts, including identity biases (Pruthi et al., 2020; Attanasio et al., 2022; Gaci et al., 2022) and structural perturbations (Wang et al., 2022b). ## 6 Conclusion In this paper, we propose READ, an end-to-end debiasing method that mitigates unintended feature biases through learning the attention residual of two models. Evaluation on OOD test sets of three NLU tasks demonstrates its effectiveness of unknown bias mitigation and reveals the crucial role of attention in robust NLU models. Future work can apply attention debiasing to mitigate dataset biases in generative tasks and multi-modality tasks, such as societal biases in language generation (Sheng et al., 2021) and language bias in visual question answering (Niu et al., 2021). ## Acknowledgement We appreciate the reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions. This work was partially supported by the NSF Grant IIS 2105329, by the Air Force Research Laboratory under agreement number FA8750-20-2-10002, by an Amazon Research Award and a Cisco Research Award. Fei Wang was supported by the Annenberg Fellowship at USC. Tianyi Yan was supported by the Center for Undergraduate Research in Viterbi Engineering (CURVE) Fellowship. Muhao Chen was also supported by a subaward of the INFER Program through UMD ARLIS. Computing of this work was partly supported by a subaward of NSF Cloudbank 1925001 through UCSD. ## Limitation Although our experiments follow the setting of previous works, the experimented tasks, types of biases, languages, and backbone PLMs can be further increased. As we do not enforce additional constraints when learning attention residual, there is a potential risk of over-debiasing, which is currently controlled by ensemble ratio α. We implement the idea of residual attention debiasing based on the one-stage PoE framework because it is one of the most successful end-to-end debiasing methods for NLU models. However, the effectiveness of attention debiasing may not be limited to the specific debiasing framework. Since the proposed method focuses on mitigating attention biases, it cannot be directly applied to PLMs without attention modules, such as BiLSTM-based PLMs (Peters et al., 2018). Moreover, the proposed debiasing method may also be effective to generative PLMs, such as T5 (Raffel et al., 2020) and GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020). We leave this for future work. ## References Giuseppe Attanasio, Debora Nozza, Dirk Hovy, and Elena Baralis. 2022. Entropy-based attention regularization frees unintended bias mitigation from lists. In *Findings of the Association for Computational* Linguistics: ACL 2022, pages 1105–1119. Dzmitry Bahdanau, Kyung Hyun Cho, and Yoshua Bengio. 2015. Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate. In *3rd International* Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015. Iz Beltagy, Matthew E Peters, and Arman Cohan. 2020. Longformer: The long-document transformer. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2004.05150. 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. Sizhe Chen, Zhengbao He, Chengjin Sun, Jie Yang, and Xiaolin Huang. 2020. Universal adversarial attack on attention and the resulting dataset damagenet. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence. Christopher Clark, Mark Yatskar, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2019a. Don't take the easy way out: Ensemble based methods for avoiding known dataset biases. 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 4069–4082. Kevin Clark, Urvashi Khandelwal, Omer Levy, and Christopher D Manning. 2019b. What does bert look at? an analysis of bert's attention. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACL Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 276–286. 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. Mengnan Du, Varun Manjunatha, Rajiv Jain, Ruchi Deshpande, Franck Dernoncourt, Jiuxiang Gu, Tong Sun, and Xia Hu. 2021. Towards interpreting and mitigating shortcut learning behavior of nlu models. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 915–929. Jacob Eisenstein. 2022. Informativeness and invariance: Two perspectives on spurious correlations in natural language. In *Proceedings of the 2022 Conference* of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4326–4331. Dan Friedman, Alexander Wettig, and Danqi Chen. 2022. Finding dataset shortcuts with grammar induction. In *Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on* Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Yacine Gaci, Boualem Benatallah, Fabio Casati, and Khalid Benabdeslem. 2022. Debiasing pretrained text encoders by paying attention to paying attention. In *Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical* Methods in Natural Language Processing. Songyang Gao, Shihan Dou, Qi Zhang, and Xuanjing Huang. 2022. Kernel-whitening: Overcome dataset bias with isotropic sentence embedding. Matt Gardner, William Merrill, Jesse Dodge, Matthew E Peters, Alexis Ross, Sameer Singh, and Noah A Smith. 2021. Competency problems: On finding and removing artifacts in language data. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1801–1813. Abbas Ghaddar, Philippe Langlais, Mehdi Rezagholizadeh, and Ahmad Rashid. 2021. End-to-end self-debiasing framework for robust nlu training. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 1923–1929. 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. He He, Sheng Zha, and Haohan Wang. 2019. Unlearn dataset bias in natural language inference by fitting the residual. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Deep Learning Approaches for Low-Resource NLP (DeepLo 2019), pages 132–142. Dan Hendrycks, Xiaoyuan Liu, Eric Wallace, Adam Dziedzic, Rishabh Krishnan, and Dawn Song. 2020. Pretrained transformers improve out-of-distribution robustness. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 2744–2751. Wan-Ting Hsu, Chieh-Kai Lin, Ming-Ying Lee, Kerui Min, Jing Tang, and Min Sun. 2018. A unified model for extractive and abstractive summarization using inconsistency loss. In *Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational* Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 132–141. Sarthak Jain and Byron C Wallace. 2019. Attention is not explanation. 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 3543–3556. Ganesh Jawahar, Benoît Sagot, and Djamé Seddah. 2019. What does bert learn about the structure of language? In *Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 3651–3657. 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. Robin Jia, Aditi Raghunathan, Kerem Göksel, and Percy Liang. 2019. Certified robustness to adversarial word substitutions. 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 4129–4142. Zhengbao Jiang, Luyu Gao, Jun Araki, Haibo Ding, Zhiruo Wang, Jamie Callan, and Graham Neubig. 2022. Retrieval as attention: End-to-end learning of retrieval and reading within a single transformer. Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Jiwei Li, Will Monroe, and Dan Jurafsky. 2016. Understanding neural networks through representation erasure. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.08220*. Xiang Lisa Li, Ari Holtzman, Daniel Fried, Percy Liang, Jason Eisner, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Mike Lewis. 2022. Contrastive decoding: Open-ended text generation as optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.15097. Yige Li, Xixiang Lyu, Nodens Koren, Lingjuan Lyu, Bo Li, and Xingjun Ma. 2020. Neural attention distillation: Erasing backdoor triggers from deep neural networks. In International Conference on Learning Representations. Evan Z Liu, Behzad Haghgoo, Annie S Chen, Aditi Raghunathan, Pang Wei Koh, Shiori Sagawa, Percy Liang, and Chelsea Finn. 2021. Just train twice: Improving group robustness without training group information. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 6781–6792. PMLR. Yuanxin Liu, Fandong Meng, Zheng Lin, Jiangnan Li, Peng Fu, Yanan Cao, Weiping Wang, and Jie Zhou. 2022. A win-win deal: Towards sparse and robust pre-trained language models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2018. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In *International Conference on Learning Representations*. Yougang Lyu, Piji Li, Yechang Yang, Maarten de Rijke, Pengjie Ren, Yukun Zhao, Dawei Yin, and Zhaochun Ren. 2023. Feature-level debiased natural language understanding. *Proceedings of AAAI*. Xuezhe Ma, Chunting Zhou, Xiang Kong, Junxian He, Liangke Gui, Graham Neubig, Jonathan May, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2022. Mega: moving average equipped gated attention. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.10655. Rabeeh Karimi Mahabadi, Yonatan Belinkov, and James Henderson. 2020. End-to-end bias mitigation by modelling biases in corpora. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 8706–8716. 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. Johannes Mario Meissner, Saku Sugawara, and Akiko Aizawa. 2022. Debiasing masks: A new framework for shortcut mitigation in nlu. In *Proceedings of the* 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Mengqi Miao, Fandong Meng, Yijin Liu, Xiao-Hua Zhou, and Jie Zhou. 2021. Prevent the language model from being overconfident in neural machine translation. 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 3456–3468. Junhyun Nam, Hyuntak Cha, Sungsoo Ahn, Jaeho Lee, and Jinwoo Shin. 2020. Learning from failure: Debiasing classifier from biased classifier. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:20673– 20684. Yulei Niu, Kaihua Tang, Hanwang Zhang, Zhiwu Lu, Xian-Sheng Hua, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2021. Counterfactual vqa: A cause-effect look at language bias. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 12700– 12710. Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, et al. 2019. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. *Advances in* neural information processing systems, 32. Matthew E. Peters, Mark Neumann, Mohit Iyyer, Matt Gardner, Christopher Clark, Kenton Lee, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. Deep contextualized word representations. 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 2227–2237, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. Adam Poliak, Jason Naradowsky, Aparajita Haldar, Rachel Rudinger, and Benjamin Van Durme. 2018. Hypothesis only baselines in natural language inference. In Proceedings of the Seventh Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, pages 180– 191. Danish Pruthi, Mansi Gupta, Bhuwan Dhingra, Graham Neubig, and Zachary C Lipton. 2020. Learning to deceive with attention-based explanations. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4782–4793. Chen Qian, Fuli Feng, Lijie Wen, Chunping Ma, and Pengjun Xie. 2021. Counterfactual inference for text classification debiasing. 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 5434–5445. 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. Aditi Raghunathan, Sang Michael Xie, Fanny Yang, John Duchi, and Percy Liang. 2020. Understanding and mitigating the tradeoff between robustness and accuracy. In *International Conference on Machine* Learning, pages 7909–7919. PMLR. Sara Rajaee, Yadollah Yaghoobzadeh, and Mohammad Taher Pilehvar. 2022. Looking at the overlooked: An analysis on the word-overlap bias in natural language inference. In *Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language* Processing. Victor Sanh, Thomas Wolf, Yonatan Belinkov, and Alexander M Rush. 2020. Learning from others' mistakes: Avoiding dataset biases without modeling them. In *International Conference on Learning* Representations. Tal Schuster, Darsh Shah, Yun Jie Serene Yeo, Daniel Roberto Filizzola Ortiz, Enrico Santus, and Regina Barzilay. 2019. Towards debiasing fact verification models. 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 3419–3425. Harshay Shah, Kaustav Tamuly, Aditi Raghunathan, Prateek Jain, and Praneeth Netrapalli. 2020. The pitfalls of simplicity bias in neural networks. *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, 33:9573–9585. Emily Sheng, Kai-Wei Chang, Prem Natarajan, and Nanyun Peng. 2021. Societal biases in language generation: Progress and challenges. 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 4275–4293. Han Shi, Jiahui Gao, Xiaozhe Ren, Hang Xu, Xiaodan Liang, Zhenguo Li, and James T Kwok. 2021. Sparsebert: Rethinking the importance analysis in self-attention. Joe Stacey, Yonatan Belinkov, and Marek Rei. 2022. Supervising model attention with human explanations for robust natural language inference. In *Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence*, volume 36, pages 11349–11357. James Thorne, Andreas Vlachos, Christos Christodoulopoulos, and Arpit Mittal. 2018. FEVER: a large-scale dataset for fact extraction and VERification. In *NAACL-HLT*. Dimitris Tsipras, Shibani Santurkar, Logan Engstrom, Alexander Turner, and Aleksander Madry. 2018. Robustness may be at odds with accuracy. In *International Conference on Learning Representations*. Can Udomcharoenchaikit, Wuttikorn Ponwitayarat, Patomporn Payoungkhamdee, Kanruethai Masuk, Weerayut Buaphet, Ekapol Chuangsuwanich, and Sarana Nutanong. 2022. Mitigating spurious correlation in natural language understanding with counterfactual inference. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Prasetya Ajie Utama, Nafise Sadat Moosavi, and Iryna Gurevych. 2020a. Mind the trade-off: Debiasing nlu models without degrading the in-distribution performance. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 8717–8729. Prasetya Ajie Utama, Nafise Sadat Moosavi, and Iryna Gurevych. 2020b. Towards debiasing nlu models from unknown biases. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 7597–7610. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30. Fei Wang, Kaiqiang Song, Hongming Zhang, Lifeng Jin, Sangwoo Cho, Wenlin Yao, Xiaoyang Wang, Muhao Chen, and Dong Yu. 2022a. Salience allocation as guidance for abstractive summarization. In *Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods* in Natural Language Processing. Fei Wang, Zhewei Xu, Pedro Szekely, and Muhao Chen. 2022b. Robust (controlled) table-to-text generation with structure-aware equivariance learning. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. Yiwei Wang, Muhao Chen, Wenxuan Zhou, Yujun Cai, Yuxuan Liang, Dayiheng Liu, Baosong Yang, Juncheng Liu, and Bryan Hooi. 2022c. Should we rely on entity mentions for relation extraction? debiasing relation extraction with counterfactual analysis. In *NAACL*. Sarah Wiegreffe and Yuval Pinter. 2019. Attention is not not explanation. 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 11–20. Adina Williams, Nikita Nangia, and Samuel Bowman. 2018. A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sentence understanding through inference. 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 1112–1122. Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, 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. Ruibin Xiong, Yimeng Chen, Liang Pang, Xueqi Cheng, Zhi-Ming Ma, and Yanyan Lan. 2021. Uncertainty calibration for ensemble-based debiasing methods. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:13657–13669. Ikuya Yamada, Akari Asai, Hiroyuki Shindo, Hideaki Takeda, and Yuji Matsumoto. 2020. Luke: Deep contextualized entity representations with entity-aware self-attention. In *Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language* Processing (EMNLP), pages 6442–6454. Hongyang Zhang, Yaodong Yu, Jiantao Jiao, Eric Xing, Laurent El Ghaoui, and Michael Jordan. 2019a. Theoretically principled trade-off between robustness and accuracy. In *International conference on machine learning*, pages 7472–7482. PMLR. Yuan Zhang, Jason Baldridge, and Luheng He. 2019b. 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. Yuan Zhang, Jason Baldridge, and Luheng He. 2019c. PAWS: Paraphrase Adversaries from Word Scrambling. In *Proc. of NAACL*. ## A Datasets We use all the datasets in their intended ways. MNLI dataset contains different subsets released under the OANC's license, Creative Commons Share-Alike 3.0 Unported License, and Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License, respectively. Among all the data entries, 392,702 samples are used for training. 9,815 and 9,832 samples from validation matched and validation mismatched subsets of MNLI respectively are used for evaluation. HANS is released under MIT License. The validation subset of HANS contains 30,000 data entries, which are used for OOD evaluation of natural language inference. FEVER follows the Wikipedia Copyright Policy, and Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0 if the former is unavailable. 311,431 examples from the FEVER dataset are used to train the model. FEVER-Symmetric test set with 717 samples is used as the OOD challenge set for fact verification. QQP8consists of 363,846 samples for training, and 40430 samples for in-distribution evaluation. PAWS dataset with 677 entries is used for OOD evaluation of paraphrase identification. ## B Implementation Our Implementation is based on HuggingFace's Transformers (Wolf et al., 2020) and PyTorch (Paszke et al., 2019). Since the training sets of three tasks are of roughly the same size, it takes about 5 to 6 hours to finetune the BERT-base model, which has around 110 million parameters, on each task. Our ensemble model adds 5.3M parameters, a 4.8% increase from the BERT-base model. These additional parameters will be removed after the completion of training. During training, we use a linear learning rate scheduler and the AdamW optimizer (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2018). Models finetuned on the MNLI dataset will predict three labels, including entailment, *neutral*, and *contradiction*. During inference on the OOD test set, we map the latter two labels to the *non-entailment* label in HANS. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Limitation section at the end. ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Limitation section at the end. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Abstract and Section 1 at the beginning. ✗ 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? Section 3 ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Appendix A ✓ 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 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.? Section 3 and Appendix A ✓ 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 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? Section 3 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 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? Section 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 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.

zhang-etal-2023-monet

{M}o{NET}: Tackle State Momentum via Noise-Enhanced Training for Dialogue State Tracking

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.33

Dialogue state tracking (DST) aims to convert the dialogue history into dialogue states which consist of slot-value pairs. As condensed structural information memorizes all history information, the dialogue state in the previous turn is typically adopted as the input for predicting the current state by DST models. However, these models tend to keep the predicted slot values unchanged, which is defined as state momentum in this paper. Specifically, the models struggle to update slot values that need to be changed and correct wrongly predicted slot values in the previous turn. To this end, we propose MoNET to tackle state momentum via noise-enhanced training. First, the previous state of each turn in the training data is noised via replacing some of its slot values. Then, the noised previous state is used as the input to learn to predict the current state, improving the model{'}s ability to update and correct slot values. Furthermore, a contrastive contextmatching framework is designed to narrow the representation distance between a state and itscorresponding noised variant, which reduces the impact of noised state and makes the model better understand the dialogue history. Experimental results on MultiWOZ datasets show that MoNET outperforms previous DST methods. Ablations and analysis verify the effectiveness of MoNET in alleviating state momentum issues and improving the anti-noise ability.

# Monet: Tackle State Momentum Via Noise-Enhanced Training For Dialogue State Tracking Haoning Zhang1,3, Junwei Bao2∗**, Haipeng Sun**2, Youzheng Wu2, Wenye Li4,5, Shuguang Cui3,1,6**, Xiaodong He**2 1FNii, CUHK-Shenzhen 2JD AI Research 3SSE, CUHK-Shenzhen 4SDS, CUHK-Shenzhen 5SRIBD 6Pengcheng Lab haoningzhang@link.cuhk.edu.cn, {wyli, shuguangcui}@cuhk.edu.cn, {baojunwei, sunhaipeng6, wuyouzheng1, xiaodong.he}@jd.com ## Abstract Dialogue state tracking (DST) aims to convert the dialogue history into dialogue states which consist of slot-value pairs. As condensed structural information memorizes all dialogue history, the dialogue state in the previous turn is typically adopted as the input for predicting the current state by DST models. However, these models tend to keep the predicted slot values unchanged, which is defined as state momentum in this paper. Specifically, the models struggle to *update* slot values that need to be changed and *correct* wrongly predicted slot values in the previous turn. To this end, we propose MoNET to tackle state momentum via noise-enhanced training. First, the previous state of each turn in the training data is noised via replacing some of its slot values. Then, the noised previous state is used as the input to learn to predict the current state, improving the model's ability to *update* and *correct* slot values. Furthermore, a contrastive context matching framework is designed to narrow the representation distance between a state and its corresponding noised variant, which reduces the impact of noised state and makes the model better understand the dialogue history. Experimental results on MultiWOZ datasets show that MoNET outperforms previous DST methods. Ablations and analysis verify the effectiveness of MoNET in alleviating state momentum issues and improving the antinoise ability1. ## 1 Introduction Dialogue state tracking (DST) is a core component in modular task-oriented dialogue systems (Hosseini-Asl et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2021; Sun et al., 2022, 2023). It extracts users' intents from the dialogue history and converts them into   Figure 1: A dialogue example of three turns, containing the system utterance (U), the user response (R), the ground truth dialogue state (GT), and the prediction of each turn (Pred). The state "hotel-book daySaturday" is predicted in the first turn (marked in blue). The dotted arrow represents the ideal predictions, i.e., *update* slot values that need to be changed (Turn 2) and *correct* wrongly predicted slot values in the previous turn (Turn 3). The solid arrow represents the predictions (marked in red) with state momentum issues. structural dialogue states, i.e., sets of slot-value pairs. An accurate dialogue state is crucial for generating correct dialogue action and suitable natural language responses, which are the main tasks of dialogue management and natural language generation components (Williams and Young, 2007; Thomson and Young, 2010; Young et al., 2010). Earlier DST approaches predict the state directly from the dialogue history (natural language utterances) (Mrkšic et al. ´ , 2017; Xu and Hu, 2018; Wu et al., 2019; Chen et al., 2020a). Since the dialogue state is condensed structural information memorizing all dialogue history, recent methods incorporate the previously predicted state as the input besides the dialogue history (Ouyang et al., 2020; Kim et al., 2020; Ye et al., 2021). Conventional DST models taking the previous state as the input usually show the characteristic that the previously predicted slot values tend to be kept unchanged when predicting the current state, defined as *state momentum* in this paper. The state momentum makes DST models struggle to modify the previous prediction, which affects the performance when the values of some slots need to be *updated* as the user's intent changes, and there exist wrongly predicted slot values that need to be *corrected*. Figure 1 gives an example of a dialogue involving three turns with two types of state momentum issues. The state hotel-book day-Saturday is predicted in Turn 1 and keeps unchanged in the next two turns, while the user's request is updated into **Sunday** in Turn 2. Consequently, the predicted state becomes wrong in the following two turns. The dotted arrow represents the ideal prediction cases: the value is *updated* with the ground truth changes and is *corrected* when becoming a wrong input. The solid arrow represents the state momentum issues, where the state is kept unchanged, leading to two consecutive wrong predictions. One possible reason for the state momentum issue is that in the training data, most slot values in the previous turn are the same as those in the current turn, which limits the ability of conventional DST models to modify slot values during inference. To address this limitation, an intuitive idea is to augment training instances with a higher ratio of slots whose previous values differ from those in the current turn. By incorporating such examples, the DST model can learn to deal with more cases where modifying previous predictions is required. Besides, if the DST model can treat wrong and correct dialogue states similarly in representations, then the former will typically help make further predictions. In other words, by treating incorrect dialogue states as valuable information, the DST model can potentially identify and correct erroneous slot values. In this paper, we propose **MoNET** to tackle the state momentum issue via a noise-enhanced training strategy. The core idea is to manually add noise into the previous state to simulate scenarios with wrong state input. First, the previous state of each turn in the training data is noised via replacing some of its slot values. Specifically, for each active slot (with a non-*none* value), we replace its value with a certain probability. Then, the noised previous state, concatenated with the dialogue history, is used as the input to learn to predict the current state, improving the model's ability to *update* and *correct* slot values. Furthermore, a contrastive context matching framework is designed to narrow the representation distance between a state and its corresponding noised variant, which reduces the impact of the noised state and makes the DST model better understand the dialogue history. Such approaches make the model less sensitive to the noise, and enhance its ability to modify the slot values of previous states in current predictions. Experiments on the multidomain dialogue datasets MultiWOZ 2.0, 2.1, and 2.4 show that our MoNET outperforms previous DST models. Ablation studies and analysis further verify the effectiveness of the proposed noised DST training and the contrastive context matching framework in alleviating state momentum and improving the model's anti-noise ability. The contributions are summarized as follows: (1) We define the state momentum issue in DST, where models tend to keep the predicted slot values unchanged, namely, struggling to *update* and *correct* them from the previous turn. (2) We propose MoNET to tackle the state momentum issue via noised DST training and the contrastive context matching framework. (3) We conduct comprehensive experiments on three datasets, MultiWOZ 2.0, 2.1, and 2.4. The results demonstrate that MoNET outperforms previous DST methods, showcasing its effectiveness in alleviating the state momentum issue. ## 2 Related Work 2.1 Dialogue State Tracking Traditional DST approaches focus on singledomain dialogue state tracking (Williams and Young, 2007; Thomson and Young, 2010; Lee and Kim, 2016). Recent researches pay more attention to multi-domain DST using distributed representation learning (Wen et al., 2017; Mrkšic´ et al., 2017). Previous works implement Seq2seq frameworks to encode the dialogue history, then predict the dialogue state from scratch at every turn (Rastogi et al., 2017; Ren et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2019; Chen et al., 2020a). Utilizing dialogue history is limited for larger turns, since the state of each turn is accumulated from all previous turns, while it's hard to retrieve state information from a long history. Current works mainly incorporate the previous state as the model input, which is regarded as an explicit fixed-sized memory (Ouyang et al., 2020; Ye et al., 2022a; Wang et al., 2022). Kim et al. (2020) propose a state operation sub-task, where the model is trained to first predict the operation of each slot-value pair, such as UPDATE, CARRYOVER, etc., then only the value of a minimal subset of slots will be newly modified (Zeng and Nie, 2020; Zhu et al., 2020). These methods enhance model prediction efficiency and the ability to *update* slot-value pairs. Tian et al. (2021) deal with the error propagation problem that mistakes are prone to be carried over to the next turn, and design a two-pass generation process, where a temporary state is first predicted then used to predict the final state, enhancing the ability to *correct* wrong predictions. In this paper, we use "state momentum" to define the issue where the wrong dialogue state is predicted due to that the previous prediction keeps unchanged, either it should be updated or *corrected*. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time to systematically tackle the issue caused by continuous unchanged predictions in the multi-turn DST task. ## 2.2 Contrastive Learning Contrastive learning aims to generate high-quality representations by constructing pairs of similar examples to learning semantic similarity (Mnih and Teh, 2012; Baltescu and Blunsom, 2015; Peters et al., 2018). The goal is to help the model semantically group similar instances together and separate dissimilar instances. During training, the neighbors with similar semantic representations (**positive pairs**) will be gathered, while the non-neighbors (**negative pairs**) will be pushed apart, enabling the learning of more meaningful representations. In the NLP area, semantic representations can be learned through self-supervised methods, such as center word prediction in Word2Vec, next sentence prediction in BERT, sentence permutation in BART, etc (Mikolov et al., 2013; Devlin et al., 2019; Lewis et al., 2020). Recent approaches build augmented data samples through token shuffling, word deletion, dropout, and other operations (Cai et al., 2020; Klein and Nabi, 2020; Yan et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021; Gao et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2022). In this paper, we construct augmented samples based on the noised and original dialogue state. Given context inputs with the same dialogue history and different states, the model is trained to gather them into similar objects, aiming to learn better representations, reduce the impact of noise, and better understand the dialogue history. ## 3 Methodology 3.1 Problem Formulation In this paper, we focus on building a dialogue state tracking (DST) model which accurately predicts the dialogue state based on the dialogue history and the previous state during multi-turn dialogue interactions. A dialogue state consists of domainslot-value tuples, typically corresponding to the dialogue topic, the user's goal, and the user's intent. Following previous studies, in the rest of this paper, we omit "domain" and use "slot" to refer to a "domain-slot" pair. All slot-value pairs are from a pre-defined ontology. Formally, let's define Dt = [Ut, Rt] as a pair of system utterance Ut and user response Rtin the t-th turn of a multi-turn dialogue, and Bt as the corresponding dialogue state. Each state Bt contains a set of slot-value pairs, i.e., Bt = {(Sj , V i j )|j ∈[1:J]}, where J is the total number of slots, and V i j ∈ Vj is one of the values in Vj for the j-th slot Sj in the ontology. Given the dialogue history {D1*, ..., D*t} and previous state Bt−1, the goal of the DST task is to predict the current dialogue state Bt. ## 3.2 Monet As introduced in Section 1, solving the state momentum issue is crucial to the DST task. Therefore, in this paper, we propose MoNET to tackle the state momentum issue via a noiseenhanced training strategy to enhance the model's ability to *update* and *correct* slot values. The architecture of MoNET is shown in Figure 2(a), which consists of context BERT encoders, slot and value BERT encoders, the slot-context attention module, the slot-value matching module, and the contrastive context matching framework. Each of them will be elaborated on in this section. ## 3.2.1 Base Architecture We first introduce the base architecture of our MoNET, similar to the backbone model in (Ye et al., 2022a). A model trained only with the base architecture of MoNET is noted as "Baseline", and  : (, )1:−1 −: train-day-Saturday, train-departure-Birmingham, train-destination-Cambridge ≥ < ≥ − + : train-day-Friday, train-departure-Birmingham train-destination-Cambridge : The train id is tr8259. : Yes, that train sounds good, please book it for me. Could you also find me a hotel with a moderate price that offers internet? $$\begin{array}{l}{{X_{t}=[M_{t},B_{t-1},U_{t},R_{t}]}}\\ {{X_{t}^{+}=[M_{t},B_{t-1}^{+},U_{t},R_{t}]}}\end{array}$$ evaluated in Section 5 to compare the difference in performance with the whole MoNET model. Context Encoder. A BERT encoder encodes the context input, which is the concatenation of the dialogue history and the state in the previous turn: $$X_{t}=f(M_{t},B_{t-1},D_{t})$$ $$=[CLS]\oplus M_{t}\oplus B_{t-1}\oplus[SEP]\oplus D_{t}\oplus[SEP],\tag{1}$$ where $M_{t}=D_{1}\oplus,...,\oplus D_{t-1}$ contains previous utterances, Bt−1 is the state containing the active slots in the previous turn, [CLS] and [SEP] are special tokens of the BERT encoder. Then the representations of the context input are derived: $H_{t}=BERT(X_{t})\in\mathbb{R}|X_{t}|\times d$, (2) where |Xt| is the total number of tokens in Xt, and d is the encoded hidden size. Slot and Value Encoders. The BERT encoders with fixed parameters are used to derive the slot and value representations: $$\begin{array}{l}{{h_{S_{j}}=B E R T_{f i x e d}(S_{j})_{[C L S]},}}\\ {{h_{V_{j}^{i}}=B E R T_{f i x e d}(V_{j}^{i})_{[C L S]},}}\end{array}\tag{3}$$ where states $h_{S_{i}},h_{Vi}\in\mathbb{R}^{1\times d}$ are the $[CLS]$ j∈ R representations of the slot and value. Slot-Context Attention. For each slot Sj , its slot-context-specific feature is extracted by the multi-head attention mechanism (Vaswani et al., 2017): $$r_{S_{j}}^{t}=LN(MultiHead(h_{S_{j}},H_{t},H_{t}))\in\mathbb{R}^{1\times d},\tag{4}$$ where LN is the normalization layer. Slot-Value Matching. The probability of predicting the value V i j of the slot Sj is derived by calculating the L2-distance between the value representation hV i jand the slot-context representation r t Sj , which is denoted as: $$P_{\theta}(V_{j}^{i}|X_{t},S_{j})=\frac{exp(-||r_{S_{j}}^{t}-h_{V_{j}^{i}}||_{2})}{\sum_{k\in[1:\mid V_{j}\mid]}exp(-||r_{S_{j}}^{t}-h_{V_{j}^{k}}||_{2})},\tag{5}$$ where θ are trainable parameters of the model. Training and Inference. During training, the ground dialogue state is used to form the context input Xt (teacher-forcing). For the t-th turn, the loss is the sum of the negative log-likelihood among all J slots as follows: $$L_{d_{o r i}}=\sum_{j=1}^{J}-l o g(P_{\theta}(V_{j}^{i^{*}}|X_{t},S_{j})),\quad\quad(6)$$ $$523$$ where V i∗ jis the ground truth value of the slot Sj at turn t. During inference, the previously predicted state is used to form the context input Xt, and the value of the slot Sj is predicted by selecting the one with the smallest distance, corresponding to the largest probability: $$V_{j}^{\widehat{i}}=\underset{i\in[1:|\mathcal{V}_{j}|]}{a r g m a x}\,P_{\theta}(V_{j}^{i}|X_{t},S_{j}).$$ ## 3.2.2 Noised Data Construction As described previously, an intuitive idea to tackle the state momentum issue is to increase the number of training instances where the slot-value pairs in the previous turn are different from those in the current turn. Based on this point, we attempt to utilize noised data to train the DST model. Generally, for each active slot (with a non-*none* value) in the previous dialogue state, we involve noise by replacing its original value with another value with a probability p (used as the noise threshold), e.g., as the example shown in Figure 2(b). Formally, at each training step, given a batch of training instances, a noised context input X + tis constructed for each instance based on its original context input Xt = f(Mt, Bt−1, Dt) as follows: $$\begin{array}{c}{{X_{t}^{+}=\!f(M_{t},B_{t-1}^{+},D_{t}),}}\\ {{B_{t-1}^{+}=\!\{(S_{j},V_{j}^{i^{+}})|j\!\in\![1:J]\}.}}\end{array}\qquad(8)$$ For each active slot Sj in Bt−1 = {(Sj , V i j )}, a real number a ∈ [0, 1] is sampled to determine whether the original V i j is replaced with a randomly selected value V k j ∈ Vj \ {V i j} from the ontology or kept unchanged: $$V_{j}^{i+}=\left\{\begin{array}{l l l}{{V_{j}^{k},}}&{{i f}}&{{a<p}}\\ {{V_{j}^{i},}}&{{i f}}&{{a\geq p.}}\end{array}\right.$$ $${\mathrm{(9)}}$$ ## 3.2.3 Noised State Tracking Similar to Xt, the noised context instance X + tis also used as the model input to predict the state Bt as the training target, aiming to improve the model's ability to dynamically modify the previous slot values in current predictions. Specifically, the representation H + tof X + tis first derived by the BERT context encoder mentioned in Section 3.2.1: $$H_{t}^{+}=BERT(X_{t}^{+})\in\mathbb{R}^{|X_{t}^{+}|\times d}.\tag{10}$$ Then, similar to the previous process, for each slot Sj , X + tis used to predict its value based on the distribution Pθ(V i j|X + t , Sj ). Eventually, the loss for the noised state tracking can be denoted as: $$L_{d_{n o s}}=\sum_{j=1}^{J}-l o g(P_{\theta}(V_{j}^{i^{*}}|X_{t}^{+},S_{j})).\quad\quad(11)$$ $$\mathbf{\Pi}(T)$$ ## 3.2.4 Contrastive Context Matching Inspired by contrastive learning approaches which group similar samples closer and diverse samples far from each other, a contrastive context matching framework is designed to narrow the representation distance between Xt and its noised variant X + t , aiming to reduce the impact of the noised state B + t−1 and help the model better understand the dialogue history. Specifically, in a batch of N instances with the original context input Xt = {Xn t } N n=1, we construct N corresponding noised instances with the context input X+ t = {X n+ t} N n=1. To clearly describe the context inputs, in this section, we temporarily involve n into Xt & Ht as Xn t & Hn t to indicate the in-batch index. For each context input Xn t , its noised sample X n+ tis regarded as its positive pair, and the rest (2N −2) instances in the same batch with different dialogue histories are considered negative pairs. Then the model is trained to narrow the distance of the positive pair and enlarge the distance of negative pairs in the representation space with the following training objective: $$L_{c}=-log(\frac{exp(sim(H_{t}^{n[cls]},H_{t}^{n+[cls]})/\tau)}{\sum_{k=1}^{2N}1^{\lfloor k\neq n\rfloor exp(sim(H_{t}^{n[cls]},H_{t}^{k[cls]})/\tau)}}),\tag{12}$$ where $H_{t}^{n[cls]}$ and $H_{t}^{n+[cls]}$ are the $[CLS]$ representations of $H_{t}^{n}$ and $H_{t}^{n+}$. $\tau$ is the representations of Hn tand H t, τ is the temperature parameter, and sim(·) indicates the cosine similarity function (Chen et al., 2020c). ## 3.2.5 Optimization The total training loss for each instance is the sum of losses from the slot-value matching for DST and the contrastive context matching for representation learning, where the former is the average of the losses using the original or the noised context input mentioned in Section 3.2.1 and 3.2.3: $$L_{t o t}=(L_{d_{o r i}}+L_{d_{n o s}})/2+L_{c}.\qquad(13)$$ ## 4 Experiment Setting 4.1 Datasets We choose MultiWOZ, 2.0, 2.1, and 2.4 versions as our datasets. MultiWOZ 2.0 (Budzianowski et al., Baseline Pre-trained Model MultiWOZ 2.0 MultiWOZ 2.1 MultiWOZ 2.4 Joint Slot Joint Slot Joint Slot TRADE (Wu et al., 2019) - 48.62 96.92 45.60 96.55 55.05 97.62 SUMBT (Lee et al., 2019) BERT-base 42.40 - 49.01 96.76 61.86 97.90 PIN (Chen et al., 2020a) - 52.44 97.28 48.40 97.02 58.92 98.02 SOM-DST (Kim et al., 2020) BERT-base 51.72 - 53.01 - 66.78 98.38 CSFN-DST (Zhu et al., 2020) BERT-base 52.23 - 53.19 - - - DST-Picklist (Zhang et al., 2020) BERT-base 54.39 - 53.30 97.40 - - SAVN (Wang et al., 2020) BERT-base 54.52 97.42 54.86 97.55 60.55 98.05 SST (Chen et al., 2020b) BERT-base 51.17 - 55.23 - - - SimpleTOD (Hosseini-Asl et al., 2020) DistilGPT2 - - 55.26 - - - Seq2SeqDU (Feng et al., 2021) BERT-base - - 56.10 - - - STAR (Ye et al., 2021) BERT-base 54.53 - 56.36 97.59 73.62 98.85 SDP-DST (Lee et al., 2021) T5-base - - 56.66 - - - DS-Graph (Lin et al., 2021) GPT2 54.86 97.47 - - - - DSGFNet (Feng et al., 2022) BERT-base - - 56.70 - - - PPTOD (Su et al., 2022) T5-large 53.89 - 57.45 - - - Baseline BERT-base 54.38 97.47 55.82 97.51 73.81 98.82 MoNET BERT-base **55.48** (↑ 1.10) 97.55 **57.71** (↑ 1.89) 97.71 **76.02** (↑ 2.21) 98.99 Use Modified Label TripPy (Heck et al., 2020) BERT-base - - 55.29 - - - TripPy + SCoRe (Yu et al., 2021) BERT-base - - 60.48 - - - TripPy + CoCoAug (Li et al., 2021) BERT-base - - 60.53 - - - TripPy + SaCLog (Dai et al., 2021) BERT-base - - 60.61 - - - 2018) is a standard human-human conversational dialogue corpus with seven domains. MultiWOZ 2.1 (Eric et al., 2020) has the same dialogues as the 2.0 version, where some incorrect state labels are re-annotated. Both of them are widely used in previous DST approaches. MultiWOZ 2.4 (Ye et al., 2022b) is the latest refined version correcting all the incorrect state labels in validation and test sets. All three datasets contain the same number of dialogues, which are 8438/1000/1000 in train/validation/test sets. For the three datasets, we follow the previous work (Wu et al., 2019) to use five domains (attraction, hotel, restaurant, taxi, train) with 30 domain-slot pairs in experiments, since the dialogues in the remaining domains are not in the validation and test sets. ## 4.2 Evaluation Metrics We use joint and slot goal accuracy as the evaluation metrics. Joint goal accuracy is the ratio of dialogue turns where the values of all slots are correctly predicted. Slot goal accuracy is the ratio of domain-slot pairs whose values are correctly predicted. Both of them include correctly predicting those inactive slots with the value *none*. ## 4.3 Existing Methods We compare the performance of our MoNET with several existing methods, i.e., TRADE, SUMBT, PIN, SOM-DST, CSFN-DST, DST-Picklist, SAVN, SST, SimpleTOD, TripPy, STAR, SDP-DST, DS- Graph, DSGFNet, PPTOD shown in Table 1, and our base architecture mentioned in Section 3.2.1, denoted as Baseline. ## 4.4 Training Details The BERT-base-uncased model is used as the context, slot and value encoders, with 12 attention layers and a hidden size of 768. During training, only the parameters of the context BERT encoder are updated, while the parameters of the slot and value BERT encoders are not. The batch size is set to 8. The AdamW optimizer is applied to optimize the model with the learning rate 4e-5 and 1e-4 for the context encoders and the remaining modules, respectively (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2019). The temperature parameter τ is set to 0.1. The noise threshold p defined in Section 3.2.2 is set to 0.3, and its impact on model performance is discussed in Section 5. All models are trained on a P40 GPU device for 6-8 hours. ## 5 Results And Analysis 5.1 Main Results Table 1 shows performances of MoNET and baselines on MultiWOZ 2.0, 2.1 and 2.4. Among them, TripPy and its modified versions employ a ground truth label map of synonyms replacement as extra supervision, which increases their accuracy scores and differs from other methods of testing with common labels. As can be observed, MoNET achieves the joint goal accuracy scores of | Model | NoisedCM | NoisedST | Accuracy | |--------------------|------------|------------|------------| | Baseline w/o state | × | × | 64.94 | | Baseline | × | × | 73.81 | | MoNET-ST | × | X | 75.54 | | MoNET-CM | X | × | 75.76 | | MoNET | X | X | 76.02 | 55.48%, 57.71%, 76.02% in three datasets, which are impressive results compared with previous methods, and has improvements of 1.10%, 1.89%, and 2.21% on the Baseline model, indicating that our proposed noise-enhanced training helps the model make better predictions. Besides the general joint and slot goal accuracy, we also calculate the slot-level proportion of state momentum errors over all wrong predictions. We train the Baseline model and make predictions on the MultiWOZ 2.4 test set. For each dialogue, starting from the second turn, we add up each wrong predicted slot-value pair which also exists in the previous turn. Finally, there are 844 such wrong slot-value pairs, and the number of all the wrong predicted pairs is 2603, hence the proportion is (844/2603)*100%=32.4%, and our MoNET model modifies 47.0% of them (397 in 844 are correctly predicted). Moreover, in MultiWOZ 2.4 training set annotations, for each dialogue turn (also except the first turn of each dialogue), around 78.1% slotvalue pairs exist in the previous turn, since the slotvalue pairs will be accumulated as the dialogue progresses. The results further indicate the issue caused by those unchanged slot-value pairs during multi-turn interactions, and the effectiveness of our method in enhancing the model's ability to modify previous predictions. ## 5.2 Ablation Study To explore the individual contribution of each part of our model, we compare the whole MoNET with several ablated versions. First, we remove the previous dialogue state from the context input of the Baseline model, where the modified context input is Xt = [CLS] ⊕ Mt ⊕ [SEP] ⊕ Dt ⊕ [SEP], denoted as Baseline w/o state; besides, the two noise-enhanced methods are removed from the MoNET respectively, denoted as MoNET-CM (context matching only) and MoNET-ST (noised state tracking only). Table 2 shows the joint goal accuracy  performances of the full MoNET model and its four modifications on the MultiWOZ 2.4 test set. As can be observed, Baseline w/o state gets the lowest accuracy, demonstrating that explicitly using the previous dialogue state as part of the model input is beneficial to make predictions, even though there may exist wrong slot-value pairs. Besides, both MoNET-CM and MoNETST outperform the Baseline model, demonstrating functionalities of the noised state tracking in modifying slot-value pairs in further turns, and the context matching framework in learning improved semantic representations. Moreover, MoNET derives the best performance, demonstrating the effectiveness of integrating the two parts into a unified noised-enhance training strategy. ## 5.3 Turn-Level Evaluation Figure 3 shows the turn-level joint goal accuracy of MoNET and Baseline models, as well as the percentage difference in accuracy (the difference between the two models' accuracy divided by the accuracy of Baseline) on the MultiWOZ 2.4 test set. Generally, the state momentum issue becomes more apparent in dialogues with larger turns, since they always contain more active slotvalue pairs, and any one of the wrong pairs kept unchanged will affect the further prediction accuracy. With the increase of turns, the accuracy of Baseline harshly degrades, while MoNET gets a relatively smaller decline, resulting in a gradually increasing and evident percentage difference in accuracy. This demonstrates the superiority of MoNET in alleviating the accuracy decrease caused by the state momentum issue, especially in those dialogues with larger than 6-7 turns.   ## 5.4 Noise Threshold Selection For Training To explore the impact of different probabilities of adding noise into the context input for training, we vary the noise threshold p from 0 to 0.5 to train our MoNET. The results on the MultiWOZ 2.4 validation set are shown in Figure 4, where MoNET achieves the best performance when the noise threshold p is set to 0.3. Intuitively, a small p makes the noised context input contain fewer noised slotvalue pairs (hard to learn meaningful semantics from the noised data); conversely, a large p makes the noised context input far from the original context input in the representation space (hard to group them closer). Both two cases make the model hard to learn effective features from the noised context input, leading to lower prediction accuracy. Hence, the empirical probability of adding noise is important to derive the best performance of the DST model. ## 5.5 Anti-Noise Probing With Noise Testing In this section, we conduct *noise testing* to explore the impact of anti-noise ability on DST models. We first evaluate DST performances of MoNET and Baseline by introducing different ratios of noise (with p from 0 to 1) into the oracle previous dialogue state as the model input. Figure 5 shows the performances of MoNET and Baseline on  MultiWOZ 2.4. Both of them get high accuracy when the noise ratio is 0, as we use the oracle previous dialogue state as the model input; with the increase of the noise ratio, the joint goal accuracy of Baseline gets a sharp decline, while MoNET degrades much more smoothly. Furthermore, for each dialogue turn, we also show the L2distance between the original and noised context representations, i.e., the mean pooling of all token representations Ht and H + t . As can be observed, along with the increase of noise ratio, the distance between the two representations of MoNET is much lower than that of Baseline. These results indicate that MoNET achieves a higher anti-noise ability by generating relatively similar representations for the original and noised contexts, which helps the DST model maintain an acceptable performance even with a high ratio of noise in its input. ## 5.6 Case Study And Attention Visualization Table 3 gives two prediction examples using MoNET and Baseline on the MultiWOZ 2.4 test set, corresponding to the two types of state momentum cases. In the first one, they correctly predict the slotvalue pair "train-day-Sunday", while only MoNET updates it in the next turn along with the ground truth changing into "train-day-Monday". In the second one, they make a wrong prediction "taxidestination-Gonville and Caius College". While Previous turns Previously predicted state Current turn     Figure 6: Attention visualizations of the two dialogue examples mentioned in Table 3. | Model | Accuracy | |--------------------------|----------------| | MinTL (Lin et al., 2020) | 52.07 | | MTTOD (Lee, 2021) | 53.56 | | PPTOD (Su et al., 2022) | 53.37 | | T5-base | 53.26 | | MoNET (T5-base) | 54.67 (↑ 1.41) | Baseline keeps it unchanged in the next turn, MoNET corrects it, resulting in a joint goal accuracy of 100% for the second turn. Besides, we further explore these two examples by calculating and visualizing the overall attention scores, which are shown in Figure 6. For each slot, its overall attention score over each token is the weighted sum of the self-attended scores by all tokens in Xt. The weights come from the slot-context attention, and the self-attended scores are the average of attention scores over multiple layers in BERT. As can be observed, Baseline pays more attention to the values in the previously predicted state, and fails to solve the state momentum issues; MoNET pays relatively higher attention to the correct tokens ("monday" in the first case and "autumn house" in the second case), and consequently, successfully updates Sunday into Monday and *corrects* Gonville and Caius College into Autumn House. These examples and attention visualizations indicate the effectiveness of our MoNET in alleviating the two types of state momentum issues. ## 5.7 Extension On Generation-Based Models In addition to the original classification-based MoNET model, we also evaluate our approach using a simple generation framework using T5base as the backbone pre-trained model (Raffel et al., 2020). The ontology is built from the database and training set annotations, which is $$\mathbf{i}$$   only used for noise value construction. The model framework is similar to the BERT-based MoNET in Figure 2(a), where the BERT encoders and slot-value matching modules are replaced with T5 encoders and decoders. The T5 encoders encode the dialogue context inputs, slots, and values. After deriving the slot-context attentive representations, the T5 decoders generate each slot-value pair. Table 4 shows the joint goal accuracy performance of the T5-based MoNET on the MultiWOZ 2.0 test set, compared with other end-to-end/generation-based models using the same T5-base pre-trainied model. As can be observed, our modified MoNET outperforms the T5-base backbone and others with the same T5-base model, indicating its effectiveness and adaptability for the implementation of generationbased methods. ## 6 Conclusion In this paper, we define and systematically analyze the state momentum issues in the DST task, and propose MoNET, a training strategy equipped with noised DST training and the contrastive context matching framework. Extensive experiments on MultiWOZ 2.0, 2.1, and 2.4 datasets verify its effectiveness compared with existing DST methods. Supplementary studies and analysis demonstrate that MoNET has a stronger anti-noise ability which helps alleviate the state momentum issues. ## Limitations Our proposed MoNET is a classification-based method requiring the pre-defined ontology containing all slot-value pairs. Moreover, during prediction, for each slot, its distance with all possible values is calculated, i.e., the prediction has to process 30 times, which is the number of slots in the MultiWOZ dataset. Compared with the generation methods that only process once and do not need ontology, our method is short in training efficiency and scalability. However, most task-oriented dialogue datasets contain their knowledge base containing slot value information, so it's acceptable to construct the ontology for random sampling. Besides, the results in Section 5.7 demonstrate that our method can be implemented into generation-based backbone models. ## Acknowledgements The work was supported in part by NSFC with Grant No. 62293482, the Basic Research Project No. HZQB-KCZYZ-2021067 of Hetao ShenzhenHK S&T Cooperation Zone, the National Key R&D Program of China with grant No. 2018YFB1800800, the Shenzhen Outstanding Talents Training Fund 202002, the Guangdong Research Projects No. 2017ZT07X152, No. 2019CX01X104, and No. 2021A1515011825, the Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Future Networks of Intelligence (Grant No. 2022B1212010001), the Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Big Data and Artificial Intelligence (Grant No. ZDSYS201707251409055), and the National Key R&D Program of China under Grant No. 2020AAA0108600. ## References Paul Baltescu and Phil Blunsom. 2015. Pragmatic neural language modelling in machine translation. In *Proceedings of the 2015 Conference of the* North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 820–829, Denver, Colorado. Association for Computational Linguistics. Paweł Budzianowski, Tsung-Hsien Wen, Bo-Hsiang Tseng, Iñigo Casanueva, Stefan Ultes, Osman Ramadan, and Milica Gašic. 2018. ´ MultiWOZ - a large-scale multi-domain Wizard-of-Oz dataset for task-oriented dialogue modelling. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 5016–5026, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Hengyi Cai, Hongshen Chen, Yonghao Song, Zhuoye Ding, Yongjun Bao, Weipeng Yan, and Xiaofang Zhao. 2020. Group-wise contrastive learning for neural dialogue generation. In *Findings of the* Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 793–802, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Junfan Chen, Richong Zhang, Yongyi Mao, and Jie Xu. 2020a. Parallel interactive networks for multidomain dialogue state generation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1921–1931, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Lu Chen, Boer Lv, Chi Wang, Su Zhu, Bowen Tan, and Kai Yu. 2020b. Schema-guided multi-domain dialogue state tracking with graph attention neural networks. In The Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2020, The Thirty-Second Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2020, The Tenth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2020, New York, NY, USA, February 7-12, 2020, pages 7521–7528. AAAI Press. Ting Chen, Simon Kornblith, Mohammad Norouzi, and Geoffrey E. Hinton. 2020c. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. 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 1597–1607. PMLR. Yinpei Dai, Hangyu Li, Yongbin Li, Jian Sun, Fei Huang, Luo Si, and Xiaodan Zhu. 2021. Preview, attend and review: Schema-aware curriculum learning for multi-domain dialogue state tracking. 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 879–885, Online. 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. Mihail Eric, Rahul Goel, Shachi Paul, Abhishek Sethi, Sanchit Agarwal, Shuyang Gao, Adarsh Kumar, Anuj Goyal, Peter Ku, and Dilek Hakkani-Tur. 2020. MultiWOZ 2.1: A consolidated multidomain dialogue dataset with state corrections and state tracking baselines. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 422–428, Marseille, France. European Language Resources Association. Yue Feng, Aldo Lipani, Fanghua Ye, Qiang Zhang, and Emine Yilmaz. 2022. Dynamic schema graph fusion network for multi-domain dialogue state tracking. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 115–126, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yue Feng, Yang Wang, and Hang Li. 2021. A sequence-to-sequence approach to dialogue state tracking. 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 1714–1725, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tianyu Gao, Xingcheng Yao, and Danqi Chen. 2021. SimCSE: Simple contrastive learning of sentence embeddings. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6894–6910, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Michael Heck, Carel van Niekerk, Nurul Lubis, Christian Geishauser, Hsien-Chin Lin, Marco Moresi, and Milica Gasic. 2020. TripPy: A triple copy strategy for value independent neural dialog state tracking. In Proceedings of the 21th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 35–44, 1st virtual meeting. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ehsan Hosseini-Asl, Bryan McCann, Chien-Sheng Wu, Semih Yavuz, and Richard Socher. 2020. A simple language model for task-oriented dialogue. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 6-12, 2020, virtual. Sungdong Kim, Sohee Yang, Gyuwan Kim, and SangWoo Lee. 2020. Efficient dialogue state tracking by selectively overwriting memory. In *Proceedings* of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 567–582, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tassilo Klein and Moin Nabi. 2020. Contrastive selfsupervised learning for commonsense reasoning. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7517–7523, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Byung-Jun Lee and Kee-Eung Kim. 2016. Dialog history construction with long-short term memory for robust generative dialog state tracking. Dialogue & Discourse, 7(3):47–64. Chia-Hsuan Lee, Hao Cheng, and Mari Ostendorf. 2021. Dialogue state tracking with a language model using schema-driven prompting. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4937–4949, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Hwaran Lee, Jinsik Lee, and Tae-Yoon Kim. 2019. SUMBT: Slot-utterance matching for universal and scalable belief tracking. In *Proceedings* of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5478–5483, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yohan Lee. 2021. Improving end-to-end task-oriented dialog system with a simple auxiliary task. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, pages 1296–1303, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. 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. Shiyang Li, Semih Yavuz, Kazuma Hashimoto, Jia Li, Tong Niu, Nazneen Fatema Rajani, Xifeng Yan, Yingbo Zhou, and Caiming Xiong. 2021. Coco: Controllable counterfactuals for evaluating dialogue state trackers. In *9th International Conference on* Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Virtual Event, Austria, May 3-7, 2021. OpenReview.net. Weizhe Lin, Bo-Hsiang Tseng, and Bill Byrne. 2021. Knowledge-aware graph-enhanced GPT-2 for dialogue state tracking. In *Proceedings of the* 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7871–7881, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Zhaojiang Lin, Andrea Madotto, Genta Indra Winata, and Pascale Fung. 2020. MinTL: Minimalist transfer learning for task-oriented dialogue systems. In *Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on* Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 3391–3405, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2019. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In *7th International* Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2019, New Orleans, LA, USA, May 6-9, 2019. OpenReview.net. Tomás Mikolov, Kai Chen, Greg Corrado, and Jeffrey Dean. 2013. Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. In *1st International* Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2013, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA, May 2-4, 2013, Workshop Track Proceedings. Andriy Mnih and Yee Whye Teh. 2012. A fast and simple algorithm for training neural probabilistic language models. In *Proceedings of the 29th* International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2012, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, June 26 - July 1, 2012. icml.cc / Omnipress. Nikola Mrkšic, Diarmuid Ó Séaghdha, Tsung-Hsien ´ Wen, Blaise Thomson, and Steve Young. 2017. Neural belief tracker: Data-driven dialogue state tracking. In *Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting* of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1777–1788, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yawen Ouyang, Moxin Chen, Xinyu Dai, Yinggong Zhao, Shujian Huang, and Jiajun Chen. 2020. Dialogue state tracking with explicit slot connection modeling. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 34–40, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Matthew E. Peters, Mark Neumann, Mohit Iyyer, Matt Gardner, Christopher Clark, Kenton Lee, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. Deep contextualized word representations. 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 2227–2237, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. 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-totext transformer. *J. Mach. Learn. Res.*, 21:140:1– 140:67. Abhinav Rastogi, Dílek Hakkani-Tür, and Larry Heck. 2017. Scalable multi-domain dialogue state tracking. In 2017 IEEE Automatic Speech Recognition and Understanding Workshop (ASRU), pages 561–568. Liliang Ren, Kaige Xie, Lu Chen, and Kai Yu. 2018. Towards universal dialogue state tracking. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2780–2786, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yixuan Su, Lei Shu, Elman Mansimov, Arshit Gupta, Deng Cai, Yi-An Lai, and Yi Zhang. 2022. Multi-task pre-training for plug-and-play task-oriented dialogue system. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4661–4676, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Haipeng Sun, Junwei Bao, Youzheng Wu, and Xiaodong He. 2022. BORT: Back and denoising reconstruction for end-to-end task-oriented dialog. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022, pages 2156–2170, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Haipeng Sun, Junwei Bao, Youzheng Wu, and Xiaodong He. 2023. Mars: Semantic-aware contrastive learning for end-to-end task-oriented dialog. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. Blaise Thomson and Steve Young. 2010. Bayesian update of dialogue state: A pomdp framework for spoken dialogue systems. Computer Speech & Language, 24(4):562–588. Xin Tian, Liankai Huang, Yingzhan Lin, Siqi Bao, Huang He, Yunyi Yang, Hua Wu, Fan Wang, and Shuqi Sun. 2021. Amendable generation for dialogue state tracking. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Natural Language Processing for Conversational AI, pages 80–92, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. 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. Dong Wang, Ning Ding, Piji Li, and Haitao Zheng. 2021. CLINE: Contrastive learning with semantic negative examples for natural language understanding. 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 2332–2342, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yexiang Wang, Yi Guo, and Siqi Zhu. 2020. Slot attention with value normalization for multi-domain dialogue state tracking. In *Proceedings of the* 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 3019–3028, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yifan Wang, Jing Zhao, Junwei Bao, Chaoqun Duan, Youzheng Wu, and Xiaodong He. 2022. LUNA: Learning slot-turn alignment for dialogue state tracking. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 3319–3328, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tsung-Hsien Wen, David Vandyke, Nikola Mrkšic,´ Milica Gašic, Lina M. Rojas-Barahona, Pei-Hao Su, ´ Stefan Ultes, and Steve Young. 2017. A networkbased end-to-end trainable task-oriented dialogue system. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Volume 1, Long Papers, pages 438–449, Valencia, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jason D. Williams and Steve Young. 2007. Partially observable markov decision processes for spoken dialog systems. *Computer Speech & Language*, 21(2):393–422. Chien-Sheng Wu, Andrea Madotto, Ehsan HosseiniAsl, Caiming Xiong, Richard Socher, and Pascale Fung. 2019. Transferable multi-domain state generator for task-oriented dialogue systems. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 808–819, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Puyang Xu and Qi Hu. 2018. An end-to-end approach for handling unknown slot values in dialogue state tracking. In *Proceedings of the 56th Annual* Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1448–1457, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yuanmeng Yan, Rumei Li, Sirui Wang, Fuzheng Zhang, Wei Wu, and Weiran Xu. 2021. ConSERT: A contrastive framework for self-supervised sentence representation transfer. 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 5065–5075, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yunyi Yang, Yunhao Li, and Xiaojun Quan. 2021. UBAR: towards fully end-to-end task-oriented dialog system with GPT-2. 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 29, 2021, pages 14230–14238. AAAI Press. Fanghua Ye, Yue Feng, and Emine Yilmaz. 2022a. ASSIST: Towards label noise-robust dialogue state tracking. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022, pages 2719–2731, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Fanghua Ye, Jarana Manotumruksa, and Emine Yilmaz. 2022b. MultiWOZ 2.4: A multi-domain taskoriented dialogue dataset with essential annotation corrections to improve state tracking evaluation. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 351–360, Edinburgh, UK. Association for Computational Linguistics. Fanghua Ye, Jarana Manotumruksa, Qiang Zhang, Shenghui Li, and Emine Yilmaz. 2021. Slot selfattentive dialogue state tracking. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021, WWW '21, page 1598–1608, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. Steve Young, Milica Gašic, Simon Keizer, François ´ Mairesse, Jost Schatzmann, Blaise Thomson, and Kai Yu. 2010. The hidden information state model: A practical framework for pomdp-based spoken dialogue management. *Computer Speech &* Language, 24(2):150–174. Tao Yu, Rui Zhang, Alex Polozov, Christopher Meek, and Ahmed Hassan Awadallah. 2021. Score: Pretraining for context representation in conversational semantic parsing. In *9th International Conference* on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Virtual Event, Austria, May 3-7, 2021. OpenReview.net. Yan Zeng and Jian-Yun Nie. 2020. Jointly optimizing state operation prediction and value generation for dialogue state tracking. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2010.14061. Haoning Zhang, Junwei Bao, Haipeng Sun, Huaishao Luo, Wenye Li, and Shuguang Cui. 2022. CSS: Combining self-training and selfsupervised learning for few-shot dialogue state tracking. In *Proceedings of the 2nd Conference* of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 12th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 302–310, Online only. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jianguo Zhang, Kazuma Hashimoto, Chien-Sheng Wu, Yao Wang, Philip Yu, Richard Socher, and Caiming Xiong. 2020. Find or classify? dual strategy for slot-value predictions on multidomain dialog state tracking. In Proceedings of the Ninth Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, pages 154–167, Barcelona, Spain (Online). Association for Computational Linguistics. Su Zhu, Jieyu Li, Lu Chen, and Kai Yu. 2020. Efficient context and schema fusion networks for multi-domain dialogue state tracking. In *Findings* of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 766–781, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? The final section after Conclusion 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 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 4 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.? Section 4 ✓ 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?** 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 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? No response. 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? No response. 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.)? No response. 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.

cheng-etal-2023-pal

{PAL}: Persona-Augmented Emotional Support Conversation Generation

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.34

Due to the lack of human resources for mental health support, there is an increasing demand for employing conversational agents for support. Recent work has demonstrated the effectiveness of dialogue models in providing emotional support. As previous studies have demonstrated that seekers{'} persona is an important factor for effective support, we investigate whether there are benefits to modeling such information in dialogue models for support. In this paper, our empirical analysis verifies that persona has an important impact on emotional support. Therefore, we propose a framework for dynamically inferring and modeling seekers{'} persona. We first train a model for inferring the seeker{'}s persona from the conversation history. Accordingly, we propose PAL, a model that leverages persona information and, in conjunction with our strategy-based controllable generation method, provides personalized emotional support. Automatic and manual evaluations demonstrate that PAL achieves state-of-the-art results, outperforming the baselines on the studied benchmark. Our code and data are publicly available at \url{https://github.com/chengjl19/PAL}.

# Pal: Persona-Augmented Emotional Support Conversation Generation Jiale Cheng∗, Sahand Sabour∗**, Hao Sun , Zhuang Chen , Minlie Huang**† The CoAI group, DCST; Institute for Artificial Intelligence; State Key Lab of Intelligent Technology and Systems; Beijing National Research Center for Information Science and Technology; Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China. {chengjl19,sm22,h-sun20,zhchen-nlp}@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn, aihuang@tsinghua.edu.cn ## Abstract  Due to the lack of human resources for mental health support, there is an increasing demand for employing conversational agents for support. Recent work has demonstrated the effectiveness of dialogue models in providing emotional support. As previous studies have demonstrated that seekers' persona is an important factor for effective support, we investigate whether there are benefits to modeling such information in dialogue models for support. In this paper, our empirical analysis verifies that persona has an important impact on emotional support. Therefore, we propose a framework for dynamically inferring and modeling seekers' persona. We first train a model for inferring the seeker's persona from the conversation history. Accordingly, we propose PAL, a model that leverages persona information and, in conjunction with our strategybased controllable generation method, provides personalized emotional support. Automatic and manual evaluations demonstrate that PAL achieves state-of-the-art results, outperforming the baselines on the studied benchmark. Our code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/chengjl19/PAL. ## 1 Introduction A growing number of people are experiencing mental health issues, particularly during the Covid-19 pandemic (Hossain et al., 2020; Talevi et al., 2020; Cullen et al., 2020; Kumar and Nayar, 2021), and more and more people are seeking mental health support. The high costs and limited availability of support provided by professional mental health supporters or counselors (Kazdin and Blase, 2011; Olfson, 2016; Denecke et al., 2020; Peterson, 2021) have highlighted the importance of employing conversational agents and chatbots for automating this task (Cameron et al., 2018; Daley et al., 2020; Denecke et al., 2020; Kraus et al., 2021). Towards this end, Liu et al. (2021) pioneered the task of emotional support conversation generation to reduce users' emotional distress and improve their mood using language models. They collected ESConv, a high-quality crowd-sourced dataset of conversations (with annotated helping strategies) between support seekers and trained emotional supporters, and demonstrated that training large pretrained dialogue models on this dataset enabled these models to provide effective support. Tu et al. (2022) proposed to leverage commonsense knowledge and implemented hybrid strategies to improve the performance of dialogue models in this task. Similarly, Peng et al. (2022) also suggested using commonsense knowledge for this task and further proposed a global-to-local graph network to model local and global hierarchical relationships. More recently, Cheng et al. (2022) proposed look-ahead ∗Equal contribution. †Corresponding author. 535 strategy planning to select strategies that are more effective for long-turn interactions. Although previous studies have considered relevant psychological theories and factors, such as commonsense reasoning, they neglect information regarding the users' persona. Persona, which can be considered as an outward expression of personality (Leary and Allen, 2011) in Psychology, is also closely related to empathy (Richendoller and Weaver III, 1994; Costa et al., 2014), anxiety (Smrdu et al., 2021), frustration (Jeronimus and Laceulle, 2017), mental health (Michinov and Michinov, 2021) and distress (Liu et al., 2018), all of which are essential concepts in psychological scenarios. Effective emotional support benefits from an adequate understanding of the support seeker's personality, as shown by research on person-centered therapy (Rogers, 2013), while more specific and persona-related words lead to a long-term rapport with the user (Campos et al., 2018). Thus, the inability to actively combine persona information and conversations prevents users from developing such rapport with the system (Xu et al., 2022), which is not desirable for emotional support. Therefore, it is intuitive to explore seekers' personas and build systems for providing personalized emotional support. In this paper, we propose Persona-Augmented EmotionaL Support (PAL), a conversational model that learns to dynamically leverage seekers' personas to generate more informative and personalized responses for effective emotional support. To more closely match realistic scenarios (no prior knowledge of the user's persona) and retain important user information from earlier conversation rounds, we first extract persona information about the seeker based on the conversation history and design an attention mechanism to enhance the understanding of the seeker. Furthermore, we propose a strategy-based controllable generation method to actively incorporate persona information in responses for a better rapport with the user. We conduct our experiments on the ESConv dataset (Liu et al., 2021). Our results demonstrate that PAL outperforms the baselines in automatic and manual evaluations, providing more personalized and effective emotional support. We summarize our contributions as follows: - To the best of our knowledge, our work is the first approach that proposes to leverage persona information for emotional support. - We propose a model for dynamically extracting and modeling seekers' persona information and a strategy-based decoding approach for controllable generations. - Our analysis of the relationship between the degree of individuality and the effect of emotional support, in addition to the conducted experiments on the ESConv dataset and comparisons with the baselines, highlights the necessity and effectiveness of modeling and leveraging seekers' persona information. ## 2 Related Work 2.1 Persona In Conversation Generation There are extensive studies on leveraging persona information in dialogue (Huang et al., 2020). However, it's important to note that the definition of persona in this context differs from its definition in Psychology. In dialogue systems, persona refers to the user's characteristics, preferences, and contextual information, which are incorporated to enhance the system's understanding and generation capabilities. Li et al. (2016b) proposed using persona embeddings to model background information, such as the users' speaking style, which improved speaker consistency in conversations. However, as stated by Xu et al. (2022), this approach is less interpretable. Therefore, several approaches to directly and naturally integrate persona information into the conversation were proposed (Zhang et al., 2018; Wolf et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2021). Zhang et al. (2018) collected PERSONA-CHAT, a high-quality dataset with annotated personas for conversations collected by crowd-sourcing workers. This dataset has been widely used to further explore personalized conversation models and how persona could benefit response generation in conversations (Wolf et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2021). However, it is relatively difficult to implement users' personas in real-world applications, as requiring users to provide information regarding their personas prior to conversations is impractical and unnatural. Xu et al. (2022) addressed this problem by training classifiers that determine whether sentences in the conversation history include persona information. Accordingly, they store such sentences and leverage them to generate responses. However, in many cases, users do not explicitly express persona information in the conversation, which often requires a certain level of reasoning. For instance, a user may say, "My friend likes to play Frisbee, so do I", which does not contain any explicit persona information, but one could infer that the user likes to play Frisbee. In this work, we aim to infer possible persona information from the conversation history to assist our model in better understanding the user. ## 2.2 Emotional Support In recent years, an increasing number of approaches have focused on emotional and empathetic response generation (Zhou et al., 2018; Zhong et al., 2020; Kim et al., 2021; Gao et al., 2021a; Zheng et al., 2021; Sabour et al., 2022b). However, although such concepts are essential, they are insufficient for providing effective support as this task requires tackling the user's problem via various appropriate support strategies while exploring and understanding their mood and situation (Liu et al., 2021; Zheng et al., 2022). Therefore, Liu et al. (2021) proposed the task of Emotional Support Conversation Generation and created a set of high-quality conversations between trained crowd-sourcing workers. Their work demonstrated that training widely-used dialogue models, such as Blenderbot (Roller et al., 2021), on their collected dataset enabled such models to provide effective emotional support. Following their work, Tu et al. (2022) proposed leveraging external commonsense knowledge to better understand the users' emotions and suggested using a mixture of strategies for response generation. Peng et al. (2022) implemented a hierarchical graph network to model the associations between global causes and local intentions within the conversation. Cheng et al. (2022) proposed multi-turn strategy planning to assist in choosing strategies that are long-term beneficial. However, existing work has not explored the effects of dynamically modeling users' persona information in this task, which we hypothesize improves models' emotional support ability and enables more personalized support. ## 3 **Persona-Augmented Emotional Support** Figure 2 shows the overall flow of our approach. We first infer the seeker's persona information from the conversation history and then leverage the inferred information to generate a response. Our approach is comprised of three major components: The persona extractor for inferring the seeker's  persona information (§3.2); The response generator that leverages the inferred persona information and generates the response distribution (§3.3); A strategy-based controllable decoding method for generating appropriate responses (§3.4). ## 3.1 Problem Formulation For inferring users' personas, we leveraged the PERSONA-CHAT dataset (Zhang et al., 2018), a high-quality collection of conversations between crowd-sourcing workers assigned with a set of predefined persona sentences. Assume that a conversation between two speakers A and B is represented as D = {u A 1 , uB 1 , uA 2 , uB 2 , . . . , uA n, uB n }, where u A i and u B irepresent the respective utterances of each speaker in the conversation, and n indicates the number of utterances. Accordingly, assume that each speaker has a set of persona information PA = {p A 1 , . . . , pAmA} and PB = {p B 1 , . . . , pBmB}, where p A iand p B irepresent the persona sentences for each speaker, respectively. Our pioneer task is to infer a speaker's persona information based on their utterances in the conversation (e.g., inferring PA from UA = {u A 1 , uA 2 , . . . , uA n }). As mentioned, we adopt the ESConv dataset (Liu et al., 2021) to train our model for providing emotional support. Assume that a conversation between a support seeker A and supporter B at the t th turn of the conversation is D = {u A 1 , uB 1 , uA 2 , uB 2 , . . . , uA t }, where u A iand u B irepresent the utterances of the seeker and the supporter, respectively. Our task is two-fold: First, we infer the seeker's persona information PA from their utterances UA = {u A 1 , uA 2 , . . . , uA t }. Accordingly, we leverage the inferred information PA and conversation history D to generate an appropriate supportive response u B t . ## 3.2 Persona Extractor As previously stated, it is beneficial and essential to study the effects of leveraging persona information in the emotional support task. As predicting the seeker's persona information before the conversation is impractical, inferring such information from their utterances is necessary. Based on the problem formulation in §3.1, we fine-tune a bart-large-cnn1to augment the ESConv (Liu et al., 2021) dataset with the inferred persona information annotations for each turn of the conversations. More details can be found in Appendix A. Since the initial utterances of this dataset generally contain greetings, we annotate the persona information starting from the third utterance of the conversation. Table 1 shows an example of such annotations. We refer to this dataset with the additional annotations as Personalized Emotional Support Conversation (PESConv). We analyze PESConv to confirm that modeling persona is essential for emotional support. In the original ESConv dataset, workers score conversations based on the supporter's empathy level, the relevance between the conversation topic and the supporter's responses, and the intensity of the seeker's emotion. For each of these three aspects, we calculate the average cosine similarity between the responses and persona information in a conversation to examine how closely the responses and persona information are related. For this task, we leverage SimCSE (Gao et al., 2021b), a sentence embedding model trained with a contrastive learning approach, to obtain vector representations for the sentences in PESConv. As illustrated in Figure 3, clearer and more appropriate mentions of the seekers' persona in the supporters' response lead to higher values for the studied aspects (i.e. higher empathy, more relevance, and a larger decrease in emotional intensity). Therefore, we believe this further highlights the necessity of modeling persona information in providing effective emotional support. Moreover, we use fastText (Joulin et al., 2017), which represents sentences as averaged word embeddings, and the results (Appendix B) demonstrate similar findings. ## 3.3 Modeling Seekers' Persona As illustrated in Figure 2, our model considers persona information as the model input in addition to the dialogue history. Formally, we use Transformer (Vaswani et al., 2017) encoders to obtain the inputs' hidden representations, which can be expressed as $$\begin{array}{l}\mathbf{H}_{D}=\mathbf{Enc}(u_{1},\mathbf{SEP},u_{2},\ldots,u_{n})\\ \mathbf{H}_{P}=\mathbf{Enc}(p_{1},\mathbf{SEP},p_{2},\ldots,p_{m}),\end{array}\tag{1}$$ where Enc is the Transformer encoder, and m and n represent the number of persona sentences and conversation utterances, respectively. We use the special token SEP for sentence separation. To highlight the context related to seekers' persona, we calculate an extra attention ZD on HD and obtain a new hidden representation Hˆ D for dialogue history as follows: $$\begin{array}{l}{{Z_{D}=\mathrm{softmax}(\mathbf{H}_{D}\cdot\mathbf{H}_{P}^{T})\cdot\mathbf{H}_{P}}}\\ {{\hat{\mathbf{H}}_{D}=\mathrm{LN}(\mathbf{H}_{D}+\mathbf{Z}_{D})}}\end{array}$$ $$\mathbf{(2)}$$ where LN stands for the LayerNorm operation (Ba et al., 2016). Similarly, to promote persona sentences that are more aligned with the provided context, we obtain HˆP by $$\begin{array}{l}{{Z_{P}=\mathrm{softmax}(\mathbf{H}_{P}\cdot\mathbf{H}_{D}^{T})\cdot\mathbf{H}_{D}}}\\ {{\hat{\mathbf{H}}_{P}=\mathrm{LN}(\mathbf{H}_{P}+\mathbf{Z}_{P}).}}\end{array}$$ $$(3)$$ This also enables us to neglect the inferred persona sentences that are incorrect or irrelevant to the dialogue history. Since we cannot guarantee that inferred persona information is complete, we calculate the weighted sum of Hˆ D, HˆP and HD to obtain the final hidden states as the decoder's input as follows: $$\begin{array}{l}{{H_{f i n a l}=\lambda_{1}\cdot\hat{H}_{D}+\lambda_{2}\cdot\hat{H}_{P}+\lambda_{3}\cdot H_{D}}}\\ {{\lambda_{i}=\frac{e^{w_{i}}}{\sum_{j}e^{w_{j}}}(i,j\in\{1,2,3\}),}}\end{array}\tag{4}$$ where w1, w2, w3 are additional model parameters with the same initial value. This ensures that the 1https://huggingface.co/facebook/ bart-large-cnn Conversation Persona Seeker: Hello — Supporter: Hi there! How may I support you today? — Seeker: I'm just feeling anxious about my job's future. A lot of my colleagues are having trouble getting their licenses because of covid which means we won't be able to work. I am worried about my job's future. Supporter: That must be hard. COVID has turned our world upside down! What type of occupation are you in? I am worried about my job's future. Seeker: I'm studying to be a pharmacist. I am worried about my job's future. I'm studying to be a pharmacist. Table 1: An example conversation from PESConv. This conversation contains 5 utterances, where "—" indicates  that no persona information was found. Once detected, new inferences are added to the seekers' persona. (a) Empathy (b) Relevance (c) Decrease in Emotional Intensity essence of the original dialogue context is largely preserved. Similar to (Liu et al., 2021), we use special tokens to represent strategies and append them in front of the corresponding sentences. Our training objective can be formalized as: $${\hat{r}}=s\oplus r$$ $$\begin{array}{l}{{r=s\oplus r}}\\ {{{\mathcal{L}}=-{\frac{1}{N}}\sum_{t=1}^{N}\log P({\hat{r}}_{t}|d,p,{\hat{r}}_{<t})}}\end{array}\qquad(5)$$ where s stands for the strategy, r for the response, and N is the length of rˆ. ## 3.4 Strategy-Based Controllable Generation Supporters' responses in the emotional support task are annotated based on several support strategies, which are essential for providing effective support (Liu et al., 2021). For instance, the supporter may choose to ask a *Question* or provide statements of Reaffirmation and Confirmation depending on the situation. We provide more descriptions of these strategies in Appendix C. Accordingly, it becomes intuitive that selecting different strategies corresponds to the available knowledge of the users'  persona, demonstrating the importance of strategy selection in our proposed approach. For instance, supporters could choose *Providing Suggestions* if they have sufficient knowledge of the user's persona and situation, while they would resort to *Question* if they lack such information. Therefore, we propose an innovative strategy-based controllable generation method for the decoding phase. We decompose the generation probability into $$\begin{array}{c}{{P_{f i n a l}(r_{t}|r_{<t},d,p)\propto P(r_{t}|r_{<t},d,p).}}\\ {{(\frac{P(r_{t}|r_{<t},d,p)}{P(r_{t}|r_{<t},d)})^{\alpha}}}\end{array}\quad\mathrm{(6)}$$ where α is the hyperparameter associated with the strategy, and d and p represent the dialogue history and persona, respectively. Both P(rt|r<t*, d, p*) and P(rt|r<t, d) are calculated by our model; the only difference is that persona is not included in calculating P(rt|r<t, d). The last term in this equation can be interpreted as the ratio of the probability Strategy α **Category** Question 0 low Restatement or Paraphrasing 0.75 high Reflection of Feelings 0 low Self-disclosure 0 low Affirmation and Reassurance 0.75 high Providing Suggestions 0.75 high Information 0.75 high Others 0.375 medium of a token whether the persona is entered or not. As the ratio increases, the token becomes more relevant to persona information, increasing the likelihood of generating the token after adding such persona information. Therefore, employing Eq.6 increases the likelihood of more relevant tokens to the persona information. α is set to different values depending on the strategy. The values used by all strategies are listed in Table 2. We investigate the values of α corresponding to different strategies and define three categories: high, medium, and low, which correspond to 0.75, 0.375, and 0, respectively. More details about the tuning process of these values are discussed in Appendix D. We provide explanations for two of our decided α values. For effective support, there are two types of questions (*Question* strategy) that can be asked from the seeker (Ivey et al., 2013): open and closed. Therefore, we choose the low level to avoid overthinking persona information, resulting in fewer open questions. We chose the high level for the Providing Suggestions strategy, as we needed to focus more on the persona information to provide more appropriate and specific suggestions. See Appendix E for explanations regarding the α of other strategies. ## 4 Experiments 4.1 Persona Extractor Evaluation Human Evaluation To validate the effectiveness of our persona extractor model, we first manually reviewed several inferences and discovered that the main errors could be categorized as contradictions (i.e., personas contain factual errors) or hallucinations (i.e., personas contain unreasonable and irrelevant deductions from the conversation). An example of contradictions would be if the seeker mentions in the conversation that he is a man, but the inferred persona is "I am a woman". Moreover, an instance of hallucination errors would be if the inferred persona is "I am a plumber" when the seeker has not mentioned their occupation. Then, we chose 100 samples at random and hired workers on Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT) to annotate each sample with one of the following four options: Reasonable, Contradictory, Hallucinatory, or Others. In addition, if the option Others was chosen, we asked workers to elaborate on the error. The annotators considered 87.3% of the inferred persona samples as Reasonable while marking 8% and 4% of the samples as Contradictory and Hallucinatory, respectively. Moreover, only 0.667% of the samples were marked as Others. However, upon further analysis, we found that such samples could also be classified in one of the mentioned error categories (see Appendix F for more details). The inter-annotator agreement, measured by Fleiss's kappa, was 0.458, indicating moderate agreement. ## 4.2 Baselines Blenderbot-Joint (Liu et al., 2021): Blenderbot (Roller et al., 2021) fine-tuned on the ESConv dataset. This model is trained to predict the correct strategy for the next response via the language modeling objective. In addition, this model can also be seen as PAL trained without incorporating persona. MISC (Tu et al., 2022): the state-of-the-art (SOTA) on the ESConv benchmark, which leverages commonsense reasoning to better understand the seeker's emotions and implements a mixture of strategies to craft more supportive responses. Hard Prompt: this model employs a straightforward idea when modeling seekers' persona information in the emotional support task, in which persona information is concatenated to the dialogue history. That is, the input to the model would be in the form "Persona: {persona} \n Dialogue history: {context} \n *Response:* ". ## 4.3 Implementation Details We conducted the experiments on PESConv and use a 7:2:1 ratio to split this dataset into the train, validation, and test sets. As Liu et al. (2021) stated, Blenderbot (Roller et al., 2021) outperforms DialoGPT (Zhang et al., 2020) in this task. Therefore, similar to previous work (Liu et al., 2021; Tu Model ACC↑ PPL↓ B-2↑ B-4↑ D-1↑ D-2↑ E-1↑ E-2↑ R-L↑ **Cos-Sim**↑ Blenderbot-Joint 27.72 18.11 5.57 1.93 3.74 20.66 4.23 20.28 16.36 0.184 MISC 31.34 16.28 6.60 1.99 4.53 19.75 5.69 30.76 17.21 0.187 Hard Prompt 34.24 17.06 7.57 2.53 **5.15** 25.47 6.02 31.64 18.12 0.199 PAL (α = 0) 34.25 **15.92 9.28 2.90** 4.72 25.56 5.87 33.05 **18.27** 0.229 PAL **34.51 15.92** 8.75 2.66 5.00 **30.27 6.73 41.82** 18.06 **0.244** Table 3: The results of automatic metrics evaluation for each model on ESConv. PAL (α = 0) represents setting the α of each strategy to 0, thus neglecting our proposed controllable generation decoding method. PAL vs. **Blenderbot-Joint MISC PAL (**α = 0) Win Lose Draw Win Lose Draw Win Lose Draw Coherence 68‡ 26 6 54† 34 12 46 48 6 Identification 42 44 14 46 42 12 58‡ 32 10 Comforting 50‡ 32 18 62‡ 24 14 44 42 14 Suggestion 54‡ 32 14 **42 42** 16 46 38 16 Information 44† 34 22 62‡ 22 16 52 44 4 Overall 52‡ 16 32 44‡ 28 28 40‡ 28 32 et al., 2022), we used the 90M version of Blenderbot (Roller et al., 2021). Moreover, we used the AdamW (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2018) optimizer with β1 = 0.9 and β2 = 0.999. We initialized the learning rate as 2.5e-5 and performed a 100step linear warmup. The training and validation batch sizes were set to 4 and 16, respectively. The model was trained for 10 epochs, and we chose the checkpoint with the lowest loss on the validation set. During the decoding phase, we used both Top-k and Top-p sampling with k = 10, p = 0.9, with temperature and the repetition penalty set to set to 0.5 and 1.03, respectively. The experiments were run on a single Quadro RTX 6000 GPU using the transformers library2(Wolf et al., 2020). ## 4.4 Automatic Evaluation We adopted strategy prediction accuracy (ACC), perplexity (PPL), BLEU-n (B-n) (Papineni et al., 2002), Distinct-n (D-n) (Li et al., 2016a), EAD-n (E-n) (Liu et al., 2022), Rouge-L (R-L) (Lin, 2004), and the mean of the cosine similarity between supporters' responses and personas using the SimCSE (Gao et al., 2021b) representation (cos-sim) to automatically evaluate our model's performance. In addition, since the responses in this task are often long, we also leveraged the Expectancy-Adjusted Distinct (EAD) score to evaluate response diversity as the Distinct score has been shown to be biased 2https://github.com/huggingface/transformers towards longer sentences (Liu et al., 2022). To calculate this score, rather than dividing the number of unique n-grams by the total number of n-grams, as done in the original Distinct score, we would use the model's vocabulary size as the denominator. As shown in Table 3, PAL outperforms all baselines in automatic metrics, including the current SOTA model MISC. As Blenderbot-Joint can be perceived as PAL without persona employed in training, the significance of persona can be demonstrated through the comparison of the results achieved by PAL and PAL (α = 0) with Blenderbot-Joint. In addition, compared to PAL (α = 0), PAL demonstrates a more balanced performance and has the best strategy prediction accuracy, diversity, and better alignment with persona information, which indicates more seeker-specific responses. Interestingly, the cos-sim value for PAL is comparable to the mean value of the dialogues with an empathy score of 5 in Figure 3(a). Through further comparing the performance of PAL and PAL (α = 0), we can see that our strategy-based decoding approach significantly improves the dialogue diversity, as shown by D-n and E-n, which are more important metrics for dialogue systems than B-n and R-L (Liu et al., 2016; Gupta et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2022). In Figure 4, we show the accuracy of the top-n strategy prediction results and our model PAL has the best results. It is worth noting that all models | Situation | | |------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Seeker | I have just cheated on my girlfriend. I feel very guilty about it. Dialogue history | | Seeker | Hi, my friend. | | Supporter | Hello ! How are you doing? | | Seeker | Feeling very shame | | Seeker | But till now my girlfriend don't know about it. But her mom is now targeting me for her sexual desire. Persona Information | | Seeker | I am feeling ashamed. | | Seeker | I have cheated on my girlfriend with her mother Response | | Blenderbot-Joint | I understand, I know how you feel. (Poor Empathy) | | MISC | I think you will be fine. (Poor Empathy) | | Hard Prompt | Oh no, I am so sorry, that is not good. (Poor Empathy) | | PAL (α = 0) | I understand it is hard, so now you have to forgive her. (Less Proper Suggestion) I understand how that can be hard. I would suggest you to talk to her mother, | | PAL | tell her that you feel ashamed about it and don't cheat on your girlfriend again. (Strong Empathy) | | Ground-truth | You have got such a nice girlfriend, have a happy life with her. | with persona information, PAL, PAL (α = 0), and Hard Prompt, all outperform MISC, demonstrating the importance of seekers' persona and highlighting the need for further research into how to better leverage such information in addition to commonsense reasoning. ## 4.5 Human Evaluation We acknowledge that automatic metrics are insufficient for empirically evaluating and highlighting  the improvements of our proposed method. Hence, following Liu et al. (2021), we also conducted human evaluation by recruiting crowd-sourcing workers that interacted with the models. We provided workers with a scenario and asked them to act as seekers in those situations. Each worker must interact with two different models and score them in terms of (1) Coherence; (2) Identification; (3) Comforting; (4) Suggestion; (5) Informativeness; and (6) Overall Preference. Detailed explanations for each aspect can be found in Appendix F. As shown in Table 4, we compare PAL with the other three models, and PAL beats or is competitive with other methods on all of the above metrics. It performs well on three key metrics more closely aligned with persona (i.e., Comforting, Suggestion, and Information), implying that persona is required in emotional support. 5 Case Study In Table 5, we provide an example to compare the responses of our approach with the other methods. As can be seen, the Blenderbot-Joint, MISC, and Hard Prompt methods all provide only very poor empathy, with responses that are very general and do not contain much information. Whereas PAL (α = 0), which does not use the strategy-based decoding method, is more specific but provides a less appropriate suggestion. Our model PAL shows strong empathy, is the most specific while providing appropriate suggestions, and incorporates persona information in the response (*feel ashamed* and don't cheat on your girlfriend again). Due to space constraints, more cases, including cases of interactions and analysis over different strategies, can be found in Appendix G. ## 6 Conclusion In this work, we introduced persona information into the emotional support task. We proposed a framework that can dynamically capture seekers' persona information, infer persona information using our trained persona extractor, and generate responses with a strategy-based controllable generation method. Through extensive experiments, we demonstrated that our proposed approach outperformed the studied baselines in both human and manual evaluation. In addition, we provided persona annotations for the ESConv dataset using the persona extractor model, which will foster the research of personalized emotional support conversations. ## Limitations Persona extractor First, we need to clarify that our definition of persona is not exactly psychological, the role an individual plays in life (Jung, 2013). As a result, like previous studies (e.g., Persona-Chat (Zhang et al., 2018), PEC (Zhong et al., 2020)), the format of persona is flexible and variable. As stated in §4.1, there are still some issues with the model we use to infer persona information. For example, we sometimes get information that contradicts the facts. And also, there is occasionally unrelated content, as with commonsense reasoning (Tu et al., 2022). Furthermore, we cannot guarantee that we can infer all of the persona information that appears in the conversation because much of it is frequently obscure. And when extracting persona information, we only use what the user said previously and remove what the bot said, which results in the loss of some conversation information. The reason for this is that we have discovered that if we use the entire conversation, the model frequently has difficulty distinguishing which persona information belongs to the user and which belongs to the other party. In addition, since the code of Xu et al. (2022) is not yet available, we have not compared other methods of extracting persona dynamically from the conversation. Strategy-based decoding During the decoding phase, we only coarse-grained the α of each strategy because we discovered that only coarse-grained tuning produced good results, and future work may be able to further explore the deeper relationship between different strategies and persona. ## Ethical Considerations In this work, we leveraged two publicly available datasets. First, we used the Persona-Chat dataset, which is collected by assigning a set of fixed predefined persona sentences to workers. Therefore, by participating in this dataset, workers were required not to disclose any personal information (Zhang et al., 2018), which prevents issues regarding the leakage of their privacy. Similarly, during the collection of the ESConv dataset, participants were asked to create imaginary situations and play the role of a support seeker who is in that situation. In addition, they were instructed not to provide personal information during their conversations with the trained supporters (Liu et al., 2021). Regarding the persona extractor, this module is trained to infer and extract persona information solely from what the user has mentioned in the conversation rather than making assumptions about the user's background and character, further highlighting the importance of user privacy in our research. Regarding our experiments, we ensured that all workers agreed to participate in the annotation tasks. Moreover, as the workers were recruited from the US, we ensured that they were paid above the minimum wage in this country for successfully completing our tasks. We acknowledge that using trained dialogue models to provide support is a sensitive subject and research on this topic should be conducted with sufficient precautions and supervision. We also acknowledge that in their current stage, such models cannot replace human supporters for this task (Sabour et al., 2022a). Thus, they should not be employed to replace professional counselors and intervention and interact with users that suffer from mental distress, such as depression or suicidal thoughts. ## References Jimmy Lei Ba, Jamie Ryan Kiros, and Geoffrey E Hinton. 2016. Layer normalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1607.06450. Gillian Cameron, David Cameron, Gavin Megaw, Raymond Bond, Maurice Mulvenna, Siobhan O'Neill, Cherie Armour, and Michael McTear. 2018. Assessing the usability of a chatbot for mental health care. In *International Conference on Internet Science*, pages 121–132. Springer. Joana Campos, James Kennedy, and Jill F Lehman. 2018. Challenges in exploiting conversational memory in human-agent interaction. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, pages 1649–1657. Yi Cheng, Wenge Liu, Wenjie Li, Jiashuo Wang, Ruihui Zhao, Bang Liu, Xiaodan Liang, and Yefeng Zheng. 2022. Improving multi-turn emotional support dialogue generation with lookahead strategy planning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.04242. Patricio Costa, Raquel Alves, Isabel Neto, Pedro Marvao, Miguel Portela, and Manuel Joao Costa. 2014. Associations between medical student empathy and personality: a multi-institutional study. *PloS one*, 9(3):e89254. Walter Cullen, Gautam Gulati, and Brendan D Kelly. 2020. Mental health in the covid-19 pandemic. *QJM:* An International Journal of Medicine, 113(5):311– 312. Kate Daley, Ines Hungerbuehler, Kate Cavanagh, Heloísa Garcia Claro, Paul Alan Swinton, and Michael Kapps. 2020. Preliminary evaluation of the engagement and effectiveness of a mental health chatbot. *Frontiers in digital health*, 2:576361. Kerstin Denecke, Sayan Vaaheesan, and Aaganya Arulnathan. 2020. A mental health chatbot for regulating emotions (sermo)-concept and usability test. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing, 9(3):1170–1182. Jun Gao, Yuhan Liu, Haolin Deng, Wei Wang, Yu Cao, Jiachen Du, and Ruifeng Xu. 2021a. Improving empathetic response generation by recognizing emotion cause in conversations. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021*, pages 807–819. Tianyu Gao, Xingcheng Yao, and Danqi Chen. 2021b. Simcse: Simple contrastive learning of sentence embeddings. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on* Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6894–6910. Prakhar Gupta, Shikib Mehri, Tiancheng Zhao, Amy Pavel, Maxine Eskenazi, and Jeffrey P Bigham. 2019. Investigating evaluation of open-domain dialogue systems with human generated multiple references. In *Proceedings of the 20th Annual SIGdial Meeting* on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 379–391. Karl Moritz Hermann, Tomáš Kociský, Edward Grefen- ˇ stette, Lasse Espeholt, Will Kay, Mustafa Suleyman, and Phil Blunsom. 2015. Teaching machines to read and comprehend. In *Advances in Neural Information* Processing Systems (NIPS). Md Mahbub Hossain, Samia Tasnim, Abida Sultana, Farah Faizah, Hoimonty Mazumder, Liye Zou, E Lisako J McKyer, Helal Uddin Ahmed, and Ping Ma. 2020. Epidemiology of mental health problems in covid-19: a review. *F1000Research*, 9. Minlie Huang, Xiaoyan Zhu, and Jianfeng Gao. 2020. Challenges in building intelligent open-domain dialog systems. *ACM Trans. Inf. Syst.*, 38(3). Allen E Ivey, Mary Bradford Ivey, and Carlos P Zalaquett. 2013. *Intentional interviewing and counseling:* Facilitating client development in a multicultural society. Cengage Learning. Bertus F. Jeronimus and Odilia M. Laceulle. 2017. *Frustration*, pages 1–5. Springer International Publishing, Cham. Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Piotr Bojanowski Tomas Mikolov. 2017. Bag of tricks for efficient text classification. *EACL 2017*, page 427. Carl Jung. 2013. *Psychological types*. Important Books. Alan E. Kazdin and Stacey L. Blase. 2011. Rebooting psychotherapy research and practice to reduce the burden of mental illness. *Perspectives on Psychological Science*. Hyunwoo Kim, Byeongchang Kim, and Gunhee Kim. 2021. Perspective-taking and pragmatics for generating empathetic responses focused on emotion causes. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 2227–2240. Matthias Kraus, Philip Seldschopf, and Wolfgang Minker. 2021. Towards the development of a trustworthy chatbot for mental health applications. In International Conference on Multimedia Modeling, pages 354–366. Springer. Anant Kumar and K Rajasekharan Nayar. 2021. Covid 19 and its mental health consequences. Mark R Leary and Ashley Batts Allen. 2011. Personality and persona: Personality processes in selfpresentation. *Journal of personality*, 79(6):1191– 1218. 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. Jiwei Li, Michel Galley, Chris Brockett, Jianfeng Gao, and William B 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. Jiwei Li, Michel Galley, Chris Brockett, Georgios Spithourakis, Jianfeng Gao, and William B 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. Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In Text summarization branches out, pages 74–81. Chia-Wei Liu, Ryan Lowe, Iulian Vlad 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. Qian Liu, Yihong Chen, Bei Chen, Jian-Guang Lou, Zixuan Chen, Bin Zhou, and Dongmei Zhang. 2020. You impress me: Dialogue generation via mutual persona perception. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational* Linguistics, pages 1417–1427. Siyang Liu, Sahand Sabour, Yinhe Zheng, Pei Ke, Xiaoyan Zhu, and Minlie Huang. 2022. Rethinking and refining the distinct metric. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 762–770. Siyang Liu, Chujie Zheng, Orianna Demasi, Sahand Sabour, Yu Li, Zhou Yu, Yong Jiang, and Minlie Huang. 2021. Towards emotional support dialog systems. 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 3469–3483. Yangyang Liu, Nathan A Gillespie, Lin Ye, Gu Zhu, David L Duffy, and Nicholas G Martin. 2018. The relationship between personality and somatic and psychological distress: A comparison of chinese and australian adolescents. *Behavior Genetics*, 48(4):315– 322. Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2018. Fixing weight decay regularization in adam. Estelle Michinov and Nicolas Michinov. 2021. Stay at home! when personality profiles influence mental health and creativity during the covid-19 lockdown. Current Psychology, pages 1–12. Mark Olfson. 2016. Building the mental health workforce capacity needed to treat adults with serious mental illnesses. *Health Affairs*. Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and WeiJing 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. Wei Peng, Yue Hu, Luxi Xing, Yuqiang Xie, Yajing Sun, and Yunpeng Li. 2022. Control globally, understand locally: A global-to-local hierarchical graph network for emotional support conversation. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2204.12749. Evan Peterson. 2021. Wisconsin mental health professional shortage amid covid. *FOX6 News Milwaukee*. 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. Nadine R Richendoller and James B Weaver III. 1994. Exploring the links between personality and empathic response style. *Personality and individual Differences*, 17(3):303–311. Carl R Rogers. 2013. Client-centered therapy. *Curr* Psychother, pages 95–150. Stephen Roller, Emily Dinan, Naman Goyal, Da Ju, Mary Williamson, Yinhan Liu, Jing Xu, Myle Ott, Eric Michael Smith, Y-Lan Boureau, et al. 2021. Recipes for building an open-domain chatbot. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 300–325. Sahand Sabour, Wen Zhang, Xiyao Xiao, Yuwei Zhang, Yinhe Zheng, Jiaxin Wen, Jialu Zhao, and Minlie Huang. 2022a. Chatbots for mental health support: Exploring the impact of emohaa on reducing mental distress in china. Sahand Sabour, Chujie Zheng, and Minlie Huang. 2022b. Cem: Commonsense-aware empathetic response generation. In *Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence*, volume 36, pages 11229–11237. Maja Smrdu, Ana Kuder, Eva Turk, Tatjana Celik, Janko ˇ Šet, and Simona Kralj-Fišer. 2021. Covid-19 pandemic and lockdown: associations with personality and stress components. *Psychological Reports*, page 00332941211043451. Dalila Talevi, Valentina Socci, Margherita Carai, Giulia Carnaghi, Serena Faleri, Edoardo Trebbi, Arianna di Bernardo, Francesco Capelli, and Francesca Pacitti. 2020. Mental health outcomes of the covid-19 pandemic. *Rivista di psichiatria*, 55(3):137–144. Quan Tu, Yanran Li, Jianwei Cui, Bin Wang, Ji-Rong Wen, and Rui Yan. 2022. Misc: A mixed strategyaware model integrating comet for emotional support conversation. In *Proceedings of the 60th Annual* Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 308–319. Peixiang Zhong, Chen Zhang, Hao Wang, Yong Liu, and Chunyan Miao. 2020. Towards persona-based empathetic conversational models. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6556– 6566. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Ł ukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, volume 30. Curran Associates, Inc. Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, 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. Thomas Wolf, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, and Clement Delangue. 2019. Transfertransfo: A transfer learning approach for neural network based conversational agents. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.08149*. Xinchao Xu, Zhibin Gou, Wenquan Wu, Zheng-Yu Niu, Hua Wu, Haifeng Wang, and Shihang Wang. 2022. Long time no see! open-domain conversation with long-term persona memory. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022*, pages 2639–2650. Lee Jing Yang, Lee Kong Aik, and Gan Woon Seng. 2021. Generating personalized dialogue via multitask meta-learning. In *Proceedings of the 25th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue*. 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. Yizhe Zhang, Siqi Sun, Michel Galley, Yen-Chun Chen, Chris Brockett, Xiang Gao, Jianfeng Gao, Jingjing Liu, and William B Dolan. 2020. Dialogpt: Largescale generative pre-training for conversational response generation. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations, pages 270–278. Chujie Zheng, Yong Liu, Wei Chen, Yongcai Leng, and Minlie Huang. 2021. Comae: A multi-factor hierarchical framework for empathetic response generation. In *Findings of the Association for Computational* Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 813–824. Chujie Zheng, Sahand Sabour, Jiaxin Wen, and Minlie Huang. 2022. Augesc: Large-scale data augmentation for emotional support conversation with pretrained language models. ## A Persona Extractor B Relevance Of Individualization And Seeker Evaluation C Helping Strategies In Esconv Hao Zhou, Minlie Huang, Tianyang Zhang, Xiaoyan Zhu, and Bing Liu. 2018. Emotional chatting machine: Emotional conversation generation with internal and external memory. In *Proceedings of the AAAI* Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 32. In our initial experiments, we compare the effectiveness of various generative models to infer persona (such as GPT2 (Radford et al., 2019), DialoGPT (Zhang et al., 2020), BART (Lewis et al., 2020)). We manually checked some results and found the best results were obtained by the Bart model fine-tuned on CNN Daily Mail (Hermann et al., 2015). We trained this model for ten epochs with a batch size of 4 and learning rate of 1e-5, and selected the best-performing checkpoint. Here we show the results produced by fastText in Figure 5. A total of 8 strategies are marked in ESConv, and they are basically evenly distributed (Liu et al., 2021). Here we list these strategies and their detailed definitions, which are directly adopted from Liu et al. (2021). Question Asking for information related to the problem to help the help-seeker articulate the issues that they face. Open-ended questions are best, and closed questions can be used to get specific information. Restatement or Paraphrasing A simple, more concise rephrasing of the help-seekers' statements could help them see their situation more clearly. Reflection of Feelings Articulate and describe the help-seekers' feelings. Self-disclosure Divulge similar experiences that you have had or emotions that you share with the help-seeker to express your empathy. Affirmation and Reassurance Affirm the helpseeker's strengths, motivation, and capabilities and provide reassurance and encouragement. Providing Suggestions Provide suggestions about how to change but be careful not to overstep and tell them what to do. Information Provide useful information to the help-seeker, for example, with data, facts, opinions, resources, or by answering questions. Others Exchange pleasantries and use other support strategies that do not fall into the above categories. ## D Tuning Process Of The Α **Values** We first tried to set these alpha values as trainable parameters, but we found that the values changed very little during the training of the model and therefore depended heavily on the initialization, so we set these alpha's as hyperparameters. Then, these values were obtained upon numerous attempts on the validation set as they enabled the model to have a balanced performance based on the automatic evaluation. We acknowledge that this tuning process is trivial and coarse-grained. We leave approaches to improve this process, such as using a simulated annealing algorithm, to future work. ## E Analysis Of Α **Selected For Different** Strategies In §3.4, we analyzed the strategies *Question* and Providing Suggestions. And the rest of the strategies are analyzed below. For the *Restatement or Paraphrasing* strategy, it is necessary to repeat the words of the seeker, so a more specific restatement can help the seeker better understand himself. For the *Reflection of Feelings* strategy, since the focus is more on feelings, and the extracted persona information is more fact-related, we set low for this strategy. For the *Self-disclosure* strategy, it is more about the supporter's own experience and should not focus too much on the persona information of the seeker, which may lead to unnecessary errors, so we set this strategy to low. For the *Affirmation and Reassurance* strategy, combining the seeker's persona information can often provide more specific encouragement and bring the seeker a better experience, so we set it to high. For the *Information* strategy, we need to consider more persona information in order to provide more appropriate and specific information for seekers, so we set it high. For the *Other* strategy, the main places this appear are greeting and thanking. About this strategy, considering that most appearances are in greeting and thanking, if we can combine more seeker characteristics may make seekers feel more relaxed, we set it to the high level at first, but careful observation found that *Other* strategies are used when the other strategies are not appropriate. Although such cases are rare, in order to avoid unnecessary errors, we set it to medium. ## F Human Evaluation Here we show the guidelines for two human evaluation experiments in Figure 6 and Figure 7. For the persona extractor manual evaluation experiment, we pay $0.05 for one piece of data, and for the human interactive evaluation, we pay $0.10 for one piece of data, with the price adjusted for the average time it takes workers to complete the task. We stated in the task description that this is an evaluation task, so for the data submitted by the workers, we only use it for evaluations. ## G Case Study Due to space limitations, we show more examples here, these are cherry-picked. In Figure 8, we show an interactive case. It can be seen that PAL uses the extracted persona appropriately several times in the conversation and gives the seeker specific advice. In Figure 9, we show some cases in the ESConv dataset. Interestingly, in these examples, PAL sometimes performs better than Ground-truth, giving a more appropriate and specific response rather than a general one, which also proves the superiority of our model. Here, we also compare our model with baselines over different strategies. In Table 6, we show a case of the strategy *Providing Suggestions*. We can find that our model provides the most specific suggestions. In Table 7, we show a case of the strategy *Affirmation and Reassurance*. We can also see that PAL's response is the most specific.  | Situation | | |------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Seeker | My two friends are shaming me for not donating more per year to charities. One of them is the President of a local non-profit. Dialogue history | | Seeker | What should I do about these two (so-called) friends? Persona Information | | Seeker | My friends are putting me on a guilt trip and shaming me. | | Seeker | I am not making much income with covid19. Response | | Blenderbot-Joint | Well, they are not worth the friendship. | | MISC | Do you think that you can talk to them about how you feel? | | Hard Prompt | Maybe you should try to talk to them about it and see what they say about it. | | PAL(α = 0) | If you are hurt because of them then I would suggest you seek professional help. | | PAL | If they are hurting you physically then I would suggest that you find a way to talk to them and explain your income situation. | | Ground-truth | Definitely not ...have you tried explaining your situation to them? Table 6: Responses from our approach and others. |   Submit  11.    | Situation | | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Seeker | I caught my spouse cheating and broke up with her. | | Dialogue history | | | Seeker | She got a job in another town and she utilize the opportunity to be sleeping around. | | Persona Information | | | Seeker | My wife is cheating on me. | | ...... | Response | | Blenderbot-Joint | Wow... I am sorry to hear that. | | MISC | I understand.. I had a similar situation in a previous relationship. | | Hard Prompt | So you trust your spouse but you have disappointed your marriage vows. | | PL( α = 0) | I can see how that can be a problem. That is a very difficult situation to be in. | | That's a difficult situation to be in. It sounds like you are being betrayed. | | | PAL | I believe you deserve someone better. | | I can imagine how a break in trust has made you feel. I know a break in trust | | | Ground-truth | is always very difficult to process. | | Table 7: Responses from our approach and others. | |     ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Sec. "Limitations" ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Sec. "Ethics Statement" ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? The paper's main claims are summarized in "Abstract"(Page1) and Sec.1 "Introduction" ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Sec.3 And Sec. 4 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Sec.3 and Sec. 4 ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Sec. "Ethics Statement" ✓ 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)? Sec. "Ethics Statement" ✓ 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? Sec. "Ethics Statement" ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Sec.1, Sec.3 and Sec. "Ethics Statement" ✓ 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. Sec.4 ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Sec.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.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? Sec.3, Sec.4 and Table 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? Sec.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.)? Not applicable. We propose the evaluation methods and also provide the source codes. ## D ✓ **Did You Use Human Annotators (E.G., Crowdworkers) Or Research With Human Participants?** Sec.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.? Appendix F ✓ 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)? Sec 4, Appendix F and Sec. "Ethics Statement" ✓ 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? Appendix F 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.

wang-etal-2023-farewell

Farewell to Aimless Large-scale Pretraining: Influential Subset Selection for Language Model

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.35

Pretrained language models have achieved remarkable success in various natural language processing tasks. However, pretraining has recently shifted toward larger models and larger data, which has resulted in significant computational and energy costs. In this paper, we propose Influence Subset Selection (ISS) for language model, which explicitly utilizes end-task knowledge to select a tiny subset of the pretraining corpus. Specifically, the ISS selects the samples that will provide the most positive influence on the performance of the end task. Furthermore, we design a gradient matching-based influence estimation method, which can drastically reduce the computation time of influence. With only 0.45{\%} of the data and a three-orders-of-magnitude lower computational cost, ISS outperformed pretrained models (e.g., RoBERTa) on eight datasets covering four domains.

# Farewell To Aimless Large-Scale Pretraining: Influential Subset Selection For Language Model Xiao Wang⋆∗, Weikang Zhou⋆∗, Qi Zhang⋆†, Jie Zhou⋆**, Songyang Gao**⋆, Junzhe Wang⋆, Menghan Zhang♦, Xiang Gao♣, Yunwen Chen♣, **Tao Gui**♦ † ⋆ School of Computer Science, Fudan University, Shanghai, China ♦Institute of Modern Languages and Linguistics, Fudan University, Shanghai, China ♣ DataGrand Information Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. {xiao_wang20,qz,tgui}@fudan.edu.cn ## Abstract Pretrained language models have achieved remarkable success in various natural language processing tasks. However, pretraining has recently shifted toward larger models and larger data, and this has resulted in significant computational and energy costs. In this paper, we propose Influence Subset Selection (ISS) for language model, which explicitly utilizes end-task knowledge to select a tiny subset of the pretraining corpus. Specifically, the ISS selects the samples that will provide the most positive influence on the performance of the end-task. Furthermore, we design a gradient matching based influence estimation method, which can drastically reduce the computation time of influence. With only 0.45% of the data and a three-orders-of-magnitude lower computational cost, ISS outperformed pretrained models (e.g., RoBERTa) on eight datasets covering four domains. ## 1 Introduction Pretrained language models (PTMs) (Peters et al., 2018; Devlin et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2019), trained on massive and heterogeneous corpora, have significantly improved the state-of-the-art across a variety of natural language processing tasks (Wang et al., 2022, 2023). Kaplan et al. (2020) found power laws relating cross entropy loss to the sizes of language models and their training datasets. As a result, the field has recently shifted toward larger models and large data (Brown et al., 2020; Rae et al., 2021; Smith et al., 2022; Chowdhery et al., 2022) in hopes of improving performance. However, training a state-of-the-art language model requires substantial computational resources which demand considerable energy, along with the associated financial and environmental costs (Strubell et al., 2019). For example, RoBERTaLarge (Liu et al., 2019), which was trained on | PLMs | TLM | ISS | | |---------------------|---------------------|-------------|-------------| | Training Data | The entire D | Subset of D | Subset of D | | & task data T | & task data T | | | | Compute Cost 240000 | 240 | 80 | | | GPU·hours | GPU·hours | GPU·hours | | | Generality | Task-Agnostic X-Dep | X&Y -Dep | | Table 1: Qualitative comparison between PLMs, TLM, and ISS(ours). X/Y-Dep means the pretraining data is X/Y dependent. 1000 V100 GPUs for approximately one day, has a computational cost of 4.36×1021 FLOPs. Recently, Chowdhery et al. (2022) proposes PaLM, which consumes 580 times more FLOPs than RoBERTaLarge. PaLM was trained on 6144 TPU v4 chips for more than 1200 hours, which is unaffordable for most researchers. Therefore, finding ways to speed up pretraining is crucial for the development of pretrained model research. In general, there are three main strategies used to speed up pretraining in NLP: parallel architectures, efficient model architectures, and novel pretraining tasks. The first one is to train a single model utilizing multiple GPUs distributed in many computational nodes (Wang et al., 2020b; Shazeer et al., 2018; Huang et al., 2019). Unfortunately, the gains in efficiency of this strategy depend entirely on the amount of computing hardware used. The second strategy is to improve model structures to reduce the computational complexity and therefore improve efficiency (Wang et al., 2020a; Katharopoulos et al., 2020; Roy et al., 2021). The last one explores more challenging pretraining tasks to accelerate a model's convergence (Clark et al., 2019; Joshi et al., 2020; Levine et al., 2020). However, their improvements are limited, with a reduction of less than an order of magnitude in computational expenses (measured in FLOPs). In this paper, we aim to reduce the computational costs from data level (See Table 1). The PLMs are trained on the entire pretraining corpus D, which is task-agnostic. To take the downstream task into account, we hope to select the most relevant samples from the pretraining corpus based on the downstream data. Recently, Yao et al. (2022) proposes TLM, which retrieves data from a pretraining corpus using task data as queries. However, TLM remains task-agnostic, because it only considers text (i.e., X) similarities and ignores the label (i.e., Y) information. Motivated by influence function (Cook and Weisberg, 1982; Koh and Liang, 2017), we propose Influential Subset Selection (ISS) for language model, i.e. selecting the samples with the most positive influence on the downstream task. To calculate the label-aware influence value, ISS utilizes the derivation chain rule from a test objective to training samples. Nevertheless, directly applying the chain rule leads to computing the inverse of Hessian with the complexity of O(nq2 + q 3)(n is the number of examples and q is parameter size), which is computationally expensive and may run out-of-memory in neural networks. To address this problem, we propose a gradient matching based influence approximation method for selecting pretraining data, which estimates the influence score by matching the gradient values of pretraining samples and end-task samples. Our method avoids the computation of the inverse of Hessian and significantly speeds up the estimation time of influence. Our main contributions are summarized as follows: - We propose Influential Subset Selection for language model, which explicitly utilizes knowledge of the end-task to select the pretraining corpus. - We design a simple, efficient, gradient matching based method for influence estimation, which avoids the calculation of the inverse of Hessian and significantly speeds up the estimation time. - We evaluate the effectiveness of our method on eight tasks covering four domains. Notably, ISS outperforms PTMs (e.g. RoBERTa) with only **0.45% of the data** and **three orders of** magnitude reduced FLOPS. Our code can be found at https://github.com/nitwtog/ISS. ## 2 Preliminaries 2.1 Definition $$\begin{array}{r l r l}{={}}&{{}({\mathcal{Z}}_{t})}&{{}{\mathrm{where}}}&{{}{\mathcal{Z}}_{t}}\end{array}$$ $$\mathbf{r}$$ We assume an end-task dataset represented as T = (Zt) where Zt = (x 1 t, y1 t),(x 2 t, y2 t)*, . . . ,*(x m t, ym t) represents a set of texts with their ground truth labels. And we assume a large-scale pretraining corpus D = (Zp), where Zp =x 1p, x2p, . . . , xM p represents unlabeled data. We define f = f (head) ◦ f (feat), such that f (feat)(·; θ ∈ Θ) is a feature extractor that is transferable across learning stages (e.g. pretraining to finetuning) and f (head)(·; ϕ ∈ Φ) is a task-specific head that is not transferable. And we assume lp(zp*, θ, ϕ*p) and lt(zt*, θ, ϕ*t) are the loss functions of pretraining and end-task. ## 2.2 Influence Function Influence function (Cook and Weisberg, 1982; Koh and Liang, 2017) provides an efficient way to estimate the importance of a training sample. Considering a training sample z was weighted by a small ϵ during training, the empirical risk minimizer can be written as $${\hat{\theta}}_{\epsilon,z}=\arg\operatorname*{min}_{\theta\in\Theta}{\frac{1}{n}}\sum_{z_{i}\in\mathcal{D}}l\left(z_{i},\theta\right)+\epsilon\cdot l(z,\theta)\quad(1)$$ Assigning − 1 n to ϵ is equivalent to removing the training example zp. Then, the influence of weighting zp on the parameters is given by $${\mathcal{I}}_{\mathrm{param}}\left(z\right)=\left.{\frac{\mathrm{d}{\hat{\theta}}_{\epsilon,z}}{\mathrm{d}\epsilon}}\right|_{\epsilon=0}=-H_{\hat{\theta}}^{-1}\nabla_{\theta}l(z,{\hat{\theta}})\quad(2)$$ where $H_{\hat{\theta}}=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{z_{i}\in\mathcal{D}}\nabla_{\hat{\theta}}^{2}l\left(z_{i},\hat{\theta}\right)$ is the Hessian. and positive definite by assumption, Iparam (z) ∈ RN , N is the number of network parameters. Then, we can linearly approximate the parameter change due to removing z without retraining the model by computing ˆθ−z − ˆθ ≈ −1nIparam (z). ## 3 Methodology We investigate an influence-based subset selection method to perform efficient pretraining while attempting to minimize accuracy loss on the end-task dataset (Section 3.1). Due to the high computational costs of influence function (Koh and Liang, 2017), we design an influence approximation strategy to speed up the calculation (Section 3.2). ## 3.1 Influence Of Pretraining Corpus PTMs used in previous works usually adopt language modeling as pretraining tasks, lacking taskspecific prior knowledge. However, we often know the end-task beforehand, so we can make specific choices about our pretraining regimen to improve end-task performance. Under this setting, we introduce Influential Subset Selection for language model, which measures the importance of pretraining samples by considering the X and Y information of the end-task simultaneously. Specifically, pretraining sample zp affects the prediction of end-task sample zt by influencing the parameters of the feature encoder θ. We can apply the chain rule to measure the influence of upweighting pretraining sample zp on the loss at end-task sample zt. $$\mathcal{I}\left(z_{p},z_{t}\right)\triangleq\left.\frac{dl\left(z_{t},\hat{\theta}_{\epsilon,z}\right)}{d\epsilon}\right|_{\epsilon=0}$$ $$=\left.\nabla_{\theta}l\left(z_{t},\hat{\theta}\right)^{\top}\frac{d\hat{\theta}_{\epsilon,z}}{d\epsilon}\right|_{\epsilon=0}\tag{3}$$ $$=-\nabla_{\theta}l\left(z_{t},\hat{\theta}\right)^{\top}H_{\hat{\theta}}^{-1}\nabla_{\theta}l(z_{p},\hat{\theta})$$ The more negative I (zp, zt) is, the more positive influence zp can provide. However, computing the Hessian for the full training dataset is expensive, and inverting it is similarly prohibitive: with n training data points and p parameters, this computation requires O(n ∗ p 2 + p 3) operations. It means that evaluating the influence of large-scale pretrained corpus is not achievable. Thus, we propose an influence approximation algorithm to speed up the estimation time. ## 3.2 Influence Approximation Motivated by calculus, the update of the model parameters is the result of cumulative updates over several training iterations. Similarly, the difference between the loss of test point zt at the end of training versus at the beginning of training can be decomposed along the path taken by the training process. Thus, we hypothesize that the influences of all training examples on a fixed test point ztis exactly the total reduction in loss on zt. Assume that we train the feature encoder by minimizing the pertaining loss lp(zp; *θ, ϕ*), via an iterative optimization procedure (such as SGD) which utilizes one training example zp in iteration t. The parameters of the feature encoder before and after iteration t are θt and θt+1 respectively. The influence of zt on zp can be approximated in the following way. $${\mathcal{I}}\left(z_{p},z_{t}\right)=l_{t}\left(z_{p},\theta_{t}\right)-l_{t}\left(z_{p},\theta_{t+1}\right)\quad\quad(4)$$  Suppose we are at point θt, and we make a firstorder Taylor expansion of function lp (zp, θt+1). $$l_{t}\left(z_{p},\theta_{t+1}\right)=l_{t}\left(z_{p},\theta_{t}\right)+\nabla_{\theta}l_{t}\left(z_{p},\theta_{t}\right)\cdot\left(\theta_{t+1}-\theta_{t}\right)$$ $$+O\left(\left\|\theta_{t+1}-\theta_{t}\right\|^{2}\right)\tag{5}$$ Assuming the model employs SGD as the optimizer, then the update in parameters is θt+1 − θt = −ηt∇θlp (zt, θt), where ηtis the learning rate at iteration t. Eq. (5) guarantees approximation precision as long as the update magnitude of θ is sufficiently small. By substituting the parameter update formula and disregarding the higher-order term, we arrive at the following first-order approximation. $$l_{t}\left(z^{\prime},\theta_{t}\right)-l_{t}\left(z^{\prime},\theta_{t+1}\right)\approx\eta_{t}\nabla_{\theta}l_{t}\left(z^{\prime},\theta_{t}\right)\cdot\nabla_{\theta}l_{p}\left(z_{t},\theta_{t}\right)\tag{6}$$ We refer to this first-order approximation as gradient matching-based influence estimation. The full algorithm is provided in Algorithm 1. Visualisation We visualize our influence estimation method in Fig 1. g1 and g2 are the loss gradients of two different pretrained samples respectively, while g′is the loss gradient of the end-task sample. The influence of a pretrained sample can be viewed as the dot product of its gradient and the gradient of the end-task sample. Higher influence suggests that a network is learning parameters that generalize. Algorithm 1: Influential Subset Selection for Language Model Require: Pretraining corpus D; task training set Tt and validation set Tv; learning rate α; initial subset S; candidates size k. Random initialize network θ, ϕp, ϕt ˆθ, ϕˆp, ϕˆt = arg min 1n Pzi∈Tt lp (zi) + lt(zi) for zp ∈ D do Compute ∇θlp zp, ˆθ, ϕˆp end for z′ ∈ Tv do Compute ∇θlt z′, ˆθ, ϕˆt, for zp ∈ D do I (zp, z′) = ∇θlp zp, ˆθ, ϕˆp · ∇θlt z′, ˆθ, ϕˆt, end Sort pretraining samples based on influence Add top k influential samples to S end Return influential subset S ## 3.3 Implementation Details Based on the influence score, we select the most relevant samples from the pretraining corpus. Following TLM, we first select a subset via a BM25 retrieval method. Then, we compute the influence score based on this subset to make ISS scalable and efficient. Moreover, the number of parameters in largescale language models is very large, leading to very high dimensional gradients. To tackle this problem, we adopt a last-layer gradient approximation by only considering the last layer gradients of pretrained encoder. We select a subset of mini-batches by matching the weighted sum of mini-batch pretraining gradients to the mini-batch task gradients. Let Bp and Bt be the batch size of pretraining and end-task. The use of mini-batches considerably reduces the number of selection rounds during the ISS algorithm by a factor of B, resulting in Bp ∗ Bt speed up. ## 4 Experimental Setup To evaluate the efficiency and generality of our approach, we conduct experiments in two settings: pretraining from scratch, and further pretraining. ## 4.1 Pretraining From Scratch Datasets. Following the setting of Gururangan et al. (2020); Yao et al. (2022), we conduct experiments on eight tasks covering four domains, including biomedical science, computer science, news, and reviews. The tasks represent both high- and low-resource (≤ 5K samples) settings, including CHEMPROT (Kringelum et al., 2016), RCT (Dernoncourt and Lee, 2017), ACL-ARC (Jurgens et al., 2018), SCIERC (Luan et al., 2018), HyPERPARTISAN (Kiesel et al., 2019), AGNEws (Zhang et al., 2015), HELPFULNESS (McAuley et al., 2015), IMDB (Maas et al., 2011). Table 2 reports the statistic results of various target datasets. Similar to TLM (Yao et al., 2022), we collect two pretraining corpora that respectively match the original corpora of BERT and RoBERTa. We name them C*BERT* and C*RoBERT a*, respectively. Baselines. We focus on comparison with general PLMs and TLM. Following Yao et al. (2022), we finetuned both BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) and RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) of base and large scales as our baselines. And we finetuned the released TLM models as baselines. Evaluation Strategy. The results of the experiment are the average performance of three random seeds with the standard deviations. Following Gururangan et al. (2020), we report the test microF1 for ChemProt and RCT, and macro-F1 for the rest of datasets. Following TLM (Yao et al., 2022), we set three pretraining scales, namely *small*, medium, and *large* scales. Differently, at the same scale, our method only utilizes 20% size of the TLM data. More detailed settings are shown in Table A.1 in Appendix. Training Details. We utilize the randomly initialized BERT of base scale as our starter models. We mostly follow optimization, and hyperparameters choices used in Yao et al. (2022). All experiments were conducted on 4 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 GPUs. Detailed hyper-parameters are provided in Table A.1 in Appendix. | Domain | Task | Train | Dev. | Test Classes | | |---------------|-------------------|------------|------------|----------------|----| | BIOMED | CHEMPROT | 4169 | 2427 | 3469 | 13 | | † RCT | 18040 30212 30135 | 5 | | | | | CS | ACL-ARC | 1688 | 114 | 139 | 6 | | SCIERC | 3219 | 455 | 974 | 7 | | | NEWS | HYPERPARTISAN | 515 | 65 | 65 | 2 | | † AGNEWS | 115000 | 5000 | 7600 | 4 | | | † HELPFULNESS | 115251 | 5000 25000 | 2 | | | | REVIEWS | † IMDB | 20000 | 5000 25000 | 2 | | Table 2: Statistics of various target datasets. †indicates high-resource settings. | Model | Param Data1 FLOPs2 AGNews Hyp. Help. IMDB ACL. SciERC Chem. RCT | Avg. | | | | | | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|-------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------|-------------------| | Bert-Base | 109M | 16G | 2.79E19 | 93.50 | 91.93 69.11 93.77 69.45 | 80.98 | 81.94 87.00 83.46 | | ±0.15 | ±1.74 | ±0.17 | ±0.22 | ±2.90 | ±1.07 | ±0.38 | ±0.06 | | Bert-Large | 355M | 16G | 9.07E19 | 93.51 | 91.62 69.39 94.76 69.13 | 81.37 | 83.64 87.13 83.82 | | ±0.40 | ±0.69 | ±1.14 | ±0.09 | ±2.93 | ±1.35 | ±0.41 | ±0.09 | | TLM(Small) | 109M | 0.91G 2.74E18 | 93.74 | 93.53 70.54 93.08 69.84 | 80.51 | 81.99 86.99 83.78 | | | ±0.20 | ±1.61 | ±0.39 | ±0.17 | ±1.53 | ±1.53 | ±0.42 | ±0.03 | | TLM(Small-20%)3 | 109M | 0.18G 1.82E18 | 93.57 | 93.11 70.02 93.20 67.27 | 78.87 | 80.80 86.65 82.93 | | | ±0.21 | ±0.46 | ±0.40 | ±0.03 | ±2.85 | ±0.63 | ±0.63 | ±0.01 | | ISS(Small-scale) | 109M | 0.18G 1.82E18 | 93.78 | 93.53 70.78 93.25 72.41 | 80.56 | 81.71 86.99 84.11 | | | ±0.06 | ±0.00 | ±0.29 | ±0.07 | ±0.66 | ±0.43 | ±0.10 | ±0.02 | | RoBERTa-Base | 125M | 160G 1.54E21 | 94.02 | 93.53 70.45 95.43 68.34 | 81.35 | 82.60 87.23 84.12 | | | ±0.15 | ±1.61 | ±0.24 | ±0.16 | ±7.27 | ±0.63 | ±0.53 | ±0.09 | | TLM(Medium) | 109M | 1.21G 8.30E18 | 93.96 | 94.05 70.90 93.97 72.37 | 81.88 | 83.24 87.28 84.71 | | | ±0.18 | ±0.96 | ±0.73 | ±0.10 | ±2.11 | ±1.92 | ±0.36 | ±0.10 | | TLM(Medium-20%)3 | 109M | 0.18G 4.15E18 | 93.78 | 93.53 71.11 93.20 68.82 | 80.35 | 81.05 87.00 83.58 | | | ±0.02 | ±0.00 | ±0.05 | ±0.06 | ±3.56 | ±0.54 | ±0.07 | ±0.05 | | ISS(Medium-scale) | 109M | 0.18G 4.15E18 | 93.92 | 93.53 71.51 93.61 73.42 | 82.20 | 83.42 87.30 84.86 | | | ±0.08 | ±0.00 | ±0.31 | ±0.06 | ±0.58 | ±0.40 | ±0.11 | ±0.02 | | RoBERTa-large 355M | 160G 4.36E21 | 94.30 | 95.16 70.73 96.20 72.80 | 82.62 | 84.62 87.53 85.50 | | | | ±0.23 | ±0.00 | ±0.62 | ±0.19 | ±0.62 | ±0.68 | ±0.50 | ±0.13 | | TLM(Large) 4 | 109M | 3.64G 2.33E19 | 94.15 | 93.92 71.83 94.44 74.18 | 82.77 | 83.60 87.49 85.31 | | | ±0.01 | ±0.72 | ±0.11 | ±0.10 | ±0.29 | ±0.72 | ±0.08 | ±0.02 | | TLM(Large-20%)3 | 109M | 0.72G 8.30E18 | 93.79 | 92.72 71.50 94.49 73.42 | 81.77 | 82.63 87.36 84.71 | | | ±0.31 | ±0.783 ±0.28 | ±0.04 | ±1.75 | ±0.54 | ±0.11 | ±0.10 | | | ISS(Large-scale) | 109M | 0.72G 8.30E18 | 94.22 | 93.53 72.27 94.57 74.53 | 83.12 | 83.31 87.41 85.36 | | | ±0.04 | ±0.00 | ±0.20 | ±0.06 | ±1.38 | ±0.16 | ±0.36 | ±0.02 | | 1 For ISS, data size is reported by averaging over eight tasks. 2 The training compute (FLOPs) is calculated by (6 × Training Tokens × Parameter Size) as in Kaplan et al. (2020). 3 ISS utilizes 20% of the TLM size data, so we implemented the TLM model with the same size version. 4 For a fair comparison, we implement TLM(Large) with BERT base and TLM large scale dataset. | | | | | | | | Table 3: Evaluation results for ISS at three different training scales. For each task, we report the average F1 score across three random seeds with standard deviations as subscripts. We also show the number of parameters, the total training compute (FLOPs), and the size of training corpus for comparison. ## 4.2 Further Pretraining Datasets. We perform further pretraining in biomedical science and computer science domains. Specifically, we conduct experiments on four datasets, including CHEMPROT (Kringelum et al., 2016), RCT (Dernoncourt and Lee, 2017), ACLARC (Jurgens et al., 2018), SCIERC (Luan et al., 2018). For the pretraining stage, we collect the unlabeled datasets from S2ORC (Lo et al., 2020). Baselines. We select general PTMs (Devlin et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2019) and domain-specific further pretraining models (Lee et al., 2020; Beltagy et al., 2019; Gururangan et al., 2020) as our baselines. Finetuning on the end-task occurs after further pretraining on domain unlabeled corpora. Evaluation Strategy. Similar to pretraining from scratch, we report the average performance across three random seeds. And we report the micro-F1 for ChemProt and RCT, and macro-F1 for ACL-ARC and SCIERC. Training Details. In this setting, we perform further pretraining on off-the-shelf pretrained models, such as BERT and RoBERTa. All experiments were conducted on 4 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 GPUs. Detailed hyper-parameters are provided in Table A.2 in Appendix. ## 5 Experimental Results In this section, we will discuss the results of comparing our methods against other baselines. ## 5.1 Pretraining From Scratch Table 3 shows the main results of ISS with the according TLM and PLMs baselines at three different scales. The followings are the related comparison and analysis we conducted: 1) ISS could achieve re-  | BIOMED | CS | | | | | | | | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------|-------------|-------------|--------|--------|----------|-------| | Model | Param Data FLOPs | Avg. | | | | | | | | RCT Chem ACL SciERC | | | | | | | | | | BERT-Base | 109M | 16G 2.79E19 87.00 81.94 69.45 | 80.98 79.84 | | | | | | | RoBERTa-base | 125M 160G 1.54E21 87.23 82.60 68.34 | 81.35 79.88 | | | | | | | | SciBERT | 109M | 15G 2.65E19 | - | 83.64 70.98 | 79.97 | - | | | | BioBERT | 109M | 96G 1.80E20 | - | 76.46 | - | - | - | | | DAPT | 125M | 47G 1.58E18 87.6 | 84.2 75.4 | 80.8 | 82.00 | | | | | DAPT+TAPT | 125M | 47G 1.77E18 87.8 84.4 75.6 | 81.3 | 82.28 | AGNews | SciERC | Chemprot | | | ISS | TLM | ISS | TLM | ISS | TLM | | | | | 10% | 94.34 | 94.08 | 80.82 | 81.41 | 80.80 | 80.15 | | | | ±0.08 | ±0.07 | ±0.41 | ±0.16 | ±0.34 | ±0.32 | | | | | 20% | 94.40 | 94.16 | 83.70 | 81.21 | 82.82 | 81.51 | | | | ±0.06 | ±0.09 | ±0.31 | ±0.44 | ±0.41 | ±0.55 | | | | | 40% | 94.14 | 94.05 | 83.16 | 82.48 | 81.98 | 81.75 | | | | ±0.05 | ±0.18 | ±0.07 | ±0.43 | ±0.14 | ±0.04 | | | | | 60% | 94.08 | 94.07 | 82.51 | 83.05 | 82.08 | 81.80 | | | | ±0.02 | ±0.09 | ±0.29 | ±0.20 | ±0.22 | ±0.41 | | | | | ISS-DAPT(BERT) | 109M 1.7G 6.9E17 87.36 83.90 76.06 83.91 82.81 ±0.02 ±0.10 ±0.70 ±0.38 | 80% | 94.17 | 94.27 | 81.71 | 81.75 | 81.83 | 81.86 | | ±0.04 | ±0.09 | ±0.24 | ±0.15 | ±0.30 | ±0.47 | | | | | ISS-DAPT(RoBERTa) 125M 1.7G 7.9E17 87.57 84.88 76.70 82.23 82.85 ±0.06 ±0.10 ±0.25 ±0.30 | | | | | | | | | sults that are better than or comparable to the PLM baselines with significant reductions in FLOPs and the size of training data. At the large scale, ISS achieves comparable results to RoBERTa-large, with an average of 0.19% of FLOPs and 0.45% of the training corpus. At the small and medium scales, ISS improves the performance by 0.29 and 0.74 points on average respectively; 2) At the same data scale, ISS significantly outperforms TLM, which indicates that task label information is crucial. And the influence-based subset selection can select more influential pertaining samples; 3) ISS could offer limited performance gains on highresource datasets. It demonstrates that the influence of the pretraining samples would be decreased as the task data grows sufficiently. ## 5.2 Further Pretraining We compared ISS with other domain-specific further pretraining methods. Differently, we initialize the network with off-the-shelf pretrained models to provide initialization and select influential subsets from the domain corpus. Table 4 shows the main results. In conclusion, our method outperforms all the baselines, with significant reductions in FLOPs and the size of training data by one order of magnitude or more. It proves our approach is feasible. ## 5.3 Comparison Of Pretraining Steps To validate the effect of pretraining steps, we compare the performance of ISS with TLM at different pretraining steps. The test results on the four tasks with different pretraining steps are shown in Figure 3. We observe that ISS could achieve the best performance with fewer steps on most of the datasets. ## 5.4 Subset Size For Pretraining To compare the performance at different data scales, we extracted subsets from the TLM small-scale corpus at different scales via ISS and TLM, respectively. The results are shown in Table 5. We can observe that the performance of TLM becomes better as the dataset grows, but the best results are still lower than those of our method. In ISS, the F1-score would reach the top at the 20%-40% scale and gradually decrease as the data size grows. We  | Related-Label | PMI | AGNews | | | |-----------------------------|----------|----------|--------|--------| | ISS(small) /% TLM(small) /% | | | | | | immigration | World | 1.341 | 0.0072 | 0.0070 | | policy | World | 1.187 | 0.0493 | 0.0401 | | china | World | 0.382 | 0.0836 | 0.0695 | | medals | Sports | 1.400 | 0.0139 | 0.0136 | | golds | Sports | 1.400 | 0.0009 | 0.0008 | | sports | Sports | 1.293 | 0.0459 | 0.0454 | | financial | Business | 1.054 | 0.0717 | 0.0567 | | commerce | Business | 0.844 | 0.0097 | 0.0081 | | business | Business | 0.710 | 0.1170 | 0.0952 | | automation | Sci/Tech | 1.420 | 0.0043 | 0.0028 | | internet | Sci/Tech | 1.224 | 0.0729 | 0.0524 | | technology | Sci/Tech | 1.115 | 0.0864 | 0.0661 | believe that as the dataset expands, task-irrelevant or noisy data is added. ## 5.5 Last Better Than First As explained in Section 3.3, the last layer of gradients of the model encoder is only considered to speed up the computation. We have studied the relationship between the gradients at the different layers used in ISS and the corresponding performances. Table 3 shows the results on Chemprot and SciERC. We can observe that the closer the layer, to the task head, the better the selected subset works. The phenomena suggest that different layers in the language model can capture different information, with layers closer to the task head learning more information about the task. Table 7 shows the times required by ISS calculating influences at the different layers. Overall, the time cost of selecting a subset is negligible compared to pretraining. In addition, the computational speed based on the last layer would be nearly | Cost times | | | |-------------------|-----------|-----------| | Layer name | Small | Large | | Embedding | 2.0 hours | 5.2 hours | | 3-th Transformer | 1.8 hours | 4.8 hours | | 6-th Transformer | 1.6 hours | 4.4 hours | | 9-th Transformer | 1.4 hours | 4.0 hours | | 12-th Transformer | 1.1 hours | 3.6 hours | double, compared to that at the embedding layer. ## 6 Analysis 6.1 Visualization Of Pretrained Model We visualize the task data on ISS-small, BERT, and RoBERTa, using the t-SNE algorithm (Van der Maaten and Hinton, 2008). The results are shown in Figure 4. We can observe that the different classes of deep features in ISS-small formed tighter clusters, suggesting that ISS provides better initialization for downstream tasks. In contrast, the features learned by BERT and Roberta are distributed respectively in separate clusters with overlapping parts that could not be distinguished. ## 6.2 Analyzing Of Task-Influential Words We compute the point-wise mutual information (PMI) (Levy and Goldberg, 2014) between words and their corresponding labels in the task dataset. Briefly, PMI is used to measure the likelihood of two events occurring together, so the higher the PMI a word has, the more likely it is to be taskinfluential. We select words with high PMI as taskinfluential words, and compare their frequency in ISS-small and TLM-small datasets, respectively. As shown in Table 6, the word frequency in the ISS-small dataset is higher than that in the TLMsmall dataset. Thus, ISS may focus more on taskinfluential words. ## 7 Related Work 7.1 Efficient Pretraining For Plms Many attempts have been made to improve the efficiency of pretraining. Parallel architectures (Shazeer et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2020b) are commonly used in pretraining. However, parallelism  would not actually reduce computational costs in terms of FLOPs. For most Transformer-based PTMs, as their input sequence goes longer, their efficiency is limited by the computation of attention weights. Choromanski et al. (2020) and Wang et al. (2020a) design low-rank kernels to theoretically approximate the original attention weights. Child et al. (2019) and Roy et al. (2021) introduce sparsity into attention mechanisms by limiting the view of each token to a fixed size and separating tokens into several chunks. ELECTRA (Clark et al., 2019) applies the replaced token detection which is more challenging. PMI-Masking (Levine et al., 2020) selectively masks tokens based on their importance. However, their improvements are limited, with less than an order of magnitude reduction in computational expenses (measured in FLOPs). Orthogonal to these works, ISS investigates reducing training data redundancy by the influence of pretraining data points. ## 7.2 Further Pretraning In Nlp Continually pretraining can effectively improve PTMs' performance on new domains or downstream tasks (Gururangan et al., 2020). To achieve it, most previous works continually optimize the pretrained model parameters on a large number of corpora collected from the target domain (e.g., scientific (Beltagy et al., 2019), finance(Araci, 2019) and bio-media (Lee et al., 2020)). However, it is computationally expensive to further pretrain the model on a large amount of unlabeled data and it may not be feasible to collect such a large scale of unlabeled data on certain domains. In contrast, ISS does not need any additional domain data and only utilizes the general corpus. In addition, our approach can also be employed for further pretraining, as we demonstrate in our experiments. ## 7.3 Dataset Pruning Dataset pruning is closely related to the coreset selection methods (Mirzasoleiman et al., 2020; Agarwal et al., 2004), which try to identify the most representative training samples. Several works (Killamsetty et al., 2021; Rebuffi et al., 2017; Toneva et al., 2018) have studied dataset pruning for efficient training of deep learning models in supervised learning and active learning scenarios. Dataset pruning methods typically rely on a predefined criterion to compute a scalar score for each training example, e.g. the compactness (Rebuffi et al., 2017), diversity (Sener and Savarese, 2017), and forgetfulness (Toneva et al., 2018), and then rank and select the training data according to the computed score. Recently, Yao et al. (2022) proposed TLM for transfer learning, which retrieves a subset from the pretraining corpus that is more similar to the task corpus. However, these methods are heuristic and lack of generalization guarantee, they also discard the influence interaction between the collected samples. Our proposed method overcomes these shortcomings. ## 8 Conclusion In this paper, we propose Influential Subset Selection for language model, which aims to reduce the computational costs of pretraining from data level. Specifically, we introduce influence function to measure the importance of each pretraining sample. Moreover, we design a simple, efficient, gradient matching-based method for influence estimation, which significantly speeds up the estimation time. Experiments on various datasets demonstrate that our method achieves comparable performance with PTMs, with a reduction of training FLOPs by three orders of magnitude. ## Limitations There are two potential risks with our method. First, ISS trades generality for efficiency by learning only task-specific representations. Consequently, it may not be suitable for other tasks. Secondly, our method is hardly practical for few-shot or zeroshot learning, as few or no task data are available as anchor points. These potential risks are left to future work. ## Ethics Statement Pretraining from scratch and further pretraining such as DAPT need large-scale unlabeled corpus to learn general knowledge, which results in corresponding greenhouse emissions due to energy consumption (Strubell et al., 2019). However, as shown in Section 5, our new efficient algorithms greatly increase the data efficiency of PTMs, reducing these harms as well as the various harms associated with labor for data collection. Our work introduces a new subset selection algorithm but leverages pre-existing datasets and models. Overall, this work inherits some of the risks of the original work upon which it is implemented, (such as bias (Bender et al., 2021) or privacy leakage (Carlini et al., 2021). ## Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. This work was partially funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.62206057,61976056,62076069), Shanghai Rising-Star Program (23QA1400200), Natural Science Foundation of Shanghai (23ZR1403500), Program of Shanghai Academic Research Leader under grant 22XD1401100, and CCF-Zhipu AI Large Model Fund. ## References Pankaj K Agarwal, Sariel Har-Peled, and Kasturi R Varadarajan. 2004. Approximating extent measures of points. *Journal of the ACM (JACM)*, 51(4):606– 635. Dogu Araci. 2019. Finbert: Financial sentiment analysis with pre-trained language models. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1908.10063. Iz Beltagy, Kyle Lo, and Arman Cohan. 2019. SciBERT: A pretrained language model for scientific text. 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 3615–3620, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Emily M Bender, Timnit Gebru, Angelina McMillanMajor, and Shmargaret Shmitchell. 2021. On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In *Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency*, pages 610–623. 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. Nicholas Carlini, Florian Tramer, Eric Wallace, Matthew Jagielski, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Katherine Lee, Adam Roberts, Tom Brown, Dawn Song, Ulfar Erlingsson, et al. 2021. Extracting training data from large language models. In 30th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 21), pages 2633–2650. Rewon Child, Scott Gray, Alec Radford, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Generating long sequences with sparse transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.10509. Krzysztof Marcin Choromanski, Valerii Likhosherstov, David Dohan, Xingyou Song, Andreea Gane, Tamas Sarlos, Peter Hawkins, Jared Quincy Davis, Afroz Mohiuddin, Lukasz Kaiser, et al. 2020. Rethinking attention with performers. In *International Conference on Learning Representations*. Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, et al. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02311. Kevin Clark, Minh-Thang Luong, Quoc V Le, and Christopher D Manning. 2019. Electra: Pre-training text encoders as discriminators rather than generators. In *International Conference on Learning Representations*. R Dennis Cook and Sanford Weisberg. 1982. Residuals and influence in regression. New York: Chapman and Hall. Franck Dernoncourt and Ji Young Lee. 2017. PubMed 200k RCT: a dataset for sequential sentence classification in medical abstracts. In *Proceedings of the* Eighth International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 308–313, Taipei, Taiwan. Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing. 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. Suchin Gururangan, Ana Marasovic, Swabha ´ Swayamdipta, Kyle Lo, Iz Beltagy, Doug Downey, and Noah A. Smith. 2020. Don't stop pretraining: Adapt language models to domains and tasks. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 8342–8360, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yanping Huang, Youlong Cheng, Ankur Bapna, Orhan Firat, Dehao Chen, Mia Chen, HyoukJoong Lee, Jiquan Ngiam, Quoc V Le, Yonghui Wu, et al. 2019. Gpipe: Efficient training of giant neural networks using pipeline parallelism. *Advances in neural* information processing systems, 32. 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. David Jurgens, Srijan Kumar, Raine Hoover, Dan McFarland, and Dan Jurafsky. 2018. Measuring the evolution of a scientific field through citation frames. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 6:391–406. Jared Kaplan, Sam McCandlish, Tom Henighan, Tom B Brown, Benjamin Chess, Rewon Child, Scott Gray, Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Scaling laws for neural language models. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2001.08361. Angelos Katharopoulos, Apoorv Vyas, Nikolaos Pappas, and François Fleuret. 2020. Transformers are rnns: Fast autoregressive transformers with linear attention. In *International Conference on Machine* Learning, pages 5156–5165. PMLR. Johannes Kiesel, Maria Mestre, Rishabh Shukla, Emmanuel Vincent, Payam Adineh, David Corney, Benno Stein, and Martin Potthast. 2019. SemEval2019 task 4: Hyperpartisan news detection. In Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, pages 829–839, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Krishnateja Killamsetty, S Durga, Ganesh Ramakrishnan, Abir De, and Rishabh Iyer. 2021. Gradmatch: Gradient matching based data subset selection for efficient deep model training. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 5464–5474. PMLR. Pang Wei Koh and Percy Liang. 2017. Understanding black-box predictions via influence functions. In International conference on machine learning, pages 1885–1894. PMLR. Jens Kringelum, Sonny Kim Kjaerulff, Søren Brunak, Ole Lund, Tudor I Oprea, and Olivier Taboureau. 2016. Chemprot-3.0: a global chemical biology diseases mapping. *Database*, 2016. Jinhyuk Lee, Wonjin Yoon, Sungdong Kim, Donghyeon Kim, Sunkyu Kim, Chan Ho So, and Jaewoo Kang. 2020. Biobert: a pre-trained biomedical language representation model for biomedical text mining. Bioinformatics, 36(4):1234–1240. Yoav Levine, Barak Lenz, Opher Lieber, Omri Abend, Kevin Leyton-Brown, Moshe Tennenholtz, and Yoav Shoham. 2020. Pmi-masking: Principled masking of correlated spans. In *International Conference on* Learning Representations. Omer Levy and Yoav Goldberg. 2014. Neural word embedding as implicit matrix factorization. Advances in neural information processing systems, 27. 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*. Kyle Lo, Lucy Lu Wang, Mark Neumann, Rodney Kinney, and Daniel Weld. 2020. S2ORC: The semantic scholar open research corpus. In *Proceedings* of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4969–4983, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. 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, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Andrew L. 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: Human Language Technologies, pages 142–150, Portland, Oregon, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Julian McAuley, Christopher Targett, Qinfeng Shi, and Anton Van Den Hengel. 2015. Image-based recommendations on styles and substitutes. In *Proceedings* of the 38th international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval, pages 43–52. Baharan Mirzasoleiman, Jeff Bilmes, and Jure Leskovec. 2020. Coresets for data-efficient training of machine learning models. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 6950–6960. PMLR. Matthew E. Peters, Mark Neumann, Mohit Iyyer, Matt Gardner, Christopher Clark, Kenton Lee, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. Deep contextualized word representations. 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 2227– 2237, New Orleans, Louisiana. 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, et al. 2021. Scaling language models: Methods, analysis & insights from training gopher. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.11446. Sylvestre-Alvise Rebuffi, Alexander Kolesnikov, Georg Sperl, and Christoph H Lampert. 2017. icarl: Incremental classifier and representation learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 2001–2010. Aurko Roy, Mohammad Saffar, Ashish Vaswani, and David Grangier. 2021. Efficient content-based sparse attention with routing transformers. *Transactions of* the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:53– 68. Ozan Sener and Silvio Savarese. 2017. Active learning for convolutional neural networks: A core-set approach. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.00489*. Noam Shazeer, Youlong Cheng, Niki Parmar, Dustin Tran, Ashish Vaswani, Penporn Koanantakool, Peter Hawkins, HyoukJoong Lee, Mingsheng Hong, Cliff Young, et al. 2018. Mesh-tensorflow: Deep learning for supercomputers. Advances in neural information processing systems, 31. Shaden Smith, Mostofa Patwary, Brandon Norick, Patrick LeGresley, Samyam Rajbhandari, Jared Casper, Zhun Liu, Shrimai Prabhumoye, George Zerveas, Vijay Korthikanti, et al. 2022. Using deepspeed and megatron to train megatron-turing nlg 530b, a large-scale generative language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.11990. Emma Strubell, Ananya Ganesh, and Andrew McCallum. 2019. Energy and policy considerations for deep learning in NLP. In *Proceedings of the 57th* Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3645–3650, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Mariya Toneva, Alessandro Sordoni, Remi Tachet des Combes, Adam Trischler, Yoshua Bengio, and Geoffrey J Gordon. 2018. An empirical study of example forgetting during deep neural network learning. In International Conference on Learning Representations. Laurens Van der Maaten and Geoffrey Hinton. 2008. Visualizing data using t-sne. Journal of machine learning research, 9(11). Sinong Wang, Belinda Z Li, Madian Khabsa, Han Fang, and Hao Ma. 2020a. Linformer: Self-attention with linear complexity. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.04768*. Wenhui Wang, Furu Wei, Li Dong, Hangbo Bao, Nan Yang, and Ming Zhou. 2020b. Minilm: Deep selfattention distillation for task-agnostic compression of pre-trained transformers. *Advances in Neural* Information Processing Systems, 33:5776–5788. Xiao Wang, Shihan Dou, Limao Xiong, Yicheng Zou, Qi Zhang, Tao Gui, Liang Qiao, Zhanzhan Cheng, and Xuanjing Huang. 2022. MINER: Improving out-of-vocabulary named entity recognition from an information theoretic perspective. In *Proceedings* of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5590–5600, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xiao Wang, Weikang Zhou, Can Zu, Han Xia, Tianze Chen, Yuansen Zhang, Rui Zheng, Junjie Ye, Qi Zhang, Tao Gui, et al. 2023. Instructuie: Multitask instruction tuning for unified information extraction. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.08085*. Xingcheng Yao, Yanan Zheng, Xiaocong Yang, and Zhilin Yang. 2022. Nlp from scratch without largescale pretraining: A simple and efficient framework. In *International Conference on Machine Learning*, pages 25438–25451. PMLR. Xiang Zhang, Junbo Zhao, and Yann LeCun. 2015. Character-level convolutional networks for text classification. Advances in neural information processing systems, 28. ## A Detailed Experiment Settings Table A.1 lists the detailed hyperparameters of ISS at different scales for each task on the pretraining task. On each task, we perform a grid search for Bp ∈ {1, 2, 4, 8} and Batch size(*task*) ∈ {1,2,4,8,16} and adjust the training step, batch size, and sequence length to minimize the training cost while maintaining competitive performance. Table A.2 lists the detailed hyperparameters of ISS for each task on further pretraining task. | Hyper-Parameters | AGNews | Hyp. | Help. | IMDB | ACL. | SciERC | Chem. | RCT | | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|----| | Bp | 4 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | | | Bt | 16 | 1 | 16 | 16 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 16 | | | Source Corpus1 | CT LM−small | CT LM−small | CT LM−small | CT LM−small | CT LM−small | CT LM−small | CT LM−small | CT LM−small | | | Training Data Size2 | 0.22GB | 0.04GB | 0.1GB | 0.18GB | 0.3GB | 0.32GB | 0.13GB | 0.16GB | | | Training Steps | 5E4 | 2E4 | 1E5 | 1E5 | 1E5 | 1E5 | 1E5 | 5E4 | | | ρ1 | 1 | 99 | 1 | 19 | 999 | 999 | 999 | 3 | | | ρ2 | 100 | 20 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 20 | 20 | 20 | | | Batch Size | 256 | 256 | 256 | 256 | 256 | 256 | 256 | 256 | | | Sequence Length | 128 | 128 | 128 | 512 | 128 | 128 | 128 | 128 | | | Small Scale | Bp | 4 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | | Bt | 16 | 1 | 16 | 16 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 16 | | | Source Corpus1 | CT LM−small | CT LM−small | CT LM−small | CT LM−small | CT LM−small | CT LM−small | CT LM−small | CT LM−small | | | Training Data Size2 | 0.22GB | 0.04GB | 0.1GB | 0.18GB | 0.3GB | 0.32GB | 0.13GB | 0.16GB | | | Training Steps | 1.5E5 | 5E4 | 1.5E5 | 1.5E5 | 1.5E5 | 1.5E5 | 1.5E5 | 1.5E5 | | | ρ1 | 1 | 99 | 1 | 19 | 999 | 999 | 999 | 3 | | | ρ2 | 100 | 20 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 20 | 20 | 20 | | | Batch Size | 256 | 256 | 256 | 256 | 256 | 256 | 256 | 256 | | | Sequence Length | 128 | 128 | 128 | 512 | 128 | 128 | 128 | 128 | | | Medium Scale Bp | 4 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | | | Bt | 16 | 1 | 16 | 16 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 16 | | | Source Corpus1 | CT LM−large | CT LM−large | CT LM−large | CT LM−large | CT LM−large | CT LM−large | CT LM−large | CT LM−large | | | Training Data Size2 | 0.62GB | 0.18GB | 0.34GB | 2.20GB | 0.70GB | 0.84GB | 0.5GB | 0.44GB | | | Training Steps | 3E5 | 1E5 | 3E5 | 3E5 | 3E5 | 3E5 | 3E5 | 3E5 | | | ρ1 | 3 | 99 | 1 | 99 | 999 | 999 | 999 | 3 | | | ρ2 | 100 | 100 | 1000 | 100 | 20 | 20 | 100 | 100 | | | Batch Size | 256 | 256 | 256 | 256 | 256 | 256 | 256 | 256 | | | Sequence Length | 128 | 128 | 128 | 512 | 128 | 128 | 128 | 128 | | | 1 CT LM−small and CT LM−large are provided by TLM(Yao et al., 2022). 2 ISS only uses a tiny subset of the source general corpus for training. We list the data size that are actually used for ISS training. Large Scale | | | | | | | | | | | Hyper-Parameters | RCT | Chem. | Acl. | SciERC | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|---------|--------|----------| | Bp | 16 | 8 | 2 | 4 | | Bt | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | | Source Corpus1 | CS2ORC | CS2ORC | CS2ORC | CS2ORC | | Train Data Size2 | 1.5G | 1.5G | 1.9G | 1.9G | | Training Steps | 5E4 | 5E4 | 5E4 | 5E4 | | Batch Size | 256 | 256 | 256 | 256 | | Sequence Length | 128 | 128 | 128 | 128 | | 1 CS2ORC is provided by S2ORC(Lo et al., 2020). 2 ISS only uses a tiny subset of the source general corpus for training. We list the data size that are actually used for ISS training. | | | | | ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Limitations section ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Limitations section ✓ 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?** 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 ✓ 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 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 ✓ 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 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?** Section 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.? Section 4 ✓ 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 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? Section 4 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.

yadav-bansal-2023-exclusive

Exclusive Supermask Subnetwork Training for Continual Learning

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.36

Continual Learning (CL) methods focus on accumulating knowledge over time while avoiding catastrophic forgetting. Recently, Wortsman et al. (2020) proposed a CL method, SupSup, which uses a randomly initialized, fixed base network (model) and finds a supermask for each new task that selectively keeps or removes each weight to produce a subnetwork. They prevent forgetting as the network weights are not being updated. Although there is no forgetting, the performance of SupSup is sub-optimal because fixed weights restrict its representational power. Furthermore, there is no accumulation or transfer of knowledge inside the model when new tasks are learned. Hence, we propose ExSSNeT (Exclusive Supermask SubNetwork Training), that performs exclusive and non-overlapping subnetwork weight training. This avoids conflicting updates to the shared weights by subsequent tasks to improve performance while still preventing forgetting. Furthermore, we propose a novel KNN-based Knowledge Transfer (KKT) module that utilizes previously acquired knowledge to learn new tasks better and faster. We demonstrate that ExSSNeT outperforms strong previous methods on both NLP and Vision domains while preventing forgetting. Moreover, ExSSNeT is particularly advantageous for sparse masks that activate 2-10{\%} of the model parameters, resulting in an average improvement of 8.3{\%} over SupSup. Furthermore, ExSSNeT scales to a large number of tasks (100).

# Exclusive Supermask Subnetwork Training For Continual Learning Prateek Yadav & Mohit Bansal Department of Computer Science UNC Chapel Hill {praty,mbansal}@cs.unc.edu ## Abstract Continual Learning (CL) methods focus on accumulating knowledge over time while avoiding catastrophic forgetting. Recently, Wortsman et al. (2020) proposed a CL method, SupSup, which uses a randomly initialized, fixed base network (model) and finds a *supermask* for each new task that selectively keeps or removes each weight to produce a subnetwork. They prevent forgetting as the network weights are not being updated. Although there is no forgetting, the performance of SupSup is sub-optimal because fixed weights restrict its representational power. Furthermore, there is no accumulation or transfer of knowledge inside the model when new tasks are learned. Hence, we propose EXSSNET (Exclusive Supermask SubNEtwork Training), that performs *exclusive* and *non-overlapping* subnetwork weight training. This avoids conflicting updates to the shared weights by subsequent tasks to improve performance while still preventing forgetting. Furthermore, we propose a novel KNN-based Knowledge Transfer (KKT) module that utilizes previously acquired knowledge to learn new tasks better and faster. We demonstrate that EXSSNET outperforms strong previous methods on both NLP and Vision domains while preventing forgetting. Moreover, EXSSNET is particularly advantageous for sparse masks that activate 2-10% of the model parameters, resulting in an average improvement of 8.3% over SupSup. Furthermore, EXSSNET scales to a large number of tasks (100). Our code is available at https://github.com/prateeky2806/exessnet. ## 1 Introduction Artificial intelligence aims to develop agents that can learn to accomplish a set of tasks. Continual Learning (CL) (Ring, 1998; Thrun, 1998) is crucial for this, but when a model is sequentially trained on different tasks with different data distributions, it can lose its ability to perform well on previous tasks, a phenomenon is known as *catastrophic forgetting* (CF) (McCloskey and Cohen, 1989; Zhao and Schmidhuber, 1996; Thrun, 1998). This is caused by the lack of access to data from previous tasks, as well as conflicting updates to shared model parameters when sequentially learning multiple tasks, which is called *parameter interference* (McCloskey and Cohen, 1989). Recently, some CL methods avoid parameter interference by taking inspiration from the Lottery Ticket Hypothesis (Frankle and Carbin, 2018) and Supermasks (Zhou et al., 2019) to exploit the expressive power of sparse subnetworks. Given that we have a combinatorial number of sparse subnetworks inside a network, Zhou et al. (2019) noted that even within randomly weighted neural networks, there exist certain subnetworks known as *supermasks* that achieve good performance. A supermask is a sparse binary mask that selectively keeps or removes each connection in a fixed and randomly initialized network to produce a subnetwork with good performance on a given task. We call this the subnetwork as supermask subnetwork that is shown in Figure 1, highlighted in red weights. Building upon this idea, Wortsman et al. (2020) proposed a CL method, *SupSup*, which initializes a network with fixed and random weights and then learns a different supermask for each new task. This allows them to prevent catastrophic forgetting (CF) as there is no parameter interference (because the model weights are fixed). Although SupSup (Wortsman et al., 2020) prevents CF, there are some problems with using supermasks for CL: (1) Fixed random model weights in SupSup limits the supermask subnetwork's representational power resulting in sub-optimal performance. (2) When learning a task, there is no mechanism for transferring learned knowledge from previous tasks to better learn the current task. Moreover, the model is not accumulating knowledge over time as the weights are not being updated.  To overcome the aforementioned issues, we propose our method, EXSSNET (Exclusive Supermask SubNEtwork Training), pronounced as *'excess-net'*, which first learns a mask for a task and then selectively trains a subset of weights from the supermask subnetwork. We train the weights of this subnetwork via *exclusion* that avoids updating parameters from the current subnetwork that have already been updated by any of the previous tasks. In Figure 1, we demonstrate EXSSNET that also helps us to prevent forgetting. Training the supermask subnetwork's weights increases its representational power and allows EXSSNET to encode task-specific knowledge inside the subnetwork (see Figure 2). This solves the first problem and allows EXSSNET to perform comparably to a fully trained network on individual tasks; and when learning multiple tasks, the exclusive subnetwork training improves the performance of each task while still preventing forgetting (see Figure 3). To address the second problem of knowledge transfer, we propose a k-nearest neighbors-based knowledge transfer (KKT) module that is able to utilize relevant information from the previously learned tasks to improve performance on new tasks while learning them faster. Our KKT module uses KNN classification to select a subnetwork from the previously learned tasks that has better than random predictive power for the current task and use it as a starting point to learn the new tasks. Next, we show our method's advantage by experimenting with both natural language and vision tasks. For natural language, we evaluate on WebNLP classification tasks (de Masson d'Autume et al., 2019) and GLUE benchmark tasks (Wang et al., 2018), whereas, for vision, we evaluate on SplitMNIST (Zenke et al., 2017), SplitCIFAR100 (De Lange and Tuytelaars, 2021), and SplitTinyImageNet (Buzzega et al., 2020) datasets. We show that for both language and vision domains, EXSSNET outperforms multiple strong and recent continual learning methods based on replay, regularization, distillation, and parameter isolation. For the vision domain, EXSSNET outperforms the strongest baseline by 4.8% and 1.4% on SplitCIFAR and SplitTinyImageNet datasets respectively, while surpassing multitask model and bridging the gap to training *individual* models for each task. In addition, for GLUE datasets, EXSSNET is 2% better than the strongest baseline methods and surpasses the performance of multitask learning that uses all the data at once. Moreover, EXSSNET obtains an average improvement of 8.3% over SupSup for sparse masks with 2−10% of the model parameters and scales to a large number of tasks (100). Furthermore, EXSSNET with the KKT module learns new tasks in as few as 30 epochs compared to 100 epochs without it, while achieving 3.2% higher accuracy on the SplitCIFAR100 dataset. In summary, our contributions are listed below: - We propose a simple and novel method to improve mask learning by combining it with exclusive subnetwork weight training to improve CL performance while preventing CF. - We propose a KNN-based Knowledge Transfer (KKT) module for supermask initialization that  dynamically identifies previous tasks to transfer knowledge to learn new tasks better and faster. - Extensive experiments on NLP and vision tasks show that EXSSNET outperforms strong baselines and is comparable to multitask model for NLP tasks while surpassing it for vision tasks. Moreover, EXSSNET works well for sparse masks and scales to a large number of tasks. 2 Motivation Using sparsity for CL is an effective technique to learn multiple tasks, i.e., by encoding them in different subnetworks inside a single model. SupSup (Wortsman et al., 2020) is an instantiation of this that initializes the network weights randomly and then learns a separate supermask for each task (see Figure 7). They prevent CF because the weights of the network are fixed and never updated. However, this is a crucial problem as discussed below. Problem 1 - Sub-Optimal Performance of Supermask: Although fixed network weights in SupSup prevent CF, this also restricts the representational capacity, leading to worse performance compared to a fully trained network. In Figure 2, we report the test accuracy with respect to the fraction of network parameters selected by the mask, i.e., the *mask density* for an underlying ResNet18 model on a *single 100-way classification* on CIFAR100 dataset. The fully trained ResNet18 model (dashed green line) achieves an accuracy of 63.9%. Similar to Zhou et al. (2019), we observe that the performance of SupSup (yellow dashed line) is at least 8.3% worse compared to a fully trained model. As a possible *partial* remedy, we propose a simple solution, SSNET (Supermask SubNEtwork Training), that first finds a subnetwork for a task and then trains the subnetwork's weights. This increases the representational capacity of the subnetwork because there are more trainable parameters. For a single task, the test accuracy of SSNET is better than SupSup for all mask densities and matches the performance of the fully trained model beyond a density threshold. But as shown below, when  learning multiple tasks sequentially, SSNET gives rise to parameter interference that results in CF. Problem 2 - Parameter Interference Due to Subnetwork Weight Training for Multiple Tasks: Next, we demonstrate that when learning multiple tasks sequentially, SSNET can still lead to CF. In Figure 3, we report the average test accuracy versus the fraction of overlapping parameters between the masks of different tasks, i.e., the *sparse* overlap (see Equation 2) for five different 20-way classification tasks from SplitCIFAR100 dataset with ResNet18 model. We observe that SSNET outperforms SupSup for lower sparse overlap but as the sparse overlap increases, the performance declines because the supermask subnetworks for different tasks have more overlapping (common) weights (bold dashed lines in Figure 1). This leads to higher parameter interference resulting in increased forgetting which suppresses the gain from subnetwork weight training. Our *final proposal*, EXSSNET, resolves both of these problems by selectively training a subset of the weights in the supermask subnetwork to prevent parameter interference. When learning multiple tasks, this prevents CF, resulting in strictly better performance than SupSup (Figure 3) while having the representational power to match bridge the gap with fully trained models (Figure 2). ## 3 Method As shown in Figure 1, when learning a new task ti, EXSSNET follows three steps: (1) We learn a supermask Mi for the task; (2) We use all the previous tasks' masks M1*, . . . , M*i−1 to create a free parameter mask M free i, that finds the parameters selected by the mask Mithat were not selected by any of the previous masks; (3) We update the weights corresponding to the mask M free ias this avoids parameter interference. Now, we formally describe all the step of our method EXSSNET (Exclusive Supermask SubNEtwork Training) for a Multi-layer perceptron (MLP). Notation: During training, we can treat each layer l of an MLP network separately. An intermediate layer l has nl nodes denoted by V (l) = {v1*, . . . , v*nl}. For a node v in layer l, let Iv denote its input and Zv = σ(Iv) denote its output, where σ(.) is the activation function. Given this notation, Iv can be written as Iv =Pu∈V(l−1) wuvZu, where wuv is the network weight connecting node u to node v. The complete network weights for the MLP are denoted by W. When training the task ti, we have access to the supermasks from all previous tasks {Mj} i−1 j=1 and the model weights W(i−1) obtained after learning task ti−1. ## 3.1 Exssne**T: Exclusive Supermask** Subne**Twork Training** Finding Supermasks: Following Wortsman et al. (2020), we use the algorithm of Ramanujan et al. (2019) to learn a supermask Mi for the current task ti. The supermask Miis learned with respect to the underlying model weights W(i−1) and the mask selects a fraction of weights that lead to good performance on the task without training the weights. To achieve this, we learn a score suv for each weight wuv, and once trained, these scores are thresholded to obtain the mask. Here, the input to a node v is Iv =Pu∈V(l−1) wuvZumuv, where muv = h(suv) is the binary mask value and h(.) is a function which outputs 1 for top-k% of the scores in the layer with k being the mask density. Next, we use a straight-through gradient estimator (Bengio et al., 2013) and iterate over the current task's data samples to update the scores for the corresponding supermask Mi as follows, $$s_{uv}=s_{uv}-\alpha\hat{g}_{suv}\;;\;\hat{g}_{suv}=\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}}{\partial\mathcal{I}_{v}}\frac{\partial\mathcal{I}_{v}}{\partial s_{uv}}=\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}}{\partial\mathcal{I}_{v}}w_{uv}\mathcal{Z}_{u}\tag{1}$$ Finding Exclusive Mask Parameters: Given a learned mask Mi, we use all the previous tasks' masks M1*, . . . , M*i−1 to create a free parameter mask M free i, that finds the parameters selected by the mask Mithat were not selected by any of the previous masks. We do this by - (1) creating a new mask M1:i−1 containing all the parameters already updated by any of the previous tasks by taking a union of all the previous masks {Mj} i−1 j=1 by using the logical or operation, and (2) Then we obtain a mask M free iby taking the intersection of all the network parameters not used by any previous task which is given by the negation of the mask M1:i−1 with the current task mask Mi via a logical and operation. Next, we use this mask M free ifor the exclusive supermask subnetwork weight training. Exclusive Supermask Subnetwork Weight Training: For training the subnetwork parameters for task ti given the free parameter mask M free i, we perform the forward pass on the model as model(*x, W* ⊙Mˆi) where Mˆi = M free i +((1− M free i) ⊙ Mi)*.detach*(), where ⊙ is the elementwise multiplication. Hence, Mˆi allows us to use all the connections in Mi during the forward pass of the training but during the backward pass, only the parameters in M free iare updated because the gradient value is 0 for all the weights wuv where m free uv = 0. While during the inference on task ti we use the mask Mi. In contrast, SSNET uses the task mask Mi both during the training and inference as model(*x, W*(i−1) ⊙ Mi). This updates all the parameters in the mask including the parameters that are already updated by previous tasks that result in CF. Therefore, in cases where the sparse overlap is high, EXSSNET is preferred over SSNET. To summarize, EXSSNET circumvents the CF issue of SSNET while benefiting from the subnetwork training to improve overall performance as shown in Figure 3. ## 3.2 Kkt: Knn-Based Knowledge Transfer When learning multiple tasks, it is a desired property to transfer information learned by the previous tasks to achieve better performance on new tasks and to learn them faster (Biesialska et al., 2020). Hence, we propose a K-Nearest Neighbours (KNN) based knowledge transfer (KKT) module that uses KNN classification to dynamically find the most relevant previous task (Veniat et al., 2021) to initialize the supermask for the current task. To be more specific, before learning the mask Mi for the current task ti, we randomly sample a small fraction of data from task ti and split it into a train and test set. Next, we use the trained subnetworks of each previous task t1*, . . . , t*i−1 to obtain features on this sampled data. Then we learn i−1 independent KNN-classification models using these features. Then we evaluate these i−1 models on the sampled test set to obtain accuracy scores which denote the predictive power of features from each previous task for the current task. Finally, we select the previous task with the highest accuracy on the current task. If this accuracy is better than random then we use its mask to initialize the current task's supermask. This enables EXSSNET to transfer information from the previous task to learn new tasks better and faster. We note that the KKT module is not limited to SupSup and can be applied to a broader category of CL methods that introduce additional parameters for new tasks. ## 4 Experiments 4.1 Experimental Setup And Training Details Datasets: For natural language domain, we follow the shared text classification setup of IDBR (Huang et al., 2021), LAMOL (Sun et al., 2019), and MBPA++ (De Lange et al., 2019) to sequentially learn five text classification tasks; (1) Yelp Sentiment analysis (Zhang et al., 2015); (2) DBPedia for Wikipedia article classification (Mendes et al., 2012) (3) Yahoo! Answer for Q&A classification (Chang et al., 2008); (4) Amazon sentiment analysis (McAuley and Leskovec, 2013) (5) AG News for news classification (Zhang et al., 2015). We call them WebNLP classification tasks for easier reference. While comparing with the previous state-of-the-art text methods, we use the same training and test set as IDBR and LAMOL containing 115,000/500/7,600 Train/Val/Test examples. For our ablation studies, we follow IDBR and use a sampled dataset, please see Appendix Table 7 for statistics. Additionally, we create a CL benchmark using the popular *GLUE classification* tasks (Wang et al., 2018) consisting of more than 5k train samples. We use the official validation split as test data and use 0.1% of the train data to create a validation set. Our final benchmark includes five tasks; MNLI (353k/39k/9.8k), QQP (327k/36k/40k), QNLI (94k/10k/5.4k), SST-2 (60k/6.7k/872), CoLA (7.6k/856/1k). For vision experiments, we follow SupSup and use three CL benchmarks, SplitMNIST (Zenke et al., 2017) SplitCIFAR100 (Chaudhry et al., 2018) , and SplitTinyImageNet (Buzzega et al., 2020) datasets with 10, 100 and 200 total classes respectively. Metrics: We follow Chaudhry et al. (2018) and evaluate our model after learning task t on all the tasks, denoted by T . This gives us an accuracy matrix A ∈ R n×n, where ai,j represents the classification accuracy on task j after learning task i. We want the model to perform well on all the tasks it has been learned. This is measured by the average accuracy, A(T ) = 1N PN k=1 aN,k, where N is the number of tasks. Next, we want the model to retain performance on the previous tasks when learning multiple tasks. This is measured by the *forgetting* metric (Lopez-Paz and Ranzato, 2017), F(T ) = 1 N−1 PN−1 t=1 (maxk∈{1,...,N−1} ak,t −aN,t). This is the average difference between the maximum accuracy obtained for task t and its final accuracy. Higher accuracy and lower forgetting are desired. Sparse Overlap to Quantify Parameter Interference: Next, we propose *sparse overlap*, a measure to quantify parameter interference for a task i, i.e., the fraction of the parameters in mask Mithat are already updated by some previous task. For a formal definition refer to Appendix A.1 Previous Methods and Baselines: For both vision and language (VL) tasks, we compare with: **(VL.1) Naive Training** (Yogatama et al., 2019): where all model parameters are sequentially trained/finetuned for each task. **(VL.2) Experience** Replay (ER) (de Masson d'Autume et al., 2019): we replay previous tasks examples when we train new tasks; **(VL.3) Multitask Learning** (Crawshaw, 2020): where all the tasks are used jointly to train the model; **(VL.4) Individual Models**: where we train a separate model for each task. This is considered an upper bound for CL; **(VL.5) Supsup** (Wortsman et al., 2020). For natural language (L), we further compare with the following methods: **(L.6) Regularization** (Huang et al., 2021): Along with the Replay method, we regularize the hidden states of the BERT classifier with an L2 loss term; We show three Adapter BERT (Houlsby et al., 2019) variants, **(L.7) AdaptBERT + FT** where we have single adapter which is finetuned for all task; (L.8) AdaptBERT + ER where a single adapter is finetuned with replay; **(L.9) MultiAdaptBERT** where a separate adapter is finetuned for each task; (L.10) Prompt Tuning (Li and Liang, 2021) that learns 50 different continuous prompt tokens for each task. **(L.11) MBPA++** (de Masson d'Autume et al., 2019) perform replay with random examples during training and does local adaptation during inference to select replay example; **(L.12) LAMOL** (Sun et al., 2019) uses a language model to generate pseudo-samples for previous tasks for replay; (L.13) IDBR (Huang et al., 2021) disentangles hidden representations into generic and task-specific representations and regularizes them while also performing replay. For vision task (V), we additionally compare with two popular regularization Method (↓**) GLUE WebNLP** Order (→**) S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 Average** Random 33.3 (-) 7.14 (-) 7.14 (-) 7.14 (-) 7.14 (-) *7.14 (-)* Multitask 79.9 (0.0) 77.2 (0.0) 77.2 (0.0) 77.2 (0.0) 77.2 (0.0) *77.2 (0.0)* Individual 87.7 (0.0) 79.5 (0.0) 79.5 (0.0) 79.5 (0.0) 79.5 (0.0) *79.5 (0.0)* FT 14.1 (86.0) 26.9 (62.1) 22.8 (67.6) 30.6 (55.9) 15.6 (76.8) 24.0 (65.6) AdaptBERT + FT 24.7 (53.4) 20.8 (68.4) 19.1 (70.9) 23.6 (64.5) 14.6 (76.0) 19.6 (70.0) AdaptBERT + Replay 76.8 (3.8) 73.2 (3.0) 74.5 (2.0) 74.5 (2.0) 74.6 (2.0) 74.2 (2.3) MultiAdaptBERT 78.5 (0.0) 76.7 (0.0) 76.7 (0.0) 76.7 (0.0) 76.7 (0.0) 76.7 (0.0) Prompt Tuning 76.3 (0.0) 66.3 (0.0) 66.3 (0.0) 66.3 (0.0) 66.3 (0.0) 66.3 (0.0) Regularization 72.5 (8.8) 76.0 (2.8) 74.9 (3.8) 76.4 (1.8) 76.5 (2.0) 76.0 (2.6) Replay 77.7 (4.8) 75.1 (3.1) 74.6 (3.5) 75.2 (2.2) 75.7 (3.1) 75.1 (3.0) MBPA++† - 74.9 (-) 73.1 (-) 74.9 (-) 74.1 (-) 74.3 (-) LAMOL† - 76.1 (-) 76.1 (-) **77.2 (-)** 76.7 (-) 76.5 (-) IDBR 73.0 (6.8) 75.9 (2.7) 75.4 (3.5) 76.5 (1.6) 76.4 (1.9) 76.0 (2.4) SupSup 78.3 (0.0) 75.9 (0.0) 76.1 (0.0) 76.0 (0.0) 75.9 (0.0) 76.0 (0.0) SSNET 78.4 (3.6) 76.3 (0.8) 76.3 (0.8) 76.4 (0.3) 76.3 (0.3) 76.3 (0.6) EXSSNE**T 80.5 (0.0) 77.0 (0.0) 77.1 (0.0)** 76.7 (0.0) **76.9 (0.0) 76.9 (0.0)** Table 1: Comparing average test accuracy ↑ (**and forgetting metric** ↓) for multiple tasks and sequence orders with state-of-theart (SotA) methods. Results with † are taken from (Huang et al., 2021). based methods, **(V.6) Online EWC** (Schwarz et al., 2018), **(V.7) Synaptic Intelligence (SI)** (Zenke et al., 2017); one knowledge distillation method, (V.8) Learning without Forgetting (LwF) (Li and Hoiem, 2017), three additional experience replay method, **(V.9) AGEM** (Chaudhry et al., 2018), (V.10) Dark Experience Replay (DER) (Buzzega et al., 2020), **(V.11) DER++** (Buzzega et al., 2020), and a parameter isolation method **(V.12) CGATE** (Abati et al., 2020). Implementation Details: Following Huang et al. (2021), for WebNLP datasets we learn different task orders S1-S51that are provided in Appendix Table 6. Following Huang et al. (2021), for NLP experiments, we use a pre-trained BERT as our base model for all methods. For SupSup, SSNET, and EXSSNET, we use a CNN-based classification head. Unless specified, we randomly split all the vision datasets to obtain five tasks with disjoint classes. For the vision experiments, we do not use pre-trained models. All methods employ the same number of epochs over datasets. For additional implementation details refer to Appendix A.3. ## 4.2 Main Results Q1. Does Supermask Subnetwork Training Help? In these experiments, we show that EXSSNET outperforms multiple strong baseline methods including SupSup. For our main language experiments in Table 1, we sequentially learn multiple task orders, S1 - S51corresponding to the GLUE and WebNLP benchmarks. These task orders are 1For example, in S2 order the model learns the task in this order, ag yelp amazon yahoo dbpedia listed in Appendix Table 6. We report the average test accuracy (and forgetting in parentheses). For natural language, we perform better than previous SOTA CL methods in four out of five cases, across multiple task orders, and in aggregate. Specifically, on the GLUE benchmark, EXSSNET is at least 2.0% better than other methods while avoiding CF. Furthermore, EXSSNET either outperforms or is close to the performance of the multitasking baseline which is a strong baseline for CL methods. For vision tasks, we split the MNIST, CIFAR100, and TinyImageNet datasets into *five different tasks* with an equal number of disjoint classes and report results. From Table 2, we observe that EXSSNET leads to a 4.8% and 1.4% improvement over the strongest baseline for Split-CIFAR100 and Split-TinyImageNet datasets. Furthermore, both EXSSNET and SupSup outperform the multitask baseline. Moreover, EXSSNET bridges the gap to individually trained models significantly, for TinyImageNet we reach within 1.7% of individual | Method | S-MNIST | S-CIFAR100 | S-TinyImageNet | |------------------------------|-------------|--------------|------------------| | Multitask | 96.5 (0.0) | 53.0 (0.0) | 45.9 (0.0) | | Individual | 99.7 (0.0) | 75.5 (0.0) | 53.7 (0.0) | | Naive Sequential 49.6 (25.0) | 19.3 (73.7) | 11.5 (43.9) | | | EWC | 96.1 (4.5) | 32.4 (60.5) | 20.5 (52.1) | | SI | 99.2 (0.6) | 46.1 (47.8) | 19.5 (46.2) | | LwF | 99.2 (0.8) | 29.5 (70.2) | 18.1 (56.5) | | AGEM | 98.3 (1.9) | 52.1 (42.0) | 21.6 (54.9) | | ER | 99.2 (0.6) | 60.1 (27.5) | 35.6 (36.0) | | DER | 98.9 (1.2) | 62.5 (28.4) | 35.9 (37.7) | | DER++ | 98.3 (1.8) | 62.5 (27.5) | 36.2 (35.7) | | CGATE | 99.6 (0.0) | 60.1 (0.0) | 49.2 (0.0) | | SupSup | 99.6 (0.0) | 62.1 (0.0) | 50.6 (0.0) | | SSNET | 99.7 (0.0) | 23.9 (54.4) | 49.6 (1.9) | | EXSSNET | 99.7 (0.0) | 67.3 (0.0) | 52.0 (0.0) | Method S-MNIST S-CIFAR100 S-TinyImageNet SupSup 99.6 62.1 50.6 + KKT 99.6 [+0.0] **67.1** [+5.0] **53.3** [+2.7] SSNE**T 99.7 23.9** 49.6 + KKT 99.3 [-0.4] 23.5 [-0.4] **51.8** [+2.2] EXSSNET 99.7 67.3 52.0 + KKT 99.7 [+0.0] **70.5** [+3.2] **54.0** [+2.0] Table 3: Average test accuracies ↑ **[and gains from** KKT] when using the KKT knowledge sharing module.  models' performance. The average sparse overlap of EXSSNET is 19.4% across all three datasets implying that there is a lot more capacity in the model. See appendix Table 11 for sparse overlap of other methods and Appendix A.4.1 for best-performing methods results on Imagenet Dataset. Note that, past methods require tricks like local adaptation in MBPA++, and experience replay in AGEM, DER, LAMOL, and ER. In contrast, EXSSNET is simple and does not require replay. Q2. Can KKT Knowledge Transfer Module Share Knowledge Effectively? In Table 3, we show that adding the KKT module to EXSSNET, SSNET, and SupSup improves performance on vision benchmarks. The experimental setting here is similar to Table 2. We observe across all methods and datasets that the KKT module improves average test accuracy. Specifically, for the Split-CIFAR100 dataset, the KKT module results in 5.0%, and 3.2% improvement for SupSup and EXSSNET respectively; while for SplitTinyImageNet, EXSSNET + KKT outperforms the individual models. We observe a performance decline for SSNET when using KKT because KKT promotes sharing of parameters across tasks which can lead to worse performance for SSNET. Furthermore, EXSSNET + KKT outperforms all other methods on both the Split-CIFAR100 and SplitTinyImageNet datasets. For EXSSNET + KKT,  SupSup 90.34 (0.0) 90.1 SSNET 89.02 (2.2) 90.0 EXSSNE**T 91.21 (0.0)** 90.0 Table 4: Average accuracy ↑ (**forgetting metric** ↓) and average sparse overlap when learning 100 tasks. the average sparse overlap is 49.6% across all three datasets (see appendix Table 11). These results suggest that combining weight training with the KKT module leads to further improvements. | Method | S-TinyImageNet | Avg. Sparse Overlap | |----------|------------------|-----------------------| | SupSup | 90.34 (0.0) | 90.1 | | SSNET | 89.02 (2.2) | 90.0 | | EXSSNET | 91.21 (0.0) | 90.0 | ## Q3. Can Kkt Knowledge Transfer Module Improve Learning Speed Of Subsequent Tasks? Next, we show that the KKT module enables us to learn new tasks faster. To demonstrate this, in Figure 4 we plot the running mean of the validation accuracy vs epochs for different tasks from the Split-CIFAR100 experiment in Table 3. We show curves for EXSSNET with and without the KKT module and omit the first task as both these methods are identical for Task 1 because there is no previous task to transfer knowledge. For all the subsequent tasks (Task 2,3,4,5), we observe that - (1) EXSSNET + KKT starts off with a much better initial performance compared to EXSSNET (2) given a fixed number of epochs for training, EXSSNET + KKT always learns the task better because it has a better accuracy at all epochs; and (3) EXSSNET + KKT can achieve similar performance as EXSSNET in much fewer epochs as shown by the green horizontal arrows. This clearly illustrates that using the KKT knowledge-transfer module not only helps to learn the tasks better (see Table 3) but also learn them faster. For an efficiency and robustness analysis of the KKT module, please refer to Appendix A.4.2. ## 4.3 Additional Results And Analysis Q4. Effect of Mask Density on Performance: Next, we show the advantage of using EXSSNET when the mask density is low. In Figure 5, we show the average accuracy for the Split-CIFAR100 dataset as a function of mask density. We observe | Method | FastText | Glove | BERT | |----------|--------------|--------------|-------------| | SupSup | 54.01 | 55.52 | 74.0 | | SSNET | 60.41 [+6.4] | 59.78 [+4.3] | 74.5 [+0.5] | | EXSSNET | 62.52 [+8.5] | 62.81 [+7.3] | 74.8 [+0.8] | SupSup 54.01 55.52 74.0 SSNET 60.41 [+6.4] 59.78 [+4.3] 74.5 [+0.5] EXSSNE**T 62.52** [+8.5] **62.81** [+7.3] **74.8** [+0.8] Table 5: Ablation result for token embeddings. We report average accuracy ↑ **[and gains over SupSup]** that EXSSNET obtains 7.9%, 18.4%, 8.4%, and 4.7% improvement over SupSup for mask density values 0.02, 0.04, 0.06, 0.08 respectively. This is an appealing property as tasks select fewer parameters which inherently reduces sparse overlap allowing EXSSNET to learn a large number of tasks. Q5. Can EXSSNET **Learn a Large Number of** Tasks? SupSup showed that it can scale to a large number of tasks. Next, we perform experiments to learn 100 tasks created by splitting the TinyImageNet dataset. In Table 4, we show that this property is preserved by EXSSNET while resulting in a performance improvement over SupSup. We note that as the number of task increase, the sparse overlap between the masks also increases resulting in fewer trainable model weights. In the extreme case where there are no free weights, EXSSNET by design reduces to SupSup because there will be no weight training. Moreover, if we use larger models there are more free parameters, leading to even more improvement over SupSup. ## Q6. Effect Of Token Embedding Initialization for NLP: For our language experiments, we use a pretrained BERT model (Devlin et al., 2019) to obtain the initial token representations. We perform ablations on the token embedding initialization to understand its impact on CL methods. In Table 5, we present results on the S21task-order sequence of the sampled version of WebNLP dataset (see Section 4.1, Datasets). We initialize the token representations using *FastText* (Bojanowski et al., 2016), Glove (Pennington et al., 2014), and *BERT* embeddings. From Table 5, we observe that - (1) the performance gap between EXSSNET and SupSup increases from 0.8% → 7.3% and 0.8% → 8.5% when moving from BERT to Glove and FastText initializations respectively. These gains imply that it is even more beneficial to use EXSSNET in absence of good initial representations, and (2) the performance trend, EXSSNET > SSNET > SupSup is consistent across initialization. ## 5 Related Work Regularization-based methods estimate the importance of model components and add importance regularization terms to the loss function. Zenke et al. (2017) regularize based on the distance of weights from their initialization, whereas Kirkpatrick et al. (2017b); Schwarz et al. (2018) use an approximation of the Fisher information matrix (Pascanu and Bengio, 2013) to regularize the parameters. In NLP, Han et al. (2020); Wang et al. (2019) use regularization to constrain the relevant information from the huge amount of knowledge inside large language models (LLM). Huang et al. (2021) first identifies hidden spaces that need to be updated versus retained via information disentanglement (Fu et al., 2017; Li et al., 2020) and then regularize these hidden spaces separately. Replay based methods maintain a small memory buffer of data samples (De Lange et al., 2019; Yan et al., 2022) or their relevant proxies (Rebuffi et al., 2017) from the previous tasks and retrain on them later to prevent CF. Chaudhry et al. (2018) use the buffer during optimization to constrain parameter gradients. Shin et al. (2017); Kemker and Kanan (2018) uses a generative model to sample and replay pseudo-data during training, whereas Rebuffi et al. (2017) replay distilled knowledge from the past tasks. de Masson d'Autume et al. (2019) employ episodic memory along with local adaptation, whereas Sun et al. (2019) trains a language model to generate a pseudo-sample for replay. Architecture based methodscan be divided into two categories: (1) methods that add new modules over time (Li et al., 2019; Veniat et al., 2021; Douillard et al., 2022); and (2) methods that isolate the network's parameters for different tasks (Kirkpatrick et al., 2017a; Fernando et al., 2017; Mallya and Lazebnik, 2018; Fernando et al., 2017). Rusu et al. (2016) introduces a new network for each task while Schwarz et al. (2018) distilled the new network after each task into the original one. Recent prompt learning-based CL models for vision (Wang et al., 2022a,b) assume access to a pre-trained model to learn a set of prompts that can potentially be shared across tasks to perform CL this is orthogonal to our method that trains from scratch. Mallya and Lazebnik (2018) allocates parameters to specific tasks and then trains them in isolation which limits the number of tasks that can be learned. In contrast, Mallya et al. (2018) use a frozen pretrained model and learns a new mask for each task but a pretrained model is crucial for their method's good performance. Wortsman et al. (2020) removes the pretrained model dependence and learns a mask for each task over a fixed randomly initialized network. EXSSNET avoids the shortcomings of Mallya and Lazebnik (2018); Mallya et al. (2018) and performs supermask subnetwork training to increase the representational capacity compared to (Wortsman et al., 2020) while performing knowledge transfer and avoiding CF. ## 6 Conclusion We introduced a novel Continual Learning method, EXSSNET (Exclusive Supermask SubNetwork Training), that delivers enhanced performance by utilizing exclusive, non-overlapping subnetwork weight training, overcoming the representational limitations of the prior SupSup method. Through the avoidance of conflicting weight updates, EXSSNET not only improves performance but also eliminates forgetting, striking a delicate balance. Moreover, the inclusion of the Knowledge Transfer (KKT) module propels the learning process, utilizing previously acquired knowledge to expedite and enhance the learning of new tasks. The efficacy of EXSSNET is substantiated by its superior performance in both NLP and Vision domains, its particular proficiency for sparse masks, and its scalability up to a hundred tasks. ## Limitations Firstly, we note that as the density of the mask increases, the performance improvement over the SupSup method begins to decrease. This is due to the fact that denser subnetworks result in higher levels of sparse overlap, leaving fewer free parameters for new tasks to update. However, it is worth noting that even in situations where mask densities are higher, all model weights are still trained by some task, improving performance on those tasks and making our proposed method an upper bound to the performance of SupSup. Additionally, the model size and capacity can be increased to counterbalance the effect of higher mask density. Moreover, in general, a sparse mask is preferred for most applications due to its efficiency. Secondly, we have focused on the task incremental setting of continual learning for two main reasons: (1) in the domain of natural language processing, task identities are typically easy to obtain, and popular methods such as prompting and adaptors assume access to task identities. (2) the primary focus of our work is to improve the performance of supermasks for continual learning and to develop a more effective mechanism for reusing learned knowledge, which is orthogonal to the question of whether task identities are provided during test time. Moreover, it is worth noting that, similar to the SupSup method, our proposed method can also be extended to situations where task identities are not provided during inference. The SupSup paper presents a method for doing this by minimizing entropy to select the best mask during inference, and this can also be directly applied to our proposed method, ExSSNeT, in situations where task identities are not provided during inference. This is orthogonal to the main questions of our study, however, we perform some experiments on Class Incremental Learning in the appendix A.4.3. ## Acknowledgements We thank Marc'Aurelio Ranzato for the helpful discussions to formulate the initial idea. We thank the reviewers and Xiang Zhou, Swarnadeep Saha, and Archiki Prasad for their valuable feedback on this paper. This work was supported by NSF-CAREER Award 1846185, DARPA Machine-Commonsense (MCS) Grant N66001-19-2-4031, Microsoft Investigator Fellowship, and Google and AWS cloud compute awards. The views contained in this article are those of the authors and not of the funding agency. ## References Davide Abati, Jakub Tomczak, Tijmen Blankevoort, Simone Calderara, Rita Cucchiara, and Babak Ehteshami Bejnordi. 2020. Conditional channel gated networks for task-aware continual learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 3931–3940. Yoshua Bengio, Nicholas Léonard, and Aaron C. Courville. 2013. Estimating or propagating gradients through stochastic neurons for conditional computation. *CoRR*, abs/1308.3432. Magdalena Biesialska, Katarzyna Biesialska, and Marta R. Costa-jussà. 2020. Continual lifelong learning in natural language processing: A survey. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 6523–6541, Barcelona, Spain (Online). International Committee on Computational Linguistics. Piotr Bojanowski, Edouard Grave, Armand Joulin, and Tomas Mikolov. 2016. Enriching word vectors with subword information. arXiv preprint arXiv:1607.04606. Arthur Douillard, Alexandre Ramé, Guillaume Couairon, and Matthieu Cord. 2022. Dytox: Transformers for continual learning with dynamic token expansion. In *Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer* Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). Pietro Buzzega, Matteo Boschini, Angelo Porrello, Davide Abati, and Simone Calderara. 2020. Dark experience for general continual learning: a strong, simple baseline. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, volume 33, pages 15920–15930. Curran Associates, Inc. Chrisantha Fernando, Dylan Banarse, Charles Blundell, Yori Zwols, David Ha, Andrei A. Rusu, Alexander Pritzel, and Daan Wierstra. 2017. Pathnet: Evolution channels gradient descent in super neural networks. CoRR, abs/1701.08734. Arslan Chaudhry, Marc'Aurelio Ranzato, Marcus Rohrbach, and Mohamed Elhoseiny. 2018. Efficient lifelong learning with a-gem. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1812.00420. Xu Han, Yi Dai, Tianyu Gao, Yankai Lin, Zhiyuan Liu, Peng Li, Maosong Sun, and Jie Zhou. 2020. Continual relation learning via episodic memory activation and reconsolidation. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational* Linguistics, pages 6429–6440, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Matthias De Lange, Rahaf Aljundi, Marc Masana, Sarah Parisot, Xu Jia, Ales Leonardis, Gregory Slabaugh, and Tinne Tuytelaars. 2019. Continual learning: A comparative study on how to defy forgetting in classification tasks. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.08383*, 2(6). Kaiming He, X. Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2016. Deep residual learning for image recognition. 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 770–778. Matthias De Lange and Tinne Tuytelaars. 2021. Continual prototype evolution: Learning online from non-stationary data streams. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 8250–8259. Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li Fei-Fei. 2009. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In *CVPR 2009*. 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*. Yoon Kim. 2014. Convolutional neural networks for sentence classification. In *Proceedings of the* 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1746–1751, Doha, Qatar. 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. Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980. Jonathan Frankle and Michael Carbin. 2018. The lottery ticket hypothesis: Finding sparse, trainable neural networks. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.03635*. Ming-Wei Chang, Lev Ratinov, Dan Roth, and Vivek Srikumar. 2008. Importance of semantic representation: Dataless classification. In *Proceedings of the* 23rd National Conference on Artificial Intelligence - Volume 2, AAAI'08, page 830–835. AAAI Press. Zhenxin Fu, Xiaoye Tan, Nanyun Peng, Dongyan Zhao, and Rui Yan. 2017. Style transfer in text: Exploration and evaluation. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.06861*. Michael Crawshaw. 2020. Multi-task learning with deep neural networks: A survey. *ArXiv*, abs/2009.09796. 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 Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 97 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 2790–2799. PMLR. Cyprien de Masson d'Autume, Sebastian Ruder, Lingpeng Kong, and Dani Yogatama. 2019. Episodic memory in lifelong language learning. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, volume 32. Curran Associates, Inc. Yufan Huang, Yanzhe Zhang, Jiaao Chen, Xuezhi Wang, and Diyi Yang. 2021. Continual learning for text classification with information disentanglement based regularization. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies*, pages 2736–2746, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ronald Kemker and Christopher Kanan. 2018. Fearnet: Brain-inspired model for incremental learning. In *International Conference on Learning Representations*. James Kirkpatrick, Razvan Pascanu, Neil Rabinowitz, Joel Veness, Guillaume Desjardins, Andrei A. Rusu, Kieran Milan, John Quan, Tiago Ramalho, Agnieszka Grabska-Barwinska, Demis Hassabis, Claudia Clopath, Dharshan Kumaran, and Raia Hadsell. 2017a. Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networks. *Proceedings of the National Academy of* Sciences, 114(13):3521–3526. James Kirkpatrick, Razvan Pascanu, Neil Rabinowitz, Joel Veness, Guillaume Desjardins, Andrei A Rusu, Kieran Milan, John Quan, Tiago Ramalho, Agnieszka Grabska-Barwinska, et al. 2017b. Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networks. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 114(13):3521–3526. Y. Lecun, L. Bottou, Y. Bengio, and P. Haffner. 1998. Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. *Proceedings of the IEEE*, 86(11):2278–2324. Xiang Lisa Li and Percy Liang. 2021. Prefix-tuning: Optimizing continuous prompts for generation. 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 4582– 4597, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xilai Li, Yingbo Zhou, Tianfu Wu, Richard Socher, and Caiming Xiong. 2019. Learn to grow: A continual structure learning framework for overcoming catastrophic forgetting. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 3925–3934. PMLR. Yuan Li, Chunyuan Li, Yizhe Zhang, Xiujun Li, Guoqing Zheng, Lawrence Carin, and Jianfeng Gao. 2020. Complementary auxiliary classifiers for labelconditional text generation. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 34(05):8303– 8310. Zhizhong Li and Derek Hoiem. 2017. Learning without forgetting. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 40(12):2935–2947. David Lopez-Paz and Marc'Aurelio Ranzato. 2017. Gradient episodic memory for continual learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 6467–6476. Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2016. Sgdr: Stochastic gradient descent with warm restarts. Arun Mallya, Dillon Davis, and Svetlana Lazebnik. 2018. Piggyback: Adapting a single network to multiple tasks by learning to mask weights. In *Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision* (ECCV), pages 67–82. Arun Mallya and Svetlana Lazebnik. 2018. Packnet: Adding multiple tasks to a single network by iterative pruning. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 7765–7773. Julian McAuley and Jure Leskovec. 2013. Hidden factors and hidden topics: Understanding rating dimensions with review text. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, RecSys '13, page 165–172, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. Michael McCloskey and Neal J Cohen. 1989. Catastrophic interference in connectionist networks: The sequential learning problem. In *Psychology of learning and motivation*, volume 24, pages 109–165. Elsevier. Pablo Mendes, Max Jakob, and Christian Bizer. 2012. DBpedia: A multilingual cross-domain knowledge base. In *Proceedings of the Eighth International* Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'12), pages 1813–1817, Istanbul, Turkey. European Language Resources Association (ELRA). Razvan Pascanu and Yoshua Bengio. 2013. Revisiting natural gradient for deep networks. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1301.3584. 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. Vivek Ramanujan, Mitchell Wortsman, Aniruddha Kembhavi, Ali Farhadi, and Mohammad Rastegari. 2019. What's hidden in a randomly weighted neural network? *arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.13299*. Sylvestre-Alvise Rebuffi, Alexander Kolesnikov, Georg Sperl, and Christoph H Lampert. 2017. icarl: Incremental classifier and representation learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 2001–2010. Mark B Ring. 1998. Child: A first step towards continual learning. In *Learning to learn*, pages 261–292. Springer. Andrei A Rusu, Neil C Rabinowitz, Guillaume Desjardins, Hubert Soyer, James Kirkpatrick, Koray Kavukcuoglu, Razvan Pascanu, and Raia Hadsell. 2016. Progressive neural networks. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1606.04671. Jonathan Schwarz, Jelena Luketina, Wojciech M Czarnecki, Agnieszka Grabska-Barwinska, Yee Whye Teh, Razvan Pascanu, and Raia Hadsell. 2018. Progress & compress: A scalable framework for continual learning. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.06370*. Hanul Shin, Jung Kwon Lee, Jaehong Kim, and Jiwon Kim. 2017. Continual learning with deep generative replay. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, pages 2990–2999. Fan-Keng Sun, Cheng-Hao Ho, and Hung-Yi Lee. 2019. Lamol: Language modeling for lifelong language learning. In International Conference on Learning Representations. Sebastian Thrun. 1998. Lifelong learning algorithms. In *Learning to learn*, pages 181–209. Springer. Tom Veniat, Ludovic Denoyer, and MarcAurelio Ranzato. 2021. Efficient continual learning with modular networks and task-driven priors. In *International* Conference on Learning Representations. 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 2018 EMNLP Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 353–355, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Hong Wang, Wenhan Xiong, Mo Yu, Xiaoxiao Guo, Shiyu Chang, and William Yang Wang. 2019. Sentence embedding alignment for lifelong relation extraction. 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 796–806, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. Zifeng Wang, Zizhao Zhang, Sayna Ebrahimi, Ruoxi Sun, Han Zhang, Chen-Yu Lee, Xiaoqi Ren, Guolong Su, Vincent Perot, Jennifer Dy, et al. 2022a. Dualprompt: Complementary prompting for rehearsalfree continual learning. *European Conference on* Computer Vision. Zifeng Wang, Zizhao Zhang, Chen-Yu Lee, Han Zhang, Ruoxi Sun, Xiaoqi Ren, Guolong Su, Vincent Perot, Jennifer Dy, and Tomas Pfister. 2022b. Learning to prompt for continual learning. In *Proceedings of* the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 139–149. Yeming Wen, Dustin Tran, and Jimmy Ba. 2020. Batchensemble: an alternative approach to efficient ensemble and lifelong learning. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2002.06715. Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, 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. Mitchell Wortsman, Vivek Ramanujan, Rosanne Liu, Aniruddha Kembhavi, Mohammad Rastegari, Jason Yosinski, and Ali Farhadi. 2020. Supermasks in superposition. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, volume 33, pages 15173–15184. Curran Associates, Inc. Qingsen Yan, Dong Gong, Yuhang Liu, Anton van den Hengel, and Javen Qinfeng Shi. 2022. Learning bayesian sparse networks with full experience replay for continual learning. In *Proceedings of the* IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 109–118. Dani Yogatama, Cyprien de Masson d'Autume, Jerome Connor, Tomas Kocisky, Mike Chrzanowski, Lingpeng Kong, Angeliki Lazaridou, Wang Ling, Lei Yu, Chris Dyer, et al. 2019. Learning and evaluating general linguistic intelligence. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1901.11373. Friedemann Zenke, Ben Poole, and Surya Ganguli. 2017. Continual learning through synaptic intelligence. In *Proceedings of the 34th International* Conference on Machine Learning-Volume 70, pages 3987–3995. JMLR. org. Xiang Zhang, Junbo Zhao, and Yann LeCun. 2015. Character-level convolutional networks for text classification. In *Advances in neural information processing systems*, pages 649–657. Jieyu Zhao and Jurgen Schmidhuber. 1996. Incremental self-improvement for life-time multi-agent reinforcement learning. In *From Animals to Animats 4:* Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior, Cambridge, MA, pages 516–525. Hattie Zhou, Janice Lan, Rosanne Liu, and Jason Yosinski. 2019. Deconstructing lottery tickets: Zeros, signs, and the supermask. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 3592–3602. ## A Appendix For Exssnet A.1 Sparse Overlap To Quantify Parameter Interference Next, we propose a measure to quantify parameter interference for a task i, i.e., the fraction of the parameters in mask Mithat are already updated by some previous task. We define *sparse overlap* as the difference between the number of parameters selected by mask Mi and M free idivided by the total parameters selected by Mi. Formally, we define sparse overlap (SO) between current supermask Mi and supermasks for previous tasks {Mj} i−1 j=1 as, SO(Mi, {Mj} i−1 j=1) = sum(Mi) − sum(M free i) sum(Mi) (2) $$\mathrm{and}\ M_{i}^{f r e e}=M_{i}\land\lnot\left(\lor_{j=1}^{i-1}(M_{j})\right)$$ where ∧, ∨, ¬ are logical and, or, and not operations. ID Task Sequence S1 mnli qqp qnli sst2 cola (Dec. data Size) S2 ag yelp amazon yahoo dbpedia S3 yelp yahoo amazon dbpedia ag S4 dbpedia yahoo ag amazon yelp S5 yelp ag dbpedia amazon yahoo S6 ag yelp yahoo S7 yelp yahoo ag S8 yahoo ag yelp Table 6: Task sequences used in text experiments. For the GLUE dataset, we use order corresponding to decreasing train data size. Sequence S2-S8 are from (Huang et al., 2021; de Masson d'Autume et al., 2019; Sun et al., 2019). | Dataset | Class | Type | Train | Validation | Test | |-----------|---------|-----------|---------|--------------|--------| | AGNews | 4 | News | 8k | 8k | 7.6k | | Yelp | 5 | Sentiment | 10k | 10k | 7.6k | | Amazon | 5 | Sentiment | 10k | 10k | 7.6k | | DBPedia | 14 | Wikipedia | 28k | 28k | 7.6k | | Yahoo | 10 | Q&A | 20k | 20k | 7.6k | ## A.2 Space, Time, And Memory Complexity Of Exssnet For training, we store an additional set of scores on GPU with size as the model weight. The additional GPU memory required is a small fraction because the model activations account for a huge fraction of the total GPU memory. Our runtime is similar to training the weight of a model with < 5% overhead due to the logical operations on masks and masking weight during the forward passes. For training time comparisons refer to Appendix Table 13. On the disk, we need to store k ∗ |W| updated weights of 32-bits and boolean mask which takes 1-bit for each parameter. Hence, we take max(|W| ∗ k ∗ t, |W|) ∗ 32 + |W| ∗ 1 bits in total as in the worst case we need to store all |W| model weights. ## A.3 **Experimental Setup And Hyperparameters** Unless otherwise specified, we obtain supermasks with a mask density of 0.1. In our CNN models, we use non-affine batch normalization to avoid storing their means and variance parameters for all tasks (Wortsman et al., 2020). Similar to (Wortsman et al., 2020), bias terms in our model are 0 and we randomly initialize the model parameters using signed kaiming constant (Ramanujan et al., 2019). We use Adam optimizer (Kingma and Ba, 2014) along with cosine decay (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2016) and conduct our experiments on GPUs with 12GB of memory. We used approximately 6 days of GPU runtime. For our main experiment, we run three independent runs for each experiment and report the averages for all the metrics and experiments. For natural language tasks, unless specified otherwise we initialize the token embedding for our methods using a frozen BERT-base-uncased (Devlin et al., 2018) model's representations using Huggingface (Wolf et al., 2020). We use a static CNN model from Kim (2014) as our text classifier over BERT representations. The model employs 1D convolutions along with *Tanh* activation. The total model parameters are ∼110M Following Sun et al. (2019); Huang et al. (2021), we evaluate our model on various task sequences as provided in Appendix Table 6, while limiting the maximum number of tokens to 256. Following (Wortsman et al., 2020), we use LeNet (Lecun et al., 1998) for SplitMNIST dataset, a Resnet-18 model with fewer channels (Wortsman et al., 2020) for SplitCIFAR100 dataset, a ResNet50 model (He et al., 2016) for TinyImageNet dataset. Unless specified, we randomly split all the vision datasets to obtain five tasks with disjoint classes. We use the codebase of DER (Buzzega et al., 2020) to obtain the vision baselines. In all our experiments, all methods perform an equal number of epochs over the datasets. We use the hyperparameters from Wortsman et al. (2020) for our vision experiments. For the ablation experiment on natural language data, following Huang et al. (2021), we use a sampled version of the WebNLP datasets due to limited resources. The reduced dataset contains 2000 training and validation examples from each output class. The test set is the same as the main experiments. The dataset statistics are summarized in Table 7. For WebNLP datasets, we tune the learning rate on the validation set across the values {0.01, 0.001, 0.0001}, for GLUE datasets we use the default learning rate of the BERT model. For our vision experiments, we use the default learning rate for the dataset provided in their original implementation. For TinyImageNet, SplitCIFAR100, SplitMNIST dataset, we run for 30, 100, and 30 epochs respectively. We store 0.1% of our vision datasets for replay while for our language experiments we use 0.01% of the data because of the large number of datasets available for them. | Method | Average Accuracy | Forgetting | |----------|--------------------|--------------| | SupSup | 68.07 | 0.00 | | ExSSNeT | 74.77 | 0.00 |   Table 8: Comparision between EXSSNET and the best baseline SupSup on Imagenet Dataset. | K | 1 | 5 | 10 | 20 | 50 | |---------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | EXSSNET | 71.38 | 71.66 | 71.01 | 70.46 | 69.74 | Table 9: Effect of varying k while keeping the number of batches used for the KKT module fixed. | Num. Batches | 2 | 5 | 10 | 50 | 100 | |----------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | EXSSNET | 70.65 | 70.63 | 71.01 | 71.07 | 71.6 | Table 10: Effect of varying the number of batches while keeping the k for top-k neighbours fixed for KKT module fixed. | Method | S-MNIST | S-CIFAR100 | S-TinyImageNet | |----------|-----------|--------------|------------------| | SupSup | 22.6 | 18.9 | 18.1 | | + KKT | 46.4 | 48.3 | 52.4 | | SSNET | 22.5 | 17.6 | 18.6 | | + KKT | 52.7 | 49.9 | 52.4 | | EXSSNET | 22.5 | 17.3 | 18.5 | | + KKT | 47.8 | 48.8 | 52.4 | ## A.4 Additional Results A.4.1 Results On Imagenet Dataset In this experiment, we take the ImageNet dataset (Deng et al., 2009) with 1000 classes and divide it into 10 tasks where each task is a 100-way classification problem. In Table 8, we report the results for ExSSNeT and the strongest vision baseline method, SupSup. We omit other methods due to resource constraints. We observe a strong improvement of 6.7% of EXSSNET over SupSup, indicating that the improvements of our methods exist for large scale datasets as well. ## A.4.2 Analysis Of Efficiency, Runtime, And Hyperparameters Of The Kkt Module Firstly, we would like to note that the KKT module is lightweight and efficient because it only runs once for each task before we start training on it and only uses a few batches to estimate the relevant mask. Given that we perform multiple epochs over the task's data, the cost of the KKT module becomes negligible in comparison to it and runs in almost similar clock time as without it. The runtime on splitcifar100 datasets with 100 epochs for ExSSNeT is 168 minutes and for ExSSNeT + KKT  $\begin{array}{ccc}\hline1&71.07&71.6\\ \hline\end{array}$ is 173 minutes which is a very small difference. Second, there are two main hyperparameters in the KKT module - (1) k for taking the majority vote of top-k neighbors, and (2) the total number of batches used from the current task in this learning and prediction process. We present additional results on the splitcifar100 dataset when changing these hyperparameters one at a time. In Table 9, we use 10 batches for KKT with a batch size of 64, resulting in 640 samples from the current task used for estimation. We report the performance of EXSSNET when varying k. From this table, we observe that the performance increases with k and then starts to decrease but in general most values of k work well. Next, in Table 10, we use a fixed k=10 and vary the number of batches used for KKT with a batch size of 64 and report the performance of EXSSNET. We observe that as the number of batches used for finding the best mask increases the prediction accuracy increases because of better mask selection. Moreover, as few as 5-10 batches work reasonably well in terms of average accuracy. From both of these experiments, we can observe that the KKT module is fairly robust to different values of these hyperparameters but carefully selecting them hyperparameters can lead to slight improvement. ## A.4.3 Class Incremental Learning We performed Class Incremental Learning experiments on the TinyImageNet dataset (10-tasks, 20classes in each) and used the One-Shot algorithm from SupSup (Wortsman et al., 2020) to select the mask for inference. Please refer to Section-3.3 and Equation-4 of the SupSup paper (Wortsman et al., 2020) for details. From Table 12, we observe that EXSSNET outperforms all baseline methods that | Method | BufferSize | TinyImageNet | |----------|--------------|----------------| | SGD | 0 | 7.92 | | oEWC | 0 | 7.58 | | LwF | 0 | 8.46 | | ER | 200 | 8.49 | | A-GEM | 200 | 8.07 | | iCARL | 200 | 7.53 | | DER | 200 | 11.87 | | DER++ | 200 | 10.96 | | SupSup | 0 | 10.27 | | ExSSNeT | 0 | 11.21 | Table 12: Results for CIL setting. do not use Experience Replay by at least 2.75%. Moreover, even with the need for a replay buffer, EXSSNET outperforms most ER-based methods and is comparable to that of DER. ## A.4.4 Sparse Overlap Numbers In Table 11, we report the sparse overlap numbers for SupSup, SSNET, and EXSSNET with and without the KKT knowledge transfer module. This table corresponds to the results in main paper Table 3. ## A.4.5 Average Accuracy Evolution In Figure 6, we plot Pi≤t Ati vs t, that is the average accuracy as a function of observed classes. This plot corresponds to the SplitCIFAR100 results provided in the main paper Table 2. We can observe from these results that Supsup and ExSSNeT performance does not degrade when we learn new tasks leading to a very stable curve whereas for other methods the performance degrades as we learn new tasks indicating some degree of forgetting. Algorithm 1 EXSSNET training procedure. Input: Tasks T , a model M, mask sparsity k, exclusive=True Output: Trained model ▷ Initialize model weights W(0) initialize_model_weights(M) forall i ∈ range(*|T |*) do ▷ Set the mask Mi corresponding to task ti for optimization. mask_opt_params = Mi ▷ Learn the supermask Mi using edge-popup forall em ∈ *mask_epochs* do Mi = learn_supermask(model, mask_opt_params, ti)  previous tasks. M1:i−1 = ∨ i−1 j=1(Mj ) ▷ Get mask for weights in Mi which are not in {Mi} i−1 j=1 M*free* i = Mi ∧ ¬M1:i−1 ▷ Find non-overlapping weight for updating. W(i) free = M*free* i ⊙ W(i−1) else if *not exclusive* **then** W(i) free = W(i−1) end weight_opt_params = W(i) free ▷ Learn the free weight in the supermask Mi forall em ∈ *weight_epochs* do W(i)= update_weights(model, weight_opt_params, ti)  end $$\tau\hbar\tau$$  ## A.4.6 Runtime Comparison Across Methods In this Section, we provide the result to compare the runtime of various methods used in the paper. We ran each method on the sampled version of the WebNLP dataset for the S2 task order as defined in Table 6. We report the runtime of methods for four epochs over each dataset in Table 13. Note that the masking-based method, SupSup, SSNET, EXSSNET takes much lower time because they are not updating the BERT parameters and are just finding a mask over a much smaller CNN-based classification model using pretrained representation from BERT. This gives our method an inherent advantage that we are able to improve performance but with significantly lower runtime while learning a mask over much fewer parameters for the natural language setting. ## A.4.7 Validation Results In Table 14, we provide the average validation accuracies for the main natural language results presented in Table 1. We do not provide the validation results of LAMOL (Sun et al., 2019) and MBPA++ (de Masson d'Autume et al., 2019) as we used the results provided in their original papers. For the vision domain, we did not use a validation set because no hyperparameter tuning was performed as we used the experimental setting and default param- | Method | Runtime (in minutes) | |----------------------|------------------------| | Multitask | 200 | | Finetune | 175 | | Replay | 204 | | AdapterBERT + FT | 170 | | AdapterBERT + Replay | 173 | | MultiAdaptBERT | 170 | | Regularization | 257 | | IDBR | 258 | | SupSup | 117 | | SSNET | 117 | | EXSSNET | 117 |  Method (↓**) GLUE WebNLP** Order (→**) S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 Average** Random *33.3 7.14 7.14 7.14 7.14 7.14* Multitask *80.6 77.4 77.5 76.9 76.8 77.1* FT 14.0 27.0 22.9 30.4 15.6 24.0 Replay 79.7 75.2 74.5 75.2 75.5 75.1 AdaptBERT + FT 25.1 20.8 19.1 23.6 14.6 19.5 AdaptBERT + Replay 78.6 73.3 74.3 74.7 74.6 74.2 MultiAdaptBERT 83.6 76.7 76.7 76.7 76.7 76.7 Regularization 75.5 75.9 75.0 76.5 76.3 75.9 IDBR 77.5 75.8 75.4 76.4 76.4 76.0 SupSup 78.1 75.7 76.0 76.0 75.9 75.9 SSNET 77.2 76.3 76.3 77.0 76.1 76.4 EXSSNET 80.1 77.1 77.3 77.2 77.1 77.2 eters from the original source code from (Wortsman et al., 2020; Wen et al., 2020). ## A.4.8 Effect Of Task Order And Number Of Tasks Following Huang et al. (2021), we conduct experiments to study the effect of task length and order in the language domain. We use task sequences of lengths three and five, with multiple different task orders on the sampled data (Section 4.1, Table 6, and Appendix) to characterize the impact of these variables on the performance. In Table 15, we present the average test accuracy averaged over three different random seeds. We observe that across all six different settings our method performs better compared to all the baseline methods. Our methods bridge the gap toward multitask methods' performance, leaving a gap of 0.36% and 1.19% for lengths three and five sequences, respectively. ## A.5 Additional Model Details A.5.1 Algorithm For Exssnet In Algorithm 1, we provide a pseudo-code for our method EXSSNET for easier reference and understanding. We also attach our working code as supplementary material to encourage reproducibility. ## A.5.2 Model Diagram For Supsup In Figure 7, we provide the canonical model diagram for SupSup. Please read the figure description for more details regarding the distinctions between SupSup and ExSSNeT. | Model (↓) | Length-5 WebNLP | Length-3 WebNLP | | | | | | | |--------------------|-------------------|-------------------|-------|---------|-------|-------|-------|---------| | Order (→) | S2 | S3 | S4 | Average | S6 | S7 | S8 | Average | | Random | 7.14 | 7.14 | 7.14 | 7.14 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | | MTL | 75.09 | 75.09 | 75.09 | 75.09 | 74.16 | 74.16 | 74.16 | 74.16 | | Finetune† | 32.37 | 32.22 | 26.44 | 30.34 | 25.79 | 36.56 | 41.01 | 34.45 | | Replay† | 68.25 | 70.52 | 70.24 | 69.67 | 69.32 | 70.25 | 71.31 | 70.29 | | Regularization† | 72.28 | 73.03 | 72.92 | 72.74 | 71.50 | 70.88 | 72.93 | 71.77 | | AdaptBERT | 30.49 | 20.16 | 23.01 | 24.55 | 24.48 | 31.08 | 26.67 | 27.41 | | AdaptBERT + Replay | 69.30 | 67.91 | 71.98 | 69.73 | 66.12 | 69.15 | 71.62 | 68.96 | | IDBR† | 72.63 | 73.72 | 73.23 | 73.19 | 71.80 | 72.72 | 73.08 | 72.53 | | SupSup | 74.01 | 74.04 | 74.18 | 74.08 | 72.01 | 72.35 | 72.53 | 72.29 | | SSNET | 74.5 | 74.5 | 74.65 | 74.55 | 73.1 | 72.92 | 73.07 | 73.03 | | EXSSNET | 74.78 | 74.72 | 74.71 | 74.73 | 72.67 | 72.99 | 73.24 | 72.97 |  ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Section 7 ✗ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Our work has no additional risk apart from the risk of the components involved. ✓ 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?** 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 ✓ 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.3 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 and Appendix A3 ✓ 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 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.

lin-etal-2023-transferring

Transferring General Multimodal Pretrained Models to Text Recognition

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.37

This paper proposes a new method, OFA-OCR, to transfer multimodal pretrained models to text recognition. Specifically, we recast text recognition as image captioning and directly transfer a unified vision-language pretrained model to the end task. Without pretraining on large-scale annotated or synthetic text recognition data, OFA-OCR outperforms the baselines and achieves state-of-the-art performance in the Chinese text recognition benchmark. Additionally, we construct an OCR pipeline with OFA-OCR, and we demonstrate that it can achieve competitive performance with the product-level API.

# Transferring General Multimodal Pretrained Models To Text Recognition Junyang Lin, Xuancheng Ren, Yichang Zhang, Gao Liu, Peng Wang, An Yang, Chang Zhou DAMO Academy, Alibaba Group junyang.ljy@alibaba-inc.com ## Abstract This paper proposes a new method, OFA-OCR, to transfer multimodal pretrained models to text recognition. Specifically, we recast text recognition as image captioning and directly transfer a unified vision-language pretrained model to the end task. Without pretraining on large-scale annotated or synthetic text recognition data, OFA-OCR outperforms the baselines and achieves state-of-the-art performance in the Chinese text recognition benchmark. Additionally, we construct an OCR pipeline with OFAOCR, and we demonstrate that it can achieve competitive performance with the product-level API. The code1and demo2are publicly available. ## 1 Introduction Optical character recognition (OCR) plays an important role in the real-world applications. It helps users or developers extract text contents from different types of images, including photos, scanned documents, etc. In practice, building a tool for OCR needs a pipeline consisting of a text localization module and a text recognition module. In this work, we focus on improving the accuracy of text recognition. Text recognition has often been regarded as a key challenge owing to the room for improvements in recognition accuracy. In the deep learning era, the classical methods are mostly based on CNN and RNN, which are responsible for visual feature extraction and sequence modeling, respectively (Shi et al., 2017a, 2019; Luo et al., 2019). Recently, with the rise of Transformer (Vaswani et al., 2017), researchers applied the Transformer encoder-decoder framework to text recognition and achieved outperforming results over the baselines (Li et al., 2021; Lyu et al., 2022). However, most methods are based on largescale pretraining on human-annotated or synthetic 1https://github.com/OFA-Sys/OFA 2https://modelscope.cn/studios/damo/ofa_ocr_p ipeline/summary  OCR data. It is hard for other researchers to collect or create such data for reproduction. Furthermore, the methods often include complex model or objective designs, like DETR-like decoder (Carion et al., 2020), CTC loss (Graves et al., 2006), etc. These components also might hinder reproduction as they increase the difficulty in training. Therefore, we naturally raise a question: *Is there any* way to achieve high recognition accuracy without complex designs on data and model? Inspired by the recent progress in multimodal pretraining, we argue that the transfer of a unified multimodal pretrained model is a possible solution. Multimodal pretraining has proved significant to the performance of downstream tasks, and thanks to the rise of unified multimodal pretrained models, they can perform both cross-modal understanding and generation and achieve state-of-theart performance (Wang et al., 2022a,b; Lu et al., 2022). We therefore propose to transfer the unified multimodal pretrained model by finetuning the pretrained model on the text recognition datasets with the task of image captioning, which is essentially a simple sequence-to-sequence learning task with maximum likelihood estimation for optimization. To support the effectiveness of the proposed method, we have conducted extensive experiments on the Chinese text recognition benchmark (Chen et al., 2021b) covering multiple scenarios, including scene, web, document, and handwriting. Specifically, we finetune the open-source Chinese multimodal pretrained model OFA (Wang et al., 2022a) on text recognition, and we name the model OFAOCR. Figure 1 demonstrates the results of methods with or without general-domain pretraining. It shows that multimodal pretraining on generaldomain vision-language data can effectively boost downstream performance in text recognition. To achieve the best performance, we apply the multitask + single-task finetuning to OFA-OCR, and it outperforms the previous state-of-the-art methods on the benchmark. Furthermore, through the ablation studies, we demonstrate the effectiveness of our method designs, including multitask + singletask finetuning, data augmentation, etc. Furthermore, to enable deployment for real-world applications, we construct a pipeline with both OFA-OCR and a simple text localization module. We find that this simple pipeline can provide high-quality OCR performance, competitive with a productlevel API. ## 2 Method 2.1 Pretraining To leverage the capability of the multimodal pretrained model for image captioning, we employ the unified multimodal pretrained model architecture. Specifically, we implement our models on OFA (Wang et al., 2022a), an open-source state-ofthe-art unified multimodal pretrained model with the release of Chinese models. The model is mainly based on the Transformer encoder-decoder framework (Vaswani et al., 2017). To make information from different modalities adaptable to the Transformer, there are adaptors for images and texts, which are visual backbones, e.g., ResNet (He et al., 2016), ViT (Dosovitskiy et al., 2021), etc., and word embeddings, respectively. The information from modalities is encoded as discrete tokens so that the decoder can perform their generation. For Chinese multimodal pretraining, OFAChinese was pretrained on a large-scale dataset, which consists of LAION-5B (Schuhmann et al., 2022), Wukong dataset, as well as translated datasets from MSCOCO (Chen et al., 2015), Visual Genome (Krishna et al., 2017), VQA (Goyal et al., 2017), RefCOCO (Yu et al., 2016), etc. Note that this work is different from previous pretraining-related methods, which pretrain the model on large-scale human-annotated or synthetic data. We show that through pretraining on generaldomain data, the model can obtain the potential of text recognition by finetuning on small datasets. ## 2.2 Finetuning With Image Captioning It is natural to recast text recognition as image captioning, as text recognition also requires the model to generate a piece of text based on the input image. It is equivalent to finetuning on different image captioning datasets, where the target refers to the text on the image. We finetune the model with maximum likelihood estimation for optimization. Furthermore, to better alleviate the discrepancy between upstream and downstream data, we apply a transformation to the input images to make them square, e.g., a resolution of 480 × 480. Specifically, we first resize the image to a longer edge of the specified resolution while keeping the original height-width ratio of the image, and we make the image square by padding on all sides with the edge value. The lengths for the directions are random, and thus this method can play as data augmentation in this context. We demonstrate the pseudo code in Sec. A.3. For better performance in the downstream tasks, we often use a larger resolution in the finetuning stage, and thus we encounter issues with the positional embedding. In our practice, we still use the same one from pretraining but apply interpolation to adapt to images of a larger resolution. ## 2.3 Multitask Finetuning There are multiple subtasks in text recognition, concerning different scenarios, e.g., scene, document, etc. Our experiments are implemented on the Chinese text recognition benchmark consisting of 4 subtasks. In our practice, we implement multitask finetuning and single-task finetuning for comparison. Specifically, as the data of all subtasks are organized with the same format, we directly build a mixture of datasets for multitask finetuning. We find that directly applying multitask finetuning can help OFA-OCR achieve outstanding performance on all datasets. To further boost its performance, we additionally apply single-task finetuning after Metrics Scene Web Document Handwriting Average CRNN (Shi et al., 2017a) 53.4 54.5 97.5 46.4 67.0 ASTER (Shi et al., 2019) 54.5 52.3 93.1 38.9 64.7 MORAN (Luo et al., 2019) 51.8 49.9 95.8 39.7 64.3 SAR (Li et al., 2019) 62.5 54.3 93.8 31.4 67.3 TransOCR (Chen et al., 2021a) 63.3 62.3 96.9 53.4 72.8 MaskOCRViT-B 73.9 74.8 99.3 63.7 80.8 MaskOCRViT-L 76.2 76.8 99.4 67.9 82.6 OFA-OCRBase 82.9 81.7 99.1 69.0 86.0 OFA-OCRLarge 83.7 82.6 99.2 67.7 86.3 multitask finetuning, and we find that this pushes its performance to the new state-of-the-art. ## 3 Experiments 3.1 Datasets And Metrics We implement OFA-OCR on the Chinese text recognition benchmark (Chen et al., 2021b). This benchmark consists of multiple subtasks of text recognition, which are text recognition in different scenarios, including scene, web, document, and handwriting. The details of the datasets are provided in Sec. A.1. The evaluation metric includes accuracy, which refers to the ratio of exact match. ## 3.2 Experimental Results The experimental results are demonstrated in Table 1. We compare our method with baseline models of OCR, including the previous state-of-the-art MaskOCR (Lyu et al., 2022). It can be found that with no regard to the scale of models, the base-size OFA-OCR, which is finetuned from the pretrained Chinese OFABase, can outperform both the basesize and large-size MaskOCR models. Specifically, it shows the advantages of 9.0, 6.9, and 5.3 absolute improvements in the scenarios of scene, web, and handwriting. On average, the base-size OFAOCR outperforms the base-size MaksOCR by 5.2 and the large-size MaskOCR by 3.4. Scaling up the model size can consistently bring steady improvement in the downstream performance. On average, OFALarge reaches the best results of 86.3. Specifically, we find that the advantage in the scene dataset is the largest among the tasks. This may be attributed to the pretraining on generaldomain data, where there are images of street views, and some of them might contain texts. Similarly, the pretraining dataset consists of web images that resemble those in the web dataset, and thus the gaps between OFA-OCR and the previous methods are large. However, text recognition for documents should be a simpler task as the texts are more regular in fonts and there is often much less noise in the background. Thus, even the conventional method like CRNN can achieve a high accuracy. ## 3.3 Ablation Study Of Training Strategies To check how the multitask learning influences the final performance, we conduct an ablation study to evaluate its effects. Specifically, the experiments are conducted with the base-size OFA-OCR. We provide experiments in 4 setups, which are training from scratch (scratch), single-task finetuning (ft), multitask-finetuning (mt), and multitask + singletask finetuning (mt+ft), respectively. Experimental results are shown in Figure 2. It can be found that on average, the addition of the initialization of the pretrained OFA model significantly boosts the performance on the datasets. Surprisingly, multitask finetuning alone can outperform single-task finetuning on all 4 tasks, and the advantage in the web dataset is the most obvious. We assume that this is attributed to the small amount of supervised training data for downstream transfer. A mixture of datasets of related subtasks can encourage performance on all subtasks. Furthermore, the combination of multitask finetuning and single-task finetuning is the best solution owing to its outstanding performance, while multitask finetuning on the mixture of datasets is the most cost-efficient. ## 3.4 Ablation Study Of Data Augmentation The preprocessing of images for this task can play as data augmentation. To validate its effects, we use a simple resizing to the specified resolution as  a baseline. We also implement experiments on the 4 datasets, and for simplicity we implement the experiments in the setup of single-task finetuning on the base-size models. Results are demonstrated in Table 2. We use "Aug." to indicate the preprocessing method mentioned in Sec. 2. The results indicate that the introduced technique for data preprocessing can effectively boost the performance. ## 3.5 Deployment To construct an OCR system applicable in realworld scenarios, a strong text recognition model is not sufficient, and we need to build a pipeline with both the text detection and text recognition module. While the former one is not the focus of this research, we directly use a light-weight model from EasyOCR3for detection. After detecting all the bounding boxes which possibly contain texts, we crop them with boxes to create a batch of new images. The final step is to process the images with OFA-OCR for the generation of text recognition results. Through our case study, we find that the simple OCR pipeline based on OFA-OCR can achieve competitive performance with the productlevel API. Examples are demonstrated in Sec. A.4. ## 4 Related Work We focus on the review of text recognition methods and multimodal pretraining. Conventional methods based on CNN and RNN have demonstrated great 3https://github.com/JaidedAI/EasyOCR | Method | w/o Aug. | w/ Aug. | |----------|------------|-----------| | Scene | 77.0 | 78.4 | | Web | 72.3 | 73.4 | | Document | 98.2 | 98.4 | | Web | 60.4 | 62.8 | | Avg | 81.0 | 82.1 | effectiveness (Shi et al., 2017a; Luo et al., 2019; Shi et al., 2019; Yu et al., 2020; Li et al., 2019; Fang et al., 2021). Recent methods have turned to the use of Transformer and achieved improved performance (Atienza, 2021; Li et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2022; Lyu et al., 2022). However, before this work, we have not witnessed the direct transfer of general-domain vision-language pretrained models to text recognition. Vision-language pretraining has proved a success as it has leveled up the model performance on a series of downstream tasks (Chen et al., 2019; Lu et al., 2019; Radford et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021), and the unified models capable of both understanding and generation have become popular and achieved the best performance (Wang et al., 2022a,b). Yet, there are only a few unified multimodal pretrained models in Chinese (Lin et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2022a). ## 5 Conclusion In this work, we propose a simple method called OFA-OCR, which leverages the unified multimodal pretrained model and transfers it to text recognition by image captioning. To be more specific, we utilize the Chinese multimodal pretrained model OFA without pretraining on OCR data and transfer it to text recognition with multitask + single-task finetuning. Through extensive experiments, we demonstrate that OFA-OCR can achieve state-of-the-art performance on the Chinese text recognition benchmark. Additionally, we build a pipeline of OCR by integrating an existent simple text detection module and OFA-OCR. The deployed pipeline achieves competitive performance in comparison with a product-level API. We hope that this research sheds light on the application of general-domain multimodal pretraining, and also helps OCR practitioners. ## Limitations This section discusses the limitations of this work for more insights on the research in this track. Though OFA-OCR achieves high accuracy on multiple text recognition datasets, its costs are larger than the non-Transformer baselines. In practice, it is difficult to deploy such large models. Thus in our future work, we will discover how to distill or compress OFA-OCR to a light-weight model with high efficiency. ## Ethics Statement Our method is essentially based on a generation model, and thus the OCR results should be taken as AI-generated contents. As the generated results should be aligned with the input, we have not noticed deliberate harmful contents, e.g., hate speech, bias, etc. However, the model maintains such ability, which might be triggered. Although after finetuning on the public datasets the risk of such phenomena is extremely low, we still take it into account. In the future research, besides focusing on improving downstream performance, we will study how to increase the controllability on the generation. ## References Rowel Atienza. 2021. Vision Transformer for fast and efficient scene text recognition. In ICDAR (1), volume 12821 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 319–334. Springer. Nicolas Carion, Francisco Massa, Gabriel Synnaeve, Nicolas Usunier, Alexander Kirillov, and Sergey Zagoruyko. 2020. End-to-end object detection with transformers. In European conference on computer vision, pages 213–229. Springer. Jingye Chen, Bin Li, and Xiangyang Xue. 2021a. Scene text telescope: Text-focused scene image superresolution. In CVPR, pages 12026–12035. Computer Vision Foundation / IEEE. Jingye Chen, Haiyang Yu, Jianqi Ma, Mengnan Guan, Xixi Xu, Xiaocong Wang, Shaobo Qu, Bin Li, and Xiangyang Xue. 2021b. Benchmarking Chinese text recognition: Datasets, baselines, and an empirical study. CoRR, abs/2112.15093. Xinlei Chen, Hao Fang, Tsung-Yi Lin, Ramakrishna Vedantam, Saurabh Gupta, Piotr Dollár, and C. Lawrence Zitnick. 2015. Microsoft COCO captions: Data collection and evaluation server. CoRR, abs/1504.00325. Yen-Chun Chen, Linjie Li, Licheng Yu, Ahmed El Kholy, Faisal Ahmed, Zhe Gan, Yu Cheng, and Jingjing Liu. 2019. Uniter: Universal image-text representation learning. In European Conference on Computer Vision. Chee-Kheng Chng, Yuliang Liu, Yipeng Sun, Chun Chet Ng, Canjie Luo, Zihan Ni, Chuanming Fang, Shuaitao Zhang, Junyu Han, Errui Ding, Jingtuo Liu, Dimosthenis Karatzas, Chee Seng Chan, and Lianwen Jin. 2019. Icdar2019 robust reading challenge on arbitrary-shaped text - rrc-art. 2019 International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition (ICDAR), pages 1571–1576. Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Neil Houlsby. 2021. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. In ICLR. OpenReview.net. Shancheng Fang, Hongtao Xie, Yuxin Wang, Zhendong Mao, and Yongdong Zhang. 2021. Read like humans: Autonomous, bidirectional and iterative language modeling for scene text recognition. 2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 7094–7103. Yash Goyal, Tejas Khot, Douglas Summers-Stay, Dhruv Batra, and Devi Parikh. 2017. Making the V in VQA matter: Elevating the role of image understanding in visual question answering. In CVPR, pages 6325– 6334. IEEE Computer Society. Alex Graves, Santiago Fernández, Faustino Gomez, and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 2006. Connectionist temporal classification: labelling unsegmented sequence data with recurrent neural networks. In Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on Machine learning, pages 369–376. Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2016. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In CVPR, pages 770–778. IEEE Computer Society. Mengchao He, Yuliang Liu, Zhibo Yang, Sheng Zhang, Canjie Luo, Feiyu Gao, Qi Zheng, Yongpan Wang, Xin Zhang, and Lianwen Jin. 2018. Icpr2018 contest on robust reading for multi-type web images. 2018 24th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), pages 7–12. Ranjay Krishna, Yuke Zhu, Oliver Groth, Justin Johnson, Kenji Hata, Joshua Kravitz, Stephanie Chen, Yannis Kalantidis, Li-Jia Li, David A. Shamma, Michael S. Bernstein, and Li Fei-Fei. 2017. Visual genome: Connecting language and vision using crowdsourced dense image annotations. Int. J. Comput. Vis., 123(1):32–73. Hui Li, Peng Wang, Chunhua Shen, and Guyu Zhang. 2019. Show, attend and read: A simple and strong baseline for irregular text recognition. In AAAI, pages 8610–8617. AAAI Press. Minghao Li, Tengchao Lv, Lei Cui, Yijuan Lu, Dinei A. F. Florêncio, Cha Zhang, Zhoujun Li, and Furu Wei. 2021. TrOCR: Transformer-based optical character recognition with pre-trained models. CoRR, abs/2109.10282. Junyang Lin, Rui Men, An Yang, Chang Zhou, Ming Ding, Yichang Zhang, Peng Wang, Ang Wang, Le Jiang, Xianyan Jia, Jie Zhang, Jianwei Zhang, Xu Zou, Zhikang Li, Xiaodong Deng, Jie Liu, Jinbao Xue, Huiling Zhou, Jianxin Ma, Jin Yu, Yong Li, Wei Lin, Jingren Zhou, Jie Tang, and Hongxia Yang. 2021. M6: A Chinese multimodal pretrainer. CoRR, abs/2103.00823. Xi Liu, Rui Zhang, Yongsheng Zhou, Qianyi Jiang, Qi Song, Nan Li, Kai Zhou, Lei Wang, Dong Wang, Minghui Liao, Mingkun Yang, Xiang Bai, Baoguang Shi, Dimosthenis Karatzas, Shijian Lu, and C. V. Jawahar. 2019. Icdar 2019 robust reading challenge on reading chinese text on signboard. 2019 International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition (ICDAR), pages 1577–1581. Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2019. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In ICLR 2019. Jiasen Lu, Dhruv Batra, Devi Parikh, and Stefan Lee. 2019. Vilbert: Pretraining task-agnostic visiolinguistic representations for vision-and-language tasks. In Neural Information Processing Systems. Jiasen Lu, Christopher Clark, Rowan Zellers, Roozbeh Mottaghi, and Aniruddha Kembhavi. 2022. Unifiedio: A unified model for vision, language, and multimodal tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.08916. Canjie Luo, Lianwen Jin, and Zenghui Sun. 2019. MORAN: A multi-object rectified attention network for scene text recognition. Pattern Recognit., 90:109– 118. Pengyuan Lyu, Chengquan Zhang, Shanshan Liu, Meina Qiao, Yangliu Xu, Liang Wu, Kun Yao, Junyu Han, Errui Ding, and Jingdong Wang. 2022. MaskOCR: Text recognition with masked encoder-decoder pretraining. CoRR, abs/2206.00311. 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. In ICML, volume 139 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 8748–8763. PMLR. Christoph Schuhmann, Romain Beaumont, Richard Vencu, Cade Gordon, Ross Wightman, Mehdi Cherti, Theo Coombes, Aarush Katta, Clayton Mullis, Mitchell Wortsman, Patrick Schramowski, Srivatsa Kundurthy, Katherine Crowson, Ludwig Schmidt, Robert Kaczmarczyk, and Jenia Jitsev. 2022. Laion5b: An open large-scale dataset for training next generation image-text models. ArXiv, abs/2210.08402. Baoguang Shi, Xiang Bai, and Cong Yao. 2017a. An end-to-end trainable neural network for image-based sequence recognition and its application to scene text recognition. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 39(11):2298–2304. Baoguang Shi, Mingkun Yang, Xinggang Wang, Pengyuan Lyu, Cong Yao, and Xiang Bai. 2019. ASTER: An attentional scene text recognizer with flexible rectification. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 41(9):2035–2048. Baoguang Shi, Cong Yao, Minghui Liao, Mingkun Yang, Pei Xu, Linyan Cui, Serge Belongie, Shijian Lu, and Xiang Bai. 2017b. Icdar2017 competition on reading chinese text in the wild (rctw17). In 2017 14th iapr international conference on document analysis and recognition (ICDAR), volume 1, pages 1429–1434. IEEE. Yipeng Sun, Zihan Ni, Chee-Kheng Chng, Yuliang Liu, Canjie Luo, Chun Chet Ng, Junyu Han, Errui Ding, Jingtuo Liu, Dimosthenis Karatzas, Chee Seng Chan, and Lianwen Jin. 2019. Icdar 2019 competition on large-scale street view text with partial labeling - rrc-lsvt. 2019 International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition (ICDAR), pages 1557–1562. 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 NIPS, pages 5998–6008. Peng Wang, An Yang, Rui Men, Junyang Lin, Shuai Bai, Zhikang Li, Jianxin Ma, Chang Zhou, Jingren Zhou, and Hongxia Yang. 2022a. OFA: Unifying architectures, tasks, and modalities through a simple sequence-to-sequence learning framework. In ICML, volume 162 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 23318–23340. PMLR. Wenhui Wang, Hangbo Bao, Li Dong, Johan Bjorck, Zhiliang Peng, Qiang Liu, Kriti Aggarwal, Owais Khan Mohammed, Saksham Singhal, Subhojit Som, and Furu Wei. 2022b. Image as a foreign language: BEiT pretraining for all vision and visionlanguage tasks. CoRR, abs/2208.10442. Zirui Wang, Jiahui Yu, Adams Wei Yu, Zihang Dai, Yulia Tsvetkov, and Yuan Cao. 2021. Simvlm: Simple visual language model pretraining with weak supervision. ArXiv, abs/2108.10904. Deli Yu, Xuan Li, Chengquan Zhang, Tao Liu, Junyu Han, Jingtuo Liu, and Errui Ding. 2020. Towards accurate scene text recognition with semantic reasoning networks. In CVPR, pages 12110–12119. Computer Vision Foundation / IEEE. Licheng Yu, Patrick Poirson, Shan Yang, Alexander C. Berg, and Tamara L. Berg. 2016. Modeling context in referring expressions. In ECCV (2), volume 9906 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 69–85. Springer. Tailing Yuan, Zhe Zhu, Kun Xu, Cheng-Jun Li, TaiJiang Mu, and Shimin Hu. 2019. A large chinese text dataset in the wild. Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 34:509–521. Hesuo Zhang, Lingyu Liang, and Lianwen Jin. 2020. Scut-hccdoc: A new benchmark dataset of handwritten chinese text in unconstrained camera-captured documents. Pattern Recognit., 108:107559. Xinyun Zhang, Binwu Zhu, Xufeng Yao, Qi Sun, Ruiyu Li, and Bei Yu. 2022. Context-based contrastive learning for scene text recognition. In AAAI, pages 3353–3361. AAAI Press. ## A Appendix A.1 Datasets The Chinese text recognition benchmark consists of 4 subtasks, which are scene, web, document, and handwriting. The scene dataset consists of multiple datasets, including RCTW (Shi et al., 2017b), ReCTS (Liu et al., 2019), LSVT (Sun et al., 2019), ArT (Chng et al., 2019), and CTW (Yuan et al., 2019). It consists of 509,164 samples for training, 63,645 for validation, and 63,646 for testing. The web dataset is derived from MTWI (He et al., 2018), and it has 112,471 samples for training, 14,059 for validation, and 14,059 for testing. The document dataset is constructed with synthetic data created with Text Renderer4, and it has 400,000 samples for training, 50,000 for validation, and 50,000 for testing. The handwriting dataset is collected from SCUT-HCCDoc (Zhang et al., 2020), and it has 74,603 samples for training, 18,651 for validation, and 23,389 for testing. ## A.2 Evaluation We calculate the ratio of exact match as the accuracy for the evaluation. For the average score on the 4 subtasks, we calculate the average score weighted by the number of testing samples (Lyu et al., 2022). ## A.3 Implementation Details For single-task, multitask, and multitask + singletask finetuning, we finetune the pretrained basesize and large-size OFA for 100 epochs. We use the AdamW (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2019) optimizer for training. For the base-size model, the batch size is 256 and the peak learning rate is 5 × 10−5, and for the large-size model, the batch size is 512 and the peak learning rate is 2 × 10−5. Here we provide more details about the preprocessing for images. The specified resolution is 480 × 480, and as the pretrained models were pretrained on images of the resolution of 224 × 224, we apply interpolation to the positional embedding. As to the data augmentation, we demonstrate the process with the pseudo code below.    def ocr_resize(img, resolution=480, is_document=False): img = img.convert("RGB") width, height = img.size $$\operatorname{si}12\operatorname{e}$$ $\mathbf{a}$ ## 1 Introduction The _quantum_ quantum mechanics is a quantum field theory of quantum mechanics. It is a quantum field theory of quantum mechanics. width >= height: new_width = max(64, resolution) new_height = max(64, int(resolution * new_height = max(64, int(resolution * (height / width)))) top = random.randint(6, resolution - new_height) bottom = resolution - new_height - top left, right = 0, 0 * new_height = max(64, resolution) new_width = max(64, int(resolution * new_width = max(64, int(resolution * new_height)))) else: new_height = max(64, resolution) new_width = max(64, int(resolution * (width / height))) left = random.randint(0, resolution - new_width) right = resolution - new_width - left top, bottom = 0, 0 img_new = F.resize( img, $$\operatorname*{nh}]\,,$$ $$\operatorname*{hdt}i\cos\!\theta$$ [new_height, new_width], interpolation=InterpolationMode.BICUBIC, ) img_new = F.pad(img_new, padding=[left, top, right, bottom], padding_mode="edge") return img_new ## A.4 Case Study Here we evaluate the performance of the constructed simple OCR pipeline. For comparison, we use a product-level API5as the baseline. Figure 3 demonstrates the cases comparison. It can be found that on the 3 cases while the baseline makes mistakes by different extents, OFA-OCR makes the correct prediction of all characters, even if there are missing strokes or the text is in hard-to-recognize handwriting style. 5https://www.paddlepaddle.org.cn/modelsDetail ?modelId=17 ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? See Section Limitations after the conclusion ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? See Section Ethics Statement after the conclusion. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? See 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?** See Section 2 And Appendix. ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? See Section 2. ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? See Section 2 and Appendix. ✓ 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)? See Section 1, 2 and 5. ✗ 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 directly use the public benchmark datasets for the evaluation. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? See Section 2 and 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. See Section A.1 ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** See 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? See Section 3 and Section A.3 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 A.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 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.)? See Section 3.5 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.

zouhar-etal-2023-formal

A Formal Perspective on Byte-Pair Encoding

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.38

Byte-Pair Encoding (BPE) is a popular algorithm used for tokenizing data in NLP, despite being devised initially as a compression method.BPE appears to be a greedy algorithm at face value, but the underlying optimization problem that BPE seeks to solve has not yet been laid down. We formalize BPE as a combinatorial optimization problem. Via submodular functions, we prove that the iterative greedy version is a 1/sigma*(1-e(-sigma))-approximation of an optimal merge sequence, where sigma is the total backward curvature with respect to the optimal merge sequence. Empirically the lower bound of the approximation is approx0.37.We provide a faster implementation of BPE which improves the runtime complexity from O(NM) to O(N log M), where N is the sequence length and M is the merge count. Finally, we optimize the brute-force algorithm for optimal BPE using memoization.

# A Formal Perspective On Byte-Pair Encoding Vilém Zouhare Clara Meistere Juan Luis Gastaldie **Li Du**J Tim Vieiraj Mrinmaya Sachane **Ryan Cotterell**E ETH ZürichEJohns Hopkins UniversityJ {vzouhar,meistecl,gjuan,msachan,ryan.cotterell}@ethz.ch {leodu,timv}@cs.jhu.edu ## Abstract Byte-Pair Encoding (BPE) is a popular algorithm used for tokenizing data in NLP, despite being devised initially as a compression method. BPE appears to be a greedy algorithm at face value, but the underlying optimization problem that BPE seeks to solve has not yet been laid down. We formalize BPE as a combinatorial optimization problem. Via submodular functions, we prove that the iterative greedy version is a 1 σ(µ⋆) (1−e−σ(µ ⋆))-approximation of an optimal merge sequence, where σ(µ ⋆) is the total backward curvature with respect to the optimal merge sequence µ ⋆. Empirically the lower bound of the approximation is ≈ 0.37. We provide a faster implementation of BPE which improves the runtime complexity from O (NM) to O (N log M), where N is the sequence length and M is the merge count. Finally, we optimize the brute-force algorithm for optimal BPE using memoization. ## 1 Introduction Byte-Pair Encoding (BPE) is a popular technique for building and applying an encoding scheme to natural language texts. It is one the most common tokenization methods used for language models (Radford et al., 2019; Bostrom and Durrett, 2020; Brown et al., 2020; Scao et al., 2022) as well as for various other conditional language modeling tasks, e.g., machine translation (Ding et al., 2019) and chatbots (Zhang et al., 2020). Despite having been popularized by Sennrich et al. (2016) in NLP as a tokenization scheme, BPE has its roots in the compression literature, where Gage (1994) introduce the method as a faster alternative to Lempel–Ziv– Welch (Welch, 1984; Cover and Thomas, 2006, 13.4). However, the ubiquity of BPE notwithstanding, the formal underpinnings of the algorithm are underexplored, and there are no existing proven guarantees about BPE's performance. The training and applying of BPE are traditionally presented as greedy algorithms, but the exact optimization problems they seek to solve are neither presented in the original work of Gage (1994) nor in the work of Sennrich et al. (2016). We fill this void by offering a clean formalization of BPE training as maximizing a function we call compression utility1 over a specific combinatorial space, which we define in Definition 2.3. Unexpectedly, we are then able to prove a bound on BPE's approximation error using total backward curvature σ(µ ⋆) (Zhang et al., 2015). Specifically, we find the ratio of compression utilities between the greedy method and the optimum is bounded below by 1 σ(µ⋆) (1 − e−σ(µ⋆)), which we find empirically ≈ 0.37 for σb(µ ⋆) = 2.5. Our proof of correctness hinges on the theory of submodular functions (Krause and Golovin, 2014; Bilmes, 2022).2Indeed, we are able to prove that compression utility is a special kind of submodular function (Malekian, 2009) over a constrained space. And, despite the presence of the length constraint, which we expound upon formally in §3, we are able to prove a similar bound to 1−1/e as in the unconstrained case (Alaei et al., 2010). Additionally, we give a formal analysis of greedy BPE's runtime and provide a speed-up over the original implementation (Gage, 1994; Sennrich et al., 2016). Our runtime improvement stems from the development of a nuanced data structure that allows us to share work between iterations of the greedy procedure and that lends itself to an amortized analysis. Specifically, given a string with N characters with a desired merge count of M (usually N ≫ M), our implementation runs in O (N log M), an improvement over the O (NM)- time algorithm presented by Sennrich et al. (2016) and the O (N log N) analysis presented by Kudo 1How much space the compression saves (Definition 2.5). 2The proof further relies on a specific property of problem which BPE optimizes that we term hierarchical sequence submodularity. Hierarchical sequence submodularity neither follows from nor implies sequence submodularity, but, nevertheless, bears some superficial similarity to sequence submodularity—hence, our choice of name. and Richardson (2018). Finally, our formalism allows us to construct an exact program for computing an optimal solution to the BPE training problem. Unfortunately, the algorithm runs in exponential time, but it is still significantly faster than a naïve brute-force approach. Our work should give NLP practitioners confidence that BPE is a wise choice for learning a subword vocabulary based on compression principles. In general, such constrained submodular maximization problems are hard (Lovász, 1983). While we do not have a proof that the BPE problem specifically is NP-hard, it does not seem likely that we could find an efficient algorithm for the problem. Regarding the runtime, our implementation of greedy BPE runs nearly linearly in the length of the string which would be hard to improve unless we plan to not consider the entire string. ## 2 Formalizing Byte-Pair Encoding We first provide a brief intuition for the BPE training problem and the greedy algorithm that is typically employed to solve it. Then, we will develop a formalization of BPE using the tools of combinatorial optimization, rather than as a procedure.3 ## 2.1 A Worked Example | merge 1 | p i c k e d | p i c k l e d | p i c k l e s | |-----------|---------------|-----------------|-----------------| | merge 2 | pi c k e d | pi c k l e d | pi c k l e s | | merge 3 | pi ck e d | pi ck l e d | pi ck l e s | | merge 4 | pick e d | pick l e d | pick l e s | | merge 5 | pick ed | pick l ed | pick l e s | | final | pick ed | pickl ed | pickl e s | Example 1: Compression of the text picked pickled pickles using 5 greedy merges according to the greedy BPE algorithm. The most frequently occurring pair of vocabulary items is highlighted and subsequently merged. The merge sequence is ⟨*[p,i], [c,k], [pi,ck],* [e,d], [pick,l]⟩ (notation simplified for clarity). Consider the string in Example 1: *picked pickled* pickles. We wish to create a compact representation of this string, where compactness is quantified in terms of the number of symbols (i.e., vocabulary units) required to precisely encode the string. The free parameter is the vocabulary that we will use to construct this representation, albeit the total size of the chosen vocabulary is often a constraint.4In our example, let's assume we are allowed a maximum number of 13 symbols in the vocabulary5 with which we can encode our string. The question is: "How can we select these symbols to achieve our goal of compactness under this constraint?" Let us first consider the simple choice of using all the characters present in the string as our vocabulary: This scheme leads to a representation with a length of 22 units, including spaces. In order to decrease this length (while retaining all information present in the original string), we would need to add an additional symbol to our vocabulary: one with which we can replace co-occurrences of two symbols. But how should we choose this entry? One strategy—the one employed by the BPE algorithm—is to use the concatenation of the adjacent units a b that occur with the highest frequency in our string; all occurrences of these adjacent units could then be replaced with a single new unit ab. We refer to this as a **merge**, which we later define and denote formally as [*a, b*]. In Example 1, the first merge is [*p, i*], and leads to a representation of length 19 with vocabulary size of 9+1. We can iteratively repeat the same process; the application of 5 total merges results in the vocabulary units pick, *pickl*, ed, e, and s. These **subwords**6allow us to represent our original string using just 9+1 symbols. If we continued merging, the text representation would become shorter (in terms of number of symbols required to create the representation) but the merge count (and vocabulary size) would grow. Therefore, the number of merges M, or also the merge count, is a hyperparameter to the whole procedure. The procedure outlined above is exactly the greedy algorithm for BPE proposed by Gage (1994). We provide a minimal implementation in Python in Code 1. We will define the compression gain of a merge at any given step of the algorithm, corresponding to the number of occurrences where a merge can be applied. The compression gain of a merge does not always correspond to the frequency of adjacent merge components in that string, due to possible overlaps. Consider, for instance, the string aaa and 4We require a unique encoding for each item, which implies that encoding size will be dependent on the total number of vocabulary items (e.g. the dimension of a one-hot encoding or the number of bits required to encode the text). 5Typically, all the symbols in Σ are part of the vocabulary so that all texts can be represented, even with lower efficiency. 6The term **subword** corresponds to a merge yield (Definition 2.4). We use 'subword' and 'merge' interchangeably. the merge [*a, a*]. The frequency of aa is 2, but the merge can be applied only once ([*a, a*]a). While Gage (1994) and Sennrich et al. (2016) admit overlapping pair counts, Kudo and Richardson (2018)'s popular implementation adjusts the algorithm to disregard the overlaps. We stick to the latter, which is more suitable from the optimization standpoint adopted here. ## 1 from collections import Counter 2 from typing import Union, Tuple, List 3 4 defbpe(xs: Union[str, List], V: int): 5 for - in range(V): 6 pairs = Counterm(zip(xs, xs[1:])) 7 top_pair = pairs.most_common(1)[0][0][0] 8 xs = merge(list(xs), top_pair) 9 return xs 10 def merge(xs: List, pair: Tuple): 12 ys = [] 13 while xs: 14 if tuple(xs[:2]) == pair: 15 ys.append(pair) xs = xs[2:] 16 xs = [] 17 else: 18 19 return ys Code 1: A minimal implementation of Sennrich et al.'s (2016) greedy algorithm for BPE in Python. See Code 2 for a version with overlap-adjusted counts. ## 2.2 Merges The fundamental building block of the BPE problem is a merge, which we define formally below. Informally, a merge is the action of creating a new symbol out of two existing ones. Out of convention, we also refer to the resulting object as a merge. Definition 2.1. Let Σ be an alphabet, a finite, nonempty set. The set of all **merges** over Σ is the smallest set of pairs ΥΣ with the following closure property: - σ ∈ Σ =⇒ σ ∈ ΥΣ (called *trivial merges*); - µ′, µ′′ ∈ ΥΣ =⇒ [µ′, µ′′] ∈ ΥΣ where we denote the non-trivial elements of ΥΣ as µ = [µ′, µ′′]. A *merge sequence* is a sequence of merges, which we denote µ = ⟨µ1, . . . , µN ⟩ ∈ Υ∗Σ . 7 It is perhaps easiest to understand the concept of a merge through an example. Example 2.2. *Given the alphabet* Σ = {*a, b, c*}, the following are some of the elements of ΥΣ: [*a, b*], [a, [a, b]], and [[a, b], [a, c]]*. We obtain a merge sequence by arranging these merges into an ordering* µ = ⟨[a, b], [a, [a, b]], [[a, b], [a, c]]⟩ ∈ Υ∗Σ . 7(·) ∗is the Kleene closure. Note that the strings corresponding to the merges in a merge sequence—along with the characters that make up the set of trivial merges—determine a **vocabulary**, to be used in downstream applications.8 The greedy BPE algorithm constructs a merge sequence iteratively by picking each merge as the pairing of neighbouring symbols in the current sequence of symbols that is being processed. For instance, the sequence µ in Example 2.2 is not valid since it does not contain the merge [*a, c*] before the third element [[a, b], [*a, c*]]. Definition 2.3. *We define a merge sequence* µ = ⟨µ1, . . . , µN ⟩ ∈ Υ∗Σ to be **valid** if, for every µn*, it* holds that µn = [µ′, µ′′], where for µ ∈ {µ′, µ′′}, µ = µk with k < n, or µ ∈ Σ. We denote the set of valid merge sequences MΥΣ . Note that MΥΣ is closed under concatenation, i.e., for two valid merge sequences µ′, µ′′ ∈ MΥΣ , we have that µ′µ′′ ∈ MΥΣ , 9 where we use µµ′to denote the sequence concatenation of µ and µ′.  Applying Merge Sequences. Given some string x ∈ Σ∗, we can derive the representation of that string according to the merge sequence µ = ⟨µ1*, . . . , µ*N ⟩ by iteratively **applying** each merge µn. Note that by the definition of Υ∗Σ , we can trivially lift a string x = ⟨σ1, σ2*, . . .*⟩ to a merge sequence by treating each of its characters σi ∈ Σ as merges. Thus, we define this procedure more generally in terms of some arbitrary µ ∈ Υ∗Σ . Concretely, we denote the application of a merge µn to µ as APPLYµn(µ). As suggested by Code 1 (line 11), this action consists of replacing all µk, µk+1 in µ such that (µk, µk+1) = µn by µn itself, in a left-to-right fashion. We thus obtain a 8I.e., the size of the vocabulary is |µ| + |Σ|. 9The merge sequence can contain the same merges multiple times and still be valid. Only the later occurrences of the merge will not reduce the representation size. new µ ∈ Υ∗Σ , to which a new single merge can be applied. We lift APPLY to a merge sequence µ by simply repeating the application of APPLY on µ (n) for the successive µn in µ; accordingly, we denote this procedure as APPLYµ(µ). As a result, we obtain µ (|µ|), which is a non-overlapping ordered forest, i.e., a partial bracketing of the original string x. We provide an example in Fig. 1. Note that the application of the merge sequence is deterministic. String Yields. We now define a conceptually reverse operation to applying merges, i.e., deriving a string from structured µ (n). Definition 2.4. The **yield** of a single µ ∈ ΥΣ*, denoted as* YIELD(µ)*, is defined recursively:* YIELD(µ) = (YIELD(µ′)YIELD(µ′′) if µ = [µ′, µ′′] µ if µ ∈ Σ(1) As an example, YIELD([[a, a], [[*c, b*], c]]) is *aacbc*. For a given µ, YIELD is applied sequentially. The resulting characters can then be concatenated to derive a single string. The yield operation can also be used to derive vocabulary units—often referred to as subwords; explicitly, the yields of individual merges in a sequence µ can be used to form a vocabulary. Strictly speaking, in Sennrich et al.'s (2016) implementation of BPE, the elements of the merge sequences µ are not of the form µn = [µ′, µ′′] ∈ ΥΣ, but rather µn = [YIELD(µ′), YIELD(µ′′)] ∈ Σ∗×Σ∗, i.e., rather than consisting of prior merges as in our formalization, the merges of Sennrich et al.'s (2016) consist of the yields of those merges. This introduces an ambiguity with respect to our formalization since: for a given merge sequence in that implementation, more than one sequence µ ∈ Υ∗Σ could correspond, some of which would not be valid. As an example, consider the sequence ⟨[a, b], [ab, c], [*abc, d*]⟩ which could correspond to either ⟨[a, b], [[a, b], c], [[[a, b], c], d]⟩ or ⟨[a, b], [[a, b], c], [[a, [b, c]], d]⟩, the last of which is invalid. However, it turns out that this is not an issue for us: by construction, the successive elements of the sequence are determined by the previous ones (cf. Alg. 1), which means that, in fact there is no ambiguity, and the merge sequences in Sennrich et al.'s (2016) implementation always correspond to what our formalization defines as a valid merge sequence. Algorithm 1 Iterative Greedy BPE (slow). Inputs: sequence x, merge count M Output: merge sequence µ, tokenized sequence x PAIRFREQ are non-overlapping pair frequencies 1: µ *← ⟨⟩* 1. $\mu$ ($\vee$ 2: for $i$ in $\{0,\ldots,M\}$ do 3: $\mu$$\leftarrow$ argmax $\mbox{PairFreeQ}(\mathbf{x},(\mu^{\prime},\mu^{\prime\prime}))$ ($\mu^{\prime},\mu^{\prime\prime})$$\in$set($\mathbf{x}$)${}^{2}$ 4: $\mathbf{x}$$\leftarrow$ APPLY($\mu,\mathbf{x}$) 5: $\mu$$\leftarrow$$\mu$$\circ$ ($\mu$) 6: end for 7: **return** µ, x ## 2.3 The Bpe Training Optimization Problem We now define the BPE training task as a combinatorial optimization problem. The objective we seek to optimize is the compression utility of the chosen merge sequence (taken with respect to a string), which we define below. Definition 2.5. Let x ∈ Σ∗ be a string. We define the **compression utility** *of a valid merge sequence* µ applied to x *as the following function:* $$\kappa_{\mathbf{x}}(\mathbf{\mu})=|\mathbf{x}|-|\mathrm{{\tiny{APPLY}}}_{\mathbf{\mu}}(\mathbf{x})|\qquad\qquad(2)$$ Note that for any merge sequence µ, κx(µ) ≥ 0 and we take κx(⟨⟩) = 0. Then, for any merge sequence µ′ = ⟨µ′1 , . . . , µ′|x|−1⟩ of length |x| − 1 where every merge produces replacements, we have κx(µ′) = |x| − 1 (see proof of Theorem *4.2).* We can further define the **compression gain** of two merge sequences with respect to each other. Definition 2.6. The **compression gain** of µ′ with respect to a sequence µ, denoted as κx(µ′| µ)*, is* defined as $$\kappa_{x}(\mu\mu^{\prime})-\kappa_{x}(\mu).$$ $$(3)$$ Similarly, the compression gain of a single merge µ with respect to a sequence µ*, denoted as* κx(µ | µ), is defined as κx(µµ) − κx(µ). We use the compression gain to later make a sequence of observations which leads to proving the function submodularity and eventually its approximation bound of the BPE training algorithm. Now, armed with Definition 2.5, we can formally state our optimization problem. In words, we seek to find a valid merge sequence µ *with length of* M *that maximizes the compression utility* κx(·) for a pre-specified string x ∈ Σ∗. We write this combinatorial optimization problem more formally $$\mu^{\star}=\operatorname*{argmax}_{\mu\in{\mathcal{M}}_{\mathrm{T}_{\Sigma}}}\kappa_{x}(\mu)$$ The most common procedure found in the NLP literature for solving Eq. (4) is a greedy algorithm (Gage, 1994; Sennrich et al., 2016). The implementation of Gage's (1994) algorithm presented by Sennrich et al. (2016) runs in O (NM) time (N = |x|, M = |µ ⋆|). We describe this greedy algorithm in detail in §3 and provide a novel theoretical result: *The algorithm comes with* a1 σ(µ⋆) (1 − e−σ(µ⋆)) *bound on its approximation* error of Eq. (4). In §4, we further offer an asymptotic speed-up to Sennrich et al.'s (2016) algorithm, reducing its runtime to O (N log M). Finally, for completeness, we offer an exact program for finding an optimal valid merge sequence in §5. While this algorithm runs in exponential time, which prevents it to be used in real applications, it is still faster than the brute-force counterpart. ## 3 A Greedy Approximation Of Bpe We demonstrate that, for any string x ∈ Σ∗, the following bound holds $$\frac{\kappa_{x}(\mu^{\dagger})}{\kappa_{x}(\mu^{*})}\geq\frac{1}{\sigma(\mu^{*})}(1-e^{-\sigma(\mu^{*})})\qquad\mathrm{(5)}$$ where, as in the previous section, µ†is the valid merge sequence output by the greedy algorithm and µ ⋆is an optimal valid merge sequence. To prove this bound, we rely heavily on the theory of submodularity (Krause and Golovin, 2014; Bilmes, 2022). ## 3.1 Properties Of Compression Utility (Κ) We start by proving some useful facts about the compression utility function κx. Specifically, we first show that κx is a specific type of monotone non-decreasing submodular sequence function, which we make precise in the following definitions. Definition 3.1. A real-valued function f *over valid* merge sequences is *monotone non-decreasing* if, for all µ ∈ MΥΣand for all n ∈ N, it holds that f(µ<n) ≥ f(µ<n−1)*, where* µ<n def = ⟨µ1*, . . . , µ*n−1⟩. 10In practice, it does not happen that |x| < M and so we use |µ ⋆| = M for convenience instead of |µ ⋆| ≤ M. $$\quad(4)$$ Proposition 3.2. Let κx *be the compression utility function. Then, for a fixed* x ∈ Σ∗, κx(·) is monotone (Definition *3.1).* Proof.: For all $n\in\mathbb{N}$, we have that $\kappa_{\mathbf{x}}(\mathbf{\mu}_{<n})=\kappa_{\mathbf{x}}(\mathbf{\mu}_{<n-1})+\underbrace{\kappa_{\mathbf{x}}(\mathbf{\mu}_{n}\mid\mathbf{\mu}_{<n-1})}_{\geq0}$. It follows that $\kappa_{\mathbf{x}}(\cdot)$ is monotone non-decreasing. Next, we turn to a definition of sequence submodularity from Alaei et al. (2010). In contrast to Alaei et al.'s (2010) definition, we add the additional constraint that a merge-sequence function must take a *valid* merge sequence as an argument. Definition 3.3. A real-valued function f *over valid* merge sequences is **submodular** if, for all µ, µ′ ∈ MΥΣ such that µ′ ≼ µ, 11 and for all ν ∈ ΥΣ *such* that both µ′ν and µν *are valid, we have* $$f(\nu\mid\mu^{\prime})\geq f(\nu\mid\mu).$$ $$(6)$$ ′) ≥ f(ν | µ). (6) Proposition 3.4. Let κx be the compression utility function. Then, for a fixed x ∈ Σ∗, κx(·) is submodular (Definition *3.3) when the domain is* restricted to the set of valid merges MΥΣ . Proof. Let µ, µ′ ∈ MΥΣ such that µ′ ≼ µ, and let ν = [ν′, ν′′] be any merge such that µν, µ′ν ∈ MΥΣ . First, notice that, once a merge µn in a merge sequence µ is applied, the number of occurrences of µn in κx(µ≤n) cannot be increased by any sequence of further applications, because all submerges of µn where applied exhaustively (i.e., to all consecutive occurrences of their immediate submerges). Now, from µ′ν ∈ MΥΣ , it follows that both ν′and ν′′ are in µ′. Therefore, the number of occurrences ν′and ν′′, and a fortiori of successive occurrences of them, cannot be greater in κx(µ) than in κx(µ′), and hence κx(ν | µ) ≤ κx(ν | µ′), which proves the submodularity of κx over MΥΣ . ■ In the context of compression, the submodularity property means, that the compression gain achieved after adding a specific merge to a merge sequence can never increase with merge sequence length. However, the requirement that the added merge does not create an invalid merge sequence is important. We highlight this importance in the following example. 11I.e., we have that µ ′is a prefix of µ. Example 3.5. *Consider* Σ = {a, b, c, d, e}, the string x = aabcde*, and the valid merge sequences* µ′ = ⟨[a, a]⟩ and µ = ⟨[a, a], [c, d]⟩*. Note that* µ′ ≼ µ*. These merge sequences have compression* utilities κx(µ′) = 6−5 = 1 and κx(µ) = 6−4 = 2*, respectively. Next, consider the merge sequence* ν = ⟨[b, [c, d]], [[b, [*c, d*]], e]⟩*. Now,* κx(ν | µ′) = 0 and κx(ν | µ) = 2, which violates submodularity because µ′ ≼ µ*. What went wrong? The* problem is that µν *is not a* valid *merge sequence.* In order to formally prove our desired guarantee regarding the approximation bound of the greedy BPE algorithm, it is not enough that compression utility is sequence submodular over valid merge sequences. For this reason, we identified another property of the compression utility function that allows us to push through our result. Definition 3.6. We define the following **partial order on merges**. For merges µ, µ′ ∈ ΥΣ*, we say* µ′ ⊂ µ iff µ′is a submerge of µ. The merge µ′*is a* submerge of µ = [µ1, µ2] *iff:* - µ1 = µ′, or, µ2 = µ′*, or* - µ′ ⊂ µ1*, or* µ′ ⊂ µ2. Definition 3.7. A real-valued function over valid merge sequences is **hierachically sequence submodular** *if, for every valid merge sequence of the* form µ′ν′µν where ν′ ⊂ ν *according to the partial* order given in Definition *3.6, we have that* $$f(\nu^{\prime}\mid\mu^{\prime})\geq f(\nu\mid\mu^{\prime}\nu^{\prime}\mu).$$ ′µ). (7) Note that hierarchical sequence submodularity is a different concept from function modularity, described in Definition 3.3. Indeed, in the case of functions over valid merge sequences, neither submodularity nor hierarchical sequence submodularity implies the other. To see this, note that roughly speaking, submodularity describes the difference in the value of a function when the same element is given as an argument, albeit conditioned on the presence of two different (but related) other arguments. However, if the same argument is considered in Eq. (7), we have $$\kappa_{\mathbf{x}}(\nu^{\prime}\mid\mu^{\prime})\geq\kappa_{\mathbf{x}}(\nu^{\prime}\mid\mu^{\prime}\nu^{\prime}\mu)=0,$$ which is a trivial bound due to the non-negativity of κx(·). The naming is inspired by the fact we require the partial order over merges, which creates the hierarchy. Proposition 3.8. Let κx be the compression utility function. Then, for a fixed x ∈ Σ∗, κx(·) is hierarchically submodular (Definition 3.3) when the domain is restricted to the set of valid merges MΥΣ . Proof. Let x ∈ Σ∗ be a string and µ, µ′ be valid merge sequences. Furthermore, let ν, ν′ be merges such that ν′ ⊂ ν and µ′ν′µν is itself a valid merge sequence. Combinatorially, κx(ν | µ′ν′µ) is the number of replacements made in x by the single merge of ν, after applying µ′ν′µ. However, since ν′ ⊂ ν, every new tree in x resulting from that by applying ν must have ν′as a descendant. Thus, κx(ν′| µ′), which is the number of new nodes in the forest created by applying ν′, must be at least equal to κx(ν | µ′ν′µ), if not greater. ■ Proposition 3.8 gives us a different notion of submodularity, which is important for the proof of the greedy BPE training guarantee. As an illustrative example of the proposition, we return to Fig. 1. In this case, µ′ = ⟨[*a, b*]⟩, ν′ = [[a, b], a], µ = ⟨[*c, b*]⟩, ν = [[[a, b], a], [*c, b*]]. Clearly, ν′ ⊂ ν and ν′appears twice, while ν only once. Finally, we adapt the definition of total backward curvature from (Zhang et al., 2015) to our needs. Intuitively, the total backward curvature is related to how much the utility of µ can decrease if ν is applied before, at the beginning. Definition 3.9. The *total backward curvature* of the compression utility function κ *with respect to an* optimal merge sequence µ ⋆*is denoted with* σ(µ ⋆): $$(7)$$ $$\sigma(\mu^{\star})=\operatorname*{max}_{\begin{array}{c}{{\mu\in\Upsilon_{\Sigma}}}\\ {{|\mu|\leq M}}\end{array}}\left\{1-\frac{\kappa(\mu\mu^{\star})-\kappa(\mu^{\star})}{\kappa(\mu)}\right\}.\,\,\,\,(9)$$ ## 3.2 The Greedy Algorithm For Bpe In words, the greedy algorithm proceeds as follows: For each of the M iterations, the algorithm chooses the next merge that is both valid and (locally) maximizes the objective in Eq. (4). We give pseudocode in Alg. 1. In practice, as shown in Code 1, this is done by choosing the merge that occurs most frequently (can be adjusted for pair overlaps). The main loop occurs M times. In the subsequent theorem we show the approximation bound for the greedy algorithm. Theorem 3.10. *The greedy algorithm for BPE* training, i.e., for learning a length M merge sequence µ†*, is* 1 σ(µ⋆) (1 − e−σ(µ⋆)) -optimal: for every string x ∈ Σ∗ $$\frac{\kappa_{\mathbf{x}}(\mu^{\dagger})}{\kappa_{\mathbf{x}}(\mu^{*})}\geq\frac{1}{\sigma(\mu^{*})}(1-e^{-\sigma(\mu^{*})})\qquad(10)$$ | Sequence | Pair frequencies | |------------------------|--------------------------------------------------| | Greedy [a,b]a[a,b]baa | ab : 2, ba: 2, aa: 2, bb: 1 | | [[a,b],a][a,b]baa | [a,b]a : 1, [a,b]b: 1, ba: 1, aa:1, [a,[a,b]]: 1 | | Optimal a[b,a]ab[b,a]a | ab: 2, ba : 2, aa: 2, bb: 1 | | a[[b,a],a]b[[b,a],a] | ab: 2, a[b,a]: 1, [b,a]a : 2, b[b,a]: 1 | Example 2: In case of x = *abaabbaa* the greedy BPE yields a suboptimal compression utility (5 vs 4 subwords). Highlighted pairs show which one was chosen. with respect to the optimal length M *merge sequence* µ ⋆. Proof. The proof is shown in App. A. ■ ## 3.3 Measuring Total Backward Curvature We do not have a formal bound for σ(µ ⋆) and estimate it by enumerating all strings of maximum length |x| ≤ 15 given a finite alphabet |Σ| = 5 and maximum merge sequence size |µ ⋆| < 5. The found maximum is σˆ(µ ⋆) = 2.5, from which follows an optimality bound of ≈ 0.37. When we restrict our search to texts from a natural language (English), we obtain a slightly lower estimate σˆ(µ ⋆)N = 2.0 and hence optimality bound ≈ 0.43. We leave the further study of the backward curvature constant to future work. Notice that in the main proof of Theorem 3.10 in App. A, we used σ to bound only one particular type of sequence that becomes the prefix to µ ⋆, namely µ†. We may then check for prefixing only greedy sequences instead of taking the maximum across µ ∈ Υ∗Σ , |µ| ≤ M as in Definition 3.9: $$\sigma^{\prime}(\mu^{\star},\mu^{\dagger})=\left\{1-\frac{\kappa(\mu_{<M}^{\dagger}\mu^{\star})-\kappa(\mu^{\star})}{\kappa(\mu_{<M}^{\dagger})}\right\}\,\,\,(11)$$ This yields σˆ′(µ ⋆, µ†) = 1.5 and therefore the bound of ≈ 0.52. More important than the particular bound value is that it is constant and that the BPE training algorithm can not be arbitratily suboptimal with sequence length. ## 4 A Runtime Speed-Up We now introduce a speed-up of the greedy BPE algorithm. Assuming constant-time comparison of strings, finding the maximum pair count over the whole string is O (N), which is the same as applying one merge. Therefore, this implementation has a runtime complexity of O (NM). A large amount of time in the slow BPE implementation, Algorithm 2 Iterative Greedy BPE (faster). Inputs: string x, merge count M Output: tokenized string x, merge sequence µ 1: µ *← ⟨⟩* 2: x ← LINKEDLIST(x) 3: h ← MAXHEAP(PAIRS(x)) 4: for i in 0..M do 5: pos ← h.TOP 6: for (w1, w2) in pos do 7: h.REMOVEPOSITION(w1.prev, w1) 8: h.REMOVEPOSITION(w2, w2.*next*) 9: w1.val ← w1.val + w2.val 10: w1.next ← w2.*next* 11: w2.next.*prev* ← w1 12: h.ADDPOSITION(w1.prev, w1) 13: h.ADDPOSITION(w1, w1.*next*) 14: **end for** 15: µ ← µ ◦ ⟨µ⟩ 16: **end for** 17: **return** x, µ $$\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\mu}\leftarrow\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\mu}\circ\langle\mu\rangle$$ presented by Sennrich et al. (2016) and shown in Alg. 1, is spent on (1) recalculating the frequencies of pairs (Alg. 1, line 3) which are not affected by the most recent merge, and (2) scanning the whole string to apply a single merge (Alg. 1, line 4). To make this explicit, consider the following example. Example 4.1. Consider x = abba(*cddc*) n and merge [a, b] for n ≥ 1. We can only apply the merge at the beginning of the string, which results in the forest [a, b]ba(*cddc*) n. However, Alg. 2 *still* scans the entirety of the sequence to recalculate the pair frequencies of [c, d], [d, c] and [c, c]*. This* additional work is unnecessary. Our idea to speed up Alg. 1 stems from the insight that we do not have to iterate over the entire sequence, an O (N) operation, on each of the M iterations.12 Indeed, on the t th iteration, we show that one only has to do work proportional to the number of new nodes that are added to the forest (Alg. 2, line 6). To achieve this, we introduce a more efficient data structure for BPE.13 Our first step is to treat the string as a linked list of subwords, initialized as a linked list of characters, that we destructively modify at each iteration. With each possible merge, we store a list of pointers where the merge operation could happen. The max heap is then sorted by the size of the sets. Lines 6 to 14 in Alg. 2 show the necessary operations needed to be performed on the linked list. Notably REMOVE-   POSITION removes the specific pair position from the set in the max heap and ADDPOSITION adds it. See Fig. 2 for an illustration of applying a single merge in one place based on the introductory example in Example 1. The possible merge pairs are stored with a priority queue with their frequency as the sort key. During one operation, we need to remove the top merge pair and add counts for the newly created possible merge. The cost of one merge then becomes O (Rtlog M) where Rtis the number of pairs in the string where the merge occurs and log M the complexity of adding and updating frequency of a new merge pair. Note that it is not log N, because we are keeping only top-M possible pairs in the heap. At first glance, this suggests the overall runtime of O PM t=1 Rtlog M with the worst case of the merge being applied along the whole string, therefore O (MN log M). Theorem 4.2. Let N *be the length of the string* x ∈ Σ∗that is given as input. Then, Alg. 2 *runs in* O (N log M) time. Proof. Let Dt be the amount of work performed at each iteration modifying the data structure. We additionally do O (log M) work updating the priority queue on lines 6 to 14 in Alg. 2 since it has at most M elements. Thus, Alg. 2 clearly runs in O PM t=1 Rtlog M . We perform an amortized analysis. For this, we first make an observation about the upper bound on the number of merges and then show amortized analysis. However, for a string x of length N, there are at most N − 1 merges that can be applied to x. This implies that PM t=1 Rt ≤ N. Thus, O PM t=1 Rtlog M = O (N log M), which proves the result. ■ ## 5 An Exact Algorithm In this section, we turn to developing an algorithm for exactly solving the BPE problem, i.e., Eq. (4). We change algorithmic paradigms and switch to memoization. While we are not able to devise a polynomial-time scheme, we are able to find an exact algorithm that is, in some cases, faster than the brute-force technique of enumerating all valid merge sequences. We first analyze the brute-force method of enumerating all valid merge sequences. Proposition 5.1. The set of valid merges of length M *over a string* x ∈ Σ∗is O min |Σ| 2M, NM. Proof. The proof can be found in App. A. ■ A simple direct enumeration of all possible merge sequences with the time complexity of one merge O (NM) gives us a brute-force algorithm that runs in O NM min |Σ| 2M, NM time. The brute-force program explores all possible sequences of merges—including many that are redundant. For instance, both ⟨[p, o], [*h, a*]⟩ and ⟨[h, a], [*p, o*]⟩ induce the same partial bracketing when applied to another merge sequence, as in §2.2. Luckily, we are able to offer an exact characterization of when two merge sequences induce the same bracketing. To this end, we provide the following definitions. We use the term **transposition** to refer to the swapping of items; i.e., a transposition (*i, j*) over a merge sequence µ refers to the swapping of µi and µj . Definition 5.2. *A pair of merges* µ = [µn, µm] and µ′ = [µn′, µm′] **conflicts** if for a symbol a ∈ Σ and strings x, x′ ∈ Σ∗, the yield of [µn, µm] is xa and [µ′n, µ′m] is ax′. Definition 5.3. A transposition (i, j) is **safe** *if and* only if, for all k < j, µk *does not conflict with* µj and, for all k > i, µk does not conflict with µi. A permutation π = ⟨ρ1ρ2 · · · ρn⟩, decomposed into transpositions, that maps one valid merge sequence µ *to another valid merge sequence* π(µ) = µ′is safe *if and only if all transpositions are safe.* Informally, Definition 5.3 says that for a permutation to produce a valid merge sequence, there should be no conflicts between the swapped merges and all merges in between. For example, given the merge sequence µ = ⟨[a, b], [d, d], [*c, a*]⟩, the permutation π = ⟨(1, 3)⟩ would not be safe. The reason for this definition is that safe permutations characterize when two merge sequences always give the same results. Indeed, for x = ddabcacab, applying the first merge sequence: APPLYµ(x) = [d, d][a, b][c, a][*c, a*]b. In contrast, applying the permuted one gives an alternative outcome: APPLYπ(µ)(x) = [d, d][a, b][c, a]c[*a, b*]. Definition 5.4. Two merge sequences µ and µ′ are **equivalent** *if and only if, for all* x ∈ Σ∗, APPLYµ(x) = APPLYµ′(x)*. Symbolically, we write* µ ≡ µ′if µ and µ′ *are equivalent.* Proposition 5.5. *Two valid merge sequences* µ, µ′ ∈ MΥΣ are equivalent, i.e., µ ≡ µ′, if and only if there exists a safe permutation π *such that* π(µ) = µ′. Proof. The proof can be found in App. A. ■ Following the previous example, it is easy to verify that ⟨[a, b], [d, d], [c, a]⟩ ≡ ⟨[a, b], [c, a], [*d, d*]⟩. In contrast to synthetic examples with a constrained alphabet of, e.g., {*a, b, c*}, far fewer merge conflicts arise in natural language. We can leverage this to develop a faster algorithm that only explores paths that are not equivalent to each other. We first define the concept of partial ordering between merges. Definition 5.6. The *merge partial ordering* µ′⋗µ′′ is defined as ¬conflicts(µ′, µ′′) ∧ ¬(|YIELD(µ′)| < |YIELD(µ′′)|)∧¬(YIELD(µ′) <L YIELD(µ′′)) *where* >L *is lexicographical ordering.* All valid merge sequences are equivalent to some merge sequence which is partially ordered using ⋗ so that no neighbouring elements violate this partial ordering. The brute-force algorithm works as depth-first search through an acyclic graph: each state corresponds to a unique sequence of merges and each transition corresponds to appending a merge to the end of the current state's merges. For the improved version, we make sure that only sequences which are ordered using ⋗ are searched and the rest are pruned. The pseudocode for the program is shown in Alg. 3. Even though the runtime is still prohibitively slow for application, Fig. 3 demonstrates how much speed is gained over the brute-force version which explores all states. Algorithm 3 Exact BPE with memoization guard. Removing segments marked with X would result in the brute-force version. Inputs: string x, merge count M Output: tokenized string x, merge sequence µ  ## 6 Conclusion In this paper, we developed the formalisms surrounding the training task of BPE, a very popular tokenization algorithm in NLP. This allowed us to prove a lower bound on the compression utility by greedy BPE as 1 − e−σ(µ⋆). We further analyzed the runtime of the naïve and faster greedy BPE algorithms and provided a speedup for finding an optimal BPE merge sequence. Future works should focus on providing either formal guarantees for σ(µ ⋆) or studying σ(µ ⋆) ′across natural languages. ## 7 Limitations Our work has focused strongly on the formal aspects of BPE. NLP practictioners should not be dissuaded from using BPE for subword tokenization, despite our presentation of examples where greedy BPE fails. Indeed, in contrast to synthetic examples on toy alphabet, on real data we made an observation that greedy BPE may be close to optimal. ## Acknowledgements We would like to thank Andreas Krause and Giorgio Satta for discussing the proof of Theorem 3.10. Clara Meister was supported by the Google PhD Fellowship. Juan Luis Gastaldi has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 839730. ## References Saeed Alaei, Ali Makhdoumi, and Azarakhsh Malekian. 2010. Maximizing sequence-submodular functions and its application to online advertising. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:1009.4153. Jeff Bilmes. 2022. Submodularity in machine learning and artificial intelligence. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.00132. Kaj Bostrom and Greg Durrett. 2020. Byte pair encoding is suboptimal for language model pretraining. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 4617–4624. Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared 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 M. 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 Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 1877–1901. Thomas M. Cover and Joy A. Thomas. 2006. Elements of Information Theory, 2 edition. Wiley-Interscience. Shuoyang Ding, Adithya Renduchintala, and Kevin Duh. 2019. A call for prudent choice of subword merge operations in neural machine translation. In *Proceedings of Machine Translation Summit XVII: Research* Track, pages 204–213. Ahmed El-Kishky, Vishrav Chaudhary, Francisco Guzmán, and Philipp Koehn. 2020. CCAligned: A massive collection of cross-lingual web-document pairs. In *Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on* Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 5960–5969. Philip Gage. 1994. A new algorithm for data compression. *The C Users Journal*, 12(2):23–38. Andreas Krause and Daniel Golovin. 2014. Submodular function maximization. In Tractability: Practical Approaches to Hard Problems. Cambridge University Press. Taku Kudo and John Richardson. 2018. SentencePiece: A simple and language independent subword tokenizer and detokenizer for neural text processing. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 66–71. László Lovász. 1983. Submodular functions and convexity. In Mathematical programming the state of the art, pages 235–257. Springer. Azarakhsh Malekian. 2009. *Combinatorial Problems* in Online Advertising. Ph.D. thesis, University of Maryland, College Park. Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. Teven Le Scao, Angela Fan, Christopher Akiki, Ellie Pavlick, Suzana Ilic, Daniel Hesslow, Roman ´ Castagné, Alexandra Sasha Luccioni, François Yvon, Matthias Gallé, et al. 2022. BLOOM: A 176Bparameter open-access multilingual language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.05100. Rico Sennrich, Barry Haddow, and Alexandra Birch. 2016. Neural machine translation of rare words with subword units. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1715–1725, Berlin, Germany. Terry A. Welch. 1984. A technique for highperformance data compression. *Computer*, 17(06):8– 19. Yizhe Zhang, Siqi Sun, Michel Galley, Yen-Chun Chen, Chris Brockett, Xiang Gao, Jianfeng Gao, Jingjing Liu, and William B Dolan. 2020. DIALOGPT: Largescale generative pre-training for conversational response generation. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations, pages 270–278. Zhenliang Zhang, Edwin KP Chong, Ali Pezeshki, and William Moran. 2015. String submodular functions with curvature constraints. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 61(3):601–616. Vilém Zouhar, Clara Meister, Juan Luis Gastaldi, Mrinmaya Sachan, and Ryan Cotterell. 2023. Tokenization and the noiseless channel. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. ## A Proofs Our proof of approximate optimality is based on the proof of greedily sequence maximizing submodular functions by Alaei et al. (2010); Zhang et al. (2015). However, we leverage a problem-specific property, which we dub hiearchical submodularity. We restate the definition here for ease. Definition 3.7. A real-valued function over valid merge sequences is *hierachically sequence submodular* if, for every valid merge sequence of the form µ′ν′µν where ν′ ⊂ ν according to the partial order given in Definition *3.6, we have that* f(ν ′| µ ′) ≥ f(ν | µ ′ν ′µ). (7) Lemma A.1. Let µ′, µ ∈ MΥΣ be valid merge sequences. Then, there exists a merge ν in µ *such that* µ′ν *is a valid merge sequence and* κx(ν | µ′) ≥ κx(µ|µ′) |µ|*. In words, the compression gain of some* element in µ with respect to µ′is greater or equal to the average compression gain per element of µ with respect to µ′ Proof. Let us choose on of the possible maximums, t = argmax1≤t′≤|µ| κx(µt′ | µ′µ<t′). Because we are taking the maximum, which is always equal to or greater than the average,14 then κx(µt| µ′µ<t) ≥ 1 |µ| P|µ| t′=1 κx(µt′ | µ′µ<t′). Then, we have that either: - µµt ∈ MΥΣ , in which case the result follows by submodularity, or - µµt ∈ M/ ΥΣ , in which case there exists a µt′ such that: - µt′ ⊂ µt $$\begin{array}{r l}{{}}&{{}}\\ {{}}&{{}}\\ {{}}&{{}}\\ {{}}&{{}}\end{array}$$ In particular, all trivial submerges of µt (i.e., all submerges of µt whose constituents are in Σ) fulfill * $\mu^{\prime}\mu^{\prime}_{t}\in{\cal M}_{\Upsilon_{\Sigma}}$ * $\mu_{t^{\prime}}$ in $\mu$ * $\kappa_{\mathbf{x}}(\mu_{t}\mid\mu^{\prime}\mu_{<t})\leq\kappa_{\mathbf{x}}(\mu_{t^{\prime}}\mid\mu^{\prime}\mu_{<t^{\prime}})\leq\kappa_{\mathbf{x}}(\mu_{t^{\prime}}\mid\mu^{\prime})$ all four conditions: the first one by definition, the second by definiton of MΥΣ , the third because µ ∈ MΥΣ , and the fourth by hierarchical submodularity (first inequality) and by submodularity (second inequality). $$(10)$$ $$(13)$$ ■ We now proceed with the proof of approximate optimality of the greedy BPE merge sequence. Theorem 3.10. The greedy algorithm for BPE training, i.e., for learning a length M *merge sequence* µ†, is 1 σ(µ⋆) (1 − e−σ(µ⋆)) *-optimal: for every string* x ∈ Σ∗ $$\frac{\kappa_{\mathbf{x}}(\mu^{\dagger})}{\kappa_{\mathbf{x}}(\mu^{\star})}\geq\frac{1}{\sigma(\mu^{\star})}(1-e^{-\sigma(\mu^{\star})})$$ _If more sequence $\mu^{\star}$_ $mce\;\mu t^\star$ . with respect to the optimal length M *merge sequence* µ ⋆. Proof. We make use of the sequence µ †<M (rather than µ†) for reasons that will subsequently become clear. From Lemma A.1, we know that we can find µ ⋆ j such that µ †<Mµ ⋆ j is a valid merge sequence and $$\kappa(\mu_{j}^{\star}\mid\mu_{<M}^{\dagger})\geq\frac{1}{M}\ell$$ $$(\mu^{\star}\mid\mid\mu$$ $$\mathbf{\Sigma}$$ M κ(µ ⋆| µ †<M) (12) From the greedy property of µ†, we know: $$\kappa(\mu_{M}^{\dagger}\mid\mu_{<M}^{\dagger})\geq\kappa(\mu_{j}^{\star}\mid\mu_{<M}^{\dagger})$$ †<M) (13) $$\kappa(\boldsymbol{\mu}_{M}^{\dagger}\mid\boldsymbol{\mu}_{<M}^{\dagger})\geq\frac{1}{M}\kappa(\boldsymbol{\mu}^{\star}\mid\boldsymbol{\mu}_{<M}^{\dagger})$$ (from Eq. **12**) $$\kappa(\boldsymbol{\mu}_{<M}^{\dagger}\boldsymbol{\mu}_{M}^{\dagger})-\kappa(\boldsymbol{\mu}_{<M}^{\dagger})\geq\frac{1}{M}(\kappa(\boldsymbol{\mu}_{<M}^{\dagger}\boldsymbol{\mu}^{\star})-\kappa(\boldsymbol{\mu}_{<M}^{\dagger}))$$ (definition expansion) $$(14)$$ $$(15)$$ Now from backward curvature (Definition 3.9) and by substituting µ †<M for the prefix sequence: $$\sigma(\mu^{\star})\geq1-\frac{\kappa(\mu^{\dagger}_{<M}\mu^{\star})-\kappa(\mu^{\star})}{\kappa(\mu^{\dagger}_{<M})}$$ $$\sigma(\mu^{\star})\kappa(\mu^{\dagger}_{<M})\geq\kappa(\mu^{\dagger}_{<M})-\kappa(\mu^{\dagger}_{<M}\mu^{\star})+\kappa(\mu^{\star})$$ $$\kappa(\mu^{\dagger}_{<M}\mu^{\star})-\kappa(\mu^{\dagger}_{<M})\geq\kappa(\mu^{\star})-\sigma(\mu^{\star})\kappa(\mu^{\dagger}_{<M})$$ $$(19)$$ $$(20)$$ (16) $\begin{array}{l}\text{(17)}\\ \text{(18)}\end{array}$ . Applying this result to the right-hand side of Eq. (15), we obtain the following: $$\kappa(\mathbf{\mu}_{<M}^{\dagger}\mathbf{\mu}_{M}^{\dagger})-\kappa(\mathbf{\mu}_{<M}^{\dagger})\geq\frac{1}{M}(\kappa(\mathbf{\mu}^{*})-\sigma(\mathbf{\mu}^{*})\kappa(\mathbf{\mu}_{<M}^{\dagger}))\qquad\mbox{(total backward curvature)}$$ $$\kappa(\mathbf{\mu}^{\dagger})-\kappa(\mathbf{\mu}_{<M}^{\dagger})\geq\frac{1}{M}(\kappa(\mathbf{\mu}^{*})-\sigma(\mathbf{\mu}^{*})\kappa(\mathbf{\mu}_{<M}^{\dagger}))\qquad\qquad\mbox{(definition)}$$ κ(µ †) ≥ 1 M (κ(µ ⋆) − σ(µ ⋆)κ(µ †<M)) + κ(µ †<M) (total backward curvature) (21) ≥ 1 M κ(µ ⋆) + 1 − σ(µ ⋆) M κ(µ †<M) (algebraic manipulation) (22) ≥ 1 M κ(µ ⋆) M X−1 i=0 1 − σ(µ ⋆) M i(recursive substitution of κ(µ =1 σ(µ⋆) 1 − 1 − σ(µ ⋆) M M!κ(µ ⋆) (geometric sum) (24) =1 σ(µ⋆) 1 − 1 − σ(µ ⋆) M M σ(µ⋆) !σ(µ⋆) κ(µ ⋆) (preparation) (25) We substitute x =M σ(µ⋆) in the inequality. From x > 0 ⇒ 1 − 1 x x ≤ 1 e , we obtain and arrive at †<i)) (23) $$\kappa(\mu^{\dagger})\geq\frac{1}{\sigma(\mu^{\star})}\left(1-e^{-\sigma(\mu^{\star})}\right)$$ −σ(µ⋆)(26) $$(23)$$ $$(24)$$ $$(25)$$ $$(26)$$ ■ Proposition 5.5. Two valid merge sequences µ, µ′ ∈ MΥΣ are equivalent, i.e., µ ≡ µ′, if and only if there exists a safe permutation π *such that* π(µ) = µ′. Proof. (⇒): We prove the first implication through contrapositive, i.e., we show that if there does not exist such a safe permutation π, then the merge sequences are not equivalent. By supposition, all non-safe permutations mapping µ to µ′either have a conflict or do not preserve validity. We handle each case separately. - **Case 1:** Suppose that the permutation π re-orders two conflicting merges µ and µ′. By the definition of a conflict, µ has yield xa and µ′ has yield ax′for a ∈ Σ and x, x′ ∈ Σ∗. Now, note the bracketing string xax′ will be different under the original and permuted merge sequence. - **Case 2:** Suppose that the permutation π does not preserve validity. Then, there exists a merge µ = (µ′, µ′′) such that either µ′ or µ′′ occurs *after* µ in the merge sequence. This also results in a different bracketing. (⇐): Next, we want to show the converse, i.e., for any safe permutation π, we have µ ≡ π(µ). Let µ = ⟨µ1*, . . . , µ*N ⟩ be a merge sequence of length N, and let π be a safe permutation. We proceed by induction on the n. - **Base Case:** Since π is safe, then for [*a, b*] = π(µ)1, a and b are necessarily characters in Σ. - **Inductive Step**: Suppose for k = n − 1, π(µ)≤k applies merges which are applied by µ. We then show π(µ)n also applies the same merges as µ. Consider π(µ)n = (µm, µm′); since π is safe, both µm and µm′ already exist in APPLYµ≤n (x). Moreover, since there are no conflicts, applying π(µ)n results in the same encoded sequence.■ Proposition 5.1. The set of valid merges of length M *over a string* x ∈ Σ∗is O min |Σ| 2M, NM. Proof. On one hand, we note that we have an upper bound of N − 1 possible merges that can occupy the first element of the sequence, assuming every symbol in x is distinct. Next, we have N − 2 possible merges that can occupy the second element of the sequence, again, assuming every symbol in x is distinct. Continuing this pattern, we arrive at a simple upper bound on the number of merges QM−1 m=0 (N − 1 − m). This quantity is recognizable as a falling factorial, which gives us the closed form (N−1)! (N−M−2)! . This can be trivially bounded by NM. However, on the other hand, we know a valid merge sequence can produce merges with a yield up to length M, and there are Σ≤M M unique sequences. We can upper-bound the number of valid merge sequences by the total number of all possible merge sequences, of which there are M!. The size of Σ≤M is the sum |Σ| 1 + |Σ| 2 + *. . .* |Σ|M which is less than M|Σ|M. Again, with M!, this leads to the falling factorial (M|Σ|M)! (M|Σ|M−M)! which we can upper bound by (M|Σ|M)M which is in O |Σ| 2M. Taking the min of these two upper bounds gives us the overall upper bound. ■ ## B Bpe Modifications In this section, we describe multiple modifications to the greedy BPE algorithm which speed up the runtime. We do not address popular heuristic modifications such as lowercasing the text or adding 20% of the most frequent words to the subword dictionary. ## B.1 (Not) Merging Space Currently, spaces are treated as any other characters and are allowed to be part of merges. Therefore in the string "not_that_they_watch_the_*watch"* the first merge is [_,t] and the string looks as "not[_,t]hat[_,t]hey watch[_*,t]he watch"*. The next merge may be across tokens: [t,[_*,t]]*. This is not desirable if we want only want to split tokens into subwords (i.e. use merges that do not contain spaces). Furthermore, in §3 we are duplicating work by computing pair frequencies and merges multiple times across the same tokens that occur multiple times (see previous string example). In practice (Tab. 1), only 1.5% of all tokens are unique. We may then speed up our computation by considering only unique tokens. Therefore, the new runtime complexity is O (V · |xu|) where xu = {t | token t ∈ x} which is |x| |xu|× faster. ## B.2 Non-Iterative Bpe A popular implementation of BPE-like algorithm in Python15 uses a different speed-up mechanism to avoid O (NV ) runtime. This is done by: (1) collecting all possible merges observed in the data up until some maximum yield size which determines the maximum subword size, such as 5 and (2) taking top-M frequent pairs as part of the subword dictionary. Note that because of hiearchical submodularity (Definition 3.7), this will produce valid merges. This is because if µ = [µ′, µ′′] is chosen, so must µ′and µ′′ because they have at least the same frequency as µ. For example, for *abcabcd*, and maximum yield width 3, the merges would be [a, b], [[a, b], c], [b, c], [a, [b, c]]*, . . .*. The runtime of this is O (|x| log M) because we are scanning the whole string and at each point are modifying maximum heap. 15pypi.org/project/bpe However, it is easy to see that this approximation algorithm is not bounded. For a constant maximum yield width of w, consider x = a wn and V = w + k. The shortest possible output of this algorithm will be µ n. However, an optimal merge sequence can perform additional merge sequences, therefore producing ν n 2k . The compressions are wn − n and wn − n 2 k and the ratio wn−n wn− n 2k with lower bound of 0 as supremum. This means that we can construct adversarial example for which the compression given by this algorithm is arbitrarily suboptimal. | Sentence count (train) | 13M+13M | |---------------------------------|-----------| | Sentence count (dev & test) | 1M+1M | | Total words | 324M | | Unique words | 5M | | Average sentence length (words) | 12 | Table 1: Overview of the used portion of the English-German CommonCrawl dataset (El-Kishky et al., 2020).  1 **from** collections **import** Counter, defaultdict   2 **from** typing **import** Union, Tuple, List 3 4 def **fixed_pair_freqs**(xs: Union[str, List]): 5 pairs = defaultdict(int) 6 prev_pair **= None** 7 for (x, y) in zip(xs, xs[1:]): 8 \# increment only if the prev suffix does not match prefix 9 \# otherwise wrong estimate on `aaa` 10 if (x,y) != prev_pair: 11 pairs[x, y] += 1 12 prev_pair = (x, y) 13 **else**: 14 \# make sure to clear it so that `aaaa` is counted twice 15 prev_pair **= None** 16 17 pairs = list(pairs.items()) 18 pairs.sort(key**=lambda** x: x[1], reverse**=True**) 19 **return** pairs 20 21 def bpe(xs: Union[str, List], V: int): 22 for _ in range(V): 23 top_pair = fixed_pair_freqs(xs)[0] 24 xs = merge(list(xs), top_pair) 25 **return** xs 26 27 def **merge**(xs: List, pair: Tuple): 28 ys = [] 29 **while** xs: 30 if tuple(xs[:2]) == pair: 31 ys.append(pair) 32 xs = xs[2:] 33 **else**: 34 ys.append(xs.pop(0)) 35 **return** ys Code 2: An implementation of Sennrich et al.'s (2016) greedy algorithm for BPE in Python with overlap-adjusted pair counts. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? End of page 8 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? 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?** Appendix A ✓ 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? Not applicable. 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.)? 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.

preiss-2023-automatic

Automatic Named Entity Obfuscation in Speech

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.39

Sharing data containing personal information often requires its anonymization, even when consent for sharing was obtained from the data originator. While approaches exist for automated anonymization of text, the area is not as thoroughly explored in speech. This work focuses on identifying, replacing and inserting replacement named entities synthesized using voice cloning into original audio thereby retaining prosodic information while reducing the likelihood of deanonymization. The approach employs a novel named entity recognition (NER) system built directly on speech by training HuBERT (Hsu et al, 2021) using the English speech NER dataset (Yadav et al, 2020). Name substitutes are found using a masked language model and are synthesized using text to speech voice cloning (Eren and team, 2021), upon which the substitute named entities are re-inserted into the original text. The approach is prototyped on a sample of the LibriSpeech corpus (Panyatov et al, 2015) with each step evaluated individually.

# Automatic Named Entity Obfuscation In Speech Judita Preiss University of Sheffield, Information School The Wave, 2 Whitham Road Sheffield S10 2AH judita.preiss@sheffield.ac.uk ## Abstract Sharing data containing personal information often requires its anonymization, even when consent for sharing was obtained from the data originator. While approaches exist for automated anonymization of text, the area is not as thoroughly explored in speech. This work focuses on identifying, replacing and inserting replacement named entities synthesized using voice cloning into original audio thereby retaining prosodic information while reducing the likelihood of deanonymization. The approach employs a novel named entity recognition (NER) system built directly on speech by training HuBERT (Hsu et al., 2021) using the English speech NER dataset (Yadav et al., 2020). Name substitutes are found using a masked language model and are synthesized using text to speech voice cloning (Eren and Team, 2021), upon which the substitute named entities are re-inserted into the original text. The approach is prototyped on a sample of the LibriSpeech corpus (Panayotov et al., 2015) with each step evaluated individually. ## 1 Introduction Privacy concerns, particularly where an individual could be identified, preclude sharing and therefore automatic exploitation of many data sources. Anonymization, the removal of identifying information, has been automated for text (Lison et al., 2021), including large scale applications such as in clinical (Hartman et al., 2020) or legal settings (Oksanen et al., 2022), with off-the-shelf systems having reported performance of 90+% (Hartman et al., 2020). To minimize the risk of re-identification, obfuscation - replacing identifying information with a different substitute of the same type - has been explored as an alternative to replacing identifying information with a generic marker (Sousa and Kern, 2022). The main focus in speech has been on voice anonymization, which may not be a problem with speaker consent, with the removal of identifying information receiving less attention. To our knowledge, this is the first prototype to perform named entity obfuscation directly, in the original speaker's voice. Aside from voice cloning, it explores a named entity recognition approach based directly on audio signal and uses language model masking to find appropriate substitutions. Recent advances in speech models, particularly the inclusion of language models within the speech model itself (e.g. HuBERT (Hsu et al., 2021)) gives models greater insight into expected contexts. Previous work on named entity recognition (NER) in speech frequently employs a two step approach, transcribing speech first, followed by the application of existing named entity techniques (Yadav et al., 2020). However, this process has the potential to compound errors as errors in transcription will increase the probability of error in NER. We suggest that the addition of language models into the speech model gives these sufficient power to perform NER directly, and therefore that transcribing (automatic speech recognition, ASR) and NER can be separated, and used to provide a confidence measure in their performance. Divided, the two do not propagate errors in the same way; in fact, treating ASR and NER separately allows one to fix (some of the) errors of the other. The proposed second (final) ASR pass merely produces a confidence value in the result to decide whether a manual check should be performed. The success of few shot learning, where a limited number of examples is used to generalize a pre-trained deep learning model to a new situation, for text-to-speech - and specifically voice cloning (Zhang and Lin, 2022) - enables an alternative, equivalent but different, entity to be inserted in the audio signal in place of the original while preserving the prosody information throughout. While large databases of potential replacement entities can be used to select a substitution, these may not preserve necessary properties (such as gender). Al615 ternatively, word embeddings have been used to suggest close (in the multi-dimensional space) alternatives (Abdalla et al., 2020), however these can suffer from the same drawback. We propose using a more contextualized alternative to word embeddings, a masked language model (Devlin et al., 2019), where the model is trained by hiding (masking) words and predictions of the original word are made based on their context. This work makes the following contributions: (1) a complete obfuscation pipeline for names in speech1, (2) a named entity recognizer built directly on speech without requiring text transcription first, (3) alternative (obfuscated) entity replacement selection via masking language model, and (4) confidence annotated system output, allowing for manual correction and / or selection of shareable instances. Section 2 contains the methodology with results in Section 3. Section 4 presents the conclusions and future work. ## 2 Methodology The steps of the overall pipeline, which takes in an audio file and produces an obfuscated audio file along with a confidence value, can be found in Figure 1. The approach comprises of three main parts: 1) identification of named entities (NEs) in the audio, 2) finding an equivalent alternative for the original NEs, and 3) reconstructing the original audio to incorporate the replacement NEs. The reconstructed audio can further be used to obtain a confidence value. ## 2.1 Identification Of Named Entities To enable the direct use of a language model on speech input for the purpose of named entity recognition (NER), a dataset of audio recordings with annotated NEs is required. The English speech NER dataset (Yadav et al., 2020), which consists of 70,769 waveforms with transcripts annotated with person, location and organization NEs, is used for fine-tuning the Hidden-Unit BERT speech model (HuBERT) (Hsu et al., 2021). HuBERT was selected over other speech models since it learns both accoustic and language models from its inputs and therefore has an increased awareness of context. The success of language models on text NER has demonstrated how crucial context is for this 1The code for the obfuscation pipeline is available from: https://github.com/juditapreiss/speech_ne_ obfuscation task, and using a model which incorporates both an acoustic and a language model (over acoustic only) allows the approach to exploit the information used in text NER, while managing to avoid the need for a transcript. For training, NE annotations need to be converted to a suitable format, indicating the presence or absence of a NE in each position. Following the inside-outside(-beginning) chunking common to many NER approaches (Tjong Kim Sang and De Meulder, 2003), three formats were explored: 1) character level annotation, mapping each character to either o for a character outside of a named entity, space, or *n, l, e* for characters within person, location or organization entities respectively, 2) the same character level annotation with separate characters added to denote the beginning of each type of NE (mapping the sentence *TELL JACK* to *oooo mnnn* with m denoting the start of a person NE), 3) and, for completeness, annotation was also explored at word level. With the training parameters shown in Appendix A.1, the best NE performance was obtained from the first annotation approach, where NE beginnings were not explicitly annotated. The lower performance of the second annotation approach can be attributed to the low quantity of training data for the beginning marker annotations. While word level annotation was explored, it is likely to need a far greater quantity of data to enable mapping of different length inputs to a single label. Separately, HuBERT was also fine-tuned for automatic speech recognition (ASR), i.e. for transcribing text from audio. Identical training data was used, with annotation being the transcription provided as part of the NE annotation (with NE annotation removed). The same parameters were employed for its training. Alongside the predicted (NE or ASR) annotation, prediction output also yields an offset which can be converted to a time offset. This can be used to identify the position of the NE(s) to be replaced, and after a greedy alignment of the two outputs, the original transcription of the original NE(s) can be extracted. ## 2.2 Finding An Alternative Ne Once a person NE is identified, a suitable equivalent substitution needs to be obtained, i.e. we want to find the word which could replace the NE in the text if the NE was hidden. This is precisely the concept behind masked language models (MLMs): Speech Speech to obfuscate as a wav file  Text with NE annotated Transcribed text with NEs & timings YourTTS clone generate Generated text using cloned voice NER with HuBERT Extracted timings of substituted NEs Obfuscated speech Inserted generated NEs into orig text ASR with HuBERT WER and CER based confidence these models learn their weights so that given a sentence with a hidden (masked) word, the model will output the complete original sentence. The (ASR extracted) original sentences with NEs (as identified by the NE tuned model) masked were passed to a MLM. Three MLM models were explored: BERT, bert-large-uncased model (Devlin et al., 2019), ALBERT, albert-xxlarge-v2, model (Lan et al., 2019) and the distilled RoBERTa base, distilroberta-base, model (Sanh et al., 2019). Each model, with no additional tuning, results in a (pre-specified) number of predictions for each NE in the sentence. Since the models used different datasets in training, their predictions are expected to be different: for example, some may suggest pronouns rather than names. Given the propensity of the MLM to return substitutions which are not names (for example, for the sentence *you should call Stella*, the model returns you should call him, *you should call them*, you should call 911 etc), an external list of people names is used for the validation of the proposed suggestions2and the highest scoring substitution is returned. Heuristically, the original name is matched against the list to identify whether it is a first or a last name (where possible) and names of the same type suggested by the MLM are returned. Simple rules are employed (last of a sequence of $${\mathrm{Obfuscated~text}}$$ $\text{Generated text using cloned voice}$ . names is a last name, a single name without a title is a first name etc) to decide on a substitution when the original name does not appear in either the first or last name list. Given the nature of MLMs, suggested alternatives are likely to be more common words: as a positive side effect, this should make them easier to render with voice cloning as they may already appear in the reference speech. Should MLM fail to propose any suitable substitutions, one is selected at random from the first & last name lists, subject to the same heuristic rules. ## 2.3 Reconstruction Of Original Audio In this work, the substitute NE is to be re-inserted into the original audio. To reduce the risk of de-identification via the extraction of entities which failed to be identified and therefore stayed in their original form, the substitute entity needs to be produced in the speaker's voice. The YourTTS (Casanova et al., 2021) model, which offers the ability for fine-tuning with less than one minute of speech while achieving good results with reasonable quality, can be used to generate the substitute sentence with all available speech of the speaker provided as reference. Note that it is not necessary to remove the original sentence from the reference data: in fact, its presence may result in more accurate rendering of the substitute sentence. The pre-trained model used in this work (tts_models/multilingual/multi-dataset/your_tts) was trained on the the voice cloning toolkit (VCTK) dataset (Yamagishi et al., 2019) which contains approximately 400 sentence, selected from newspaper text, uttered by 108-110 different speakers, giving it its generalization power. Aside from the reference passed to the model on the command line, no tuning or training of the YourTTS model is done in this work. The ASR transcribed text with the substituted NE is generated, rather than the substitution alone, to ensure that the intonation as closely matches the substitution's position in the sentence. The average amplitude of the generated audio is matched to that of the original segment using the Python pydub library. The generated audio is again pased through the HuBERT based NE recognizer, to identify the location of the substituted NE in the generated audio and allow its extraction (note that in this pass, it is not necessary to perform ASR - only the offsets of the replacement NE are required). Should the NE recognizer not identify the same number of NEs as were present in the original, the instance is flagged for manual review. For each NE in the text, a pair of start and end offsets are available: one pair extracted by the HuBERT based NE extraction from the original audio and a second pair from the audio generated from the substituted text. This allows the new NEs to be inserted in place of the original NEs. The splicing and concatenation of the waveforms is also performed using the pydub library. A second HuBERT based ASR pass over the newly constructed (substituted) audio, and its comparison against the substituted text using word error rate (WER) and character error rate (CER) gives measures of confidence. Both the metrics, commonly used for evaluation of ASR, allow for sequences of different length to the target - the further the reconstructed audio is from the target sentence, the less likely it is that the substitution will go unnoticed. ## 3 Results And Discussion 3.1 Identification Of Named Entities The 70,769 training corpus, sampled at 16kHz, is divided up into 70% for training (49,540 instances), and 15% for both validation and evaluation (10,615 examples). The hubert-base-ls960 model is used with parameters listed in Appendix A.1. The performance in training, indicated via WER and CER, is shown in Table 1 for both ASR and NER. | Eval WER | Eval CER | | |------------|------------|-------| | ASR | 0.142 | - | | NE | 0.199 | 0.063 | Table 1: Metric results of the ASR and NE HuBERT based models | MLM | Avg ASR | NE | Avg confidence | |---------|-----------|-------|------------------| | ALBERT | 0.980 | 13/20 | 0.109 | | BERT | 0.980 | 13/20 | 0.098 | | RoBERTa | 0.980 | 13/20 | 0.106 | Table 2: Evaluation of individual steps For the purpose of the demonstrating the viability of the prototype, no hyperparameter optimization was performed, and the larger HuBERT models were not employed, however improvement in performance of both models are expected should this be pursued. ## 3.2 Finding An Alternative Ne A small scale evaluation is performed on a sample of 20 sentences selected at random from the LibriSpeech corpus (Panayotov et al., 2015) across 6 speakers. Sentence selection was subject to them containing a person named entity. While detailed results for the individual steps can be found in Table 2, it should be noted that - for the purposes of this work - the focus is the accuracy of the extraction of the correct NE. The stated accuracy is therefore somewhat misleading: in a number of cases, such as the word *Raphael*, the named entity is divided into two separate words, suggesting two consecutive named entities. However, this issue is corrected when the NE output is aligned with ASR output and the two separate NE instances are (correctly) merged. Cases with NEs which cannot be aligned are flagged up for manual intervention. The average ASR and (exact match) NE identification do not vary when a different MLM is employed, as this only effects the selection of the substituted name, resulting in different average confidence values. ## 3.3 Reconstruction Of Original Audio The voice cloning model requires some reference audio for the speaker: for the 6 selected speakers, 4 have less than 5 audio files (two having 3, and one having only 2 files) in the dataset. The quantity of data used as reference is likely to impact the quality (in terms of its similarity to the original speaker) of the generated text. Given the likely scenarios of deployment, such as dialogues where more than 2 sentences of speech per speaker are available, this may not be representative of the results obtainable with the pipeline. However, it should be noted that even if all substituted instances can be identified as substitutions, the system is equal to a masking technique (where an entity is replaced with a fixed entity, such as a bleep). ## 4 Conclusion The prototype described shows the steps of an obfuscation pipeline for speech, which results in substituted person named entities uttered in the original speakers voice and replaced in the original audio signal. The prototype makes use of a named entity recognizer built directly on top of audio input, and employs masked language models to generate the substituted entity. It offers an end-to-end automatic solution enabling the sharing of speech with identifying information removed. The resulting obfuscated speech remains in the original speaker's voice, allowing for the application of traditional speaker anonymization approaches to mask the speaker's identity. The original prosody can be protected by applying a transformation such as waveform change, offering a significant advantage over a technique which generates a complete obfuscated transcription (instead of splicing an obfuscated entity into original speech). ## Limitations The cloning model used, YourTTS, is trained on the VCTK dataset which consists of high-quality speech signal. It is therefore unclear whether the same accuracy would be obtained with lower quality signal which may contain some background noise. (However, it should again be noted that even if all substituted instances are identifiable in the output, the system is equivalent to a masking model.) The selection of a person NE replacement does not currently account for continuity: if the same person entity is referred to later, it may be substituted with a different entity to the previous occasion. In addition, the back-off strategy ignores aspects such as gender. To show the approach feasible, very little optimization was performed. Further training and parameter optimization is likely to lead to improved performance for both ASR and NER models. The approach is currently only implemented for person NEs but it could be extended very simply to other types of NEs. However, the degree to which other entity types require obfuscation in speech is not clear to us as mentions of organizations may well not be identifying at all. ## Ethics Statement Aside from the ethical concerns regarding voice cloning (covered in e.g. YourTTS (Casanova et al., 2021)), deployment would require a detailed evaluation of risk of de-identification. It is believed that the final confidence and the accuracy of each step can be combined to significantly reduce this risk. The voice itself also offers options for identification: the value of yielding substitutions in the original speaker's voice (and keeping the original prosody) would need to be weighed up against approaches which anonymize voice but preserve prosodic information. ## References Mohamed Abdalla, Moustafa Abdalla, Frank Rudzicz, and Graeme Hirsto. 2020. Using word embeddings to improve the privacy of clinical notes. *J Am Med* Inform Assoc, 27(6):901–907. Edresson Casanova, Julian Weber, Christopher Shulby, Arnaldo Cândido Júnior, Eren Gölge, and Moacir Antonelli Ponti. 2021. YourTTS: Towards zero-shot multi-speaker TTS and zero-shot voice conversion for everyone. *CoRR*, abs/2112.02418. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In *NAACL-HLT*. Gölge Eren and The Coqui TTS Team. 2021. Coqui TTS. https://github.com/coqui-ai/TTS. Tzvika Hartman, Michael D. Howell, Jeff Dean, Shlomo Hoory, Ronit Slyper, Itay Laish, Oren Gilon, Danny Vainstein, Greg Corrado, Katherine Chou, Ming Jack Po, Jutta Williams, Scott Ellis, Gavin Bee, Avinatan Hassidim, Rony Amira, Genady Beryozkin, Idan Szpektor, and Yossi Matias. 2020. Customization scenarios for de-identification of clinical notes. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak, 20(14). Wei-Ning Hsu, Benjamin Bolte, Yao-Hung Hubert Tsai, Kushal Lakhotia, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Abdelrahman Mohamed. 2021. HuBERT: Self-supervised speech representation learning by masked prediction of hidden units. *CoRR*, abs/2106.07447. Zhenzhong Lan, Mingda Chen, Sebastian Goodman, Kevin Gimpel, Piyush Sharma, and Radu Soricut. 2019. ALBERT: A lite BERT for selfsupervised learning of language representations. CoRR, abs/1909.11942. Pierre Lison, Ildikó Pilán, David Sanchez, Montserrat Batet, and Lilja Øvrelid. 2021. Anonymisation models for text data: State of the art, challenges and future directions. 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 4188–4203, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Arttu Oksanen, Eero Hyvönen, Minna Tamper, Jouni Tuominen, Henna Ylimaa, Katja Löytynoja, Matti Kokkonen, and Aki Hietanen. 2022. An anonymization tool for open data publication of legal documents. In Joint Proceedings of the 3th International Workshop on Artificial Intelligence Technologies for Legal Documents (AI4LEGAL 2022) and the 1st International Workshop on Knowledge Graph Summarization (KGSum 2022) co-located with the 21st International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2022), Virtual Event, Hangzhou, China, October 23-24, 2022, volume 3257 of *CEUR Workshop Proceedings*, pages 12–21. CEUR-WS.org. Vassil Panayotov, Guoguo Chen, Daniel Povey, and Sanjeev Khudanpur. 2015. Librispeech: an ASR corpus based on public domain audio books. In *Proceedings* of the International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE. Victor Sanh, Lysandre Debut, Julien Chaumond, and Thomas Wolf. 2019. Distilbert, a distilled version of bert: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter. *ArXiv*, abs/1910.01108. Samuel Sousa and Roman Kern. 2022. How to keep text private? a systematic review of deep learning methods for privacy-preserving natural language processing. *Artif Intell Rev*. Erik F. Tjong Kim Sang and Fien De Meulder. 2003. Introduction to the CoNLL-2003 shared task: Language-independent named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Natural Language Learning at HLT-NAACL 2003, pages 142– 147. Hemant Yadav, Sreyan Ghosh, Yi Yu, and Rajiv Ratn Shah. 2020. End-to-end named entity recognition from English speech. *CoRR*, abs/2005.11184. Junichi Yamagishi, Christophe Veaux, and Kirsten MacDonald. 2019. CSTR VCTK corpus: English multispeaker corpus for CSTR voice cloning toolkit (version 0.92). Haitong Zhang and Yue Lin. 2022. Improve few-shot voice cloning using multi-modal learning. In *IEEE* International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, pages 8317–8321. ## A Model Training Details A.1 Hubert Parameters | Parameter | Value | |-----------------------------|------------| | group_by_length | True | | per_device_train_batch_size | 8 | | per_device_eval_batch_size | batch_size | | evaluation_strategy | "steps" | | num_train_epochs | num_epochs | | fp16 | True | | gradient_checkpointing | True | | save_steps | 500 | | eval_steps | 500 | | learning_rate | 1e-4 | | weight_decay | 0.005 | | warmup_steps | 1000 | | num_epochs | 30 | ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Unnumbered, follows conclusion ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Ethics Statement discusses potential risks of the work. This follows "Limitations". ✓ 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?** 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?** Sections 2 & 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 A1. The infrastructure was chosen by the HPC and therefore wasn't known - if needed, the experiments can be rerun with this constrained. 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? Experimental setup discussed, hyperparameter optimization not performed as stated as the paper only checks viability. ✓ 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? Average used, clearly denoted. Section 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.)? 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.

lee-kim-2023-recursion

Recursion of Thought: A Divide-and-Conquer Approach to Multi-Context Reasoning with Language Models

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.40

Generating intermediate steps, or Chain of Thought (CoT), is an effective way to significantly improve language models{'} (LM) multi-step reasoning capability. However, the CoT lengths can grow rapidly with the problem complexity, easily exceeding the maximum context size. Instead of increasing the context limit, which has already been heavily investigated, we explore an orthogonal direction: making LMs divide a problem into multiple contexts. We propose a new inference framework, called Recursion of Thought (RoT), which introduces several special tokens that the models can output to trigger context-related operations. Extensive experiments with multiple architectures including GPT-3 show that RoT dramatically improves LMs{'} inference capability to solve problems, whose solution consists of hundreds of thousands of tokens.

# Recursion Of Thought: A Divide-And-Conquer Approach To Multi-Context Reasoning With Language Models Soochan Lee Seoul National University soochan.lee@vision.snu.ac.kr ## Abstract Generating intermediate steps, or Chain of Thought (CoT), is an effective way to significantly improve language models' (LM) multistep reasoning capability. However, the CoT lengths can grow rapidly with the problem complexity, easily exceeding the maximum context size. Instead of increasing the context limit, which has already been heavily investigated, we explore an orthogonal direction: making LMs divide a problem into multiple contexts. We propose a new inference framework, called Recursion of Thought (RoT), which introduces several special tokens that the models can output to trigger context-related operations. Extensive experiments with multiple architectures including GPT-3 show that RoT dramatically improves LMs' inference capability to solve problems, whose solution consists of hundreds of thousands of tokens. ## 1 Introduction Recently, LMs have become a prominent direction to solve reasoning. Given a question sequence, the models are tasked to predict the following answer sequence. One recent line of research for reasoning with LMs is *chain of thought* (CoT) generation (Nye et al., 2021; Wei et al., 2022; Kojima et al., 2022). In CoT generation, complex reasoning problems are solved by generating intermediate reasoning steps, or chain of thought, before producing the final answer. This allows the problem's complexity to be spread across multiple token generations, making each generation more straightforward given the previous tokens. Although CoT dramatically increases reasoning accuracy, there is a critical issue that limits its utility: the effective context size of sequence models cannot grow unbounded. Context refers to the set of input tokens that a model is conditioned on when generating output. Practically, all sequence models have a limit on the maximum context length Gunhee Kim Seoul National University SNU-LG AI Research Center gunhee@snu.ac.kr due to various reasons. For instance, Transformers (Vaswani et al., 2017) suffer from a quadratic computational cost on the context length, and RNNs (Hochreiter and Schmidhuber, 1997) struggle with long-term dependency modeling. Therefore, even the state-of-the-art LMs limit the maximum context length to a few thousand tokens. However, complex real-world problems may take even millions of tokens of reasoning steps to reach the answer. While there has been extensive research on Transformers with longer contexts (Tay et al., 2020b), we explore an orthogonal direction: divide and conquer. Our new model-agnostic inference framework *Recursion of Thought* (RoT) lets an LM recursively create multiple contexts by producing special tokens. Therefore, even if a problem's solution exceeds the maximum context size, the model can divide it into multiple short contexts. We show the potential of RoT with our new synthetic benchmark consisting of eight arithmetic and algorithmic tasks. One can easily adjust the difficulty of the tasks to produce problems with extremely long (100K+ tokens) reasoning steps. Without any taskspecific component, such as a calculator, the models with RoT can easily learn to solve extremely complex problems whose solutions consist of hundreds of thousands of tokens. To the best of our knowledge, no previous work comes close to handling this scale of reasoning procedures. Since RoT is an early exploration in this direction, it needs several improvements to be applied to more practical scenarios. Nonetheless, the impressive experimental results suggest that the multi-context paradigm of RoT might play an important role in future LMs. In the supplementary file, we provide our PyTorch (Paszke et al., 2019) implementation that can *fully* reproduce the experiments. ## 2 Related Work Scratchpad (Nye et al., 2021) is one of the earliest approaches demonstrating that fine-tuning lan623 guage models to produce CoT can largely improve reasoning accuracy. In the paper, the authors also mention the confined context size as a major hurdle to scaling their method. More recently, it has been found that sufficiently large pre-trained language models can be induced to produce CoT, by simply tuning the *prompt* (Wei et al., 2022; Kojima et al., 2022). Several concurrent works extend CoT prompting to decompose complex problems into smaller problems (Dua et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022; Khot et al., 2022). Although these works also share the principle of divide and conquer like RoT, they mostly focus on improving the reasoning accuracy of relatively small problems whose solutions usually can fit in a single context. On the other hand, we focus on solving problems that the solutions are orders of magnitude longer than the context size. More detailed description of related work can be found in Appendix A. ## 3 Recursion Of Thought (Rot) 3.1 Inference We start with how an RoT-trained LM performs at test time. RoT is a model-agnostic framework, whose only requirement is that the model can infer p(xi+1∣X1∶i), the probability of the next token xi+1 given a sequence X1∶i = [x1; ...; xi]. For recursive context control, we introduce the following special tokens: GO , STOP , and THINK . GO and STOP respectively mark the start and end of a problem sequence. They can be nested inside another GO -STOP pair to indicate a subproblem. THINK initiates a recursion procedure. RoT teaches a model how to use these tokens so that it can perform divide-and-conquer problem-solving. We formulate each inference context of a QA problem, denoted X, as the following concatenation: $$X=[Q;Q^{\mathrm{sub,1}};A^{\mathrm{sub,1}};\ldots;Q^{\mathrm{sub,}N};A^{\mathrm{sub,}N};A]\tag{1}$$ where Q and A are the main question and answer sequence, and Q sub,∗and A sub,∗are those of the top-level subproblems. Although a subproblem can have smaller, lower-level subproblems recursively, only the top-level subproblems remain in an RoT context. During inference, a model is given Q and tasked to generate the rest. Questions (Q and Q sub,∗) start with a GO token, and answers (A and A sub,∗) end with a STOP token. In the base cases, contexts do not have (Q sub,∗, Asub,∗) pairs. Figure 1 presents an example of solving 408 + 351 for better understanding. The pseudocode and more detailed illustrations can be found in Appendix B and E. RoT starts by initializing the context X with the original question Q (i.e., GO 4 0 8 + 3 5 1 = in Figure 1). Then, similar to CoT, the model solves multiple subproblems (generating Q sub,∗and A sub,∗) before producing the final answer. However, there is a key difference: instead of producing a sub-answer directly, the model outputs the THINK token. This special token triggers a recursive process that separates the sub-question in a new context. If the new context is a base case (i.e., X 2, X 4, and X 5), the answer is produced directly. Otherwise, the model recursively solves more subproblems. If enough subproblems are solved, the model generates the final answer ending with a STOP . Once an answer is returned to the previous context, it replaces the THINK token, and the generation continues. For tail recursion, where the last subquestion's answer becomes the final answer, we additionally introduce the TAIL token. If TAIL is used in the place of a GO token in the last subquestion Q sub,N, its answer A sub,N is treated as the final answer A. ## 3.2 Training Currently, we train RoT in a supervised manner, using ground truth (GT) intermediate steps that include when to output the special tokens. The GTs are constructed following the standard procedures developed for humans. For example, the procedures for arithmetic problems are borrowed from elementary school math. More details can be found in Appendix H. We leave training RoT with less supervision as a future work. Each training example is constructed as a pair of a ground truth context sequence X and the corresponding target sequence Y . An example and the pseudocode for creating a target sequence are presented in Figure 3 and Algorithm 2 in Appendix D. Overall, Y is a copy of X except for the parts corresponding to Q and A sub,∗. Since the question Q is always given in a context, Q is replaced by special PAD tokens, which are excluded from the loss function. Each subproblem's answer A sub,n is replaced by a THINK token followed by several PAD s that fill in the rest to make sure ∣X∣ = ∣Y ∣. This way, the model is trained to output THINK instead of the first token of A sub,n. Since the whole A sub,n will be returned from the recursive process  and replace the THINK during inference, we do not need a training signal for the rest of A sub,n. Given a pair (*X, Y* ), the training objective is defined as follows: $$\mathcal{L}=-\sum_{i}I[y_{i+1}\neq\text{pand}]\log p(y_{i+1}|X_{1:i})\tag{2}$$ where I is the indicator function that excludes PAD s from training. Its form is almost identical to the standard LM objective: LLM = − ∑i log p(xi+1∣X1∶i), which is to predict the next token given previous tokens. Therefore, any sequence model is trained in the standard way, i.e., end-to-end via stochastic gradient descent. ## 4 Experiments 4.1 Baselines We compare RoT with two baselines. The first one is to output an answer directly from a question, which we call *Without Thought* (WT). The other one is to generate all the intermediate steps before the answer without recursion (Nye et al., 2021), which we refer to as *Chain of Thought* (CoT; not to be confused with the CoT *prompting* (Wei et al., 2022)). We construct the ground truths for CoTs by unraveling the same recursive process which we design for RoT, into a single context sequence (see Appendix F for examples). Therefore, the number of tokens to generate while solving a problem is the same for both CoT and RoT (if we do not count the THINK tokens). However, the sizes of the individual contexts of CoT are far longer than those of RoT due to the recursively nested subproblems, limiting the range of solvable problems. Refer to Appendix M for a more detailed analysis of the context sizes. For a fair comparison, we *train* these baselines and do not use any prompting technique. When evaluating, we consider a problem to be correctly solved only if all the intermediate steps and the answer are correct. ## 4.2 The Reasoning Problems To evaluate the reasoning capabilities, we test four basic arithmetic tasks and four algorithmic tasks: addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, longest common subsequence, longest palindromic subsequence, 0-1 knapsack, and matrix chain multiplication. The details can be found in Appendix G. We choose these tasks because we can easily increase the problem difficulty while being able to get ground truth solutions. Therefore, we can test problems whose solution contains hundreds of thousands of tokens. All problems are formulated in pure sequence modeling, without any external programs (e.g., calculator) involved. ## 4.3 Experiments With Gpt-3 Using the OpenAI API, we fine-tune GPT-3 for each reasoning task in §4.2 for 10K steps with a batch size of 256. The results are presented in Figure 2a, and the technical details are described in Appendix I. Each point in the graphs represents one experiment at a certain problem difficulty. We report the accuracy on a test set of 1K unique problems randomly sampled as explained in Appendix G. To the best of our knowledge, the problems at this scale (e.g., 48-digit addition/subtraction and 16-digit multiplication/division) have never been solved by any LM without the help of external programs. For reference, Minerva (Lewkowycz et al., 2022) achieves around 80% accuracy on 10-digit addition and 20% on 18-digit addition.  Results. Even WT fine-tuning cannot make GPT3 deal with such a level of complexity, while CoT is not applicable due to the context limit of 2048. The green dotted lines mark the maximum difficulty that can be handled by CoT under the context limit. On the other hand, RoT enables the GPT-3 to achieve near-perfect scores in every experiment. As presented in Appendix M, solving each problem requires up to tens of thousands of tokens. Without any architectural change, RoT makes GPT-3 handle these extremely complex problems. ## 4.4 Experiments With Tiny Language Models Recent research on reasoning has been mostly focused on extremely large pre-trained LMs. In this section, we show an interesting result that RoT can make even tiny models, without any pre-training, perform convoluted reasoning procedures. We test the two basic sequence model architectures: a Transformer (Vaswani et al., 2017) with 536K parameters and an LSTM (Hochreiter and Schmidhuber, 1997) with 272K parameters. These models are more than a million times smaller than the recent 540B-parameter PaLM (Chowdhery et al., 2022). The context limit is set to 2048 for the Transformer and 512 for the LSTM. By virtue of their small sizes, we conduct far more extensive experiments than GPT-3, which are presented in Figure 2b and Figure 2c. For each experiment, we train a randomly initialized model and evaluate it on a test set of 30K unique problems. We repeat each experiment eight times and report the average and standard deviation of the accuracies. With the tiny Transformer, we experiment to the extent that even humans would find daunting. For example, we test addition/subtraction up to 64 digits and multiplication/division up to 32 digits. Note that a 32-digit number cannot even fit into the 64-bit integer datatype. Throughout the experiments, we observe consistent patterns: (i) WT's accuracy drops most quickly as the problem difficulty increases, (ii) CoT achieves near-perfect accuracy, but it can only be applied to simple problems due to the context limit, (iii) RoT achieves near-perfect accuracy and can be scaled up to extremely complex problems. Despite the small sizes, RoT makes the Transformers master all types of extremely complex problems. We do not test more difficult problems mainly because the evaluation becomes too costly, not because RoT is incapable of learning them. ## 5 Conclusion We explored the novel idea of making LMs produce special tokens to create multiple contexts. Following the principle of divide and conquer, LMs with RoT can solve extremely complex problems that have never been handled by any LM. We believe the core idea of utilizing multiple contexts has a great potential and can play an essential role in future language models. ## Limitations Although RoT remarkably improves LMs' reasoning capability, we currently rely on supervised training to teach RoT. To apply RoT to a wider range of tasks, it would be crucial to reduce the expensive supervision. Parallel to our work, Khot et al. (2022) use prompting techniques to induce LMs to decompose problems. However, prompting has other drawbacks. First, lengthy prompts should be added for each inference, causing additional computational overhead. And more critically, it is hard to guarantee high accuracy. To achieve reasonable accuracy in the tasks in our experiments, each subproblem should be solved at extremely high accuracy (e.g., > 99.9%) since each problem may contain hundreds or thousands of subproblems. We have tested several prompting techniques with GPT-3, but could not get satisfactory accuracy. Therefore, we conclude that solely relying on prompting cannot be a solution to this problem. As one possible approach, we may combine RoT with the RL-based methodologies that are developed for reducing supervision of Neural ProgrammerInterpreters (Li et al., 2017; Fox et al., 2018; Pierrot et al., 2019). Another limitation of this work is that the experiments are performed on somewhat synthetic tasks. Since our goal is to enable LMs to solve reasoning problems whose intermediate steps are orders of magnitude longer than the context limit, we need a dataset with such complex problems. However, no currently available dataset meets this requirement. For example, the Long-Range Arena benchmark (Tay et al., 2020a) has at most 16K-token sequences and focuses on problems with long inputs and short outputs. On the other hand, we tackle problems that require generating 100K+ tokens to solve. Gathering natural language data at this scale is extremely challenging and costly. Therefore, we currently resort to arithmetic and algorithmic problems since it is easy to scale them up and generate ground-truth solutions. In the future, we hope to see new datasets and benchmarks that cover natural language reasoning at this scale. Interestingly, RoT cannot facilitate length generalization, e.g., training on 8-digit multiplication with RoT cannot make a model generalize to 16digit multiplication. We believe this problem is rooted in a more fundamental limitation of the Transformer architecture (Hahn, 2020), orthogonal to RoT. Fortunately, since RoT is a model-agnostic framework, we would be able to apply RoT to more advanced architectures to come in the future, which might be capable of length generalization. ## Ethics Statement Since the problem types in our experiments are pure arithmetic or algorithmic tasks, we do not find any ethical concerns directly related to our work. If RoT is applied to more general problems, the training data should meet ethical standards to ensure the non-toxic behavior of the model. ## Acknowledgements We thank Jaekyeom Kim, Hyunwoo Kim, and Dongjoo Kim for their thoughtful discussions. This work is partly supported by LG AI Research, the Institute of Information & Communications Technology Planning & Evaluation (IITP) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (No.2019-0-01082, SW StarLab; No.2022-0-00156, Fundamental research on continual meta-learning for quality enhancement of casual videos and their 3D metaverse transformation), and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (No.2023R1A2C2005573). ## References Jonathon Cai, Richard Shin, and Dawn Song. 2017. Making neural programming architectures generalize via recursion. In 5th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2017, Toulon, France, April 24-26, 2017, Conference Track Proceedings. OpenReview.net. 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 B Rao, Parker Barnes, Yi Tay, Noam M. Shazeer, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Emily Reif, Nan Du, Benton C. 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 García, 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 Oliveira Moreira, Rewon Child, Oleksandr Polozov, Katherine Lee, Zongwei Zhou, Xuezhi Wang, Brennan Saeta, Mark Diaz, Orhan Firat, Michele Catasta, Jason Wei, Kathleen S. Meier-Hellstern, Douglas Eck, Jeff Dean, Slav Petrov, and Noah Fiedel. 2022. PaLM: Scaling language modeling with pathways. *ArXiv*, abs/2204.02311. Dheeru Dua, Shivanshu Gupta, Sameer Singh, and Matt Gardner. 2022. Successive prompting for decomposing complex questions. *ArXiv*, abs/2212.04092. Roy Fox, Richard Shin, Sanjay Krishnan, Ken Goldberg, Dawn Song, and Ion Stoica. 2018. Parametrized hierarchical procedures for neural programming. In *6th International Conference on* Learning Representations, ICLR 2018, Vancouver, BC, Canada, April 30 - May 3, 2018, Conference Track Proceedings. OpenReview.net. Michael Hahn. 2020. Theoretical limitations of selfattention in neural sequence models. *Transactions* of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:156–171. Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 1997. Long short-term memory. *Neural Computation*, 9:1735– 1780. Tushar Khot, H. Trivedi, Matthew Finlayson, Yao Fu, Kyle Richardson, Peter Clark, and Ashish Sabharwal. 2022. Decomposed prompting: A modular approach for solving complex tasks. *ArXiv*, abs/2210.02406. 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. Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. 2022. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. *ArXiv*, abs/2205.11916. Aitor Lewkowycz, Anders Johan Andreassen, David Dohan, Ethan Dyer, Henryk Michalewski, Vinay Venkatesh Ramasesh, Ambrose Slone, Cem Anil, Imanol Schlag, Theo Gutman-Solo, Yuhuai Wu, Behnam Neyshabur, Guy Gur-Ari, and Vedant Misra. 2022. Solving quantitative reasoning problems with language models. *ArXiv*, abs/2206.14858. Chengtao Li, Daniel Tarlow, Alexander L. Gaunt, Marc Brockschmidt, and Nate Kushman. 2017. Neural program lattices. In 5th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2017, Toulon, France, April 24-26, 2017, Conference Track Proceedings. OpenReview.net. Maxwell Nye, Anders Johan Andreassen, Guy Gur-Ari, Henryk Michalewski, Jacob Austin, David Bieber, David Dohan, Aitor Lewkowycz, Maarten Bosma, David Luan, Charles Sutton, and Augustus Odena. 2021. Show your work: Scratchpads for intermediate computation with language models. *ArXiv*, abs/2112.00114. Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, Alban Desmaison, Andreas Kopf, Edward Yang, Zachary DeVito, Martin Raison, Alykhan Tejani, Sasank Chilamkurthy, Benoit Steiner, Lu Fang, Junjie Bai, and Soumith Chintala. 2019. PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Library. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32*, pages 8024–8035. Curran Associates, Inc. Thomas Pierrot, Guillaume Ligner, Scott E. Reed, Olivier Sigaud, Nicolas Perrin, Alexandre Laterre, David Kas, Karim Beguir, and Nando de Freitas. 2019. Learning compositional neural programs with recursive tree search and planning. 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 14646–14656. Scott E. Reed and Nando de Freitas. 2016. Neural programmer-interpreters. In *4th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2016,* San Juan, Puerto Rico, May 2-4, 2016, Conference Track Proceedings. Yi Tay, Mostafa Dehghani, Samira Abnar, Yikang Shen, Dara Bahri, Philip Pham, Jinfeng Rao, Liu Yang, Sebastian Ruder, and Donald Metzler. 2020a. Long range arena: A benchmark for efficient transformers. *ArXiv*, abs/2011.04006. Yi Tay, Mostafa Dehghani, Dara Bahri, and Donald Metzler. 2020b. Efficient transformers: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys, 55:1 - 28. 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 49, 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA, pages 5998–6008. 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*, abs/2201.11903. Denny Zhou, Nathanael Scharli, Le Hou, Jason Wei, Nathan Scales, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Olivier Bousquet, Quoc Le, and Ed Huai hsin Chi. 2022. Least-to-most prompting enables complex reasoning in large language models. *ArXiv*, abs/2205.10625. Chain of Thought. Scratchpad (Nye et al., 2021) fine-tunes LMs to generate CoT before the final answer. It demonstrates its effectiveness in 8-digit addition, polynomial evaluation, and Python program execution. Instead of fine-tuning, it is found that we can elicit large pre-trained LMs to produce CoT with appropriate prompting. For example, CoT prompting (Wei et al., 2022) adds several QA exemplars with CoT before the main question, encouraging the model to generate final answers in a similar manner. Compared to the few-shot CoT prompting of Wei et al. (2022), Kojima et al. (2022)'s zero-shot CoT prompting is even simpler; after a question, they start the answer with "Let's think step by step," and then let the model finish the rest. Minerva (Lewkowycz et al., 2022) utilizes these prompting techniques with a specially curated scientific pre-training dataset to achieve remarkable results on various reasoning benchmarks. Prompting Language Models to Divide and Conquer Reasoning Problems. Based on CoT prompting (Wei et al., 2022), several concurrent works demonstrate that decomposing problems into smaller subproblems can effectively improve reasoning accuracy. Successive prompting (Dua et al., 2022) induces a model to alternate between generating a question and answering the question until the final answer is produced. Similarly, least-to-most prompting (Zhou et al., 2022) makes a model start from the easiest subproblem and progressively solve more complex ones on top of the previous results. Decomposed prompting (Khot et al., 2022) is a modular approach that the subproblems are solved by different modules depending on the problem type. It also supports recursive decomposition. These works are all closely related to our work. Our work is unique in that we deal with far more complex problems that consist of thousands of subproblems. In this case, the individual subproblems should be solved with almost perfect accuracy, or the overall accuracy drops significantly. We empirically find that such a level of accuracy is hard to achieve by simply prompting a pre-trained LM. Neural Programmer-Interpreter (NPI). Unlike language models, NPI (Reed and de Freitas, 2016) interacts with its environment through a series of program execution. It consists of an LSTM core, an encoder for each domain, and a memory of program embeddings. At every time step, the LSTM core takes a program embedding, arguments, and an observation of its environment to produce the next program embedding and corresponding arguments. Cai et al. (2017) combine NPI with recursion and show that recursion plays a critical role in generalization. Since NPI requires full execution traces for training, there are multiple works to relax this requirement using reinforcement learning (Li et al., 2017; Fox et al., 2018; Pierrot et al., 2019). | 1: function ROT(M, Q) 2: X ← Q | ▷ Initialize context with Q | | |----------------------------------|---------------------------------------|-----------------------| | 3: | ians ← ∣X∣ + 1 | ▷ Start of answer | | 4: | t ← f alse | ▷ Tail recursion | | 5: | while True do | | | 6: | x ← M(X) | ▷ Generate next token | | 7: | X ← [X; x] | | | 8: | if x = STOP then | | | 9: | return Xians∶∣X∣ | | | 10: | else if x = GO then | | | 11: | igo ← ∣X∣ | ▷ Mark last GO | | 12: | else if x = TAIL then | | | 13: | igo ← ∣X∣ | | | 14: | t ← true | ▷ Mark tail recursion | | 15: | else if x = THINK then | | | 16: | Q sub ← Xigo∶∣X∣−1 sub ← ROT(M, Qsub) | | | 17: | A | | | 18: | if t then | sub | | 19: | return A | | | 20: | end if | sub] | | 21: | X ← [X1∶∣X∣−1; A | sub | | 22: | ▷ Replace THINK with A | | | 23: | ians ← ∣X∣ + 1 | | | 24: | end if | | | 25: | end while | | | 26: end function | | | ## C Training Batch Distribution We use the same problem distribution for both training and evaluation since out-of-distribution generalization is not within the scope of this paper. That is, when teaching 6-digit multiplication to the model, both training and test sets are all examples of 6-digit multiplication. The problem distributions are elaborated in Appendix G. Another important detail regarding the training of RoT is that each training example in a batch is a context, not a whole problem. Since RoT generates multiple contexts per problem, often a large portion of contexts can be a duplicate (mostly the base cases). Therefore, to build a training batch for RoT, we first sample a top-level problem and find the set of unique RoT contexts from the problem. Out of the unique contexts, we randomly sample one context as a training example. We find this simple technique works well, and we do not need a more sophisticated method, such as the adaptive curriculum learning in Reed and de Freitas (2016). ## D Target Sequence Algorithm 2 Creating the target sequence Require: Context X = [Q; Q  sub,1; A sub,1; *. . .* ; Q sub,N; A sub,N; A] 1: Y ← PAD ... PAD Í ÒÒÒÒÒÒÒÒÒÒÒÒÒÑÒÒÒÒÒÒÒÒÒÒÒÒÒÒÏ  4: Y ← [Y ; THINK PAD ... PAD Í ÒÒÒÒÒÒÒÒÒÒÒÒÒÑÒÒÒÒÒÒÒÒÒÒÒÒÒÒÏ ∣Asub,n∣−1 ] 5: **end for** 6: Y ← [Y ; A] 7: **return** Y ``` GO 4 0 8 + 3 5 1 = sub,1 GO 8 + 1 = sub,1 9 STOP 1 GO 8 + 1 = THINK 1 PAD 7 5 STOP sub,2 GO 4 0 + 3 5 = sub,2 ``` GO 4 0 + 3 5 = THINK 7 5 9 STOP PAD ··· PAD PAD PAD 7 5 9 STOP Figure 3: The target sequence Y 1for X 1in Figure 1. ## E A Step-By-Step Illustration Of Rot Inference In this section, we provide a step-by-step illustration of the example in Figure 1. Here we assume an ideal model fully trained for RoT. Step 1 The context is initialized with the question Q.     Step 2 The model generates the first subquestion 8 + 1. Q Qsub,1      1GO 4 0 8 + 3 5 1 = GO 8 + 1 = Step 3  Instead of immediately producing the answer, the model outputs the THINK token. Q Qsub,1 A    1GO 4 0 8 + 3 5 1 = GO 8 + 1 = THINK The THINK token triggers the creation of a new context. The new context is initialized with the subproblem starting from the last GO of X 1, i.e., 8 + 1.  sub,1  1GO 4 0 8 + 3 5 1 = GO 8 + 1 = THINK Step 5 Since the subproblem is a base case, the model outputs the answer 9 immediately.      Step 6 The answer is returned and replaces the THINK token. Q Qsub,1 A     1GO 4 0 8 + 3 5 1 = GO 8 + 1 = 9 STOP The model generates the next subproblem, which is to add the remaining digits. Then, it produces THINK to find its answer. | Q | Qsub,1 | A sub,1 | Q sub,2 | A sub,2 | | |-----|--------------------|------------|-----------|----------------|-------| | 1 | GO 4 0 8 + 3 5 1 = | GO 8 + 1 = | 9 STOP | GO 4 0 + 3 5 = | THINK | | X | | | | | | Step 8 The THINK token creates a new context X 3for solving 40 + 35. | Q | Qsub,1 | A sub,1 | Q sub,2 | A sub,2 | | |-----|--------------------|------------|-----------|----------------|-------| | 1 | GO 4 0 8 + 3 5 1 = | GO 8 + 1 = | 9 STOP | GO 4 0 + 3 5 = | THINK |  Since 40 + 35 is not a base case, the model recursively produces more subproblems. In this case, the first subproblem is to add the last digits, i.e., 0 and 5. Then it outputs the THINK token to solve the subproblem.   Step 10 The new context X 4is created to solve 0 + 5.    sub,1 Q  X 1GO 4 0 8 + 3 5 1 = GO 8 + 1 = 9 STOP GO 4 0 + 3 5 = THINK   Step 11 The answer is returned to X 3and replaces the THINK token. | Q | Qsub,1 | A sub,1 | Q sub,2 | A sub,2 | | |-----|--------------------|------------|-----------|----------------|-------| | 1 | GO 4 0 8 + 3 5 1 = | GO 8 + 1 = | 9 STOP | GO 4 0 + 3 5 = | THINK |  X Step 12 The model generates the next subproblem.  X 5is created to solve the subproblem 4 + 3. Since this is a base case, the model produces the answer directly.   X  ## F Examples Of Cot Training Data If we solve the example of 408+351 in Figure 1 with RoT, the following five contexts are produced. - X 1: GO 4 0 8 + 3 5 1 = GO 8 + 1 = 9 STOP GO 4 0 + 3 5 = 7 5 STOP 7 5 9 STOP - X 2: GO 8 + 1 = 9 STOP - X 3: GO 4 0 + 3 5 = GO 0 + 5 = 5 STOP GO 4 + 3 = 7 STOP 7 5 STOP 635 - X 4: GO 0 + 5 = 5 STOP - X 5: GO 4 + 3 = 7 STOP The CoT context of the same problem is: - X CoT: GO 4 0 8 + 3 5 1 = GO 8 + 1 = 9 STOP GO 4 0 + 3 5 = GO 0 + 5 STOP GO 4 + 3 STOP 7 5 STOP 7 5 9 STOP In a slightly more complicated example of 34 × 5, the RoT contexts are as follows: - X 1: GO 3 4 * 5 = GO 4 * 5 = 2 0 STOP GO 3 * 5 = 1 5 STOP TAIL 1 5 0 + 2 0 = THINK - X 2: GO 4 * 5 = 2 0 STOP - X 3: GO 3 * 5 = 1 5 STOP - X 4: GO 1 5 0 + 2 0 = GO 0 + 0 = 0 STOP GO 1 5 + 2 = 1 7 STOP 1 7 0 STOP - X 5: GO 0 + 0 = 0 STOP - X 6: GO 1 5 + 2 = GO 5 + 2 = 7 STOP 1 7 STOP - X 7: GO 5 + 2 = 7 STOP The corresponding CoT context is: - X CoT: GO 3 4 * 5 = GO 4 * 5 = 2 0 STOP GO 3 * 5 = 1 5 STOP TAIL 1 5 0 + 2 0 = GO 0 + 0 = 0 STOP GO 1 5 + 2 = GO 5 + 2 = 7 STOP 1 7 STOP 1 7 0 STOP Notice that the CoT context consists of all the corresponding RoT contexts as its subsequences. The number of tokens to generate is identical to that of RoT if we do not count the THINK tokens. Even in these simple examples, however, the context size of CoT is far longer than that of RoT. For much more complex problems, such as 8-digit multiplication or 0-1 Knapsack, the CoT context size can be orders of magnitude larger than RoT. See Appendix M for more details on the distribution of context sizes. ## G Problem Specifications G.1 The Arithmetic Problems For arithmetic tasks, we test addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division on non-negative integers. For subtraction, we add a constraint that the first operand is not less than the second one, to enforce non-negative answers. For division, we let the output include both a quotient and a remainder, separated by a special token R , e.g., GO 7 ÷ 3 = 2 R 1 STOP . As briefly mentioned in §4.2, naively sampling the operands from a uniform distribution makes the operands extremely biased towards large numbers. For example, the probability of sampling a 2-digit number from the 6-digit space is less than 0.01%. Thus, we define a variation of the log-uniform distribution (often called the reciprocal distribution) to sample the operands. As a result, we obtain roughly the same proportion of operands for each number of digits. The probability density of a log-uniform distribution is proportional to the reciprocal of the value. By definition, zero is not in the support of a log-uniform distribution, and samples are overly concentrated to the first few values in the sampling range. Therefore, we slightly extend the log-uniform distribution by introducing an offset parameter δ. To sample an integer in range [*α, β*) with offset δ, we first uniformly sample a real number r in range [log(α + δ), log(β + δ)]. Then, r is transformed to ⌊exp(r) − δ⌋. We denote the extended log-uniform distribution Ulog(*α, β, δ*). As δ gets larger, the samples are more dispersed to larger numbers. In the experiments, we set δ = 3. Additionally, we introduce several other sampling details for division problems. Assume that we independently sample two numbers a and b for the dividend and the divisor. In about half of the cases, the Addition Subtraction Multiplication Division 1330 + 121163 376776 − 35241 9466 × 176175 620261 ÷ 155034 114780 + 4356 10638 − 100 179 × 516 111730 ÷ 1176 638 + 2 109033 − 52649 5509 × 133 28268 ÷ 1 35 + 77 85137 − 3098 6783 × 2 588137 ÷ 25571 114261 + 354 22355 − 2824 6 × 80285 180330 ÷ 739 3 + 13792 7 − 1 37275 × 19258 879975 ÷ 97772 10151 + 7 652781 − 78853 168484 × 154 111461 ÷ 905026 22 + 1399 64914 − 3114 3331 × 40 42338 ÷ 14003 363356 + 450475 13041 − 1422 349 × 158 108 ÷ 384103 73 + 11 28293 − 4540 17988 × 262130 60002 ÷ 7479 179895 + 4128 11553 − 3576 8140 × 1670 131467 ÷ 131290 3 + 10 656291 − 2795 51 × 5 890679 ÷ 62 1 + 141972 93 − 42 16497 × 158 228 ÷ 131108 57612 + 18403 55972 − 1782 74 × 10 892 ÷ 124 9 + 1621 84587 − 51 216 × 13414 15 ÷ 964156 3370 + 381 273269 − 5867 621 × 2 369044 ÷ 28364 678 + 8854 274405 − 14 2 × 5951 457 ÷ 46 422 + 10348 51926 − 9 189486 × 13080 14687 ÷ 730 118 + 582 4272 − 229 552792 × 763 200361 ÷ 1049 1343 + 408534 223267 − 377 77 × 3 19715 ÷ 965179 24 + 9251 14857 − 1994 179090 × 469029 98 ÷ 7 315 + 652424 914771 − 836 1037 × 258 406 ÷ 9 355 + 4434 3035 − 2963 8 × 769974 47345 ÷ 122 22 + 834928 30 − 12 47765 × 7254 391613 ÷ 1631 3028 + 357 149 − 4 5608 × 18164 892642 ÷ 3898 777 + 1355 89057 − 6 21437 × 12 241554 ÷ 1901 154874 + 81059 296410 − 9 15007 × 15 116475 ÷ 12908 64936 + 216852 45 − 3 539860 × 427 488317 ÷ 197443 3 + 340939 78906 − 3 3583 × 9754 7519 ÷ 325 3 + 984775 56560 − 29960 13 × 66 3560 ÷ 847611 50581 + 1183 98 − 6 266394 × 185 9711 ÷ 1385 415 + 943 16551 − 920 3988 × 12 44540 ÷ 103 110 + 49 25606 − 194 5514 × 57 19721 ÷ 58 15 + 17058 45 − 37 5 × 1712 59544 ÷ 24 36278 + 100 129443 − 70196 17 × 430178 333057 ÷ 333057 6 + 23516 221 − 54 227 × 127 25719 ÷ 5142 1462 + 848 11010 − 818 20888 × 54 7544 ÷ 46 1002 + 2773 47759 − 67 96 × 232801 45 ÷ 410 135 + 178346 10 − 8 175 × 1050 195659 ÷ 2047 22672 + 162038 1439 − 153 146 × 166 412572 ÷ 16 dividend a would be less than the divisor b, so the quotients will be zero for those cases. To ensure a diverse range of quotients, we sample the divisor b from Ulog(1, 10N, 3), the quotient c from Ulog(0, 10N/b, 3), and the remainder r from Ulog(0*, b,* 3). The dividend is calculated from these values: a = b × c + r. This way, we can sample division problems with a diverse range of quotients and remainders. Table 1 presents 40 problem samples for each 6-digit problem type. Several properties of our sampling scheme can be observed in the table. First, each number ranges over diverse numbers of digits. Second, the division problems are mostly non-trivial, i.e., the quotients are not concentrated at zero. ## G.2 The Algorithmic Problems G.2.1 Longest Common Subsequence (Lcs) The question of an LCS problem is two number sequences joined by the LCS token, and the answer is the corresponding LCS and its length separated by ; . Here is an example of a length-4 LCS problem: - Q: GO 1 2 3 4 LCS 2 4 6 8 = - A: 2 4 ; 2 STOP For a length-N LCS problem, we sample two sequences of length N. Each character of the sequences is randomly sampled from 0-9 with equal probability. ## G.2.2 Longest Palindromic Subsequence (Lps) The question of a length-N LPS problem starts with the LPS , followed by a sequence of length N. Similar to LCS, the answer contains the corresponding LPS and its length separated by ; . The following is an example of a length-8 LPS problem: - Q: GO LPS 4 1 2 5 3 2 6 1 = - A: 1 2 3 2 1 ; 5 STOP The sequence of an LPS problem is sampled in the same way as done for the LCS problem. ## G.2.3 0-1 Knapsack Each item in a 0-1 Knapsack problem is represented by its value and weight. For instance, 1 2 & 3 4 represents an item with a value of 12 and a weight of 34. The question part of a 0-1 Knapsack problem is a sequence consisting of the KNAPSACK token, a list of items separated by , , the token @ , and the capacity of the knapsack. The answer part starts with a list of items to include, then $ , and finally the total value. The following is an example of a 3-item knapsack problem. - Q: GO KNAPSACK 5 & 1 2 , 2 5 & 1 5 , 1 9 & 1 8 @ 4 0 = - A: 2 5 & 1 5 , 1 9 & 1 8 $ 4 4 STOP In this example, given a knapsack of capacity 40, the last two are selected with a total value of 44. For a fixed number of items, we uniformly sample each item's value and weight from the integers of range [1, 99]. ## G.2.4 Matrix Chain Multiplication (Mcm) The cost of multiplying many matrices is very sensitive to the order of multiplication. Matrix chain multiplication is the task of finding the best order with the minimum cost. Here, the cost is defined to be the total number of element multiplications. In the example of three matrices A, B, and C, whose shapes are 4 × 2, 2 × 8, and 8 × 3 respectively, the cost of computing (AB)C is 4 × 2 × 8 + 4 × 8 × 3 = 160, while another order A(BC) costs only 2 × 8 × 3 + 4 × 2 × 3 = 72. In the question of an MCM problem, the sizes of the matrices are enumerated, and the answer contains the order and the total cost separated by ; . The example above is represented as the following sequences. - Q: GO MCM 4 × 2 , 2 × 8 , 8 × 3 = - A: 4 × 2 , ( 2 × 8 , 8 × 3 ) ; 7 2 STOP Given a fixed number of matrices, we sample the sizes of matrices from the range [1, 99]. ## G.2.5 Sorting Although not included in the main text, we test the problem of sorting multi-digit numbers. The results are presented in Appendix N. The problem difficulty is defined by the maximum number of terms. For a sorting problem of at most N terms, we first uniformly sample the number of terms from [2, N]. Then we sample each term from Ulog(0, 1000, 5). The following is an example of the sorting problem. - Q: GO SORT 1 3 9 , 1 6 0 , 4 3 4 , 7 9 6 , 4 1 = * 4: 4 1, 1 3 9, 1 6 8, 4 3 4, 7 9 6 8TOP ## H Details Of The Recursive Reasoning Procedures In this section, we elaborate on the procedures to recursively solve the arithmetic problems. Specifically, we present the algorithms to produce the subproblems of a problem. Therefore, for a set of randomly sampled questions, we can generate ground truth contexts using these algorithms. For better understanding, we present the key parts of our Python code, the thought methods. For each problem, we create a child class the Problem class and implement thought static method. The method takes a set of arguments for a problem and returns the list of direct subproblems. Each subproblem is represented by a problem class, problem arguments, and recursion type (whether it is a tail recursion or not). We use named tuple T to group this information: 1 from collections import namedtuple 2 T = namedtuple('Thought', ['prob_cls', 'args', 'type'], defaults=['']) For instance, T(Mul, (3, 4)) represents a regular subproblem of 3 × 4, and T(Add, (12, 340), 'tail') represents a subproblem of 12 + 340 which should be performed as a tail recursion. Once the thought method returns a list of Ts, we can recursively find more subproblems for each subproblem. ## H.1 Addition The core idea of our recursive procedure for addition is to first add the last digits and then add the rest. If the sum of the last digits is greater than or equal to 10, we insert another subproblem for adding the carry right after adding the last digits. 1 class Add(Problem): 2 @staticmethod  4 left, right = args  6 # Base cases 8 return [] 14 if l_last + r_last >= 10: 16 l_rest += 1 21 return thoughts Figure 1 in the main draft is an example with no carry, and the following is another example of 27+65 with a carry. - X 1: GO 3 1 7 + 6 5 = GO 7 + 5 = 1 2 STOP GO 3 1 + 1 = 3 2 STOP GO 3 2 + 6 = 3 8 STOP 3 8 2 STOP - X 2: GO 7 + 5 = 1 2 STOP - X 3: GO 3 1 + 1 = GO 1 + 1 = 2 STOP 3 2 STOP - X 4: GO 1 + 1 = 2 STOP - X 5: GO 3 2 + 6 = GO 2 + 6 = 8 STOP 3 8 STOP $\boxed{\mathbf{v}=\mathbf{v}\times\mathbf{v}}$ - X 6: GO 2 + 6 = 8 STOP ## H.2 Subtraction Similar to addition, we first subtract the last digits and solve the rest recursively. When subtracting the last digits x and y, we always borrow 10 for x to prevent a negative result. The borrowing of 10 is easy for a sequence model: just put 1 before x. Therefore, the base cases of subtraction are when a ≤ 19 and b ≤ 9. If the subtraction result of the last digits is smaller than 10, i.e., the borrow is actually needed, we subtract 1 from the rest of the first operand m.  Here is an example of 432-216: - X 1: GO 4 3 2 - 2 1 6 = GO 1 2 - 6 = 6 STOP GO 4 3 - 1 = 4 2 STOP GO 4 2 - 2 1 = 2 1 STOP 2 1 6 STOP - X 2: GO 1 2 - 6 = 6 STOP - X 3: GO 4 3 - 1 = GO 1 3 - 1 = 1 2 STOP 4 2 STOP - X 4: GO 1 3 - 1 = 1 2 STOP $\sqrt{5002}$ 2 $1\uparrow$ 5. - X 5: GO 4 2 - 2 1 = GO 1 2 - 1 = 1 1 STOP GO 4 - 2 = 2 STOP 2 1 STOP - X 6: GO 1 2 - 1 = 1 1 STOP - X 7: GO 4 - 2 = 2 STOP Notice that the final answer and the questions of each subproblem can be easily constructed from the previous sequence. ## H.3 Multiplication The base cases of multiplication are (i) when either operand is 0 or 1, or (ii) when both operands are less than 10. If one of the operands is 0, then the answer is zero; when one of them is 1, then the answer is just a copy of the other operand. For the cases where both operands are less than 10, we just let the model memorize them, which is similar to an elementary school math curriculum. There are two types of non-base cases. For the simpler case, where the second operand is less than 10, we first split the first operand into the last digit and the rest. We then multiply each of them with the second operand and combine the results. Otherwise, we split the second operand into the last digit and the rest. The first operand is multiplied to each of them, and the results are summed. 1 class Mul(Problem): 2 @staticmethod 3 def thought(args) -> list[T]: 4 left, right = args  6 # Base cases  8 return [] 10 return [] 12 thoughts = [] 13 if right < 10: 28 return thoughts Here are some example contexts of multiplication: - X 1: GO 4 3 * 2 1 = GO 4 3 * 1 = 4 3 STOP GO 4 3 * 2 = 8 6 STOP TAIL 8 6 0 + 4 3 = THINK - X 2: GO 4 3 * 1 = 4 3 STOP - X 3: GO 4 3 * 2 = GO 3 * 2 = 6 STOP GO 4 * 2 = 8 STOP TAIL 8 0 + 6 = THINK - X 4: GO 3 * 2 = 6 STOP - X 5: GO 4 * 2 = 8 STOP - X 6: GO 8 0 + 6 = GO 0 + 6 = 6 STOP 8 6 STOP - X 7: GO 0 + 6 = 6 STOP - X 8: GO 8 6 0 + 4 3 = GO 0 + 3 = 3 STOP GO 8 6 + 4 = 9 0 STOP 9 0 3 STOP - X 9: GO 0 + 3 = 3 STOP - X 10: GO 8 6 + 4 = GO 6 + 4 = 1 0 STOP GO 8 + 1 = 9 STOP 9 0 STOP - X 11: GO 6 + 4 = 1 0 STOP - X 12: GO 8 + 1 = 9 STOP Notice that we use tail recursion in X 1and X 3. ## H.4 Comparison Comparison is used as a subroutine during division. The procedure for comparison consists of three steps: 1. Compare the numbers of digits. 2. If the numbers of digits are the same, compare the most significant digits. 3. If the most significant digits are identical, compare the remaining digits recursively. We find that the sequence models can perform the first step without an explicit subproblem. Therefore, we only add intermediate steps for the second and third steps.  The following is an example of comparing 153 and 159. - X 1: GO 1 5 3 VS 1 5 9 = GO 1 VS 1 = EQ STOP GO 5 3 VS 5 9 = LT STOP LT STOP - X 2: GO 1 VS 1 = EQ STOP - X 3: GO 5 3 VS 5 9 = GO 5 VS 5 = EQ STOP GO 3 VS 9 = LT STOP LT STOP - X 4: GO 5 VS 5 = EQ STOP - X 5: GO 3 VS 9 = LT STOP ## H.5 Division Solving division is the most challenging among the four basic arithmetic operations since the procedure is basically trial and error, searching for the correct quotient. Nonetheless, the following process is a recursive version of the elementary school division. The base case is when the dividend is less than or equal to the divisor. If the dividend is smaller than the divisor, the quotient is 0, and the remainder is the dividend. If the dividend is equal to the divisor, then the quotient is 1, and the remainder is 0. Both cases can be handled relatively easily by neural sequence models. To determine whether it is one of these cases, we always perform the comparison as the first subproblem. If it is not a base case, we check whether the dividend is smaller than 10 times the divisor. If the dividend is smaller, we subtract the divisor from the dividend and recursively divide the result with the divisor. The final answer is attained by simply adding 1 to the quotient of the smaller division. To explain the other case, where the dividend is greater than 10 times the divisor, let us call the dividend a and the divisor b. First, we split the a into the last digit x and the remaining digits m. Then, we divide m with the divisor b, i.e., we are solving the one-digit-smaller subproblem first. Since we define the division operation to return both a quotient and a remainder, the quotient q1 = m/b and the remainder r1 = m mod b from the subproblem are added to the context. Next, we *concatenate* the remainder and x, which is numerically computing r × 10 + x, and divide it again with b. Let the quotient and the remainder of this operation q2 and r2. Then, the quotient of the final answer is q1 × 10 + q2, while the remainder is simply r2.   7 # Base cases 8 if left <= right: 9 return thoughts 12 if left <= right * 10: 13 diff = left - right 20 return thoughts The following is an example of 76 ÷ 29. - X 1: GO 7 6 ÷ 2 9 = GO 7 6 VS 2 9 = GT STOP GO 7 6 VS 2 9 0 = LT STOP GO 7 6 - 2 9 = 4 7 STOP GO 4 7 ÷ 2 9 = 1 R 1 8 STOP 2 R 1 8 STOP - X 2: GO 7 6 VS 2 9 = GO 7 VS 2 = GT STOP GT STOP - X 3: GO 7 VS 2 = GT STOP - X 4: GO 7 6 VS 2 9 0 = LT STOP - X 5: GO 7 6 - 2 9 = GO 1 6 - 9 = 7 STOP GO 7 - 1 = 6 STOP GO 6 - 2 = 4 STOP 4 7 STOP - ... - X 9: GO 4 7 ÷ 2 9 = GO 4 7 VS 2 9 = GT STOP GO 4 7 VS 2 9 0 = LT STOP GO 4 7 - 2 9 = 1 8 STOP GO 1 8 ÷ 2 9 = 0 R 1 8 STOP 1 R 1 8 STOP - X 10: GO 4 7 VS 2 9 = GO 4 VS 2 = GT STOP GT STOP - X 11: GO 4 VS 2 = GT STOP - X 12: GO 4 7 VS 2 9 0 = LT STOP - X 13: GO 4 7 - 2 9 = GO 1 7 - 9 = 8 STOP GO 4 - 1 = 3 STOP GO 3 - 2 = 1 STOP 1 8 STOP - ... - X 17: GO 1 8 ÷ 2 9 = GO 1 8 VS 2 9 = LT STOP 0 R 1 8 STOP - X 18: GO 1 8 VS 2 9 = GO 1 VS 2 = LT STOP LT STOP - ... ## H.6 Longest Common Subsequence (Lcs) Given sequences A and B, the algorithm starts by comparing the last characters of the two sequences. If the last two characters are the same, we find LCS of the subsequences without the last characters, i.e., LCS of A∶−1 and B∶−1. Otherwise, we compute the LCSs of the cases where the last character of either side is removed and return the better one. In the following code, LCS._answer is the subroutine that finds the LCS of two sequences. Equal returns TRUE if the two arguments are the same, or FALSE otherwise. The following is an example of finding the LCS of 123 and 234. - X 1: GO 1 2 3 LCS 2 3 4 = GO EQUAL 3 , 4 = FALSE STOP GO 1 2 LCS 2 3 4 = 2 ; 1 STOP GO 1 2 3 LCS 2 3 = 2 3 ; 2 STOP GO 1 VS 2 = LT STOP 2 3 ; 2 STOP - X 2: GO EQUAL 3 , 4 = FALSE STOP - X 3: GO 1 2 LCS 2 3 4 = GO EQUAL 2 , 4 = FALSE STOP GO 1 LCS 2 3 4 = ; 0 STOP GO 1 2 LCS 2 3 = 2 ; 1 STOP GO 0 VS 1 = LT STOP 2 ; 1 STOP - ... - X 21: GO 1 2 3 LCS 2 3 = GO EQUAL 3 , 3 = TRUE STOP GO 1 2 LCS 2 = 2 ; 1 STOP 2 3 ; 2 STOP - ... - X 23: GO 1 VS 2 = LT STOP ## H.7 Longest Palindromic Subsequence (Lps) The overall algorithm for LPS is similar to LCS. The base cases are when the sequence length is less than 3. If it is not a base case, we first check if the characters at both ends of the sequence are the same. If they are the same, we find the LPS of the subsequence excluding them. Otherwise, we compare the cases where one of the end characters is excluded. 1 class LPS(Problem): 2 @staticmethod 3 def thought(args) -> list[T]: 4 \# Base cases 5 if len(args) == 1: 6 return [] 7 elif len(args) == 2: 8 return [T(Equal, args)] 9 10 thoughts = [T(Equal, (args[0], args[1]))] 11 if args[0] == args[-1]: 12 sub_lps = LPS._answer(args[1:-1]) 13 thoughts.extend([ 14 T(LPS, args[1:-1]), 15 T(Add, (len(sub_lps), 2)) 16 ]) 1 class LCS(Problem): 2 @staticmethod 3 def thought(args) -> list[T]: 4 l, r = args 5 if len(l) == 0 or len(r) == 0: 6 return [] 7 8 thoughts = [T(Equal, (l[-1], r[-1]))] 9 if l[-1] == r[-1]: 10 thoughts.append(T(LCS, (l[:-1], r[:-1]))) 11 return thoughts 12 13 lcs1_args = (l[:-1], r) 14 lcs2_args = (l, r[:-1]) 15 lcs1 = LCS._answer(lcs1_args) 16 lcs2 = LCS._answer(lcs2_args) 17 thoughts.extend([ 18 T(LCS, lcs1_args), 19 T(LCS, lcs2_args), 20 T(Compare, (len(lcs1), len(lcs2))) 21 ]) 22 return thoughts     - X 1: GO LPS 1 2 3 2 = GO EQUAL 1 , 2 = FALSE STOP GO LPS 1 2 3 = 1 ; 1 STOP GO LPS 2 3 2 = 2 3 2 ; 3 STOP GO 1 VS 3 = LT STOP 2 3 2 ; 3 STOP - X 2: GO EQUAL 1 , 2 = FALSE STOP - X 3: GO LPS 1 2 3 = GO EQUAL 1 , 3 = FALSE STOP GO LPS 1 2 = 1 ; 1 STOP GO LPS 2 3 = 2 ; 1 STOP GO 1 VS 1 = EQ STOP 1 ; 1 STOP - ... - X 10: GO LPS 2 3 2 = GO EQUAL 2 , 2 = TRUE STOP GO LPS 3 = 3 ; 1 STOP GO 1 + 2 = 3 STOP 2 3 2 ; 3 STOP - ... - X 14: GO 1 VS 3 = LT STOP ## H.8 0-1 Knapsack The base cases are when there is only one item. In this case, we simply compare the item's weight and the knapsack's capacity, to determine whether the item should be included. If it is a non-base case, we compare two possibilities: (i) include the first item, or (ii) exclude the first item. We recursively compute the subproblems and find the case with the best value. 1 class LPS(Problem): 2 @staticmethod 3 def thought(args) -> list[T]: 4 items, capacity = args 5 value, weight = items[0] 6 7 \# Base case 8 if len(items) == 1: 9 return [T(Compare, (weight, capacity))] 10 11 \# When excluding the current item 12 items_max, value_max = Knapsack._answer((items[1:], capacity)) 13 thoughts = [ 14 T(Knapsack, (items[1:], capacity)), 15 T(Compare, (weight, capacity)), 16 ] 17 18 \# When including the current item 19 if weight <= capacity: 20 items_sub, value_sub = Knapsack._answer( 21 (items[1:], capacity - weight)) 22 value_incl = value_sub + value 23 thoughts.extend([ 24 T(Sub, (capacity, weight)), 25 T(Knapsack, (items[1:], capacity - weight)), 26 T(Add, (value_sub, value)), 27 T(Compare, (value_incl, value_max)), 28 ]) 29    The following is an example of a 0-1 knapsack problem with three items and a knapsack capacity of 10. - X 1: GO KNAPSACK 3 & 9 , 4 & 2 , 9 & 5 @ 1 0 = GO KNAPSACK 4 & 2 , 9 & 5 @ 1 0 = 4 & 2 , 9 & 5 $ 1 3 STOP GO 9 VS 1 0 = LT STOP GO 1 0 - 9 = 1 STOP GO KNAPSACK 4 & 2 , 9 & 5 @ 1 = $ 0 STOP GO 0 + 3 = 3 STOP GO 3 VS 1 3 = LT STOP 4 & 2 , 9 & 5 $ 1 3 STOP - X 2: GO KNAPSACK 4 & 2 , 9 & 5 @ 1 0 = GO KNAPSACK 9 & 5 @ 1 0 = 9 & 5 $ 9 STOP GO 2 VS 1 0 = LT STOP GO 1 0 - 2 = 8 STOP GO KNAPSACK 9 & 5 @ 8 = 9 & 5 $ 9 STOP GO 9 + 4 = 1 3 STOP GO 1 3 VS 9 = GT STOP 4 & 2 , 9 & 5 $ 1 3 STOP - ... - X 11: GO 9 VS 1 0 = LT STOP - X 12: GO 1 0 - 9 = 1 STOP - X 13: GO KNAPSACK 4 & 2 , 9 & 5 @ 1 = GO KNAPSACK 9 & 5 @ 1 = $ 0 STOP GO 2 VS 1 = GT STOP $ 0 STOP - ... - X 17: GO 0 + 3 = 3 STOP - X 18: GO 3 VS 1 3 = LT STOP ## H.9 Ternary Addition And Multiplication Ternary addition and multiplication arise as subproblems while solving MCM, which will be explained in the next section. They are simple extensions of addition and multiplication to three integers.  2 @staticmethod 5 return [ 8 ]  12 @staticmethod 15 return [ 18 ] ## H.10 Matrix Chain Multiplication (Mcm) Given N matrices, the N −1 subproblems are defined for each possible binary split. For the multiplication of four matrices *ABCD*, there are three possible binary splits: A(BCD), (AB)(CD), and (ABC)D. For each binary split, the total cost is the sum of (i) the minimum cost of computing the first group, (ii) the minimum cost of computing the second group, and (iii) the cost of multiplying the two matrices resulting from each group. Once we get the total costs of each binary split, we return the best split with the minimum cost. The following code implements this procedure.  - X 1: GO MCM 3 × 9 , 9 × 4 , 4 × 5 = GO MCM 3 × 9 = 3 × 9 ; 0 STOP GO MCM 9 × 4 , 4 × 5 = 9 × 4 , 4 × 5 ; 1 8 0 STOP GO 3 * 9 * 5 = 1 3 5 STOP GO 0 + 1 8 0 + 1 3 5 = 3 1 5 STOP TAIL MCM 3 × 9 , 9 × 4 | 4 × 5 ACC 3 × 9 , ( 9 × 4 , 4 × 5 ) ; 3 1 5 = THINK - ... - X 32: GO MCM 3 × 9 , 9 × 4 | 4 × 5 ACC 3 × 9 , ( 9 × 4 , 4 × 5 ) ; 3 1 5 = GO MCM 3 × 9 , 9 × 4 = 3 × 9 , 9 × 4 ; 1 0 8 STOP GO MCM 4 × 5 = 4 × 5 ; 0 STOP GO 3 * 4 * 5 = 6 0 STOP GO 1 0 8 + 0 + 6 0 = 1 6 8 STOP GO 1 6 8 VS 3 1 5 = LT STOP ( 3 × 9 , 9 × 4 ) , 4 × 5 ; 1 6 8 STOP - ... ## H.11 Sorting Among several sorting algorithms, we choose merge sort for our experiments with CoT and RoT. Note that WT is not relevant to the sorting algorithm since it produces the answer directly. The merge sort algorithm is simple: (i) split the given sequence into two equally sized subsequences, (ii) sort each subsequence, and (iii) merge the two sorted sequences. Since the final merge operation is quite complicated, we define the merge as a problem type.  ## I Fine-Tuning Gpt-3 For Recursion Of Thought Using the OpenAI API, we fine-tune GPT-3 for Recursion of Thought. The goal is to learn 16-digit addition, 16-digit subtraction, 8-digit multiplication, and 8-digit division simultaneously. GPT-3's finetuning API takes a dataset where each example is a prompt-completion pair in plain text. It is converted to tokens by a special tokenizer for GPT, which we cannot control. This API is not directly compatible with RoT due to several reasons. - There is no special tokens such as GO , THINK , and STOP . - The input and target sequences have to be the same. However, they are different in RoT due to the THINK token. Once THINK is produced, the RoT framework triggers the recursion process to find the subproblem's answer and replace the THINK token with it. Therefore, the THINK token appears in the target sequences, but never in the input sequences. Moreover, the way that GPT-3 tokenizes numbers hinders the learning of arithmetic reasoning rules. GPT-3 tokenizes a multi-digit number into a set of two-digit or three-digit numbers. For example, the text 1234567 is converted to the sequence of tokens 123 45 67 . Under this tokenization scheme, the relationship between the numbers becomes obscured. As an example, the tokens 7 , 17 , 27 , ..., 997 all have 7 as their last digit. Since there is no direct way for a model to know that they share the same digit, it is crucial to use each digit as a token. We believe that OpenAI needs to correct this tokenization of GPT-3 for numbers. Luckily, we can mimic the RoT procedures with the API by using several tricks. First, we replace the special tokens with plain lower-case words, e.g., GO → go and STOP → stop, which are included in the vocabulary of GPT-3. Second, we add a space before each token to make sure that the GPT tokenizer separates each token. We also add space before each digit to prevent the tokenizer from grouping a number into 2-to-3-digit tokens. Finally, to simulate the behavior of the THINK and STOP tokens, we derive multiple examples from each context, one for each THINK or STOP output. As an example, context X 3in Figure 1 is converted to the following JSON lines for GPT-3 as follows: | 3 | GO 4 0 + 3 5 = | GO 0 + 5 = 5 STOP | GO 4 + 3 = 7 STOP | 7 5 STOP | |-----|------------------|----------------------|----------------------|------------| | X 3 | PAD ×7 | GO 0 + 5 = THINK PAD | GO 4 + 3 = THINK PAD | 7 5 STOP | | Y | | | | |   In the case of Without Thought (WT), each problem is simply converted into a single example:  In both cases of RoT and WT, we fine-tune GPT-3 for 10K steps with a batch size of 256. Among the several variants of GPT-3, we use Ada which is offered at the lowest cost. Note that RoT produces multiple contexts for each problem, and each RoT context is converted to multiple training examples. For this reason, the GPT-3 fine-tuned for RoT encounters much fewer problems during training, although the numbers of training steps are the same. ## J Training Details Of The Tiny Models In all experiments, we use a batch size of 256 and Adam optimizer (Kingma and Ba, 2015) with a learning rate of 0.001, i.e., the default learning rate in PyTorch. We train the Transformers for 500K steps and decay the learning rate by half every 50K steps. Since the LSTMs converge slower than the Transformers, we train them for 800K steps and decay the learning rate by half every 100K steps. At every 20K steps, we evaluate the model on a test set of 30K problems, and if a model reaches a perfect accuracy of 1.0, we do not train the model further. The models can be trained on a single GPU with 12GB memory. ## K Efficient Evaluation Of Rot At the problem scales that RoT is tested, solving a single problem can require hundreds of thousands of tokens. Therefore, we have to develop an efficient evaluation algorithm. Since the models are deterministic, we do not need to evaluate the same context multiple times. Therefore, given a test set, we first find all unique contexts that should appear while solving the test set. Note that there would be a lot of duplicate contexts, especially for the base cases. These unique contexts can be evaluated in parallel. We evaluate each context in a similar manner to the training. For each context, we construct the target sequence, as we described in §3.2, and check if the model outputs the target sequence correctly, given the GT context. In the case of GPT-3, we convert the contexts and target sequences as described in Appendix I to feed into the API. Once every context is individually evaluated, the next step is to aggregate the results. In this aggregation stage, a (sub)problem is marked correct only if its subproblems are all marked correct. This way, we efficiently evaluate RoT with minimal cost. ## L Failure Case Analysis Of Gpt-3 With Rot In this section, we provide some failure cases of RoT in the GPT-3 experiments for further insights. Although the model achieves an accuracy of over 99% in almost every case, there are several problems where it makes mistakes. Nonetheless, only a few characters are wrong in each context. The most common type of error is repeating the same character a wrong number of times. The following is the examples of this error type. | Prompt | go 1 6 4 3 4 vs 1 0 1 1 6 = go 1 vs 1 = eq stop | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Completion | go 6 4 3 4 vs 1 1 6 = think | | Model Output | go 6 4 3 4 vs 1 1 1 6 = think | | Prompt | go 4 8 0 9 4 4 9 5 1 8 2 5 5 9 1 * 4 4 3 0 2 5 3 6 0 1 7 = go 4 8 0 9 4 4 9 5 1 8 2 5 5 9 1 * 7 = 3 3 6 6 6 1 4 6 6 2 7 7 9 1 3 7 stop go 4 8 0 9 4 4 9 5 1 8 2 5 5 9 1 * 4 4 3 0 2 5 3 6 0 1 = 2 1 3 0 7 0 8 1 0 4 7 0 8 0 9 6 0 5 1 7 0 3 1 9 1 stop | | Completion | tail 2 1 3 0 7 0 8 1 0 4 7 0 8 0 9 6 0 5 1 7 0 3 1 9 1 0 | | + 3 3 6 6 6 1 4 6 6 2 7 7 9 1 3 7 = think | | | Model Output | tail 2 1 3 0 7 0 8 1 0 4 7 0 8 0 9 6 0 5 1 7 0 3 1 9 1 0 | | + 3 3 6 6 6 6 1 4 6 6 2 7 7 9 1 3 7 = think | | | Prompt | go 1 0 5 4 6 2 0 * 1 5 = go 1 0 5 4 6 2 0 * 5 = 5 2 7 3 1 0 0 stop go 1 0 5 4 6 2 0 * 1 = 1 0 5 4 6 2 0 stop | | Completion | tail 1 0 5 4 6 2 0 0 + 5 2 7 3 1 0 0 = think | | Model Output | tail 1 0 5 4 6 2 0 0 0 + 5 2 7 3 1 0 0 = think | | Another common case is incorrectly counting the number of digits while comparing two numbers. | | Another common case is incorrectly counting the number of digits while comparing two numbers. When comparing numbers following our recursive procedure, the model has to immediately return the answer if the numbers of digits are different. In the following example, the first number has seven digits, and the second one has six digits. | Prompt | go 1 0 6 9 0 3 4 vs 8 9 1 5 0 6 = | |--------------|-------------------------------------| | Completion | gt stop | | Model Output | go 1 vs 8 | Although the model should directly output the answer, i.e., gt stop, it decides that the numbers of digits are the same and moves on to the next step, which is to compare the most significant digits. This error is caused by the specific recursive procedure of our choice. Since we assume that the model would easily figure out the difference in the number of digits, we did not add explicit steps to count the digits. Although the model detects the difference in most cases, it turns out to be a relatively challenging operation. A possible solution is to teach the model to explicitly count the number of digits and compare them. ## M Context Length Distribution In Figure 4, we present the distributions of context lengths for each problem type. We compare the context lengths of RoT and CoT. For each configuration, we randomly sample 10K contexts from the training distribution and plot the histogram of their lengths. The graphs show that the context sizes of CoT are many orders of magnitude larger than RoT. In theory, the total number of tokens to generate for each problem is identical in both RoT and CoT (if we do not count the THINK tokens). However, RoT's context sizes are much smaller since it utilizes multiple contexts. Another advantage of RoT is the utilization of dynamic programming. Since we can easily cache the duplicate computations of RoT as explained in Appendix K, we can drastically reduce the amount of token generation if there is a redundant structure in the problem. The amount of tokens to generate for each problem is plotted in Figure 5. The benefit is especially prominent in algorithmic problems. For example, finding the LCS of two 32-digit sequences results in more than 1018 tokens if we naively use CoT or RoT. If we use dynamic programming with RoT, we can efficiently solve the same problem with much less cost.      Problem Difficulty WT CoT RoT Addition 32-digit 0.991 − 0.998 48-digit 0.853 − 0.995 Subtraction 32-digit 0.991 − 0.998 48-digit 0.886 − 0.998 Multiplication 8-digit 0.337 − 0.999 16-digit 0.098 − 0.994 Division 8-digit 0.363 − 1.000 16-digit 0.123 − 0.989 LCS length 16 0.980 − 0.995 length 24 0.832 − 0.998 LPS length 24 0.995 − 1.000 length 40 0.800 − 0.974 0-1 Knapsack 4 items 0.945 − 0.999 6 items 0.634 − 1.000 MCM 3 matrices 0.481 − 0.997  4 matrices 0.110 − 0.992 ## N Transformers Are Powerful Sorting Machines In fact, the first algorithmic task that we tested is sorting since it has been widely used as a benchmark for algorithmic reasoning (Reed and de Freitas, 2016; Cai et al., 2017; Pierrot et al., 2019). However, we find that Transformers are incredibly good at sorting, even in the WT setting. Figure 6 shows the sorting experiment. For CoT and RoT, we train the merge sort algorithm. Interestingly, WT easily achieves a perfect score in sorting 64 three-digit numbers. Also, the training converges much faster than RoT. The Transformer architecture, more specifically the attention mechanism, seems to be perfectly suited for the sorting operation. ## O The Exact Values Of Figure 2 Table 2-5 show the exact values of the graphs in Figure 2. Except for the GPT-3 experiments in Table 2, we report the average and the standard deviation of eight runs. Each GPT-3 experiment is done only once. | Problem | Difficulty | WT | CoT | RoT | |----------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------| | 8-digit | 0.863 ± 0.265 | 1.000 ± 0.000 | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | | 16-digit | 0.370 ± 0.475 | 1.000 ± 0.000 | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | | 24-digit | 0.336 ± 0.430 | 1.000 ± 0.000 | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | | 32-digit | 0.455 ± 0.458 | − | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | | 40-digit | 0.119 ± 0.316 | − | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | | 48-digit | 0.082 ± 0.216 | − | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | | 56-digit | 0.105 ± 0.277 | − | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | | 64-digit | 0.000 ± 0.000 | − | 1.000 ± 0.001 | | | Addition | 8-digit | 0.982 ± 0.006 | 1.000 ± 0.000 | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | 16-digit | 0.705 ± 0.411 | 1.000 ± 0.000 | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | | 24-digit | 0.238 ± 0.412 | 1.000 ± 0.000 | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | | 32-digit | 0.221 ± 0.385 | − | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | | 40-digit | 0.426 ± 0.433 | − | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | | 48-digit | 0.114 ± 0.303 | − | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | | 56-digit | 0.116 ± 0.307 | − | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | | 64-digit | 0.161 ± 0.282 | − | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | | Subtraction | 2-digit | 1.000 ± 0.000 | 1.000 ± 0.000 | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | 4-digit | 0.817 ± 0.023 | 1.000 ± 0.000 | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | | 8-digit | 0.340 ± 0.032 | − | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | | 12-digit | 0.169 ± 0.015 | − | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | | 16-digit | 0.104 ± 0.016 | − | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | | 20-digit | 0.048 ± 0.020 | − | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | | 24-digit | 0.033 ± 0.017 | − | 0.999 ± 0.001 | | | 28-digit | 0.014 ± 0.006 | − | 0.999 ± 0.001 | | | 32-digit | 0.012 ± 0.001 | − | 0.999 ± 0.000 | | | Multiplication | 2-digit | 1.000 ± 0.000 | 1.000 ± 0.000 | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | 4-digit | 0.978 ± 0.008 | 1.000 ± 0.000 | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | | 8-digit | 0.354 ± 0.029 | − | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | | 12-digit | 0.186 ± 0.009 | − | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | | 16-digit | 0.128 ± 0.011 | − | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | | 20-digit | 0.087 ± 0.012 | − | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | | 24-digit | 0.075 ± 0.005 | − | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | | 28-digit | 0.059 ± 0.007 | − | 0.999 ± 0.000 | | | 32-digit | 0.048 ± 0.008 | − | 0.999 ± 0.000 | | | Division | | | | | Problem Difficulty WT CoT RoT | LCS LPS 0-1 Knapsack MCM | |----------------------------| | length 3 | 1.000 ± 0.000 | 1.000 ± 0.000 | − | |-------------|-----------------|-----------------|---------------| | length 4 | 0.997 ± 0.008 | − | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | length 8 | 0.999 ± 0.002 | − | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | length 12 | 0.965 ± 0.025 | − | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | length 16 | 0.880 ± 0.035 | − | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | length 20 | 0.759 ± 0.043 | − | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | length 24 | 0.622 ± 0.038 | − | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | length 28 | 0.484 ± 0.043 | − | 0.999 ± 0.000 | | length 32 | 0.375 ± 0.030 | − | 0.999 ± 0.000 | | length 4 | 1.000 ± 0.000 | 1.000 ± 0.000 | − | | length 7 | 1.000 ± 0.000 | 1.000 ± 0.000 | − | | length 8 | 1.000 ± 0.000 | − | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | length 16 | 0.999 ± 0.001 | − | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | length 24 | 0.950 ± 0.019 | − | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | length 32 | 0.788 ± 0.019 | − | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | length 40 | 0.608 ± 0.023 | − | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | length 48 | 0.477 ± 0.030 | − | 0.999 ± 0.001 | | length 56 | 0.365 ± 0.029 | − | 0.998 ± 0.000 | | 2 items | 1.000 ± 0.000 | 1.000 ± 0.000 | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | 4 items | 0.966 ± 0.006 | 1.000 ± 0.000 | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | 6 items | 0.849 ± 0.007 | − | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | 8 items | 0.640 ± 0.242 | − | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | 10 items | 0.481 ± 0.279 | − | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | 12 items | 0.435 ± 0.252 | − | 0.988 ± 0.029 | | 2 matrices | 0.973 ± 0.009 | 1.000 ± 0.000 | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | 4 matrices | 0.177 ± 0.069 | − | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | 6 matrices | 0.088 ± 0.029 | − | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | 8 matrices | 0.033 ± 0.025 | − | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | 10 matrices | 0.051 ± 0.032 | − | 0.998 ± 0.001 | | 12 matrices | 0.026 ± 0.011 | − | 0.996 ± 0.002 | | Problem | Difficulty | WT | CoT | RoT | |----------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------| | 2-digit | 1.000 ± 0.000 | 1.000 ± 0.000 | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | | 4-digit | 0.642 ± 0.305 | 1.000 ± 0.001 | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | | 6-digit | 0.005 ± 0.008 | 0.997 ± 0.005 | 0.999 ± 0.000 | | | 8-digit | 0.000 ± 0.000 | 0.905 ± 0.155 | 0.999 ± 0.001 | | | 10-digit | 0.000 ± 0.000 | 0.795 ± 0.341 | 0.986 ± 0.024 | | | 12-digit | 0.000 ± 0.000 | − | 0.871 ± 0.275 | | | 14-digit | 0.000 ± 0.000 | − | 0.358 ± 0.430 | | | 16-digit | 0.000 ± 0.000 | − | 0.120 ± 0.202 | | | Addition | 2-digit | 1.000 ± 0.000 | 1.000 ± 0.000 | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | 4-digit | 0.776 ± 0.179 | 1.000 ± 0.000 | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | | 6-digit | 0.006 ± 0.001 | 1.000 ± 0.000 | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | | 8-digit | 0.000 ± 0.000 | 0.896 ± 0.252 | 0.994 ± 0.016 | | | 10-digit | 0.000 ± 0.000 | 0.443 ± 0.377 | 0.908 ± 0.236 | | | 12-digit | 0.000 ± 0.000 | − | 0.507 ± 0.398 | | | 14-digit | 0.000 ± 0.000 | − | 0.295 ± 0.406 | | | 16-digit | 0.000 ± 0.000 | − | 0.101 ± 0.137 | | | Subtraction | 2-digit | 1.000 ± 0.000 | 1.000 ± 0.000 | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | 3-digit | 0.855 ± 0.044 | − | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | | 4-digit | 0.636 ± 0.061 | − | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | | 5-digit | 0.338 ± 0.063 | − | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | | 6-digit | 0.270 ± 0.030 | − | 0.987 ± 0.008 | | | 7-digit | 0.162 ± 0.025 | − | 0.896 ± 0.105 | | | 8-digit | 0.138 ± 0.025 | − | 0.670 ± 0.208 | | | Multiplication | 1-digit | 1.000 ± 0.000 | 1.000 ± 0.000 | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | 2-digit | 1.000 ± 0.000 | − | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | | 3-digit | 1.000 ± 0.001 | − | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | | 4-digit | 0.891 ± 0.072 | − | 1.000 ± 0.000 | | | 5-digit | 0.516 ± 0.077 | − | 0.998 ± 0.004 | | | 6-digit | 0.308 ± 0.069 | − | 0.996 ± 0.007 | | | 7-digit | 0.192 ± 0.028 | − | 0.958 ± 0.036 | | | 8-digit | 0.115 ± 0.015 | − | 0.914 ± 0.090 | | | Division | | | | | ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? 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? Abstract & Section 1 ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** We Include The Source Code Used In Our Experiments. ✗ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? We did not use any external artifcats. ✗ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? We did not use any external artifcats. 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.? We provide documentation in README.md inside the source code. ✓ 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, G, H ## 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, Appendix I, J 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 J ✓ 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 O 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.

zou-etal-2023-unis

{U}ni{S}-{MMC}: Multimodal Classification via Unimodality-supervised Multimodal Contrastive Learning

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.41

Multimodal learning aims to imitate human beings to acquire complementary information from multiple modalities for various downstream tasks. However, traditional aggregation-based multimodal fusion methods ignore the inter-modality relationship, treat each modality equally, suffer sensor noise, and thus reduce multimodal learning performance. In this work, we propose a novel multimodal contrastive method to explore more reliable multimodal representations under the weak supervision of unimodal predicting. Specifically, we first capture task-related unimodal representations and the unimodal predictions from the introduced unimodal predicting task. Then the unimodal representations are aligned with the more effective one by the designed multimodal contrastive method under the supervision of the unimodal predictions. Experimental results with fused features on two image-text classification benchmarks UPMC-Food-101 and N24News show that our proposed Unimodality-Supervised MultiModal Contrastive UniS-MMC learning method outperforms current state-of-the-art multimodal methods. The detailed ablation study and analysis further demonstrate the advantage of our proposed method.

# Unis-Mmc: Multimodal Classification Via Unimodality-Supervised Multimodal Contrastive Learning Heqing Zou, Meng Shen, Chen Chen, Yuchen Hu, Deepu Rajan, Eng Siong Chng Nanyang Technological University, Singapore {heqing001, meng005, chen1436, yuchen005}@e.ntu.edu.sg, {asdrajan, aseschng}@ntu.edu.sg ## Abstract Multimodal learning aims to imitate human beings to acquire complementary information from multiple modalities for various downstream tasks. However, traditional aggregationbased multimodal fusion methods ignore the inter-modality relationship, treat each modality equally, suffer sensor noise, and thus reduce multimodal learning performance. In this work, we propose a novel multimodal contrastive method to explore more reliable multimodal representations under the weak supervision of unimodal predicting. Specifically, we first capture task-related unimodal representations and the unimodal predictions from the introduced unimodal predicting task. Then the unimodal representations are aligned with the more effective one by the designed multimodal contrastive method under the supervision of the unimodal predictions. Experimental results with fused features on two image-text classification benchmarks UPMCFood-101 and N24News show that our proposed Unimodality-Supervised MultiModal Contrastive (**UniS-MMC**) learning method outperforms current state-of-the-art multimodal methods. The detailed ablation study and analysis further demonstrate the advantage of our proposed method. ## 1 Introduction Social media has emerged as an important avenue for communication. The content is often multimodal, e.g., via text, speech, audio, and videos. Multimodal tasks that employ multiple data sources include image-text classification and emotion recognition, which could be used for specific applications in daily life, such as web search (Chang et al., 2022), guide robot (Moon and Seo, 2019). Hence, there is a need for an effective representation strategy for multimodal content. A common way is to fuse unimodal representations. Despite the recent progress in obtaining effective  unimodal representations from large pre-trained models (Devlin et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2019; Dosovitskiy et al., 2021), fusing for developing more trustworthy and complementary multimodal representations remains a challenging problem in the multimodal learning area. To solve the multimodal fusion problem, researchers propose aggregation-based fusion methods to combine unimodal representations. These methods include aggregating unimodal features (Castellano et al., 2008; Nagrani et al., 2021), aggregating unimodal decisions (Ramirez et al., 2011; Tian et al., 2020a), and aggregating both (Wu et al., 2022) of them. However, these aggregation-based methods ignore the relation between modalities that affects the performance of multimodal tasks (Udandarao et al., 2020). To solve this issue, the alignment-based fusion methods are introduced to strengthen the inter-modality relationship by aligning the embeddings among different modalities. Existing alignment-based methods can be 659 divided into two categories: architecture-based and contrastive-based. The architecture-based methods introduce a specific module for mapping features to the same space(Wang et al., 2016) or design an adaption module before minimizing the spatial distance between source and auxiliary modal distributions (Song et al., 2020). On the other hand, the contrastive–based methods efficiently align different modality representations through the contrastive learning on paired modalities (Liu et al., 2021b; Zolfaghari et al., 2021; Mai et al., 2022). The unsupervised multimodal contrastive methods directly regard the modality pairs from the same samples as positive pairs and those modality pairs from different samples as negative pairs to pull together the unimodal representations of paired modalities and pull apart the unimodal representations of unpaired modalities in the embedding space. (Tian et al., 2020b; Akbari et al., 2021; Zolfaghari et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2021b; Zhang et al., 2021a; Taleb et al., 2022). Supervised multimodal contrastive methods are proposed to treat sample pairs with the same label as positive pairs and sample pairs with a different label as negative pairs in the mini-batch (Zhang et al., 2021b; Pinitas et al., 2022). In this way, the unimodal representations with the same semantics will be clustered. Despite their effectiveness in learning the correspondence among modalities, these contrastivebased multimodal learning methods still meet with problems with the sensor noise in the in-the-wild datasets (Mittal et al., 2020). The current methods always treat each modality equally and ignore the difference of the role for different modalities, The final decisions will be negatively affected by those samples with inefficient unimodal representations and thus can not provide trustworthy multimodal representations. In this work, we aim to learn trustworthy multimodal representations by aligning unimodal representations towards the effective modality, considering modality effectiveness in addition to strengthening relationships between modalities. The modality effectiveness is decided by the unimodal prediction and the contrastive learning is under the weak supervision information from the unimodal prediction. As shown in Figure 1, the unimodal representations will be aligned towards those with correct unimodal predictions. In summary, our contributions are: - To facilitate the inter-modality relationship for multimodal classification, we combine the aggregation-based and alignment-based fusion methods to create a joint representation. - We propose UniS-MMC to efficiently align the representation to the effective modality under weak supervision of unimodal prediction to address the issue of different contributions from the modailities. - Extensive experiments on two image-text classification benchmarks, UPMC-Food-101 (Wang et al., 2015) and N24News (Wang et al., 2022) demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed method. ## 2 Related Work In this section, we will introduce the related work on contrastive learning and multimodal learning. ## 2.1 Contrastive Learning Contrastive learning (Hadsell et al., 2006; Oord et al., 2018; Qin and Joty, 2022) captures distinguishable representations by drawing positive pairs closer and pushing negative pairs farther contrastively. In addition to the above single-modality representation learning, contrastive methods for multiple modalities are also widely explored. The common methods (Radford et al., 2021; Jia et al., 2021; Kamath et al., 2021; Li et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2022; Taleb et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2022) leverage the cross-modal contrastive matching to align two different modalities and learn the inter-modality correspondence. Except the intermodality contrastive, Visual-Semantic Contrastive (Yuan et al., 2021), XMC-GAN (Zhang et al., 2021a) and CrossPoint (Afham et al., 2022) also introduce the intra-modality contrastive for representation learning. Besides, CrossCLR (Zolfaghari et al., 2021) removes the highly related samples from negative samples to avoid the bias of false negatives. GMC (Poklukar et al., 2022) builds the contrastive learning process between the modalityspecific representations and the global representations of all modalities instead of the cross-modal representations. ## 2.2 Multimodal Learning Multimodal learning is expected to build models based on multiple modalities and to improve the general performance from the joint representation (Ngiam et al., 2011; Baltrušaitis et al., 2018; Gao et al., 2020). The fusion operation among multiple modalities is one of the key topics in multimodal  learning to help the modalities complement each other (Wang, 2021). Multimodal fusion methods are generally categorized into two types: alignmentbased and aggregation-based fusion (Baltrušaitis et al., 2018). Alignment-based fusion (Gretton et al., 2012; Song et al., 2020) aligns multimodal features by increasing the modal similarity to capture the modality-invariant features. Aggregationbased methods choose to create the joint multimodal representations by combining the participating unimodal features (early-fusion, Kalfaoglu et al. (2020); Nagrani et al. (2021); Zou et al. (2022)), unimodal decisions (late-fusion, Tian et al. (2020a); Huang et al. (2022)) and both (hybridfusion, Wu et al. (2022)). In addition to these jointrepresentation generating methods, some works further propose to evaluate the attended modalities and features before fusing. M3ER (Mittal et al., 2020) conducts a modality check step to finding those modalities with small correlation and Multimodal Dynamics (Han et al., 2022) evaluates both the feature- and modality-level informativeness during extracting unimodal representations. ## 3 Methodology In this section, we present our method called UniSMMC for multimodal fusion. ## 3.1 Notation Suppose we have the training data set D = {{x nm}M m=1, yn} N n=1 that contains N samples X = {x nm ∈ R dm}M m=1 of M modalities and N corresponding labels Y = {y n} N n=1 from K categories. As shown in Figure 2, the unimodal representations  of modality a and b are extracted from the respective encoders fθa and fθb . Following the parameter sharing method in the multi-task learning (Pilault et al., 2021; Bhattacharjee et al., 2022), the representations are shared directly between unimodal prediction tasks and the following multimodal prediction task. With weak supervision information produced from the respective unimodal classifier gφa and gφb , the final prediction is finally learned based on the updated multimodal representations rc and the multimodal classifier gφc . ## 3.2 Unimodality-Supervised Multimodal Contrastive Learning First, the unimodal representations are extracted from the raw data of each modality by the pretrained encoders. We introduce the uni-modality check step to generate the weak supervision for checking the effectiveness of each unimodal representation. Then we illustrate how we design the unimodality-supervised multimodal contrastive learning method among multiple modalities to learn the multimodal representations. ## 3.2.1 Modality Encoder Given multimodal training data {xm}M m=1, the raw unimodal data of modality m are firstly processed with respective encoders to obtain the hidden representations. We denote the learned hidden representation fθm(xm) of modality m as rm. We use the pretrained ViT (Dosovitskiy et al., 2021) as the feature encoder for images in both UPMC Food-101 and N24News datasets. We use only the pretrained BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) as the feature encoder for the textual description in these datasets. Besides, we also try the pretrained RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) for text sources in N24News. ## 3.2.2 Unimodality Check Unimodal prediction. Different from the common aggregation-based multimodal learning methods which only use the unimodal learned representations for fusion, our method also use the unimodal representations as inputs to the unimodal predicting tasks. The classification module can be regarded as a probabilistic model: gφ : *R → P*, which maps the hidden representation to a predictive distribution p(y | r). For a unimodal predicting task, the predictive distribution is only based on the output of the unimodal classifier. The learning objective of the unimodal predicting task is to minimize each unimodal prediction loss: $${\mathcal{L}}_{u n i}=-\sum_{m=1}^{M}\sum_{k=1}^{K}y^{k}\log p_{m}^{k},$$ $$(\mathrm{I})$$ m, (1) where y kis the k-th element category label and [p 1m; p 2m; ...; p Km] = pm(y | rm) is the softmax output of unimodal classifiers on modality m. Unimodality effectiveness. The above unimodal prediction results are used to check the supervised information for deciding the effectiveness of each modality. The unimodal representation with correct prediction is regarded as the effective representation for providing the information to the target label. Alternately, the unimodal representation with the wrong prediction is regarded as an ineffective representation. 3.2.3 Multimodal Contrastive Learning We aim to reduce the multimodal prediction bias caused by treating modalities equally for each sam- | Uni-Prediction | Modality a | Modality b | Category | |------------------|--------------|--------------|---------------| | 0 | True | True | Positive | | 1 | True | False | Semi-positive | | 2 | False | True | | | 3 | False | False | Negative | ple. This is done by learning to align unimodal representations towards the effective modalities sample by sample. We regulate each unimodal representation with the targets based on the multitask-based multimodal learning framework. As shown in Figure 3 c), we propose a new multimodal contrastive method to encourage modalities with both correct unimodal predictions to share a stronger correspondence. For those samples with both wrong predictions, we encourage their unimodal representations to be more different from each other to get more complementary multimodal representations. It helps to a higher possibility of correct multimodal prediction. For those samples with mutually exclusive predictions, we encourage these unimodal representations to learn from each other under the supervision of unimodal predictions by aligning the ineffective modality with the effective one. When considering two specific modalities ma and mb of n-th sample, we generate two unimodal hidden representations r n a and r n b from respective unimodal encoders. From the above unimodal predicting step, we also obtain the unimodal prediction results, yˆ n a and yˆ n b . As the summarization in Table 1, we define the following positive pair, negative pair and semi-positive pair: Positive pair. If both the paired unimodal predictions are correct, we define these unimodal representation pairs are positive pairs, namely P, where P = {n|{yˆ n a ≡ y nand yˆ n b ≡ y n} N n=1} in the minibatch B. Negative pair. If both the paired unimodal predictions are wrong, we define these unimodal representation pairs are negative pairs, namely N, where N = {n|{yˆ n a ̸= y nand yˆ n b̸= y n} N n=1} in the minibatch B. Semi-Positive pair. If the predictions of the paired unimodal representations are mutually exclusive, one correct and another wrong, we define these unimodal representation pairs are semi-positive pairs, namely S, where S = {{n|{yˆ n a ≡ y nand yˆ n b̸= y n} N n=1*} ∪ {*n|yˆ n a ̸= y n and yˆ n b ≡ y n} N n=1}} in the mini-batch. We further propose the multimodal contrastive loss for two modalities as follows: $$\mathcal{L}_{b-m m c}=-\log\frac{\sum_{n\in\mathbb{P},\mathbb{S}}(\exp(\cos(r_{a}^{n},r_{b}^{n})/\tau)}{\sum_{n\in\mathbb{B}}(\exp(\cos(r_{a}^{n},r_{b}^{n})/\tau)},\tag{2}$$ where cos(r n a, rn b ) = r $r^n\cdot r_1^n\;$ . a ·r b ∥rn a ∥∗∥r n b∥ is the cosine similarity between paired unimodal representations r n a and r n b for sample n, τ is the temperature coefficient. The similarity of positive pairs and semipositive pairs is optimized towards a higher value while the similarity of negative pairs is optimized towards a smaller value. The difference between positive and semi-positive pairs is that the unimodal representations updated towards each other in positive pairs while only the unimodal representations of the wrong unimodal prediction updated towards the correct one in semi-positive pairs. We detach the modality feature with correct predictions from the computation graph when aligning with lowquality modality features for semi-positive pairs, which is inspired by GAN models (Arjovsky et al., 2017; Zhu et al., 2017) where the generator output is detached when updating the discriminator only, Multimodal problems often encounter situations with more than two modalities. For more than two modalities, the multimodal contrastive loss for M modalities (M > 2) can be computed by: $${\mathcal{L}}_{m m c}=\sum_{i=1}^{M}\sum_{j>i}^{M}{\mathcal{L}}_{b-m m c}(m_{i},m_{j}),$$ $$(3)$$ ## 3.3 Fusion And Total Learning Objective Multimodal prediction. When fusing all unimodal representations with concatenation, we get the fused multimodal representations rc = r1 ⊕ r2 ⊕ ... ⊕ rm. Similarly, the multimodal predictive distribution is the output of the multimodal classifier with inputs of the fused representations. For the multimodal prediction task, the target is to minimize the multimodal prediction loss: $${\mathcal{L}}_{m u l t i}=-\sum_{k=1}^{K}y^{k}\log p_{k}^{k},$$ where y kis the k-th element category label and [p 1 k ; p 2 k ; ...; p K k ] = pc(y | rc) is the softmax output of multimodal classifier. Total learning objective. The overall optimization objective for our proposed UniS-MMC is: $${\mathcal{L}}_{U n i S-M M C}={\mathcal{L}}_{u n i}+{\mathcal{L}}_{m u l t i}+\lambda{\mathcal{L}}_{m m c},$$ where λ is a loss coefficient for balancing the predicting loss and the multimodal contrastive loss. ## 4 Experiments 4.1 Experimental Setup Dataset and metric. We evaluate our method on two publicly available image-text classification datasets UPMC-Food-101 and N24News. **UPMCFood-101** 1is a multimodal classification dataset that contains textual recipe descriptions and the corresponding images for 101 kinds of food. We get this dataset from their project website and split 5000 samples from the default training set as the validation set. **N24News** 2is an news classification dataset with four text types (Heading, Caption, *Abstract* and *Body*) and images. In order to supplement the long text data of the FOOD101 dataset, we choose the first three text sources from N24News in our work. We use classification accuracy (Acc) as evaluation metrics for UPMC-Food101 and N24News. The detailed dataset information can be seen in Appendix A.1. Implementation. For the image-text dataset UPMC Food-101, we use pretrained BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) as a text encoder and pretrained vision transformer (ViT) (Dosovitskiy et al., 2021) as an image encoder. For N24News, we utilize two different pretrained language models, BERT and RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) as text encoders and also the same vision transformer as an image encoder. All classifiers of these two image-text classification datasets are three fully-connected layers with a ReLU activation function. The default reported results on image-text datasets are obtained with BERT-base (or RoBERTa-base) and ViT-base in this paper. The performance is presented with the average and standard deviation of three runs on Food101 and N24News. The codes is available on GitHub 3. The detailed settings of the hyper-parameter are summarized in Appendix A.2. ## 4.2 Baseline Models $$(4)$$ The used baseline models are as follows: - **MMBT** (Kiela et al., 2019) jointly finetunes pretrained text and image encoders by projecting image embeddings to text token space on BERTlike architecture. 1UPMC-Food-101: https://visiir.isir.upmc.fr/ 2N24News: https://github.com/billywzh717/N24News 3https://github.com/Vincent-ZHQ/UniS-MMC $$({\mathfrak{H}})$$ | a) Model | Fusion | Backbone | Acc | | | |----------------|----------|------------|------------|-------------|----------| | AGG ALI | Image | Text | | | | | MMBT | Early | ✗ | ResNet-152 | BERT | 92.1±0.1 | | HUSE | Early | ✓ | Graph-RISE | BERT | 92.3 | | ViLT | Early | ✓ | ViT | BERT | 92.0 | | CMA-CLIP | Early | ✓ | ViT | Transformer | 93.1 | | ME | Early | ✗ | DenseNet | BERT | 94.6 | | AggMM | Early | ✗ | ViT | BERT | 93.7±0.2 | | UnSupMMC Early | ✓ | ViT | BERT | 94.1±0.7 | | | SupMMC | Early | ✓ | ViT | BERT | 94.2±0.2 | | UniS-MMC Early | ✓ | ViT | BERT | 94.7±0.1 | | | b) Model | Fusion | Backbone | Multimodal | | | | | |----------------|----------|---------------------------|------------------------------------|------------------------------------|----------------------------|-------|-------| | AGG ALI Image | Text | Headline Caption Abstract | | | | | | | N24News | Early | ✗ | ViT | RoBERTa | 79.41 | 77.45 | 83.33 | | AggMM | Early | ✗ | ViT | BERT | 78.6±1.1 76.8±0.2 80.8±0.2 | | | | UnSupMMC Early | ✓ | ViT | BERT | 79.3±0.8 76.9±0.3 81.9±0.3 | | | | | SupMMC | Early | ✓ | ViT | BERT | 79.6±0.5 77.3±0.2 81.7±0.8 | | | | UniS-MMC Early | ✓ | ViT | BERT | 80.2±0.1 77.5±0.3 83.2±0.4 | | | | | AggMM | Early | ✗ | ViT | RoBERTa 78.9±0.3 77.9±0.3 83.5±0.2 | | | | | UnSupMMC Early | ✓ | ViT | RoBERTa 79.9±0.2 78.0±0.1 83.7±0.3 | | | | | | SupMMC | Early | ✓ | ViT | RoBERTa 79.9±0.4 77.9±0.2 84.0±0.2 | | | | | UniS-MMC Early | ✓ | ViT | RoBERTa 80.3±0.1 78.1±0.2 84.2±0.1 | | | | | Table 2: Comparison of multimodal classification performance on a) Food101 and b) N24News. - **HUSE** (Narayana et al., 2019) creates a joint representation space by learning the cross-modal representation with semantic information. - **ViLT** (Kim et al., 2021; Liang et al., 2022) introduces a BERT-like multimodal transformer architecture on vision-and-language data. - **CMA-CLIP** (Liu et al., 2021a) finetunes the CLIP (Radford et al., 2021) with newly designed two types of cross-modality attention module. - ME (Liang et al., 2022) is the state-of-theart method on Food101, which performs crossmodal feature transformation to leverage crossmodal information. - **N24News** (Wang et al., 2022) train both the unimodal and multimodal predicting task to capture the modality-invariant representations. - **AggMM** finetunes the pretrained text and image encoders and concatenates the unimodal representations for the multimodal recognition task. - **SupMMC** and **UnSupMMC** finetune the pretrained text and image encoders and then utilize the supervised and unsupervised multimodal contrastive method to align unimodal representations before creating joint embeddings, respectively. ## 4.3 Performance Comparison Final classification performance comparison. The final image-text classification performance on Food101 and N24News is presented in Table 2. We have the following findings from the experimental results: (i) focusing on the implemented methods, contrastive-based methods with naive alignment could get an improvement over the implemented aggregation-based methods; (ii) the implemented contrastive-based methods outperform many of the recent novel multimodal methods; (iii) the proposed UniS-MMC has a large improvement compared with both the implemented contrastive-based baseline models and the recent start-of-art multimodal methods on Food101 and produces the best results on every kind of text source on N24News with the same encoders. T-sne visualization comparison with baseline models. We visualize the representation distribution of the proposed uni-modality supervised multimodal contrastive method and compare it with the naive aggregation-based method and the typical unsupervised and supervised contrastive method. As shown in Figure 4, unimodal representations are summarized and mapped into the same feature space. The previous typical contrastive methods, such as unsupervised and supervised contrastive methods will mix up different unimodal representations from different categories when bringing the representation of different modalities that share the same semantics closer. For example, the representations of two modalities from the same category are clustered well in Figure 4 (b) and (c) (green circle and orange circle). However, these contrastivebased methods can also bring two problems. One is that they map the unimodal embeddings into the same embedding space will lose the complementary information from different modalities. Another is that they heavily mix the representations from the specific class with other categories, such as the clusters (orange circle). As a comparison, our proposed method preserves the complementary multimodal information by maintaining the two parts of the distribution from two modalities (red line) well (Figure 4 (d) from the aggregation-based methods (Figure 4 (a)) in addition to a better cluster of unimodal representations. We further summarized the visualization of the final multimodal representation in Figure 5. Comparing Figure 5 (a) and Figure 5 (d), the proposed  UniS-MMC can create better class clusters, such as the green circle. Comparing Figure 5 (b), (c) and (d) (orange circle), the classification clusters are not separated by other classes in the proposed methods. It is different from the other two typical contrastivebased methods. Generally, our proposed method not only helps the unimodal representation learning process and gets better sub-clusters for each modality but also improves the classification boundary of the final multimodal representation. ## 4.4 Analysis Classification With Different Combinations Of Input Modalities. We first perform an ablation study of classification on N24News with different input modalities. Table 3 provides the classification performance of unimodal learning with image-only, text-only, and traditional multimodal learning with the concatenation of visual and textual features and our proposed UniS-MMC. The text modality is encoded with two different encoders, RoBERTa or BERT. By comparing the models with different language encoders, we find that the feature encoder can significantly affect the multimodal performance, and the RoBERTa-based model usually performs better than the BERT-based model. This is because the multimodal classification task is influenced by each learned unimodal representation. Besides, all the multimodal networks perform better than unimodal networks. It reflects that multiple modalities will help make accurate decisions. Moreover, our proposed UniS-  MMC achieves 0.6% to 2.4% improvement over the aggregation-based baseline model with BERT and 0.3% to 1.4% improvement with RoBERTa. Ablation study on N24News. We conduct the ablation study to analyze the contribution of the different components of the proposed UniS-MMC on N24News. AggMM is the baseline model of the aggregation-based method that combines the unimodal representation directly. The ablation works on three text source headline, caption and abstract with both BERT-based and RoBERTa-based models. Specifically, Luni is the introduced unimodal prediction task, C*Semi* and CNeg are semi-positive pair and negative pair setting, respectively. Table 4 presents the multimodal classification results of the above ablation stud with different participating components. Luni and the setting of C*Semi* align the unimodal representation towards the targets, with the former achieved by mapping different unimodal representations to the same target space and the latter achieved by feature distribution aligning. They can both provide a significant improvement over the baseline model. CNeg further improve the performance by getting a larger combination of multimodal representation with more complementary information for those samples that are difficult to classify. Analysis on the learning process. To further explore the role of our proposed UniS-MMC in aligning the unimodal representation towards the targets, we summarise the unimodal predicting re- | Dataset | Text | Image-only | BERT-based | RoBERTa-based | | | | |-----------|----------|--------------|----------------|-----------------|----------|----------------|----------------| | Text-only | AggMM | UniS-MMC | Text-only | AggMM | UniS-MMC | | | | Headline | 72.1±0.2 | 78.6±1.1 | 80.2±0.1 ↑ 1.6 | 71.8±0.2 | 78.9±0.3 | 80.3±0.1 ↑ 1.4 | | | N24News | Caption | 72.7±0.3 | 76.8±0.2 | 77.5±0.3 ↑ 0.7 | 72.9±0.4 | 77.9±0.3 | 78.1±0.2 ↑ 0.3 | | 54.1±0.2 | | | | | | | | | Abstract | 78.3±0.3 | 80.8±0.2 | 83.2±0.4 ↑ 2.4 | 79.7±0.2 | 83.5±0.2 | 84.2±0.1 ↑ 0.7 | | Table 4: Ablation study on N24News. | Method | Headline | Caption | Abstract | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------|--------------|------------| | BERT RoBERTa | BERT RoBERTa | BERT RoBERTa | | | AggMM 78.6±1.1 78.9±0.3 76.8±0.2 77.9±0.3 80.8±0.2 83.5±0.2 + Luni 79.4±0.4 79.4±0.3 77.3±0.2 77.9±0.1 82.5±0.3 84.1±0.2 + CSemi 80.1±0.1 80.0±0.3 77.3±0.2 78.0±0.3 82.7±0.4 84.2±0.3 + CNeg 80.2±0.1 80.3±0.1 77.5±0.3 78.1±0.2 83.2±0.4 84.2±0.1 | | | | sults of the validation set during the training process in Figure 6. Ideally, different participating modalities for the same semantic should be very similar and give the same answer for the same sample. However, in practical problems, the unimodal predictions are not usually the same as the actual noise. In our proposed method, the proportion of both wrong unimodal predicting is higher and the proportion of both correct unimodal predicting is lower when removing our setting of semi-positive pair and negative pair. It means that UniS-MMC could align the unimodal representations for the targets better and get more trustworthy unimodal representations.  Analysis on the Final Multimodal Decision. Compared with the proposed UniS-MMC, MTMML is the method that jointly trains the unimodal and multimodal predicting task, without applying the proposed multimodal contrastive loss. We summarize unimodal performance on MT-MML and UniS-MMC and present unimodal predictions in Figure 6. The unimodal prediction consistency here is represented by the consistency of the unimodal prediction for each sample. When focusing on the classification details of each modality pair, we find that the proposed UniS-MMC gives a larger proportion of samples with both correct predictions and a smaller proportion of samples with both wrong decisions and opposite unimodal decisions compared with MT-MML.  ## 5 Conclusion In this work, we propose the UnimodalitySupversied Multimodal Contrastive (UNniSMMC), a novel method for multimodal fusion to reduce the multimodal decision bias caused by inconsistent unimodal information. Based on the introduced multi-task-based multimodal learning framework, we capture the task-related unimodal representations and evaluate their potential influence on the final decision with the unimodal predictions. Then we contrastively align the unimodal representation towards the relatively reliable modality under the weak supervision of unimodal predictions. This novel contrastive-based alignment method helps to capture more trustworthy multimodal representations. The experiments on four public multimodal classification datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed method. ## Limitations Unlike the traditional multimodal contrastive loss focusing more on building the direct link between paired modalities, our proposed UniS-MMC aims to leverage inter-modality relationships and potential effectiveness among modalities to create more trustworthy and complementary multimodal representations. It means that UniS-MMC is not applied to all multimodal problems. It can achieve competitive performance in tasks that rely on the quantity of the joint representation, such as the multimodal classification task. It is not suitable for tasks that rely purely on correspondence between modalities, such as the cross-modal retrieval task. ## Acknowledgements The computational work for this article was partially performed on resources of the National Supercomputing Centre, Singapore (https://www.nscc.sg) ## References Mohamed Afham, Isuru Dissanayake, Dinithi Dissanayake, Amaya Dharmasiri, Kanchana Thilakarathna, and Ranga Rodrigo. 2022. Crosspoint: Self-supervised cross-modal contrastive learning for 3d point cloud understanding. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 9902–9912. Hassan Akbari, Liangzhe Yuan, Rui Qian, Wei-Hong Chuang, Shih-Fu Chang, Yin Cui, and Boqing Gong. 2021. Vatt: Transformers for multimodal selfsupervised learning from raw video, audio and text. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:24206–24221. Martin Arjovsky, Soumith Chintala, and Léon Bottou. 2017. Wasserstein generative adversarial networks. In *International conference on machine learning*, pages 214–223. PMLR. Tadas Baltrušaitis, Chaitanya Ahuja, and Louis-Philippe Morency. 2018. Multimodal machine learning: A survey and taxonomy. *IEEE transactions on pattern* analysis and machine intelligence, 41(2):423–443. Deblina Bhattacharjee, Tong Zhang, Sabine Süsstrunk, and Mathieu Salzmann. 2022. Mult: An end-to-end multitask learning transformer. In *Proceedings of* the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 12031–12041. Ginevra Castellano, Loic Kessous, and George Caridakis. 2008. Emotion recognition through multiple modalities: face, body gesture, speech. In *Affect* and emotion in human-computer interaction, pages 92–103. Springer. Yingshan Chang, Mridu Narang, Hisami Suzuki, Guihong Cao, Jianfeng Gao, and Yonatan Bisk. 2022. Webqa: Multihop and multimodal qa. In *Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition*, pages 16495–16504. Chen Chen, Nana Hou, Yuchen Hu, Heqing Zou, Xiaofeng Qi, and Eng Siong Chng. 2022. Interactive audio-text representation for automated audio captioning with contrastive learning. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2203.15526. 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. Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Neil Houlsby. 2021. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. In *International Conference on* Learning Representations. Jing Gao, Peng Li, Zhikui Chen, and Jianing Zhang. 2020. A survey on deep learning for multimodal data fusion. *Neural Computation*, 32(5):829–864. Arthur Gretton, Karsten M Borgwardt, Malte J Rasch, Bernhard Schölkopf, and Alexander Smola. 2012. A kernel two-sample test. *The Journal of Machine* Learning Research, 13(1):723–773. Raia Hadsell, Sumit Chopra, and Yann LeCun. 2006. Dimensionality reduction by learning an invariant mapping. In *2006 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition* (CVPR'06), volume 2, pages 1735–1742. IEEE. Zongbo Han, Fan Yang, Junzhou Huang, Changqing Zhang, and Jianhua Yao. 2022. Multimodal dynamics: Dynamical fusion for trustworthy multimodal classification. In *Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition* (CVPR), pages 20707–20717. Yu Huang, Junyang Lin, Chang Zhou, Hongxia Yang, and Longbo Huang. 2022. Modality competition: What makes joint training of multi-modal network fail in deep learning?(provably). arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.12221. Chao Jia, Yinfei Yang, Ye Xia, Yi-Ting Chen, Zarana Parekh, Hieu Pham, Quoc Le, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Zhen Li, and Tom Duerig. 2021. Scaling up visual and vision-language representation learning with noisy text supervision. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 4904–4916. PMLR. M Kalfaoglu, Sinan Kalkan, and A Aydin Alatan. 2020. Late temporal modeling in 3d cnn architectures with bert for action recognition. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 731–747. Springer. Aishwarya Kamath, Mannat Singh, Yann LeCun, Gabriel Synnaeve, Ishan Misra, and Nicolas Carion. 2021. Mdetr-modulated detection for end-to-end multi-modal understanding. In *Proceedings of the* IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 1780–1790. Douwe Kiela, Suvrat Bhooshan, Hamed Firooz, Ethan Perez, and Davide Testuggine. 2019. Supervised multimodal bitransformers for classifying images and text. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.02950*. Wonjae Kim, Bokyung Son, and Ildoo Kim. 2021. Vilt: Vision-and-language transformer without convolution or region supervision. In *International Conference on Machine Learning*, pages 5583–5594. PMLR. 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. 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. Advances in neural information processing systems, 34:9694–9705. Tao Liang, Guosheng Lin, Mingyang Wan, Tianrui Li, Guojun Ma, and Fengmao Lv. 2022. Expanding large pre-trained unimodal models with multimodal information injection for image-text multimodal classification. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 15492–15501. Huidong Liu, Shaoyuan Xu, Jinmiao Fu, Yang Liu, Ning Xie, Chien-Chih Wang, Bryan Wang, and Yi Sun. 2021a. Cma-clip: Cross-modality attention clip for image-text classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.03562. 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*. Yunze Liu, Qingnan Fan, Shanghang Zhang, Hao Dong, Thomas Funkhouser, and Li Yi. 2021b. Contrastive multimodal fusion with tupleinfonce. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 754–763. Sijie Mai, Ying Zeng, Shuangjia Zheng, and Haifeng Hu. 2022. Hybrid contrastive learning of tri-modal representation for multimodal sentiment analysis. *IEEE* Transactions on Affective Computing. Trisha Mittal, Uttaran Bhattacharya, Rohan Chandra, Aniket Bera, and Dinesh Manocha. 2020. M3er: Multiplicative multimodal emotion recognition using facial, textual, and speech cues. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 34, pages 1359–1367. Hee-Seung Moon and Jiwon Seo. 2019. Observation of human response to a robotic guide using a variational autoencoder. In *2019 Third IEEE International Conference on Robotic Computing (IRC)*, pages 258–261. IEEE. Arsha Nagrani, Shan Yang, Anurag Arnab, Aren Jansen, Cordelia Schmid, and Chen Sun. 2021. Attention bottlenecks for multimodal fusion. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:14200–14213. Pradyumna Narayana, Aniket Pednekar, Abishek Krishnamoorthy, Kazoo Sone, and Sugato Basu. 2019. Huse: Hierarchical universal semantic embeddings. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.05978. Jiquan Ngiam, Aditya Khosla, Mingyu Kim, Juhan Nam, Honglak Lee, and Andrew Y Ng. 2011. Multimodal deep learning. In *ICML*. Aaron van den Oord, Yazhe Li, and Oriol Vinyals. 2018. Representation learning with contrastive predictive coding. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.03748*. Jonathan Pilault, Amine Elhattami, and Christopher J. Pal. 2021. Conditionally adaptive multi-task learning: Improving transfer learning in NLP using fewer parameters & less data. In *9th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Virtual Event, Austria, May 3-7, 2021*. OpenReview.net. Kosmas Pinitas, Konstantinos Makantasis, Antonios Liapis, and Georgios N Yannakakis. 2022. Supervised contrastive learning for affect modelling. In *Proceedings of the 2022 International Conference on* Multimodal Interaction, pages 531–539. Petra Poklukar, Miguel Vasco, Hang Yin, Francisco S. Melo, Ana Paiva, and Danica Kragic. 2022. Geometric multimodal contrastive representation learning. In *International Conference on Machine Learning*. Chengwei Qin and Shafiq Joty. 2022. Continual fewshot relation learning via embedding space regularization and data augmentation. In *Proceedings of the* 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2776–2789, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 8748–8763. PMLR. Geovany A Ramirez, Tadas Baltrušaitis, and LouisPhilippe Morency. 2011. Modeling latent discriminative dynamic of multi-dimensional affective signals. In *International Conference on Affective Computing* and Intelligent Interaction, pages 396–406. Springer. Xin Yuan, Zhe Lin, Jason Kuen, Jianming Zhang, Yilin Wang, Michael Maire, Ajinkya Kale, and Baldo Faieta. 2021. Multimodal contrastive training for visual representation learning. In *Proceedings of the* IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 6995–7004. Sijie Song, Jiaying Liu, Yanghao Li, and Zongming Guo. 2020. Modality compensation network: Cross-modal adaptation for action recognition. *IEEE Transactions* on Image Processing, 29:3957–3969. Aiham Taleb, Matthias Kirchler, Remo Monti, and Christoph Lippert. 2022. Contig: Self-supervised multimodal contrastive learning for medical imaging with genetics. In *Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition*, pages 20908–20921. Junjiao Tian, Wesley Cheung, Nathaniel Glaser, YenCheng Liu, and Zsolt Kira. 2020a. Uno: Uncertaintyaware noisy-or multimodal fusion for unanticipated input degradation. In *2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)*, pages 5716–5723. IEEE. Yonglong Tian, Dilip Krishnan, and Phillip Isola. 2020b. Contrastive multiview coding. In *European conference on computer vision*, pages 776–794. Springer. Vishaal Udandarao, Abhishek Maiti, Deepak Srivatsav, Suryatej Reddy Vyalla, Yifang Yin, and Rajiv Ratn Shah. 2020. Cobra: Contrastive bi-modal representation algorithm. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.03687*. Jinghua Wang, Zhenhua Wang, Dacheng Tao, Simon See, and Gang Wang. 2016. Learning common and specific features for rgb-d semantic segmentation with deconvolutional networks. In *European Conference on Computer Vision*, pages 664–679. Springer. Xin Wang, Devinder Kumar, Nicolas Thome, Matthieu Cord, and Frederic Precioso. 2015. Recipe recognition with large multimodal food dataset. In *2015* IEEE International Conference on Multimedia & Expo Workshops (ICMEW), pages 1–6. IEEE. Yang Wang. 2021. Survey on deep multi-modal data analytics: Collaboration, rivalry, and fusion. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications (TOMM), 17(1s):1–25. Zhen Wang, Xu Shan, Xiangxie Zhang, and Jie Yang. 2022. N24News: A new dataset for multimodal news classification. In *Proceedings of the Thirteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference*, pages 6768–6775, Marseille, France. European Language Resources Association. Nan Wu, Stanislaw Jastrzebski, Kyunghyun Cho, and Krzysztof J Geras. 2022. Characterizing and overcoming the greedy nature of learning in multi-modal deep neural networks. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 24043–24055. PMLR. Han Zhang, Jing Yu Koh, Jason Baldridge, Honglak Lee, and Yinfei Yang. 2021a. Cross-modal contrastive learning for text-to-image generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 833–842. Miaoran Zhang, Marius Mosbach, David Ifeoluwa Adelani, Michael A Hedderich, and Dietrich Klakow. 2022. Mcse: Multimodal contrastive learning of sentence embeddings. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.10931*. Wenjia Zhang, Lin Gui, and Yulan He. 2021b. Supervised contrastive learning for multimodal unreliable news detection in covid-19 pandemic. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management, pages 3637– 3641. Jun-Yan Zhu, Taesung Park, Phillip Isola, and Alexei A Efros. 2017. Unpaired image-to-image translation using cycle-consistent adversarial networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 2223–2232. Mohammadreza Zolfaghari, Yi Zhu, Peter Gehler, and Thomas Brox. 2021. Crossclr: Cross-modal contrastive learning for multi-modal video representations. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 1450–1459. Heqing Zou, Yuke Si, Chen Chen, Deepu Rajan, and Eng Siong Chng. 2022. Speech emotion recognition with co-attention based multi-level acoustic information. In *ICASSP 2022-2022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing* (ICASSP), pages 7367–7371. IEEE. ## A Appendix A.1 Datasets Usage Instructions To make a fair comparison with the previous works, we adopt the following default setting of the split method, as shown in Table 5. Since the UPMCFood101 dataset does not provide the validation set, we split 5000 samples out of the training set and use them as the validation set. Table 5: Datasets information and the split results | Dataset | Modalities #Category #Train #Valid | #Test | | | | |---------------------------|--------------------------------------|---------|-------|-------|------| | UPMC-Food-101 image, text | 101 | 60085 | 5000 | 21683 | | | N24News | image, text | 24 | 48988 | 6123 | 6124 | ## A.2 Experimental Settings The model is trained on NVIDIA V100-SXM216GB and NVIDIA A100-PCIE-40GB. The corresponding Pytorch version, CUDA version and CUDNN version are 1.8.0, 11.1 and 8005 respectively. We utilize Adam as the optimizer and use ReduceLROnPlateau to update the learning rate. We use Adam (Kingma and Ba, 2015) as the model optimizer. The temperature coefficient for contrastive learning is set as 0.07 and the loss coefficient in this paper is set as 0.1 to keep loss values in the same order of magnitude. The code is attached and will be available on GitHub. Some key settings of the model implementation are listed as followings: Table 6: Detailed setting of the hyper-parameter for UPMC-Food-101, BRCA and ROSMAP | Item | UPMC-Food-101 | N24News | |-------------------|-----------------|-----------| | Batch gradient | 128 | 128 | | Batch size | 32 | 32 | | Learning rate (m) | 2e-5 | 1e-4 | | Dropout (m) | 0 | 0 | | Weight decay | 1e-4 | 1e-4 | ## A.3 Learning With A Single Modality We show the unimodal classification results from different unimodal backbones on text-image datasets in the following Table 7. Table 7: Unimodal classification performance with different backbones on Food101 and N24News. | Source | Backbone | Food101 | N24News | |----------|------------|-----------|-----------| | Image | ViT | 73.1±0.2 | 54.1±0.2 | | Text | BERT | 86.8±0.2 | - | | Heading | BERT | - | 72.1±0.2 | | RoBERTa | - | 71.8±0.2 | | | Caption | BERT | - | 72.7±0.3 | | RoBERTa | - | 72.9±0.4 | | | Abstract | BERT | - | 78.3±0.3 | | RoBERTa | - | 79.7±0.2 | | ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist 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. Our paper is foundational research that introduces a method of contrastive learning for the multimodal classification task. It is not tied to particular applications. ✓ 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?** 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, Appendix A.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.2 Experimental Settings 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.2 Experimental Settings ✓ 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 Experimental Setup ✗ 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.)? These libraries are not necessary for our topic. 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.

wang-etal-2023-robustness

Robustness-Aware Word Embedding Improves Certified Robustness to Adversarial Word Substitutions

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.42

Natural Language Processing (NLP) models have gained great success on clean texts, but they are known to be vulnerable to adversarial examples typically crafted by synonym substitutions. In this paper, we target to solve this problem and find that word embedding is important to the certified robustness of NLP models. Given the findings, we propose the Embedding Interval Bound Constraint (EIBC) triplet loss to train robustness-aware word embeddings for better certified robustness. We optimize the EIBC triplet loss to reduce distances between synonyms in the embedding space, which is theoretically proven to make the verification boundary tighter. Meanwhile, we enlarge distances among non-synonyms, maintaining the semantic representation of word embeddings. Our method is conceptually simple and componentized. It can be easily combined with IBP training and improves the certified robust accuracy from 76.73{\%} to 84.78{\%} on the IMDB dataset. Experiments demonstrate that our method outperforms various state-of-the-art certified defense baselines and generalizes well to unseen substitutions. The code is available at \url{https://github.com/JHL-HUST/EIBC-IBP/}.

# Robustness-Aware Word Embedding Improves Certified Robustness To Adversarial Word Substitutions Yibin Wang1∗, Yichen Yang1∗**, Di He**2and **Kun He**1† 1School of Computer Science and Technology, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China {yibinwang, yangyc, brooklet60}@hust.edu.cn 2School of Intelligence Science and Technology, Peking University, Beijing, China dihe@pku.edu.cn ## Abstract Natural Language Processing (NLP) models have gained great success on clean texts, but they are known to be vulnerable to adversarial examples typically crafted by synonym substitutions. In this paper, we target to solve this problem and find that word embedding is important to the certified robustness of NLP models. Given the findings, we propose the Embedding Interval Bound Constraint (EIBC) triplet loss to train robustness-aware word embeddings for better certified robustness. We optimize the EIBC triplet loss to reduce distances between synonyms in the embedding space, which is theoretically proven to make the verification boundary tighter. Meanwhile, we enlarge distances among non-synonyms, maintaining the semantic representation of word embeddings. Our method is conceptually simple and componentized. It can be easily combined with IBP training and improves the certified robust accuracy from 76.73% to 84.78% on the IMDB dataset. Experiments demonstrate that our method outperforms various state-of-the-art certified defense baselines and generalizes well to unseen substitutions. The code is available at https://github.com/JHL-HUST/EIBC-IBP/. ## 1 Introduction Deep neural networks have achieved impressive performance on many NLP tasks (Devlin et al., 2019; Kim, 2014). However, they are known to be brittle to adversarial examples: the model performance could dramatically drop when applying imperceptible crafted perturbations, especially synonym substitutions, into the input text. These phenomena have been observed in a wide range of practical applications (Alzantot et al., 2018; Ren et al., 2019; Wallace et al., 2019; Zang et al., 2020; Maheshwary et al., 2021; Meng and Wattenhofer, 2020; Yu et al., 2022). ∗ The first two authors contribute equally. † Corresponding author. To mitigate the vulnerability of NLP models, many adversarial defense methods have been proposed to boost the model robustness from various perspectives, such as adversarial training (Wang et al., 2021b; Dong et al., 2021; Li et al., 2021; Si et al., 2021), advanced training strategy (Liu et al., 2022), input transformation (Wang et al., 2021a), and robust word embedding (Yang et al., 2022). However, these methods could only provide empirical robustness, *i.e.*, the robust accuracy of these models varies depending on the heuristic search used in the attacks. In contrast, certified robustness guarantees that a model is robust to all adversarial perturbations of a given input, regardless of the attacks for evaluation. Certified robustness provides a lower bound on the robust accuracy of a model in the face of various adversarial attacks. In this work, we aim to design better training methods for certified robustness. In particular, our algorithm is mainly based on Interval Bound Propagation (IBP). IBP is initially designed for images (Gowal et al., 2019) and is also utilized to provide certified robustness in NLP models (Huang et al., 2019; Jia et al., 2019). In the first step, we compute the interval of embedding of all possible texts perturbed on the current input by word substitutions, where the embedding layer is fixed using the commonly used word embeddings, such as GloVe (Pennington et al., 2014). Then, in the second step, given the pre-computed interval, IBP is used to estimate the upper and lower bounds of the output layer by layer and minimize the worstcase performance to achieve certified robustness. However, previous works of IBP method (Huang et al., 2019; Jia et al., 2019) use *fixed* word embeddings and we argue that may not be good enough for certified robustness. As shown in the experiments of Huang et al. (2019), the embedding space significantly impacts the IBP bounds and the effectiveness of IBP training. Though the close neighbor words in the embedding space are selected for the synonym set, the volume of the convex hull constructed by them is still large for IBP training, which will lead to loose bounds through propagating and a poor robustness guarantee. Inspired by the above observation, in this work, we develop a new loss to train robustness-aware word embeddings for higher certified robustness. We first decompose certified robust accuracy into robustness and standard accuracy. We optimize for robustness from the perspective of embedding constraint and optimize for standard accuracy by training the model normally. It can be proved that the upper bound of certified robustness can be optimized by reducing the interval of the convex hull constructed by synonyms in the embedding space. Therefore, we propose a new loss called Embedding Interval Bound Constraint (EIBC) triplet loss. Specifically, given a word, on each dimension in the embedding space, we aim to reduce the maximum distance between each word and its synonyms, which is actually to make a smaller interval of the convex hull formed by synonyms. Then, we freeze the embedding layer after training the word embeddings by EIBC triplet loss, and train the model by normal training or IBP training to achieve higher certified robust accuracy. Extensive experiments on several benchmark datasets demonstrate that EIBC could boost the certified robust accuracy of models. Especially when EIBC is combined with IBP training, we could achieve SOTA performance among advanced certified defense methods. For instance, on IMDB dataset, EIBC combined with IBP training achieves 84.78% certified robust accuracy, surpassing IBP by about 8%, which indicates that constraining the embedding interval bound will significantly boost the performance of IBP. Our main contributions are as follows. - We prove theoretically that the upper bound of certified robustness can be optimized through reducing the interval of the convex hull formed by synonyms in the embedding space. - We propose a new loss of EIBC constraining the word embeddings. EIBC is plug-and-play and could combine with normal training or IBP training to boost certified robust accuracy. - Extensive experiments demonstrate that EIBC combined IBP training significantly promotes the certified robustness of the model across multiple datasets. EIBC also exhibits good generalization to unseen word substitutions. ## 2 Related Work There are many adversarial defense methods to boost the model's robustness to adversarial word substitutions. Adversarial Training (AT), one of the most popular defense approaches, crafts adversarial examples during the training and injects them into the training set (Alzantot et al., 2018; Ren et al., 2019; Ivgi and Berant, 2021; Si et al., 2021). A stream of work aims to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of textual adversarial training by adversary generation based on gradient optimization (Wang et al., 2021b; Dong et al., 2021; Li et al., 2021). To eliminate the differences between clean samples and adversarial examples, Wang et al. (2021a) insert a synonym encoder before the input layer, and Yang et al. (2022) propose Fast Triplet Metric Learning (FTML) to train robust word embeddings. Liu et al. (2022) leverage the Flooding training method (Ishida et al., 2020) to guide the model into a smooth parameter landscape that leads to better adversarial robustness. Besides, adversarial detection methods detect the adversarial examples before feeding the input samples to models by training a classifier (Zhou et al., 2019) or randomized substitution (Wang et al., 2022). However, these methods can only provide empirical robustness, which is unstable for attacks based on different heuristic searches. Certified robustness is proposed to guarantee that a model is robust to all adversarial perturbations of any given input. Interval Bound Propagation (IBP) calculates the input interval involving all possible word substitutions and propagates the upper and lower bounds through the network, then minimizes the worst-case loss that any combination of the word substitutions may cause (Jia et al., 2019; Huang et al., 2019). Randomized smoothing methods, such as SAFER (Ye et al., 2020) and RanMASK (Zeng et al., 2021), mask a random portion of the words in the input text to construct an ensemble and utilize the statistical properties of the ensemble to predict the output. Zhao et al. (2022) propose Causal Intervention by Semantic Smoothing (CISS), which associates causal intervention with randomized smoothing in latent semantic space to make provably robust predictions. Most previous works do not attach importance to word embeddings concerning certified robustness. Our work introduces EIBC triplet loss to achieve certified robustness through constraining word embeddings and incorporates it into IBP to boost certified robustness. In the field of adversarial images, Shi et al. (2021) improve the IBP training method by mitigating the issues of exploded bounds at initialization and the imbalance in ReLU activation states. It is worth noting that our work differs from Shi et al. (2021). We particularly focus on reducing the difference between the upper and lower bounds of initial inputs by fine-tuning the embeddings. The reduction of bounds interval provably causes the tightening of bounds in following propagation. ## 3 Preliminaries For the text classification task, a model f : *X → Y* predicts label y ∈ Y given a textual input x ∈ X , where x = ⟨x1, x2, · · · , xN ⟩ is a sequence consisting of N words, and the output space Y = {y1, y2, · · · , yC} contains C classes. In this paper, we focus on an adversarial scenario in which any word in the textual input can be arbitrarily replaced by its synonyms so as to change the model's prediction. Formally, we use S(xi) to denote the synonym set of the i th word xi of input x. Then, we formulate the set consisting of all the adversarial examples with allowed perturbations of x: $$\mathcal{B}_{adv}(\mathbf{x})=\{\langle x_{1}^{\prime},x_{2}^{\prime},\cdots,x_{N}^{\prime}\rangle,x_{i}^{\prime}\in\mathcal{S}(x_{i})\cup\{x_{i}\}\}.\tag{1}$$ Our goal is to defend against the adversarial word substitutions and train models with certified robustness, *i.e.*, $$\forall\,\mathbf{x}^{\prime}\in{\mathcal{B}}_{a d v}(\mathbf{x}),\quad f(\mathbf{x}^{\prime})=f(\mathbf{x})=y.\quad(2)$$ If Eq. (2) holds and the model classifies the instance correctly, that is, y = y*true*, then we call the model prediction on input x is certified. We can easily decompose certified robust accuracy into *robustness* and *standard accuracy*. Robustness cares about whether the model prediction is consistent under perturbations. Clearly, achieving robustness is a necessary condition for obtaining models with high certified robust accuracy. We then illustrate the conditions to be satisfied for robustness in terms of interval bound. For a K-layer neural network, assuming we can calculate the interval bound of the output logits z K: z K ≤ z K ≤ z K of all the perturbed inputs x′ ∈ Badv(x), the model with robustness satisfies that the lower bound of the model's largest logit z K ymax is greater than the upper bound of other logits, *i.e.*, $$\underline{{{\bf z}}}_{y_{m a x}}^{K}\geq\overline{{{\bf z}}}_{y}^{K},\quad\forall y\in{\mathcal{Y}},y\neq y_{m a x}.$$ $$(3)$$ To evaluate the model's certified robust accuracy, we just need to replace the model's largest logit z K ymax with the logit of the true class z K y*true* in Eq. (3). Interval Bound Propagation IBP provides the solution to estimate the interval bound layer by layer. We could represent a K-layer neural network model as a series of transformations fk (*e.g.*, linear transformation, ReLU activation function): $$\mathbf{z}^{k}=f_{k}(\mathbf{z}^{k-1}),\quad k=1,\cdots,K,$$ $$(4)$$ where z kis the vector of activations in the k th layer. To calculate the interval bound of the output logits, we need to construct the interval bound of the input vector and propagate it through the network. Let φ(xi) ∈ R D denote the embedding word vector of word xi with D dimensions. The word vector input is z 0 = ⟨φ(x0), φ(x1), · · · , φ(xN )⟩. We obtain the interval bounds of the word vector input z 0 by constructing the convex hull of S(xi) in the embedding space: $$\begin{array}{l}{{\z_{i j}^{0}=\operatorname*{min}_{x_{i}\in{\mathcal{S}}(x_{i})\cup\{x_{i}\}}\varphi(x_{i})_{j},}}\\ {{\z_{i j}^{0}=\operatorname*{max}_{x_{i}\in{\mathcal{S}}(x_{i})\cup\{x_{i}\}}\varphi(x_{i})_{j},}}\end{array}\tag{5}$$ where φ(xi)j is the j th element of the word vector of word xi. z 0and z 0are the lower and upper bounds of z 0, respectively. Similarly, for subsequent layers k > 0, we denote the lower and upper bounds of activations in the k th layer as z kand z k, respectively. The bounds on the z kcan be obtained from the bounds of previous layer z k−1: $$\begin{array}{l}{{\z_{i}^{k}=\operatorname*{min}_{\mathbf{z}^{k-1}\leq\mathbf{z}^{k-1}\leq\mathbf{\overline{{{z}}}}^{k-1}}\mathbf{e}_{i}^{\top}f_{k}(\mathbf{z}^{k-1}),}}\\ {{\overline{{{z}}}_{i}^{k}=\operatorname*{max}_{\mathbf{z}^{k-1}\leq\mathbf{z}^{k-1}\leq\mathbf{\overline{{{z}}}}^{k-1}}\mathbf{e}_{i}^{\top}f_{k}(\mathbf{z}^{k-1}),}}\end{array}\tag{6}$$ where eiis the one-hot vector with 1 in the i th position. Interval Bound Propagation (IBP) (Gowal et al., 2018) gives a simple way to solve the above problems for affine layers and monotonic activation functions as described in Appendix B. ## 4 Methodology In this section, we first theoretically demonstrate the influence of word embedding on the model robustness and then introduce the proposed EIBC triplet loss to optimize the word embedding. Finally, we describe how to incorporate EIBC into the training process. ## 4.1 Word Embedding Matters Robustness Previous works on the IBP method (Huang et al., 2019; Jia et al., 2019) use fixed word embeddings. As illustrated in Figure 1, IBP constructs an axisaligned box around the convex hull constructed by synonyms in the embedding space. As stated in Huang et al. (2019), since synonyms may be far away from each other, the interval of the axisaligned box can be large. Through propagating the interval bounds in the network, the interval bounds become too loose to satisfy the certified conditions. To be concrete, based on Eq. (3), training a model with certified robustness is an optimization problem formulated as follows: minimize $\mathbf{z}_{y}^{K}-\mathbf{z}_{ymax}^{K}$, $\forall y\in\mathcal{Y},y\neq ymax$. We propose the following theorem to demonstrate that minimizing the objective in Eq. (7) could be converted to an optimization objective with respect to the word embeddings by backpropagating the interval bounds through the network. We provide the proof in Appendix A. Theorem 1 The upper bound on the solution of Eq. (7) is $$\begin{array}{ll}\mbox{minimize}&\max(\max_{x_{i}\in\mathbf{x}}(\max_{x_{i}^{\prime}\in\mathcal{S}(x_{i})}(|\varphi(x_{i})-\varphi(x_{i}^{\prime})|)).\end{array}\tag{8}$$ _where $\max(\cdot)$ and $|\cdot|$ are the element-wise operator._ where max(·) and | · | *are the element-wise operators.* Theorem 1 inspires us that we could approach certified robustness by reducing the interval of the convex hull constructed by synonyms in the embedding space. ## 4.2 Robustness-Aware Word Embedding Based on Theorem 1, we attach importance to word embeddings and propose the Embedding Interval Bound Constraint (EIBC) triplet loss to train robustness-aware word embeddings to achieve higher certified robustness while maintaining their representation capability for classification.  We measure the interval of the convex hull constructed by synonyms of word xiin the embedding space by: $$d_{bound}(x_{i},S(x_{i}))=\parallel\max_{x_{i}^{\prime}\in S(x_{i})}\left|\varphi(x_{i})-\varphi(x_{i}^{\prime})\right|\parallel_{p},\tag{9}$$ where *∥ · ∥*p indicates p-norm. According to Theorem 1, the certified robustness can be optimized by minimizing d*bound*(xi, S(xi)) for each word xiin the input squence x. Meanwhile, non-synonyms may be connected by multiple synonym pairs, and simply reducing the distance between synonyms will also reduce the distance between non-synonyms. To prevent all words from being drawn close to each other and hurting semantic representation, we also control the distances between words and their non-synonyms. Inspired by FTML (Yang et al., 2022), we adopt the triplet metric learning to reduce the interval of convex hull constructed by synonyms and increase the distance between words and their non-synonyms simultaneously. Consistent with Eq. (9), we also use the p-norm distance of word vectors in the embedding space as the distance metric between two words xa and xb: $$d(x_{a},x_{b})=\|\varphi(x_{a})-\varphi(x_{b})\|_{p}.\qquad(10)$$ In this work, we adopt the Manhattan distance, i.e., p = 1 and provide analysis on different pnorms in Section 5.7. Finally, we design the EBIC triplet loss for each word xi as follows: $$\mathcal{L}_{EIBC}(x_{i},\mathcal{S}(x_{i}),\mathcal{N}(M))=d_{bound}(x_{i},\mathcal{S}(x_{i}))$$ $$-\frac{1}{M}\sum_{\tilde{x}_{i}\in\mathcal{N}(M)}min(d(x_{i},\tilde{x}_{i}),\alpha)+\alpha,$$ where S(xi) denotes the synonym set of word xi, and N (M) denotes the set containing M words randomly sampled from the vocabulary. We set M to be the same as the maximum size of the synonym set of a word to maintain the duality of the maximization and minimization problem. Note that the purpose of increasing the distance between words and their non-synonyms is to prevent them from getting too close and losing semantic representations, without constantly increasing their distance. Thus we set a scalar hyperparameter α to control that they would no longer be pushed away once the distance exceeds α. We minimize L*EIBC*(xi, S(xi), N (M)) to reduce the interval of convex hull shaped by word xi and its synonyms (positive samples) and maintain the distances between xi and its non-synonyms (negative samples) in the embedding space. Figure 1 illustrates the effect of EIBC triplet loss. In the embedding space, the interval of the convex hull constructed by synonyms of word xi is reduced, while distances between xi and its nonsynonyms xj , xk are maintained. ## 4.3 Overall Training Process As described in Section 3, we decompose certified robust accuracy into two parts: certified robustness and standard accuracy. We utilize the proposed EIBC triplet loss to achieve certified robustness from the perspective of word embeddings, and optimize for standard accuracy by training the model normally. In the first part, we use EIBC triplet loss to finetune the pretrained word embeddings, *e.g.*, GloVe word embeddings (Pennington et al., 2014) to get robust word embeddings. To employ the L*EIBC* to each word of input x in the embedding space, we sum up L*EIBC* of each word and take the mean value as our final loss Lemb to train the word embeddings: $$\mathcal{L}_{e m b}=\frac{1}{|\mathbf{x}|}\sum_{x_{i}\in\mathbf{x}}\mathcal{L}_{E I B C}(x_{i},\mathcal{S}(x_{i}),\mathcal{N}(M)).\tag{12}$$ In the second part, since our BIEC method merely provides the word embedding with certified robustness, which is componentized, we could combine it with various training methods to boost the certified robust accuracy. Specifically, we freeze the embedding layer trained by EIBC triplet loss and train the model with normal cross-entropy loss or with IBP training method (Jia et al., 2019) towards higher certified robust accuracy. The loss of IBP training is as follows: $${\mathcal{L}}_{m o d e l}=(1-\beta)\cdot{\mathcal{L}}_{C E}+\beta\cdot{\mathcal{L}}_{I B P}(\epsilon),\quad(13)$$ where LCE denotes the normal cross-entropy loss and LIBP denotes the IBP loss (we give a brief description of the IBP loss in Appendix B). Scalar hyperparameter β governs the relative weight between the robustness and standard accuracy. The IBP loss uses ϵ to control the perturbation space size, and ϵ = 1 means the original size. To maintain the balance between robustness and standard accuracy during training, the IBP training method gradually increases β and ϵ from 0 to 1. With the help of EIBC, we could reduce the training epochs to half of the original IBP training method. ## 5 Experiments This section evaluates the proposed method with three advanced certified defense methods on three benchmark datasets. In addition, we further study EIBC on the generalization to unseen word substitutions, the empirical robustness, the trade-off between clean and robust accuracy, the training procedure, and the robustness with different distance metrics. ## 5.1 Experimental Setup Tasks and Datasets We focus on evaluating certified robustness against adversarial word substitutions. Aligned with previous works (Jia et al., 2019; Ye et al., 2020; Zhao et al., 2022), we evaluate the proposed method on three benchmark datasets for the text classification task, including IMDB (Maas et al., 2011), YELP (Shen et al., 2017), and SST2 (Wang et al., 2019). Baselines We compare our proposed method with IBP (Jia et al., 2019), SAFER (Ye et al., 2020) and CISS (Zhao et al., 2022). We use the models with the best results for baselines. We also make our own implementation of IBP method on the TextCNN model (Kim, 2014). In our implementation of IBP, we tune and choose the best training | Method | Model | IMDB | YELP | SST-2 | |---------------------------------------------------------------------|---------|--------|--------|---------| | IBP Training (Jia et al., 2019) | CNN | 67.83 | 85.94 | 66.17 | | IBP Training* | TextCNN | 76.73 | 88.72 | 69.15 | | † | BERT | 69.20 | 80.63 | - | | SAFER (Ye et al., 2020) CISS (Zhao et al., 2022) † | BERT | 75.25 | 90.47 | - | | EIBC+Normal Training | TextCNN | 72.37 | 89.51 | 66.86 | | EIBC+IBP Training* | TextCNN | 84.78 | 93.66 | 76.95 | | * Our implementation. † Results are obtained from Zhao et al., 2022 | | | | | schedule and hyperparameters depending on certified robust accuracy, and the performance is better than that reported in Jia et al. (2019). Perturbation Setting Following previous work, we use the same synonym substitutions as in Jia et al. (2019) and Zhao et al. (2022), which are initially defined in Alzantot et al. (2018). The synonyms of each word are defined as the n = 8 nearest neighbors satisfying the cosine similarity ≥ 0.8 in the GloVe embedding space (Pennington et al., 2014) processed by counter-fitting (Mrksic et al., 2016). Model Setting Jia et al. (2019) adopt a simple CNN model with the filter size of 3 and 100 as the hidden size, termed CNN in the experiments. We adopt a TextCNN model (Kim, 2014) with three filter sizes (2, 3, 4) and 200 as the hidden size, termed TextCNN. Following Jia et al. (2019), we set a linear layer before the CNN layers of the models to further control the shape of the convex hull constructed by synonyms. We study the impact of different architectures in Appendix C.3. Implementation Details We use the default train/test split for IMDB and YELP datasets. For SST-2, we use the default training set and take the development set as the testing set. For the generalization of EIBC, we set the hyperparameter α = 10.0 in Eq. (11) for all experiments. Analyses of the impact of α are discussed in Section 5.5. For the EIBC+Normal training method, we first use our EIBC triplet loss to train the word embeddings for 20 epochs, then we use cross-entropy loss to train the model with only 1 epoch, because further unconstrained normal training will lead to a decline in certified accuracy as shown in Section 5.6. For the EIBC+IBP training method, we use EIBC triplet loss to train the word embeddings and the IBP training method to train the model simultaneously, with half epochs of the original IBP method. We provide more implementation details in Appendix C. ## 5.2 Main Results We combine the proposed EIBC with normal training and IBP training, respectively, to boost the certified robustness. Then, we compare them with three state-of-the-art baselines, IBP, SAFER, and CISS, in terms of certified robust accuracy against word substitutions. As seen from Table 1, EIBC incorporated with normal training already achieves certified robustness to a certain extent without any other defense technique. Especially on the YELP dataset, it gains 89.51% certified robust accuracy, which performs significantly better than SAFER and IBP. Also, EIBC combined with IBP training achieves dominant certified robustness on all datasets with clear margins. For instance, it achieves 84.78% certified robust accuracy on the IMDB dataset, surpassing the original IBP on the TextCNN model by about 8%. This indicates that the tight embedding bounds benefiting from EIBC will considerably boost the performance of IBP. It is worth noting that though EIBC combined with IBP training is implemented on simple CNN architectures, it achieves higher certified robust accuracy than SAFER and CISS based on large-scale pre-trained BERT models (Devlin et al., 2019), suggesting the superiority and lightness of our approach. ## 5.3 Generalization To Unseen Substitutions The defense methods generally assume that the synonym lists used by attackers are known, which is  under the ideal assumption. To study the generalization of our method to unseen word substitutions, we only use part of the word substitutions to train the model and all the word substitutions for robust evaluation. Specifically, for each word with n synonyms, we randomly select its ⌈γn⌉ synonyms (0 < γ ≤ 1) for training, where γ controls the proportion of the seen word substitutions during training. We observe the certified robust accuracy under the word substitutions based on the entire synonyms. Figure 2 shows the certified robust accuracy with different γ. The performance of IBP decreases rapidly with the decline of γ, but the EIBC combined with normal training is relatively stable, indicating that EIBC has a remarkable generalization to unseen word substitutions. It also suggests that the improvement benefiting from the word embeddings is more generalized than that from other parts of the model under unseen word substitutions. Furthermore, EIBC combined with IBP training achieves the best certified robust accuracy in most cases. ## 5.4 Empirical Robustness We utilize the Genetic Attack (GA) (Alzantot et al., 2018) to investigate the empirical robustness of our method. GA generates a population of perturbed texts by random substitutions, then searches and updates the population by the genetic algorithm. Following Jia et al. (2019), we set the population size as 60 and run 40 search iterations on 1,000 testing data randomly sampled from each dataset. As shown in Table 2, without any defense technique, the genetic attack can dramatically mislead the normally trained model and degrade its accuracy to 8.0% on the IMDB dataset and 40.5% on | Method | IMDB | YELP | |-----------------------|--------|--------| | Normal Training | 8.00 | 40.50 | | IBP Training* | 74.90 | 87.50 | | EIBC+Normal Training | 77.10 | 90.40 | | EIBC+IBP Training* | 86.10 | 93.40 | | * Our implementation. | | | the YELP dataset. Among all the defense baselines, our proposed method exhibits better performance with a clear margin under GA. ## 5.5 Clean Accuracy Versus Robust Accuracy In Eq. (11), our EIBC triplet loss uses hyperparameter α to control the distance between words and their non-synonyms to hold the semantic representation capability of the word embeddings. We use clean accuracy to denote the accuracy (%) on clean testing data without any perturbation, and robust accuracy to denote the certified robust accuracy (%) against word substitutions. We observe the trade-off between clean accuracy and robust accuracy controlled by α. As depicted in Figure 3, when α is low, the distances among any words are close, which harms the semantic representation of word vectors and leads to low clean accuracy. Meanwhile, the interval of convex hull constructed by synonyms is also small. Thus, the output bounds are tight, and the gap between robust accuracy and clean accuracy is reduced. Further, when α approaches 0, the term pushing away the non-synonyms in EIBC triplet loss tends to be invalid. The shape decline in clean accuracy in this  case demonstrates the importance of pushing away non-synonyms. As α grows, the distance between words and their non-synonyms gradually increases, thus ensuring better semantic representation and higher clean accuracy. However, the further increase of α leads to the enlargement of the interval of convex hull formed by synonyms and hinders the robust accuracy. ## 5.6 Training Procedure To investigate how the word embeddings pretrained by EIBC help improve the training process, in Figure 4, we illustrate the changing curve of the certified robust accuracy in the training procedure for IBP, EIBC with normal training, and EIBC with IBP training. With loose interval bounds, the certified robust accuracy of IBP increases slowly during the training procedure, finally achieving a relatively low certified guarantee. For EIBC combined with normal training, since the word embeddings trained by EIBC have provided the model with initial certified robustness, the model only normally trains one epoch to achieve a certified robust accuracy slightly lower than IBP. However, further normal training without constraint leads to a decline in certified robust accuracy. We could combine EIBC with IBP training to achieve the best certified robust accuracy with half epochs of IBP. These results suggest that tightening word embeddings with EIBC can boost the certified robustness and accelerate the training process of IBP. ## 5.7 Analysis On Distance Metric We explore the effect of different lp-norm distance metrics in Eqs. (9) and (10), such as Manhattan distance (p = 1), Euclidean distance (p = 2), and Chebyshev distance (p = ∞). Table 3 shows  | Distance Metric | IMDB | YELP | |-------------------|--------|--------| | p = 1 | 84.78 | 93.66 | | p = 2 | 81.47 | 92.68 | | p = ∞ | 60.60 | 82.26 | the results of models trained by EIBC combined with IBP training on the IMDB and YELP datasets. EIBC with Euclidean distance achieves competitive robustness to EIBC with Manhattan distance. The performance of Euclidean distance and Manhattan distance is relatively close on the two datasets because they can constrain the bound on each dimension in the embedding space. In contrast, the effectiveness of Chebyshev distance is the worst as it can only constrain one dimension, which is inefficient. ## 6 Conclusion In this work, we attach importance to word embeddings and prove that the certified robustness can be improved by reducing the interval of the convex hull constructed by synonyms in the embedding space. We introduce a novel loss termed the Embedding Interval Bound Constraint (EIBC) triplet loss to constrain the convex hull. Since EIBC merely provides word embeddings with certified robustness, which is componentized, we could incorporate EIBC into the normal training or IBP training to boost the certified robust accuracy. Experiments on three benchmark datasets show that EIBC combined with IBP training achieves much higher certified robust accuracy than various stateof-the-art defense methods. EIBC also exhibits good generalization to unseen word substitutions. We will further study how to incorporate EIBC with other certified defense methods in future work. Moreover, we will apply the proposed method in transformer-based models and extend the research to defend against character-level or sentence-level perturbations. An essential difference between image and text data is that text data is discrete and needs to be transformed into continuous word vectors by word embeddings. Tightened bounds of word embeddings benefiting from EIBC could boost the certified robustness of IBP, which is a typical example to indicate that word embeddings are vital to the robustness of NLP models. We hope our work could inspire more studies on the robustness of NLP models enhanced by word embeddings. ## Limitations As pointed out by Shi et al. (2020), applying IBP technologies to large-scale pre-trained BERT models is challenging because of the calculation of bound propagation on the attention layer is relatively loose. Since BERT is currently one of the most popular architectures in NLP, there is a limitation that the proposed method combined with IBP training could not generalize to BERT architectures. However, it is worth noting that the proposed method based on TextCNN architectures achieves better certified robustness than the advanced baselines, SAFER and CISS based on BERT. Besides, this paper focuses on enhancing the model's robustness to word substitutions, but not investigates the robustness to character-level or sentence-level perturbations. ## Acknowledgments This work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation (62076105,U22B2017). ## References Moustafa Alzantot, Yash Sharma, Ahmed Elgohary, BoJhang Ho, Mani B. Srivastava, and Kai-Wei Chang. 2018. Generating natural language adversarial examples. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2890–2896. 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, pages 4171–4186. Xinshuai Dong, Anh Tuan Luu, Rongrong Ji, and Hong Liu. 2021. Towards robustness against natural language word substitutions. In *9th International Conference on Learning Representations*. Sven Gowal, Krishnamurthy Dvijotham, Robert Stanforth, Rudy Bunel, Chongli Qin, Jonathan Uesato, Relja Arandjelovic, Timothy Mann, and Pushmeet Kohli. 2018. On the effectiveness of interval bound propagation for training verifiably robust models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.12715. Sven Gowal, Krishnamurthy Dvijotham, Robert Stanforth, Rudy Bunel, Chongli Qin, Jonathan Uesato, Relja Arandjelovic, Timothy Arthur Mann, and Pushmeet Kohli. 2019. Scalable verified training for provably robust image classification. In *2019 IEEE/CVF* International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 4841–4850. Po-Sen Huang, Robert Stanforth, Johannes Welbl, Chris Dyer, Dani Yogatama, Sven Gowal, Krishnamurthy Dvijotham, and Pushmeet Kohli. 2019. Achieving verified robustness to symbol substitutions via interval bound propagation. In *Proceedings of the 2019* Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pages 4081–4091. Takashi Ishida, Ikko Yamane, Tomoya Sakai, Gang Niu, and Masashi Sugiyama. 2020. Do we need zero training loss after achieving zero training error? In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 119, pages 4604–4614. Maor Ivgi and Jonathan Berant. 2021. Achieving model robustness through discrete adversarial training. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1529–1544. Robin Jia, Aditi Raghunathan, Kerem Göksel, and Percy Liang. 2019. Certified robustness to adversarial word substitutions. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pages 4129–4142. Yoon Kim. 2014. Convolutional neural networks for sentence classification. In *Proceedings of the 2014* Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1746–1751. Zongyi Li, Jianhan Xu, Jiehang Zeng, Linyang Li, Xiaoqing Zheng, Qi Zhang, Kai-Wei Chang, and Cho-Jui Hsieh. 2021. Searching for an effective defender: Benchmarking defense against adversarial word substitution. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3137–3147. Qin Liu, Rui Zheng, Bao Rong, Jingyi Liu, Zhihua Liu, Zhanzhan Cheng, Liang Qiao, Tao Gui, Qi Zhang, and Xuanjing Huang. 2022. Flooding-X: Improving bert's resistance to adversarial attacks via lossrestricted fine-tuning. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5634– 5644. Andrew L 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: Human Language Technologies-Volume 1, pages 142–150. Rishabh Maheshwary, Saket Maheshwary, and Vikram Pudi. 2021. Generating natural language attacks in a hard label black box setting. In Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 13525– 13533. Zhao Meng and Roger Wattenhofer. 2020. A geometryinspired attack for generating natural language adversarial examples. In *Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics*, pages 6679–6689. Nikola Mrksic, Diarmuid Ó Séaghdha, Blaise Thomson, Milica Gasic, Lina Maria Rojas-Barahona, Pei-Hao Su, David Vandyke, Tsung-Hsien Wen, and Steve J Young. 2016. Counter-fitting word vectors to linguistic constraints. In The 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 142–148. Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher D Manning. 2014. Glove: Global vectors for word representation. In *Proceedings of the 2014 conference* on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 1532–1543. Shuhuai Ren, Yihe Deng, Kun He, and Wanxiang Che. 2019. Generating natural language adversarial examples through probability weighted word saliency. In *Proceedings of the 57th Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 1085– 1097. Tianxiao Shen, Tao Lei, Regina Barzilay, and Tommi Jaakkola. 2017. Style transfer from non-parallel text by cross-alignment. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, volume 30, pages 6830– 6841. Zhouxing Shi, Yihan Wang, Huan Zhang, Jinfeng Yi, and Cho-Jui Hsieh. 2021. Fast certified robust training with short warmup. *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, 34:18335–18349. Zhouxing Shi, Huan Zhang, Kai-Wei Chang, Minlie Huang, and Cho-Jui Hsieh. 2020. Robustness verification for transformers. In *8th International Conference on Learning Representations*. Chenglei Si, Zhengyan Zhang, Fanchao Qi, Zhiyuan Liu, Yasheng Wang, Qun Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2021. Better robustness by more coverage: Adversarial and mixup data augmentation for robust finetuning. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 1569–1576. Eric Wallace, Shi Feng, Nikhil Kandpal, Matt Gardner, and Sameer Singh. 2019. Universal adversarial triggers for attacking and analyzing nlp. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pages 2153–2162. Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel R Bowman. 2019. GLUE: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. In *7th International Conference on Learning Representations*. Xiaosen Wang, Jin Hao, Yichen Yang, and Kun He. 2021a. Natural language adversarial defense through synonym encoding. In *Proceedings of the ThirtySeventh Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence*, pages 823–833. Xiaosen Wang, Yifeng Xiong, and Kun He. 2022. Detecting textual adversarial examples through randomized substitution and vote. In *Proceedings of the* Thirty-Eighth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pages 2056–2065. Xiaosen Wang, Yichen Yang, Yihe Deng, and Kun He. 2021b. Adversarial training with fast gradient projection method against synonym substitution based text attacks. In *Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on* Artificial Intelligence, pages 13997–14005. Yichen Yang, Xiaosen Wang, and Kun He. 2022. Robust textual embedding against word-level adversarial attacks. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pages 2214–2224. Mao Ye, Chengyue Gong, and Qiang Liu. 2020. Safer: A structure-free approach for certified robustness to adversarial word substitutions. In *Proceedings of the* 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3465–3475. Zhen Yu, Xiaosen Wang, Wanxiang Che, and Kun He. 2022. Learning-based hybrid local search for the hard-label textual attack. In Findings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Yuan Zang, Fanchao Qi, Chenghao Yang, Zhiyuan Liu, Meng Zhang, Qun Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2020. Word-level textual adversarial attacking as combinatorial optimization. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6066–6080. Jiehang Zeng, Xiaoqing Zheng, Jianhan Xu, Linyang Li, Liping Yuan, and Xuanjing Huang. 2021. Certified robustness to text adversarial attacks by randomized [MASK]. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.03743*. Haiteng Zhao, Chang Ma, Xinshuai Dong, Anh Tuan Luu, Zhi-Hong Deng, and Hanwang Zhang. 2022. Certified robustness against natural language attacks by causal intervention. In International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 162 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 26958–26970. Yichao Zhou, Jyun-Yu Jiang, Kai-Wei Chang, and Wei Wang. 2019. Learning to discriminate perturbations for blocking adversarial attacks in text classification. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pages 4903–4912. ## A Proof Of Theorem 1 In Theorem 1, minimizing the objective in Eq. (7) is converted to an optimization objective with respect to the word embeddings. We prove the theorem in two steps. Firstly, we prove the upper bound solution of the optimization objective in Eq. (7) is to minimize the maximum gap between the model's logits and its bound. Secondly, we convert the optimization of the gap to an optimization objective with respect to the word embeddings by backpropagating the interval bound. Lemma 1 The upper bound on the solution of Eq. (7) is minimize max( $$i z e\quad\operatorname*{max}(\left|{\underline{{\mathbf{z}}}}^{K}-{\mathbf{z}}^{K}\right|)+\operatorname*{max}(\left|{\overline{{\mathbf{z}}}}^{K}-{\mathbf{z}}^{K}\right|)\tag{14}$$ where max(·) and | · | *are the element-wise operators.* Proof of Lemma 1. For a fixed model, we have: z K ymax − z K y = (z K ymax − z K ymax ) − (z K y − z K ymax ) + (z K y − z K y) , which is a constant. Therefore, the optimization objective in Eq. (7) is equivalent to: minimize $(\mathbf{z}_{y_{max}}^{K}-\mathbf{z}_{y_{max}}^{K})+(\mathbf{z}_{y}^{K}-\mathbf{z}_{y}^{K})$, $\forall y\in\mathcal{Y},y\neq y_{max}$. (15) Besides, we have the following upper bound relationship: $$\begin{array}{r}{{(\mathbf{z}_{y_{m a x}}^{K}-\mathbf{z}_{y_{m a x}}^{K})\leq\operatorname*{max}(\left|\mathbf{z}^{K}-\mathbf{z}^{K}\right|),}}\\ {{(\mathbf{\overline{{{z}}}}_{y}^{K}-\mathbf{z}_{y}^{K})\leq\operatorname*{max}(\left|\mathbf{\overline{{{z}}}}^{K}-\mathbf{z}^{K}\right|),}}\\ {{\forall y\in\mathcal{Y},y\neq y_{m a x}.}}\end{array}\tag{16}$$ Then, based on Eq. (15) and Eq. (16), we can easily derive that Eq. (14) is the upper bound on the solution of Eq. (7). □ Bound Backpropagation We back-propagate the interval bounds from the output logits to the embedding space through the network layer by layer. Assuming we have already obtained the interval bounds of layer k + 1, we need to calculate the bound of the previous layer k. We mainly deal with two cases: * For an affine transformation, denoted by $\mathbf{z}^{k+1}=\mathbf{Wz}^{k}+\mathbf{b}$, we have: $$\left|\mathbf{z}^{k+1}-\mathbf{z}^{k+1}\right|=\left|\mathbf{W}\right|\left|\mathbf{z}^{k}-\mathbf{z}^{k}\right|,$$ (17) $$\left|\mathbf{z}^{k+1}-\mathbf{z}^{k+1}\right|=\left|\mathbf{W}\right|\left|\mathbf{z}^{k}-\mathbf{z}^{k}\right|,$$ where $\left|\cdot\right|$ is the element-wise absolute value operator. - For an element-wise monotonic activation function (*e.g.* ReLU, tanh, sigmoid), denoted by z k+1 = h(z k), we have: $$\begin{array}{l}{{\left|\underline{{{\bf z}}}^{k+1}-{\bf z}^{k+1}\right|\leq C a\left|\underline{{{\bf z}}}^{k}-{\bf z}^{k}\right|,}}\\ {{\left|\underline{{{\bf z}}}^{k+1}-{\bf z}^{k+1}\right|\leq C a\left|\underline{{{\bf z}}}^{k}-{\bf z}^{k}\right|,}}\end{array}\tag{18}$$ where Ca is the Lipschitz constant of the activation function. For z 0 ∈ R N∗D, we use max∗(·) to denote the max operator over each dimension of the embedding space, and we have max∗(z 0) ∈ R D. With the bound backpropagation, we have: $$\begin{array}{l}{{\left|\overline{{{\bf z}}}^{K}-{\bf z}^{K}\right|\leq{\bf C_{1}}{\mathrm{max}}^{*}(|\overline{{{\bf z}}}^{0}-{\bf z}^{0}|),}}\\ {{\left|{\underline{{{\bf z}}}^{K}-{\bf z}^{K}}\right|\leq{\bf C_{2}}{\mathrm{max}}^{*}(|\underline{{{\bf z}}}^{0}-{\bf z}^{0}|),}}\end{array}\tag{19}$$ where C1 and C2 are calculated by interval bound backpropagation, and they are constant matrices for a fixed model. Then, we can derive the upper bound of the optimization objective in Eq. (14): $$\begin{array}{r l}{{\mathrm{minimize}}}&{{}}&{{\operatorname*{max}^{*}(\left|{\underline{{\mathbf{z}}}}^{0}-{\underline{{\mathbf{z}}}}^{0}\right|)+\operatorname*{max}^{*}(\left|{\overline{{\mathbf{z}}}}^{0}-{\underline{{\mathbf{z}}}}^{0}\right|).}}\end{array}\tag{20}$$ According to Eq. (5), we have: $$\max^{*}(|\underline{\mathbf{z}}^{0}-\underline{\mathbf{z}}^{0}|)\leq\max_{x_{i}\in\mathbf{x}}(\max_{x_{i}^{\prime}\in\mathcal{S}(x_{i})}(|\varphi(x_{i})-\varphi(x_{i}^{\prime})|)),$$ $$\max^{*}(|\overline{\mathbf{z}}^{0}-\underline{\mathbf{z}}^{0}|)\leq\max_{x_{i}\in\mathbf{x}}(\max_{x_{i}^{\prime}\in\mathcal{S}(x_{i})}(|\varphi(x_{i})-\varphi(x_{i}^{\prime})|)),\tag{21}$$ 683 and then we can construct the upper bound on the solution of Eq. (20): minimize $\max(\max(\|\varphi(x_{i})-\varphi(x_{i}^{\prime})\|))$. $x_{i}\in\mathbf{x}\ \mathbf{x}_{i}^{\prime}\in\mathcal{S}(x_{i})$ (2) $$|\rangle).$$ Based on Lemma 1, we can derive that Eq. (22) is the upper bound on the solution of Eq. (7). □ ## B Interval Bound Propagation Here we give a brief description of Interval Bound Propagation (IBP) (Gowal et al., 2018; Jia et al., 2019) on its calculation of bound propagation and training loss. Bound Propagation For Eq. (6), IBP provides corresponding calculation methods for affine layers and monotonic activation functions: - For the affine transformation, denoted by z k+1 = Wzk + b, we have: $$\mathbf{u}^{k+1}=\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{W}(\mathbf{\bar{z}}^{k}+\mathbf{\underline{z}}^{k})+\mathbf{b},$$ $$\mathbf{r}^{k+1}=\frac{1}{2}\left|\mathbf{W}\right|(\mathbf{\bar{z}}^{k}-\mathbf{\underline{z}}^{k}),\tag{23}$$ $$\mathbf{\bar{z}}^{k+1}=\mathbf{u}^{k+1}+\mathbf{r}^{k+1},$$ $$\mathbf{\underline{z}}^{k+1}=\mathbf{u}^{k+1}-\mathbf{r}^{k+1},$$ where *| · |* is the element-wise absolute value operator. - For the element-wise monotonic activation function (*e.g.* ReLU, tanh, sigmoid), denoted by z k+1 = h(z k), we have: $$\begin{array}{l}{{{\bf z}^{k+1}=h({\bf\underline{{z}}}^{k}),}}\\ {{{\bf\underline{{z}}}^{k+1}=h({\bf\underline{{z}}}^{k}).}}\end{array}$$ $$(24)$$ IBP Loss For the interval bounds calculated by Eq. (5), the IBP method scales them with scalar ϵ: $$\begin{array}{l}{{\underline{{{z}}}_{i j}^{0}(\epsilon)=z_{i j}^{0}-\epsilon(z_{i j}^{0}-\underline{{{z}}}_{i j}^{0}),}}\\ {{\overline{{{z}}}_{i j}^{0}(\epsilon)=z_{i j}^{0}+\epsilon(\overline{{{z}}}_{i j}^{0}-z_{i j}^{0}).}}\end{array}$$ $$(25)$$ Using bound propagation, we can get the lower bound and upper bound of logits with the scalar ϵ: z K(ϵ) and z K(ϵ), respectively. Similar to Eq. (3), we can get the worst-case logits and use them to construct the IBP loss: $${\mathcal{L}}_{I B P}(\epsilon)={\mathcal{L}}_{C E}(\mathbf{z}_{w o r s t}^{K}(\epsilon),y_{t r u e}),$$ where LCE is the cross-entropy loss and z K worst(ϵ) is the worst-case logits: $$\mathbf{z}_{w o r s t}^{K}(\epsilon)=\begin{cases}\mathbf{z}_{y t r u e}^{K}(\epsilon)&{\mathrm{if~}}y=y t r u e,\\ \mathbf{\overline{{{z}}}}_{y}^{K}(\epsilon)&{\mathrm{~otherwise.}}\end{cases}\tag{27}$$ Then, IBP loss can be combined with normal cross-entropy loss to train the model and boost the certified robust accuracy: $${\mathcal{L}}_{m o d e l}=(1-\beta){\mathcal{L}}_{C E}({\mathbf{z}}^{K},y_{t r u e})+\beta{\mathcal{L}}_{I B P}(\epsilon).\tag{28}$$ ## C More Experimental Details C.1 Dataset Statistics IMDB is a binary sentiment classification dataset with 25,000 training data and 25,000 testing data. YELP is much larger, with 560,000 training data and 38,000 testing data. SST-2 is one of the classification tasks from GLUE (Wang et al., 2019) and contains 67,350 training data and 873 development data. ## C.2 Detailed Setup For the EIBC+Normal Training method, we divide the overall training process into two steps. In the first step, we use EIBC triplet loss to fine-tune the pretrained word embeddings, namely GloVe word embeddings (Pennington et al., 2014). We use the constant learning rate in the first eemb1 epochs and the cosine decay learning rate schedule in the last eemb2 epochs to decrease the learning rate to 0. In the second step, we freeze the embedding layer and use the normal cross-entropy loss to train the model with e*model* epochs. For the EIBC+IBP training method, we use EIBC triplet loss to train the word embeddings and the IBP training method to train the model simultaneously. We use the constant learning rate in the first e1 epochs and the cosine decay learning rate schedule in the last e2 epochs to decrease the learning rate to 0. For implementing the IBP training method, following Jia et al. (2019), we use a linear warmup over ϵ and β in the first e1 epochs from ϵstart to ϵend and βstart to βend, respectively. All the experiments are run for five times on a single NVIDIA-RTX 3090 GPU and the median of the results is reported. We provide the details of the EIBC+Normal training and EIBC+IBP training method in Table 4 and Table 5, respectively. $$(26)$$ | Dataset | IMDB | YELP | SST-2 | |---------------|----------------------------|--------|---------| | Optimizer | Adam(β1 = 0.9, β2 = 0.999) | | | | Batch size | 32 | | | | Learning rate | 10−3 | | | | Weight decay | 10−4 | 10−3 | | | eemb1 | 15 | | | | eemb2 | 5 | | | | emodel | 1 | | | | α | 10.0 | | | | Total epochs | 21 | | | | GPU hours | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.2 | Table 4: Training configuration and hyperparameters of EIBC+Normal training method. GPU hours are tested on a single NVIDIA-RTX 3090 GPU. Table 5: Training configuration and hyperparameters of EIBC+IBP training method. GPU hours are tested on a single NVIDIA-RTX 3090 GPU. Our implementation of the IBP training method follows the original settings described in Jia et al. (2019) except for a few differences below: | Dataset | IMDB | YELP | SST-2 | |---------------|----------------------------|--------|---------| | Optimizer | Adam(β1 = 0.9, β2 = 0.999) | | | | Batch size | 32 | | | | Learning rate | 10−3 | | | | Weight decay | 10−4 | 10−3 | | | e1 | 20 | 10 | | | e2 | 10 | 5 | | | ϵstart | 0.0 | | | | ϵend | 1.0 | | | | βstart | 0.0 | | | | βend | 1.0 | | | | α | 10.0 | | | | Total epochs | 30 | 15 | | | GPU hours | 0.5 | 1.5 | 0.5 | - We do not use early stopping but instead the cosine decay learning rate schedule to stabilize the training process. - Jia et al. (2019) removes the words that are not in the vocabulary of the counter-fitted GloVe word embeddings space (Mrksic et al., 2016) from the input text data. However, some datasets, such as YELP, contain some short text samples, and such a pre-processing approach would result in no words existing. We retain all the words that appear in the vocabulary of the original GloVe word embeddings, which is a much larger vocabulary. We also show the model performance on the IMDB dataset under the two pre-processing Method Vocab IMDB IBP Training* CF 76.16 GloVe 76.73 EIBC+Normal Training CF 69.54 GloVe 72.37 EIBC+IBP Training* CF 82.40 GloVe **84.78** * Our implementation. Table 6: The certified robust accuracy (%) against word substitutions on the IMDB dataset with different vocabulary. The methods are implemented on TextCNN models. CF means vocabulary of counter-fitted word embeddings. Table 7: The certified robust accuracy (%) of models with different architectures and defense methods on the IMDB dataset. approaches. The results are in Table 6. - We set the βend to 1.0 instead of 0.8 towards higher certified robust accuracy. | Method | Model | IMDB | |-----------------------|---------|--------| | IBP Training* | CNN | 76.00 | | TextCNN | 76.73 | | | EIBC+Normal Training | CNN | 72.22 | | TextCNN | 72.37 | | | EIBC+IBP Training* | CNN | 84.40 | | TextCNN | 84.78 | | | * Our implementation. | | | ## C.3 Robustness On Different Architectures We implement IBP, EIBC with normal training, and EIBC with IBP training on two architectures, *i.e.*, CNN and TextCNN. As shown in Table 7, using the same architectures, EIBC combined with IBP training performs better than IBP on both CNN and TextCNN models. Using the same training method, the models based on the TextCNN architecture perform better than that based on the CNN architecture, because TextCNN is more complicated. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Limitations A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Not applicable. Our work focuses on improving the robustness of NLP models without potential risks as far as we know. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Abstract, 1 ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** 5 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? 5 B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Not applicable. We use publicly available and commonly used datasets for classification tasks. ✓ 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)? 5 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. We use publicly available and commonly used datasets for classification tasks. B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Not applicable. We use publicly available and commonly used datasets for classification tasks. ✓ 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. The number of examples, details of train/test/dev splits ## 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? 5, Appendix C 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? 5, 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? 5, 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.)? 5, Appendix C 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.

liu-etal-2023-exploring

Exploring the Compositional Generalization in Context Dependent Text-to-{SQL} Parsing

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.43

In the context-dependent Text-to-SQL task, the generated SQL statements are refined iteratively based on the user input utterance from each interaction. The input text from each interaction can be viewed as component modifications to the previous SQL statements, which could be further extracted as the modification patterns. Since these modification patterns could also be combined with other SQL statements, the models are supposed to have the compositional generalization to these novel combinations. This work is the first exploration of compositional generalization in context-dependent Text-to-SQL scenarios. To facilitate related studies, we constructed two challenging benchmarks named CoSQL-CG and SParC-CG by recombining the modification patterns and existing SQL statements. The following experiments show that almost all current models struggle on our proposed benchmarks. Furthermore, we found that better aligning the previous SQL statements with the input utterance could give models better combinatorial generalization ability. Based on these observations, we propose a method name p-align to improve the combinatorial generalization of Text-to-SQL models. Further experiments validate the effectiveness of our model.

# Exploring The Compositional Generalization In Context Dependent Text-To-Sql Parsing Cqr-Sql: Conversational Question Reformulation Enhanced Context-Dependent Text-To-Sql Parsers Cqr-Sql: Conversational Question Reformulation Enhanced Context-Dependent Text-To-Sql Parsers Aiwei Liu∗, Wei Liu∗**, Xuming Hu, Shu'Ang Li, Fukun Ma,** Yawen Yang, Lijie Wen† Tsinghua University {liuaw20,liu-w21,hxm19,lisa18, mafk19, yyw19}@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn wenlj@tsinghua.edu.cn ## Abstract In the context-dependent Text-to-SQL task, the generated SQL statements are refined iteratively based on the user input utterance from each interaction. The input text from each interaction can be viewed as component modifications to the previous SQL statements, which could be further extracted as the modification patterns. Since these modification patterns could also be combined with other SQL statements, the models are supposed to have the compositional generalization to these novel combinations. This work is the first exploration of compositional generalization in context-dependent Text-to-SQL scenarios. To facilitate related studies, we constructed two challenging benchmarks named COSQL-CG and SPARC-CG by recombining the modification patterns and existing SQL statements. The following experiments show that all current models struggle on our proposed benchmarks. Furthermore, we found that better aligning the previous SQL statements with the input utterance could give models better compositional generalization ability. Based on these observations, we propose a method named p-align to improve the compositional generalization of Text-to-SQL models. Further experiments validate the effectiveness of our method. Source code and data are available 1 Abstract Context-dependent text-to-SQL is the task of translating multi-turn questions into databaserelated SQL queries. Existing methods typically focus on making full use of history context or previously predicted SQL for currently SQL parsing, while neglecting to explicitly comprehend the schema and conversational dependency, such as co-reference, ellipsis and user focus change. In this paper, we propose CQR-SQL,whichusesauxiliaryConversational Question Reformulation (CQR) learning to explicitly exploit schema and decouple contextual dependency for SQL parsing. Specifically, we first present a schema enhanced recursive CQR method to produce domain-relevant selfcontained questions. Secondly, we train CQRSQL models to map the semantics of multi-turn questions and auxiliary self-contained questions into the same latent space through schema grounding consistency task and tree-structured SQL parsing consistency task, which enhances the abilities of SQL parsing by adequately contextual understanding. At the time of writing, our CQR-SQL achieves new state-of-the-art results on two context-dependent text-to-SQL benchmarks SPARC and COSQL. Context-dependent text-to-SQL is the task of translating multi-turn questions into databaserelated SQL queries. Existing methods typically focus on making full use of history context or previously predicted SQL for currently SQL parsing, while neglecting to explicitly comprehend the schema and conversational dependency, such as co-reference, ellipsis and user focus change. In this paper, we propose CQR-SQL,whichusesauxiliaryConversational Question Reformulation (CQR) learning to explicitly exploit schema and decouple contextual dependency for SQL parsing. Specifically, we first present a schema enhanced recursive CQR method to produce domain-relevant selfcontained questions. Secondly, we train CQRSQL models to map the semantics of multi-turn questions and auxiliary self-contained questions into the same latent space through schema grounding consistency task and tree-structured SQL parsing consistency task, which enhances the abilities of SQL parsing by adequately contextual understanding. At the time of writing, our CQR-SQL achieves new state-of-the-art results on two context-dependent text-to-SQL benchmarks SPARC and COSQL. arXiv:2205.07686v2 [cs.CL] 17 May 2022 ## 1 Introduction Recently, the poor generalization of semantic parsing models to out-of-distribution samples is under increasing attention (Keysers et al., 2020; ?). These examples are usually obtained by recombining existing structures. For example, in the SCAN dataset (Lake and Baroni, 2018a), models may fail to parse "jump twice and walk" even though "jump twice" and "walk" could be parsed successfully. The ability to generalize to novel combinations is 1https://github.com/THU-BPM/CD-Text2SQL-CG ∗Equally Contributed. † Corresponding author. 1 Introduction 1 Introduction Dongling Xiao1⇤, Linzheng Chai2⇤†, Qian-Wen Zhang1**, Zhao Yan**1, Zhoujun Li2 and **Yunbo Cao**1 1Tencent Cloud Xiaowei 2State Key Lab of Software Development Environment, Beihang University, Beijing, China 1{dlxiao,cowenzhang,zhaoyan,yunbocao}@tencent.com 2{challenging,lizj}@buaa.edu.cn Dongling Xiao1⇤, Linzheng Chai2⇤†, Qian-Wen Zhang1**, Zhao Yan**1, Zhoujun Li2 and **Yunbo Cao**1 1Tencent Cloud Xiaowei 2State Key Lab of Software Development Environment, Beihang University, Beijing, China 1{dlxiao,cowenzhang,zhaoyan,yunbocao}@tencent.com 2{challenging,lizj}@buaa.edu.cn | 1Tencent Cloud Xiaowei | | | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------| | Beihang University, Beijing, China | | | | 2{challenging,lizj}@buaa.edu.cn | | | | Training example1 | Training example2 Tell me the names of editor Question1: of age either 24 or 25 | | | Question1: List the distinct names of all nurses | Query1: | SELECT Name FROM editor WHERE Age = 24 OR Age = 25 | | Question2: What about their id? Query2: SELECT id FROM editor WHERE Age = 24 OR Age = 25 | | | | Inference example1 | Inference example2 | | | Question1: Show the names of singers whose birth year is 1984 or 1949 Query1: SELECT DISTINCT name FROM singer WHERE birth =1948 or birth=1949 Question2: Order them in the alpabetical order Query2: Query1: SELECT DISTINCT name FROM nurse Question2: Order them in the alpabetical order SELECT DISTINCT name FROM nurse Query2: ORDER BY name | What are all the distinct airport names? | | | Query1: | SELECT DISTINCT AirportName FROM AIRPORTS | | | Question2: What about their id? Query2: Question1: | | | Abstract Figure 1: During the inference phase, the base queries and their modifications could be re-combined. Models with compositional generalization ability should successfully parse these novel combinations. also known as compositional generalization. Textto-SQL (Yu et al., 2018) allows non-expert users to access the information from the database by converting the user input text into SQL statements executed in the database. As a typical semantic parsing task, the study of its compositional generalization is of great importance. Existing works explore the compositional generalization of Text-to-SQL only in the scenario that precisely maps stand-alone utterances to SQL queries. Shaw et al. (2021) define the atom and compound for SQL statements and propose the TMCD split to repartition the dataset. Gan et al. (2022) annotate the alignment of sub-sentence and sub-SQL in the spider dataset (Yu et al., 2018) and then recombine these sub-SQLs and sub-sentences. In these settings, the SQL statements and user questions in the constructed test split tend to be much more complex. However, it is difficult for users to express complex queries in a stand-alone sentence. In real scenarios, users often start with a simple query and continuously combine additional query conditions with subsequent questions. In this work, we focus on the study of compositional generalization in context-dependent Textto-SQL tasks, which is more natural and applica- Figure 1: An example of context-dependent Text-toSQL task demonstrates the phenomenon of co-reference, ellipsis, and user focus changes. Self-contained questions can be understood without the context. Figure 1: An example of context-dependent Text-toSQL task demonstrates the phenomenon of co-reference, ellipsis, and user focus changes. Self-contained questions can be understood without the context. questions and database schema while considering the contextual dependency and schema structure. As shown in Figure 1, to resolve the contextual dependency, the model should not only understand the *co-reference* and *ellipsis*, but also prevent from irrelevant information integration when user focus changes. Recent studies on two large-scale contextdependent datasets, SPARC (Yu et al., 2019b) and COSQL (Yu et al., 2019a), also show the difficulty of this problem. To our knowledge, there is a lack of explicit guidance for mainstream text-to-SQL researches dealing with contextual dependency. For context-dependent text-to-SQL, it is common to train a model in an end-to-end manner. Suhr et al. (2018) and Zhang et al. (2019) leverage the interaction history to improve the generation quality by copying or editing previously predicted SQL queries. Alternatively, Hui et al. (2021) propose dynamic memory decay mechanisms to incorporate inductive bias to generate enriched contextual relation representation. All of the above works simply encode the concatenation of the multi-turn questions, as shown in Figure 2(a), which seem to be competitive in their evaluation of existing context modeling methods. However, we argue that these end-to-end approaches are inadequate guidance for questions and database schema while considering the contextual dependency and schema structure. As shown in Figure 1, to resolve the contextual dependency, the model should not only understand the *co-reference* and *ellipsis*, but also prevent from irrelevant information integration when user focus changes. Recent studies on two large-scale contextdependent datasets, SPARC (Yu et al., 2019b) and COSQL (Yu et al., 2019a), also show the difficulty of this problem. To our knowledge, there is a lack of explicit guidance for mainstream text-to-SQL researches dealing with contextual dependency. For context-dependent text-to-SQL, it is common to train a model in an end-to-end manner. Suhr et al. (2018) and Zhang et al. (2019) leverage the interaction history to improve the generation quality by copying or editing previously predicted SQL queries. Alternatively, Hui et al. (2021) propose dynamic memory decay mechanisms to incorporate inductive bias to generate enriched contextual relation representation. All of the above works simply encode the concatenation of the multi-turn questions, as shown in Figure 2(a), which seem to be competitive in their evaluation of existing context modeling methods. However, we argue that these end-to-end approaches are inadequate guidance for ble. In the context-dependent Text-to-SQL task (Yu et al., 2019b), the generated SQL statements are refined based on the user input text during each interaction. The input text from each interaction can be viewed as component modifications to the previous SQL statement, which could be further extracted as the modification patterns. Since these modification patterns could also be combined with other SQL statements, the models are supposed to have the compositional generalization to these novel combinations. For example, in Figure 1, the modifications and the queries of the first turn in the training phrase could be re-combined in the inference phrase. Applicable models are supposed to successfully parse these novel combinations. To better investigate compositional generalization in the context-dependent Text-to-SQL, we first construct compositional generalization benchmarks based on the existing datasets. First, we extract the modification patterns from the training dataset and then recombine them with the existing SQL statements in the development set. Note that in the compositional generalization setting, only the recombination results not existing in the training set are kept. To generate the corresponding utterances, we use a semi-automatic approach. The utterances are initially generated by a pre-trained model finetuned on the training data, and then reviewed and verified by human experts. As a result, we create two benchmarks, COSQL-CG and SPARCCG, specifically for the datasets COSQL(Yu et al., 2019a) and SPARC(Yu et al., 2019b). Our experiments reveal that current state-of-the-art models perform poorly on these benchmarks, emphasizing the significance of enhancing compositional generalization capabilities. We further explore how to improve the compositional generalization in context-dependent Text-toSQL tasks. Inspired by the previous works to improve compositional generalization by fine-grained alignment of inputs and outputs (Zheng and Lapata, 2022; Akyürek and Andreas, 2021), we propose a method to better align the current text with the previous SQL statements. We follow the common practice of most competitive Text-to-SQL models which take the concatenation of all utterances as input. Specifically, our proposed p-align method extracts the embedding of the text from each interaction after the encoding process and then decodes them into the corresponding SQL statements separately. Further experiment results show that our p-align method could effectively improve the compositional generalization of current models, which also demonstrates that better alignment of text and SQL statements and the introduction of previous SQL statements are of great importance. To summarize, the main contributions of our paper are as follows: - To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to explore compositional generalization in context-dependent Text-to-SQL. - We construct two benchmarks named COSQL-CG and SPARC-CG to better facilitate the relevant research. - We propose a simple and effective method named p-align to improve the compositional generalization ability of models. ## 2 Related Work 2.1 Context Dependent Text-To-Sql Most current research on Text-to-SQL is conducted under the context-independent setting, with many recent methods achieving excellent results on the Spider dataset (Yu et al., 2018), including graph-based methods such as LGESQL(Cao et al., 2021a), RAT-SQL (Wang et al., 2020) and ISESLSQL (Liu et al., 2022a), as well as sequence-tosequence-based methods like PICARD (Scholak et al., 2021). Recently, with the presentation of two datasets COSQL(Yu et al., 2019a) and SPARC(Yu et al., 2019b), the Text-to-SQL parsing under the context-dependent setting has attracted much attention, which is more realistic and applicable. Subsequently, various methods have been proposed. Among them, SCORE(Yu et al., 2021) and STAR(Cai et al., 2022) aim to train better pre-trained models to improve the parsing ability of models. Also, many sequence-tosequence methods based on T5 pre-trained model like PICARD (Scholak et al., 2021) and RASAT (Qi et al., 2022) have achieved great success. Meanwhile, more methods pay more attention to contextual information or conversation history during encoding, including IGSQL(Cai and Wan, 2020), HIE-SQL(Zheng et al., 2022), and IST-SQL(Wang et al., 2021). Meanwhile, other rewriting-based methods like DELTA(Chen et al., 2021) and CQRSQL(Xiao et al., 2022) reformulate the current and the historical texts into an individual sentence. Different from the previous works, we mainly focus on exploring compositional generalization under context-dependent text-to-SQL settings. ## 2.2 Compositional Generalization Compositional Generalization is an important metric for evaluating the robustness of the model (Liu et al., 2022b) in the field of natural language processing. For semantic parsing tasks, the ability to generalize to structures generated by systematically combining known atomic components is of vital importance. Lake and Baroni (2018b) propose the SCAN dataset, which maps word sequences into navigation command sequences (e.g., jump twice → JUMP JUMP). Their training/evaluation split are constructed in a compositional generalization way. Keysers et al. (2020), introduce CFQ dataset and propose distribution-based compositionality assessment to measure compositional generalization. Hupkes et al. (2020) summerize five different compositionally generalization splits and combine them to generate PCFG SET. Many works focus on improving the compositional generalization of models. This is usually achieved by introducing more detailed lexicon or lexicon-style alignments (Zheng and Lapata, 2022; Akyürek and Andreas, 2021) or adopting a grammar-based decoder (Herzig and Berant, 2021; Qiu et al., 2022b; Guo et al., 2020). Another line of work attempts to synthesize examples utilizing grammar and generative models for data augmentation (Qiu et al., 2022a; Andreas, 2020; Jia and Liang, 2016). Recently, the compositional generalization of Text-to-SQL parsing has gained more and more interest. Shaw et al. (2021) define the atom and compound for SQL statements and propose the TMCD split to repartition the dataset. Gan et al. (2022) annotate the alignment of sub-sentence and subSQL in the spider dataset (Yu et al., 2018) and then recombine these sub-SQLs and sub-sentences. The above works only focus on the Text-to-SQL parsing in the context-independent setting, which precisely maps stand-alone utterances to SQL queries. However, it is difficult for users to express complex queries in a stand-alone sentence. In this work, we first explore the compositional generalization for context-dependent Text-to-SQL Parsing. ## 3 Compositional Generalization In Context-Dependent Text-To-Sql To facilitate the understanding of the following sections, we provide a more detailed explanation of compositional generalization in context-dependent Text-to-SQL parsing in this section. The template split is a typical compositional generalization setting, where the structure templates in the training and test set are completely separated. Our compositional generalization scenario can be viewed as an extension of the template split, where the combination of basic SQL templates and modification templates in the training and test set are separated. Note that basic SQL and modification templates in the test set all appear in the training set individually. For instance, in figure 1, in the inference phrase, although all the templates are seen during training, their combinations are novel. From another point of view, our compositional generalization scenario could also be viewed as a special case of TMCD split (Shaw et al., 2021), where the SQL templates and modification templates could be seen as atoms and their combination results are the compounds. Note the utterance to the SQL templates (first atom) are provided during training, which could be further utilized to improve the compositional generalization (Section 5). ## 4 Benchmark Construction Since there are few data satisfying the compositional generalization setting in the origin SPARC and COSQL development set. We first construct new benchmarks to facilitate the related research. As illustrated in Figure 2, the benchmark construction process can be divided into four steps. The first step is to filter out context-independent examples; next, modification patterns are extracted from the remaining examples; after that, these modification patterns are combined with other SQL statements, and finally, corresponding utterances are generated. ## 4.1 Filter Out Context-Independent Examples It is observed that a significant number of examples in the SPARC or COSQL datasets are contextindependent, meaning that no context information is needed to generate the current queries. In this work, we propose a schema-linking-based method to filter out these context-independent examples. Schema linking is a common technique in Textto-SQL which links the exact or partial occurrences of the column/table names in the question such as the ARILINES and Abbreviation in Figure 2(a). Our main motivation is that if current data is context-dependent, there are some column/table  names not linked to the current question but linked to history questions (context), such as the first example in Figure 2(a). Specifically, the schemas in the target query are represented as S. We use the n-gram matching method to find occurrences S in the current question, where the matched schemas could be represented as Sc. Similarly, the matched schemas in the history questions are represented as Sp. The current example is context-dependent only if Sp − Sc ̸= ∅. Finally, we keep 4270 and 2347 context-dependent examples in SPARC and COSQL training set respectively. ## 4.2 Generate Modification Pattern After filtering out context-independent data, the next step is to generate modification patterns from the remaining context-dependent examples. As shown in Figure 2(b), we first parse current and previous SQL statements into abstract syntax trees and then compare the tree structures to get the modified components. Specifically, a top-down traversal algorithm is adopted to find the different nodes. The nodes along with their children constitute the modified component. Then the generated modification component is anonymized to generate the modification template. Finally, we generate 409 and 191 modification templates for SPARC and COSQL respectively. ## 4.3 Re-Combine Sql Statements With the generated modification patterns, the next step is to re-combine these patterns with other SQL statements to generate new SQL statements. First, modification patterns are filled with new table/column names sampled from target database schemas to generate new modifications. Then the modifications are directly combined with the other SQL statements. Note that in the previous modification pattern generation process, the relationship of the schema is kept (e.g. primary key and foreign key relationships) and the table/column name sampling results must conform to the above relationship constraints. As mentioned in Section 3, the combination process requires that the base SQL templates and modification templates are all shown in the training set but their combinations are novel. Finally, we generate 5958 and 2594 combination results in SparC and CoSQL respectively. ## 4.4 Utterance Generation The final step of our benchmark construction is to generate the context-dependent utterance for the generated SQL statements. Since pre-trained language models have shown great ability in text generation, we first utilize a fine-tuned T5 model (Raffel et al., 2020) to generate the context-dependent utterance. More specifically, the input to the T5 model is the concatenation of the modification, previous SQL statement, and previous utterance. For the utterance generated by the T5 model may be noisy, we further invite human experts to filter and revise the generated data. The first task of human experts is to remove SQL statements that don't fit realistic scenarios. For example, the statement SELECT Count(loser_entry) FROM matches ORDER BY matches.winner_age is invalid because the function Count() and the clause ORDER BY usually do not appear together. The second task of the human experts is to revise the utterances generated by the T5 model as shown in Figure 2(d). To ensure annotation consistency, we introduce two experts to double-check the annotated results. Finally, after the filtering and revising process, we get 372 and 267 questions for SPARC  340 [x1*,....x*j ] is an utterance with j words, the encoder 341 aims to generate embeddings for each word such 342 that X = H(X). In the origin decoding process, 343 the result query y could be represented as action sequences [a1*,...a*t 344 ] and the whole process could 345 be represented as the product of probabilities for 346 each generation step as follows: and COSQL datasets respectively, which further construct our SPARC-CG and COSQL-CG benchmarks. More detailed statistics of the benchmarks will be described in the experiment section. Y T t=1 p (at 347 | {a1*,...,a*t1} , X). (1) Y T t=1 p (at 347 | {a1*,...,a*t1} , X). (1) ## 5 Methods 348 In our p-align method, the utterance embeddings 349 of each interaction are extracted to decode the cor-350 responding SQL statements. As shown in Figure 351 3, the decoder process of our p-align could be 352 represented as: After constructing the SPARC-CG and COSQLCG, we further explore how to improve the compositional generalization in context-dependent Textto-SQL parsing. According to the previous works (Zheng and Lapata, 2022; Akyürek and Andreas, 2021), the key to improving the compositional generalization is to construct better component alignment between inputs and outputs. In the contextdependent Text-to-SQL settings, the utterancequery pair of previous interactions could be utilized to align input utterances and output queries. Based on this motivation, we propose p-align to improve the compositional generalization of existing Text-to-SQL models. Note that our method follows the common practice of most competitive Text-to-SQL models which take the concatenation of all utterances as input. Specifically, given the input utterances X = [X1, X2*, ..., X*n] at the n-th interaction, where Xn = [x1*, ....x*j ] is an utterance with j words, the encoder aims to generate embeddings for each word such that X = H(X). In the origin decoding process, the result query y could be represented as an action sequence [a1*, ...a*t] and the whole decoding process could be represented as the product of X n i=1 Y Ti t=1 p ait | ai1*,...,a*it1 , Xi 353 . (2) X n i=1 Y Ti t=1 p ait | ai1*,...,a*it1 , Xi 353 . (2) 354 In this way, our p-align method aligns some part 355 of the input utterance to the previous queries and 354 In this way, our p-align method aligns some part 355 of the input utterance to the previous queries and Table 1: The detailed statistics of SPARC-CG and COSQL-CG benchmark. 表格 1 where 149 0.400537634408602 groupby 66 0.17741935483871 Ieu 1 0.00268817204301075 Groupby-orderby 27 0.0725806451612903 Orderby 86 0.231182795698925 Where-groupby 19 0.0510752688172043 Where orderby 24 0.0645161290322581 QM Accuracy (%)STAR SCORE BERT w/o PLM (a) SPARC easy medium hard extra hard 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 | 60.0 | | | | | |----------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|--------------------------|------------|------------| | QM Accuracy (%) | STAR | 50.0 40.0 30.0 | | | | SCORE | 20.0 | | | | | w/o PLM BERT | 10.0 | | | | | (a) SPARC | | | | | | 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 easy | medium | hard | extra hard | | | 0.0 | 70.0 | | | | | QM Accuracy (%) | STAR | 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 | | | | SCORE BERT | 10.0 | | | | | w/o PLM | | | | | | 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 easy | medium | hard | extra hard | | | 0.0 | | | | | | # Questions | # Non-CG Questions | # CG Questions | | | | SPARC | 1625 | 491 | 31 | | | SPARC-CG | 921 | 491 | 372 | | | COSQL | 1300 | 207 | 14 | | | COSQL-CG | 471 | 207 | 167 | | | 80.0 70.0 | | | | | | QM Accuracy (%) | STAR | 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 | | | | SCORE BERT w/o PLM | 10.0 easy | medium | hard | extra hard | | 0.0 | | | | | | 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 easy | medium | hard | extra hard | | | 0.0 | 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 | | | | | STAR | 40.0 | | | | | SCORE BERT | 30.0 | | | | | w/o PLM | QM Accuracy (%) | STAR SCORE BERT w/o PLM | | | | where | 68 | | | | | groupby | 23 | | | | | Ieu | 1 | | | | | Groupby-orderby | 16 | | | | | Orderby | 40 | | | | | Where-groupby | 2 | | | | | Where orderby | 16 | 80.0 70.0 | | | | QM Accuracy (%) | STAR | 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 | | | | SCORE | 20.0 | | | | | BERT | 10.0 | | | | | w/o PLM | | | | | | 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 easy | medium | hard | extra hard | | | 0.0 | 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 QM Accuracy (%) | STAR SCORE BERT w/o PLM | | | | Question2 | Question3 | | | | | order them by | Just show their | | | | | their memership | names | SCORE STAR BERT w/o PLM | | | QM Accuracy (%)STAR SCORE BERT w/o PLM (a) SPARCeasy medium hard extra hard 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 STAR SCORE BERT w/o PLM (b) COSQLTurn 1 Turn 2 Turn 3 Turn>= 4 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 QM Accuracy (%)STAR SCORE BERT w/o PLM (c) SPARCTurn 1 Turn 2 Turn 3 Turn>= 4 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 QM Accuracy (%)STAR SCORE BERT w/o PLM (c) SPARCTurn 1 Turn 2 Turn 3 Turn>= 4 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 show all visitors Question2 order them by their memership Question3 Just show their names STAR SCORE BERT w/o PLM (d) COSQL Figure 4: The results of STAR and baselines on SPARC and COSQL dev sets (a-b) by varying the difficulty levels of the data and (c-d) by varying the conversation turns. STAR SCORE BERT w/o PLM (d) COSQL Figure 4: The results of STAR and baselines on SPARC and COSQL dev sets (a-b) by varying the difficulty levels of the data and (c-d) by varying the conversation turns.  Figure 4: The results of STAR and baselines on SPARC and COSQL dev sets (a-b) by varying the difficulty levels of the data and (c-d) by varying the conversation turns. ModelCOSQL **SPARC** QM IM QM IM STAR 59.7 30.0 66.9 46.9 STAR w/o structural 59.1 29.0 66.5 46.7 STAR w/o semantic 59.5 29.6 66.8 46.5 STAR w/o UDT 58.0 28.6 66.4 46.1 Table 3: Results of STAR on the dev sets of SPARC and COSQL by using different metrics for calculating et al., 2021a) and **SCORE** (Yu et al., 2021b). In particular, GRAPPA and SCORE are the representative TaLMs for context-independent and contextdependent text-to-SQL parsing, respectively. Figure 4: The results of STAR and baselines on SPARC and COSQL dev sets (a-b) by varying the difficulty levels of the data and (c-d) by varying the conversation turns. ModelCOSQL **SPARC** QM IM QM IM STAR 59.7 30.0 66.9 46.9 STAR w/o structural 59.1 29.0 66.5 46.7 STAR w/o semantic 59.5 29.6 66.8 46.5 STAR w/o UDT 58.0 28.6 66.4 46.1 Table 3: Results of STAR on the dev sets of SPARC and COSQL by using different metrics for calculating et al., 2021a) and **SCORE** (Yu et al., 2021b). In particular, GRAPPA and SCORE are the representative TaLMs for context-independent and contextdependent text-to-SQL parsing, respectively. UDT loss (called w/o UDT), and both SST and UDT (called w/o SST+UDT) respectively. Table 2 shows the ablation test results on both SPARC and COSQL. We can observe that removing the SST or UDT objective bring the most significant performance drop. Not surprisingly, combining all the three objectives achieves the best results on both Effectiveness of SQL Similarity Metrics To analyze the impact of metrics for calculating the SQL similarity in STAR, we also conduct an ablation test by removing the structural similarity metric (called w/o structural), the semantic similarity metric (called w/o semantic), and both (called w/o UDT), respectively. Table 3 shows the ablation test results on the dev sets of SPARC and COSQL. As expected, both similarity metrics contribute great improvements to STAR. Effectiveness of Synthesized Pre-training Data We also analyze the quality of our constructed pretraining data. We compare our pre-training data with the data created by SCORE (Yu et al., 2021b) which to our knowledge is the only existing work on pre-training for context-dependent text-to-SQL parsing. Since the pre-training data created by SCORE is inapplicable to the LUDT objective, we merely employ LMLM (denoted as STAR w/ MLM) and LMLM + LSST (denoted as STAR w/ MLM + SST) as the pre-training objectives in the experiments. As shown in Table 4, our pre-training data is more effective than the pre-training data created by SCORE. 5.4 Discussion Model Comparison on Samples with Different Levels of Difficulty The SQL queries in both SPARC and COSQL can be further divided into four levels based on the difficulty of the SQL queries: easy, medium, hard, extra hard, which can be used to better evaluate the model performance on different queries. As shown in Figure thus improves the compositional generalization of 356 models. 357 UDT loss (called w/o UDT), and both SST and UDT (called w/o SST+UDT) respectively. Table 2 shows the ablation test results on both SPARC and COSQL. We can observe that removing the SST or UDT objective bring the most significant performance drop. Not surprisingly, combining all the three objectives achieves the best results on both Effectiveness of SQL Similarity Metrics To analyze the impact of metrics for calculating the SQL similarity in STAR, we also conduct an ablation test by removing the structural similarity metric (called w/o structural), the semantic similarity metric (called w/o semantic), and both (called w/o UDT), respectively. Table 3 shows the ablation test results on the dev sets of SPARC and COSQL. As expected, both similarity metrics contribute great improvements to STAR. Effectiveness of Synthesized Pre-training Data We also analyze the quality of our constructed pretraining data. We compare our pre-training data with the data created by SCORE (Yu et al., 2021b) which to our knowledge is the only existing work on pre-training for context-dependent text-to-SQL parsing. Since the pre-training data created by SCORE is inapplicable to the LUDT objective, we merely employ LMLM (denoted as STAR w/ MLM) and LMLM + LSST (denoted as STAR w/ MLM + SST) as the pre-training objectives in the experiments. As shown in Table 4, our pre-training data is more effective than the pre-training data created by SCORE. 5.4 Discussion Model Comparison on Samples with Different Levels of Difficulty The SQL queries in both SPARC and COSQL can be further divided into four levels based on the difficulty of the SQL queries: easy, medium, hard, extra hard, which can be used to better evaluate the model performance on different queries. As shown in Figure 331 to better align input utterances and output queries. 332 Based on this motivation, we propose p-align to 333 improve the compositional generalization of exist-334 ing Text-to-SQL models. Note that our method 335 follows the common practice of most competitive 336 Text-to-SQL models which take the concatenation 337 of all utterances as input. 338 Specifically, given the input utterance X = 339 [X1,X2*,...,X*n] at n-th interaction, where Xn = 340 [x1*,....x*j ] is an utterance with j words, the encoder 341 aims to generate embeddings for each word such 342 that X = H(X). In the origin decoding process, 343 the result query y could be represented as action sequences [a1*,...a*t 344 ] and the whole process could 345 be represented as the product of probabilities for 346 each generation step as follows: 6 Experiment 358 In this section, we first conduct a detailed analysis 359 of our constructed SParC-CG and CoSQL-CG bench- 360 marks. We experiment with current competitive 361 models on our benchmarks. Finally, several analy- 362 ses are conducted to verify the effectiveness of our 363 p-align method. 364 (a) SPARC-CG 365 (b) COSQL-CG 366 5.2 Model Comparison on Downstream 6.2 Experiment Setup 368 References 369 probabilities for each generation step as follows: Y t=1 p (at| {a1, . . . , at−1} , X). (1) are summarized in Table 1. STAR outperforms all the compared methods on the two datasets by a noticeable margin. First, STAR achieves substantially LGESQL as the base model. comparison, the four compared PLMs also leverage LGESQL as the base model. The experimental results on SPARC and COSQL T 5.2 Model Comparison on Downstream In the experiments, we choose LGESQL (Cao et al., 2021) as our base model given its superior performance. Since LGESQL is originally developed for single-turn setting, we extend LGESQL to contextdependent setting by taking as input the concatenation of historical and current utterances. For a fair comparison, the four compared PLMs also leverage LGESQL as the base model. The experimental results on SPARC and COSQL are summarized in Table 1. STAR outperforms all the compared methods on the two datasets by a noticeable margin. First, STAR achieves substantially better results than the four strong PLMs. In particular, STAR surpasses the well-known SCORE by 7.4% QM score and 7.5% IM score on the COSQL dev set. Second, LGESQL+STAR achieves better results than the compared downstream methods which use BERT, ROBERTA, SCORE, GRAPPA as the PLMs, such as the best performing baseline HIE-SQL+GRAPPA. 5.3 Ablation Study Effectiveness of Pre-training Objectives We conduct ablation test to investigate the effectiveness of each pre-training objective in STAR. We report the results of removing the MLM loss (called w/o MLM), the SST loss (called w/o SST), the 2021) as our base model given its superior performance. Since LGESQL is originally developed for single-turn setting, we extend LGESQL to contextdependent setting by taking as input the concatenation of historical and current utterances. For a fair comparison, the four compared PLMs also leverage LGESQL as the base model. The experimental results on SPARC and COSQL better results than the four strong PLMs. In particular, STAR surpasses the well-known SCORE by 7.4% QM score and 7.5% IM score on the COSQL dev set. Second, LGESQL+STAR achieves better results than the compared downstream methods which use BERT, ROBERTA, SCORE, GRAPPA as the PLMs, such as the best performing baseline HIE-SQL+GRAPPA. 5.3 Ablation Study Effectiveness of Pre-training Objectives We conduct ablation test to investigate the effectiveness of each pre-training objective in STAR. We report the results of removing the MLM loss (called w/o MLM), the SST loss (called w/o SST), the HIE-SQL+GRAPPA. 5.3 Ablation Study the PLMs, such as the best performing baseline HIE-SQL+GRAPPA. 5.3 Ablation Study Xn i=1 Y Ti t=1 p a i t| a i 1, . . . , ait−1 , X≤i . (2) 5 In the experiments, we choose LGESQL (Cao et al., 2021) as our base model given its superior performance. Since LGESQL is originally developed for single-turn setting, we extend LGESQL to contextdependent setting by taking as input the concatenation of historical and current utterances. For a fair comparison, the four compared PLMs also leverage The experimental results on SPARC and COSQL are summarized in Table 1. STAR outperforms all the compared methods on the two datasets by a noticeable margin. First, STAR achieves substantially better results than the four strong PLMs. In particular, STAR surpasses the well-known SCORE by 7.4% QM score and 7.5% IM score on the COSQL dev set. Second, LGESQL+STAR achieves better results than the compared downstream methods which use BERT, ROBERTA, SCORE, GRAPPA as the PLMs, such as the best performing baseline Effectiveness of Pre-training Objectives We conduct ablation test to investigate the effectiveness of each pre-training objective in STAR. We report the results of removing the MLM loss (called w/o MLM), the SST loss (called w/o SST), the In the experiments, we choose LGESQL (Cao et al., 2021) as our base model given its superior performance. Since LGESQL is originally developed for single-turn setting, we extend LGESQL to contextdependent setting by taking as input the concatenation of historical and current utterances. For a fair are summarized in Table 1. STAR outperforms all the compared methods on the two datasets by a noticeable margin. First, STAR achieves substantially better results than the four strong PLMs. In particular, STAR surpasses the well-known SCORE by 7.4% QM score and 7.5% IM score on the COSQL dev set. Second, LGESQL+STAR achieves better results than the compared downstream methods which use BERT, ROBERTA, SCORE, GRAPPA as Effectiveness of Pre-training Objectives We conduct ablation test to investigate the effectiveness of each pre-training objective in STAR. We report the results of removing the MLM loss (called w/o MLM), the SST loss (called w/o SST), the ``` Ekin Akyürek and Jacob Andreas. 2021. Lexicon learn- 370 ing for few-shot neural sequence modeling. CoRR, 371 abs/2106.03993. 372 Jacob Andreas. 2020. Good-enough compositional data 373 augmentation. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual 374 Meeting of the Association for Computational Lin- 375 guistics, pages 7556–7566, Online. Association for 376 Computational Linguistics. 377 Yitao Cai and Xiaojun Wan. 2020. IGSQL: Database 378 schema interaction graph based neural model for 379 context-dependent text-to-SQL generation. In Pro- 380 ceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Meth- 381 ods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), 382 pages 6903–6912, Online. Association for Computa- 383 tional Linguistics. 384 Ekin Akyürek and Jacob Andreas. 2021. Lexicon learn- 370 ing for few-shot neural sequence modeling. CoRR, 371 abs/2106.03993. 372 Jacob Andreas. 2020. Good-enough compositional data 373 augmentation. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual 374 Meeting of the Association for Computational Lin- 375 guistics, pages 7556–7566, Online. Association for 376 Computational Linguistics. 377 Yitao Cai and Xiaojun Wan. 2020. IGSQL: Database 378 schema interaction graph based neural model for 379 context-dependent text-to-SQL generation. In Pro- 380 ceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Meth- 381 ods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), 382 pages 6903–6912, Online. Association for Computa- 383 tional Linguistics. 384 ``` 348 In our p-align method, the utterance embeddings 349 of each interaction are extracted to decode the cor-350 responding SQL statements. As shown in Figure 351 3, the decoder process of our p-align could be 352 represented as: In our p-align method, the utterance embeddings of each interaction are extracted to decode the corresponding SQL statements. As shown in Figure 3, the decoder process of our p-align could be represented as: 5 In this way, our p-align method aligns corresponding parts of the input utterance to the previous queries and thus improves the compositional generalization ability of models. ## 6 Experiment In this section, we first perform more detailed statistics on our constructed SPARC-CG and COSQLCG. Then we further analyze our benchmarks with current competitive Text-to-SQL models. Finally, several experiments are conducted to verify the effectiveness of our p-align method. ## 6.1 Benchmark Statistics The detailed statistics of SPARC-CG and COSQLCG are shown in Table 1. We mainly count three metrics here: \# Question, \# Non-CG Questions, and \# CG Questions, where \# Question is the total | Methods / Datasets | SPARC | COSQL | | | | | |-----------------------------------------------|---------|---------|-------------|--------|------|-------------| | Dev | Non-CG | CG | Dev | Non-CG | CG | | | SPIC (CONCAT) + BERT-Large (Liu et al., 2020) | 55.3 | 63.4 | 18.9(36.4↓) | 45.2 | 52.3 | 13.3(31.9↓) | | SPIC (TURN) + BERT-Large (Liu et al., 2020) | 54.6 | 62.1 | 18.2(36.4↓) | 44.8 | 51.3 | 12.2(32.6↓) | | SPIC (GATE) + BERT-Large (Liu et al., 2020) | 54.3 | 62.4 | 17.3(37.0↓) | 44.2 | 51.8 | 12.4(31.8↓) | | RAT-SQL + SCORE (Yu et al., 2021) | 60.4 | 69.6 | 22.4(38.0↓) | 52.1 | 55.6 | 20.4(31.7↓) | | LGESQL + ELECTRA-Large (Cao et al., 2021b) | 65.0 | 73.4 | 25.3(39.7↓) | 54.4 | 62.4 | 21.0(33.4↓) | | LGESQL + STAR (Cai et al., 2022) | 66.9 | 75.4 | 25.8(41.1↓) | 59.7 | 68.4 | 26.3(33.4↓) | | PICARD + T5-3B (Scholak et al., 2021) | - | - | - | 56.9 | 58.1 | 21.5(35.4↓) | | RASAT + T5-3B (Qi et al., 2022) | 66.7 | 75.8 | 22.0(44.7↓) | 58.8 | 67.9 | 20.4(38.4↓) | Table 2: Question match accuracy of current competitive models on three different benchmarks: Dev, Non-CG, and CG. For all the models, we adopt the given parameters. number of questions, \# CG Questions is the number of questions that meet the definition of compositional generalization in Section 3 and \# Non-CG Questions is the number of in-domain questions (the templates and combination of templates are both seen in training). The Non-CG questions in SPARC-CG and COSQL-CG are obtained directly from the SPARC and COSQL datasets. The number of CG questions in our benchmarks is far more than in that SPARC and COSQL. Note that a large portion of the data in the SPARC and COSQL datasets is context-independent or has no context, which makes the sum of \# Non-CG Questions and \# CG Questions relatively small. We present the components distributions of modification patterns of SPARC-CG and COSQL-CG in Figure 4. The most common component in modification patterns is where. *Orderby* and *groupby* also take a large proportion. There are also many modification patterns that include multiple components, such as *where-groupby* and *where-orderby*. Finally, the distributions of modification patterns in SPARC-CG and COSQL-CG are similar, which illustrates our benchmark construction's consistency. Note that the *select* components are not counted, as they are included in almost all modifications. ## 6.2 Experiment Setup Models. We adopt many current competitive Textto-SQL models to explore the impact of compositional generalization. SPIC (Liu et al., 2020) is a simple model which explores different methods to incorporate context questions, where SPIC (CONCAT) concatenates context questions with current questions, SPIC (TURN) employs a turn-level encoder to capture the inter-dependencies among questions in different turns and SPIC (GATE) uses a gate mechanism to compute the importance of each question. SCORE and STAR (Cai et al., 2022) are two specialized pre-trained models for RATSQL and LGESQL(Cao et al., 2021b) respectively. PICARD (Scholak et al., 2021) and RASAT (Qi et al., 2022) are two seq2seq based models based on pre-trained T5 model (Raffel et al., 2020). Evaluation Metric. We mainly use the question match (QM) (Yu et al., 2019b) as our evaluation metric, which is the exact set matching score (Yu et al., 2018) over all questions. The exact set matching score decomposes predicted queries into SQL components such as SELECT and WHERE and then computes scores for each component. For each model, we report the QM on the origin SPARC/COSQL development set as well as the Non-CG and CG benchmarks. Note that the *interaction match* (Yu et al., 2019b) is not reported in our paper because we are only interested in the scores of the model on questions satisfying the compositional generalization condition. ## 6.3 Evaluation On Sparc-Cg/Co**Sql-Cg** We report the question match accuracy on SPARC and COSQL datasets under three benchmarks: Dev, Non-CG, and CG in Table 2. Based on the above results, we summarize the following observations. (1) The accuracy of all models significantly decreases under the compositional generalization setting. Specifically, the QM on SPARC-CG and COSQL-CG decreases 39.3 and 33.6 on average compared to the origin development set, which indicates current models lack the compositional generalization ability. (2) The models perform better on the Non-CG benchmarks than the origin development set (8.4 and 6.5 on average for SPARC and COSQL respectively), which demonstrates that in-domain data are easily generalized. (3) CONCAT could better incorporate context | SQL Components | DEV | Non-CG | CG | |----------------------|-------|----------|------| | SELECT | 84.6 | 88.2 | 60.2 | | SELECT (no AGG) | 86.3 | 89.3 | 62.9 | | WHERE | 80.6 | 91.8 | 62.5 | | WHERE(no OP) | 85.1 | 95.3 | 69.2 | | GROUP BY (no HAVING) | 81.1 | 85.7 | 66.4 | | GROUP BY | 76.9 | 81.6 | 54.5 | | ORDER BY | 78.2 | 82.0 | 58.3 | | AND/OR | 99.0 | 99.3 | 91.2 | | KEYWORDS | 86.3 | 92.8 | 67.1 | questions than TURN and GATE. Therefore, our p-align is only designed for the CONCAT method. (4) The grammar tree-based decoder (LGESQL) and the larger language model (T5-3B) could help improve the compositional generalization ability. ## 6.4 Detailed Evaluation Evaluation Ay Different Levels Of Difficulty. The SQL queries could be divided into four difficulty levels based on the complexity of SQL statements: easy, medium, hard and extra hard. To better demonstrate the performance in the compositional generalization setting, we conduct further evaluations on different levels of difficulties. As shown in Figure 5a-b, the STAR model performs worse on the CG benchmark than on the original development set at all difficulties, which further indicates the model's compositional generalization ability requires further improvement. Meanwhile, there is an obvious improvement in the Non-CG benchmark compared to the original development set. Evaluation at Different Turns. We further illustrate the question match accuracy on three benchmarks with the increase of conversation turns in Figure 5c-d. The accuracy decreases sharply on the CG benchmark and the origin development set while staying stable on the non-CG benchmark. This suggests that the compositional generalization ability of models decreases with the increase of conversation turns. Evaluation on different components. To better investigate the poor performance of the current competitive models under the compositional generalization setting, we further report the question match accuracy on different detailed SQL components in Table 3. The reported results are the average results over STAR and RASAT on three benchmarks of SPARC. As demonstrated in the ta- Table 4: The results of different models w. & w/o p-align on three benchmarks of SPARC and COSQL. | Methods | DEV | Non-CG | CG | |----------------------------|-------|----------|------------| | SPARC | | | | | SPIC (CONCAT) + BERT-Base | 47.6 | 53.5 | 8.9 | | w. p-align | 50.6 | 54.1 | 16.4(7.5↑) | | SPIC (CONCAT) + BERT-Large | 55.3 | 63.4 | 19.5 | | w. p-align | 56.1 | 63.8 | 20.6(1.1↑) | | LGESQL + ELECTRA-Large | 65.0 | 73.4 | 25.3 | | w. p-align | 64.8 | 73.0 | 26.2(0.9↑) | | COSQL | | | | | SPIC (CONCAT) + BERT-Base | 39.2 | 35.0 | 5.2 | | w. p-align | 40.5 | 36.2 | 9.6(4.4↑) | | SPIC (CONCAT) + BERT-Large | 45.2 | 52.3 | 12.2 | | w. p-align | 45.5 | 52.7 | 14.4(2.2↑) | | LGESQL + ELECTRA-Large | 54.4 | 62.4 | 21.0 | | w. p-align | 53.8 | 62.3 | 21.2(0.2↑) | Table 5: Statistical analysis of different error types on SPARC-CG benchmark. | Error component | STAR | RASAT | LGESQL | |-----------------------------|--------|---------|----------| | Context Info | 24 | 15 | 25 | | Modification Info | 149 | 136 | 139 | | Context & Modification Info | 112 | 128 | 127 | ble, nearly all components' accuracy significantly decreases under the compositional generalization setting, which illustrates the impact of compositional generalization on the models is balanced. ## 6.5 Evaluation Of P-Align **Method** Table 4 shows the results of different models with & without p-align on three benchmarks of SPARC and COSQL. We choose SPIC (CONCAT) + BERT-Base, SPIC (CONCAT) + BERT-large and LGESQL+ELECTRA-Large as our base models because other models are either customized pretrained models (STAR and SCORE) or with a too large model(T5-3B). All the hyperparameters are the same as the original model. Overall, our p-align method significantly improves the performance of the model on the CG benchmarks, with an average improvement of 3.2 and 2.3 on the SParC-CG and CoSQL-CG benchmarks respectively. While the improvement on DEV and Non-CG benchmarks is relatively small, at 0.77 and 0.35 on average respectively, this suggests that our method is particularly effective in compositional generalization settings. These results support our hypothesis that improving alignment between utterances and queries can enhance the model's compositional generalization abilities, and should be considered as a potential direction for future research.    Case #1 Error at the modification info Question: How many **abandoned** are in HUS? ## 6.6 Error Analysis To evaluate the compositional generalization ability of current models, we selected four incorrect prediction results from the SPARC-CG benchmark. For each example, we provided the context, the current question, the correct query, and the prediction results from STAR and RASAT. As illustrated in Figure 6, in the first two scenarios, the models struggle to accurately interpret the changes brought about by current questions, despite maintaining a grasp of the context information. Conversely, in the third case, the models are able to interpret the modifications of the current question, but fail to take into account the context information. The fourth case represents the worstcase scenario, with the models unable to correctly parse either the modifications or the context information. Note that the incorrect results predicted by both models in the first three cases are similar, indicating that the failure of the current models to perform well in a compositional generalization setting is a widespread issue, not an isolated incident. The presented case study categorizes three scenarios where current models make incorrect predictions, which include: failing to consider contextual information, inability to interpret modifications, and failing to understand both modifications and context. We further conduct statistical analysis on the SParC-CG benchmark in Table 5 and found that the majority of errors occur when models cannot interpret modifications. Additionally, when models neglect context, they also tend to misinterpret modifications. Interestingly, the proportion of errors for the different models evaluated in the study is quite similar, indicating that the compositional generalization challenges faced by these models are consistent across them. ## 7 Conclusion In this study, we conduct the first exploration of compositional generalization in context-dependent Text-to-SQL scenarios. To support further research in this area, we construct two benchmarks named SPARC-CG and COSQL-CG composed of out-ofdistribution examples. Additionally, we introduce the p-align method to enhance the compositional generalization capabilities of existing models. Further experiments show that current models perform poorly on our constructed benchmarks and demonstrate the effectiveness of our p-align method. Also, with the recent advancements in generative language models, such as GPT3.5 and GPT4 (OpenAI, 2023), explorations into these models (Liu et al., 2023) should also constitute a significant part of future work. ## Acknowledgement The work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (No. 2019YFB1704003), the National Nature Science Foundation of China (No. 62021002), Tsinghua BNRist and Beijing Key Laboratory of Industrial Bigdata System and Application. ## 8 Limitations In this paper, the approach to improve the compositional generalization under the context-dependent setting is insufficient. We only construct a better component alignment between inputs and outputs for models taking the concatenation of all utterances as input. However, it is important to note that other methods, such as using a turn-level encoder or implementing a gate mechanism, should also be considered. Additionally, other types of methods are also ignored. Future research could explore data augmentation techniques (Hu et al., 2022) and enhanced training objectives, such as meta-learning (Hu et al., 2021) and contrastive learning(Liu et al., 2022c; Li et al., 2023; Hu et al., 2020), as potential avenues for improvement. ## References Ekin Akyürek and Jacob Andreas. 2021. Lexicon learning for few-shot neural sequence modeling. *CoRR*, abs/2106.03993. Jacob Andreas. 2020. Good-enough compositional data augmentation. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7556–7566, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yitao Cai and Xiaojun Wan. 2020. IGSQL: Database schema interaction graph based neural model for context-dependent text-to-SQL generation. In *Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)*, pages 6903–6912, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Zefeng Cai, Xiangyu Li, Binyuan Hui, Min Yang, Bowen Li, Binhua Li, Zheng Cao, Weijie Li, Fei Huang, Luo Si, et al. 2022. Star: Sql guided pretraining for context-dependent text-to-sql parsing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11888. Ruisheng Cao, Lu Chen, Zhi Chen, Yanbin Zhao, Su Zhu, and Kai Yu. 2021a. LGESQL: Line graph enhanced text-to-SQL model with mixed local and non-local relations. 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 2541–2555, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ruisheng Cao, Lu Chen, Zhi Chen, Yanbin Zhao, Su Zhu, and Kai Yu. 2021b. LGESQL: line graph enhanced text-to-sql model with mixed local and nonlocal relations. 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 2541–2555. Association for Computational Linguistics. Zhi Chen, Lu Chen, Hanqi Li, Ruisheng Cao, Da Ma, Mengyue Wu, and Kai Yu. 2021. Decoupled dialogue modeling and semantic parsing for multi-turn text-to-SQL. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021*, pages 3063–3074, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yujian Gan, Xinyun Chen, Qiuping Huang, and Matthew Purver. 2022. Measuring and improving compositional generalization in text-to-SQL via component alignment. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022, pages 831– 843, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yinuo Guo, Zeqi Lin, Jian-Guang Lou, and Dongmei Zhang. 2020. Hierarchical poset decoding for compositional generalization in language. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 6-12, 2020, virtual. Jonathan Herzig and Jonathan Berant. 2021. Spanbased semantic parsing for compositional generalization. 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 908–921. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xuming Hu, Yong Jiang, Aiwei Liu, Zhongqiang Huang, Pengjun Xie, Fei Huang, Lijie Wen, and Philip S Yu. 2022. Entda: Entity-to-text based data augmentation approach for named entity recognition tasks. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2210.10343. Xuming Hu, Lijie Wen, Yusong Xu, Chenwei Zhang, and Philip S. Yu. 2020. Selfore: Self-supervised relational feature learning for open relation extraction. In *Proc. of EMNLP*, pages 3673–3682. Xuming Hu, Chenwei Zhang, Fukun Ma, Chenyao Liu, Lijie Wen, and Philip S. Yu. 2021. Semi-supervised relation extraction via incremental meta self-training. In *Findings of EMNLP*, pages 487–496. Dieuwke Hupkes, Verna Dankers, Mathijs Mul, and Elia Bruni. 2020. Compositionality decomposed: How do neural networks generalise? *J. Artif. Intell. Res.*, 67:757–795. Robin Jia and Percy Liang. 2016. Data recombination for neural semantic parsing. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 12–22, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics. Daniel Keysers, Nathanael Schärli, Nathan Scales, Hylke Buisman, Daniel Furrer, Sergii Kashubin, Nikola Momchev, Danila Sinopalnikov, Lukasz Stafiniak, Tibor Tihon, Dmitry Tsarkov, Xiao Wang, Marc van Zee, and Olivier Bousquet. 2020. Measuring compositional generalization: A comprehensive method on realistic data. In *8th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2020, Addis* Ababa, Ethiopia, April 26-30, 2020. OpenReview.net. Brenden Lake and Marco Baroni. 2018a. Generalization without systematicity: On the compositional skills of sequence-to-sequence recurrent networks. In *International conference on machine learning*, pages 2873–2882. PMLR. Brenden M. Lake and Marco Baroni. 2018b. Generalization without systematicity: On the compositional skills of sequence-to-sequence recurrent networks. In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2018, Stockholmsmässan, Stockholm, Sweden, July 10-15, 2018, volume 80 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 2879–2888. PMLR. Shu'ang Li, Xuming Hu, Li Lin, Aiwei Liu, Lijie Wen, and Philip S. Yu. 2023. A multi-level supervised contrastive learning framework for low-resource natural language inference. *IEEE/ACM Transactions on* Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 31:1771– 1783. Aiwei Liu, Xuming Hu, Li Lin, and Lijie Wen. 2022a. Semantic enhanced text-to-sql parsing via iteratively learning schema linking graph. In *Proc. of KDD*, pages 1021–1030. Aiwei Liu, Xuming Hu, Lijie Wen, and Philip S Yu. 2023. A comprehensive evaluation of chatgpt's zero-shot text-to-sql capability. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2303.13547. Aiwei Liu, Honghai Yu, Xuming Hu, Shu'ang Li, Li Lin, Fukun Ma, Yawen Yang, and Lijie Wen. 2022b. Character-level white-box adversarial attacks against transformers via attachable subwords substitution. In Proc. of EMNLP. Qian Liu, Bei Chen, Jiaqi Guo, Jian-Guang Lou, Bin Zhou, and Dongmei Zhang. 2020. How far are we from effective context modeling? an exploratory study on semantic parsing in context. In *Proceedings* of the Twenty-Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2020, pages 3580– 3586. ijcai.org. Shuliang Liu, Xuming Hu, Chenwei Zhang, Shu'ang Li, Lijie Wen, and Philip S. Yu. 2022c. Hiure: Hierarchical exemplar contrastive learning for unsupervised relation extraction. In *Proc. of NAACL-HLT*, pages 5970–5980. OpenAI. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. *ArXiv*, abs/2303.08774. Jiexing Qi, Jingyao Tang, Ziwei He, Xiangpeng Wan, Chenghu Zhou, Xinbing Wang, Quanshi Zhang, and Zhouhan Lin. 2022. RASAT: integrating relational structures into pretrained seq2seq model for text-tosql. *CoRR*, abs/2205.06983. Linlu Qiu, Peter Shaw, Panupong Pasupat, Pawel Nowak, Tal Linzen, Fei Sha, and Kristina Toutanova. 2022a. Improving compositional generalization with latent structure and data augmentation. In *Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational* Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4341–4362, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Linlu Qiu, Peter Shaw, Panupong Pasupat, Pawel Krzysztof Nowak, Tal Linzen, Fei Sha, and Kristina Toutanova. 2022b. Improving compositional generalization with latent structure and data augmentation. 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 4341–4362. Association for Computational Linguistics. 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. *J. Mach. Learn. Res.*, 21:140:1–140:67. Torsten Scholak, Nathan Schucher, and Dzmitry Bahdanau. 2021. PICARD: Parsing incrementally for constrained auto-regressive decoding from language models. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 9895–9901, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Peter Shaw, Ming-Wei Chang, Panupong Pasupat, and Kristina Toutanova. 2021. Compositional generalization and natural language variation: Can a semantic parsing approach handle both? 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 922–938, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Bailin Wang, Richard Shin, Xiaodong Liu, Oleksandr Polozov, and Matthew Richardson. 2020. RAT-SQL: Relation-aware schema encoding and linking for textto-SQL parsers. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7567–7578, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Runze Wang, Zhen-Hua Ling, Jingbo Zhou, and Yu Hu. 2021. Tracking interaction states for multi-turn textto-sql semantic parsing. In *Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2021, ThirtyThird 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 13979–13987. AAAI Press. Dongling Xiao, Linzheng Chai, Qian-Wen Zhang, Zhao Yan, Zhoujun Li, and Yunbo Cao. 2022. CQR-SQL: conversational question reformulation enhanced context-dependent text-to-sql parsers. *CoRR*, abs/2205.07686. Tao Yu, Rui Zhang, Heyang Er, Suyi Li, Eric Xue, Bo Pang, Xi Victoria Lin, Yi Chern Tan, Tianze Shi, Zihan Li, Youxuan Jiang, Michihiro Yasunaga, Sungrok Shim, Tao Chen, Alexander Fabbri, Zifan Li, Luyao Chen, Yuwen Zhang, Shreya Dixit, Vincent Zhang, Caiming Xiong, Richard Socher, Walter Lasecki, and Dragomir Radev. 2019a. CoSQL: A conversational text-to-SQL challenge towards crossdomain natural language interfaces to databases. 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 1962– 1979, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tao Yu, Rui Zhang, Alex Polozov, Christopher Meek, and Ahmed Hassan Awadallah. 2021. Score: Pretraining for context representation in conversational semantic parsing. In 9th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Virtual Event, Austria, May 3-7, 2021. OpenReview.net. Tao Yu, Rui Zhang, Kai Yang, Michihiro Yasunaga, Dongxu Wang, Zifan Li, James Ma, Irene Li, Qingning Yao, Shanelle Roman, Zilin Zhang, and Dragomir Radev. 2018. Spider: A large-scale human-labeled dataset for complex and cross-domain semantic parsing and text-to-SQL task. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3911–3921, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tao Yu, Rui Zhang, Michihiro Yasunaga, Yi Chern Tan, Xi Victoria Lin, Suyi Li, Heyang Er, Irene Li, Bo Pang, Tao Chen, Emily Ji, Shreya Dixit, David Proctor, Sungrok Shim, Jonathan Kraft, Vincent Zhang, Caiming Xiong, Richard Socher, and Dragomir Radev. 2019b. SParC: Cross-domain semantic parsing in context. In *Proceedings of the* 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4511–4523, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Hao Zheng and Mirella Lapata. 2022. Disentangled sequence to sequence learning for compositional generalization. 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 4256–4268. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yanzhao Zheng, Haibin Wang, Baohua Dong, Xingjun Wang, and Changshan Li. 2022. HIE-SQL: History information enhanced network for context-dependent text-to-SQL semantic parsing. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022*, pages 2997–3007, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Section 8 ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Section 8 ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Abstract, 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 5, Section 6 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 5, Section 6 ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Section 5, Section 6 ✓ 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 5, Section 6 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. Section 6 ## 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 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 ✓ 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 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?** Section 4,6 ✓ 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.? Section 4 ✗ 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 authors annotate the data. ✓ 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 4, 6 ✓ D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Section 4, 6 ✓ D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Section 4, 6

murzaku-etal-2023-towards

Towards Generative Event Factuality Prediction

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.44

We present a novel end-to-end generative task and system for predicting event factuality holders, targets, and their associated factuality values. We perform the first experiments using all sources and targets of factuality statements from the FactBank corpus. We perform multi-task learning with other tasks and event-factuality corpora to improve on the FactBank source and target task. We argue that careful domain specific target text output format in generative systems is important and verify this with multiple experiments on target text output structure. We redo previous state-of-the-art author-only event factuality experiments and also offer insights towards a generative paradigm for the author-only event factuality prediction task.

## Towards Generative Event Factuality Prediction John Murzaku♣✸△, Tyler Osborne♠, Amittai Aviram♠**, Owen Rambow**♣✸✷ △ Department of Computer Science ✷ Department of Linguistics ✸ Institute for Advanced Computational Science ♣Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA ♠Department of Computer Science, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA Corresponding Author: jmurzaku@cs.stonybrook.edu ## Abstract We present a novel end-to-end generative task and system for predicting event factuality holders, targets, and their associated factuality values. We perform the first experiments using all sources and targets of factuality statements from the FactBank corpus. We perform multi-task learning with other tasks and eventfactuality corpora to improve on the FactBank source and target task. We argue that careful domain specific target text output formatting in generative systems is important and verify this with multiple experiments on target text output structure. We redo previous state-ofthe-art author-only event factuality experiments and also offer insights towards a generative paradigm for the author-only event factuality prediction task. ## 1 Introduction The term *factuality* refers to the author's or speaker's presentation of an event as factual, i.e. as an event that has happened, is happening, or will happen. Often times, an author does not only talk about what they believe is factual, but also about what others believe is factual. Thus, when a speaker presents an event, they communicate their view of the factuality of the event, and they can also at the same time attribute a factuality judgment about the same event to another source. Over the past 15 years, the task of event factuality prediction has received a lot of attention, but only in predicting the factuality of an event according to the author's presentation. Multiple corpora have been created alongside multiple machine learning architectures which solely focus on predicting the author's presentation of factuality. An exception is the FactBank corpus (Saurí and Pustejovsky, 2009), which not only annotates the author's presentation of factuality, but also annotates the nested sources assigning factuality values to events in text. In this paper, our goal is to predict the presentation of factuality of the nested sources mentioned in a text alongside their target events. We choose the FactBank corpus (Saurí and Pustejovsky, 2009) as it is the only corpus annotating nested source factuality and it is carefully annotated and constructed. We attempt combinations with other corpora, namely author-only event factuality corpora and source and target cognitive state corpora, to improve on predicting nested source and target factuality. We perform all of these experiments with a novel generative approach and create a new version of the event factuality prediction task. There are four main contributions of this work: (i) We are the first to present a subset of the FactBank dataset containing nested source and target factuality. This allows us to define two related tasks with associated datasets, source-and-target factuality and author-only factuality. We create a database of the complex FactBank corpus for public release. (ii) We are the first to present a generative machine learning architecture for the factuality prediction task. We perform multiple experiments with factuality structure and target generated text structure, and offer insights into how to frame the event factuality prediction task as a text generation task. (iii) We perform multi-task learning to improve on both factuality tasks. We offer a detailed evaluation of what combinations work and why. (iv) We achieve state-of-the-art results in an end-toend setting for the FactBank source-and-target and author-only factuality tasks. We first present the problem we are solving (Section 2). We then present a survey of previous work (Section 3). In Section 4, we present the FactBank database architecture. Section 5 details our generative experimental details and modeling framework. Finally, in Sections 6 and 7 we report experiments on the FactBank source-and-target and author-only tasks, respectively. ## 2 Background And Motivation To understand the notion of factuality, consider the following sentence from the FactBank corpus (we have replaced a pronoun for clarity in this exposition). This sentence reports on three events: a selling event, a saying event, and a doubling event. Note that, in this paper, we are not interested in temporal relations, and the notion of factuality applies independently of whether an event is in the past, happening at utterance time, or in the future. (1) Michael Wu sold the property to five buyers and said he'd double his money. We can identify four different factuality claims in this sentence: 1. The author is presenting the selling event as factual, i.e., they are committed to the selling event having happened. 2. The author is presenting the saying event as factual, i.e., they are committed to the saying event having happened. 3. The author is presenting the doubling event as having an unknown factuality. 4. The author is presenting Michael Wu as presenting the doubling event as factual, i.e., according to the author, Michael Wu is committed to the doubling event happening. The first three are claims from the author's perspective, while the last one is from Wu's perspective. We refer to the bearer of the perspective as the *source*, and the event (or state) that the factuality judgment is about as the *target*. FactBank, following MPQA (Wiebe et al., 2005a; Deng and Wiebe, 2015), represents the source of a factuality judgment as an ordered list of sources, since the sentence does not directly tell us about Michael Wu's factuality judgment, but rather the author's claim about Michael Wu's factuality judgment. In this paper, we do not address the explicit reconstruction of such attribution chains. In the above example, we have seen two factuality values: certain factual, and unknown. We can identify additional values by allowing for noncertain factuality (something may have happened),1 | CT- | PR- | UU | PR+ | CT+ | |-------|----------|---------|----------|-------| | false | possibly | unknown | possibly | true | | false | true | | | | Table 1: Factuality value mappings for the FactBank corpus and by incorporating polarity (something has happened or has not happened). This gives us a set of five possible values for factuality, as shown in Table 1. Thus, we can represent each factuality judgment as a triple consisting of source, target, and factuality value. We represent the source and target by the head words of the corresponding syntactic spans. If the source is the author, we use a special token *AUTHOR*. Our example in (1) can then be represented as follows: | (2) | source | target | facuality value | |--------|----------|----------|-------------------| | AUTHOR | sold | CT+ | | | AUTHOR | said | CT+ | | | AUTHOR | double | UU | | | Wu | double | UU | | In NLP, there is a distinct task of determining whether a statement is true or not (fact checking). Unfortunately, this other task is sometimes also called "factuality prediction" (see, for example, (Baly et al., 2018)). The difference is that we are interested in how the author *presents* the event, not ground truth. So despite the same or similar name, there are two different tasks and we only deal with the presentation task, not the ground truth task. ## 3 Related Work Author-Only Factuality Corpora All eventfactuality corpora focus on the presentation of factuality according to the author of the text, with the exception of FactBank, which also annotates the factuality of the mentioned sources besides the author. These corpora include LU (Diab et al., 2009), UW (Lee et al., 2015), LDCCB (LDC) (Prabhakaran et al., 2015), MEANTIME (MT) (Minard et al., 2016), MegaVeridicality (MV) (White et al., 2018), UDS-IH2 (UD2) (Rudinger et al., 2018), CommitmentBank (CB) (De Marneffe et al., 2019), and RP (Ross and Pavlick, 2019). These corpora mainly differ as to what is defined as an annotatable event, the genre of the text, the type of annotators, and the annotation scale. These corpora were unified under a continuous annotation scale in the range [-3, 3] by Stanovsky et al. (2017) (though the author-only factuality value in FactBank was misinterpreted, see (Murzaku et al., 2022) for details). FactBank The main focus of this paper is the FactBank corpus, which annotates all events introduced in a corpus of exclusively newswire text. The FactBank corpus not only annotates the factuality presented by the author of a text towards an event, but also the factuality of events according to their presentation by sources mentioned inside of the text. Saurí and Pustejovsky (2012) were the first to investigate and perform experiments on the source and target annotations in FactBank. However, we cannot perform an apples-to-apples comparison, as their system neither recognizes events nor identifies sources mentioned in the text. Rather, in their evaluation, this information was created from manual annotation, fed to the system, and then tested on the whole FactBank corpus. We choose to focus on FactBank because of its expert-level annotations and its detailed source and target annotations. Because of the complexity of the FactBank corpus, we build a robust and efficient database representation of FactBank, which includes all sources including the author, the targets of the factuality attributions, and their respective relations. Machine Learning Architectures All previous approaches on the event-factuality prediction task use author-only corpora and predict factuality according to the author of the text. Early approaches to the event factuality prediction task used rulebased systems or lexical and dependency tree based features (Nairn et al., 2006; Lotan et al., 2013). Expanding on these rule-based approaches, other work on the event factuality prediction task used SVMs alongside these dependency tree and lexical based features (Diab et al., 2009; Prabhakaran et al., 2010; Lee et al., 2015; Stanovsky et al., 2017). Early neural work includes LSTMs with multi-task or single-task approaches (Rudinger et al., 2018) or using BERT representations alongside a graph convolutional neural network (Pouran Ben Veyseh et al., 2019). Jiang and de Marneffe (2021) expand on these previous works by using other event factuality corpora in multiple training paradigms while also introducing a simpler architecture. These previous neural approaches evaluate on Pearson correlation and mean absolute error (MAE). In previous work, we provide the first end-to-end evaluation using F-measure of the author-only event factuality prediction task (Murzaku et al., 2022). Our work differs from the previous work in two major ways: first, we are the first to provide a novel and end-to-end generative approach for the event factuality prediction tasks (both author-only and source-and-target). Furthermore, besides our own previous work (Murzaku et al., 2022), all previous works assumed gold event heads. Our system is by default end-to-end, making it usable in real world applications. Second, we perform experiments on the nested sources and target event's factuality, while other works only focused on the presentation of factuality according to the author. ABSA and ORL Two tasks close in formulation to our task and from which we adopt ideas and insights are the aspect-based sentiment analysis (ABSA) task and the opinion role labelling task (ORL). Peng et al. (2020) create the aspect sentiment triplet extraction task to predict triplets consisting of aspects, opinions, and sentiment polarity. Zhang et al. (2021) are the first to use a generative approach for ABSA fine-tuning on T5. Expanding on this, Gao et al. (2022) achieve state-of-the-art results on all ABSA corpora using a multi-task learning approach through task-specific prompts. The ORL task aims to discover opinions, the sources of opinions, and the associated targets of opinions using the MPQA 2.0 corpus (Wiebe et al., 2005b). Xia et al. (2021) build an end-to-end system creating span representations and using a multi-task learning framework. They achieve state-of-the-art results in the end-to-end setting on the exact match F1 metric. ## 4 Factbank Database We present a generalized database structure for capturing cognitive states expressed in language. The goal is to unify multiple annotated corpora in one format, and to make it simple for users to extract the information they need in various formats. In this paper, we describe only how we use it to hold the annotations of event factuality corpora, and of FactBankin particular, whether in the authoronly perspective or source-and-target perspective. However, given the diversity of corpora, with each corpus having its own focus, annotation rules, and annotation styles, our database structure is sufficiently broad and abstract to accommodate various corpora equally well and yet to preserve the richness of information that each corpus offers, so as to facilitate combining corpora in future experiments with as little data loss as possible. Our goal of preserving the distinct details of individual corpora serves as a step in the direction of bringing human knowledge to bear upon otherwise black-box machine learning techniques. As an example, consider the FactBank and LU (Diab et al., 2009) corpora. The LU data was published as GATE-formatted XML files with annotation targets and annotations given in XML elements, whereas FactBank was published as a set of text files, each of which represents a relation in what amounts to a relational database. From both of these data sources, we may want to construct, for each training and testing example, a set of triples (sentence, target-marked-elements, *label*), where *target-marked-elements* are the tokens of the sentence that describe the target of the factuality judgment by the author, and to which the *label* refers. If we used the original FactBank release and created a database from it, eliciting triples satisfactory for machine learning wouldl require a complex query with many joins and filters. This is because the structure of the FactBank (implicit) database is oriented toward event-time relations rather than factuality labeling. Accordingly, we designed a new database structure more amenable to queries to support machine learning and developed code to translate corpora including FactBank into this database model. Database Structure To build the unified database, we needed a stable, fast, and lightweight tool. Python's extensive library support for SQLite database interactions fit those requirements. The unified database's schema is composed of four tables: sentences, mentions, **sources**, and **attitudes**. We provide a graphic of the database schema in Appendix C. The **sentences** table stores each sentence and any relevant identifying metadata. Thus far, we have not encountered any corpora with suprasentential information encoded as labels. In principle, however, this table can be refactored to accommodate possible future suprasentential information. Elements within each sentence marked for labeling are stored in the **mentions** table, with an entry being composed of the surface text of the element, which may be one or more tokens, and its character offset within the sentence. Each sentence may contain more than one marked element. The **sources** table represents not only sources but their possible nested relations within sentences. These "according-to" relations form a list, as in Mary said that **John** said that **Jane** *was coming* to dinner. Here, the embedded source for the *coming* event is (Author → Mary → John). These "according-to" relations may form a tree, as in Mary said that **John** said that **Jane** *was coming* to dinner, but Bob *said that she was not*. Here, the embedded source for the *coming* event is (Author → Mary → John). The author may have more than one child source, as in **Mary** said that *John* was **coming** to dinner, but Bob said that **John** was staying home. Here, we have (Author → Mary) as source for the *coming* event, and (Author → Bob) as source for the *staying* event. Each sentence may have more than one source, but each source has at most one mention. The implied author has no mention, and a named source mentioned repeatedly is listed once for each mention, since we do not apply anaphora resolution. Finally, the **attitudes** table aggregates a sentence, its marked elements, and the factuality or sentiment label; the table accommodates both labels but could be refactored to support further label types. Each source may have a distinct attitude toward each of several targets, and each target may have more than one source with its own attitude toward that target. Thus, each source-target pair drawn from mentions has a single listing in attitudes. Using event factuality corpora annotated on source-and-target factuality is inherently complex and requires structure induction, source linking, and complex database-like operations. Our database structure is an initial step to address the complexity of corpora while also making easyto-use software for corpus projection and conversion. Our database for FactBank is available at https://github.com/t-oz/FactBankUniDB. ## 5 **Task Definitions And Machine Learning** Approach 5.1 Task Definitions And Data Source and Target Factuality (STF) We define the source-and-target factuality task conceptually as the task to generate all *(source, target, factuality* label) triplets for a given input sentence such that the source is not the author, the factuality label belongs to a categorial scale, and the source views the target with the given factuality label. | Triplet P | Triplet R Triplet F1 Source | Target | S+T | |-------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|-------| | FBST NoN | 0.499±0.020 0.448±0.023 0.472±0.019 | 0.826±0.008 0.701±0.002 0.567±0.001 | | | FBST-AV NoN 0.516±0.033 0.517±0.019 0.517±0.023 | 0.879±0.004 0.704±0.021 0.610±0.020 | | | | FBST N | 0.542±0.013 0.486±0.027 0.512±0.019 | 0.865±0.001 0.715±0.009 0.596±0.008 | | | FBST-AV N | 0.535±0.031 0.535±0.016 0.535±0.021 | 0.894±0.004 0.724±0.018 0.620±0.018 | | | Projection | Name | Train | Dev | Test | |-----------------|--------|---------|-------|--------| | Source-&-Target | FBST | 2.5K | 767 | 392 | | Author-only | FBAO | 6.8K | 1.9K | 1K | Table 3: Information on data set sizes  ## Author-Only Factuality (Aof) We Define The author-only factuality task conceptually as the task to generate all *(event, factuality label)* pairs for a given input sentence such that the factuality label belongs to a categorial scale, and the author views the target with the given factuality label. For each task, we have created a separate disjoint projection from the full FactBank database. We provide information about these projections in Table 3. ## 5.2 Representation Of Factuality Previous work represented factuality on a continuous [-3, 3] scale or directly used the categorial factuality labels used in FactBank. We convert the categorial and numerical representation of FactBank to words. We use the word values shown in Table 1 for all experiments containing factuality values, as using the words leads to better task-specific embeddings therefore leading to better performance (on average 5% for our baseline FactBank source and target experiments). ## 5.3 Input/Output Formats We define our input x as the raw text and prepend a task prefix p depending on the task of choice. We use a distinct task prefix for each task so that the backbone language model can distinguish between different tasks. For each sub-task that we perform, we define separate target output formats. Tuple Representation We represent the target as tuples. We use example (1) above to show how this data is represented. For the STF task, the output is ## A List Of Triplets: Input: **source target factuality:** Michael Wu sold the property to five buyers and said he'd double his money. Output: (Wu, double, true) For the AOF task, the output is a list of pairs: Input: **author only factuality:** Michael Wu sold the property to five buyers and said he'd double his money. Output: (sold, true); (said, true); (double, unknown) Attribute-Value Representation (AV) As an alternative, we structure our target text in an attributevalue pair format. For the STF task, we get: Input: **source target factuality:** Michael Wu sold the property to five buyers and said he'd double his money. Output: (source = Wu, target = double, true) For the AOF task, we get: Input: **author only factuality:** Michael Wu sold the property to five buyers and said he'd double his money. Output: (target = sold, true); (target = said, true); (target = double, unknown) Inline Representation (Anno) We also represent the AOF task as in-line annotations in the target text representation, since we can anchor the factuality on the target head word. We follow the same annotation format style as Zhang et al. (2021), as the authors found that this text generation target performs well for tuple data representations. We repeat the example from above in this format: Input: **author only factuality:** He sold the property to five buyers and said he'd double his money. Output: Michael Wu [sold | true] the property to five buyers and [said | true] he'd [double | unknown] his money. Note that this in-line annotation format does not work for the STF task, because it relates two distinct sentence elements to a factuality value. ## 5.4 Model 5.4.1 Flan-T5 For all experiments, we use the encoder-decoder pre-trained Flan-T5 model (Chung et al., 2022). The Flan-T5 model yields significant improvements on many tasks over the T5 model (Raffel et al., 2020) by adopting an instruction fine-tuning methodology. By formulating the STF and AOF tasks as a text generation task, we can create endto-end models without a task-specific architecture design. ## 5.4.2 Multi-Task Learning Models like T5 and Flan-T5 are multi-task in nature by the pre-training objectives. In the pre-training of T5 (Raffel et al., 2020), T5 was trained with a mixture of tasks separated by task specific prefixes. We perform multi-task learning experiments by prepending task specific prefixes for each task as mentioned in Section 5.1. Furthermore, we also perform proportional mixing to sample in proportion to the dataset size. ## 6 Experiments: Source And Target In this section, we perform experiments on the STF task. We evaluate exclusively on FBST. Our goal is to achieve the best results on this projection of the corpus. ## 6.1 Experimental Setup Datasets and Target Structure We first offer baselines on the FactBank source and target projection (FBST henceforth). We then perform experiments on the target output structure to determine how much influence this has on results. Finally, we perform multi-task learning experiments with the author-only projection of FactBank, CB (De Marneffe et al., 2019), MPQA (Wiebe et al., 2005b), and UW (Lee et al., 2015). All experiments are performed using the STF paradigm defined in Section 5.1, where our task is to generate lists of triplets of format *(source, target, factuality label)*. Evaluation Our main method of evaluation is the exact match F1 metric. With this metric, a prediction is only correct if all three elements of the triplet match. This metric is directly equivalent to microf1 but we refer to it as the exact match F1 in this paper. Furthermore, to assess how much each corpus combination is contributing to the source and target matching of the triplet, we offer F1 scores for the source, target, and the source and target combination. Experiment Details We use a standard finetuning approach on Flan-T5. We fine-tune our models for at most 10 epochs with a learning rate of 3e-4, with early stopping being used if the tripletF1 did not increase on the dev set. All experiments are averaged over three runs using fixed seeds (7, 21, and 42). We also report the standard deviation over three runs. We leave more experimental details to Appendix B. Text Normalization Following insights and methodology from Zhang et al. (2021), we apply their text normalization strategy on our experiments (denoted NoN for no normalization, N for normalized). Zhang et al. (2021) found that text normalization helps for detecting aspect and opinion phrases in *(aspect, opinion, sentiment)* triplets mainly through producing the correct morphology of a word and through addressing orthographic alternatives to words. Their method finds the replacement word from a corresponding vocabulary set using the Levenshtein distance. We note that in our experiments, most of the improvements that normalization yielded were due to correcting morphological errors (e.g. gold is *houses*, model predicts *house*) or capitalization errors (gold is *Mary*, model predicts *mary*). ## 6.2 Results: Baseline And Target Output Restructuring Baselines Table 2 shows our baseline results for the FactBank source and target projection. We notice some particular trends in this task and offer insights. First, we see that normalization helps. For our baseline FBST NoN experiment, we report a triplet F1 of 0.472, whereas after normalization, the triplet F1 increases to 0.512. Intuitively, normalization most helps for sources. One of the main benefits of normalization is producing the correct morphology and orthography. We find that FactBank sources are often nouns or proper nouns and normalization ensures the correct orthography. Furthermore, we see that source outperforms target in all cases and that labelling the correct source and target pairs is not a trivial task. These results are similar to Xia et al. (2021) who worked on the MPQA corpus, which annotates opinions (i.e., text passages indicating opinions), sources of opinions, and the targets of these events. The authors found | Combo | Triplet P | Triplet R Triplet F1 Source | Target | S+T | |----------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|----------|-------| | Baseline: FBST 0.535±0.031 0.535±0.016 0.535±0.021 | 0.894±0.004 0.724±0.018 0.620±0.018 | | | | | FBST, CB | 0.562±0.017 0.536±0.017 0.549±0.024 | 0.907±0.013 0.729±0.002 0.633±0.008 | | | | FBST, MPQA | 0.497±0.009 0.485±0.009 0.491±0.030 | 0.903±0.020 0.715±0.007 0.615±0.023 | | | | FBST, UW | 0.585±0.013 0.526±0.013 0.553±0.010 | 0.882±0.010 0.725±0.013 0.631±0.002 | | | | FBST, FBAO | 0.683±0.025 0.655±0.025 0.669±0.032 | 0.890±0.029 0.854±0.009 0.746±0.014 | | | | FBST, FBAO* | 0.710±0.030 0.661±0.030 0.684±0.030 | 0.893±0.005 0.837±0.012 0.753±0.010 | | | | Macro-F1 CT+ | PR+ | UU | PR- | CT | | |-----------------------------|-------------|-------------------------------------------------|-------------------------|-------|-------| | Murzaku et al. (2022) 0.680 | 0.767 | 0.714 | 0.735 | 0.667 | 0.519 | | FBAO | 0.604±0.094 | 0.891±0.016 0.317±0.152 0.754±0.016 0.389±0.347 | 0.667±0.039 | | | | FBAO-Anno | 0.632±0.065 | 0.791±0.010 0.436±0.139 0.774±0.005 0.389±0.347 | 0.769±0.059 | | | | FBAO-Pol | 0.667±0.023 | 0.907±0.030 0.334±0.059 0.792±0.020 0.667±0.000 | 0.695±0.065 | | | | FBAO-Anno-Pol | 0.690±0.008 | 0.792±0.003 0.246±0.060 0.751±0.013 | 1.000±0.000 0.685±0.041 | | | | FBAO*, FBST | 0.694±0.029 | 0.939±0.015 0.312±0.036 0.809±0.008 | 0.778±0.192 0.675±0.061 | | | that matching MPQA sources to opinions is far easier than matching MPQA targets to opinions. Attribute-Value (AV) Addition In Table 2, we also report results on experiments where we use the attribute-value (AV) format for the output. This formatting especially helps with disambiguation of the source, targets, and factuality, providing our generative framework deeper contextual understanding and cues for triplet generation. We find that this output format produces large increases in all measures, namely the triplet F1, source F1, and source and target F1. Once again, we see that normalization helps, achieving our highest baseline triplet F1 of 0.535. Because of the success of this target format restructuring (AV) and normalization (N), we perform the remaining experiments in this paper using the AV output format and the normalization step. ## 6.3 Results: Multi-Task Learning Experiments We perform multi-task learning (MTL) experiments using author-only factuality corpora, opinion role labelling corpora, and the combinations of all of them. Following our approach described in Section 5.4.1, we prepend task specific prefixes for our tasks, such as **author only factuality:** or opinion role label: . We mirror the format of our FactBank source and target examples for our MTL experiments. For example, when we add in the author-only factuality data, we structure our targets as *(target = event, factuality label)*, mirroring the format of our source and target data. Similarly, for other corpora such as MPQA which only contain source and target information without any factuality labels, we structure our data as (source = opinion source, target = opinion target). We aim to tackle the following with our MTL experiments: first, we aim to improve target identification. Our FBST-only system performs worse on identifying targets than sources. To address this, we combine with author-only event factuality corpora, namely FactBank (denoted FBAO), and CB and UW, which both annotate events in a similar structure and genre as FactBank. Second, we aim to improve source and target linking, as the FBSTonly system cannot perform well on this task. We attempt to address this using the Xia et al. (2021) projection of the MPQA corpus which annotates opinion sources and opinion targets. We also attempt an experiment with a direct mirroring of the source and target representation when using the FactBank author-only data (we denote this representation as FBAO*). Here, we explicitly state the author of the text as a source, structuring our target text to be generated as *(source = AUTHOR, target* = event, factuality label). Results for our MTL experiments are shown in Table 4. We see that all corpus combinations besides MPQA help for the triplet F1 metric. Most notably, we find that adding the FactBank authoronly data (FBAO) and in particular, the triplet FactBank author-only projection (FBAO*) helps the most, especially for the target and source+target F1. We note though that the triplet F1 results for FBST with FBAO and FBAO* both have rather large standard deviations, so the difference may not be significant. Adding other author-only factuality corpora such as UW and CB help, but not as much as FactBank. We see that CB does not boost performance much on FactBank, and UW actually helps more for the triplet F1 metric. This may be because we are performing a separate task and using a different machine learning paradigm. MPQA does not help for any metric besides the source metric. Opinion role labelling is a separate task and appears to be incompatible with the source and target factuality task. However, we note that MPQA also annotates targets differently from FactBank, which explains why the MTL approach did not help in this case. ## 7 Experiments: Author Only In this section, we perform experiments on the AOF task. We evaluate exclusively on FBAO, performing our experiments with the same model and training paradigm. We use three styles of target representation mentioned in Section 5: one style where we extract event words and their associated factuality values as tuples, an in-line annotation style used by Zhang et al. (2021), and finally a MTL triplet generation task with the source and target projection of FactBank where we generate triplets of format *(source = AUTHOR, target = target event, factuality label)*. Furthermore, we also factor polarity in our experiments. Murzaku et al. (2022) found that separately predicting polarity and factuality for the event factuality task can lead to error reductions since polarity is often expressed independently of the degree of factuality. We treat the addition of polarity as a triplet generation task generating triplets of format *(target = target event,* factuality label, polarity). We reduce the factuality label to the strength of factuality (true, possibly true, unknown), with the polarity being one of (negative, unknown, positive). ## 7.1 End-To-End Author-Only Factuality We follow the end-to-end evaluation setup on FactBank as we did in (Murzaku et al., 2022), evaluating on per-label F1 and macro-F1. Because our system is end-to-end, we cannot evaluate on Pearson correlation or MAE like some previous event factuality papers that assumed gold heads. For an apples-to-apples comparison, we use the same label mappings as Murzaku et al. (2022). We average over three runs and also report standard deviation which the previous authors did not report. Table 5 shows results for our experiments on FactBank author-only (FBAO), FBAO with an inline annotation target format (FBAO-Anno), FBAO as a triplet generation task that includes polarity (Pol), and FBAO finally a MTL triplet generation task with the source and target projection of FactBank, tested on FBAO (FBAO*, FBST). We note the very high standard deviations in the PR+ and PR- measurements; these labels are rare even after collapsing them to the same class, especially in the test set, which explain the extreme standard deviation fluctuations. Our baseline system (FBAO) yields a noticeable increase in the CT+, UU, and CT- labels compared to the baseline, but performs worse on the PR+ and PR- labels. The in-line annotation text generation task performs better on macro-F1 than the baseline tuple generation task, with a notable increase in CT-. Factoring polarity helps as well: for both configurations, factoring polarity leads to an increase and achieves new a SOTA for the PR- label in our FBAO-Anno-Pol setup. Our best performing result is our multi-task learning on FBAO and FBST, where we modify FBAO to include the author as a source in its triplet representation. We achieve new SOTA on macrof1, a large increase and SOTA on the CT+ label, and SOTA on UU. ## 7.2 Fbao: Exact Match Evaluation To be able to compare performance on the STF and AOF tasks, we evaluate using the same metric as Section 6, specifically using tuple/triplet exact match precision, recall, F1, and target F1. This evaluation corresponds to a micro-F1, as it does not depend on the factuality value. In this evaluation, we do not consider source F1 or source and target F1 because the source is the author of the text. We aim to quantify how well our generative system performs at generating author-only structures, and therefore evaluate using an exact match evaluation. P R EM F1 **Target F1** FBAO 0.858 ±0.004 0.874 ±0.012 0.866 ±0.007 0.865 ±0.004 FBAO-Anno 0.789 ±0.004 0.750 ±0.013 0.769 ±0.009 0.845 ±0.001 FBAO-Pol 0.878 ±0.016 0.892 ±0.021 0.884 ±0.018 0.884 ±0.001 FBAO-Anno Pol 0.786 ±0.006 0.750 ±0.008 0.767 ±0.005 0.849 ±0.002 FBAO*, FBST 0.895 ±0.009 0.898 ±0.009 0.897 ±0.008 0.889 ±0.003 We are the first to report results on FactBank using an exact match evaluation. Table 6 shows results for our exact match evaluation on FBAO. We see two clear trends: first, the in-line annotation generation task does not perform as well in our exact match evaluation compared to our tuple/triplet generation task. This makes sense given that the Anno option performs markedly worse on the most common factuality value, CT+, which in the macro-average is compensated by better performances for other values, but in the exact-match evaluation lowers its overall performance. Our best results are produced by our MTL setup with FBAO and FBST(FBAO*, FBST). Similar to our source and target results in Table 4, we see that the AOF task benefits from the FBST data in a MTL setup performing the best once again. We also see, as expected, that the AOF task is easier than the STF task, with a result margin of 13.3% absolute, since fewer details need to be predicted, and since more data is available. ## 8 Conclusion We provide a new generative framework for the event factuality prediction task using Flan-T5 and focusing on output format, individual task prefixes, and multi-task learning. To tackle the complexity of the FactBank corpus, we create a database representation that simplifies extracting sources, targets, and factuality values for all projections of FactBank, which we will publicly release. Our sourceand-target experiments show that careful output formatting can yield improvements (Table 2) and careful attention to multi-task learning mixtures can help (Table 4). We evaluate the author-only event factuality task using both macro-average (Table 5) and exact-match evaluation metrics (Table 6), with as expected different results. We achieve new state-of-the-art results on both source-and-target (because no prior results) and author-only (beating existing results) end-to-end factuality prediction. ## Acknowledgements We thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful insights and comments. This material is based on work supported by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) under Contracts No. HR01121C0186, No. HR001120C0037, and PR No. HR0011154158. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of DARPA. Rambow gratefully acknowledges support from the Institute for Advanced Computational Science at Stony Brook University. ## Limitations While we achieved preliminary results and created a preliminary projection of the FactBank source and target corpus, we do not capture the full source and target nesting in our machine learning experiments. We repeat the example from Section 4: Mary said that **John** said that **Jane** was coming to dinner, but Bob *said that she was not*. The embedded sources for the *coming* event are (Author → Mary → John), which translates to "according to the author according to Mary according to John, did the coming event happen?" In our experiments and machine learning architecture, we focus on the last nested source, or John in this example. In future work, we aim to link together all sources and their embedded nesting structures. We note that all experiments in this paper were performed using the Flan-T5-base model. In future work on this task, we will explore different generative models such as GPT-3 or BART, which may yield stronger performing systems or more interesting results. We are especially curious about framing this task using GPT-3, especially performing tasks on few-shot or in-context learning. Finally, we note that these experiments do not account for potential biases prevalent in fine-tuning large language models. We hypothesize that for some sources in text (i.e. power figures, authorities, or specific names), there may be biases towards certain labels. We will investigate these biases in future work, as an event factuality prediction system with inherent bias can have real world implications. ## Ethics Statement As mentioned in the limitations section, we note that these experiments do not account for potential biases prevalent in fine-tuning large language models. In a real world deployment of our model, we hypothesize that there could be a potential mislabelling of factuality values depending on bias towards sources of utterances. For example, if a power figure states an event, will the event label be more biased towards being factual just because of the source of the statement? We will investigate these questions and issues in future work. We also note that our paper is foundational research and we are not tied to any direct applications. ## References Ramy Baly, Georgi Karadzhov, Dimitar Alexandrov, James Glass, and Preslav Nakov. 2018. Predicting factuality of reporting and bias of news media sources. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3528–3539, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Eric Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, et al. 2022. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11416. Marie-Catherine De Marneffe, Mandy Simons, and Judith Tonhauser. 2019. The commitmentbank: Investigating projection in naturally occurring discourse. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, 23(2):107–124. Lingjia Deng and Janyce Wiebe. 2015. MPQA 3.0: An entity/event-level sentiment corpus. In *Proceedings* of the 2015 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1323–1328, Denver, Colorado. Association for Computational Linguistics. Mona Diab, Lori Levin, Teruko Mitamura, Owen Rambow, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, and Weiwei Guo. 2009. Committed belief annotation and tagging. In Proceedings of the Third Linguistic Annotation Workshop (LAW III), pages 68–73, Suntec, Singapore. Association for Computational Linguistics. William Falcon et al. 2019. Pytorch lightning. GitHub. Note: https://github. com/PyTorchLightning/pytorchlightning, 3(6). Tianhao Gao, Jun Fang, Hanyu Liu, Zhiyuan Liu, Chao Liu, Pengzhang Liu, Yongjun Bao, and Weipeng Yan. 2022. LEGO-ABSA: A prompt-based task assemblable unified generative framework for multi-task aspect-based sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 7002–7012, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics. Nanjiang Jiang and Marie-Catherine de Marneffe. 2021. He thinks he knows better than the doctors: BERT for event factuality fails on pragmatics. *Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, 9:1081–1097. Kenton Lee, Yoav Artzi, Yejin Choi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2015. Event detection and factuality assessment with non-expert supervision. In *Proceedings of* the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1643–1648, Lisbon, Portugal. Association for Computational Linguistics. Amnon Lotan, Asher Stern, and Ido Dagan. 2013. TruthTeller: Annotating predicate truth. In *Proceedings of the 2013 Conference of the North American* Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 752– 757, Atlanta, Georgia. Association for Computational Linguistics. Anne-Lyse Minard, Manuela Speranza, Ruben Urizar, Begoña Altuna, Marieke van Erp, Anneleen Schoen, and Chantal van Son. 2016. MEANTIME, the NewsReader multilingual event and time corpus. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'16), pages 4417–4422, Portorož, Slovenia. European Language Resources Association (ELRA). John Murzaku, Peter Zeng, Magdalena Markowska, and Owen Rambow. 2022. Re-examining FactBank: Predicting the author's presentation of factuality. In *Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics*, pages 786–796, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics. Rowan Nairn, Cleo Condoravdi, and Lauri Karttunen. 2006. Computing relative polarity for textual inference. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Inference in Computational Semantics (ICoS-5). Haiyun Peng, Lu Xu, Lidong Bing, Fei Huang, Wei Lu, and Luo Si. 2020. Knowing what, how and why: A near complete solution for aspect-based sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 8600–8607. Amir Pouran Ben Veyseh, Thien Huu Nguyen, and Dejing Dou. 2019. Graph based neural networks for event factuality prediction using syntactic and semantic structures. In *Proceedings of the 57th Annual* Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4393–4399, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Tomas By, Julia Hirschberg, Owen Rambow, Samira Shaikh, Tomek Strzalkowski, Jennifer Tracey, Michael Arrigo, Rupayan Basu, Micah Clark, Adam Dalton, Mona Diab, Louise Guthrie, Anna Prokofieva, Stephanie Strassel, Gregory Werner, Yorick Wilks, and Janyce Wiebe. 2015. A new dataset and evaluation for belief/factuality. In Proceedings of the Fourth Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, pages 82–91, Denver, Colorado. Association for Computational Linguistics. Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Owen Rambow, and Mona Diab. 2010. Automatic committed belief tagging. In *Coling 2010: Posters*, pages 1014–1022, Beijing, China. Coling 2010 Organizing Committee. 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(140):1–67. Alexis Ross and Ellie Pavlick. 2019. How well do NLI models capture verb veridicality? 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 2230–2240, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Rachel Rudinger, Aaron Steven White, and Benjamin Van Durme. 2018. Neural models of factuality. 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 731–744, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. Roser Saurí and James Pustejovsky. 2009. Factbank: a corpus annotated with event factuality. *Language* resources and evaluation, 43(3):227–268. Roser Saurí and James Pustejovsky. 2012. Are you sure that this happened? assessing the factuality degree of events in text. *Computational Linguistics*, 38(2):261– 299. Gabriel Stanovsky, Judith Eckle-Kohler, Yevgeniy Puzikov, Ido Dagan, and Iryna Gurevych. 2017. Integrating deep linguistic features in factuality prediction over unified datasets. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 352–357, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. Aaron Steven White, Rachel Rudinger, Kyle Rawlins, and Benjamin Van Durme. 2018. Lexicosyntactic inference in neural models. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4717–4724, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Janyce Wiebe, Theresa Wilson, and Claire Cardie. 2005a. Annotating expressions of opinions and emotions in language. *Language Resources and Evaluation*, 39(2/3):164–210. Janyce Wiebe, Theresa Wilson, and Claire Cardie. 2005b. Annotating expressions of opinions and emotions in language. *Language resources and evaluation*, 39(2):165–210. Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, et al. 2019. Huggingface's transformers: State-ofthe-art natural language processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.03771. Qingrong Xia, Bo Zhang, Rui Wang, Zhenghua Li, Yue Zhang, Fei Huang, Luo Si, and Min Zhang. 2021. A unified span-based approach for opinion mining with syntactic constituents. In *Proceedings of the 2021* Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1795–1804, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Wenxuan Zhang, Xin Li, Yang Deng, Lidong Bing, and Wai Lam. 2021. Towards generative aspect-based 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 2: Short Papers), pages 504–510, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. ## A Distribution Of Data Set And Database We intend to distribute the split of the source and target FactBank dataset. We have included the dataset in this submissions for reviewers to inspect, but cannot distribute it due to copyright reasons. Instead, we will release a Python script alongside our SQLite database implementation which will produce the files submitted with this paper with the original FactBank corpus as an input. The FactBank corpus can be obtained by researchers from the Linguistic Data Consortium, catalog number LDC2009T23. Our dataset split is detailed in Table 3. We split our corpus using the methods as Murzaku et al. (2022), which also includes splitting by article. ## B Details On Experiments We use a standard fine-tuning approach on the Flan-T5-base model with 247,000,000 parameters. For computing, we used our employer's GPU cluster and performed experiments on a Tesla V100- SXM2 GPU. Compute jobs typically ranged from 10 minutes for small single corpus combinations, to 30 minutes for larger multi-task learning corpus combinations. We did not do any hyperparameter search or hyperparameter tuning. We fine-tuned our models for at most 10 epochs with a learning rate of 3e-4, with early stopping being used if the triplet-F1 did not increase or if the factuality macro-F1 did not increase. All metrics for experiments were averaged over three runs using fixed seeds (7, 21, and 42). We report the average over three runs and the standard deviation over three runs. For prediction normalization on our fixed experiments setting, we use the editdistance Python package. We provide scripts for our prediction normalization and full evaluation and will be made publicly available. To fine-tune our models and run experiments, we used PyTorch lightning Falcon et al. (2019) and the transformers library provided by HuggingFace Wolf et al. (2019). All code for fine-tuning, modelling, and preprocessing will be made available. ## C Database Structure  ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? We discussed limitations in the Limitations section. ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? We discussed risk in the Ethics Statement section ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? We summarize the paper's main claims and contributions in the abstract and 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 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Sections 1, 2, and 4 ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Appendix A ✓ 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 ✗ 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 data originated from the FactBank corpus. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Sections 1 and 2. ✓ 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. We show relevant corpus specific statistics in table 3 and mention it in section 5. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Sections 6 And 7 ✓ 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? We provide the average over 3 runs and standard deviations in all tables in Sections 6 and 7. ✓ 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 used PyTorch lightning for training our models. We describe the setup in section 5 and the experimental details in 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.

huang-etal-2023-language

Can Language Models Be Specific? How?

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.45

{``}He is a person{''}, {``}Paris is located on the earth{''}. Both statements are correct but meaningless - due to lack of specificity. In this paper, we propose to measure how specific the language of pre-trained language models (PLMs) is. To achieve this, we introduce a novel approach to build a benchmark for specificity testing by forming masked token prediction tasks with prompts. For instance, given {``}Toronto is located in [MASK].{''}, we want to test whether a more specific answer will be better filled in by PLMs, e.g., Ontario instead of Canada. From our evaluations, we show that existing PLMs have only a slight preference for more specific answers. We identify underlying factors affecting the specificity and design two prompt-based methods to improve the specificity. Results show that the specificity of the models can be improved by the proposed methods without additional training. We hope this work can bring to awareness the notion of specificity of language models and encourage the research community to further explore this important but understudied problem.

# Can Language Models Be Specific? How? Jie Huang1 Kevin Chen-Chuan Chang1 Jinjun Xiong2 **Wen-mei Hwu**1,3 1University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA 2University at Buffalo, USA 3NVIDIA, USA {jeffhj, kcchang, w-hwu}@illinois.edu jinjun@buffalo.edu ## Abstract "*He is a person*", "Paris is located on the earth". Both statements are correct but meaningless - due to lack of specificity. In this paper, we propose to measure how specific the language of pre-trained language models (PLMs) is. To achieve this, we introduce a novel approach to build a benchmark for specificity testing by forming masked token prediction tasks with prompts. For instance, given "Toronto is located in [MASK].", we want to test whether a more specific answer will be better filled in by PLMs, e.g., *Ontario* instead of *Canada*. From our evaluations, we show that existing PLMs have only a slight preference for more specific answers. We identify underlying factors affecting the specificity and design two prompt-based methods to improve the specificity. Results show that the specificity of the models can be improved by the proposed methods without additional training. We hope this work can bring to awareness the notion of specificity of language models and encourage the research community to further explore this important but understudied problem.1 ## 1 Introduction Pre-trained language models (PLMs) such as BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) and GPT-2/3 (Radford et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020) have achieved quite impressive results in various natural language processing tasks. Recent works show that the parameters of these models contain significant amounts of knowledge (Petroni et al., 2019; Roberts et al., 2020; Jiang et al., 2020a,b; Wang et al., 2020), and knowledge stored in PLMs can be extracted by predicting the mask token(s) using prompts. For instance, given prompt "J. K. Rowling was born in [MASK].", PLMs can predict the birthplace of Rowling based on its knowledge. 1Code and data are available at https://github.com/ jeffhj/S-TEST.  Figure 1: Examples of language modeling that lack specificity. More specific descriptions could be: feline, poet, and in Ontario, respectively. However, there may exist multiple answers for a query, while not all answers are equally specific. In many situations, we desire a specific answer. For the example above, the masked token can be replaced by *Yate* (a town), *Gloucestershire* (a county), or *England* (a country). To acquire the maximum knowledge (in this example, the town, the county, and the country where Rowling was born), we may prefer the model to fill in *Yate* since *Gloucestershire* and *England* can be further predicted using prompts, e.g., "Yate is located in [MASK]." This means, if the prediction is more specific, we can retrieve more fine-grained information from language models, and further acquire more information. Besides, sometimes, the less specific answer is not useful. For instance, it is well known that *Chicago* is located in *the USA*, users will not get additional information if the model only predicts *Chicago* is located in *the USA* instead of *Illinois*. More examples are shown in Figure 1. To make an analogy: A good speaker not only needs to be correct, but also has the ability to be specific when desired. The same is true for language models. Although there are works on measuring how much knowledge is stored in PLMs or improving the *correctness* of the predictions (Petroni et al., 2019; Roberts et al., 2020; Jiang et al., 2020b), few attempted to measure or improve the *specificity* of predictions made by PLMs. Noteworthy exceptions include the work by Adiwardana et al. (2020); Thoppilan et al. (2022), who evaluated the specificity of conversational language models. In their research, specificity was defined and measured within a conversational context - for instance, the response "Me too. I love Eurovision songs" is deemed more specific than simply "Me too" to the statement "I love Eurovision". Understanding how specific the language of PLMs is can help us better understand the behavior of language models and facilitate downstream applications such as question answering, text generation, and information extraction (Liu et al., 2021a; Khashabi et al., 2020; Brown et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020), e.g., making the generated answers/sentences or extracted information more specific or fine-grained. Therefore, we propose to build a benchmark to measure the specificity of the language of PLMs. For reducing human effort and easier to further expand the dataset (e.g., to specific domains), we introduce a novel way to construct test data automatically based on transitive relations in Wikidata (Vrandeciˇ c and Krötzsch ´ , 2014). Specifically, we extract reasoning paths from Wikidata, e.g., (J. K. Rowling, *birthplace*, Yate, *location*, Gloucestershire, location, *England*). Based on the average distance of each object to the subject and the property of transitive relations, we form masked-token-prediction based probing tasks to measure the specificity, e.g., whether the masked token in "J. K. Rowling was born in [MASK]." is better filled by *Yate* than *England* by PLMs. The resulting benchmark dataset contains more than 20,000 probes covering queries from 5 different categories. The quality of the benchmark is high, where the judgment on which answer is more specific is ∼ 97% consistent with humans. We provide in-depth analyses on model specificity and study two factors that affect the specificity with our benchmark. As shown by our evaluations in Section 4, existing PLMs, e.g., BERT and GPT-2, similarly have only a slight preference for more specific answers (in only about 60% of cases where a more specific answer is preferred). We also show that, in general, PLMs prefer less specific answers without subjects given, and they only have a weak ability to differentiate coarse-grained/finegrained objects by measuring their similarities to subjects. The results indicate that specificity was neglected by existing research on language models. How to improve and control it is undoubtedly an interesting and valuable problem. Based on our observations and analyses, we propose two techniques to improve the specificity of the predictions by modifying the prompts without additional training: *Few-shot Prompting*, where demonstrations with more specific answers are provided to guide the models to produce more specific answers; and *Cascade Prompting*, where which clauses are added as suffixes to bias the predictions to be more specific. Results show that Few-shot Prompting can improve the specificity for unidirectional language models like GPT-2 well, while Cascade Prompting works well for bidirectional language models such as BERT. The main contributions of our work are summarized as follows: - We propose a novel automatic approach to build a benchmark for specificity testing based on the property of transitive relations. - We analyze the specificity of several existing PLMs and study two factors that affect the specificity. - We propose two methods to improve the specificity by modifying the prompts without additional training. - We provide in-depth analyses and discussions, suggesting further works to explore and further improve the specificity. ## 2 Background And Related Work Pre-Trained Language Models: Pre-trained language models (PLMs) are language models pretrained on large corpora. In this paper, we will cover two types of pre-trained language models: unidirectional language models, such as GPT-2 (Radford et al., 2019), where the prediction of the current token is only based on previous tokens; and bidirectional language models, such as BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) and RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019), where both left and right contexts are utilized to predict the current token. Knowledge Retrieval from LMs and Prompting: Previous works have worked on extracting factual knowledge from PLMs without incorporating external knowledge, which is usually achieved by creating prompts and letting PLMs predict the masked token(s) (Petroni et al., 2019; Bouraoui et al., 2020; Jiang et al., 2020a,b; Wang et al., 2020). They demonstrated that PLMs contain a significant amount of knowledge. By creating appropriate prompts with some additional training, such methods can even achieve performance comparable to SOTA for some specific tasks (Shin et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2021b). Our work is inspired by these works; but different from these works, where the focus is to measure or improve the *correctness* of the predictions, our work focuses on measuring and improving the *specificity* of the predictions. ## 3 S-Test: Specificity Testing In this section, we introduce our specificity testing (S-TEST) task, describe the creation process of the dataset, and design the metric to measure the specificity of predictions made by PLMs. ## 3.1 Task Formulation Specificity is a semantic feature of language to describe things specifically in a given context. In this work, we focus on measuring the specificity of the predictions produced by pre-trained language models for entity relations. Formally, if (x, r, y)∧(*y, r, z*) implies (*x, r, z*), then y is considered as a more fine-grained object of x than entity z under relation r, and y is more specific than z. For instance, to extract the answer (object) for relation (Toronto, *location*, X), we convert the query to a masked token prediction task using prompts, e.g., "Toronto is located in [MASK]." and let PLMs predict the masked token. The answer here can be a coarse-grained one, e.g., *Canada*, or a fine-grained one, e.g., *Ontario*. The model is considered to be more specific if it tends to fill in *Ontario* instead of Canada. More general scenarios are discussed in Section 7 as future work. ## 3.2 Test Data Construction We build a benchmark dataset for measuring the specificity based on Wikidata (Vrandeciˇ c and ´ Krötzsch, 2014), which is a knowledge base containing a large number of entities and relations. Specifically, we utilize transitive relations2in Wikidata to create the test set automatically. Transitive relations are binary relations with properties such that (x,r, y) and (y,r, z) implies (x,r, z), where entity y can be considered as a more fine-grained object of x than entity z under relation r. For instance, relation *P131* is a transitive relation, whose label is "located in the administrative territorial entity". From Wikidata, we can extract facts (Toronto, *P131*, Ontario) and (Ontario, *P131*, Canada), which furthermore forms a reasoning path (Toronto, *P131*, Ontario, *P131*, Canada). And Ontario is considered more fine-grained (specific) 2https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata: List_of_properties/transitive_relation than *Canada* in terms of relation *P131* because its distance to *Toronto* is shorter than *Canada* in the reasoning path. Based on this, for a transitive relation, we collect reasoning paths with length ≤ 5 for each subject and calculate the average distance of each object to the subject. E.g., if there are two reasoning paths connecting the subject and object, with lengths 2 and 3, the average distance is 2.5. In this way, we can construct pairs with coarse-grained/fine-grained objects for each subject, e.g., (Toronto, Ontario) and (Toronto, Canada) for *Toronto* in terms of relation *P131* (or a triplet denoted as (Toronto, Ontario, Canada)). The constructed pairs can be used to test the specificity with prompt: "Toronto is located in [MASK]." We also combine different relations to form tasks. For instance, for relation P19, whose label is "place of birth", we combine it with *P131* and further form a mask token prediction task, such as "[X] was born in [MASK]." An example reasoning path containing coarse-grained/fine-grained objects is (John G. Bennett, P19, London, *P131*, England), corresponding to pairs (John G. Bennett, London) and (John G. Bennett, England). Considering the representativeness and comprehensiveness, we select 5 relations (Table 1) and randomly sample up to 5,000 pairs for each relation, with the difference of average distance of the objects to the subject being greater than or equal to 1 (to filter out entity pairs whose specificity is difficult to differentiate). Similar to Petroni et al. (2019), we only choose single-token objects as the prediction targets, since multi-token generation is still an area that needs further exploration, and the multi-token decoding process will introduce many tunable parameters that obscure the performance (Welleck et al., 2019; Jiang et al., 2020a). Statistics and examples of the resulting benchmark dataset are shown in Table 1. ## 3.3 Metric If a model tends to be more specific, it should have higher confidence that the more specific answer is correct. For instance, given "Toronto is located in [MASK].", the model should assign a higher probability for *Ontario* than *Toronto*. Therefore, we can measure the specificity by calculating how much times the probability of the fine-grained answer is higher than that of the coarse-grained answer: $$p_{r}={\frac{1}{|{\mathcal{T}}_{r}|}}\sum_{(x,y_{1},y_{2})\in{\mathcal{T}}_{r}}\mathbf{1}[c(y_{1}|x,r)>c(y_{2}|x,r)],$$ | ID | Relation | Number | Prompt | Answer 1 | Answer 2 | |------|-------------|----------|-----------------------------------------|------------|------------| | P19 | birthplace | 5,000 | John G. Bennett was born in [MASK]. | London | England | | P106 | occupation | 5,000 | Jenny Burton is a [MASK] by profession. | singer | musician | | P131 | location | 5,000 | Carey River is located in [MASK]. | Victoria | Australia | | P279 | subclass-of | 5,000 | Tracking ship is a subclass of [MASK]. | vessel | vehicle | | P361 | part-of | 628 | Hard palate is part of [MASK]. | mouth | head | Table 1: Statistics and examples of the S-TEST benchmark, where we use the same templates in Petroni et al. (2019) to create prompts. *Answer 1* is more specific than *Answer 2*. where Tr is the set of test examples for relation r. y1 is the fine-grained object and y2 is the coarsegrained object. c(y|*x, r*) is the probability of the model with y as the prediction of the masked token, and x refers to the subject. pr ranges from 0 to 1, and 0.5 means the model does not have a preference in terms of specificity. The metric is similar to the one used in Marvin and Linzen (2018), which compares the probability of a pair of words for creating a grammatical sentence, e..g, The author *laughs* (grammatical) vs *The author* laugh (ungrammatical). ## 4 Analysis In this section, we first analyze the results of STEST and then identify and study two underlying factors that affect the specificity of predictions produced by pre-trained language models. ## 4.1 Experimental Setup We test on the following pre-trained case-sensitive language models: GPT-2, BERT-Base, BERTLarge, RoBERTa-Base, and RoBERTa-Large. For a fair comparison, following (Petroni et al., 2019), we use the intersection of the vocabularies of all the models as the unified vocabulary for prediction (∼18k case-sensitive tokens). Since fine-grained answers may be used less frequently in the corpus (e.g., *Yate* is much less frequent than *England*), we also design a simple method by filling the masked tokens with less frequent answers (*Freq*).3 To verify the quality of the dataset, we randomly sampled 400 examples (80 for each relation) and asked human annotators to fill in the masked token with both the coarse-grained and fine-grained answers provided (the order of answers in each pair is randomly shuffled). For example, we give annotators both query "Toronto is located in [MASK]." and answer pair (Ontario, Toronto) and ask them to select the more specific one. Humans can make judgments based on their own knowledge or relevant information about the entities on the Web. ## 4.2 Results Of S-Test Table 2 reports the results of specificity testing. We observe that existing pre-trained language models have only a slight preference for more specific answers, where the probability that more specific answers are preferred by them is around 60%. This is reasonable since the training of PLMs does not introduce any constraint/bias in terms of specificity. In Table 3, the *Freq* method performs quite well on relation *birthplace* and *location* whose answers are both locations, which indicates low frequency may hinder outputting more specific concepts. However, for other relations, the results are close to random guess. We also observe that the results of "*human*" is high, which demonstrates that the quality of the dataset is high. To investigate the correctness of the predictions as in Petroni et al. (2019), we also calculate Acc@10 (the value is 1 if the coarse/fine-grained answer is ranked among the top 10 results, which are selected from ∼18k tokens, and 0 otherwise) among all relations in Table 4. We draw a conclusion similar to Petroni et al. (2019) that PLMs have a good ability to recover factual knowledge.4 Another interesting finding is that for a single relation, the specificity of different models is highly correlated. For instance, for relation *location*, the specificity measured by pr of all models is slightly lower than 50%, while for relation *part-of*, the specificity of all models is around 60%. The average pairwise Pearson correlation coefficient among all relations (calculated between different rows) is 0.803. We think this is because these PLMs are trained on large general corpora; therefore, their knowledge overlaps to a large extent, as is the preference on the specificity of predictions. | birthplace | occupation | location | subclass-of | part-of | Average | | |---------------|--------------|------------|---------------|-----------|-----------|-------| | GPT-2 | 59.72 | 57.28 | 48.25 | 57.98 | 60.86 | 56.82 | | BERT-Base | 60.68 | 70.46 | 49.09 | 67.64 | 67.41 | 63.06 | | BERT-Large | 56.52 | 71.76 | 42.36 | 77.25 | 66.77 | 62.93 | | RoBERTa-Base | 54.48 | 61.80 | 49.99 | 61.59 | 59.11 | 57.39 | | RoBERTa-Large | 42.16 | 71.44 | 43.28 | 80.63 | 59.27 | 59.36 | Table 2: Results of specificity testing with pr(%). | birthplace | occupation | location | subclass-of | part-of | Average | | |--------------|--------------|------------|---------------|-----------|-----------|-------| | Freq | 85.87 | 52.86 | 95.11 | 51.12 | 49.68 | 66.93 | | Human | 98.75 | 92.50 | 100.00 | 96.25 | 97.75 | 97.05 | ## 4.3 Factors Affecting Specificity Some types of questions may be answered specifically naturally. For instance, when discussing anyone's occupation, people may be inclined to use a more specific description; but for the location of a place, people may not be so. In addition, specific answers may be easier to relate to the entities in the query than the coarsegrained ones since their connections may be more close, e.g., *similarity*(Toronto, Ontario) > similarity(Toronto, Canada). In this case, the models should tend to select more specific answers. Based on the above analysis, the specificity of the predictions mainly depends on question types (e.g., relations) and entities in the query (e.g., subjects), which is also indicated by the metric for measuring specificity, i.e., c(y|*x, r*). To investigate the effect of each component, we split the query, e.g., "Toronto is located in [MASK].", into two parts: the relations, e.g., *is located in*, and the subjects, e.g, Toronto, corresponding to *naturalness* and *relatedness* respectively. Naturalness: For some questions, they may be answered more specifically naturally than others by PLMs. For instance, for questions about the place of birth, if in the corpora, the birthplace is usually described more specifically, e.g., ... was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, PLMs will also describe the birthplace more specifically. This is intuitive since PLMs are trained on large corpora based on tasks like masked language modeling; therefore, it will produce more fine-grained predictions conditioned with contexts that are more likely to associate with specific answers. To measure how natural a type of questions will be answered more specifically by PLMs, we mask the subject in each prompt, e.g., "[MASK] was born in [MASK].", and let PLMs predict the second masked token. We get the probability of each token in the vocabulary, i.e., c(y|·, r), and use our metric and dataset to measure the naturalness, e.g., how natural birthplace will be described more specifically in general. Relatedness: Considering the following situation: the model can predict that both A and B are likely to be the correct answers, and judges A is more related to the the subject than B in general. Intuitively, it will prefer answer A. Therefore, another factor that affects the specificity of predictions made by PLMs is *relatedness*, i.e., to what extent are the fine-grained objects more related to the corresponding subjects than the coarse-grained ones considered by PLMs. (More generally, this is the ability of PLMs to identify more related entities). We measure relatedness with phrase embeddings from PLMs. Following Yu and Ettinger (2020); Wang et al. (2021), we use the mean-pooled representations over the final-layer outputs from PLMs as phrase embeddings, and calculate the cosine similarities between the subject and the corresponding objects. If the cosine similarity between the subject and the fine-grained object is higher than that between the subject and the coarse-grained object, we think PLMs consider the fine-grained one is more related to the subject. According to this, we can use our metric and dataset to measure the relatedness, with confidence, i.e., c(y|x, ·), based on cosine similarity between x and y. Findings. In Table 5, we report the *naturalness* and *relatedness* with pr as the metric. We find that, 1) the highest average naturalness and relatedness are achieved by BERT-Large and BERT-Base, respectively, corresponding to the highest average | GPT-2 | BERT-Base | BERT-Large | RoBERTa-Base | RoBERTa-Large | | |---------|-------------|--------------|----------------|-----------------|-------| | Acc@10 | 23.87 | 42.65 | 46.80 | 30.79 | 31.81 | Table 4: The correctness of the predictions measured with *Acc@*10 (%). GPT-2 Naturalness 46.42 50.86 10.94 60.06 51.12 43.88 Relatedness 68.51 78.50 82.84 40.00 50.16 64.00 BERT-Base Naturalness 64.81 75.04 4.99 47.96 50.80 48.72 Relatedness 74.89 51.96 76.43 71.67 58.79 **66.75** BERT-Large Naturalness 66.35 79.22 10.03 48.92 47.60 **50.42** Relatedness 54.46 49.16 56.22 72.96 65.50 59.66 RoBERTa-Base Naturalness 44.80 61.12 23.27 42.06 36.90 41.63 Relatedness 68.73 58.50 65.73 39.51 56.87 57.87 RoBERTa-Large Naturalness 31.37 66.24 3.67 43.64 41.69 37.32 Relatedness 47.82 41.32 34.89 55.17 64.22 48.68 birthplace occupation location subclass-of part-of *Average* Table 5: Relatedness and naturalness measured with pr(%). specificity; 2) in many cases, naturalness is lower than 0.5, which indicates that, without the subjects provided, PLMs are more likely to provide coarsegrained answers, we think this is because a single coarse-grained entity encompasses the probability mass of many fine-grained entities; 3) relatedness is usually higher than 0.5, which means PLMs have a certain ability to distinguish fine-grained/coarsegrained answers based on semantic similarities between entities. But the ability is weak since the average scores are just around 60%. ## 5 Can Language Models Be **More** Specific? From the previous sections, we observe that existing pre-trained language models do not have much preference for more specific answers in a vanilla setting. We also observe that PLMs achieve *naturalness* lower than 0.5, i.e., naturally, PLMs tend to fill in coarse-grained answers with respect to certain types of questions, and *relatedness* around 0.6, i.e., PLMs only have a weak ability to distinguish more related entities. Naturalness depends on both the parameters of PLMs and prompts while relatedness only depends on the parameters of PLMs. Since it is expensive to change the parameters of PLMs (both time and space), to improve the specificity, we focus on improving the naturalness by modifying the prompts. Intuitively, to get more specific answers, a practical approach is to ask more specific questions. For instance, to know where Toronto is located more specifically, we may change the prompt "Toronto is located in [MASK]." to "Toronto is located in the province of [MASK]." However, to achieve this, humans are required to have additional knowledge, e.g., Toronto is a city, and in Canada, the administrative unit larger than city is province rather than state. Besides, designing such manually crafted prompts can also be time-consuming and laborious if there are a large number of queries. Furthermore, some questions may be difficult to ask more specifically. For instance, for question "Hard palate is part of [MASK].", it is not easy to come up with a more specific query. Based on the above considerations, we propose two novel and simple techniques to improve the specificity of the predictions. The proposed methods can apply to different models on various types of queries while no additional training is required. ## 5.1 Few-Shot Prompting We refer to using prompts in Table 1 to extract answers as *Vanilla Prompting* (e.g., we let PLMs predict the masked token in "John G. Bennett was born in [MASK]."). Vanilla Prompting cannot elicit specific answers since the designed prompts can not tell the models the preference regarding specificity; therefore, the models are not aware of whether a more specific answer is preferred. Based on the above analysis, we need to give the model some "hints" in terms of specificity, which can be achieved by providing some demonstrations. For instance, to predict where Toronto is located, if we provide some examples with coarse-grained answers using prompt "Melbourne is located in Australia, Guangzhou is located in China, Toronto is located in [MASK].", the model may know by analogy that we prefer a coarse-grained answer, which is Canada (a country). In contrast, if we pro- | Relation | Prompt | |-------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------| | birthplace | John G. Bennett was born in [MASK], which is located in [MASK]. | | occupation | Jenny Burton is a [MASK] by profession, which belongs to [MASK]. | | location | Carey River is located in [MASK], which is located in [MASK]. | | subclass-of | Tracking ship is a subclass of [MASK], which is a subclass of [MASK]. | | part-of | Hard palate is part of [MASK], which is part of [MASK]. | birthplace occupation location subclass-of part-of *Average* GPT-2 (VP) 59.72 57.28 48.25 57.98 **60.86** 56.82 GPT-2 (FP) **81.01 71.66 50.33 64.15** 57.67 **64.96** GPT-2 (CP)* 59.72 57.28 48.25 57.98 **60.86** 56.82 BERT-Base (VP) 60.68 70.46 49.09 67.64 67.41 63.06 BERT-Base (FP) **67.85 70.54** 50.11 **69.11** 53.83 62.29 BERT-Base (CP) 59.68 **70.54 55.06** 67.42 69.49 **64.44** BERT-Large (VP) 56.52 **71.76** 42.36 77.25 66.77 62.93 BERT-Large (FP) 66.17 64.70 50.37 65.44 52.24 59.78 BERT-Large (CP) **82.25** 70.02 53.55 77.67 71.88 **71.07** RoBERTa-Base (VP) 54.48 61.80 49.99 61.59 59.11 57.39 RoBERTa-Base (FP) **64.85 72.38** 35.85 **63.01** 51.11 57.44 RoBERTa-Base (CP) 63.09 64.54 **54.56** 61.81 62.78 **61.36** RoBERTa-Large (VP) 42.16 71.44 43.28 **80.63** 59.27 59.36 RoBERTa-Large (FP) 70.51 71.94 42.26 73.70 62.94 64.27 RoBERTa-Large (CP) **89.00 74.02 66.09** 79.87 65.18 **74.83** vide some fine-grained answers with "Melbourne is located in Victoria, Guangzhou is located in Guangdong, Toronto is located in [MASK].", the model may realize through analogy that we prefer a finegrained answer here, which is Ontario (a province). We refer to the method described above as *Fewshot Prompting*, which supposes to bias the prediction to be more specific by providing some examples with fine-grained answers. The technique here is similar to the few-shot setting in GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020) and (Adolphs et al., 2021), where several demonstrations are given to the model as condition to help the model make the prediction. ## 5.2 Cascade Prompting To make the answer more specific, we can also utilize the relationship between coarse-grained and fine-grained objects. For instance, in Table 1, *tracking ship* is a subclass of *vessel*, while *vessel* is also a subclass of *vehicle*. To combine the three entities, we can write: *Tracking ship is a subclass of vessel,* which is a subclass of vehicle. By masking the objects, we get prompt: "Tracking ship is a subclass of [MASK], which is a subclass of [MASK]." Intuitively, the first masked token will be more likely to be filled by *vessel*, while the second masked token tends to be *vehicle*. Another example in Table 1 is to predict the birthplace, we can create prompt "John G. Bennett was born in [MASK], which is located in [MASK]." to bias the prediction of the first masked token to be more specific. We refer to the above method as *Cascade* Prompting, which aims to improve the specificity by adding "*which clauses*" as constraints according to the relationship between coarse-grained and fine-grained answers. The "which clauses" here can be considered as suffixes and the prediction of the first masked token is returned as the answer. ## 6 Experiments In this section, we conduct experiments with the prompt-based methods proposed in Section 5. ## 6.1 Experimental Setup We follow the setup in Section 4.1. For Few-shot Prompting, we set K, i.e., the number of demonstrations, as 10. For Cascade Prompting, we apply the prompts in Table 6, which are constructed automatically based on the prompts for the transitive relations, e.g., "... is located in [MASK]." ⇒ "..., which is located in [MASK]." ## 6.2 Results Table 7 summarizes the results of specificity testing with different prompting methods. From the results, we observe that Cascade Prompting achieves the best performance in most cases. In addition, | GPT-2 | BERT-Base | BERT-Large | RoBERTa-Base | RoBERTa-Large | | |--------------|-------------|--------------|----------------|-----------------|---------| | Acc@10 w/ FP | + 10.62 | + 0.05 | + 2.74 | + 8.09 | + 16.45 | | Acc@10 w/ CP | 0.00 | - 0.07 | - 4.28 | + 2.06 | + 0.77 | Table 8: Change in correctness of the predictions compared to Vanilla Prompting (%) on fine-grained answers. w/ FP & CP means Few-shot & Cascade Prompting is used to create prompts. | GPT-2 | BERT-Base | BERT-Large | RoBERTa-Base | RoBERTa-Large | | |-------------------|-------------|--------------|----------------|-----------------|-------| | Naturalness w/ VP | 43.88 | 48.72 | 50.42 | 41.63 | 37.32 | | Specificity w/ VP | 56.82 | 63.06 | 62.93 | 57.39 | 59.36 | | Naturalness w/ FP | 52.02 | 51.05 | 47.36 | 49.11 | 49.96 | | Specificity w/ FP | 64.96 | 62.29 | 59.78 | 57.44 | 64.27 | | Naturalness w/ CP | 43.88 | 51.44 | 56.54 | 45.81 | 57.69 | | Specificity w/ CP | 56.82 | 64.44 | 71.07 | 61.36 | 74.83 | Table 9: Average naturalness measured with pr(%) with different prompts, with corresponding average specificity as reference. *w/ VP* means Vanilla Prompting is used to create prompts. For each model, the best naturalness is underlined and the best specificity is **bold**. the performance improvement for BERT-Large and RoBERTa-Large with Cascade Prompting is quite significant. We think this is because the large models can understand which clauses better than the base models. We also observe that Few-shot Prompting does not always improve the specificity for bidirectional language models. However, for GPT-2, which is a unidirectional language model, Few-shot Prompting achieves a significant performance improvement, while the results of Cascade Prompting are the same as those of Vanilla Prompting. To observe the impact of the two methods on correctness, we report the change in correctness in Table 8. We observe that the correctness of Cascade Prompting is close to that of Vanilla Prompting, while the correctness of Few-shot Prompting improves significantly. This is because Cascade Prompting is in a zero-shot setting, while in Fewshot Prompting, demonstrations can provide some supervision to help the model make predictions. We also measure *naturalness* of different models with different prompting methods. From Table 9, we find that, for each model, the best prompting method is usually associated with the highest naturalness: Cascade Prompting improves the naturalness for bidirectional language models significantly, which corresponds to better performance on specificity; while for GPT-2, the naturalness using Few-shot Prompting is the highest, corresponding to the highest specificity. ## 7 Discussion Specificity Testing in More General Scenarios: In this work, we test the specificity of PLMs on several relations with manually crafted prompts, with test data created automatically based on the property of transitive relations. For future work, we may test the specificity in more general scenarios. For instance, for numerical knowledge (Lin et al., 2020), we can test how specifically PLMs describe the numbers, e.g., Obama was born in *1961* vs Obama was born in 1960s, A car has four *wheels* vs A car has several *wheels*. In addition, we may test on multi-token answers (Jiang et al., 2020a), and measure the specificity of sentences generated by PLMs (Louis and Nenkova, 2011; Ko et al., 2019; Adiwardana et al., 2020; Thoppilan et al., 2022), e.g., *This is a very good paper. I really* like it. vs This paper conducts a very novel and interesting study, which provides a new insight for future work on language models. Further Improvement of Specificity: In this paper, we propose *Few-shot Prompting* and Cascade Prompting to improve the specificity of PLMs without any additional training. Future work may improve the specificity by including prompt-based fine-tuning (Shin et al., 2020; Gao et al., 2021). The observation also encourages future work to take into account the specificity, e.g., adding constraints regarding specificity, in the pre-training process. It is also interesting to design methods to control the degree of specificity for different usage scenarios (Huang et al., 2021). ## 8 Conclusion In this paper, we build a benchmark to measure the specificity of predictions produced by pre-trained language models. To achieve this, we propose a novel approach to construct test data for specificity testing automatically. From our evaluations, we show that existing PLMs have only a slight preference for more specific answers. We also propose two prompt-based methods, i.e., Few-shot Prompting and Cascade Prompting, to improve the specificity of the predictions. Extensive experiments and in-depth analyses demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed methods. We hope this work can encourage future research in this direction and give some insights to improve downstream tasks such as question answering, information extraction, and text generation: 1) to make the answers, the extracted information, or the generated sentences more specific; 2) to control the degree of specificity for different usage scenarios. ## Limitations This work presents some limitations. Firstly, our focus is confined to evaluating the specificity of predictions made by pre-trained language models for entity relations. As noted in Section 7, specificity can potentially be tested in a broader range of scenarios. Despite this restriction, we consider this work as an initial attempt to highlight the concept of language model specificity. We believe it will stimulate further research into this crucial, yet under-explored, area. A second limitation is the scale of the models evaluated in this work. Given the swift evolution of large language models concurrent with the drafting of this paper, the models we examined are comparatively small. As pointed out in the work of Zheng et al. (2023), large language models may fail to answer a problem at the appropriate level of specificity. We thus encourage future investigations to delve into the specificity of these rapidly evolving, larger language models. ## Acknowledgements We thank the reviewers for their constructive feedback. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation IIS 16-19302 and IIS 16-33755, Zhejiang University ZJU Research 083650, IBM-Illinois Center for Cognitive Computing Systems Research (C3SR) and IBMIllinois Discovery Accelerator Institute (IIDAI), gift grants from eBay and Microsoft Azure, UIUC OVCR CCIL Planning Grant 434S34, UIUC CSBS Small Grant 434C8U, and UIUC New Frontiers Initiative. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding agencies. ## References Daniel Adiwardana, Minh-Thang Luong, David R So, Jamie Hall, Noah Fiedel, Romal Thoppilan, Zi Yang, Apoorv Kulshreshtha, Gaurav Nemade, Yifeng Lu, et al. 2020. Towards a human-like open-domain chatbot. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2001.09977. Leonard Adolphs, Shehzaad Dhuliawala, and Thomas Hofmann. 2021. How to query language models? arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.01928. Zied Bouraoui, Jose Camacho-Collados, and Steven Schockaert. 2020. Inducing relational knowledge from bert. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 7456–7463. 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 Neural Information Processing Systems*, volume 33, pages 1877–1901. Curran Associates, Inc. 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. Tianyu Gao, Adam Fisch, and Danqi Chen. 2021. Making pre-trained language models better few-shot learners. In *Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL)*. Han Huang, Tomoyuki Kajiwara, and Yuki Arase. 2021. Definition modelling for appropriate specificity. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2499–2509. Zhengbao Jiang, Antonios Anastasopoulos, Jun Araki, Haibo Ding, and Graham Neubig. 2020a. X-factr: Multilingual factual knowledge retrieval from pretrained language models. In *Proceedings of the 2020* Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 5943–5959. Zhengbao Jiang, Frank F Xu, Jun Araki, and Graham Neubig. 2020b. How can we know what language models know? *Transactions of the Association for* Computational Linguistics, 8:423–438. 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 *Proceedings of the* 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: Findings, pages 1896–1907. Wei-Jen Ko, Greg Durrett, and Junyi Jessy Li. 2019. Domain agnostic real-valued specificity prediction. In *Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial* Intelligence, volume 33, pages 6610–6617. Bill Yuchen Lin, Seyeon Lee, Rahul Khanna, and Xiang Ren. 2020. Birds have four legs?! numersense: Probing numerical commonsense knowledge of pretrained language models. In *Proceedings of the 2020* Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6862–6868. Pengfei Liu, Weizhe Yuan, Jinlan Fu, Zhengbao Jiang, Hiroaki Hayashi, and Graham Neubig. 2021a. Pretrain, prompt, and predict: A systematic survey of prompting methods in natural language processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.13586. Xiao Liu, Yanan Zheng, Zhengxiao Du, Ming Ding, Yujie Qian, Zhilin Yang, and Jie Tang. 2021b. Gpt understands, too. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.10385*. 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*. Annie Louis and Ani Nenkova. 2011. Automatic identification of general and specific sentences by leveraging discourse annotations. In Proceedings of 5th international joint conference on natural language processing, pages 605–613. Rebecca Marvin and Tal Linzen. 2018. Targeted syntactic evaluation of language models. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1192–1202. 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. Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. *OpenAI* blog, 1(8):9. Adam Roberts, Colin Raffel, and Noam Shazeer. 2020. How much knowledge can you pack into the parameters of a language model? In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 5418–5426. Taylor Shin, Yasaman Razeghi, Robert L Logan IV, Eric Wallace, and Sameer Singh. 2020. Eliciting knowledge from language models using automatically generated prompts. In *Proceedings of the 2020* Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 4222–4235. Romal Thoppilan, Daniel De Freitas, Jamie Hall, Noam Shazeer, Apoorv Kulshreshtha, Heng-Tze Cheng, Alicia Jin, Taylor Bos, Leslie Baker, Yu Du, et al. 2022. Lamda: Language models for dialog applications. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.08239*. Denny Vrandeciˇ c and Markus Krötzsch. 2014. Wiki- ´ data: a free collaborative knowledgebase. *Communications of the ACM*, 57(10):78–85. Chenguang Wang, Xiao Liu, and Dawn Song. 2020. Language models are open knowledge graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11967. Shufan Wang, Laure Thompson, and Mohit Iyyer. 2021. Phrase-bert: Improved phrase embeddings from bert with an application to corpus exploration. Sean Welleck, Kianté Brantley, Hal Daumé Iii, and Kyunghyun Cho. 2019. Non-monotonic sequential text generation. In *International Conference on Machine Learning*, pages 6716–6726. PMLR. Lang Yu and Allyson Ettinger. 2020. Assessing phrasal representation and composition in transformers. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 4896–4907. Shen Zheng, Jie Huang, and Kevin Chen-Chuan Chang. 2023. Why does chatgpt fall short in providing truthful answers? *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2304.10513. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist 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? no/low risk ✓ 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? Those models and data are commonly used ✗ 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)? same as above 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.? Section 3 ✓ 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 4, 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? Section 4, 5 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, 5 ✓ 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, 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 4, 5 D ✓ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Section 4, 5 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 4, 5 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.

li-etal-2023-web

The Web Can Be Your Oyster for Improving Language Models

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.46

Pretrained language models (PLMs) encode a large amount of world knowledge. However, as such knowledge is frozen at the time of model training, the models become static and limited by the training data at that time. In order to further improve the capacity of PLMs for knowledge-intensive tasks, we consider augmenting PLMs with the large-scale web using search engine. Unlike previous augmentation sources (e.g., Wikipedia data dump), the web provides broader, more comprehensive and constantly updated information. In this paper, we present a web-augmented PLM {--} UniWeb, which is trained over 16 knowledge-intensive tasks in a unified text-to-text format. Instead of simply using the retrieved contents from web, our approach has made two major improvements. Firstly, we propose an adaptive search engine assisted learning method that can self-evaluate the confidence level of PLM{'}s predictions, and adaptively determine when to refer to the web for more data, which can avoid useless or noisy augmentation from web. Secondly, we design a pretraining task, i.e., continual knowledge learning, based on salient spans prediction, to reduce the discrepancy between the encoded and retrieved knowledge. Experiments on a wide range of knowledge-intensive tasks show that our model significantly outperforms previous retrieval-augmented methods.

## The Web Can Be Your Oyster For Improving Language Models Junyi Li1,3,5, Tianyi Tang1**, Wayne Xin Zhao**1,5∗**, Jingyuan Wang**4, Jian-Yun Nie3and **Ji-Rong Wen**1,2,5 1Gaoling School of Artificial Intelligence, Renmin University of China 2School of Information, Renmin University of China 3DIRO, Université de Montréal 4School of Computer Science and Engineering, Beihang University 5Beijing Key Laboratory of Big Data Management and Analysis Methods {lijunyi,steven_tang}@ruc.edu.cn batmanfly@gmail.com ## Abstract Pretrained language models (PLMs) encode a large amount of world knowledge. However, as such knowledge is frozen at the time of model training, the models become *static* and *limited* by the training data at that time. In order to further improve the capacity of PLMs for knowledge-intensive tasks, we consider augmenting PLMs with the large-scale web using search engine. Unlike previous augmentation sources (*e.g.,* Wikipedia data dump), the web provides broader, more comprehensive and constantly updated information. In this paper, we present a web-augmented PLM - UNIWEB, which is trained over 16 knowledge-intensive tasks in a unified text-to-text format. Instead of simply using the retrieved contents from web, our approach has made two major improvements. Firstly, we propose an adaptive search engine assisted learning method that can self-evaluate the confidence level of PLM's predictions, and adaptively determine when to refer to the web for more data, which can avoid useless or noisy augmentation from web. Secondly, we design a pretraining task, *i.e., continual knowledge learning*, based on salient spans prediction, to reduce the discrepancy between the encoded and retrieved knowledge. Experiments on a wide range of knowledge-intensive tasks show that our model significantly outperforms previous retrieval-augmented methods. Our code and data can be accessed at this link https://github.com/RUCAIBox/UniWeb ## 1 Introduction With large-scale neural networks, pretrained language models (PLMs) (Brown et al., 2020; Zhao et al., 2023) can encode a large amount of world knowledge, showing phenomenal capability in knowledge-intensive tasks such as fact checking and open-domain question answering (QA). However, this capacity is naturally limited by the information contained in pretraining or finetuning ∗Corresponding author  "And now, Gi-hun returns" "The Front Man returns. Season 2 is coming." "Squid Game" is a fictional drama from South Korea in which contestants who are desperately in need of money play deadly children's games to win cash prizes. [...] URL: https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/1 2/media/squid-game-season-2/index.html T5 w/o Web The Walking Dead % T5 w/ Web Squid Game " Table 1: An example showing that the web covers both  more comprehensive (*e.g.,* Korean show) and up-to-date (*e.g.,* recently) information than Wikipedia. Based on the latest news returned by Google Search, T5-LARGE can answer the question correctly. datasets (usually fixed once collected), which are neither *up-to-date* nor *complete* (Komeili et al., 2021; Ji et al., 2022). Although model scaling (Brown et al., 2020; Chowdhery et al., 2022; Thoppilan et al., 2022) is a viable way to improve the knowledge capacity of PLMs, it still uses *static* pretraining datasets, and also leads to significantly larger computational costs with increased model sizes. As a result, the outdated or incomplete knowledge encoded by PLMs may lead to hallucination or incorrect generations even though the results look plausible (Ji et al., 2022). Recently, by drawing the idea from semiparametric approaches (Zhao et al., 2022; Guu et al., 2020; Lewis et al., 2020b; Borgeaud et al., 2022), retrieval-augmented approaches have been proposed to equip PLMs with the ability to directly access an external database. As a major knowledge resource, Wikipedia has been widely used in previous work. While being highly accurate and wellstructured, Wikipedia only covers *limited* information, both in scope and in time. Besides, even for the topics that Wikipedia covers, grounding PLMs' decisions on a single source of knowledge may create biases (Wagner et al., 2016). Considering these issues, it is time to look beyond Wikipedia (or similar single-source databases) and access more broader, *in-depth*, and *up-to-date* knowledge from more sources. Inspired by (Komeili et al., 2021; Piktus et al., 2021), we select the web as the retrieval resource for enlarging the knowledge capacity of PLMs. To motivate our approach, Table 1 presents a sample question that T5 successfully answers with the support of the web (providing the latest news), but not Wikipedia. As we can see, timely and relevant supporting evidence is the key to solve such tasks for PLMs. In this paper, we aim to capitalize on the web as a source of up-to-date and comprehensive knowledge to solve a wide range of knowledge-intensive tasks. Unlike previous web-augmented studies (Nakano et al., 2021; Menick et al., 2022) that mostly focus on single tasks, we seek to develop a unified framework to integrate the use of the web in PLMs for multi-task solving. Although the idea of leveraging the web for improving PLMs is appealing, it is non-trivial to develop an effective solution. First, PLMs do not always need external evidence for task solving, especially considering the fact that the web contains noisy, biased, or harmful information (Luccioni and Viviano, 2021). Simply retrieving knowledge without considering the example difficulty and PLMs' own capabilities may steer models towards unexpected outputs. Second, PLMs are usually pretrained at an earlier time on a limited corpus, leading to a discrepancy between the encoded knowledge and the retrieved knowledge (*i.e.,* web contents). Therefore, we need more principled approaches to properly integrating the new knowledge into PLMs. To address the above issues, we present a webaugmented PLMs, UNIWEB, to improve the capacity in knowledge-intensive tasks. Instead of using neural network-based retriever, we employ a commercial search engine (*i.e.,* Google Search) to obtain high-quality and comprehensive retrieval results from the web. Based on this idea, we make two major technical contributions. First, we propose a *search engine assisted learning* method that can selectively query the web only when PLM is unconfident in its predictions. For this purpose, we design a self-evaluation mechanism to estimate the confidence level of PLMs on the task examples. Secondly, to reduce the discrepancy between the encoded and retrieved knowledge, we design a pretraining task, *continual knowledge learning*, to integrate the retrieved knowledge into PLMs by predicting the salient masked spans in web documents. To train the UNIWEB model, we convert different knowledge-intensive tasks into a unified text-to-text format, and conduct supervised multitask training over 16 tasks across seven categories. To the best of our knowledge, our model is the first unified web-augmented PLM for a wide range of knowledge-intensive tasks. Extensive experiments show that PLMs can significantly benefit from such an approach and a single unified PLM (UNIWEB) is able to achieve (near) state-of-the-art performance on all 16 tasks. ## 2 Related Work Retrieval-Augmented PLMs. Augmenting a pretrained language model with retrieval has been extensively studied in existing literature (Lewis et al., 2020b; Borgeaud et al., 2022; Izacard et al., 2022; Lee et al., 2019; Guu et al., 2020). For example, REALM (Guu et al., 2020) and RAG (Lewis et al., 2020b), incorporate a differentiable retriever into pretrained models, leading to promising results on question answering. However, these studies usually rely on a sub-optimal retriever to access a static and limited knowledge resource, *i.e.,* Wikipedia. By contrast, our model utilizes the well-developed search engine to gain broader, more in-depth, and up-to-date knowledge from the web. Several studies have also looked at how Internet can help the models, but only focus on single tasks such as question answering (Nakano et al., 2021; Menick et al., 2022) and dialogue (Komeili et al., 2021). WebGPT (Nakano et al., 2021) uses human feedback to optimize answer quality by hiring massive labelers to judge the accuracy of answers. Komeili et al. (2021) retrieves knowledge from the web for every dialogue without considering the necessity. Piktus et al. (2021) only presents an empirical study to investigate the impact of replacing Wikipedia with a large-scale web-like corpus and adopting different retrieval models. We are also aware of some related studies (Jiang et al., 2023), but we have taken a different active approach for knowledge retrieval. In this paper, we develop a unified language model for solving a wide spectrum of knowledge-intensive tasks. Our model can selectively decide whether to access the web, and continuously learn from the  Knowledge-Intensive Learning. Recent work has shown that PLMs' parameters have implicitly stored linguistic or factual knowledge (Petroni et al., 2019; Roberts et al., 2020). However, the implicitly encoded knowledge is limited by the model's scale and training data, contradicting the dynamic nature of the world. Hence, many researchers propose to fuse relevant external knowledge from texts with the encoded knowledge of PLMs to deal with knowledge-intensive tasks such as open-domain QA (Guu et al., 2020; Lewis et al., 2020b), entity linking (Wu et al., 2019), fact verification (Liu et al., 2019b), and commonsense reasoning (Lin et al., 2020). Wikipedia has been the most widely used knowledge source for these tasks, which is still limited despite its wide coverage. Instead, we rely on the real-time web. The existing studies usually design task-specific training, architecture, and knowledge fusion method to exploit knowledge sources. In this work, we aim to develop a single unified framework that can be used for most knowledge-intensive tasks. ## 3 Task Formulation Knowledge-intensive tasks (Yin et al., 2022) aim to leverage external knowledge resources to accomplish a broad range of tasks such as open-domain question answering and fact verification. Following prior work (Lewis et al., 2020b; Guu et al., 2020), we employ a retrieval-augmented generation framework that consists of two components: a retriever R and a generator G. Given an input text X such as a question, the retriever R learns to retrieve a set of top-K passages P = {p1*, ..., p*K} from a knowledge resource. Conditioned on the input text X and the retrieved passages P, the generator G aims to generate the output text Y. The model is trained to maximize the joint likelihood: $$\operatorname*{Pr}({\mathcal{Y}}|{\mathcal{X}})=\sum_{{\mathcal{R}},{\mathcal{G}}}\operatorname*{Pr}({\mathcal{P}}|{\mathcal{X}})\operatorname*{Pr}({\mathcal{Y}}|{\mathcal{P}},{\mathcal{X}}).\quad(1)$$ To implement the framework, previous studies usually adopt a trainable neural retriever based on a (single) knowledge resource such as Wikipedia or knowledge bases. However, such an approach can only access limited, static knowledge. In this paper, we rely on a general, off-the-shelf search engine as the retriever to access both *comprehensive* and up-to-date knowledge from the whole web. ## 4 Approach Our proposed web-augmented PLM, UNIWEB, is depicted in Figure 1. We first transform knowledgeintensive tasks into a unified text-to-text paradigm and consider the web as a general form of knowledge source. Based on the retrieved knowledge, we further design two training objectives to build our model. In the next sections, we will describe our method in detail. ## 4.1 Knowledge-Intensive Tasks Unification Previous retrieval-augmented approaches usually adopt diverse architectures and different types of knowledge resources (Yin et al., 2022). Instead, we aim to leverage the general knowledge source (*i.e.,* the web) to develop a unified framework that can fulfill various (or most) knowledge-intensive tasks. Specifically, we unify 16 typical knowledgeintensive tasks across 7 task families, including fact checking, slot filling, dialogue, open-domain question answering, commonsense question answering, commonsense reasoning, and natural language inference. We convert these tasks as a general textto-text transformation for training a unified PLM. These tasks are mainly from the studies (Petroni et al., 2020; Piktus et al., 2021), in which the original tasks of fact checking, slot filling, dialogue, and open-domain QA are designed specifically based on the retrieved knowledge from Wikipedia, while other tasks of commonsense QA, commonsense reasoning, and natural language inference focus on some more specific commonsense knowledge, going beyond Wikipedia. We consider these knowledge-intensive tasks as typical NLP tasks to show that the large-scale web can be specially useful for satisfying diverse information needs. More details about each task can be found in Appendix A. ## 4.2 Web-Based Knowledge Retrieval Unlike prior work that retrieves documents from offline corpora such as Wikipedia (Guu et al., 2020; Lewis et al., 2020b), we propose to retrieve comprehensive and *up-to-date* information from the online web through a general-purpose search engine. Although it is intuitive to extend the retrieval-augmented framework with the web as the knowledge resource, it is non-trivial to effectively leverage the knowledge found on the web. The documents on the web have inconsistent quality, and contain noisy, biased, or even harmful contents (Luccioni and Viviano, 2021). Low-quality content may steer PLMs towards seemingly plausible but factually incorrect outputs (Ji et al., 2022). On the other hand, compared to a local neural retriever, black-box search engines can only be accessed through queries, which is less controllable and not easy to filter out noisy contents from the search results. In addition, PLMs do not always need external knowledge for task solving, especially for easy tasks. Therefore, we should request for more knowledge only when needed. ## 4.2.1 Plm Knowledge Evaluation To address the above challenges, it is essential to evaluate PLMs' own capabilities in a task and the necessity to refer to external knowledge. In our approach, we consider a non-trivial question before retrieval: does a PLM need to retrieve knowledge for a specific task instance? For this purpose, we investigate whether or not PLMs can correctly answer questions without using external evidence. According to the recent study (Kadavath et al., 2022), PLMs can self-evaluate the confidence level of their generation results (e.g., True or *False*). Hence, we propose to utilize the self-evaluation mechanism to determine whether it is necessary to access addi- ## Tional Web Information. Self-Evaluation. Specifically, we hypothesize that when a model "knows" the true output (*i.e.,* confident about its output) for a specific input, sampling the outputs many times would result in an output distribution with small entropy. Following Kadavath et al. (2022), we sample n (n = 200) different outputs for each input and estimate the entropy of the output distribution as follows: $$\begin{array}{r c l}{{H(\hat{\mathcal{Y}}|\mathcal{X})}}&{{=}}&{{\mathbb{E}[-\log\operatorname*{Pr}(\hat{\mathcal{Y}}|\mathcal{X})]}}\\ {{}}&{{}}&{{}}\\ {{}}&{{}}&{{=}}&{{\mathbb{E}\left[-\sum_{w_{i}\in\hat{\mathcal{Y}}}\log\operatorname*{Pr}(w_{i}|\mathcal{X},w_{<i})\right],}}\\ {{}}&{{}}&{{}}\end{array}$$ where Yˆ = ⟨w1, ..., wi*, ..., w*m⟩ is the output text generated by the model G. Then, we set an entropy threshold η. If H(Y|Xˆ ) is higher than η, it means that the model is unconfident about its outputs and needs supporting evidence from the web, otherwise, it does not. We will further demonstrate the predictive power of the entropy (Eq. (2)) in estimating the model confidence for knowledge retrieval. ## 4.2.2 Web Knowledge Retrieval In *active learning* (Ren et al., 2021), a prediction model can interactively query for labeling examples with low confidence levels. This learning method can not only reduce the cost of data labeling, but also remove those noisy and unhelpful data that models cannot benefit from. Inspired by this, we propose a *search engine assisted learning* approach, in which PLMs choose those hard cases that they cannot solve (assessed by self-evaluation) to query the off-the-shelf search engine for knowledge retrieval. Different from active learning, our approach does not directly query for the final answer (largely reducing the labeling efforts), but instead the supporting evidence for solving the task. After retrieving knowledge from the web, it is critical to filter out noisy contents and select the most helpful and relevant knowledge that can enhance PLMs' confidence to generate correct outputs. Therefore, we elaborate a *two-stage filter* mechanism to filter the retrieved knowledge. Search Engine Assisted Learning. Specifically, for those hard examples, we take their input text X verbatim as a search query and issue a call to Google Search via API. For each query, we retrieve top-K HTML pages and parse them to obtain clean texts, resulting in a set of passages P = {p1*, ..., p*K}. To filter out noisy and irrelevant information, in the first stage, we chunk each passage into paragraphs, compute the cosine similarity between input and paragraph embeddings, and select the five most relevant paragraphs to form the final passage. In the second stage, we adopt the same method as self-evaluation (Eq. 2) to compute the model confidence given the input and each processed passage and select those passages with high confidence as the final evidence. ## 4.3 Knowledge-Based Model Pretraining In most previous work, the retrieval model is either pretrained using self-supervised objective such as MLM (Guu et al., 2020; Borgeaud et al., 2022) or trained for specific tasks (Lewis et al., 2020b). In this work, we focus on explicitly training webaugmented PLMs in a supervised and massively multi-task fashion (Aribandi et al., 2022) using the mixture of knowledge-intensive tasks (Section 4.1). Besides, to integrate the retrieved knowledge into PLMs, we design a continual knowledge learning task based on the retrieved passages. Knowledge-Intensive Learning. This pretraining objective uses the retrieved knowledge and labeled data from the unified knowledge-intensive tasks. Formally, given an input text X and retrieved passages P, this objective is to minimize the negative log-likelihood loss over the output text Y: $${\mathcal{L}}_{K I L}=-\sum_{i=1}^{m}\log\Pr(w_{i}|w_{<i},{\mathcal{X}},{\mathcal{P}}),\quad(3)$$ where wi denotes the i-th token of the output text Y. We concatenate the input text X and retrieved passages P using the manually-written task-specific prompts (shown in Appendix A). Pretrained on the unified knowledge-based text-to-text format, our model can be easily applied to diverse knowledgeintensive tasks. It has been reported that ensembling many tasks, distributions and domains during pretraining can improve PLMs' generalization to new tasks (Aribandi et al., 2022). Continual Knowledge Learning. Due to the limited pretraining on single static corpus, the knowledge encoded in PLMs has a discrepancy with the retrieved knowledge from the web. Thus, to reduce the discrepancy and integrate the newly retrieved knowledge into PLMs, we design a self-supervised pretraining task, *i.e.,* continual knowledge learning. For most knowledge-intensive tasks such as slot filling and fact verification, named entities are of special importance. Thus, this pretraining task aims to predict the salient masked spans (*i.e.,* named entities) in retrieved passages. Firstly, we use a BERT-based (Devlin et al., 2019) tagger trained on CoNLL-2003 data (Sang and De Meulder, 2003) to identify name entities and then mask entities such as "United States". Then, our model will be trained to predict these masked spans by minimizing the masked span prediction loss: $${\mathcal{L}}_{C K L}=-\sum_{k=1}^{K}\sum_{j=1}^{m}\log\Pr(s_{j}|{\tilde{p}}_{k}),\qquad(4)$$ where sj is the j-th masked span for the passage pk, and p˜k denotes the unmasked tokens in pk. ## 5 Experiments In this section, we detail the experimental setup and then highlight the main observations of our results. ## 5.1 Experimental Setup Knowledge Source. In large-scale pretraining, we leverage an open massive web corpus CCNet (Wenzek et al., 2020) to provide documents with diverse topics, approximating the realistic web. Following Piktus et al. (2021), we select the CCNet snapshot corresponding to the August 2019 Common Crawl snapshot which covers a wide range of 134M web documents and finally yields 906M passages of 100 tokens. CCNet processes Common Crawl through deduplication, language identification and quality filtering based on perplexity calculated by a language model. In downstream fine-tuning, we test with the off-the-shelf search engine, *i.e.,* Google Search, to retrieve documents from the real-time web. Specifically, we utilize the input text verbatim as query and request a call to Google Search via API1. Besides, for the Wikipedia-based baselines, we use the 2019/08/01 Wikipedia snapshot from the KILT benchmark (Petroni et al., 2020), consisting of 5.9M documents split into 22.2M passages of 100 tokens. This data snapshot is temporally the closest to the CCNet corpus for fair comparison. Pretraining Tasks. As described in Section 4.1, we unify 16 knowledge-intensive tasks across seven task families during pretraining: - **Fact Checking**: FEVER (Thorne et al., 2018). 1https://developers.google.com/custom-search | Models | Fact Checking | Slot Filling | Dialogue | Open-domain QA | | | | | |---------------|-----------------|----------------|------------|------------------|----------|----------|-------|-------| | FEVER | T-REx | zsRE | WoW | NQ | HotpotQA | TriviaQA | ELI5 | | | w/o Retrieval | | | | | | | | | | BARTLARGE | 78.93 | 45.06 | 9.14 | 12.86 | 21.75 | 15.37 | 32.39 | 20.55 | | T5LARGE | 80.31 | 50.63 | 10.34 | 12.67 | 28.50 | 18.98 | 35.90 | 20.60 | | w/ Wikipedia | | | | | | | | | | REALM | 76.22 | 53.35 | 39.38 | - | 40.40 | 22.23 | 65.44 | 10.23 | | RAG | 86.31 | 59.20 | 44.74 | 13.11 | 44.39 | 26.97 | 71.27 | 14.05 | | BART+DPR | 86.74 | 59.16 | 30.43 | 15.19 | 41.27 | 25.18 | 58.55 | 17.41 | | BART+DPRMULTI | 86.32 | 78.50 | 57.95 | 15.33 | 39.75 | 31.77 | 59.60 | 17.07 | | FID+DPRMULTI | 88.99 | 82.19 | 71.53 | 15.66 | 49.86 | 36.90 | 71.04 | 16.45 | | w/ CCNet | | | | | | | | | | FID+DPRMULTI | 85.74 | 52.06 | 28.47 | 15.22 | 45.15 | 27.29 | 67.49 | 16.14 | | FID+DPRCCNET | 87.43 | 57.02 | 36.55 | 15.29 | 48.61 | 31.64 | 73.06 | 15.76 | | FID+BM25 | 89.12 | 62.12 | 43.92 | 17.28 | 46.05 | 34.10 | 78.21 | 15.59 | | w/ Web | | | | | | | | | | UniWeb | 91.69 | 83.58 | 72.42 | 20.87 | 54.37 | 40.73 | 77.01 | 18.34 | - **Slot Filling**: T-REx (ElSahar et al., 2018) and zero-shot RE (Levy et al., 2017). - **Dialogue**: Wizard-of-Wikipedia (Dinan et al., 2019). - **Open-domain QA**: TriviaQA (Joshi et al., 2017), Natural Questions (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019), HotpotQA (Yang et al., 2018), and ELI5 (Shuster et al., 2020). - **Commonsense QA**: CommonsenseQA (Talmor et al., 2019), SocialIQa (Sap et al., 2019), CosmosQA (Huang et al., 2019), and PIQA (Bisk et al., 2020). - **Commonsense Reasoning**: NumerSense (Lin et al., 2020) and WinoGrande (Sakaguchi et al., 2020). - **Natural Language Inference**: αNLI (Bhagavatula et al., 2020) and HellaSwag (Zellers et al., 2019). We convert these tasks into a unified text-to-text format. We take the input text as query to retrieve top 10 passages from CCNet. After pre-processing, we mix the training set of these datasets to pretrain our model. We present the statistics of datasets and pre-processing details in Appendix A. Baselines. We compare **UniWeb** to a wide range of models as follows: - **BART** (Lewis et al., 2020a) and T5 (Raffel et al., 2020). These are two representative text-to-text PLMs for solving knowledge-intensive tasks. We adopt the large version for a fair comparison. - **REALM** (Guu et al., 2020) and RAG (Lewis et al., 2020b). They are two well-known retrievalaugmented PLMs combining with a nonparametric memory of Wikipedia via a neural retriever. - **Fusion-in-Decoder (FID)** (Izacard and Grave, 2020). It is based on T5 where the encoder encodes the input text with each passage and the decoder combines the encoded representations. - Maillard et al. (2021) and Piktus et al. (2021) equip BART and FID with retrieval models, *i.e.,* BM25 (Robertson et al., 2009), DPR (Karpukhin et al., 2020), DPRM**ULTI** trained in a multi-task fashion, and DPRCCNET trained on CCNet. Note that these models are trained on individual tasks and datasets, while our model is pretrained in a multi-task manner. We use BM25 to retrieve passages from CCNet during pretraining. The BM25 and DPR indices are collected from the previous word (Piktus et al., 2021). Since it lacks the retrieval supervision to train DPR for those tasks in Table 3, we only report the BM25 results. The implementation details are shown in Appendix B. Evaluation Metrics. We adopt various tasks and datasets in our experiments, which need to be evaluated differently. Following Petroni et al. (2020), we use *Exact Match* (EM) for datasets with extractive (*i.e.,* Natural Questions, TriviaQA) or short abstractive output text (*i.e.,* HotpotQA); for datasets | Commonsense QA | Commonsense Reasoning | NLI | | | | | | | |------------------|-------------------------|-----------|----------|-------|------------|------------|-----------|-------| | Models | CSQA | SocialIQA | CosmosQA | PIQA | NumerSense | WinoGrande | HellaSwag | αNLI | | w/o Retrieval | | | | | | | | | | BARTLARGE | 62.50 | 74.00 | 75.11 | 77.40 | 55.30 | 62.40 | 76.60 | 75.12 | | T5LARGE | 72.56 | 74.16 | 79.23 | 78.67 | 59.71 | 76.48 | 79.84 | 77.48 | | w/ Wikipedia | | | | | | | | | | REALM | 63.11 | 62.52 | 71.33 | 70.65 | 57.34 | 62.12 | 73.21 | 71.40 | | RAG | 69.51 | 68.32 | 76.55 | 75.23 | 59.22 | 63.35 | 75.01 | 74.45 | | BART+BM25 | 70.16 | 70.83 | 76.14 | 77.04 | 57.50 | 65.09 | 76.34 | 74.66 | | FID+BM25 | 73.63 | 74.36 | 78.83 | 79.65 | 62.30 | 76.72 | 79.96 | 77.94 | | w/ CCNet | | | | | | | | | | FID+BM25 | 73.63 | 73.64 | 79.63 | 81.66 | 66.70 | 76.80 | 81.96 | 77.74 | | w/ Web | | | | | | | | | | UniWeb | 75.34 | 73.17 | 80.96 | 79.77 | 69.23 | 78.74 | 82.12 | 77.23 | with long abstractive output text, we use *ROUGEL* (Lin, 2004) for ELI5 and *F1-score* for Wizard of Wikipedia; we use *Accuracy* for the remaining tasks. To compute EM and F1-score, we conduct post-processing on the gold and predicted output texts such as lowercasing, stripping, punctuation, and duplicate whitespace (Rajpurkar et al., 2016). ## 5.2 Main Results Table 2 and Table 3 show the results of UNIWEB and baselines on 16 knowledge-intensive tasks. First, on almost all knowledge-intensive tasks, combining PLMs with explicit retrieved knowledge can achieve higher performance. From Wikipedia and CCNet to the web, we can observe that a broader coverage of knowledge will lead to better results. Compared to BART and T5, retrieval-based models benefit from the retrieved knowledge. Second, the tasks in Table 2 are specially designed based on the knowledge from Wikipedia. Thus, there is a strong bias towards Wikipedia as the knowledge resource. We can observe that CCNet only achieves comparable results or even suffers from a large performance drop. However, for the tasks in Table 3 requiring knowledge beyond Wikipedia, CCNet is more competitive. Finally, our UNIWEB model achieves the best results on most knowledge-intensive tasks. On one hand, our model is trained in a multi-task manner, which can benefit from knowledge sharing across tasks. On the other hand, our model can access broad and up-to-date knowledge from the web via the fine-tuned search engine. The web knowledge | Models | zsRE | WoW | CSQA | PIQA | αNLI | |--------------|--------|-------|--------|--------|--------| | UniWeb | 72.42 | 20.87 | 75.34 | 79.77 | 77.23 | | w/ Wikipedia | 70.23 | 16.34 | 62.77 | 77.45 | 74.46 | | w/ CCNet | 43.25 | 17.23 | 70.89 | 79.45 | 76.01 | | w/o SE | 68.34 | 19.17 | 67.44 | 76.80 | 73.90 | | w/o CKL | 69.70 | 19.09 | 66.70 | 76.57 | 75.01 | Table 4: Ablation study on five tasks. can fulfill more diverse information needs. Moreover, the search engine works much better than traditional sub-optimal retrieval methods that rely on end-to-end training or word matching. ## 5.3 Detailed Analysis We report detailed analysis of UniWeb in several datasets - we have similar finding in other datasets. Ablation Study. Our UNIWEB model is the first unified PLM using the web as knowledge source for knowledge-intensive tasks. To examine the importance of the web, we design two counterparts: (1) *w/ Wikipedia* or (2) *w/ CCNet* replaces the web with Wikipedia or CCNet and adopts BM25 to retrieve documents. Besides, to avoid the negative impact of noisy and biased information, we adopt the self-evaluation method to adaptively access knowledge from the web. Thus, we remove this method to test its effect (*w/o SE*). Finally, we remove the pretraining task, *i.e.,* continuous knowledge learning, to test its importance (*w/o CKL*). The results are shown in Table 4. We can see that replacing the web with Wikipedia or CCNet suffers from a large performance drop. Besides, the self- | Gold Answer: Croatia and Morocco Top-1 Wikipedia Passage | Top-1 CCNet Passage | Top-1 Web Passage | |------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|-----------------------------------| | ... Third place play-off The Netherlands defeated Brazil 3–0 to secure third place, the first for the Dutch team in their history. Overall, Brazil conceded 14 goals in the tournament; this was the most by a team at any single World Cup since 1986, and the most by a host nation in history... https://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/2014_FIFA_World_Cup | ... France and Belgium go head-to-head in the first semi-finals of World Cup 2018. Both teams have impressed in Russia so far, but only one can make it through to Sunday's final. However, Les Bleus have won four of their five matches at World Cup 2018 and shown flashes of quality in the process... https://myarsenalblog.com /category/uncategorized | ... Third place for Croatia Zlatko Dalic's Croatia followed up their runners-up effort at the Russia 2018 World Cup with third place in Qatar as Mislav Orsic's fine effort secured victory over the tournament's surprise package Morocco at Khalifa International Stadium... https://ca.sports.yahoo.com /news/today-world-cup-argen tina-head-085045315.html | | Prediction: The Netherlands and Brazil | Prediction: France and Belgium | Prediction: Croatia and Morocco " | Table 5: A qualitative example showing the top-1 retrieved passages from Wikipedia, CCNet, and web, and their corresponding model prediction. The words in red denote the keywords related to the question.  evaluation method benefits our model a lot in terms of knowledge filtering. The pretraining task also improves the knowledge capacity of our model. Sensitivity Analysis. In the self-evaluation mechanism, we use entropy to evaluate the model confidence. To verify its effectiveness, we present the distribution of H(Y|Xˆ ) depending on whether or not the model gets the question correct. As shown in Figure 2(a), the average entropy of the questions for which our model gets correct is lower than that of questions for which our model gets incorrect. This indicates that the entropy has some predictive power of model confidence. Besides, the quality of retrieved documents will largely affect the prediction of our model. Thus, in Figure 2(b), we test the model accuracy by varying the top-K search results in the set of {1-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20}. We can see that PLM performance drops with the increase of rank of documents, thus the decrease of document quality. However, the retrieved top 6-10 passages also achieve comparable results to the top 1-5 ones. This is the motivation of our setting K = 10. ## 5.4 Case Study In this section, we perform the qualitative analysis on REALTIME QA (Kasai et al., 2022), a benchmark requiring real-time, up-to-date, and comprehensive knowledge with a broad range of topics (such as politics, business, sports, and entertainment) to solve questions. The evaluation results are shown in Appendix C. Our UniWeb model with Google Search performs the best. We present an example in Table 5 about "World Cup final 2022" in the sports topic. By using the question text as query, we can retrieve top-1 passages from Wikipedia, CCNet, and web. Since Wikipedia and CCNet are both static and limited knowledge resources, the retrieved passages are not fresh in time ("2014" and "2018") even though they are on the same topic "World Cup". The typical retrieval methods (BM25 or DPR) are largely reliant on fuzzy semantic matching, also leading to incorrect retrieval. While, retrieving from the web using search engine can ensure our model to obtain the most up-to-date and relevant information, based on which it can generate the correct answer "Croatia and Morocco". We present more examples in Appendix D. ## 6 Conclusion This paper presented a unified web-augmented framework for a wide range of knowledge-intensive tasks, called UNIWEB. We convert 16 tasks into a text-to-text generation task for training. We propose a search engine assisted learning method to selectively retrieve documents from the web through Google Search. Furthermore, to reduce the discrepancy between the encoded and retrieved knowledge, we design a pretraining task, *i.e.,* continual knowledge learning, to integrate the retrieved knowledge into LLMs. Experiments on 16 tasks show the effectiveness of our web-augmented model compared to previous retrieval-augmented models. In future work, we will investigate the effect of web content in detail and consider applying our model to more types of downstream tasks. ## 7 Limitations For web-augmented models including our work, the deterioration of search results from search engine highlights the importance of deriving an effective method to interact with the huge web. Search engines are often perceived as black-box and non-transparent for end users. Therefore, many works proposed "leaning to search" to decompose complex questions into simpler queries, which may improve the performance of web-based models (Nakano et al., 2021; Komeili et al., 2021). In our model, we used a commercial search engine as the retriever to work with the whole web as a knowledge source. Since the web is not curated and well-structured like Wikipedia, we may encounter unexpected safety issues, including misinformation and harmful contents. While we have relied on the security control of the search engine, more attention should be paid to better understand the risks and provide effective ways to mitigate them. We hope our simple approach and strong results could encourage more future work by the community to tackle these questions. To encourage the community to investigate the question and ensure reproducibility, after the reviewing process, we will release the search URLs used in our experiments. As for the potential concern, since we use the search engine to access real-time information, we do not have a tight control over retrieved results as traditional end-to-end retrieval (Guu et al., 2020; Lewis et al., 2020b). Not only the changes of search engine logic, but also the newly published information, might create discrepancies over the course of time. This is also an issue we have to tackle to build a stable web-based solution for PLMs. ## Acknowledgments This work was partially supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 62222215 and 72222022, Beijing Natural Science Foundation under Grant No. 4222027, Beijing Outstanding Young Scientist Program under Grant No. BJJWZYJH012019100020098, and the Outstanding Innovative Talents Cultivation Funded Programs 2021 of Renmin University of China. Xin Zhao is the corresponding author. ## References Vamsi Aribandi, Yi Tay, Tal Schuster, Jinfeng Rao, Huaixiu Steven Zheng, Sanket Vaibhav Mehta, Honglei Zhuang, Vinh Q. Tran, Dara Bahri, Jianmo Ni, Jai Gupta, Kai Hui, Sebastian Ruder, and Donald Metzler. 2022. Ext5: Towards extreme multi-task scaling for transfer learning. In *International Conference on Learning Representations*. Chandra Bhagavatula, Ronan Le Bras, Chaitanya Malaviya, Keisuke Sakaguchi, Ari Holtzman, Hannah Rashkin, Doug Downey, Wen-tau Yih, and Yejin Choi. 2020. Abductive commonsense reasoning. In 8th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2020, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 26-30, 2020. OpenReview.net. Yonatan Bisk, Rowan Zellers, Ronan LeBras, Jianfeng Gao, and Yejin Choi. 2020. PIQA: reasoning about physical commonsense in natural language. In The Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2020, The Thirty-Second Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2020, The Tenth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2020, New York, NY, USA, February 7-12, 2020, pages 7432– 7439. AAAI Press. Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Jordan Hoffmann, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Katie Millican, George Bm Van Den Driessche, Jean-Baptiste Lespiau, Bogdan Damoc, Aidan Clark, et al. 2022. Improving language models by retrieving from trillions of tokens. In *International conference on machine learning*, pages 2206–2240. PMLR. Tom B Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.14165*. Danqi Chen and Wen-tau Yih. 2020. Open-domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Tutorial Abstracts, ACL 2020, Online, July 5, 2020, pages 34–37. Association for Computational Linguistics. Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, et al. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2204.02311. 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. Emily Dinan, Stephen Roller, Kurt Shuster, Angela Fan, Michael Auli, and Jason Weston. 2019. Wizard of Wikipedia: Knowledge-powered conversational agents. In *Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)*. Li Dong, Nan Yang, Wenhui Wang, Furu Wei, Xiaodong Liu, Yu Wang, Jianfeng Gao, Ming Zhou, and Hsiao-Wuen Hon. 2019. Unified language model pre-training for natural language understanding and generation. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, volume 32. Curran Associates, Inc. Zi-Yi Dou and Nanyun Peng. 2022. Zero-shot commonsense question answering with cloze translation and consistency optimization. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2201.00136. Hady ElSahar, Pavlos Vougiouklis, Arslen Remaci, Christophe Gravier, Jonathon S. Hare, Frédérique 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, May 7-12, 2018*. European Language Resources Association (ELRA). Zhijiang Guo, Michael Schlichtkrull, and Andreas Vlachos. 2022. A survey on automated fact-checking. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:178–206. Kelvin Guu, Kenton Lee, Zora Tung, Panupong Pasupat, and Mingwei Chang. 2020. Retrieval augmented language model pre-training. In *International Conference on Machine Learning*, pages 3929–3938. PMLR. Lifu Huang, Ronan Le Bras, Chandra Bhagavatula, and Yejin Choi. 2019. Cosmos QA: machine reading comprehension with contextual commonsense reasoning. 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 2391– 2401. Association for Computational Linguistics. Minlie Huang, Xiaoyan Zhu, and Jianfeng Gao. 2020. Challenges in building intelligent open-domain dialog systems. *ACM Transactions on Information* Systems (TOIS), 38(3):1–32. Gautier Izacard and Edouard Grave. 2020. Leveraging passage retrieval with generative models for open domain question answering. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2007.01282. Gautier Izacard, Patrick Lewis, Maria Lomeli, Lucas Hosseini, Fabio Petroni, Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Armand Joulin, Sebastian Riedel, and Edouard Grave. 2022. Few-shot learning with retrieval augmented language models. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2208.03299. Ziwei Ji, Nayeon Lee, Rita Frieske, Tiezheng Yu, Dan Su, Yan Xu, Etsuko Ishii, Yejin Bang, Andrea Madotto, and Pascale Fung. 2022. Survey of hallucination in natural language generation. *ACM Computing Surveys*. Zhengbao Jiang, Frank F Xu, Luyu Gao, Zhiqing Sun, Qian Liu, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Yiming Yang, Jamie Callan, and Graham Neubig. 2023. Active retrieval augmented generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.06983. Mandar Joshi, Eunsol Choi, Daniel S. 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, ACL 2017, Vancouver, Canada, July 30 - August 4, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 1601–1611. Association for Computational Linguistics. Saurav Kadavath, Tom Conerly, Amanda Askell, Tom Henighan, Dawn Drain, Ethan Perez, Nicholas Schiefer, Zac Hatfield Dodds, Nova DasSarma, Eli Tran-Johnson, et al. 2022. Language models (mostly) know what they know. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.05221. 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. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.04906. Jungo Kasai, Keisuke Sakaguchi, Yoichi Takahashi, Ronan Le Bras, Akari Asai, Xinyan Yu, Dragomir Radev, Noah A Smith, Yejin Choi, and Kentaro Inui. 2022. Realtime qa: What's the answer right now? arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.13332. Mojtaba Komeili, Kurt Shuster, and Jason Weston. 2021. Internet-augmented dialogue generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.07566. Tom Kwiatkowski, Jennimaria Palomaki, Olivia Redfield, Michael Collins, Ankur P. Parikh, Chris Alberti, Danielle Epstein, Illia Polosukhin, Jacob Devlin, Kenton Lee, Kristina Toutanova, Llion Jones, Matthew Kelcey, Ming-Wei Chang, Andrew M. Dai, Jakob Uszkoreit, Quoc Le, and Slav Petrov. 2019. Natural questions: a benchmark for question answering research. *Trans. Assoc. Comput. Linguistics*, 7:452– 466. Kenton Lee, Ming-Wei Chang, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. Latent retrieval for weakly supervised open domain question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.00300. Omer Levy, Minjoon Seo, Eunsol Choi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2017. Zero-shot relation extraction via reading comprehension. In Proceedings of the 21st Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL 2017), Vancouver, Canada, August 3-4, 2017, pages 333–342. Association for Computational Linguistics. Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020a. 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,* ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 7871–7880. Association for Computational Linguistics. Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Küttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, et al. 2020b. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, 33:9459–9474. Bill Yuchen Lin, Seyeon Lee, Rahul Khanna, and Xiang Ren. 2020. Birds have four legs?! numersense: Probing numerical commonsense knowledge of pretrained language models. In *Proceedings of EMNLP*. To appear. Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In Text summarization branches out, pages 74–81. Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019a. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692*. Zhenghao Liu, Chenyan Xiong, Maosong Sun, and Zhiyuan Liu. 2019b. Fine-grained fact verification with kernel graph attention network. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1910.09796. Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2019. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In *International Conference on Learning Representations*. Alexandra Luccioni and Joseph Viviano. 2021. What's in the box? an analysis of undesirable content in the common crawl corpus. 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 182–189. Jean Maillard, Vladimir Karpukhin, Fabio Petroni, Wentau Yih, Barlas Oguz, Veselin Stoyanov, and Gargi ˘ Ghosh. 2021. Multi-task retrieval for knowledgeintensive tasks. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00117*. Jacob Menick, Maja Trebacz, Vladimir Mikulik, John Aslanides, Francis Song, Martin Chadwick, Mia Glaese, Susannah Young, Lucy CampbellGillingham, Geoffrey Irving, et al. 2022. Teaching language models to support answers with verified quotes. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11147*. Reiichiro Nakano, Jacob Hilton, Suchir Balaji, Jeff Wu, Long Ouyang, Christina Kim, Christopher Hesse, Shantanu Jain, Vineet Kosaraju, William Saunders, et al. 2021. Webgpt: Browser-assisted questionanswering with human feedback. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2112.09332. Fabio Petroni, Aleksandra Piktus, Angela Fan, Patrick Lewis, Majid Yazdani, Nicola De Cao, James Thorne, Yacine Jernite, Vladimir Karpukhin, Jean Maillard, et al. 2020. Kilt: a benchmark for knowledge intensive language tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.02252. Fabio Petroni, Tim Rocktäschel, Patrick Lewis, Anton Bakhtin, Yuxiang Wu, Alexander H Miller, and Sebastian Riedel. 2019. Language models as knowledge bases? *arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.01066*. Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Dmytro Okhonko, Samuel Broscheit, Gautier Izacard, Patrick Lewis, Barlas Oguz, Edouard Grave, Wen-tau ˘ Yih, et al. 2021. The web is your oyster–knowledgeintensive nlp against a very large web corpus. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.09924. 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. *J. Mach. Learn. Res.*, 21:140:1–140:67. 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, EMNLP 2016, Austin, Texas, USA, November 1-4, 2016, pages 2383–2392. The Association for Computational Linguistics. Pengzhen Ren, Yun Xiao, Xiaojun Chang, Po-Yao Huang, Zhihui Li, Brij B Gupta, Xiaojiang Chen, and Xin Wang. 2021. A survey of deep active learning. ACM computing surveys (CSUR), 54(9):1–40. 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. Stephen Robertson, Hugo Zaragoza, et al. 2009. The probabilistic relevance framework: Bm25 and beyond. Foundations and Trends® *in Information Retrieval*, 3(4):333–389. Keisuke Sakaguchi, Ronan Le Bras, Chandra Bhagavatula, and Yejin Choi. 2020. Winogrande: An adversarial winograd schema challenge at scale. In The Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2020, The Thirty-Second Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2020, The Tenth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2020, New York, NY, USA, February 7-12, 2020, pages 8732– 8740. AAAI Press. Erik F Sang and Fien De Meulder. 2003. Introduction to the conll-2003 shared task: Language-independent named entity recognition. *arXiv preprint cs/0306050*. Maarten Sap, Hannah Rashkin, Derek Chen, Ronan Le Bras, and Yejin Choi. 2019. Social iqa: Commonsense reasoning about social interactions. 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 4462–4472. Association for Computational Linguistics. Kurt Shuster, Da Ju, Stephen Roller, Emily Dinan, YLan Boureau, and Jason Weston. 2020. The dialogue dodecathlon: Open-domain knowledge and image grounded conversational agents. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 2453–2470. Association for Computational Linguistics. Shane Storks, Qiaozi Gao, and Joyce Y Chai. 2019. Recent advances in natural language inference: A survey of benchmarks, resources, and approaches. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.01172. Mihai Surdeanu and Heng Ji. 2014. Overview of the english slot filling track at the tac2014 knowledge base population evaluation. In *Proc. Text Analysis* Conference (TAC2014). Alon Talmor, Jonathan Herzig, Nicholas Lourie, and Jonathan Berant. 2019. Commonsenseqa: A question answering challenge targeting commonsense knowledge. 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 4149–4158. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tianyi Tang, Junyi Li, Wayne Xin Zhao, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2022. Mvp: Multi-task supervised pre-training for natural language generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.12131. Romal Thoppilan, Daniel De Freitas, Jamie Hall, Noam Shazeer, Apoorv Kulshreshtha, Heng-Tze Cheng, Alicia Jin, Taylor Bos, Leslie Baker, Yu Du, et al. 2022. Lamda: Language models for dialog applications. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.08239*. James Thorne, Andreas Vlachos, Christos Christodoulopoulos, and Arpit Mittal. 2018. FEVER: a large-scale dataset for fact extraction and VERification. In *NAACL-HLT*. Claudia Wagner, Eduardo Graells-Garrido, David Garcia, and Filippo Menczer. 2016. Women through the glass ceiling: gender asymmetries in wikipedia. EPJ Data Science, 5:1–24. Guillaume Wenzek, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Alexis Conneau, Vishrav Chaudhary, Francisco Guzmán, Armand Joulin, and Edouard Grave. 2020. Ccnet: Extracting high quality monolingual datasets from web crawl data. In *Proceedings of The 12th Language* Resources and Evaluation Conference, LREC 2020, Marseille, France, May 11-16, 2020, pages 4003– 4012. European Language Resources Association. Ledell Wu, Fabio Petroni, Martin Josifoski, Sebastian Riedel, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2019. Scalable zeroshot entity linking with dense entity retrieval. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:1911.03814. Zhilin Yang, Peng Qi, Saizheng Zhang, Yoshua Bengio, William W. Cohen, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Christopher D. Manning. 2018. HotpotQA: A dataset for diverse, explainable multi-hop question answering. In *Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural* Language Processing (EMNLP). Da Yin, Li Dong, Hao Cheng, Xiaodong Liu, Kai-Wei Chang, Furu Wei, and Jianfeng Gao. 2022. A survey of knowledge-intensive nlp with pre-trained language models. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.08772*. Rowan Zellers, Ari Holtzman, Yonatan Bisk, Ali Farhadi, and Yejin Choi. 2019. Hellaswag: Can a machine really finish your sentence? 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 4791–4800. 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 Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations, pages 270–278, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Wayne Xin Zhao, Jing Liu, Ruiyang Ren, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2022. Dense text retrieval based on pretrained language models: A survey. *CoRR*, abs/2211.14876. Wayne Xin Zhao, Kun Zhou, Junyi Li, Tianyi Tang, Xiaolei Wang, Yupeng Hou, Yingqian Min, Beichen Zhang, Junjie Zhang, Zican Dong, Yifan Du, Chen Yang, Yushuo Chen, Zhipeng Chen, Jinhao Jiang, Ruiyang Ren, Yifan Li, Xinyu Tang, Zikang Liu, Peiyu Liu, Jian-Yun Nie, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2023. A survey of large language models. *CoRR*, abs/2303.18223. 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. ## Appendix We provide some experiment-related information as supplementary materials. The appendix is organized into three sections: - Details of pretraining tasks are presented in Appendix A; - Model architecture and pretraining details are presented in Appendix B; - Supplementary experiments are presented in Appendix C; - Examples with retrieved knowledge are presented in Appendix D. ## A Pretraining Tasks As described in Section 4.1, to pretrain our model, we unify 16 knowledge-intensive tasks across seven categories into a general text-to-text format: - **Fact checking** is the task of assessing whether a natural language claim is true (Guo et al., 2022). It requires deep knowledge about the claim. We consider the claim as *input* and the classification label (*e.g.,* true/false) as *output*. - **Slot filling** aims to complete the missing information for certain relations of entities (Surdeanu and Ji, 2014) (*e.g.,* subject entity *Star Trek* and relation *creator*). It requires entity disambiguation and the relational knowledge for entities. We model the structured string "subject entity [SEP] relation" as *input* and the object entity as *output*. - **Dialogue** focuses on building an engaging chatbot that can discusses a wide range of open-ended topics such as whether (Huang et al., 2020). It requires models to know about the background knowledge for the conversational topics. We consider the dialogue history as *input* and the next utterance as *output*. - **Open-domain question answering** is the task of producing answers to factoid questions in natural language (Zhu et al., 2021). The questions could be about nearly anything relying on world knowledge. We consider the question as *input* and the answer as *output*. - **Commonsense question answering** aims to test if models can answer questions regarding commonsense knowledge that everyone knows (Dou and Peng, 2022). Similarly, we consider the question as *input* and the answer as *output*. - **Commonsense reasoning** is intended to utilize commonsense knowledge to reason about certain aspects of the given text (Sakaguchi et al., 2020). Therefore, we consider the given text as *input* and the prediction as *output*. - **Natural language inference** is the task of determining whether the given "hypothesis" logically follows from the "premise" (Storks et al., 2019). It acquires deep knowledge about the relationship between hypothesis and premise. We consider the premise as *input* and the hypothesis as *output*. For each category, we choose several representative tasks to construct our pretraining corpus. The detailed information of these included tasks is listed in Table 6. To mitigate the huge disparity between dataset sizes, we follow (Raffel et al., 2020) to use the temperature-scaled mixing strategy with a rate of T = 2 for setting the proportion of data coming from each task. During pretraining, for each task example, we use BM25 to retrieve top-10 passages from CCNet as our external knowledge. The input texts are concatenated with the retrieved passages using manually-written prompts. The final input is constructed in the following format: ## Context: [Passage1]...[Passage10] [Task Instruction]: [the original input text] Option 1: [option1]...**Option** n: [optionn] The "Option" string is applied only when the input text is provided with several candidate answers. The blanks "[passagen]" and "[optionn]" is filled with the retrieved passages and candidate answers. The blank "[Task Instruction]" aims to indicate the task for our model, which is task-specific and detailed in Table 7. ## B Implementation Details Our UniWeb model uses a Transformer with 12 layers in both encoder and decoder (406M parameters), the same as the model size of BARTLARGE (Lewis et al., 2020a). The hidden size is 1,024 and the inner hidden size of the feedforward network is 4,096. We employ the bytepair-encoding (BPE) tokenizer, and the vocabulary size is 50,267. We initialize the backbone with the MVP model (Tang et al., 2022), a supervised pretrained PLM, to provide a good starting point for generation following previous work (Dong et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2020). We pretrain the model with batch size 8,192 on Tesla A100 40GB GPUs. Algorithm 1 The pseudo code for UNIWEB. Require: A search engine (*i.e.,* Google Search) connecting with the large-scale web 1: **Input:** Training data D 2: **Output:** Model parameters Θ 3: Initialize Θ 4: **while** not convergence do 5: for *iteration* = 1 to |D| do 6: Acquire an input-output pair ⟨X , Y⟩ ▷ Self-Evaluation 7: Compute the entropy H(Y|X˜ ) of the sampled output distribution (Eq. 2) ▷ Search Engine Assisted Learning 8: if *H > η* **then** 9: Use X as a query to the search engine 10: Return top-K passages P 11: **else** The passages P are null ∅ 12: **end if** ▷ Knowledge-Intensive Tasks 13: Generate the output text Y˜ and compute the loss L1 based on X and P (Eq. 3) ▷ Continual Knowledge Learning 14: Mask salient spans of P for the CKL pretraining and compute the loss L2 (Eq. 4) ▷ Model Optimization 15: Compute the gradients and update model parameters Θ based on L1 and L2 16: **end for** 17: **end while** 18: **return** Θ For our model, the maximum length of both input and output sequences is set to 1,024 for supporting examples to contain more tokens. We optimize the model with a constant learning rate of 2×10−5 using standard sequence-to-sequence cross-entropy loss. We apply the AdamW optimizer (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2019) with β1 = 0.9, β2 = 0.98, ϵ = 1 × 10−6to improve training stability (Liu et al., 2019a). The weight decay coefficient is 0.1. For testing, we select the checkpoint with the highest validation performance. According to the results shown in Figure 2(a), we set the entropy threshold η as 4.0. The overall pipeline of our model is listed in Algorithm 1. Since the tasks of fact checking, slot filling, dialogue, and open-domain QA are specially designed based on the knowledge from Wikipedia, we require the search engine to retrieve the top-1 passage from the website https://en.wikipedia.org. | Task Families | Tasks | #Train | #Validation | #Test | |-------------------------------------|----------------------------------|-----------|---------------|---------| | Fact Checking | FEVER (Thorne et al., 2018) | 134,287 | 14,342 | 10,100 | | Slot Filling | T-REx (ElSahar et al., 2018) | 2,999,272 | 26,833 | 5,000 | | zsRE (Levy et al., 2017) | 154,826 | 3,771 | 4,966 | | | Dialogue | WoW (Dinan et al., 2019) | 63,734 | 3,054 | 2,944 | | NQ (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019) | 108,890 | 6,008 | 1,444 | | | TriviaQA (Joshi et al., 2017) | 1,835,943 | 168,358 | 6,586 | | | Open-domain QA | HotpotQA (Yang et al., 2018) | 88,869 | 5,600 | 5,569 | | ELI5 (Shuster et al., 2020) | 804,370 | 18,037 | 600 | | | CSQA (Talmor et al., 2019) | 9,741 | 1,221 | 1,140 | | | SocialIQa (Sap et al., 2019) | 33,410 | 1,954 | 2,059 | | | Commonsense QA | CosmosQA (Huang et al., 2019) | 25,262 | 2,985 | 6,963 | | PIQA (Bisk et al., 2020) | 16,113 | 1,838 | 3,084 | | | Commonsense Reasoning | NumerSense (Lin et al., 2020) | 10,444 | 200 | 3,146 | | WinoGrande (Sakaguchi et al., 2020) | 40,398 | 1,267 | 1,767 | | | Natural Language Inference | HellaSwag (Zellers et al., 2019) | 39,905 | 10,042 | 10,003 | | αNLI (Bhagavatula et al., 2020) | 169,654 | 1,532 | 3,059 | | Table 6: The statistics of our 16 knowledge-intensive tasks. | Tasks | Task Instructions | |----------------------------|-------------------------------------| | Fact Checking | Verify the following claim | | Slot Filling | Predict the missing fact | | Open-domain QA | Answer the following question | | Commonsense QA | Answer the following question | | Dialogue | Response to the following dialogue | | Natural Language Inference | Inference on the following context | | Commonsense Reasoning | Reason about the following sentence | Table 7: Task instructions for each task category. ## C Supplementary Experiments RealTime QA. Previous QA systems mostly assume that answers are static regardless of the time of query (Chen and Yih, 2020). In this section, we use the REALTIME QA benchmark (Kasai et al., 2022) to test models about real-time, instantaneous information. At each week, REALTIME QA will retrieve news articles and ~30 humanwritten, multiple-choice questions from news websites (CNN, THE WEEK, and USA Today), which covers diverse topics such as politics, business, sports, and entertainment. We adopt the origi- | Models | REALTIME QA Original NOTA | | |-----------------------|-----------------------------|------| | T5 | 40.0 | 33.3 | | GPT-3 | 56.7 | 23.3 | | RAG+DPR | 10.0 | 16.7 | | RAG+Google Search | 63.3 | 50.0 | | UniWeb +Google Search | 66.7 | 56.7 | Table 8: Accuracy results for the questions at week from 2022/12/11 through 2022/12/17. We utilize DPR to retrieve top-5 documents from Wikipedia and use Google Search to retrieve top-5 news articles. nal and NOTA (none of the above) settings and test our models over questions from 2022/12/11 through 2022/12/17. The results are shown in Table 8. Since one of the original choices is randomly replaced with "none of the above", the NOTA setting results in a distinct performance degradation. Besides, due to the real-time nature of the questions, only using DPR to retrieve texts from static Wikipedia achieves worse results. Our UniWeb model with Google Search performs the best. This indicates that UniWeb can answer questions based on the real-time information, rather than relying on past information from pretraining. Self-Evaluation Criteria. To evaluate the model confidence in task examples, we adopt the entropy as criterion in Section 4.2.1 . In this part, we test with more kinds of criteria compared to the entropy following Kadavath et al. ( 2022 ). First, we consider a sample-enhanced prompting method, where we generate five samples with beam search and ask the model about the validity of the first sample with the highest score. We show an example at below: Question: Who is the third president of the United States? Possible Answer: James Monroe Here are some brainstormed ideas: Thomas Jefferson Thomas Jefferson John Adams Thomas Jefferson George Washington Is the possible answer: (A) True (B) False The possible answer is: $\frac{1}{2}$ If the model self-evaluate the possible answer is False , our model will leverage the search engine to access the web, otherwise not. We show the probability of predicting True depending on whether the model gets the question correct in Figure 3 (a). However, according to Kadavath et al. ( 2022 ), this self-evaluation method is mainly suitable for question answering tasks with short-form answers but benefits less on question answering tasks with longform answers. Second, we consider using loss as the criterion to evaluate the model confidence. This approach is to generate a sample, and then look at the model's loss on this sample, averaged over all tokens, like the knowledge-intensive learning loss (Eq. 3 ). If the loss for an example is higher than a threshold ( e.g., 0.5), we consider that the model is unconfident about this example and we will query the web to retrieve knowledge. In Figure 3 (b), we show the loss of samples that the model gets correct or incorrect. ## D Case Study In Table 9 , we present three examples from TriviaQA (Joshi et al., 2017 ), CommonsenseQA (Talmor et al., 2019 ), and NumerSense (Lin et al., 2020). The first TriviaQA dataset is specially designed based on the knowledge from Wikipedia. Therefore, we can observe that Wikipedia contains the most relevant passage about the topic  "US nuclear reactor accident in 1979". In addition, the web can provide another source of knowledge about this topic. Although CCNet covers this content, it does not give a clear answer to this question ( i.e., full name of the US nuclear reactor). The second CommonsenseQA dataset involves questions related to commonsense knowledge going beyond Wikipedia. Therefore, Wikipedia can only provide a fuzzy description passage about "Guitar". The web and CCNet return diverse knowledge but the passage returned by search engine is more helpful. The thrid NumerSense dataset requires models to reason about the number. For the third example, CCNet provides a passage with incorrect information. While, the web and Wikipedia return passages about the rule of "tic-tac-toe", which can result in the correct answer "three". | Question: Which US nuclear reactor had a major accident in 1979? Gold Answer: Three Mile Island Unit 2 reactor Top-1 Wikipedia Passage Top-1 CCNet Passage | Top-1 Web Passage | | | | | | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|-------|-------------|------------|--------|------| | ... The Three Mile Island accident was a partial meltdown of the Three Mile Island, Unit 2 (TMI-2) reactor in Pennsylvania, United States. It began at 4 a.m. on March 28, 1979. It is the most significant accident in U.S. commercial nuclear power plant history. On the seven-point International Nuclear Event Scale, it is rated Level 5 - Accident with Wider Consequences... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki /Three_Mile_Island_accident ... The US and former Soviet Union had been operating nuclear power for 267 and 162 reactor-years respectively before a major accident occurred. At the time of the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, the US had 52 nuclear power stations, which had been operating for 267 reactor years, or an average of 5.1 years per reactor... https://chinadialogue.net/ article/show/single/en/5808 -Chinese-nuclear-disasterhighly-probable-by-2-3- | ... | The | Three | Mile | Island | Unit | | 2 | reactor, | near | Middletown, | Pa., | | | | partially | melted | down | on | March | | | | 28, | 1979. | This was the most se | | | | | | rious | accident | in | U.S. | commercial | | | | nuclear | power | plant | operating | his | | | | tory, | although its small radioactive | | | | | | | releases | had | no | detectable | health | | | | effects on plant workers or the public... https://www.nrc.gov/reading -rm/doc-collections/factsheets/3mile-isle.html | | | | | | | | Question: What do people typically do while playing guitar? Candidate Answers: A. cry B. hear sounds C. singing D. arthritis E. making music Gold Answer: singing Top-1 Wikipedia Passage Top-1 CCNet Passage Top-1 Web Passage ... The guitar is a fretted musical instrument that typically has six strings. It is usually held flat against the player's body and played by strumming or plucking the strings with the dominant hand, while simultaneously pressing selected strings against frets with the fingers of the opposite hand. A plectrum or individual finger picks may also be used to strike the strings... https://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Guitar ... I was playing a brand-new game ... Practicing the guitar regularly can enhance your concentration and expand that had no rules and nothing established. I was really shy about it at your attention span. It takes an adequate focus to become an expert guitarist. Focusing becomes a habit for first, because I hadn't looked out into the world to find other people who, of course, had done things like this. your mind and will help you concentrate I heard Fred Frith play, and I knew better on other everyday chores too... he played his guitar with objects not https://www.chasingsound. typically associated with the guitar... com/posts/10-health-bene https://www.premierguitar. fits-of-playing-guitar com/articles/24026-janetfeder-prepared-for-all-genres Question: How do you win at tic-tac-toe get <mask> of your symbols in a row? Gold Answer: three Top-1 Wikipedia Passage Top-1 CCNet Passage Top-1 Web Passage ... Tic-tac-toe (American English), noughts and crosses (Commonwealth English), or Xs and Os (Canadian or Irish English) is a paper-and-pencil game for two players who take turns marking the spaces in a three-bythree grid with X or O. The player who succeeds in placing three of their marks in a horizontal, vertical, or diagonal row is the winner... https://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Tic-tac-toe ... You just make a 4x4 box instead of a 3x3 box. Then the same rules apply, only you need to get 4 in a row to win. When playing, does putting my symbol in the middle guarantee me winning? No. With both players playing optimally, the result is always a draw. How many X's and O's do I need to play tic tac toe on a board game? Since the board itself has nine spaces, I recommend that you have nine for both X's and O's... https://www.wikihow.com/ Play-Tic-Tac-Toe ... 1. The game requires two players, X and O. 2. The game board is a set 3x3 grid in which players will place their symbol to claim that segment. 3. X typically players first, then players alternate turns. 4. The goal is to claim three segments of the grid in a row, either horizontally, vertically, or diagonally. 5. No additional sides can be added to the grid. 6. The game is over either when one player achieves three segments in a row, or when the grid is filled without anyone achieving three segments in a row https://www.siammandalay. com/blogs/puzzles/how-towin-tic-tac-toe-tricks-to -always-win-noughtscrosses | | | | | | | Table 9: Three qualitative example from TriviaQA, CommonsenseQA, and NumerSense. We present the top-1 retrieved passages from Wikipedia, CCNet, and web. The words in red denote the keywords related to the question. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? 7 ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? 7 ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? 1 ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** 5 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? 5 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.? 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. 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? Appendix 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 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? Not applicable. 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.)? 5 ## 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.

kim-komachi-2023-enhancing

Enhancing Few-shot Cross-lingual Transfer with Target Language Peculiar Examples

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.47

Few-shot cross-lingual transfer, fine-tuning Multilingual Masked Language Model (MMLM) with source language labeled data and a small amount of target language labeled data, provides excellent performance in the target language. However, if no labeled data in the target language are available, they need to be created through human annotations. In this study, we devise a metric to select annotation candidates from an unlabeled data pool that efficiently enhance accuracy for few-shot cross-lingual transfer. It is known that training a model with hard examples is important to improve the model{'}s performance. Therefore, we first identify examples that MMLM cannot solve in a zero-shot cross-lingual transfer setting and demonstrate that it is hard to predict peculiar examples in the target language, i.e., the examples distant from the source language examples in cross-lingual semantic space of the MMLM.We then choose high peculiarity examples as annotation candidates and perform few-shot cross-lingual transfer. In comprehensive experiments with 20 languages and 6 tasks, we demonstrate that the high peculiarity examples improve the target language accuracy compared to other candidate selection methods proposed in previous studies.

# Enhancing Few-Shot Cross-Lingual Transfer With Target Language Peculiar Examples Hwichan Kim and **Mamoru Komachi***  Tokyo Metropolitan University 6-6 Asahigaoka, Hino, Tokyo 191-0065, Japan kim-hwichan@ed.tmu.ac.jp ## Abstract Few-shot cross-lingual transfer, fine-tuning Multilingual Masked Language Model (MMLM) with source language labeled data and a small amount of target language labeled data, provides excellent performance in the target language. However, if no labeled data in the target language are available, they need to be created through human annotations. In this study, we devise a metric to select annotation candidates from an unlabeled data pool that efficiently enhance accuracy for few-shot cross-lingual transfer. It is known that training a model with hard examples is important to improve the model's performance. Therefore, we first identify examples that MMLM cannot solve in a zero-shot cross-lingual transfer setting and demonstrate that it is hard to predict peculiar examples in the target language, i.e., the examples distant from the source language examples in cross-lingual semantic space of the MMLM. We then choose high peculiarity examples as annotation candidates and perform few-shot cross-lingual transfer. In comprehensive experiments with 20 languages and 6 tasks, we demonstrate that the high *peculiarity* examples improve the target language accuracy compared to other candidate selection methods proposed in previous studies. The code used in our experiments is available at https://github.com/hwichan0720/ fewshot_transfer_with_peculiarity. ## 1 Introduction Sufficient labeled data is essential to train an accurate model. However, few languages have abundant language resources for both labeled and unlabeled data like English (Joshi et al., 2020). In addition, constructing a large amount of labeled data through human annotators is costly and time-consuming. The use of Multilingual Mask Language Models (MMLMs) is one way to overcome this problem *Now at Hitotsubashi University as they show good zero-shot cross-lingual performance in target languages by fine-tuning with only task-specific labeled data of source language, such as English. While this zero-shot cross-lingual transfer ability is promising for the target languages with no or limited task-specific resources, there is a divergence in accuracy between the source and target languages, meaning the zero-shot cross-lingual transfer ability is imperfect. To analyze the characteristics of hard examples for predictions in zero-shot cross-lingual transfer, we visualize representations of the source and target languages' examples and highlight the target ones with accuracy in the zero-shot setting, as shown in Figure 1. We can observe that the accuracies of target language examples distant from the source language examples are low compared to others. We refer to these as *peculiar* examples of the target language. We should address *peculiar* examples to further enhance performance in the target language. Few-shot cross-lingual transfer, adapting MMLM with a small number (0.1k–1k) of task-specific labeled examples in the target language, is a promising approach to enhance performance for target languages. Specifically, Lauscher et al. (2020) showed that a small number of examples randomly selected from labeled dataset significantly improves the accuracy for the target languages. However, if there are no labeled examples at all, we should create them by selecting annotation candidates from an unlabeled data pool. From this perspective, Kumar et al. (2022) evaluated candidate selection methods proposed in active learning research for selecting the annotation candidates for few-shot cross-lingual transfer. They split the target languages based on their zero-shot cross-lingual transfer performance into "good" and "poor" (or "good", "fair", and "poor") language groups1and demonstrated that effective methods vary for each language group. Our preliminary analysis (Figure 1) suggests that adapting MMLM for *peculiar* examples is crucial to improve performance for the target language and recommends selecting *peculiar* examples as annotation candidates. Therefore, in this study, we first propose a metric to measure *peculiarity* of the target language examples. Note that *peculiarity* is defined without labels of the downstream tasks. Then, we select high *peculiarity* examples as annotation candidates and conduct few-shot cross-lingual transfer using languages with "good" and "poor" zero-shot crosslingual performance. Our experiments show that the proposed metric *peculiarity* is very simple yet effective in selecting candidates for few-shot crosslingual transfer. Our contributions in this study are threefold: 1. We propose a simple metric to measure *peculiarity* and show that the prediction accuracy of high *peculiarity* examples is low compared to others in the zero-shot setting. 2. We conduct few-shot cross-lingual transfer using high *peculiarity* examples and demonstrate that these examples can improve accuracy compared to other candidate selection methods regardless of language groups in few (2–3) label classification tasks. In addition, our analysis shows that peculiarity is robust 1They referred the language groups as "C1" and "C2" (or "C1", "C2", and "C3"), respectively.  for hyperparameters and brings consistent performance in few-shot cross-lingual transfer. 3. However, high *peculiarity* examples do not work well for the "poor" language group in many-label (5) classification and sequencetagging tasks. Our analysis indicates that these examples are redundant to fine-tuning MMLM. Therefore, we design a method that combines existing methods to select diverse examples. Our experiments demonstrate that our method enhances accuracy across target languages. ## 2 Notation And Task Setting In this section, we define notations and explain our task setting. We denote the source and target language as S and T, respectively. For the source language S, we assume that labeled data exist for downstream tasks DS = (XS, YS), where XS = {x 1 S*, ..., x* i S} are monolingual data and YS = {y 1 S*, ..., y* i S} are corresponding labels. For the target language T, we only have monolingual data XT = {x 1 T *, ..., x* j T}. We denote an MMLM as M and one fine-tuned by DS as MS. We use MSto the target language inputs in the zero-shot cross-lingual transfer setting. In this study, we conduct few-shot cross-lingual transfer. In this setting, we select annotation candidates X ′ T ⊂ XT and limit ∣X ′ T ∣ to n. Then, human 748 annotators annotate labels Y ′ T for X ′ T 2. We additionally fine-tune MSusing D ′ T = (X ′ T , Y ′T ) and denote the model as MS→T. To support understanding of zero-shot and few-shot cross-lingual transfer, we provide an overview of zero-shot and few-shot cross-lingual transfer in Figure 2. The objective of our task is to select the candidates X ′ T that lead to better performance of MS→Tin the target language T. ## 3 Related Works Zero-shot cross-lingual transfer. mBERT (Devlin et al., 2019) and XLM-R (Conneau et al., 2020) are the representative MMLMs. mBERT is an extension of BERT that is pre-trained on Wikipedia data in various languages. XLM-R is trained on 2.5T data of more than 100 languages extracted from Common Crawl (Wenzek et al., 2020). The most interesting property of these MMLMs is that they show a strong zero-shot cross-lingual transfer performance even though they did not explicitly use bilingual data. Several studies have analyzed their zero-shot cross-lingual transfer ability and indicated that source-target languages' similarity is important for the transfer. Pires et al. (2019) analyzed the ability of mBERT in NER and POS tagging tasks and demonstrated that more overlap in WALS (Dryer and Haspelmath, 2013) features between the source and target languages, better transfer. Lauscher et al. (2020) quantitatively measured the similarity between the source and target languages using LANG2VEC (Littell et al., 2017) and showed that it has a strong correlation with the zero-shot crosslingual transfer performance. Yang et al. (2022) analyzed relations of alignment quality between the source and target languages and the transfer performance. Specifically, they measured the alignment quality between languages in cross-lingual semantic space of an MMLM using CKA (Kornblith et al., 2019) and showed a strong correlation between the CKA scores and the zero-shot cross-lingual transfer performances. They also proposed a method to improve the alignment quality using pseudo-bilingual data and demonstrated that it enhances the zeroshot cross-lingual transfer performance. In addition, there have been several attempts to enhance the zero-shot cross-lingual transfer ability using ad-2In our experiments, since we employ previously annotated labels, we do not annotate the candidates ourselves. ditional bilingual resources (Lample and Conneau, 2019; Cao et al., 2020; Chi et al., 2021; Dou and Neubig, 2021; Yang et al., 2021). Few-shot cross-lingual transfer. Few-shot crosslingual transfer is another approach to improve the performance for target languages. Lauscher et al. (2020) randomly selected annotation candidates X ′ T from XT and conducted few-shot cross-lingual transfer. They demonstrated that these candidates surprisingly boost performance compared to the zero-shot cross-lingual transfer setting (e.g., gains are 27.3 points in POS tagging task). The most relevant previous work is Kumar et al. (2022) who conducted few-shot cross-lingual transfer and evaluated representative candidate selection methods used in active learning research, such as entropy and BADGE (Ash et al., 2020). BADGE is a method to select diverse and uncertain examples. It first calculates gradient embeddings (GEs) for each example xT ∈ XT , which are vectors of hidden states multiplied by MS's confidences about each example, and then selects the most typical examples in the GEs space. However, BADGE is expensive for sequence-tagging tasks takes because it has to calculate the GE for each token. Therefore, Kumar et al. (2022) simplified the GEs to loss embeddings (LEs), which are vectors consisting of cross-entropy loss for each token, by taking MS's prediction as actual labels. Their experiments showed that the method using LEs obtains consistent gains over other methods for sequencetagging tasks. The methods using embeddings, such as GEs and LEs, can select diverse candidates from XT . However, we consider that these methods also select the candidates well aligned with the source language examples XS, which are predicted accurately in the zero-shot cross-lingual transfer setting (Figure 1). Therefore, in this study, we propose a metric, *peculiarity*, which isolates examples that cannot be covered by source language data XS, and select the candidates based on our metric. ## 4 How To Measure Language Peculiarity Sorscher et al. (2022) revealed that training with hard examples for a neural model can improve the model performance exponentially beyond power law scaling, both in theory and practice. In terms of few-shot cross-lingual transfer, we need to finetune MSusing target language examples that will not be predicted correctly. Therefore, we study how to extract these examples as the annotation candidates from XT without knowing their labels. Yang et al. (2022) showed that there is a correlation between cross-lingual transfer performance and language-level alignment quality. Based on the preliminary analysis (Figure 1), we infer that there are correlations not only at the language-level but also at the example-level, which means that the accuracy of the target language examples depends on whether they are aligned with the source language examples. This analysis indicates that we can detect hard examples for MSfrom XT if we can measure the example-level alignment quality. Therefore, we devise a simple but effective metric to isolate the examples based on their alignment quality without additional language resources. Intuitively, the examples that have no source language examples in the neighborhood in cross-lingual semantic space are not well aligned3. In addition, Figure 1 shows that accuracies of these examples are low compared to the others. We use this aspect instead of the example-level alignment quality as a proxy to detect the hard examples for MS. We refer to this aspect of whether there are source language examples in the neighborhood as *peculiarity* and define *peculiarity* of x j T ∈ XT as: ${\text{Peculiarity}(x_T^j;\mathbf{M}^\mathbf{S})}$ ${=\frac{1}{k}\sum_{x_S^i\in k\text{-NN}(x_T^j)}distance(x_T^j,x_S^i)}$ (1) . where *distance* serves as a metric for measuring the distance between input hidden states, encompassing options such as Cosine and Euclidean distance. x i S ∈ XS is a source language example of k nearest neighbor based on *distance* and k is a hyperparameter. x i T and x j S are hidden states of BOS tokens from the final layer of MS. *Peculiarity* is higher when there are no source language examples in the neighborhood of the input target language example. In experiments, we first confirm whether the *peculiarity* can isolate the examples with low or high prediction accuracy in the zero-shot setting. Then, we select high *peculiarity* examples as annotation candidates and conduct few-shot crosslingual transfer. | All | Lowest | Highest | | |---------|----------|-----------|------| | XNLI | 72.4 | 73.5 | 64.7 | | PAWS-X | 81.4 | 99.6 | 67.0 | | MARC-2 | 89.9 | 99.4 | 53.2 | | MARC-5 | 54.2 | 70.6 | 50.8 | | NER | 76.9 | 89.3 | 50.3 | | POS | 74.4 | 79.0 | 69.5 | | Average | 75.0 | 85.1 | 59.2 | ## 5 Experimental Settings We explain experimental settings, which are largely similar to those used in previous works such as Lauscher et al. (2020) and Kumar et al. (2022), including the dataset and training hyperparameters. ## 5.1 Tasks And Datasets We experiment with XNLI (Conneau et al., 2018) for a classification task, and NER, POS-tagging for sequence tagging tasks. We use WikiANN (Rahimi et al., 2019) and Universal Dependency tree banks (UD, Nivre et al. (2016)) for NER and POS-tagging, respectively. In addition, we use PAWS-X (Yang et al., 2019) and Multilingual Amazon Review Classification (MARC, Keung et al. (2020)) as datasets for classification tasks. There are two- and fivelabel classification settings in MARC, and we refer to them as MARC-2 and MARC-5, respectively. WikiANN, UD, and XNLI include several languages. We use the same languages used in Kumar et al. (2022)'s experiments. For PAWS-X and MARC, we use all languages. The previous studies (Lauscher et al., 2020; Kumar et al., 2022) indicated that the effectiveness of candidate selection methods in each language depends on the accuracy of downstream tasks in the zero-shot setting. Therefore, we evaluate each method by splitting the target languages into "good' and "poor" groups, where the target languages achieve the median or higher accuracy and lower than the median accuracy, respectively. We detail the languages of each group and the datasets in Appendix B. | XNLI PAWS-X MARC-2 | |----------------------| Random 0.97 0.79 1.40 1.16 0.75 1.70 1.24 1.11 1.62 Entropy 1.02 0.79 1.53 1.17 0.85 1.64 1.41 1.17 1.87 KM 1.23 0.86 1.83 0.99 0.69 1.48 1.27 1.06 1.60 GE-KM 0.94 0.79 1.24 0.89 0.51 1.32 1.39 0.94 1.92 peculiarity **1.31 1.04 1.84 1.25 0.94 1.75 1.52 1.35 1.95** | 100-shot | 500-shot | 1,000-shot | | | | | | | |------------|------------|--------------|-----|------|------|-----|------|------| | All | Good | Poor | All | Good | Poor | All | Good | Poor | Random 2.99 2.61 2.97 3.90 2.86 4.32 3.47 2.33 4.09 Entropy 3.87 3.00 4.22 3.95 3.16 4.14 2.92 2.73 2.91 KM 3.69 3.01 3.97 3.78 2.88 4.04 3.96 3.11 4.16 GE-KM 3.83 2.85 4.24 3.66 2.95 3.79 3.67 3.20 3.72 peculiarity **4.01 3.45 4.28 4.23 3.45 4.52 4.18 3.45 4.36** Random 0.54 0.17 1.10 0.80 0.45 1.32 1.09 0.77 1.57 Entropy 0.96 0.45 **1.72** 0.68 0.43 1.05 1.15 0.87 1.57 KM 0.71 0.25 1.35 0.79 0.42 1.35 1.16 0.77 1.75 GE-KM 0.72 0.30 1.35 0.75 0.50 1.12 1.11 0.78 1.60 peculiarity **0.99 0.55** 1.10 **1.11 0.78 1.60 1.42 1.18 1.77** Table 2: Evaluation on few-label classification tasks. These scores are differences in accuracy between 0-shot and each n-shot model, averaged across languages in each group. They are the average of three models. We indicate the best improvement scores in bold. ## 5.2 Model And Training We use XLM-R *Base*4as the MMLM in all experiments5. Following Devlin et al. (2019); Pires et al. (2019), we attach token-level and sentencelevel classifiers to the last layer of XLM-R to train sequence-tagging and classification models, respectively. We use English as the source language and finetune XLM-R with English dataset of each task. We limit the sequence length to 128 subword tokens and set the batch size as 32. For the sequencetagging tasks, we fix the number of training epochs to 20 and the learning rate as 2 ⋅ 10−5. For the classification tasks, we set the training epochs to 3 and learning rate as 3 ⋅ 10−5. For few-shot cross-lingual transfer, we conduct additional fine-tuning with combined English data and sampled target language examples. We change the training epochs to 1 for the classification tasks and use the same hyperparameters mentioned above. ## 5.3 Candidate Selection Methods We select n annotation candidates, and set n to 100, 500, and 1,000. We compare our method with the methods (Random, Entorpy, GE-KM, and LEKM) used in Kumar et al. (2022) 6and an additional method (KM). Random. We select the candidates randomly. Entropy. We select the candidates with the highest entropy. We average the entropy per each token for the sequence-tagging tasks. KM. We cluster BOS hidden states of the last layer using k-means++ (k is the same number of n) and select medoids, most typical candidates, from each cluster following Chang et al. (2021); Hacohen et al. (2022). We use scikit-learn7for performing k-means++. GE-KM or LE-KM. We use the gradient embeddings (GEs) for the classification tasks and the loss embeddings (LEs) for the sequence tagging tasks instead of the hidden states and apply the same | 1,000-shot | | | | | |--------------|--------|-------|-------|-------| | All | Good | Poor | | | | Random | 1.74 | 1.26 | 2.45 | | | Entropy | 0.88 | 1.00 | 0.70 | | | KM | 1.81 | 1.35 | 2.50 | | | LE-KM | 1.61 | 1.16 | 2.27 | | | peculiarity | 1.83 | 1.71 | 2.00 | | | MARC-5 | Random | 12.27 | 4.79 | 21.16 | | Entropy | 11.43 | 4.75 | 19.36 | | | KM | 12.39 | 4.88 | 21.35 | | | LE-KM | 12.38 | 4.86 | 21.30 | | | peculiarity | 11.84 | 5.11 | 20.22 | | | NER | Random | 16.84 | 6.28 | 25.72 | | Entropy | 16.30 | 5.88 | 25.16 | | | KM | 16.86 | 6.23 | 25.93 | | | LE-KM | 16.94 | 6.24 | 25.92 | | | peculiarity | 17.08 | 6.66 | 25.87 | | | POS | | | | | steps with KM8. We use Yuan et al. (2020)'s implementation for GE-KM and our re-implementation for LE-KM. Peculiarity **(ours).** We select the candidates with the top-n *peculiarity* according to Equation 1. We use Faiss (Johnson et al., 2019) library9to search the k-NN source language examples. We set 20 and Euclidean distance as k and *distance*, respectively, in all experiments. ## 6 Experimental Results In this section, we confirm the effectiveness of peculiarity. We first show that *peculiarity* isolates the examples based on their accuracy in the zeroshot cross-lingual transfer setting (Subsection 6.1), and then demonstrate that the examples of high peculiarity are useful for few-shot cross-lingual transfer (Subsection 6.2). ## 6.1 Zero-Shot Transfer For Peculiar **Examples** First, we examine whether *peculiarity* (Equation 1) can isolate the examples predicted correctly and incorrectly in the zero-shot setting. We construct two subsets by extracting 10% examples of bottom and top *peculiarity* from each language's validation data and measure their accuracy. We show the | 1,000-shot Good Poor | | | | |------------------------|------|------|------| | XNLI | KM | 0.10 | 0.08 | | peculiarity | 0.09 | 0.08 | | | PAWS-X | KM | 0.10 | 0.09 | | peculiarity | 0.10 | 0.08 | | | MARC-2 | KM | 0.14 | 0.09 | | peculiarity | 0.16 | 0.09 | | | MARC-5 | KM | 0.10 | 0.10 | | peculiarity | 0.08 | 0.75 | | | NER | KM | 0.24 | 0.14 | | peculiarity | 0.20 | 0.09 | | | POS | KM | 0.22 | 0.13 | | peculiarity | 0.19 | 0.10 | | Table 4: Token type ratio per each langauge group. average accuracy of all languages for each subset in Table 1 and more details about each language in Appendix B. This table shows that the examples with high *peculiarity* cannot be predicted accurately in the zero-shot setting. Specifically, the average score is 85.1% in "Lowest", but is 59.2% in "Highest". This result indicates that *peculiarity* can extract the examples of low accuracy in the zero-shot setting without their labels. ## 6.2 Enhancing Few-Shot Transfer With High Peculiarity **Candidates** We conduct few-shot cross-lingual transfer using candidates extracted by *peculiarity*. We show the experimental results for few-label (2–3) classification tasks (XNLI, PAWS-X, and MARC-2) in Table 2 and many-label (5) classification and sequencetagging tasks (MARC-5, NER, and POS) in Table 3 10. We report delta scores in accuracies between 0-shot and n-shot models following Kumar et al. (2022). These scores are the average across languages in each group. Table 2 shows that the methods proposed in the previous studies enhance accuracy for each language group but do not outperform random baseline consistently. However, *peculiarity* consistently achieves the highest scores regardless of the language groups. Therefore, we conclude that *peculiarity* is useful for selecting annotation candidates (a) Finnish ("good" group) (b) Arabic ("poor" group)  All Good Poor | MARC-5 | Best | 1.83 | 1.71 | 2.50 | |----------------|--------|--------|--------|--------| | peculiarity-KM | 1.88 | 1.47 | 2.62 | | | NER | Best | 12.39 | 5.11 | 21.35 | | peculiarity-KM | 13.13 | 5.50 | 22.27 | | | POS | Best | 17.08 | 6.66 | 25.93 | | peculiarity-KM | 17.26 | 6.75 | 26.17 | | that could improve the performance for these fewlabel classification tasks. On the contrary, for MARC-5, NER, and POS the best methods differ in each language group. In the "good" group, *peculiarity* consistently achieves the highest improvements in the all tasks and nshots. However, in the "poor" group, *peculiarity* does not work as well as in the "good" and is worse than random in some settings. In addition, the scores show that the methods considering the diversity of candidates (KM, GE-KM, and LE-KM) are the best choice for the "poor" group11. ## 7 Analysis 7.1 Redundancy Of High Peculiarity **Examples** As mentioned above, *peculiarity* outperforms the other methods in the few-label classification tasks 11We confirm that GE-KM and LE-KM achieve the highest scores in 500-shot settings. The results for 100- and 500-shot experiments are in Appendix C. (XNLI, PAWS-X, and MARC-2), but the KMbased methods perform better in the "poor" group  for sequence-tagging and many-label classification tasks (NER, POS, and MARC-5). The KM-based methods select candidates by considering their diversity, but *peculiarity* does not. Therefore, we assume that *peculiarity* selects more redundant candidates than KM-based methods. To confirm our assumption, we measure the token type ratio (TTR) of the candidates extracted by KM and *peculiarity*. Table 4 shows the results and that the TTRs of KM and *peculiarity* are almost the same in the few-label classification tasks. By contrast, the TTRs of *peculiarity* are lower than that of KM in the sequence-tagging and many-label classification tasks, which means that *peculiarity* selects redundant candidates in these tasks. Intuitively, training a model with only similar examples harms generalization performance because the model is optimized only for limited data. We consider that the redundancy is one of the causes of peculiarity not working well across languages. Then, we verify why *peculiarity* works well in the "good" group but not the "poor" group. To do this, we chose an NER task and Finish and Arabic from the "good" and "poor" groups, respectively, and visualize the hidden states of the candidates extracted by KM and *peculiarity* (n = 1, 000). We compress the hidden states to two dimensions using UMAP (McInnes et al., 2018) and show the results in Figure 3. This figure shows that *peculiarity* selects local candidates compared to KM in the both languages. For Finnish, these candidates are enough to cover the Finish examples that are not covered by English (source language). However,   for Arabic, the candidates selected by *peculiarity* cannot complement all of the Arabic examples because almost all of the examples are not covered by English examples. Several studies (Yuan et al., 2020; Hacohen et al., 2022) have suggested that training a model with representative and diverse examples, in other words, examples that approximate the entire data pool, is beneficial to enhance the model's performance when the training examples are limited. In the case of few-shot cross-lingual transfer, we should fine-tune MSusing source and target language examples that approximate an unlabeled data pool in the target language XT . Figure 3 indicates that *peculiarity* selects ideal candidates in Finish, but not in Arabic. Therefore, it is recommended to select examples by considering diversity for the "poor" group, such as Arabic. Motivated by the previous analyses, we design a new candidate selection method that considers *peculiarity* and diversity of candidates. Specifically, first, we extract 50% of candidates X ′′ T ⊂ XT using peculiarity. Then, we select candidates X ′ T ⊂ X ′′ T by adapting KM to X ′′ T . We denote this method as peculiarity-KM and provide evaluation results on NER, POS, and MARC-5 tasks in Table 5. *Peculiarity*-KM achieves the highest scores in the both "good" and "poor" groups for the NER and POS tasks, which means that we can mitigate the weakness of *peculiarity* by considering the diversity. However, the scores drop 0.24 points compared to *peculiarity* in the "good" group of MARC-5. Therefore, there are still challenges to address in the candidate selection method that can efficiently enhance few-shot cross-lingual performance across languages and tasks. ## 7.2 Robustness Of **Peculiarity** Peculiarity (Equation 1) has two hyperparameters k and *distance*. Finally, we analyze the robustness of the hyperparameters of *peculiarity*. We measure *peculiarity* using various k (1, 5, 10, 20, 40, 80, and 160) and extract 1,000 candidates based on each *peculiarity*. Figure 4 shows overlap rates between each subset of extracted candidates in MARC-2 and NER tasks averaged across all languages. We indicate the overlap rates for the other tasks in Appendix C. The overlap rates gradually decrease as the k value changes. However, even the lowest overlap rates (between 1 and 160) are 0.72 and 0.74 in MARC-2 and NER, respectively. Therefore, this figure reveals that *peculiarity* selects almost same examples regardless of k. We also conduct few-shot cross-lingual transfer with these candidates. In this experiment, we chose German (De) and Chinese (Zh) from the "good" and "poor" groups and use MARC-2 and NER tasks. Figure 5 shows the evaluation results. The figure demonstrates that the accuracy are almost consistent between each k value. This result reveals that peculiarity can lead to robust performance regardless of k. In previous experiments, we adopted Euclidean distance as *distance*; however, Cosine distance is another option. We extract 1,000 candidates based on Euclidean and Cosine distances and measure the overlap rates between each subset of extracted candidates. The overlap rates averaged across all languages are 0.93, 0.99, 0.98, 0.97, 0.96, and 0.93 in XNLI, PAWS-X, MARC-2, MARC-5, NER, and POS tasks, respectively. This indicates that *peculiarity* extract consistent candidates regardless of distance metric. ## 8 Conclusion In this study, we proposed a simple metric called *peculiarity*, which measures whether source language examples exist in the neighborhood of target language examples. We showed that high *peculiarity* examples are not predicted correctly in the zeroshot setting and demonstrated that these examples can enhance accuracy for few-shot cross-lingual transfer regardless of language groups. In addition, we showed that *peculiarity*-KM, the candidate selection method that considers *peculiarity* and diversity, further boosts few-shot crosslingual transfer performance compared to *peculiarity* or KM alone. However, there are some configurations in which *peculiarity*-KM does not work well, such as the "good" group in MARC-5. Therefore, we would like to attempt to analyze the causes of this result and develop a new candidate selection method that enhances the few-shot cross-lingual performance across languages and tasks. ## Limitations Although we demonstrated that the proposed metric peculiarity is useful for selecting candidates for few-shot cross-lingual transfer, our current work has the following limitations. ## Lack Of Evaluations To Argue The Usefulness Of peculiarity. We demonstrated that *peculiarity* selects candidates to efficiently enhance few-shot cross-lingual performance in several tasks and languages. In addition, *peculiarity* is robust for hyperparameter k. However, further verification is required to evaluate the usefulness of *peculiarity*. In this study, we only used XLM-R as the MMLM in the experiments, because previous works (Lauscher et al., 2020; Kumar et al., 2022) have demonstrated that mBERT and XLM-R show the same trend and XLM-R achieves better zeroshot and few-shot cross-lingual performance. However, it is not obvious that *peculiarity* will work well in mBERT. In addition, recently, Lin et al. (2022) proposed XGLM, a pre-trained multilingual causal language model, that demonstrates strong multilingual capabilities. We would like to experiment using these pre-trained multilingual models to show the usefulness of *peculiarity* regardless of models. We fine-tuned the MMLM using a standard training objective, predicting true labels or tags for inputs. On the contrary, Zhao and Schütze (2021) revealed that fine-tuning in a prompting format encourages better zero-shot and few-shot crosslingual transfer than the standard fine-tuning. It is worthwhile to examine few-shot cross-lingual transfer performance when fine-tuning the MMLM with high *peculiarity* examples in a prompting format because it may be possible to achieve higher accuracy in the target languages with a smaller amount of examples. We experimented using English as the source language. However, if possible, it is better to use a language that is linguistically close to the target language as the source language (Pires et al., 2019; Lauscher et al., 2020; Chai et al., 2022). In our experiments, we did not show that *peculiarity* works well regardless of source languages. Therefore, verifying this aspect is also a remaining challenge. Definition of annotation cost. In this study, we defined annotation cost in terms of the number of candidates following previous studies (Pires et al., 2019; Lauscher et al., 2020; Chai et al., 2022). However, a small number of candidates does not necessarily mean less work for annotators. If a candidate (sentence) length is long or hard, it is considered to take longer to understand. On the other hand, if the candidate length is short or easy, annotation time per candidate will be shorter, and the annotators can annotate more candidates in the same time. Therefore, we should evaluate candidate selection methods based on total time required for annotation. In addition, aligning the cross-lingual representations between source and target languages using bilingual data is one approach to enhance accuracy for the target languages (Lample and Conneau, 2019; Cao et al., 2020; Chi et al., 2021; Dou and Neubig, 2021; Yang et al., 2021). To align the representations, we should create bilingual data through a human or automatic translator. Verification whether labeling or translating is less labor intensive and further boosting performance is one of the future goals. ## Developing A Better Peculiarity**-Based Candidate** selection method. In this study, we used the BOS hidden states to measure *peculiarity*; in other words, it measures example-level *peculiarity*. In classification tasks, using example-level *peculiarity* to select candidates is intuitive because we predict labels based on the BOS hidden states. On the other hand, in the sequence-tagging tasks, we predict token tags based on hidden states of each token. In addition, we consider that it is necessary to fine-tune MS with *peculiar* tokens, tokens that are not covered by the source language, to ensure that the model predicts tags of these tokens correctly. Therefore, we will attempt to select candidates that contain *peculiar* tokens by using token-level *peculiarity* and conduct few-shot cross-lingual transfer in the sequence-tagging tasks. We observed that *peculiarity* selects more redundant candidates compared to the KM-based methods and argued that this aspect is the reason that peculiarity does not work in the "poor" group. We consider the possibility of other reasons for this behavior. Several studies (Swayamdipta et al., 2020; Sorscher et al., 2022; Hacohen et al., 2022) have suggested that if only a small amount of examples can be used for training, it is important to use not only hard (atypical) examples but also some easy (typical) examples for training in order to improve model performance. In terms of few-shot crosslingual transfer using *peculiarity*, we should finetune MS with the both highest and lowest *peculiarity* examples. In addition, using typical examples selected by KM instead of the lowest *peculiarity* examples is one of the approaches. For future work, we would like to verify the effectiveness of these methods for few-shot cross-lingual transfer. ## Ethics Statement Impact of our work. Thanks to the efforts of various researchers, pre-trained models have been proposed that can solve NLP tasks with high accuracy. However, labeled data is essential for fine-tuning these models, and few languages have abundant language resources like English. In addition, construction of labeled data is not easy. Therefore, attempts to train high-quality models with little effort, as in our study, are very important for low-resource languages. Although our method and study have the limitations mentioned above, our experiments provided useful insights into selecting annotation candidates for few-shot cross-lingual transfer. In addition, we will publish the code used in our experiments, which will facilitate the reproduction of our experiments and contribute to further research. Potential risks for bias. In recent years, bias in data has become an issue. Training a model on such data can lead to unwarranted predictions or generate negative sentences for a particular person or group. When the training data is small and contains biases, such problems may be more pronounced because the model is optimized only for the provided data. In this study, we did not take into account this issue, and our proposed method is not designed to select bias-less candidates. Therefore, when using the proposed method, sufficient attention should be paid to the problem of bias. ## Acknowledgments This work was supported by TMU research fund for young scientists and JST, the establishment of university fellowships towards the creation of science technology innovation, Grant Number JPMJFS2139. ## References Jordan T. Ash, Chicheng Zhang, Akshay Krishnamurthy, John Langford, and Alekh Agarwal. 2020. Deep batch active learning by diverse, uncertain gradient lower bounds. In *International Conference on Learning Representations*. Steven Cao, Nikita Kitaev, and Dan Klein. 2020. Multilingual alignment of contextual word representations. In *International Conference on Learning Representations*. Yuan Chai, Yaobo Liang, and Nan Duan. 2022. Crosslingual ability of multilingual masked language models: A study of language structure. In *Proceedings* of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4702–4712, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ernie Chang, Xiaoyu Shen, Hui-Syuan Yeh, and Vera Demberg. 2021. On training instance selection for few-shot neural text generation. 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 8–13, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Zewen Chi, Li Dong, Furu Wei, Nan Yang, Saksham Singhal, Wenhui Wang, Xia Song, Xian-Ling Mao, Heyan Huang, and Ming Zhou. 2021. InfoXLM: An information-theoretic framework for cross-lingual language model pre-training. In *Proceedings of the* 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 3576–3588, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alexis Conneau, Kartikay Khandelwal, Naman Goyal, Vishrav Chaudhary, Guillaume Wenzek, Francisco Guzmán, Edouard Grave, Myle Ott, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2020. Unsupervised cross-lingual representation learning at scale. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 8440– 8451, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alexis Conneau, Ruty Rinott, Guillaume Lample, Adina Williams, Samuel Bowman, Holger Schwenk, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2018. XNLI: Evaluating crosslingual sentence representations. In *Proceedings of* the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2475–2485, Brussels, Belgium. 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. Zi-Yi Dou and Graham Neubig. 2021. Word alignment by fine-tuning embeddings on parallel corpora. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 2112–2128, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Matthew S. Dryer and Martin Haspelmath, editors. 2013. WALS Online. Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig. Guy Hacohen, Avihu Dekel, and Daphna Weinshall. 2022. Active learning on a budget: Opposite strategies suit high and low budgets. In *Proceedings of* the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 162 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 8175–8195. PMLR. Jeff Johnson, Matthijs Douze, and Hervé Jégou. 2019. Billion-scale similarity search with GPUs. *IEEE* Transactions on Big Data, 7(3):535–547. Pratik Joshi, Sebastin Santy, Amar Budhiraja, Kalika Bali, and Monojit Choudhury. 2020. The state and fate of linguistic diversity and inclusion in the NLP world. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of* the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6282–6293, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Phillip Keung, Yichao Lu, György Szarvas, and Noah A. Smith. 2020. The multilingual Amazon reviews corpus. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 4563–4568, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Simon Kornblith, Mohammad Norouzi, Honglak Lee, and Geoffrey Hinton. 2019. Similarity of neural network representations revisited. In *Proceedings* of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 3519–3529. Shanu Kumar, Sandipan Dandapat, and Monojit Choudhury. 2022. "Diversity and uncertainty in moderation" are the key to data selection for multilingual few-shot transfer. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022*, pages 1042–1055, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Guillaume Lample and Alexis Conneau. 2019. Crosslingual language model pretraining. *Advances in* Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS). Anne Lauscher, Vinit Ravishankar, Ivan Vulic, and ´ Goran Glavaš. 2020. From zero to hero: On the limitations of zero-shot language transfer with multilingual Transformers. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 4483–4499, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xi Victoria Lin, Todor Mihaylov, Mikel Artetxe, Tianlu Wang, Shuohui Chen, Daniel Simig, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Shruti Bhosale, Jingfei Du, Ramakanth Pasunuru, Sam Shleifer, Punit Singh Koura, Vishrav Chaudhary, Brian O'Horo, Jeff Wang, Luke Zettlemoyer, Zornitsa Kozareva, Mona T. Diab, Veselin Stoyanov, and Xian Li. 2022. Few-shot learning with multilingual generative language models. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), Online and Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. Patrick Littell, David R. Mortensen, Ke Lin, Katherine Kairis, Carlisle Turner, and Lori Levin. 2017. URIEL and lang2vec: Representing languages as typological, geographical, and phylogenetic vectors. In *Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics:* Volume 2, Short Papers, pages 8–14, Valencia, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics. Leland McInnes, John Healy, Nathaniel Saul, and Lukas Grossberger. 2018. UMAP: Uniform manifold approximation and projection. The Journal of Open Source Software, 3(29):861. Joakim Nivre, Marie-Catherine de Marneffe, Filip Ginter, Yoav Goldberg, Jan Hajic, Christopher D. Man- ˇ ning, Ryan McDonald, Slav Petrov, Sampo Pyysalo, Natalia Silveira, Reut Tsarfaty, and Daniel Zeman. 2016. Universal Dependencies v1: A multilingual treebank collection. In *Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and* Evaluation (LREC'16), pages 1659–1666, Portorož, Slovenia. European Language Resources Association (ELRA). Telmo Pires, Eva Schlinger, and Dan Garrette. 2019. How multilingual is multilingual BERT? In *Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for* Computational Linguistics, pages 4996–5001, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Afshin Rahimi, Yuan Li, and Trevor Cohn. 2019. Massively multilingual transfer for NER. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 151–164, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ben Sorscher, Robert Geirhos, Shashank Shekhar, Surya Ganguli, and Ari S. Morcos. 2022. Beyond neural scaling laws: beating power law scaling via data pruning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. Swabha Swayamdipta, Roy Schwartz, Nicholas Lourie, Yizhong Wang, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Noah A. Smith, and Yejin Choi. 2020. Dataset cartography: Mapping and diagnosing datasets with training dynamics. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 9275–9293, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Guillaume Wenzek, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Alexis Conneau, Vishrav Chaudhary, Francisco Guzmán, Armand Joulin, and Edouard Grave. 2020. CCNet: Extracting high quality monolingual datasets from web crawl data. In *Proceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference*, pages 4003–4012, Marseille, France. European Language Resources Association. Huiyun Yang, Huadong Chen, Hao Zhou, and Lei Li. 2022. Enhancing cross-lingual transfer by manifold mixup. In International Conference on Learning Representations. Yinfei Yang, Yuan Zhang, Chris Tar, and Jason Baldridge. 2019. PAWS-X: A cross-lingual adversarial dataset for paraphrase identification. 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 3687–3692, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ziqing Yang, Wentao Ma, Yiming Cui, Jiani Ye, Wanxiang Che, and Shijin Wang. 2021. Bilingual alignment pre-training for zero-shot cross-lingual transfer. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Machine Reading for Question Answering, pages 100–105, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Michelle Yuan, Hsuan-Tien Lin, and Jordan BoydGraber. 2020. Cold-start active learning through selfsupervised language modeling. In *Proceedings of the* 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 7935–7948, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Mengjie Zhao and Hinrich Schütze. 2021. Discrete and soft prompting for multilingual models. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods* in Natural Language Processing, pages 8547–8555, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. | WikiANN | UD | | | | | | |-----------|---------|--------|--------|-----------|---------|---------| | train | dev | test | train | dev | test | | | En | 23,234 | 11,624 | 11,594 | 359,550 | 56,194 | 76,817 | | Ar | 20,912 | 10,460 | 10,438 | 553,404 | 73,707 | 96,888 | | Bg | 23,422 | 11,628 | 11,670 | 143,528 | 18,615 | 18,095 | | De | 24,834 | 12,398 | 12,430 | 3,459,957 | 379,232 | 437,084 | | El | 23,658 | 11,827 | 11,837 | 48,402 | 12,086 | 12,106 | | Es | 21,153 | 10,548 | 10,565 | 844,454 | 91,608 | 91,776 | | Eu | 12,126 | 12,144 | 11,966 | 69,285 | 22,793 | 23,095 | | Fi | 22,968 | 11,421 | 11,472 | 309,406 | 36,006 | 77,710 | | He | 22,931 | 11,468 | 11,414 | 141,995 | 11,716 | 12,625 | | Hi | 5,279 | 1,067 | 1,060 | 592,684 | 74,192 | 107,210 | | It | 22,732 | 11,266 | 11,361 | - | - | - | | Ja | 53,242 | 26,551 | 26,988 | 221,320 | 15,982 | 74,428 | | Ko | 22,444 | 11,185 | 11,241 | 146,605 | 15,297 | 41,244 | | Ru | 21,904 | 10,934 | 10,942 | 1,293,061 | 181,397 | 203,482 | | Sv | 25,156 | 12,523 | 12,643 | 149,979 | 34,271 | 70,270 | | Th | 103,972 | 50,880 | 52,213 | - | - | - | | Tr | 21,926 | 11,095 | 11,046 | 143,180 | 22,997 | 55,59 | | Ur | 20,148 | 1,001 | 1,003 | 231,161 | 31,000 | 31,667 | | Vi | 20,704 | 10,321 | 10,371 | - | - | - | | Zh | 40,354 | 20,470 | 19,983 | 31,667 | 17,780 | 54,261 | Table 6: Example numbers for each datasets. ## A Experimental Settings We experiment with WikiANN12, UD13, XNLI14, PAWS-X15, and MARC (MARC-2 and MARC5)16 datasets. Example numbers of train, dev, and test data are the same across all languages in the XNLI (392,702, 2,418, and 5,010), PAWSX (49,401, 2,000, and 2,000), MARC-2 (160,000, 4,000, and 4,000), and MARC-5 (200,000, 5,000, and 5,000) datasets. We show example numbers for the other datasets in Table 6. ## B Zero-Shot Cross-Lingual Transfer We show the accuracy of the test and validation datasets for each target language in zero-shot crosslingual transfer in Tables 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. Low and High are subsets of extracted 10% examples of the lowest and highest *peculiarity* from the validation dataset. These scores are the average accuracy of three models. The accuracies of High are obviously lower than others in all languages and tasks. Therefore, these tables indicate that *peculiarity* can isolate the languages depending on their zero-shot cross-lingual performance. We also indicate the median (Mdn.) and macro-average (Avg.) scores (excluding the English score). We underline the scores higher than the median score in the validation dataset, and we use those languages as "good" group and the others as "poor" group. ## C Few-Shot Cross-Lingual Transfer We show the accuracy of the test datasets for each target language in few-shot cross-lingual transfer in Tables 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16. We perform pairwise t-Test to measure statistical significance. The † (or ‡) indicates the statistical significance (p < 0.1) 17 between *peculiarity* (or *peculiarity*-KM) and the underlined method that achieves the highest average score except for the *peculiarity*-based methods. In addition, the ⋆ indicates the statistical significance between *peculiarity* and *peculiarity*-KM. In PAWS-X, MARC-2, and MARC-5 (Tables 15 and 16) tasks, the *peculiarity*-based methods consistently achieves the highest accuracy. In NER, POS, and XNLI tasks (Tables 12, 13, and 14), the peculiarity-based methods bring the best performances in almost all languages. We also show differences in accuracy between 0-shot and each nshot model averaged across all languages in Table 17. Finally, we show overlap rates of examples extracted by *peculiarity* measured at each k and observe that they are higher than 0.70. Therefore, peculiarity is robust for hyperparameter k. En Ar Bg De El Es Eu Fi Fr He Hi It Ja Ko Ru Sv Th Tr Ur Vi Zh Mdn. Avg. Test 91.7 67.5 89.2 88.5 87.5 83.4 79.8 88.8 84.3 75.8 75.6 88.2 68.9 74.6 80.8 89.2 21.2 83.9 60.1 83.5 69.0 82.1 76.9 Valid 92.1 67.3 89.5 88.7 87.2 83.5 79.8 88.5 85.3 75.4 75.1 88.5 67.8 75.1 81.3 88.8 21.5 83.7 61.8 83.0 68.8 82.1 76.9 Low - 93.7 96.7 97.8 95.6 98.1 96.8 97.9 98.0 90.1 96.0 98.6 76.9 85.7 93.7 98.1 25.6 99.1 95.6 98.1 74.4 96.3 89.3 High - 37.0 57.5 62.1 62.8 49.5 65.3 64.1 56.7 35.9 53.8 55.4 36.6 43.9 53.0 66.9 25.3 54.1 51.3 42.2 32.8 53.4 50.3 En De Es Fr Ja Zh Mdn. Avg. Test 94.0 92.9 92.0 91.8 89.1 85.1 91.8 90.2 Valid 93.5 91.7 91.5 91.5 89.5 85.1 91.5 89.9 Low - 99.9 100.0 100.0 99.5 97.7 99.9 99.4 High - 52.6 55.0 52.9 53.5 52.4 52.9 53.2 Test 60.2 59.8 55.0 54.9 52.8 49.6 54.9 54.4 Valid 59.5 59.0 54.4 54.2 53.8 48.6 54.2 54.2 Low - 66.8 74.9 69.4 64.2 77.7 69.4 70.6 High - 54.6 57.2 55.9 43.4 43.3 54.6 50.8 Table 11: Zero-shot cross-lingual transfer performance on MARC. En Ar Bg De El Es Eu Fi He Hi Ja Ko Ru Sv Tr Ur Zh Mdn. Avg. Test 96.0 67.9 91.3 89.0 86.7 89.7 72.9 88.3 56.9 78.1 43.8 61.2 91.6 93.9 73.8 65.8 57.5 75.9 75.2 Valid 96.5 56.2 91.1 87.7 86.7 89.5 72.8 86.4 58.2 79.0 45.8 59.0 91.5 94.7 73.0 64.7 57.2 76.0 74.4 Low - 65.7 91.7 93.0 87.5 92.0 76.9 89.7 69.8 81.7 53.1 64.9 93.3 95.6 78.4 70.2 61.6 80.0 79.0 High - 50.5 88.8 82.2 82.9 79.3 68.1 73.8 47.9 79.3 46.2 54.0 83.2 92.0 62.8 67.4 56.0 70.9 69.5 En Ar Bg De El Es Fr Hi Ru Sw Th Tr Ur Vi Zh Mdn. Avg. Table 10: Zero-shot cross-lingual transfer performance on PAWS-X. Table 9: Zero-shot cross-lingual transfer performance on XNLI. Test 83.0 69.5 76.6 74.7 74.4 77.5 77.0 68.3 75.1 62.6 70.4 71.3 64.1 73.6 75.5 74.4 72.4 Valid 82.4 69.2 74.4 74.5 73.5 76.8 75.5 68.0 74.2 62.5 69.7 71.0 63.5 73.1 76.2 73.5 71.8 Low - 73.9 76.0 78.7 74.8 84.7 86.4 74.4 77.3 64.2 65.2 72.5 45.7 69.8 86.4 74.8 73.5 High - 62.5 74.4 74.4 72.9 77.4 74.4 50.8 76.5 46.1 59.6 53.9 37.9 66.0 74.4 72.9 64.7 Table 7: Zero-shot cross-lingual transfer performance on NER.   Table 8: Zero-shot cross-lingual transfer performance on POS tagging. | En | De | Es | Fr | Ja | Ko | Zh | Mdn. | Avg. | | |-------|------|------|------|------|------|------|--------|--------|------| | Test | 92.9 | 85.6 | 86.2 | 86.2 | 74.6 | 71.5 | 77.7 | 81.6 | 80.3 | | Valid | 92.6 | 83.8 | 86.5 | 87.6 | 75.1 | 76.5 | 79.2 | 81.5 | 81.4 | | Low | - | 99.4 | 99.8 | 99.4 | 99.9 | 99.0 | 99.9 | 99.6 | 99.6 | | High | - | 69.8 | 71.7 | 68.5 | 65.8 | 65.4 | 60.9 | 67.1 | 67.0 | | MARC-2 MARC-5 | |-----------------| Good Poor Bg De El Es Fi Fr It Sv Tr Vi Ar Eu He Hi Ja Ko Ru Th Ur Zh 100-shot Random 90.5 90.0 **90.0** 89.3 90.3 89.2 90.2 91.8 90.7 86.9† **84.6**†‡ 92.0† 82.6 84.5 81.3†‡ **82.5**†‡ 87.3 73.5 87.0 83.8† Entropy 90.2 89.9 89.8 89.7 90.7 88.6 90.3 90.1 89.8 86.7 83.8 87.5 82.1 84.3 78.1 80.7 87.2 63.5 87.3 78.1 KM 90.7 90.3 89.6 89.9† 91.1 88.5 90.4 91.9 90.9 86.9† 83.6 91.8 83.1†‡ **86.8**†‡ 80.3 81.2 87.3 73.6 88.9† 83.6 LE-KM 89.2 89.5 89.6 89.0 90.6 87.8 89.9 92.2 **91.3**†‡ 85.2 83.2 91.6 81.9 83.2 80.8 81.0 86.8 74.4 88.8 81.6 peculiarity **91.5**† 90.8† 89.8 89.5 91.6† 89.5†⋆ **90.7**† 92.1 90.3 86.5 83.3 87.9 82.3 84.6 80.1 80.2 88.0† 74.7 87.3 80.2 peculiarity-KM 91.2‡ **91.3**‡⋆ 89.9 **92.3**‡⋆ 91.5 89.0 90.5 **93.3**‡⋆ 89.9 **87.1**‡⋆ 83.7⋆ **92.8**‡⋆ 82.3 84.5 80.8⋆ 81.1⋆ 88.5‡⋆ 75.3‡⋆ 89.7‡⋆ **84.0**‡⋆ 500-shot Random 92.1 91.5 90.5 91.2† 92.4 89.8 91.1 94.2 92.3 87.6 86.9 92.8 85.9 88.8 83.3 86.2 89.0 80.1 90.1 85.4 Entropy 92.0 91.3 90.6 88.1 92.5 89.9 91.6 92.6 91.8 88.2 85.7 88.1 84.4 85.7 80.3 85.0 88.1 77.3 90.6 70.7 KM 91.3 91.5 **91.8** 89.7 91.8 90.0 91.0 94.1 92.1 88.5 **87.6**† 89.5 86.1† **88.9**†‡ 82.3 85.3 89.5 83.1† 91.0 86.4† LE-KM 90.6 91.5 90.4 90.4 92.2 89.3 91.7 94.3 92.4 88.1 86.8 93.4† 86.1† 85.5 83.8† **86.5**†‡ 87.0 81.6 **91.3**† 85.3 peculiarity **92.4**†⋆ 91.6 91.6 90.3 92.6 90.3†⋆ **92.4**† 94.3 92.6 88.9† 87.3 93.0 85.6 87.3 82.3 85.1 **89.6** 80.9 89.6 81.6 peculiarity-KM 92.2 **91.9**‡ 91.7 **94.2**‡⋆ 92.4 89.9 92.2‡ 95.1‡⋆ 93.3‡⋆ **90.0**‡ 87.5 95.0‡⋆ **86.8**‡⋆ 86.5 **84.0**⋆ 85.0 89.4 **83.9**‡⋆ 91.2⋆ **87.2**‡⋆ 1,000-shot Random 92.6 91.9 91.6 91.5† 92.6 89.6 91.7 95.0 93.3 89.0 87.5 94.2 87.3 87.6 85.0† 86.5 90.0 84.0 91.7 87.2 Entropy 91.8 92.3 92.0 90.1 93.2 90.0 91.6 95.2 92.6 89.4 85.7 93.2 86.7 88.8 82.0 86.4 89.6 79.9 91.2 81.0 KM 92.8 91.9 90.9 91.0 92.4 89.9 92.3 95.3 **93.9** 89.8 **89.0**†‡ 94.5† 87.1 87.2 84.8 87.3† 90.4 83.3 92.2† 86.6 LE-KM **93.4**†‡ 91.8 91.9 91.1 93.0 90.0 91.7 95.1 93.4 88.5 88.4 94.1 87.8† 86.7 84.5 86.4 89.6 **85.4**†‡ 90.6 88.2† peculiarity 92.8⋆ 92.1 **92.4**†⋆ 90.3 93.3 90.6†⋆ **92.9**†⋆ 95.4 93.6 89.8 86.5 90.3 86.4 89.2† 83.8 85.4 90.3 83.3 90.8 82.4 peculiarity-KM 92.2 **92.4**⋆ 92.0 **94.5**‡⋆ 93.2 90.1 92.0 **96.1**‡⋆ 93.7 **91.1**‡⋆ 88.4⋆ 94.6⋆ 87.9⋆ 89.8‡⋆ 85.1⋆ 88.5‡⋆ **91.1**‡⋆ 84.4⋆ 92.8‡⋆ **88.9**‡⋆ Good Poor Bg De El Es Fi Hi Ru Sv Ar Eu He Ja Ko Tr Ur Zh Random 94.7 90.8 94.2 93.6 89.0 87.6 92.8 94.5 87.9 **87.4**†‡ 94.4 88.3 **75.3**†‡ 82.0 88.9 86.8 Entropy 92.9 89.6 92.9 92.3 88.0 87.4 92.4 94.7 87.1 85.2 93.6 84.8 68.5 81.3 88.6 87.0 KM 94.5 91.5 93.7 93.5 89.9 88.4 94.2 95.0 87.2 85.5 94.1 86.5 72.6 81.7 88.9 87.4 LE-KM 95.2 91.8 93.7 93.8 90.0 88.6 94.0 84.3 87.5 85.6 **95.0**‡ 88.3 74.3 **82.7**†‡ 89.1 87.1 peculiarity **96.0**†⋆ 91.7 94.3 94.2† **90.5**† 88.7 94.2 **95.1** 87.7 86.7 94.9⋆ **88.4** 74.6 81.8 **90.9**†⋆ 87.5 peculiarity-KM 95.0 92.2‡⋆ **94.8**‡⋆ 94.0 90.2 89.1‡⋆ **94.6**‡⋆ 95.0 87.7 86.5 94.5 88.3 74.8 82.3⋆ 90.3‡ **88.6**‡⋆ Random 99.1 94.0 95.9 94.9 90.1 89.6 94.8 95.8 87.3 90.0 **96.4** 90.5‡ 77.0 85.4 91.2 90.3 Entropy 99.1 91.4 95.4 94.2 89.6 89.3 94.8 96.0 88.1 89.1 95.9 89.9 76.1 85.1 90.8 90.6 KM 99.1 94.4 96.1 95.3 90.4 89.8 95.6 96.1 87.7 91.0 96.1 89.8 78.0 83.9 91.4 90.7 LE-KM 97.2 94.7 95.9 95.0 90.7‡ **89.9**† 95.1 96.0 87.9 91.8†‡ **96.4** 90.1 **79.3**†‡ 85.8 **92.2** 91.1† peculiarity **99.2** 94.5 96.2 95.9†⋆ **90.8**⋆ 89.5 95.3 96.4† **88.4** 89.9 **96.4 90.6**⋆ 76.4 85.5 **92.2** 90.4 peculiarity-KM **99.2 94.8 96.2** 95.6 90.2 89.9⋆ **95.9**‡⋆ 96.2 88.2 91.2⋆ **96.4** 90.0 78.2⋆ **86.3**‡⋆ 92.0 **91.5**‡⋆ 1,000-shot Random 99.1 94.6 96.5 95.4 90.4 90.4 95.5 96.7 88.2 92.3 96.6 90.9 80.3 86.4 92.8 91.7† Entropy **99.2** 92.2 96.4 94.5 90.1 90.9 95.8 96.6 87.9 92.6 96.4 90.3 78.0 86.4 91.7 90.7 KM **99.2** 94.3 96.2 95.3 90.8 90.7 95.7 96.3 88.4 92.4 96.6 90.6 80.5† 87.6 92.6 90.4 LE-KM 98.3 94.4 96.5 95.4 91.0 90.8 95.5 96.6 **88.5** 92.6 96.7 90.6 80.4 87.6 92.5 91.5 peculiarity **99.2** 94.9 **96.7** 96.0† **91.5**† 91.0 95.8 97.1†⋆ **88.5** 92.7 96.7 **91.5**† 79.8 87.7 92.8 90.4 peculiarity-KM **99.2 95.2**‡⋆ 96.5 96.2‡ 91.5‡ 91.9‡⋆ **96.3**‡⋆ 96.8 88.4 93.0‡ **96.9** 91.3‡ 80.8⋆ 88.1‡⋆ 93.2‡⋆ **92.2**‡⋆ Good Poor Bg De El Es Fr Ru Zh Ar Hi Sw Th Tr Ur Vi Random 78.1 **76.1** 75.6 78.4 78.1 **76.3**† 73.7 72.2 69.2 61.4 71.9 72.4 66.7 75.0 Entropy 77.9 75.9 76.0 78.7 77.9 76.0 73.9 72.5 69.1 63.3 71.9 72.1 66.5 74.7 KM **78.6** 76.0 75.9 78.8 77.9 76.1 73.4 72.4† 69.0 63.6 71.7 72.7† **67.9**† 75.0 GE-KM 77.9 76.0 75.9 78.8 77.9 75.6 **74.1** 71.5 69.4 60.5 72.1 72.3 66.5 74.9 peculiarity **78.6 76.1 76.2 78.9 78.3**† 75.7 74.1 72.6⋆ 69.9† 64.0† **72.5**† 72.4 66.9 **75.1** Random 77.9 76.1 75.4 78.6 78.1 **76.0** 73.2 71.6 69.2 64.1 72.5 72.0 66.0 75.2 Entropy 78.0 76.6 **75.9** 78.5 78.3 75.4 **74.0** 71.7 69.1 63.3 **72.6** 72.3 66.4 75.1 KM 77.9 **77.2**† 75.1 78.6 78.0 75.3 73.4 71.7 69.6 63.4 71.8 71.8 66.0 75.0 GE-KM 77.8 76.1 75.4 78.5 77.9 75.4 73.3 70.6 69.5 62.1 72.2 **72.4** 66.2 74.9 peculiarity **78.2** 76.9 75.6 **78.7 78.4** 75.7 73.9 71.9 69.9† **64.6**† 72.5 72.3 66.7† **75.4** Random 78.3 76.5 75.9 78.8 78.2 75.5 74.7 72.5 69.9 65.0 72.8 72.2 62.5 75.5 Entropy 78.0 77.2 75.6 79.1 78.4 76.1 74.6 72.2 69.5 62.6 **73.2** 72.7 64.2 75.3 KM 78.2 77.2 **76.0** 79.1 78.0 75.6 74.5 71.5 69.1 64.5 73.0 72.1 64.8 74.9 GE-KM 78.2 76.3 75.5 79.0 78.0 75.5 74.2 71.6 69.6 63.8 72.2 **73.0**† 66.6 75.2 peculiarity **78.5 77.3** 75.9 79.4† 78.8† 76.2 74.9 72.9† 70.2† **65.2 73.2** 72.7 67.2† **75.6** 100-shot 500-shot | 100-shot 500-shot 1,000-shot | |--------------------------------| Random 87.4 89.3 89.1 **77.3** 76.5 78.8 Entropy 87.9 89.3 89.8 77.0 77.2 82.2 KM 88.1 89.0 89.9 **77.3** 76.8 81.6 GE-KM 87.7 89.0 89.8 **77.3** 77.3 81.8 peculiarity 88.8†89.4 90.3†**77.3 77.4 82.7**† | 100-shot 500-shot 1,000-shot | |--------------------------------| Random 87.6 89.4 89.5 77.4 78.1 80.8 Entropy 87.7 89.8 89.9 77.0 78.2 81.2 KM 87.4 89.5 89.6 77.0 78.0 80.9 GE-KM 87.5 89.6 89.7 75.5 77.7 **81.9** peculiarity 88.4†90.0†90.1 77.8†78.9†**81.9** Random 87.5 88.4 89.1 77.0 77.6 81.5 Entropy 87.9 89.0 89.2 75.2 75.7 81.5 KM 87.6 89.9 89.8 76.6 77.7 **81.7** GE-KM 88.0 89.9 89.7 75.7 **78.0** 81.1 peculiarity 88.7†90.0 90.3†**77.4**†77.9 **81.7** Good Poor De Es Fr Ja Ko Zh Random 93.0 92.0 92.3 90.2 86.1 Entropy 93.1 **92.6** 92.3 **91.0** 86.0 KM 93.2 92.5 91.9 90.6 86.4 GE-KM 93.2 92.2 92.3 90.4 86.4 peculiarity **93.2 92.6 92.5 91.0 86.6** | 100-shot | | |------------|------------------------------| | MARC-2 | 500-shot 1,000-shot 100-shot | | MARC-5 | 500-shot 1,000-shot | Random 92.9 92.4 92.4 90.5 86.2 Entropy 93.1 92.5 92.6 91.0 86.2 KM 93.1 92.6 92.3 90.6 86.3 GE-KM 93.2 92.4 92.8 89.9 **86.4** peculiarity 93.4†93.0†92.9 91.3†**86.4** Random 93.7 92.6 92.8 90.7 86.6 Entropy 93.5 92.0 92.6 90.6 86.7 KM 93.9 92.9 92.4 90.8 86.8 GE-KM 93.5 93.0 92.7 90.8 86.1 peculiarity 94.1†93.2 93.4†91.2†**86.9** Random 60.3 55.3 55.2 53.8 50.5 Entropy 60.2 55.6 54.9 52.7 49.0 KM 60.0 55.7 55.4 54.0 50.1 GE-KM 60.2 55.7 55.1 53.7 50.6† peculiarity 60.6†⋆56.2†55.7†**54.3**†49.9 peculiarity-KM 60.1 56.1‡55.5 54.2 **50.7**⋆ Random 60.6 55.8 55.3 55.0†51.4 Entropy 60.5 55.7 55.7 52.4 50.0 KM 60.8‡56.3 55.9 54.4 51.3 GE-KM 60.8‡56.3 55.5 54.5 **51.7**† peculiarity 61.1†⋆**56.5** 55.9 54.3 51.0 peculiarity-KM 60.1 56.4 56.0 56.6‡⋆**51.7**⋆ Random 60.9 56.4 55.9 55.4 **51.9**† Entropy 60.8 56.0 55.8 53.1 50.7 KM 61.2‡56.5 56.0 55.6†51.8 GE-KM 61.0 56.2 56.0 55.1 **51.9**† peculiarity 61.6†⋆**56.9**†⋆56.5†55.1 51.4 peculiarity-KM 60.0 56.2 56.6‡55.8⋆**51.9**⋆ Good Poor De Es Fr Ja Zh | 100-shot | 500-shot | 1,000-shot | | | | | | | | | |----------------|------------|--------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | All | Good | Poor | All | Good | Poor | All | Good | Poor | | | | Random | 9.32 | 2.93 | 16.81 | 11.42 | 4.19 | 20.07 | 12.27 | 4.79 | 21.16 | | | Entropy | 7.91 | 2.67 | 14.33 | 9.63 | 3.83 | 16.86 | 11.43 | 4.75 | 19.36 | | | KM | 9.42 | 3.06 | 16.91 | 11.57 | 4.11 | 20.46 | 12.39 | 4.88 | 21.35 | | | LE-KM | 8.82 | 2.53 | 16.17 | 11.19 | 3.99 | 19.76 | 12.38 | 4.86 | 21.30 | | | peculiarity | 8.87 | 3.23 | 15.83 | 10.91 | 4.56 | 18.81 | 11.84 | 5.11 | 20.22 | | | peculiarity-KM | 9.88 | 3.76 | 17.00 | 12.19 | 5.09 | 20.54 | 13.13 | 5.50 | 22.27 | | | NER | Random | 13.73 | 3.57 | 22.30 | 15.96 | 5.76 | 24.53 | 16.84 | 6.28 | 25.72 | | Entropy | 12.36 | 2.70 | 20.62 | 15.44 | 5.15 | 24.11 | 16.30 | 5.88 | 25.16 | | | KM | 13.46 | 4.05 | 21.60 | 16.02 | 6.03 | 24.60 | 16.86 | 6.23 | 25.93 | | | LE-KM | 13.89 | 4.15 | 22.25 | 16.28 | 5.71 | 25.23 | 16.94 | 6.24 | 25.92 | | | peculiarity | 14.20 | 4.36 | 22.55 | 16.13 | 6.51 | 24.59 | 17.08 | 6.66 | 25.87 | | | peculiarity-KM | 14.26 | 4.47 | 22.68 | 16.35 | 6.01 | 25.02 | 17.26 | 6.75 | 26.17 | | | POS | Random | 0.97 | 0.79 | 1.40 | 1.16 | 0.75 | 1.70 | 1.24 | 1.11 | 1.62 | | Entropy | 1.02 | 0.79 | 1.53 | 1.17 | 0.85 | 1.64 | 1.41 | 1.17 | 1.87 | | | KM | 1.23 | 0.86 | 1.83 | 0.99 | 0.69 | 1.48 | 1.27 | 1.06 | 1.60 | | | GE-KM | 0.94 | 0.79 | 1.24 | 0.89 | 0.51 | 1.32 | 1.39 | 0.94 | 1.92 | | | peculiarity | 1.31 | 1.04 | 1.84 | 1.25 | 0.94 | 1.75 | 1.52 | 1.35 | 1.95 | | | XNLI | Random | 2.99 | 2.61 | 2.97 | 3.90 | 2.86 | 4.32 | 3.47 | 2.33 | 4.09 | | Entropy | 3.87 | 3.00 | 4.22 | 3.95 | 3.16 | 4.14 | 2.92 | 2.73 | 2.91 | | | KM | 3.69 | 3.01 | 3.97 | 3.78 | 2.88 | 4.04 | 3.96 | 3.11 | 4.16 | | | GE-KM | 3.83 | 2.85 | 4.24 | 3.66 | 2.95 | 3.79 | 3.67 | 3.20 | 3.72 | | | peculiarity | 4.01 | 3.45 | 4.28 | 4.23 | 3.45 | 4.52 | 4.18 | 3.45 | 4.36 | | | PAWS-X | Random | 0.54 | 0.17 | 1.10 | 0.80 | 0.45 | 1.32 | 1.09 | 0.77 | 1.57 | | Entropy | 0.96 | 0.45 | 1.72 | 0.68 | 0.43 | 1.05 | 1.15 | 0.87 | 1.57 | | | KM | 0.71 | 0.25 | 1.35 | 0.79 | 0.42 | 1.35 | 1.16 | 0.77 | 1.75 | | | GE-KM | 0.72 | 0.30 | 1.35 | 0.75 | 0.50 | 1.12 | 1.11 | 0.78 | 1.60 | | | peculiarity | 0.99 | 0.55 | 1.10 | 1.11 | 0.78 | 1.60 | 1.42 | 1.18 | 1.77 | | | MARC-2 | Random | 0.59 | 0.36 | 0.92 | 1.20 | 0.65 | 2.02 | 1.74 | 1.26 | 2.45 | | Entropy | 0.07 | 0.35 | -0.35 | 0.45 | 0.76 | -0.02 | 0.88 | 1.00 | 0.70 | | | KM | 0.63 | 0.48 | 0.95 | 0.63 | 1.10 | 1.65 | 1.81 | 1.35 | 2.50 | | | GE-KM | 0.66 | 0.46 | 0.85 | 1.36 | 0.96 | 1.95 | 1.61 | 1.16 | 2.27 | | | peculiarity | 0.75 | 0.91 | 0.50 | 1.21 | 1.23 | 1.17 | 1.83 | 1.71 | 2.00 | | | peculiarity-KM | 0.92 | 0.71 | 1.22 | 1.33 | 1.10 | 1.67 | 1.88 | 1.47 | 2.62 | | | MARC-5 | | | | | | | | | | | Table 17: Differences in accuracy between 0-shot and each n-shot model.       ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Section named Limitations ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Section named Ethics Statement ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Sections 1 and 8 ✓ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? We use DeepL and Grammarly in all sections. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Sections 5, 6, And 7 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 5 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.? Appendices A and B ✓ 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?** Sections 6 And 7 ✓ 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 5 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 5 ✓ 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 and 7 ✓ 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?** 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.

winata-etal-2023-overcoming

Overcoming Catastrophic Forgetting in Massively Multilingual Continual Learning

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.48

Real-life multilingual systems should be able to efficiently incorporate new languages as data distributions fed to the system evolve and shift over time. To do this, systems need to handle the issue of catastrophic forgetting, where the model performance drops for languages or tasks seen further in its past. In this paper, we study catastrophic forgetting, as well as methods to minimize this, in a massively multilingual continual learning framework involving up to 51 languages and covering both classification and sequence labeling tasks. We present LR ADJUST, a learning rate scheduling method that is simple, yet effective in preserving new information without strongly overwriting past knowledge. Furthermore, we show that this method is effective across multiple continual learning approaches. Finally, we provide further insights into the dynamics of catastrophic forgetting in this massively multilingual setup.

# Overcoming Catastrophic Forgetting In Massively Multilingual Continual Learning Genta Indra Winata1∗, Lingjue Xie1∗, Karthik Radhakrishnan1∗**, Shijie Wu**1∗, Xisen Jin2†, Pengxiang Cheng1, Mayank Kulkarni3†, **Daniel Preo¸tiuc-Pietro**1 1Bloomberg 2University of Southern California 3Amazon Alexa AI {gwinata,lxie91,kradhakris10,swu671,pcheng134,dpreotiucpie}@bloomberg.net maykul@amazon.com, xisenjin@usc.edu ## Abstract Real-life multilingual systems should be able to efficiently incorporate new languages as data distributions fed to the system evolve and shift over time. To do this, systems need to handle the issue of catastrophic forgetting, where the model performance drops for languages or tasks seen further in its past. In this paper, we study catastrophic forgetting, as well as methods to minimize this, in a massively multilingual continual learning framework involving up to 51 languages and covering both classification and sequence labeling tasks. We present LR ADJUST, a learning rate scheduling method that is simple, yet effective in preserving new information without strongly overwriting past knowledge. Furthermore, we show that this method is effective across multiple continual learning approaches. Finally, we provide further insights into the dynamics of catastrophic forgetting in this massively multilingual setup. ## 1 **Introduction** Standard supervised NLP methods perform well when training on enough data from a uniform distribution. However, they fail to retain knowledge learnt in the past when sudden shifts occur in training data distributions. This effect of dropping performance on data from past distributions is commonly referred to as *catastrophic forgetting* (McCloskey and Cohen, 1989; de Masson D'Autume et al., 2019; Biesialska et al., 2020a), where stability or preservation of knowledge is traded off for increased plasticity or the ability to acquire new knowledge. To tackle this issue, continual learning (CL) methods were proposed under various settings, such as limited compute or ability to store past data (Lopez-Paz and Ranzato, 2017; de Masson D'Autume et al., 2019). The data shifts commonly studied are obtained by training over a sequence of non-iid partitions (Chaudhry et al., ∗ These authors contributed equally. † The work was done while at Bloomberg. Figure 1: Multilingual Continual Learning: The model  θ is trained sequentially with data from T different languages. 2018), different tasks (Jin et al., 2021), or by training on various domains such as in task-oriented dialogue (Madotto et al., 2021), named entity recognition (Monaikul et al., 2021), part-of-speech (Liu et al., 2020), and intent detection (Wu et al., 2021). Lifelong learning is key to the success of deployed multilingual systems, enabling the system to incorporate annotated data for new languages as they become available without costly retraining and redeployment of the entire system. This sequential availability of data for new languages is a common case of training data shift (see Figure 1 for the task setup). Yet, the effect of catastrophic forgetting was not yet systematically studied for multi-lingual models with multiple diverse languages. M'hamdi et al. (2022) study continual learning in a crosslingual setting limited to just six languages. The cross-lingual abilities of pre-trained models were found to drop when performing fine-tuning for a target language (Liu et al., 2021), although applying continual learning approaches can effectively reduce the magnitude of the effect (Lopez-Paz and Ranzato, 2017). In this paper, we systematically study the effect of catastrophic forgetting and mitigation strategies in a massively multilingual setting covering up to 51 languages on three different tasks. We start by quantifying the extent to which forgetting happens when languages are presented to the model in sequence, identifying an up to 16% F1 drop compared to training using all the data mixed. Next, we propose LR ADJUST, a simple, yet effective, method to preserve the learned knowledge by adjusting the learning rate over time to alleviate the knowledge overwriting from the new language and preserve the previous learned knowledge. This method is orthogonal to continual learning methods and thus can be handily combined with any of these. We find that across three different CL methods, LR ADJUST helps further reduce the gap between a fully trained model and the CL setup. We conduct analysis on the aspect of cross-lingual transfer in backward and forward directions to measure the influence of the CL on previous tasks and its ability in zero-shot learning respectively. Finally, we conduct analyses on the effects of catastrophic forgetting when first training on multiple languages jointly and when using a curriculum learning approach informed by language similarity. ## 2 **Massively Multilingual Continual** Learning 2.1 **Task Setup** We define a curriculum of T tasks as an ordered set of data sets D = {D1, D2, ..., Dt*, ..., D*T } and model θt, where Dtis the data set with task t. In this case, the task is a distinct language. The weights of model θ are updated continuously θt+1 ← f(θt, Dt) by minimizing the log-likelihood over data set Dt via gradient updates. ## 2.2 **Inter-Task Learning Rate Adjustment** We propose LR ADJUST, a simple and effective method to adjust the learning rate when we start training on a new task. Our intuition is that models are susceptible to catastrophic forgetting when we provide a higher learning rate, so the learning rate should be toned down with time to ensure the preservation of the learned knowledge and to reduce the effect of overwriting the weights with the new knowledge. Learning rate adjustments have been studied in the context of incremental learning (Cavalin et al., 2009; Khreich et al., 2012) and for efficient optimization using schedules (Ge et al., 2019). Concretely, the new learning rate is lowered every time as the following: lrt = max(lrmin*, lr*t−1 ∗ γ), with a weight γ, where γ < 1 and lrmin is the minimum learning rate. The method is detailed in Algorithm 1. ## 2.3 **Continual Learning Method** We experiment with the following continual learning approaches: Algorithm 1 Inter-task Learning Rate Adjustment (LR ADJUST) Require: An ordered list of tasks D = {D1, D2, ..., Dt*, ..., D*T } Require: γ: learning rate adjustment coefficient, lrt: learning rate at time t, θ: model weights, lrmin: minimum learning rate 1: Randomly initialize the classifier on θ 2: **for all** Dt ∈ D do 3: Adjust learning rate to lrt = max(lrmin*, lr*t−1 ∗ γ) 4: Compute ∇θLDt(fθ) using Dt 5: θt+1 ← θt − lrt∇θLDt(fθ) 6: **end for** $$\mathbf{\partial}=l r_{t}$$ $\overline{\overline{\phantom{\rule{0.000pt}{0ex}}}}$ - **Experienced Replay** (de Masson D'Autume et al., 2019) uses an episodic memory to store seen training data in memory and retrieve it from memory for fine-tuning. We schedule the replay step to be run every few iterations. During the replay step, we retrieve the data and fine-tune the model using the retrieved data. The number of stored data is constrained to ensure efficient memory use. And, we take a uniform distribution of samples across all labels. - **Averaged GEM (A-GEM)** (Chaudhry et al., 2018) also utilizes an episodic memory Mand is a more efficient implementation of GEM (LopezPaz and Ranzato, 2017) that computes the gradient constraints and minimizes the loss as follows: Lt(θt,M) ≤ Lt−1(θt−1,M), where loss Ltis constrained to be lower or equal to the loss Lt−1. - **Elastic Weight Consolidation (EWC)** (Kirkpatrick et al., 2017) minimizes the following loss: $${\mathcal{L}}_{t}(\theta)={\mathcal{L}}_{t}(\theta)+\sum_{i}{\frac{\lambda}{2}}F_{i}(\theta_{t}-\theta_{t-1}^{*})^{2},$$ where Fiis the Fisher information matrix, λ is a coefficient that sets how important the old task is compared to the new one, and θ∗ t−1 is the previous learned weights. The Fiis pre-computed after each task is completed and we incorporate the loss to the training on each gradient update. ## 3 **Experimental Setup** 3.1 **Data Sets** We use a multilingual natural language understanding data set, MASSIVE (FitzGerald et al., 2022) and a multilingual named entity recognition (NER) data set, WikiAnn (Rahimi et al., 2019). The MASSIVE data set consists of two tasks: intent classification and slot filling with 51 languages. The WikiAnn data set consists of 40 languages. We adopt the data splits from the original papers. ## 3.2 **Methods** Our model architecture is an encoder-only multilingual model XLM-RBASE (Conneau et al., 2020) with a classification layer for each task. All parameters in the model are updated during the training. The full hyper-parameters are listed in Appendix A. The language order for the experiments are listed in Appendix B. We experiment with the following approaches: - MULTI: A single multilingual model is trained on data mixed from all languages. This represents an upper bound to CL methods, as there are no memory or data sequencing constraints. - MONO: A separate model is trained on all the supervised data for each language and applied to all inputs in that language. - VANILLA: A single model is trained by sequentially presenting data from each language. The language order is selected randomly. - CL Methods: We run REPLAY, A-GEM, and EWC to train a single model on data from each language presented sequentially. - CL Methods + LR ADJUST: We run the CL methods with the learning rate adjustment method described in Section 2.2. ## 3.3 **Metrics** We measure the ability of cross-lingual transfer using CL metrics adapted from Lopez-Paz and Ranzato (2017). We define a matrix R ∈ R T ×T, where Ri,j denotes the test score performance of the model on task tj when training the last sample from task ti. We formally define the metrics as: ## 3.3.1 **Cross-Lingual Forward Transfer (Cft)** This metric represents the ability to perform zeroshot learning by evaluating on the test data from tasks/languages that are unseen in training. We formally define the metric as: $$C F T=\frac{1}{T-1}\sum_{i=1}^{T-1}\bar{X}_{i},$$ $$\bar{X}_{i}=\frac{1}{T-i}\sum_{j=i+1}^{T}R_{i,j},$$   where X¯iis the average performance of the languages that will be seen in the future (t>i). ## 3.3.2 **Cross-Lingual Backward Transfer (Cbt)** This metric measures the influence of learning a task ti on the performance of the previous tasks. We formally define the metric as the following: $$C B T={\frac{1}{T-1}}\sum_{i=1}^{T-1}R_{T-1,i}-R_{i,i}.$$ CBT practically measures the effect of catastrophic forgetting of past tasks after adding a new task to the model. ## 4 **Results And Analysis** Figures 2, 3 and 4 show performance numbers across the languages seen to that point in train-  ing for the three data sets. Each point on the graph shows the average and standard deviation of the F1 scores, obtained over 5 runs with different seeds. For the CL experiments, the seed also controls the order of languages in training. This can lead to higher variance across runs - compared to mixing the same data across runs - because the forgetting effect depends on the language order. Table 1 shows the forward and backward transfer for the three data sets. Results show the following: Catastrophic forgetting is present in multilingual continual learning, with performance dropping quickly when training on languages sequentially (VANILLA). This method converges to between 4 - 17 F1 lower than mixing the same data and training a full model every time (MULTI). We also see that this effect is present even when the performance of monolingual models is close to that of multilingual models, as in the case of WikiAnn. Training a full model on all languages (MULTI) always performs best, outperforming training on one language at a time (MONO) sometimes substantially (MASSIVE-Slot - 10 F1, MASSIVE-Intent - 4 F1), highlighting the importance of cross-lingual transfer and preserving information from past seen languages in a continual learning setup. Continual learning methods generally help dampen the impact of forgetting. For example, in WikiAnn, the REPLAY and A-GEM CL methods reduce the backward transfer from 16.90 to 11.87 and 10.75 respectively, albeit EWC does not substantially improve the performance relative to the VANILLA  ## Method. LR ADJUST, the learning rate adjustment scheme, further reduces the gap to the multi-task model significantly and consistently across languages when combined with any of the CL methods. For example, on the WikiAnn dataset, the backward transfer is reduced from 16.90 to just 3.59 and 3.79 for the A-GEM and REPLAY methods respectively, making multilingual CL feasible. Further, we see that using CL methods alone results in a continuous drop in performance as more languages are added, while adding LR ADJUST stabilizes average performance after the first few languages, resulting in a flatter curve. Finally, we see that the **patterns of improvement hold when studying cross-lingual forward** transfer, which quantifies the zero-shot model performance on languages unseen in training. The continual learning approaches improve over sequential training (e.g. +4.45 on WikiAnn) and using LR ADJUST in addition further boosts performance (e.g. +9.25 for VANILLA, +5.83 for REPLAY on WikiAnn). This shows that the resulting models were able to retain essential and generalizable information for the task that is more universal across all languages. ## 4.1 **Multi-Task Training Vs. Catastrophic** Forgetting We conduct additional experiments to understand whether initially training on multiple languages at once can reduce the severity of catastrophic forgetting in the CL setup when new languages are added. We run a multi-task training on the first k languages, where k is 10 or 30, and then, we run the remaining languages sequentially on the WikiAnn data set. As shown in Figure 5, the model is more VANILLA 67.77 -16.90 57.27 -7.92 79.60 -3.15 + LR ADJUST 77.02 -4.19 59.17 -5.20 80.32 -1.56 EWC 68.58 -16.83 60.79 -5.36 79.67 -2.99 + LR ADJUST 76.78 -4.50 62.30 -3.36 80.46 **-1.53** A-GEM 69.54 -11.87 57.63 -6.22 79.68 -3.13 + LR ADJUST 77.26 **-3.59** 57.93 **-2.48 80.73** -1.65 REPLAY 72.22 -10.75 60.38 -6.04 79.23 -3.18 + LR ADJUST **78.05** -3.79 **62.54** -3.26 80.32 -1.65 | WikiAnn | MASSIVE-Slot | MASSIVE-Intent | | | | |-----------|----------------|------------------|-----|-----|-----| | CFT | CBT | CFT | CBT | CFT | CBT | robust to forgetting when it is exposed to multi-task training with more languages with higher final average scores at the final task, but the graphs shows the performance still drops dramatically after being exposed to the first new language fed sequentially. ## 4.2 **The Role Of Language Order** To investigate the role of the language order on CL, we decide to reorder the language list by using heuristics. We start with two languages from the same family, as listed in Ethnologue (Eberhard and Gary, 2019), and add all languages from the same family one by one, then switch to a new language family and continue the same process. We conjecture that seeing a similar language at an interval will allow a more effective cross-lingual transfer. Figure 5 (LANGUAGE ORDER) displays the results, which indicate that performance does not improve after we manually select the languages, and its performance is similar to random ordering (VANILLA). ## 5 **Related Work** CL aims to learn effectively over iterations by leveraging information from previously learned tasks (McCloskey and Cohen, 1989). CL has been applied towards mitigating catastrophic forgetting in many computer vision tasks (Lopez-Paz and Ranzato, 2017). Broadly speaking, CL methods can be classified (Biesialska et al., 2020b) into rehearsal (re-using training examples from prior task) (Rolnick et al., 2019; de Masson D'Autume et al., 2019), regularization (guide consolidation via additional loss) (Kirkpatrick et al., 2017), memory (Lopez-Paz and Ranzato, 2017; Chaudhry et al., 2018), and architectural methods (using taskspecific parameters) (Rusu et al., 2016; Madotto et al., 2021). ## 6 **Conclusion** We present the first study of catastrophic forgetting in a massively multilingual setting involving up to 51 languages on named entity recognition and natural language understanding tasks. We investigate continual learning methods and present a learning rate scheduling method that is simple yet effective in reducing the effects of catastrophic forgetting. Furthermore, we show that this method is effective across multiple continual learning methods. Finally, we provide analysis and further insights into the dynamics of catastrophic forgetting. ## Acknowledgments We are grateful to Abhinav Singh and Shuyi Wang for feedback on a draft of this manuscript. ## Limitations The experiment in this paper is limited to three common CL methods: Replay, A-GEM, and EWC. Due to compute resources, we experiment with XLMRBASE and do not compare with other variants or larger base models. We acknowledge that the MASSIVE data set varies in coverage across language groups and evaluation could over-represent certain linguistic families (Pikuliak and Simko, 2022). ## Ethics Statement In our experiments, we use publicly available data sets with permissive licenses for research experiments. We do not release new data or annotations as part of this work. There are no potential risks. ## References Magdalena Biesialska, Katarzyna Biesialska, and Marta R Costa-jussà. 2020a. Continual lifelong learning in natural language processing: A survey. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 6523–6541. Magdalena Biesialska, Katarzyna Biesialska, and Marta R. Costa-jussà. 2020b. Continual lifelong learning in natural language processing: A survey. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 6523–6541, Barcelona, Spain (Online). International Committee on Computational Linguistics. Paulo R Cavalin, Robert Sabourin, Ching Y Suen, and Alceu S Britto Jr. 2009. Evaluation of incremental learning algorithms for hmm in the recognition of alphanumeric characters. *Pattern Recognition*, 42(12):3241–3253. Arslan Chaudhry, Marc'Aurelio Ranzato, Marcus Rohrbach, and Mohamed Elhoseiny. 2018. Efficient lifelong learning with a-gem. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1812.00420. Alexis Conneau, Kartikay Khandelwal, Naman Goyal, Vishrav Chaudhary, Guillaume Wenzek, Francisco Guzmán, Édouard Grave, Myle Ott, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2020. Unsupervised cross-lingual representation learning at scale. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 8440– 8451. Eberhard David, Gary Simons, and Charles Fennig. 2019. Ethnologue: Languages of the world. *Twentysecond Edition, SIL International, Dallas*. Cyprien de Masson D'Autume, Sebastian Ruder, Lingpeng Kong, and Dani Yogatama. 2019. Episodic memory in lifelong language learning. *Advances in* Neural Information Processing Systems, 32. David M Eberhard and F Gary. 2019. Simons, and charles d. fennig (eds.). 2019. *Ethnologue: Languages of the world*, 22. Jack FitzGerald, Christopher Hench, Charith Peris, Scott Mackie, Kay Rottmann, Ana Sanchez, Aaron Nash, Liam Urbach, Vishesh Kakarala, Richa Singh, et al. 2022. Massive: A 1m-example multilingual natural language understanding dataset with 51 typologically-diverse languages. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.08582. Rong Ge, Sham M Kakade, Rahul Kidambi, and Praneeth Netrapalli. 2019. The step decay schedule: A near optimal, geometrically decaying learning rate procedure for least squares. *Advances in neural information processing systems*, 32. Xisen Jin, Bill Yuchen Lin, Mohammad Rostami, and Xiang Ren. 2021. Learn continually, generalize rapidly: Lifelong knowledge accumulation for fewshot learning. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021*, pages 714– 729, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Wael Khreich, Eric Granger, Ali Miri, and Robert Sabourin. 2012. A survey of techniques for incremental learning of hmm parameters. Information Sciences, 197:105–130. James Kirkpatrick, Razvan Pascanu, Neil Rabinowitz, Joel Veness, Guillaume Desjardins, Andrei A Rusu, Kieran Milan, John Quan, Tiago Ramalho, Agnieszka Grabska-Barwinska, et al. 2017. Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networks. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 114(13):3521–3526. Zihan Liu, Genta Indra Winata, Andrea Madotto, and Pascale Fung. 2020. Exploring fine-tuning techniques for pre-trained cross-lingual models via continual learning. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.14218*. Zihan Liu, Genta Indra Winata, Andrea Madotto, and Pascale Fung. 2021. Preserving cross-linguality of pre-trained models via continual learning. In *Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Representation* Learning for NLP (RepL4NLP-2021), pages 64–71. David Lopez-Paz and Marc'Aurelio Ranzato. 2017. Gradient episodic memory for continual learning. *Advances in neural information processing systems*, 30. Andrea Madotto, Zhaojiang Lin, Zhenpeng Zhou, Seungwhan Moon, Paul A Crook, Bing Liu, Zhou Yu, Eunjoon Cho, Pascale Fung, and Zhiguang Wang. 2021. Continual learning in task-oriented dialogue systems. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7452–7467. Michael McCloskey and Neal J Cohen. 1989. Catastrophic interference in connectionist networks: The sequential learning problem. In *Psychology of Learning and Motivation*, volume 24, pages 109–165. Elsevier. Meryem M'hamdi, Xiang Ren, and Jonathan May. 2022. Cross-lingual lifelong learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.11152. Natawut Monaikul, Giuseppe Castellucci, Simone Filice, and Oleg Rokhlenko. 2021. Continual learning for named entity recognition. In *Proceedings of* the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 13570–13577. Matúš Pikuliak and Marian Simko. 2022. Average is not enough: Caveats of multilingual evaluation. In *Proceedings of the The 2nd Workshop on Multilingual Representation Learning (MRL)*, pages 125– 133, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (Hybrid). Association for Computational Linguistics. Afshin Rahimi, Yuan Li, and Trevor Cohn. 2019. Massively multilingual transfer for ner. In *Proceedings* of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 151–164. David Rolnick, Arun Ahuja, Jonathan Schwarz, Timothy Lillicrap, and Gregory Wayne. 2019. Experience replay for continual learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32. Andrei A Rusu, Neil C Rabinowitz, Guillaume Desjardins, Hubert Soyer, James Kirkpatrick, Koray Kavukcuoglu, Razvan Pascanu, and Raia Hadsell. 2016. Progressive neural networks. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1606.04671. Tongtong Wu, Massimo Caccia, Zhuang Li, Yuan-Fang Li, Guilin Qi, and Gholamreza Haffari. 2021. Pretrained language model in continual learning: A comparative study. In *International Conference on Learning Representations*. ## A **Hyper-Parameters** In all experiments, we run with five different seeds {42, 52, 62, 72, 82} using a V100 32GB GPU and each run takes up to a week to finish. ## A.1 **Wikiann** Table 2 shows the hyper-parameters used in the experiments using WikiAnn dataset. MULTI VANILLA MONO MULTI-10/30 REPLAY A-GEM EWC LR 1e-4 5e-5 5e-5 (all except hi) 1e-5 (hi) 5e-5 - - - LR Decay 0.9997 0.999 0.9999 0.9997 - - - Batch Size 32 32 32 32 - - - Max epochs 20 20 20 20 - - -  Table 2: Hyper-parameters for WikiAnn data set. ## A.2 **Massive-Slot** Table 3 shows the hyper-parameters used in the experiments using MASSIVE-Slot dataset. | MULTI VANILLA MONO REPLAY A-GEM | EWC | | | | | | | |-----------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|------|-------|----| | LR | 2e-5 | 1e-5 | 1e-5 | - | - | - | | | LR Decay | 0.9999 | 0.9999 | 0.9999 | - | - | - | | | Batch Size | 32 | 8 | 8 | - | - | - | | | Max epochs | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | - | - | - | | Early stopping | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | - | - | | | EWC_Reg | - | - | - | - | - | 10000 | | | store_memory_prob | - | - | - | 0.0005 | 0.01 | - | | | max_store_num_samples | - | - | - | 1E+7 | 1E+5 | - | | | retrieve_num_samples | - | - | - | 100 | - | - | | | run_per_step | - | - | - | 5000 | 2000 | - | | ## A.3 **Massive-Intent** Additionally, we run the CL setup on MASSIVEIntent dataset and the results are shown in Figure 4. Table 4 shows the hyper-parameters used in the experiments using MASSIVE-Intent dataset.  Table 4: Hyper-parameters for MASSIVE-Intent data set. ## B **Language Order** We randomly shuffle the language order for each seed. Tables 5 and 6 show the language order we use in the experiments for WikiANN and MASSIVE datasets, respectively. 42 el, bn, en, ta, ms, mk, ro, es,   bs, sk, it, pl, lv, hr, et, sq, sv, nl, fa, lt, id, ru, tl, pt, hu, he, uk, sl, bg, af, tr, no, ca, cs, de, fi, fr, hi, ar, da, vi 52 el, sl, hr, he, fa, it, lt, tl, mk, cs, pl, hu, bs, tr, uk, fr, ta, pt, sq, da, ms, no, et, vi, ar, af, id, fi, es, ca, ru, sv, en, de, bg, nl, lv, ro, sk, bn, hi 62 et, fi, ar, sv, ms, fa, sq, tr, it, ru, no, el, da, pl, hi, bg, cs, nl, hr, sl, mk, he, lv, tl, vi, bn, ro, id, de, af, ca, uk, sk, en, lt, hu, pt, fr, bs, es, ta 72 fr, uk, mk, hr, ar, sl, sk, ta, bn, hi, ca, ro, pt, cs, fa, nl, en, he, pl, el, bg, sv, no, ru, da, ms, tl, af, id, vi, et, fi, it, de, hu, lv, sq, lt, es, tr, bs 82 de, fi, ar, pl, pt, da, ms, hu, et, lv, ca, lt, af, fa, sq, mk, id, it, ta, sl, tr, ro, uk, bs, hi, vi, cs, bn, nl, tl, fr, no, bg, sv, he, en, es, hr, sk, ru, el | seed | languages | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 42 | el, bn, en, ta, ms, mk, ro, es, bs, sk, it, pl, lv, hr, et, sq, sv, nl, fa, lt, id, ru, tl, pt, hu, he, uk, sl, bg, af, tr, no, ca, cs, de, fi, fr, hi, ar, da, vi | | 52 | el, sl, hr, he, fa, it, lt, tl, | | mk, cs, pl, hu, bs, tr, uk, fr, | | | ta, pt, sq, da, ms, no, et, vi, ar, af, id, fi, es, ca, ru, sv, en, de, bg, nl, lv, ro, sk, bn, hi | | | 62 | et, fi, ar, sv, ms, fa, sq, tr, it, ru, no, el, da, pl, hi, bg, | | cs, nl, hr, sl, mk, he, lv, tl, vi, bn, ro, id, de, af, ca, uk, sk, en, lt, hu, pt, fr, bs, es, ta | | Table 5: Language Order for Experiments with   WikiAnn. Table 7 shows all languages' language families and subgroups on NusaX and MASSIVE datasets. ## C **Geographical Information Of** Languages | seed | languages | | | | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|-------------------|----------| | 42 | kn-IN, ka-GE, is-IS, fa-IR, bn-BD, | | | | | tl-PH, ko-KR, en-US, mn-MN, hu-HU, my-MM, ja-JP, fi-FI, az-AZ, sq-AL, sl-SL, es-ES, km-KH, pt-PT, af-ZA, te-IN, id-ID, nl-NL, zh-CN, sw-KE, ms-MY, ml-IN, it-IT, jv-ID, ta-IN, tr-TR, ro-RO, nb-NO, th-TH, fr-FR, zh-TW, vi-VN, ar-SA, lv-LV, ru-RU, cy-GB, pl-PL, da-DK, el-GR, he-IL, | | | | | | hi-IN, hy-AM, ur-PK, am-ET, de-DE, sv-SE | | | | | | 52 | [nl-NL, is-IS, bn-BD, id-ID, en-US, my-MM, kn-IN, he-IL, ja-JP, da-DK, sq-AL, hu-HU, tl-PH, lv-LV, sw-KE, zh-TW, mn-MN, fi-FI, am-ET, zh-CN, fr-FR, sl-SL, sv-SE, ta-IN, it-IT, vi-VN, hi-IN, ur-PK, cy-GB, pt-PT, de-DE, ro-RO, ru-RU, km-KH, pl-PL, te-IN, af-ZA, ml-IN, jv-ID, fa-IR, th-TH, es-ES, el-GR, ar-SA, ko-KR, | | | | | ka-GE, ms-MY, nb-NO, tr-TR, az-AZ, hy-AM | | | | | | 62 | sv-SE, az-AZ, ko-KR, ja-JP, el-GR, | | | | | ru-RU, my-MM, ka-GE, ur-PK, vi-VN, tl-PH, pt-PT, fr-FR, kn-IN, tr-TR, en-US, fi-FI, sl-SL, he-IL, hy-AM, ml-IN, ar-SA, sw-KE, da-DK, te-IN, cy-GB, it-IT, id-ID, zh-TW, lv-LV, km-KH, pl-PL, nl-NL, ms-MY, am-ET, de-DE, sq-AL, hu-HU, af-ZA, th-TH, zh-CN, nb-NO, es-ES, jv-ID, ta-IN, | | | | | | is-IS, mn-MN, hi-IN, bn-BD, fa-IR, ro-RO | | | | | | 72 | fi-FI, tl-PH, tr-TR, da-DK, zh-TW, hi-IN, sw-KE, ko-KR, ms-MY, lv-LV, cy-GB, az-AZ, ml-IN, kn-IN, sv-SE, hy-AM, de-DE, id-ID, vi-VN, it-IT, te-IN, fr-FR, my-MM, ta-IN, es-ES, hu-HU, nb-NO, pt-PT, ro-RO, ar-SA, nl-NL, af-ZA, mn-MN, ru-RU, am-ET, en-US, km-KH, he-IL, ja-JP, el-GR, zh-CN, is-IS, ka-GE, sq-AL, pl-PL, th-TH, jv-ID, fa-IR, ur-PK, sl-SL, bn-BD | | | | | 82 | az-AZ, he-IL, am-ET, fr-FR, ta-IN, ka-GE, ja-JP, hy-AM, bn-BD, ml-IN, ro-RO, pl-PL, jv-ID, pt-PT, nl-NL, tr-TR, mn-MN, zh-TW, ko-KR, ur-PK, af-ZA, cy-GB, sq-AL, vi-VN, hi-IN, km-KH, tl-PH, kn-IN, sw-KE, it-IT, sv-SE, sl-SL, de-DE, el-GR, is-IS, fi-FI, da-DK, ru-RU, ms-MY, lv-LV, ar-SA, th-TH, hu-HU, te-IN, es-ES, | | | | | fa-IR, id-ID, nb-NO, my-MM, zh-CN, en-US | Language Code | Name | Family | Subgroup | | af / af-ZA | Afrikaans | Indo-European | Germanic | | | am-ET | Amharic | Afro-Asiatic | Semitic | | | ar / ar-SA | Arabic | Afro-Asiatic | Semitic | | | az-AZ | Azerbaijani | Turkic | Southern | | | bn / bn-BD | Bengali | Indo-European | Indo-Iranian | | | bg | Bulgarian | Indo-European | Balto-Slavic | | | bs | Bosnian | Indo-European | Balto-Slavic | | | ca | Catalan | Indo-European | Italic | | | cs | Czech | Indo-European | Balto-Slavic | | | cy-GB | Welsh | Indo-European | Celtic | | | da / da-DK | Danish | Indo-European | Germanic | | | de / de-DE | German | Indo-European | Germanic | | | en / en-US | English | Indo-European | Germanic | | | el / el-GR | Greek | Indo-European | Greek | | | es / es-ES | Spanish | Indo-European | Italic | | | et | Estonian | Uralic | Finnic | | | fa | Persian | Indo-European | Indo-Iranian | | | fi / fi-FI | Finnish | Uralic | Finnic | | | fr / fr-FR | French | Indo-European | Italic | | | id / id-ID | Indonesian | Austronesian | Malayo-Polynesian | | | is-IS | Icelandic | Indo-European | Germanic | | | it / it-IT | Italian | Indo-European | Italic | | | ja-JP | Japanese | Japonic | Japanese | | | jv-ID | Javanese | Austronesian | Malayo-Polynesian | | | he / he-IL | Hebrew | Afro-Asiatic | Semitic | | | hi / hi-IN | Hindi | Indo-European | Indo-Iranian | | | hr | Croatian | Indo-European | Balto-Slavic | | | hu / hu-HU | Hungarian | Uralic | Hungarian | | | hy-AM | Armenian | Indo-European | Armenian | | | ka-GE | Georgian | Kartvelian | Georgian | | | km-KH | Khmer | Austro-Asiatic | Mon-Khmer | | | kn-IN | Kannada | Dravidian | Southern | | | ko-KR | Korean | Koreanic | Korean | | | lt | Lithuanian | Indo-European | Balto-Slavic | | | lv / lv-LV | Latvian | Indo-European | Balto-Slavic | | | ml-IN | Malayalam | Dravidian | Southern | | | mn-MN | Mongolian | Mongolic | Eastern | | | ms / ms-MY | Malay | Austronesian | Malayo-Polynesian | | | mk | Macedonian | Indo-European | Balto-Slavic | | | my-MM | Burmese | Sino-Tibetan | Tibeto-Burman | | | nb-NO | Norwegian | Indo-European | Germanic | | | nl / nl-NL | Dutch | Indo-European | Germanic | | | no | Norwegian | Indo-European | Germanic | | | pl / pl-PL | Polish | Indo-European | Balto-Slavic | | | pt / pt-PT | Portuguese | Indo-European | Italic | | | ro / ro-RO | Romanian | Indo-European | Italic | | | ru / ru-RU | Russian | Indo-European | Balto-Slavic | | | sl / sl-SL | Slovenian | Indo-European | Balto-Slavic | | | sk | Slovak | Indo-European | Balto-Slavic | | | sq / sq-AL | Albanian | Indo-European | Albanian | | | sw-KE | Swahili | Niger-Congo | Atlantic-Congo | | | sv / sv-SE | Swedish | Indo-European | Germanic | | | ta / ta-IN | Tamil | Dravidian | Southern | | | te-IN | Telugu | Dravidian | South-Central | | | th-TH | Thai | Kra-Dai | Kam-Tai | | | tl / tl-PH | Tagalog | Austronesian | Malayo-Polynesian | | | tr / tr-TR | Turkish | Turkic | Southern | | | ur-PK | Urdu | Indo-European | Indo-Iranian | | | uk | Ukrainian | Indo-European | Balto-Slavic | | | vi / vi-VN | Vietnamese | Austro-Asiatic | Mon-Khmer | | | zh-CN / zh-TW | Chinese | Sino-Tibetan | Chinese | | | Table 7: Geographical information of languages under study. The language family is based on Ethnologue (David et al., 2019). | | | | | Table 6: Language Order for Experiments with MASSIVE. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Page 5. Section Limitations A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Not applicable. No potential risks ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Yes, on the first page (abstract and 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?** 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?** 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? We put the computing infrastructure and GPU hours on 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? Section 3 Experimental Setup and 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? Figure 2 and Figure 3, we provide the average and std 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.

sun-etal-2023-unifine

{U}ni{F}ine: A Unified and Fine-grained Approach for Zero-shot Vision-Language Understanding

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.49

Vision-language tasks, such as VQA, SNLI-VE, and VCR are challenging because they require the model{'}s reasoning ability to understand the semantics of the visual world and natural language. Supervised methods working for vision-language tasks have been well-studied. However, solving these tasks in a zero-shot setting is less explored. Since Contrastive Language-Image Pre-training (CLIP) has shown remarkable zero-shot performance on image-text matching, previous works utilized its strong zero-shot ability by converting vision-language tasks into an image-text matching problem, and they mainly consider global-level matching (e.g., the whole image or sentence). However, we find visual and textual fine-grained information, e.g., keywords in the sentence and objects in the image, can be fairly informative for semantics understanding. Inspired by this, we propose a unified framework to take advantage of the fine-grained information for zero-shot vision-language learning, covering multiple tasks such as VQA, SNLI-VE, and VCR. Our experiments show that our framework outperforms former zero-shot methods on VQA and achieves substantial improvement on SNLI-VE and VCR. Furthermore, our ablation studies confirm the effectiveness and generalizability of our proposed method.

# Unifine: A Unified And Fine-Grained Approach For Zero-Shot Vision-Language Understanding Rui Sun1∗ , Zhecan Wang1∗ , Haoxuan You1∗ , Noel Codella2, Kai-Wei Chang3**, Shih-Fu Chang**1 1 Columbia University 2 Microsoft Research 3 University of California, Los Angeles {rs4110, zw2627, hy2612, sc250}@columbia.edu ncodella@microsoft.com, kwchang@cs.ucla.edu ## Abstract Vision-language tasks, such as VQA, SNLIVE, and VCR are challenging because they require the model's reasoning ability to understand the semantics of the visual world and natural language. Supervised methods working for vision-language tasks have been wellstudied. However, solving these tasks in a zero-shot setting is less explored. Since Contrastive Language-Image Pre-training (CLIP) has shown remarkable zero-shot performance on image-text matching, previous works utilized its strong zero-shot ability by converting vision-language tasks into an image-text matching problem, and they mainly consider global-level matching (*e.g.*, the whole image or sentence). However, we find visual and textual fine-grained information, *e.g.*, keywords in the sentence and objects in the image, can be fairly informative for semantics understanding. Inspired by this, we propose a unified framework to take advantage of the fine-grained information for zero-shot visionlanguage learning, covering multiple tasks such as VQA, SNLI-VE, and VCR. Our experiments show that our framework outperforms former zero-shot methods on VQA and achieves substantial improvement on SNLI-VE and VCR. Furthermore, our ablation studies confirm the effectiveness and generalizability of our proposed method. Code is available at https://github.com/ThreeSR/UniFine. ## 1 Introduction VQA (Antol et al., 2015), SNLI-VE (Xie et al., 2019), and VCR (Zellers et al., 2019) are visionlanguage tasks, which utilize the text and corresponding image to test a system's cross-modal reasoning ability. These tasks are challenging as requiring models to obtain a joint understanding of visual and textual modality. Nevertheless, they are also meaningful since this capability plays an essential role in daily human-robot interaction, *e.g.*, ∗ Equal Contribution  Figure 1: Examples of how fine-grained information is utilized to help CLIP from VQA, SNLI-VE, and VCR. Before extracting the fine-grained information, CLIP gives the wrong answer shown as the red box. With the assistance of visual and textual fine-grained information, CLIP can make the correct decision as the green box shows. (For visualization, only three answer choices are kept in VQA and VCR. And unisex names (Riley and Jackie) are added in VCR.) asking a robot how many people are in the image. Despite the difficulty, a line of work (Tan and Bansal, 2019; Li et al., 2019; Lu et al., 2019; Chen et al., 2019; Su et al., 2019; Li et al., 2020) has been dedicated to resolving these vision-language tasks in a supervised setting and obtaining impressive progress. However, these methods all suffer from a significant problem of being costly as they require expert knowledge to collect well-annotated imagetext data. On the other hand, zero-shot methods for vision-language tasks can successfully bypass this problem without costly annotations. Unfortunately, limited methods and relatively fewer works have been dedicated to exploring this direction. Recently, CLIP (Radford et al., 2021) has been proposed to acquire visual concepts using natural language supervision. It jointly trains an image encoder and a text encoder on 400M noisy imagetext pairs collected from the Internet by aligning images and texts through a contrastive loss. Previous works (Song et al., 2022; Subramanian et al., 2022; Shen et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2022b) demonstrated that CLIP can achieve strong zeroshot performance of vision-language tasks by converting original tasks into the image-text matching format. However, they mainly consider matching on an instance or global level, *i.e.*, the whole image or sentence, ignoring the significance of finegrained elements, *e.g.*, keywords in the sentence and objects in the image. Meanwhile, we find these fine-grained elements are important for specific downstream tasks, especially in zero-shot learning. For instance, in Fig. 1, CLIP makes three incorrect predictions in three zero-shot vision-language tasks. For VQA, the model infers the wrong object "pancake" for the verb "eating", as it does not capture the details in the image (pizza on the table) and captions (pizza is mentioned). We posit that if we can find a proper solution to navigate the model to focus on these detailed pieces of textual and visual information, the model would likely have a better chance of selecting the correct answer label. This conjecture also seems true and generalizable across multiple zero-shot downstream tasks as shown by the three examples from different vision-language tasks, *i.e.*, VCR, VQA, and SNLI-VE in Fig. 1. Yet, we also recognize potential challenges also exist as those different tasks may differ from many perspectives including the distribution of image categories or scenes, the different semantic focus, and format of text premises between declarative statements and questions, and different task formats in terms of image-text matching or classification. To overcome these challenges, we first identify two common fundamental steps required to utilize the fine-grained information across different visionlanguage tasks: 1) Extraction of the fine-grained information from context information, *e.g.,* the extraction of the word "pizza" from the caption in VQA as in Fig. 1. 2) The semantic matching between these extracted fine-grained information and answer choices or hypothesis. Based on these, we propose a unified approach leveraging these two common steps thus it can assist the model to generalize over different vision-language tasks. For the extractor, we have two branches - 1) the vision branch and 2) the textual branch. In the vision branch, we employ Faster-RCNN (Ren et al., 2015) to extract object-level information. We select relevant object regions guided by the question in VQA and VCR or hypothesis in SNLI-VE. After that, we concatenate the whole image and its selected image regions and input them into the image encoder of CLIP. For textual information extraction, we exploit rich information from the image caption generated by a recently-developed captioning model OFA (Wang et al., 2022a) and question in VQA and VCR or hypothesis in SNLI-VE to boost the zero-shot performance. It's noted that although we employ the image caption and question on a sentence level rather than a word level, we compute the cosine similarity between them and answer texts, which means if there are keywords in the answer texts which can be matched in the caption or question, then we will obtain high scores in zero-shot prediction. Therefore, it is still a process of fine-grained information extraction. By using fine-grained information, our model outperforms previous methods on zero-shot VQA and we are the first to benchmark zero-shot VCR and SNLI-VE. The experiments confirm the effectiveness of our proposed method. Our contributions can be summarized as follows: - To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to propose a unified approach based on finegrained information extraction for zero-shot learning of different vision-language tasks. - Our approach outperforms previous CLIPbased methods for zero-shot learning of VQA and we are the first to study CLIP's zero-shot ability for SNLI-VE and VCR. - The experiments and ablation studies confirm the generalizability of our proposed method and the significance of visual and textual finegrained information for zero-shot learning of vision-language tasks. ## 2 Related Work Vision-language understanding tasks. Unlike unimodal tasks, vision-language understanding tasks need joint understanding between vision and language, which require a deeper reasoning ability of the system. In VQA (Goyal et al., 2017), given a question, the model needs to understand the details of the corresponding image based on the question to answer correctly. The real images in VQA come from MS COCO(Lin et al., 2014) and each of them is paired with a caption in COCO Captions (Chen et al., 2015). For another task VCR (Zellers et al., 2019), its semantic focus is different from VQA since it concentrates more on commonsense questions. The model needs to answer the recognitive questions (like VQA) at first, then it is also required to correctly answer the cognitive questions, which are rationales of the choice in the first question. The images in VCR are collected from movie clips. SNLI-VE originated from Stanford Natural Language Inference (SNLI) (Bowman et al., 2015), which is a text entailment (TE) task based on the Flicker30k (Young et al., 2014) image captions. It extends TE into the visual domain and it has a different task format from the VQA and VCR because the previous question-answering format is replaced with the hypothesis. Given the image and hypothesis, the model needs to predict whether the image semantically entails the text. The images in SNLI-VE are from Flicker30k with annotated captions. Vision-language pre-trained models. Early vision-language pre-trained models (Tan and Bansal, 2019; Lu et al., 2019; Li et al., 2019; Chen et al., 2019; Su et al., 2019; Li et al., 2020) utilize cross-modal transformer (Vaswani et al., 2017) pretrained on well-annotated image-text pairs. Different from these models, contrastive learning frameworks (Radford et al., 2021; Pham et al., 2021; Jia et al., 2021) are trained on noisy image-text pairs crawled from the Internet through contrastive loss, which employs the dot product between visual and textual modality. Due to the large-scale training data, these models acquire rich prior knowledge and show strong zero-shot ability on vision benchmarks like ImageNet (Deng et al., 2009). Vision-language zero-shot learning. There is a line of work utilizing CLIP to do zero-shot learning for vision-language tasks. ReCLIP (Subramanian et al., 2022) utilizes CLIP to present a zero-shot method for referring expression comprehension (ReC), which outperforms prior zero-shot ReC approaches. CLIP-ViL (Shen et al., 2021) exploits CLIP to do zero-shot VQA by simply concatenating question and answer pair for each question and constructing "question: [question text] answer: [answer text]" as the prompt. Then, they feed the text and image into the text encoder and the image encoder of CLIP, which produces the near-chance  level performance. The most relevant work to ours is TAPC (Song et al., 2022), which manually designs the prompt and leverages T5 (Raffel et al., 2020), a large pre-trained text-to-text Transformer, to convert the question-answering problem into the image-text matching task. Then, it employs CLIP's remarkable zero-shot image-text matching ability on VQA, whose results surpass CLIP-ViL by a large margin. However, these works handle different tasks on an instance level rather than fully utilizing the visual and textual fine-grained information (i.e., keywords in the sentence and objects in the image) like ours. Moreover, we can tackle a diverse set of tasks but they just concentrate on one specific task. ## 3 Method In this section, we introduce our method for visual and textual fine-grained information extraction to improve zero-shot learning of vision-language tasks including VQA, VCR, and SNLI-VE. ## 3.1 Baseline Method In the baseline method shown in Fig. 2, we use CLIP to do zero-shot learning of vision-language tasks. CLIP consists of a visual encoder V (*e.g.*, ResNet (He et al., 2016) and ViT (Dosovitskiy et al., 2020)) and a text encoder T (*e.g.*, transformer (Vaswani et al., 2017)), where the image and text are processed independently. Followed by the encoder, there is the dot product (*i.e.*, alignment score) between visual and textual features, *i.e.*, V(image) · T(text). We input the image from VQA, VCR, and SNLI-VE into the CLIP visual encoder. Since there is a difference in task format, answer choices from VQA and VCR and the hypothesis from SNLI-VE are input into the CLIP text encoder. After encoding, we can obtain the alignment score between the image and text. In VQA and VCR, we select the answer with the highest score. In SNLI-VE, there is a clustering process after the dot product, which is demonstrated in Algo. 1, and we select the answer with the lowest score. ## 3.2 **Visual Fine-Grained Information Extraction** In visual fine-grained information extraction, we aim to find the related image regions to the question in VQA and VCR or the hypothesis in SNLI-VE since these regions can provide local visual clues to complement the global image. The objects and attributes are detected by Faster-RCNN (Ren et al., 2015), which is pre-trained on Visual Genome (Krishna et al., 2017) provided by Anderson et al. (2018). We select the top N relevant image regions (N is a hyperparameter, which will be analyzed in Sec. 4.3) by image region score (*i.e.*, cosine similarity) between the textual features of the question or hypothesis and the object class&attribute (*e.g.*, yellow flowers) encoded by RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019): Top-N oi∈O {cos(R(Query), R({Attr(oi)*, Class(o*i)}))} (1) where R is RoBERTa, cos(,) is cosine similarity, O is the set of objects detected by Faster-RCNN, Attr() and *Class*() are attribute and class of object respectively, and *Query* is the question in VQA and VCR or the hypothesis in SNLI-VE. After selection, the global image and selected image regions will be fed into CLIP visual encoder to obtain the encoded feature of each. ## 3.3 Textual Fine-Grained Information Extraction Next, we present how textual fine-grained information is extracted and incorporated into our framework. To be more specific, two types of information are studied: image caption and question. Questions as a prior can narrow down the range of answer candidates and get rid of irrelevant answers. Image caption can transform the information inside the image into text so that it can be compared with answers in the same domain. Image captions are generated from the image, but their format is language. Thus, we arguably regard image captions as textual fine-grained information. Overcoming the challenge in different formats of vision-language tasks, we introduce a relatively unified way to extract and utilize textual fine-grained information in the zero-shot scenario. ## Visual Question Answering: Vqa Following previous work, we experiment on the validation set of VQAv2 (Goyal et al., 2017). Typically, VQA is regarded as a classification problem and there are 3,129 most frequent answers used for classification. There are 65 types of questions (*e.g.*, does this type) and 3 types of answers including Yes/No, *Number*, and *Other* in VQAv2. Although in VQA, each image is paired with a ground truth caption from MS COCO, we still choose to use OFA, a SOTA model of image captioning, to generate the caption given the image, because not every dataset is annotated with ground truth captions and we would like to make our method generalizable. As Shen et al. (2021) shows, directly inputting the concatenation of the question and answer into CLIP will lead to near-chance level performance. In addition, there are more than 3,000 answer candidates in VQAv2, which will largely slow down the inference speed of zero-shot VQA with all answers input into CLIP. To bypass that, we utilize an answer-filtering method to downsize the number of answer choices inspired by Song et al. (2022). Following Song et al. (2022), we first convert the question-answering format into declarative templates with the *<extra_id_0>* token by T5 low-shot demonstration. Then, templates with *<extra_id_0>* token are input into the T5 and we obtain the plausibility of each answer candidate based on T5 output probability. Next, we select the top K answers. More details can be found at Sec. A.2. In this way, we can downsize the number of answers in VQA. There are three different answer types in VQA, which are processed differently in the answer filtering process. For *Yes/No* type, we treat it as a binary classification problem. For *Number* type, since its answers are highly related to numerical answers in the 3,129 most frequent answers set, we heuristically filter 285 numerical answers from 3,129 answers before answer filtering. As for *Other* type, we preserve the original answer candidates without filtering. After obtaining top K filtered answers, on one hand, they will be sent to the CLIP text encoder and dot-product with image features will be calculated, denoted as CLIP alignment score SCLIP. On the other hand, we will calculate the question prior score SQuestion (*i.e.*, cosine similarity between textual features, encoded by RoBERTa, of the question and answers) and the caption prior score SCaption  (*i.e.*, cosine similarity between textual features, encoded by RoBERTa, of image caption generated by OFA and answers). The whole process can be summarized as the following equations: $$\begin{array}{l}{{S_{\mathrm{CLIP}}=\mathbb{T}(A)\cdot\mathbb{V}(I)}}\\ {{S_{\mathrm{Question}}=\cos(\mathbb{R}(Q),\mathbb{R}(A))}}\\ {{S_{\mathrm{Caption}}=\cos(\mathbb{R}(\mathbb{O}(I),\mathbb{R}(A))}}\end{array}\qquad(2)$$ where V and T are image and text encoders of CLIP, R is RoBERTa, O is OFA, and cos(,) means cosine similarity. I denotes images including one global image Ig and N selected image regions {Il ∈ Reg}. Q and A correspond to the question and its top K filtered answers. O(I) means image caption generated by OFA. In the end, all scores are ensembled. We select the answer with the highest score as zero-shot prediction result: **Lemma 1.1**.: $$\arg\max_{i}\{S_{\text{CLIP}}(A_{i},I_{g})+k_{1}\cdot\max_{I_{i}\in R\in g}\{S_{\text{CLIP}}(A_{i},I_{l})\}$$ $$+k_{2}\cdot S_{\text{Question}}(Q,A_{i})+k_{3}\cdot S_{\text{Option}}(I_{g},A_{i})\},$$ where k1, k2, and k3 are hyperparameters. ## Visual Commonsense Reasoning: Vcr VCR is similar to VQA since both of them are in question-answering formats. However, there are only four answer choices per question, which means we don't need to do answer filtering. Q2A and *QA2R* are two subtasks of VCR. Q2A is similar to VQA in that there is only one question per sample. So the process of Q2A is the same as VQA except for omitting answer filtering. *QA2R* aims to dig out the rationale why one correct answer is chosen in Q2A question. Since there is no question text in *QA2R* and the correct answer is provided, we directly utilize the correct answer as the question text. Other procedures in *QA2R* are the same as Q2A. ## Visual Entailment: Snli-Ve The task format of SNLI-VE is different from VQA and VCR. For each sample, only one image premise I and one hypothesis H are given, without answer candidates. It is a three-way classification problem, aiming to predict the relation between the image premise and hypothesis text into one of three classes: Entailment, *Contradiction*, and *Neutral*. Since there are no answer candidates, we cannot directly compare CLIP alignment scores of answers to select the best answer, as in VQA and VCR. To tackle that, we compute the CLIP alignment scores between image and hypothesis of each sample in whole evaluation set, and cluster those scores into three clusters with three centroids. We rank the centroids from high to low and sequentially treat them as entailment centroid C e CLIP, neutral centroid C n CLIP and contradictory centroid C c CLIP. The detail of clustering can be found in Algo. 1. It's noted that, to make cluster centroids meaningful, an assumption is required: three relationships are uniformly distributed in the evaluation dataset. That assumption is true in SNLI-VE but not guaranteed in other less-calibrated datasets. We can measure how close SCLIP of each sample is to each centroid: $$Dis(C^{i}_{\rm CLIP},S_{\rm CLIP})=\tag{4}$$ $$\|C^{i}_{\rm CLIP}-(S_{\rm CLIP}(H,I_{g})+k_{1}\cdot\max_{I_{l}\in Rcg}\{S_{\rm CLIP}(H,I_{l})\})\|$$ where centroid C i CLIP ∈ {C e CLIP, Cn CLIP, Cc CLIP}. Besides the CLIP alignment score comparison, we can obtain the caption prior score SCaption(*I, H*) using the image caption generated by OFA. Same as above, we also use the clustering method in Algo. 1, with only changing CLIP score to caption score, to get three centroids {C e Caption, Cn Caption, Cc Caption}. And we measure how close SCaption of each sample is to each centroid: $Dis(C^{i}_{\text{Caption}},\text{Scaption})=\|C^{i}_{\text{Caption}}-\text{Scaption}(I,H)\|$ It's noted that due to the lack of answer candidates, we can't get the question prior score SQuestion. In the end, we ensemble two distances and predict the relationship by picking the closest centroid: arg min i {*Dis(C* i CLIP, SCLIP) + k2 · *Dis(C* - $k_2\cdot Dis(C^i_{\text{Caption}},\,\text{SCaption})$ (6) 4 Experiments In this section, we will talk about benchmark comparison first to show our strong performance. Then, we conduct extensive ablation studies to confirm the effectiveness of fine-grained information. ## 4.1 Experimental Setup Datasets. We analyze three vision-language tasks in our paper. For each of them, we utilize the validation set of VQAv2 (Goyal et al., 2017), VCR (Zellers et al., 2019), and SNLI-VE (Xie et al., 2019). More details about the validation set can be found in Sec. A.1. In VQAv2, we employ vqa scores to evaluate the model. In VCR and SNLIVE, we use the accuracy of the validation set for evaluation. Models. The core component of our method is CLIP 1. There are different variants of CLIP since we can use different models to act as the image or text encoder. Following previous work, we leverage CLIP Res50x16 and CLIP ViT-B/16 in VQA 1https://github.com/openai/CLIP | Methods | VQA Answer Types | | | | |--------------------------------------------|--------------------|------------|------------|------------| | Yes/No | Number | Other | All | | | CLIP-ViL w/ CLIPRes50x16 | 56.16 | 9.76 | 1.39 | 23.07 | | w/ CLIPViT-B/16 | 53.89 | 7.67 | 0.70 | 21.40 | | TAP-C* (Baseline) w/ CLIPRes50x16 | 68.9(71.7) | 25.9(18.7) | 16.7(18.2) | 37.5(38.4) | | w/ CLIPViT-B/16 | 68.6(71.4) | 25.4(21.0) | 16.7(18.6) | 37.3(38.7) | | UniFine-Base (Ours) w/ CLIPRes50x16 | 69.69 | 29.61 | 19.85 | 39.87 | | w/ CLIPViT-B/16 | 69.49 | 29.34 | 20.15 | 39.91 | | UniFine-Large (Ours) w/ CLIPViT-L/14@336px | 70.36 | 29.95 | 20.19 | 40.33 | | Random | 50.00 | - | - | 18.80 | Table 1: Zero-shot VQAv2 results on the validation set. * denotes our reimplementation. Reported results from TAP-C are in the bracket. | Methods | SNLI-VE Answer Types | VCR Tasks | | | | | |-------------------------------------|------------------------|-------------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | C | N | E | All | Q2A | QA2R | | | Baseline w/ CLIPViT-B/16 | 67.59 | 18.66 | 55.92 | 47.37 | 53.24 | 46.51 | | UniFine-Base w/ CLIPViT-B/16 | 68.08 | 28.55 | 51.67 | 49.41 | 54.97 | 50.72 | | UniFine-Large w/ CLIPViT-L/14@336px | 68.29 | 29.57 | 52.68 | 50.16 | 58.48 | 51.88 | | Supervised w/ EVE-Image | 71.04 | 70.55 | 73.10 | 71.56 | - | | | w/ R2C | - | 63.8 | 67.2 | | | | | Random | - | - | - | 33.33 | 25.00 | 25.00 | Table 2: Zero-shot SNLI-VE and VCR results on the validation set. (C: Contradiction, N: Neutral, E: Entailment) for comparison. Since we are the first to evaluate CLIP's zero-shot ability in SNLI-VE and VCR, there is no need for us to compare them with prior work. So we just exploit CLIP ViT-B/16 in VCR and SNLI-VE. We believe the scale of the model will have a big impact on the result, so we also utilize CLIP ViT-L/14@336px in VQA, VCR, and SNLI-VE to see how much improvement can be obtained by using a larger model. In addition to CLIP, we also use T5-large 2for task format conversion, OFA-base 3for image captioning, RoBERTa-large 4for the following calculation of cosine similarity, and Faster-RCNN 5for object detection. ## 4.2 Benchmark Comparison VQA. Results of zero-shot VQA are reported in Tab. 1. For a fair comparison, we compare our 2https://huggingface.co/models 3https://github.com/OFA-Sys/OFA 4https://github.com/UKPLab/sentence-transformers 5https://github.com/peteanderson80/bottom-up-attention method with two CLIP-based methods. We choose TAP-C (Song et al., 2022) as our baseline. Since the author didn't release the code, we reimplement it from scratch. After reimplementation, we obtain a lower score than TAP-C. There might be some reasons like differences in specific prompt design and answer filtering process making our result different from the original one. Although our reimplemented results are lower than the reported ones, we can surpass TAP-C after extracting and exploiting visual and textual fine-grained information. Compared to our reimplemented results, our method can elevate the performance of all answer types. By using a larger CLIP model, we can achieve better performance. Our best performance can surpass the reimplemented and TAP-C result by 2.83% and 1.63%. Currently, our method outperforms previous CLIP-based methods for zero-shot VQA. SNLI-VE. We report the results of SNLI-VE in Tab. 2. By using the baseline method, we can get an accuracy of 47.37% in all categories, which is 14.04% higher than random performance. This result reveals that our baseline method is strong and it confirms CLIP's zero-shot ability in SNLI-VE. By extracting fine-grained information and upscaling the model, we can increase accuracy by 2.79% at most. For each answer type, *Neutral* type increases the most (+10.91%) and *Entailment* type decreases by 3.24%. We need to note that *Neutral* type is more complex than *Entailment* and *Contradiction* since this type is not as clear as the other two types requiring a model's deeper reasoning ability. The improvement in *Neutral* type shows the significance of fine-grained information. As for the decrement in *Entailment* type, it is likely due to the deficiency of our clustering method, which should be improved in the future. Since there is no CLIP-based zero-shot method for SNLI-VE before, we choose the supervised method EVE-Image from SNLI-VE paper (Xie et al., 2019) for comparison. Although the overall performance is still not comparable to the supervised method, our result of Contradiction type is approaching EVE-Image. VCR. The results of VCR are reported in Tab. 2. We carry out experiments in two VCR subtasks, namely Q2A and *QA2R*. Compared to the random performance of Q2A and *QA2R*, our baseline method can improve by 28.24% and 21.51% respectively. The improvement confirms CLIP's strong zero-shot ability for VCR. By extracting fine-grained information and using a larger model,  we can improve the baseline by 5.24% and 5.37% at most, which proves the effectiveness of our proposed method. There is no prior CLIP-based method for zero-shot VCR so we select the supervised model R2C, proposed in VCR paper (Zellers et al., 2019), for comparison. Although we cannot surpass the supervised model, the result of Q2A is approaching R2C and our results are competitive. ## 4.3 Ablation Studies In this section, we will analyze every important component of our proposed method. In Tab. 3, we can see all of the fine-grained (FG) information can help zero-shot learning and all fine-grained (FG) information combined together can bring more improvement. Textual FG Information - Question: By adding the question prior information, we can see it can help VCR the most. We think the first reason is the question and answer in VCR are longer and more complex than the other two datasets. Consequently, the question and answers can provide more useful and richer information in zero-shot inference. Secondly, the correct answer is likely to have more overlap with the question. Plus, we can observe that question doesn't help a lot in VQA Yes/No answer type since this is a binary classification problem and a large number of questions are like *"Is this A or B?"* type, which cannot provide more useful information to zero-shot prediction. Visual FG Information - Image Region: We can observe that the image region can largely improve the performance of *Other* answer type in VQA because the questions of this type tend to query the details of the image. And image regions can provide finer details to zero-shot inference. At the same time, we also find that the image region cannot help SNLI-VE much. We think SNLI-VE concentrates more on the global image thus image | Methods | VLU Tasks | Baseline w/ Question w/ Image Region w/ Image Caption (OFA) | w/ All | w/ Image Caption (GT) w/ Image Region (GT) | w/ All | | | | | |----------------------------|--------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|----------------------------------------------|---------------|---------------|----------------|---------------|----------------| | (Faster-RCNN) | (Generation) | (GT) | | | | | | | | | Yes/No | 68.61 | 68.67 [+0.06] | 68.80 [+0.19] | 69.40 [+0.79] | 69.49 [+0.88] | 69.32 [+0.71] | - | 69.54 [+0.93] | | | Number | 25.36 | 26.22 [+0.86] | 26.21 [+0.85] | 28.99 [+3.63] | 29.34 [+3.98] | 28.52 [+3.16] | - | 28.88 [+3.52] | | | VQA | Other | 16.65 | 17.61 [+0.96] | 19.00 [+2.35] | 18.26 [+1.61] | 20.15 [+3.50] | 18.03 [+1.38] | - | 20.04 [+3.39] | | All | 37.33 | 37.94 [+0.61] | 38.67 [+1.34] | 38.90 [+1.57] | 39.91 [+2.58] | 38.69 [+1.36] | - | 39.81 [+2.48] | | | UniFine-Base w/ CLIPBase | C | 67.59 | - | 68.59 [+1.00] | 66.87 [-0.72] | 68.08 [+0.49] | 69.41 [+1.82] | - | 69.67 [+2.08] | | N | 18.66 | - | 20.94 [+2.28] | 19.84 [+1.18] | 28.55 [+9.89] | 24.87 [+6.21] | - | 25.50 [+6.84] | | | SNLI-VE | E | 55.92 | - | 53.13 [-2.79] | 56.43 [+0.51] | 51.67 [-4.25] | 63.03 [+7.11] | - | 62.90 [+6.98] | | All | 47.37 | - | 47.54 [+0.17] | 47.68 [+0.31] | 49.41 [+2.04] | 52.42 [+5.05] | - | 52.66 [+5.29] | | | VCR | Q2A | 53.24 | 54.60 [+1.36] | 53.93 [+0.69] | 53.35 [+0.11] | 54.97 [+1.73] | 53.42 [+0.18] | 53.79 [+0.55] | 54.72 [+1.48] | | QA2R | 46.51 | 50.10 [+3.59] | 47.66 [+1.15] | 46.79 [+0.28] | 50.72 [+4.21] | 46.60 [+0.09] | 47.02 [+0.51] | 50.16 [+3.65] | | | Yes/No | 69.38 | 69.42 [+0.04] | 69.75 [+0.37] | 70.04 [+0.66] | 70.36 [+0.98] | 70.16 [+0.78] | - | 70.41 [+1.03] | | | Number | 28.44 | 28.67 [+0.23] | 28.64 [+0.20] | 29.48 [+1.04] | 29.95 [+1.51] | 29.32 [+0.88] | - | 29.72 [+1.28] | | | VQA | Other | 16.74 | 17.35 [+0.61] | 19.03 [+2.29] | 17.95 [+1.21] | 20.19 [+3.45] | 17.74 [+1.00] | - | 20.06 [+3.32] | | All | 38.07 | 38.41 [+0.34] | 39.36 [+1.29] | 39.05 [+0.98] | 40.33 [+2.26] | 38.97 [+0.90] | - | 40.26 [+2.19] | | | UniFine-Large w/ CLIPLarge | C | 67.57 | - | 68.44 [+0.87] | 66.69 [-0.88] | 68.29 [+0.72] | 69.37 [+1.80] | - | 70.30 [+2.73] | | N | 25.17 | - | 20.97 [-4.20] | 29.05 [+3.88] | 29.57 [+4.40] | 25.71 [+0.54] | - | 25.44 [+0.27] | | | SNLI-VE | E | 51.57 | - | 55.14 [+3.57] | 52.70 [+1.13] | 52.68 [+1.11] | 62.84 [+11.27] | - | 62.84 [+11.27] | | All | 48.05 | - | 48.15 [+0.10] | 49.46 [+1.41] | 50.16 [+2.11] | 52.62 [+4.57] | - | 52.84 [+4.79] | | | VCR | Q2A | 56.92 | 58.12 [+1.20] | 57.26 [+0.34] | 57.11 [+0.19] | 58.48 [+1.56] | 57.01 [+0.09] | 57.37 [+0.45] | 58.29 [+1.37] | | QA2R | 48.06 | 51.20 [+3.14] | 49.31 [+1.25] | 48.44 [+0.38] | 51.88 [+3.82] | 48.16 [+0.10] | 48.44 [+0.38] | 51.30 [+3.24] | | ## Regions Can'T Help A Lot. Textual FG Information - Image Caption: In Tab. 3, we can observe that the image caption can better assist the *Number* and *Other* answer type in VQA. For *Number* type, we think the image caption may contain numerical information which aids zero-shot prediction of *Number* type. Since there are a large number of questions in *Other* type, they will cover diverse question types, some of which may focus on information on an instance level. Normally, the image caption captures the instance-level information, so it can help VQA *Other* answer type. We can also notice that using image captions may hurt some categories of SNLI-VE, we think this result may suffer from the quality of the generated caption. Generation vs. Ground Truth: Since not every dataset is well human-annotated, we employ these two settings to test the generalizability of our proposed method. In the generation setting, we generate image captions by OFA and detect objects by Faster-RCNN. In the ground truth setting, as mentioned above, there are ground truth captions paired with images in VQA and SNLI-VE. For VCR, images are not paired with human-annotated caption texts. However, 68% images of VCR validation set are the same as images in VisualCOMET (Park et al., 2020) and VisualCOMET is paired with the ground truth caption. Thus, we directly leverage captions from VisualCOMET in VCR. Although images in VCR are not paired with captions, they are annotated with ground truth bounding boxes, so we have a ground truth image region experiment for VCR. However, VQA and SNLI-VE are not annotated with ground truth bounding boxes. As Tab. 3 shows, we can conclude that our method can work well in a situation without many annotations because we achieve similar performance in generation and ground truth scenarios, which confirms the generalizability of our proposed method. Model Scale: We believe that the model scale will affect the final result since larger models are able to better process visual and textual information. In our experiments, we mainly focus on two variants of CLIP, namely CLIP ViT-B/16 and CLIP ViTL/14@336px. We also carry out experiments on CLIP Res50x16 in VQA task, which can be found in Tab. 6. We can observe that larger models can elevate the performance and all of our best results are achieved by using CLIP ViT-L/14@336px. Number of Image Regions: In this subsection, we would like to see how selected N image regions affect the zero-shot performance of different vision-language tasks. For convenience, we select Yes/No answer type of VQA, SNLI-VE, and Q2A task of VCR to carry out experiments. Full results are reported in Tab. 8. For better visualization, we normalize the results. In Fig. 4, we can observe that with the increment of the image regions, the performance of all three tasks increases and then decreases. Moreover, selecting 5 image regions is optimal for VQA and VE. For VCR, 12 image regions are optimal. Visual fine-grained information can help CLIP and play an important role in the zero-shot prediction since it provides fine details of the image but more image regions after a certain point will result in a decrement. Too many image regions will introduce irrelevant visual information. In our experiments, we select 5 regions for VQA and SNLI-VE, and 12 regions for VCR. ## 5 Conclusion In this work, we propose a unified and fine-grained approach for vision-language tasks including VQA, SNLI-VE, and VCR. We outperform previous CLIP-based methods for zero-shot VQA. Plus, we are the first to empirically study CLIP's zero-shot ability for SNLI-VE and VCR, which achieves strong zero-shot performance. In addition to the benchmark comparison, we conduct extensive ablation studies confirming the significance of visual and textual fine-grained information and the generalizability of our proposed method. ## Limitations Although our proposed method is effective in three vision-language tasks, we still have some limitations. Firstly, we utilize T5 to convert the questionanswering format into the declarative sentence in VQA and it works well in most cases, but it still faces out-of-coverage problems, which will affect the following zero-shot prediction of CLIP. We need to design more rules for these special cases for better conversion. Secondly, our clustering algorithm for SNLI-VE can achieve strong zero-shot performance, but the clustering centroids are close to each other and the algorithm is sensitive to these centroids. The robustness of this algorithm should be improved. What's more, we leverage FasterRCNN in visual fine-grained information extraction, so the detectable object attributes and classes are constrained in a relatively limited object set of Faster-RCNN, which may hinder further improvement from visual fine-grained information. The Faster-RCNN can be replaced with a better vision module. Besides, since we only utilize CLIP in our paper, we can explore the zero-shot ability of other contrastive pre-training models in future work. ## Ethics Statement There are many large-scale pre-trained models used in our paper like OFA, T5, RoBERTa, and CLIP. Our method relies heavily on CLIP, which is pretrained on approximately 400M image-text pairs crawled from the Internet. Since the pre-training dataset is noisy, CLIP is likely to have potential racial and gender bias. Therefore, if someone finds our work interesting and would like to use it in a specific environment, we suggest the user check the potential bias before application. We think one advantage of our work is we only utilize existing pre-trained models and we don't need to train any new models. Compared to the energy-consuming model training, our method can be more environmentally friendly. ## Acknowledgements We thank anonymous reviewers for their comments. This work is supported by the DARPA MCS program under Cooperative Agreement N66001-19-24032. ## References Peter Anderson, Xiaodong He, Chris Buehler, Damien Teney, Mark Johnson, Stephen Gould, and Lei Zhang. 2018. Bottom-up and top-down attention for image captioning and visual question answering. In *CVPR*. Stanislaw Antol, Aishwarya Agrawal, Jiasen Lu, Margaret Mitchell, Dhruv Batra, C Lawrence Zitnick, and Devi Parikh. 2015. Vqa: Visual question answering. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 2425–2433. Samuel R Bowman, Gabor Angeli, Christopher Potts, and Christopher D Manning. 2015. A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:1508.05326. Xinlei Chen, Hao Fang, Tsung-Yi Lin, Ramakrishna Vedantam, Saurabh Gupta, Piotr Dollár, and C Lawrence Zitnick. 2015. Microsoft coco captions: Data collection and evaluation server. arXiv preprint arXiv:1504.00325. Yen-Chun Chen, Linjie Li, Licheng Yu, Ahmed El Kholy, Faisal Ahmed, Zhe Gan, Yu Cheng, and Jingjing Liu. 2019. Uniter: Learning universal imagetext representations. Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li Fei-Fei. 2009. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In *2009 IEEE conference* on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 248–255. Ieee. Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, et al. 2020. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929. Yash Goyal, Tejas Khot, Douglas Summers-Stay, Dhruv Batra, and Devi Parikh. 2017. Making the v in vqa matter: Elevating the role of image understanding in visual question answering. In *Proceedings of the* IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 6904–6913. Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2016. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 770– 778. Chao Jia, Yinfei Yang, Ye Xia, Yi-Ting Chen, Zarana Parekh, Hieu Pham, Quoc Le, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Zhen Li, and Tom Duerig. 2021. Scaling up visual and vision-language representation learning with noisy text supervision. In *Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning*, volume 139 of *Proceedings of Machine Learning Research*, pages 4904–4916. PMLR. Ranjay Krishna, Yuke Zhu, Oliver Groth, Justin Johnson, Kenji Hata, Joshua Kravitz, Stephanie Chen, Yannis Kalantidis, Li-Jia Li, David A Shamma, et al. 2017. Visual genome: Connecting language and vision using crowdsourced dense image annotations. International journal of computer vision, 123(1):32– 73. Liunian Harold Li, Mark Yatskar, Da Yin, Cho-Jui Hsieh, and Kai-Wei Chang. 2019. Visualbert: A simple and performant baseline for vision and language. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.03557. Xiujun Li, Xi Yin, Chunyuan Li, Pengchuan Zhang, Xiaowei Hu, Lei Zhang, Lijuan Wang, Houdong Hu, Li Dong, Furu Wei, et al. 2020. Oscar: Objectsemantics aligned pre-training for vision-language tasks. In *European Conference on Computer Vision*, pages 121–137. Springer. Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge Belongie, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, Piotr Doll'ar, and C Lawrence Zitnick. 2014. Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. In *European conference on computer vision*, pages 740–755. Springer. 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*. Jiasen Lu, Dhruv Batra, Devi Parikh, and Stefan Lee. 2019. Vilbert: Pretraining task-agnostic visiolinguistic representations for vision-and-language tasks. *Advances in neural information processing systems*, 32. Jae Sung Park, Chandra Bhagavatula, Roozbeh Mottaghi, Ali Farhadi, and Yejin Choi. 2020. Visualcomet: Reasoning about the dynamic context of a still image. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 508–524. Springer. Hieu Pham, Zihang Dai, Golnaz Ghiasi, Kenji Kawaguchi, Hanxiao Liu, Adams Wei Yu, Jiahui Yu, Yi-Ting Chen, Minh-Thang Luong, Yonghui Wu, et al. 2021. Combined scaling for openvocabulary image classification. *arXiv preprint* arXiv: 2111.10050. Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 8748–8763. PMLR. Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, Peter J Liu, et al. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. *J. Mach. Learn. Res.*, 21(140):1–67. Shaoqing Ren, Kaiming He, Ross Girshick, and Jian Sun. 2015. Faster r-cnn: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks. Advances in neural information processing systems, 28. Sheng Shen, Liunian Harold Li, Hao Tan, Mohit Bansal, Anna Rohrbach, Kai-Wei Chang, Zhewei Yao, and Kurt Keutzer. 2021. How much can clip benefit vision-and-language tasks? *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2107.06383. Haoyu Song, Li Dong, Wei-Nan Zhang, Ting Liu, and Furu Wei. 2022. Clip models are few-shot learners: Empirical studies on vqa and visual entailment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.07190. Weijie Su, Xizhou Zhu, Yue Cao, Bin Li, Lewei Lu, Furu Wei, and Jifeng Dai. 2019. Vl-bert: Pre-training of generic visual-linguistic representations. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:1908.08530. Sanjay Subramanian, Will Merrill, Trevor Darrell, Matt Gardner, Sameer Singh, and Anna Rohrbach. 2022. Reclip: A strong zero-shot baseline for referring expression comprehension. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.05991. Hao Tan and Mohit Bansal. 2019. Lxmert: Learning cross-modality encoder representations from transformers. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.07490*. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. *Advances in neural information processing* systems, 30. Peng Wang, An Yang, Rui Men, Junyang Lin, Shuai Bai, Zhikang Li, Jianxin Ma, Chang Zhou, Jingren Zhou, and Hongxia Yang. 2022a. OFA: Unifying architectures, tasks, and modalities through a simple sequence-to-sequence learning framework. In Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 162 of *Proceedings* of Machine Learning Research, pages 23318–23340. PMLR. Zhecan Wang, Noel Codella, Yen-Chun Chen, Luowei Zhou, Xiyang Dai, Bin Xiao, Jianwei Yang, Haoxuan You, Kai-Wei Chang, Shih-fu Chang, et al. 2022b. Multimodal adaptive distillation for leveraging unimodal encoders for vision-language tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.10496. Ning Xie, Farley Lai, Derek Doran, and Asim Kadav. 2019. Visual entailment: A novel task for fine-grained image understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.06706. Peter Young, Alice Lai, Micah Hodosh, and Julia Hockenmaier. 2014. From image descriptions to visual denotations: New similarity metrics for semantic inference over event descriptions. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2:67–78. Rowan Zellers, Yonatan Bisk, Ali Farhadi, and Yejin Choi. 2019. From recognition to cognition: Visual commonsense reasoning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 6720–6731. ## A Appendix A.1 Data Statistics | VLU Tasks | Number of Questions | Number of Images | | |-------------|-----------------------|--------------------|------| | Yes/No | 80541 | - | | | Number | 28134 | - | | | VQAv2 | Other | 105679 | - | | All | 214354 | 40504 | | | C | 5939 | - | | | N | 5960 | - | | | SNLI-VE | E | 5959 | - | | All | 17858 | 1000 | | | VCR | - | 26534 | 9929 | Table 4: Statistics of VQAv2, SNLI-VE, and VCR (C: Contradiction, N: Neutral, E: Entailment, VLU: VisionLanguage Understanding) Following previous work, we use the val2014 split of VQAv2. In zero-shot SNLI-VE and VCR, we use the validation set. ## A.2 Answer Filtering For Vqa Answer filtering. As in TAP-C (Song et al., 2022), we first manually design the demonstrations and employ T5 to convert the question-answering format of VQA into the declarative template with the <extra_id_0> token. Then, we input the concatenation of demonstrations and declarative statements converted from question-answering format with the <extra_id_0> token into the T5 encoder. Next, encoded features from the T5 encoder and answer candidates are input into the T5 decoder. At the end of the T5 decoder, it will calculate the probability of each answer candidate. We select Top K answers to replace *<extra_id_0>* token in the template to generate K prompts, which will be fed into the CLIP text encoder. Setting of hyperparameter K. Since we employ answer filtering to select top K answers, K is a significant hyperparameter. In Tab. 5, we show how the zero-shot performance of VQA *Number* and *Other* type varies with the increment of selected top K answers. We carry out six and seven experiments on these two types. We can observe that with the increment of K, the performance first increases and then decreases. When K is small, many correct answers are directly removed by T5, which makes it impossible for CLIP to choose the right answer. Conversely, if K is very big, there are too many answers, which are likely to disturb CLIP's zero-shot prediction. In our experiments, we select the top 10 answers in VQA *Other* type and the top 4 answers in VQA *Number* type. Algorithm 1 Pseudocode of clustering algorithm Input: V: CLIP image encoder, T: CLIP text encoder, I: all images in SNLI-VE val split, H: all hypotheses in SNLI-VE val split, N: the number of samples in SNLI-VE val split; Output: *centroid*. 1: **dictionary** *centroid* initialized to 0 2: **array** *scores* initialized to 0 3: // use CLIP to calculate dot product 4: for i = 0; *i < N*; i + + do 5: scores[i] = T(H[i]) · V(*I[i]*) 6: **end for** 7: // obtain three centroids 8: *scores* = sort(*scores*) // ascending order 9: // C: Contradiction, N: Neutral, E: Entailment 10: *centroid[C]* = sum(*scores[:N/3]*) / (N/3) 11: *centroid[N]* = sum(*scores[N/3:2N/3]*) / (N/3) 12: *centroid[E]* = sum(*scores[2N/3:]*) / (N/3) ## A.3 More Ablation Studies Of Vqav2 Since previous work uses CLIP RN50x16 to do zero-shot VQA, we also conduct ablation studies on it. Results can be found in Tab. 6 ## A.4 Clustering Algorithm And Centroids Of Snli-Ve Algo. 1 is utilized in zero-shot SNLI-VE. After running the Algo. 1, we can obtain three clustering centroids. In fact, we can cache the centroids in advance. In order to achieve better performance, we tune the centroids, which are reported in Tab. 7. The effectiveness of Algo. 1 is based on the relatively even data distribution. K-Means 6can also be utilized here but it also requires a relatively even data distribution. In the validation split of SNLI-VE, we have 17858 samples, which are not divisible by 3. However, we can assume there are 5952, 5953, and 5953 samples in entailment, neutral, and contradiction category respectively. ## A.5 How # Image Regions Affect Performance The full results are reported in Tab. 8. They are values before normalization in Fig. 4. Through the table and figure, we can see how selected N images affects the zero-shot performance. ## A.6 Zero-Shot Learning By Only Using Textual Fine-Grained Information We think it is interesting to investigate the zero-shot performance if we only use textual fine-grained 6https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-means_clustering information. We only exploit the language model to accomplish zero-shot prediction in all three visionlanguage tasks. All results are shown in Tab. 9. In VQA, we use T5-large (for answer filtering) and RoBERTa-large. In SNLI-VE and VCR, we only utilize RoBERTa-large. Visual information is not considered and textual fine-grained information includes the image caption and question in this experimental setting. All results show that only using textual fine-grained information can achieve fair performance. (Note: We can notice that only using ground truth textual fine-grained information in SNLI-VE can surpass baseline performance. It is because the relation between the ground truth caption and hypothesis is well annotated in SNLI (Bowman et al., 2015)) | Answer Type | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 20 | 40 | 200 | |---------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | Number | 25.14 | 25.27 | 25.36 | 24.41 | - | 21.60 | - | 18.36 | - | - | | Other | - | - | - | 14.98 | 16.60 | 16.65 | 16.61 | 15.54 | 14.93 | 10.87 | Table 5: How \# selected answers affect VQA | Methods | VLU Tasks | Baseline w/ Question w/ Image Region w/ Image Caption (OFA) | w/ All | w/ Image Caption (GT) w/ Image Region (GT) | w/ All | | | | | |-----------------|--------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|----------------------------------------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------| | (Faster-RCNN) | (Generation) | (GT) | | | | | | | | | Yes/No | 68.85 | 68.90 [+0.05] | 68.90 [+0.05] | 69.63 [+0.78] | 69.69 [+0.84] | 69.59 [+0.74] | - | 69.66 [+0.81] | | | UniFine-Base | VQA Number | 25.85 | 26.20 [+0.35] | 26.34 [+0.49] | 29.26 [+3.41] | 29.61 [+3.76] | 28.91 [+3.06] | - | 29.33 [+3.48] | | w/ CLIPRes50x16 | Other | 16.74 | 17.36 [+0.62] | 18.60 [+1.86] | 17.86 [+1.12] | 19.85 [+3.11] | 17.64 [+0.90] | - | 19.85 [+3.11] | | All | 37.53 | 37.90 [+0.37] | 38.53 [+1.00] | 38.82 [+1.29] | 39.87 [+2.34] | 38.65 [+1.12] | - | 39.82 [+2.29] | | Table 6: Ablation Studies of zero-shot VQA. (GT: Ground Truth) | Methods | | | | | | | |---------------|-----------------|---------------------|-----------------|--------------------|--------------------|------| | Answer Types | CLIP ViT-B/16 | CLIP ViT-L/14@336px | RoBERTa-large | | | | | Baseline | w/ Image Region | Baseline | w/ Image Region | Only Image Caption | Only Image Caption | | | (Generation) | (GT) | | | | | | | Contradiction | 0.23 | 0.47 | 0.17 | 0.37 | 0.22 | 0.29 | | Neutral | 0.26 | 0.54 | 0.22 | 0.45 | 0.34 | 0.48 | | Entailment | 0.27 | 0.55 | 0.23 | 0.46 | 0.43 | 0.60 | Table 7: Clustering centroids of SNLI-VE (GT: Ground Truth). | Task | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | |------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | VQA Yes/No | 68.61 | 68.67 | 68.72 | 68.75 | 68.76 | 68.80 | 68.77 | 68.74 | 68.73 | 68.74 | 68.73 | 68.71 | 68.72 | 68.70 | 68.67 | 68.66 | | VE | 47.37 | 47.42 | 47.39 | 47.40 | 47.45 | 47.54 | 47.49 | 47.45 | 47.36 | 47.40 | 47.11 | 47.08 | 47.13 | 47.14 | 47.14 | 47.12 | | VCR Q2A | 53.24 | 52.68 | 53.06 | 53.27 | 53.42 | 53.46 | 53.61 | 53.69 | 53.80 | 53.81 | 53.82 | 53.90 | 53.93 | 53.91 | 53.83 | 53.81 | Table 8: How \# image regions affect the performance of different tasks | Methods | VQA Answer Types | SNLI-VE Answer Types | VCR Tasks | | | | | | | | |----------------------------------------------------|--------------------|------------------------|-------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | Yes/No | Number | Other | All | C | N | E | All | Q2A | QA2R | | | Baseline w/ CLIPViT-B/16 | 68.61 | 25.36 | 16.65 | 37.33 | 67.59 | 18.66 | 55.92 | 47.37 | 53.24 | 46.51 | | Only textual fine-grained information (Generation) | 67.13 | 28.77 | 13.44 | 35.64 | 64.83 | 17.32 | 56.19 | 46.09 | 35.13 | 41.93 | | Only textual fine-grained information (GT) | 67.58 | 28.22 | 13.36 | 35.69 | 68.72 | 24.03 | 63.00 | 51.89 | 32.69 | 40.21 | Table 9: Zero-shot performance when only using textual fine-grained information. (C: Contradiction, N: Neutral, E: Entailment, GT: Ground Truth) ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? 6 ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? 7 ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? 1 ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** 4 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? 1, 2, 3, 4 ✗ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? We will release the code and artifacts after we get the decision on 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)? We didn't discuss it but our use is consistent with their intended use since they are open-sourced. Plus, we will specify the intended use when we get the decision on paper. We will release the code and provide a description of it. ✗ 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 don't discuss it since we don't focus on data collection and model pre-training. We conduct zero-shot learning experiments. We will consider it in the future. ✗ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? We will not release our code and documentation until we get the decision on the paper. ✓ 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. I report the statistics of the validation set of datasets I use in the appendix section of the paper. 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 ✗ 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 paper focuses on zero-shot learning. We don't need too many computational resources so we don't report it. ✓ 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? 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.)? 4 ## 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.

zhang-etal-2023-aligning

Aligning Instruction Tasks Unlocks Large Language Models as Zero-Shot Relation Extractors

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.50

Recent work has shown that fine-tuning large language models (LLMs) on large-scale instruction-following datasets substantially improves their performance on a wide range of NLP tasks, especially in the zero-shot setting. However, even advanced instruction-tuned LLMs still fail to outperform small LMs on relation extraction (RE), a fundamental information extraction task. We hypothesize that instruction-tuning has been unable to elicit strong RE capabilities in LLMs due to RE{'}s low incidence in instruction-tuning datasets, making up less than 1{\%} of all tasks (Wang et al. 2022). To address this limitation, we propose QA4RE, a framework that aligns RE with question answering (QA), a predominant task in instruction-tuning datasets. Comprehensive zero-shot RE experiments over four datasets with two series of instruction-tuned LLMs (six LLMs in total) demonstrate that our QA4RE framework consistently improves LLM performance, strongly verifying our hypothesis and enabling LLMs to outperform strong zero-shot baselines by a large margin. Additionally, we provide thorough experiments and discussions to show the robustness, few-shot effectiveness, and strong transferability of our QA4RE framework. This work illustrates a promising way of adapting LLMs to challenging and underrepresented tasks by aligning these tasks with more common instruction-tuning tasks like QA.

# Aligning Instruction Tasks Unlocks Large Language Models As Zero-Shot Relation Extractors Kai Zhang Bernal Jiménez Gutiérrez Yu Su The Ohio State University {zhang.13253, jimenezgutierrez.1, su.809}@osu.edu ## Abstract Recent work has shown that fine-tuning large language models (LLMs) on large-scale instruction-following datasets substantially improves their performance on a wide range of NLP tasks, especially in the zero-shot setting. However, even advanced instructiontuned LLMs still fail to outperform small LMs on relation extraction (RE), a fundamental information extraction task. We hypothesize that instruction-tuning has been unable to elicit strong RE capabilities in LLMs due to RE's low incidence in instruction-tuning datasets, making up less than 1% of all tasks (Wang et al., 2022). To address this limitation, we propose QA4RE, a framework that aligns RE with question answering (QA), a predominant task in instruction-tuning datasets. Comprehensive zero-shot RE experiments over four datasets with two series of instruction-tuned LLMs (six LLMs in total) demonstrate that our QA4RE framework consistently improves LLM performance, strongly verifying our hypothesis and enabling LLMs to outperform strong zero-shot baselines by a large margin. Additionally, we provide thorough experiments and discussions to show the robustness, few-shot effectiveness, and strong transferability of our QA4RE framework. This work illustrates a promising way of adapting LLMs to challenging and underrepresented tasks by aligning these tasks with more common instruction-tuning tasks like QA.1 ## 1 Introduction Large language models (LLMs) (Brown et al., 2020; Chowdhery et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2022) have been shown to achieve impressive performance on many NLP tasks. Using the in-context learning paradigm, without any parameter updating, LLMs are able to achieve comparable performance with small language models (LMs) fine-tuned on thousands of examples (Liu et al., 2022; Min et al., 1Code and data are available at https://github.com/OSUNLP-Group/QA4RE.  2022a; Liang et al., 2022).2 More recently, finetuning LLMs on datasets containing thousands of downstream tasks transformed into an instruction following format (i.e., *instruction-tuning*) has been shown to improve LLMs considerably across the board, especially in zero-shot setting (Iyer et al., 2022; Ouyang et al., 2022; Chung et al., 2022). We examine the capability of LLMs in identifying the relationship between entities in a sentence, i.e., relation extraction (RE), a fundamental task in information extraction. Recent work (Jimenez Gutierrez et al., 2022) has found that LLMs underperform fine-tuned small LMs for RE in the biomedical domain. Our results on general domain RE in Fig. 1 reveal that even two of the most advanced instruction-tuned LLMs, FLANT5 XXL (Chung et al., 2022) and text-davinci-003 (Ouyang et al., 2022), fail to outperform the stateof-the-art (SoTA) zero-shot RE method based on small LMs (Sainz et al., 2021). We hypothesize that the limited relation extraction capability of instruction-tuned LLMs could be 2We regard LMs with less than 1B params as small. a byproduct of the low incidence of RE tasks in instruction-tuning datasets (Ouyang et al., 2022; Sanh et al., 2022; Chung et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022).3 To address the low incidence issue, we propose the QA4RE framework, which aligns RE with multiple-choice question answering (QA), a task that appears much more frequently in most instruction-tuning datasets—around 12-15% of all the tasks in both Wang et al. (2022) and Ouyang et al. (2022). Specifically, by casting the input sentence as a question and possible relation types as multiple-choice options (Fig. 2), LLMs are able to perform RE by selecting the option representing the correct relation type. Thorough evaluations on four real-world relation extraction datasets and six instruction-tuned models from two different series (OpenAI GPT3.5 and FLAN-T5 (Chung et al., 2022)) show that QA4RE brings significant gains over the standard RE formulation on, validating its effectiveness and our hypothesis concerning the low incidence of RE. More specifically, our framework enables textdavinci-003 and FLAN-T5-XXLarge to achieve an average of 8.2% and 8.6% absolute improvements in F1, respectively. For the first time, an LLM is able to outperform prior small-LM-based SoTA in the zero-shot setting by a large margin. In-depth analyses further demonstrate the robustness and few-shot effectiveness of QA4RE. More importantly, our framework has been proven to be effectively transferable on instruction-tuned models with various sizes, ranging from 80M to 175B. Our contributions are summarized as follows: (1) We systematically investigate instruction-tuned LLMs on four real-world relation extraction datasets and note that their limited performance on RE might stem from the low incidence of RE tasks in instruction-tuning datasets. (2) We reformulate RE as multiple-choice QA in an effort to appropriately leverage QA's much higher prevalence in instruction-tuning datasets and achieve significant improvements on six recent instruction-tuned LLMs, significantly outperforming previous SoTA zero-shot RE methods based on small LM for the first time. (3) In addition, we demonstrate our QA4RE method's robustness to diverse prompt designs as well as its promising results in the few-shot setting. (4) Finally, we show the effectiveness of QA4RE framework is transferable and consistent on various instruction-tuned models with different sizes from 80M to 175B. Our study illustrates the potential of aligning infrequent and challenging tasks with frequent instruction-tuning tasks and can guide others in exploring this direction. ## 2 Related Work Instruction Tuning. Large language models originally obtained impressive zero and few-shot performance by leveraging self-supervised next token prediction at massive scales. More recently, supervised fine-tuning on a large number of downstream tasks has been shown to improve LLM accuracy, robustness, fairness, and generalization to unseen tasks (Ouyang et al., 2022; Iyer et al., 2022; Wei et al., 2022a; Chung et al., 2022; Sanh et al., 2022). Several strategies have been developed to align LLMs to human instructions including Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) (Ouyang et al., 2022) as well as the more standard language modeling objective, used to finetune LLMs on a wide range of tasks reformulated as instruction following tasks (Iyer et al., 2022; Wei et al., 2022a; Chung et al., 2022; Sanh et al., 2022). Eliciting LLM Abilities. The high cost and increasingly private nature of LLM pre-training make it quite challenging to conclusively determine how different pre-training techniques bring about different LLM capabilities. Many factors involved in pre-training such as simple self-supervised scaling, code or multi-lingual text pre-training (Chowdhery et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2021; Chung et al., 2022) as well as the distinct versions of instruction-tuning mentioned above (Ouyang et al., 2022; Iyer et al., 2022; Wei et al., 2022a; Chung et al., 2022), can interact in a wide variety of ways to unleash the abilities LLMs display. Nonetheless, Fu and Khot (2022) hypothesize that the use of code during pretraining seems to improve an LM's reasoning ability, evidenced by the improved ability to leverage Chain-of-Thought prompting (Wei et al., 2022b) by models trained partially on code such as PaLM (Chowdhery et al., 2022), code-davinci-002 (Chen et al., 2021), and text-davinci-002/003 (Ouyang et al., 2022), compared to text-only models like text-davinci-001 and OPT-175B (Zhang et al., 2022). Additionally, instruction-tuning on a large set of tasks has been shown to improve generalization to unseen tasks, reduce the need for few-shot examples and improve accuracy and robustness    across many language tasks (Ouyang et al., 2022; Iyer et al., 2022; Chung et al., 2022). Low-Resource Relation Extraction. Several reformulations of standard RE have enabled small LMs to achieve fairly strong performance in the zero and few-shot settings. Sainz et al. (2021) utilize small LMs fine-tuned on natural language inference (NLI) datasets to perform zero-shot RE by selecting the entity-filled relation template which is mostly entailed by the test sentence. Lu et al. (2022) frame RE as a summarization task and leverage generative models to summarize the relation between target entities in the sentence. Other lowresource RE methods augment prompt-tuning by using logical rules to create complex prompts from sub-prompts (Han et al., 2022) and injecting knowledge about entity types using learnable virtual tokens (Chen et al., 2022). Our current work uses several relation templates designed in these studies. LLMs for Relation Extraction. In terms of exploring the RE capabilities of LLMs, most previous work has focused on investigating biomedical RE. Jimenez Gutierrez et al. (2022) report that LLMs underperform standard small LMs fine-tuning in the few-shot setting on a comprehensive set of biomedical RE datasets and show evidence that the poor handling of the none-of-the-above (NoTA) relation category is one of the major culprits. Furthermore, although a few RE-like tasks were included in Super Natural Instruction (Wang et al., 2022), these tasks constitute about 0.5% of the dataset and none of them were selected for model evaluation. ## 3 Methodology In this section, we formally define the relation extraction problem and describe our multi-choice QA approach for the problem in detail. ## 3.1 Problem Statement Relation extraction (RE) aims to extract the relationship between two given entities based on a specific sentence. More concretely, one relation example contains a sentence S as well as a head entity Eh and a tail entity Et within S. Given a relation example (S, Eh, Et), models are required to identify the relation between Eh and Et expressed in the S from a set of pre-defined relation types. ## 3.2 Relation Templates Recent low-resource RE approaches (Sainz et al., 2021; Lu et al., 2022; Han et al., 2022) utilize relation-entailed templates as label verbalization (e.g., "per:city_of_birth" -> "{Eh} was born in the city {Et}"). As illustrated in Fig. 2 (left), the current SoTA method for low-resource RE (Sainz et al., 2021) utilizes manually constructed relation templates to reformulate the RE task as a natural language inference (NLI) task. To ensure a fair comparison, we utilize the same templates developed in previous studies (Sainz et al., 2021; Lu et al., 2022) to generate answer options within our QA4RE framework. Furthermore, in Sec. 6.2 we discuss the possibility of directly applying the NLI formulation for RE in LLMs. ## 3.3 Qa4Re Framework As shown in Fig. 2 (right), we reformulate the relation extraction task as a multi-choice QA problem. By integrating the given head and tail RE entities (Eh and Et) into the relation templates and using them as multiple-choice options, LLMs are able to leverage extensive QA instruction fine-tuning which has dramatically improved recent models. Additionally, our method allows LLM to generate only an answer index instead of the verbalized relation as in previous work (Jimenez Gutierrez et al., 2022), also shown in Fig. 2 (center). Type-Constrained Answer Construction. To transform RE into a multiple-choice question, for a given relation example (S, Eh, Et), we utilize sentence S as the context in standard QA and create options composed of pre-defined templates filled with Eh and Et entities. To fairly compare with previous work, we apply type constraints (when applicable) to eliminate options for relation types that are not compatible with the entity types of the head and tail entities. For instance, if the type of Eh is PERSON, the relation "org:country_of_headquarters" would be deemed invalid given that a person does not have headquarters. ## 4 Experiment Setup 4.1 Datasets We evaluate our methods on four RE datasets: (1) TACRED (Zhang et al., 2017), (2) RETACRED (Stoica et al., 2021), (3) TACREV (Alt et al., 2020), and (4) SemEval 2010 Task 8 (SemEval for brevity) (Hendrickx et al., 2010). Following previous work (Sainz et al., 2021; Lu et al., 2022; Han et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2022), we report the micro averaged F1 with the none-of-the-above relation excluded. To keep OpenAI API costs under control, we randomly sample 1,000 examples from each dataset's test split as our test set. ## 4.2 Baselines Zero-Shot. For small LM-based models, we evaluate two low-resource SoTA RE baselines: (1) As shown in Fig. 2 (left), NLI (Sainz et al., 2021) reformulates RE as a natural language inference task and leverages several LMs fine-tuned on the MNLI dataset (Williams et al., 2018): BARTLarge (Lewis et al., 2020), RoBERTa-Large (Liu et al., 2019), and DeBERTa-XLarge (He et al., 2021). This method holds the SoTA performance on both zero and few-shot RE. (2) Besides, SuRE (Lu et al., 2022) frames RE as a summarization task and utilizes generative LMs such as BART-Large (Lewis et al., 2020) and PEGASUSLarge (Zhang et al., 2020), achieving competitive results in few-shot and fully-supervised settings. For the NLI approach (Sainz et al., 2021), we report performance using their own templates on TACRED and TACREV. As this method does not have templates for RETACRED and SemEval, we use the templates from the follow-up work, SuRE (Lu et al., 2022), on these two datasets instead. All the zero-shot methods, including those on LLMs, apply entity type constraints to reduce the relation label space. Since SemEval does not provide entity types, the above methods use all possible relations in every instance as the label space. Few-Shot. Though our main experiments focus on zero-shot RE, we further explore our method's capabilities by comparing their few-shot performance against several competitive small LM-based methods on the TACRED dataset. The NLI baseline can be easily extended to the few-shot setting.4 Furthermore, we add (1) standard Fine-Tuning (Jimenez Gutierrez et al., 2022), (2) PTR (Han et al., 2022) using prompt-tuning with logical rules, and (3) KnowPrompt (Chen et al., 2022) using entity type knowledge via learning virtual tokens, all of which are initialized with RoBERTa-Large (Liu et al., 2019). For hyperparameter details, please refer to Appendix B.1. ## 4.3 Qa4Re Implementation Details Our QA4RE framework utilizes the same templates and type constraints developed by prior work (Sainz et al., 2021; Lu et al., 2022). In particular, we use SuRE (Lu et al., 2022) templates for our QA4RE approach on all 4 datasets since NLI (Sainz et al., 2021) templates were only designed for TACRED. For prompt engineering, we explore prompt formats and task instructions for vanilla RE and QA4RE in pilot experiments, using text-davinci-002 on a 250-example subset of the TACRED dev set. We then use the same task instructions and prompt format for all four datasets and LLMs. Please refer to Appendix B.2 and B.3 for prompt format and relation verbalization template details, respectively. | Methods | TACRED | RETACRED | TACREV | SemEval | Avg. | | | | | | | | | | |--------------------------------|----------|--------------|----------|-----------|--------------|------|------|-------------|------|------|--------------|-------------|------|------| | P | R | F1 | P | R | F1 | P | R | F1 | P | R | F1 | F1 | | | | Baselines NLIBART | 42.6 | 65.0 | 51.4 | 59.5 | 34.9 | 44.0 | 44.0 | 74.6 | 55.3 | 21.6 | 23.7 | 22.6 | 43.3 | | | NLIRoBERTa | 37.1 | 76.9 | 50.1 | 52.3 | 67.0 | 58.7 | 37.1 | 83.6 | 51.4 | 17.6 | 20.9 | 19.1 | 44.8 | | | NLIDeBERTa | 42.9 | 76.9 | 55.1 | 71.7 | 58.3 | 64.3 | 43.3 | 84.6 | 57.2 | 22.0 | 25.7 | 23.7 | 50.1 | | | SuREBART | 13.1 | 45.7 | 20.4 | 17.9 | 34.6 | 23.6 | 14.1 | 52.3 | 22.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 16.5 | | | SuREPEGASUS | 13.8 | 51.7 | 21.8 | 16.6 | 34.6 | 22.4 | 13.5 | 54.1 | 21.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 16.4 | | | GPT-3.5 Series ChatGPT Vanilla | 32.1 | 74.8 | 44.9 | 45.4 | 61.3 | 52.1 | 30.3 | 79.6 | 43.9 | 18.2 | 20.8 | 19.4 | 40.1 | | | QA4RE 32.8 | 68.0 | 44.2 (−0.7) | 48.3 | 76.8 | 59.3 (+7.2) | 34.7 | 79.1 | 48.2 (+4.3) | 29.9 | 35.2 | 32.3 (+12.9) | 46.0 (+5.9) | | | | code-002 | Vanilla | 27.2 | 70.1 | 39.2 | 42.7 | 70.4 | 53.1 | 27.5 | 77.7 | 40.6 | 27.2 | 25.6 | 26.4 | 39.8 | | QA4RE 37.7 | 65.4 | 47.8 (+8.6) | 48.0 | 74.0 | 58.2 (+5.1) | 31.7 | 65.5 | 42.7 (+2.1) | 25.2 | 29.2 | 27.0 (+0.6) | 43.9 (+4.1) | | | | text-002 | Vanilla | 31.2 | 73.1 | 43.7 | 44.1 | 76.3 | 55.9 | 30.2 | 76.8 | 43.3 | 31.4 | 28.8 | 30.1 | 43.2 | | QA4RE 35.6 | 68.4 | 46.8 (+3.1) | 46.4 | 72.4 | 56.5 (+0.6) | 35.7 | 76.8 | 48.8 (+5.4) | 29.4 | 34.3 | 31.6 (+1.5) | 45.9 (+2.7) | | | | text-003 | Vanilla | 36.9 | 68.8 | 48.1 | 49.7 | 62.2 | 55.3 | 38.2 | 76.8 | 51.0 | 33.2 | 39.3 | 36.0 | 47.6 | | QA4RE 47.7 | 78.6 | 59.4 (+11.3) | 56.2 | 67.2 | 61.2 (+5.9) | 46.0 | 83.6 | 59.4 (+8.4) | 41.7 | 45.0 | 43.3 (+7.3) | 55.8 (+8.2) | | | | FLAN-T5 Series XLarge Vanilla | 51.6 | 49.1 | 50.3 | 54.3 | 40.3 | 46.3 | 56.0 | 59.1 | 57.5 | 35.6 | 29.8 | 32.4 | 46.6 | | | QA4RE 40.0 | 78.2 | 53.0 (+2.7) | 57.1 | 79.7 | 66.5 (+20.2) | 40.7 | 85.9 | 55.3 (−2.2) | 45.1 | 40.1 | 42.5 (+10.1) | 54.3 (+7.7) | | | | XXLarge | Vanilla | 52.1 | 47.9 | 49.9 | 56.6 | 54.0 | 55.2 | 52.6 | 50.9 | 51.7 | 29.6 | 28.8 | 29.2 | 46.5 | | QA4RE 40.6 | 82.9 | 54.5 (+4.6) | 56.6 | 82.9 | 67.3 (+12.1) | 39.6 | 86.4 | 54.3 (+2.6) | 41.0 | 47.8 | 44.1 (+14.9) | 55.1 (+8.6) | | | To systematically compare our QA4RE framework with the vanilla RE formulation, we evaluate them on two series of LLMs, resulting in seven models in total. In GPT-3.5 series LLMs, for LLMs accessible via Text Completion API (code-davinci002, text-davinci-002, and text-davinci-003), we follow previous work (Jimenez Gutierrez et al., 2022) and use the logit bias option to constrain token generation to relation labels for vanilla RE and option indices for QA4RE. Due to the fewer available control options for LLMs in Chat Completion API (gpt-3.5-turbo-0301), we only set the temperature as 0 and use the default system prompt. We also examine open-sourced FLAN-T5 series LLMs (Chung et al., 2022) that are trained on a mixture of tasks (Sanh et al., 2022; Wei et al., 2022a; Wang et al., 2022). The 1,836 tasks utilized in training include less than 0.5% of RE-similar tasks, making FLAN-T5 series LLMs the ideal models for verifying our hypothesis. Specifically, we use XLarge (3B) and XXLarge (11B) models and adopt the same prompts and greedy decoding strategy as GPT-3.5 series LLMs to ensure a fair comparison. ## 5 Results 5.1 Zero-Shot Results Our main experimental results on four relation extraction datasets can be found in Tab. 1. We have the following observations from our results: (1) By reformulating RE as QA, our framework improves upon the vanilla RE formulation on all the LLMs and most datasets, making them much stronger zero-shot relation extractors. In particular, text-davinci-003 and FLAN-T5 XL and XXL are able to outperform the prior SoTA, NLIDeBERTa, by a large margin. One thing worth noting is that QA4RE brings the largest gain on the best LLM in each series (text-davinci-003 and FLAN-T5 XXL), showing that stronger LLMs may benefit more from our framework. (2) The two FLAN-T5 LLMs in Tab. 1 benefit significantly from our QA4RE framework. Moreover, consistent and substantial improvements can also be observed in other FLAN-T5 models and the full test set, as discussed in Sec. 6.3 and Appendix C. Considering that relation extraction tasks account for less than 0.5% of the instruction tasks used to train FLAN-T5 models, these findings strongly support our hypothesis that aligning underrepresented tasks with more common instruction-tuning tasks, such as QA, unlocks LLMs' ability to solve low-frequency tasks. (3) The SemEval dataset poses a significant challenge for all baselines given its lack of typeconstraints, particularly for SuRE (Lu et al., 2022). With such a large search space, generative LMs without fine-tuning tend to summarize all examples into NoTA relation, resulting in its systematic failure. It should be noted that without type constraints, the RE problem becomes a 19-choice question answering task in our QA4RE framework. Despite this, our method still demonstrates substantial improvements for LLMs, particularly for text-davinci-003 and FLAN-T5 XXL. ## 5.2 Robustness To Verbalization Templates For our experiments, we utilize manually written relation templates from previous work (Sainz et al., 2021; Lu et al., 2022). However, Lu et al. (2022) note that model performance may vary significantly with template design. Thus, to investigate the robustness of models to different templates, thorough experiments are conducted with four different templates, described in detail in Appendix B.3, across all zero-shot methods on the TACRED dataset. Tab. 2 shows results comparing these four templates on all methods used in our main experiments, including vanilla RE as a template-free reference. NLIBART 51.4 49.7 4.4 42.0 NLIRoBERTa 50.1 47.1 19.6 35.8 NLIDeBERTa 55.0 49.4 17.1 36.6 SuREBART 19.9 20.4 2.1 10.1 SuREPEGASUS 20.5 21.8 6.2 19.3 text-003 Vanilla 48.1 QA4RE **56.6 59.4 48.7 50.1** Methods TEMP1 TEMP2 TEMP3 TEMP4 Table 2: F1 score on TACRED with four templates (%). The best result using each template is marked in bold. text-003 refers to text-davinci-003. From Tab. 2, we observe the following: (1) Our method consistently outperforms small LM baselines and the vanilla RE framework, regardless of the template. It is worth noting that even with templates that are constructed with label name information only and no expert knowledge (TEMP3 and TEMP4), our QA framework still performs better than vanilla RE, indicating the effectiveness and consistency of our QA framework. (2) NLI and SuRE performance is largely template dependent. When using carefully crafted highquality templates (TEMP1 and TEMP2), several LM-based NLI methods outperform text-davinci003 with vanilla RE. However, when equipped with templates created without expert knowledge (TEMP3 and TEMP4), the performance of both NLI and SuRE deteriorates dramatically. In contrast, QA4RE is more robust to variation in verbalization templates, reducing trial-and-error development efforts as well as making it more readily transferred to settings where obtaining quality templates may be limited due to the high cost of expert annotations, such as the biomedical or financial domains. ## 5.3 None-Of-The-Above Relation Evaluation The none-of-the-above (NoTA) relation (Gao et al., 2019; Sabo et al., 2021; Jimenez Gutierrez et al., 2022) is defined as the case where no relation of interest exists between the given entities. Jimenez Gutierrez et al. (2022) demonstrate that the earlier inferior performance of LLMs on RE tasks can be largely attributed to their inability to handle the NoTA relation. To evaluate the efficacy of zero-shot methods on NoTA relation, following previous work (Fei and Liu, 2016; Shu et al., 2017; Sainz et al., 2021), we apply NoTA-included macro F1 metric as well as micro and macro P vs. N (all positive relations vs. NoTA relation as binary classification) F1 metrics. | Methods | Macro F1 | Micro P vs. N | Macro P vs. N | | |-------------|------------|-----------------|-----------------|------| | NLIBART | 49.8 | 75.9 | 71.1 | | | NLIRoBERTa | 43.7 | 68.5 | 65.8 | | | NLIDeBERTa | 55.0 | 75.6 | 72.3 | | | SuREBART | 15.5 | 35.2 | 35.0 | | | SuREPEGASUS | 14.9 | 32.4 | 31.5 | | | text-003 | Vanilla | 45.3 | 72.8 | 69.5 | | QA4RE | 58.9 | 78.4 | 74.8 | | From Tab. 3, we observe that, when enhanced by our QA framework, text-davinci-003 achieves significant improvement in NoTA-included metrics, outperforming the small LM-based NLI methods. This further demonstrates the effectiveness of our framework, even in handling the challenging NoTA relation. It is worth noting that these superior results are achieved by simply adding an entity-filled NoTA relation template as an answer option for QA, without the additional thresholding requirements of previous methods (Sainz et al., 2021; Lu et al., 2022). This eliminates the need for additional hyperparameter searching, which can be tricky for low-resource settings. ## 5.4 Few-Shot Results While zero-shot RE is our main focus, we also evaluate our method under the few-shot setting. Results are shown in Tab. 4. Due to budget limitations, we restrict our case study to the 4-shot scenario (i.e., 4 labeled examples per relation) with the best-performing LLM in the zero-shot setting (text-davinci-003). After determining the optimal number of in-context examples searched on the dev set, we randomly select the examples with the same entity type constraints from the given train set. Interestingly, vanilla RE is unable to obtain any improvement from labeled examples, suggesting that it is also limited in the few-shot setting. The limited performance shown by vanilla RE indicates that few-shot demonstrations might bias the model towards incorrect relations in the context rather than helping it perform the task more accurately. | Methods | K=0 | K=4 | K=8 | K=16 | K=32 | |------------------|-------|-------|-------|--------|--------| | Fine-Tuning | - | 9.0 | 21.2 | 29.3 | 33.9 | | PTR | - | 26.8 | 30.0 | 32.9 | 36.8 | | KnowPrompt | - | 30.2 | 33.7 | 34.9 | 35.0 | | NLIDeBERTa-TEMP1 | 55.0 | 64.2 | 64.7 | 58.7 | 65.7 | | NLIDeBERTa-TEMP2 | 49.4 | 51.2 | 47.3 | 50.5 | 48.1 | | Vanilla | 48.1 | 46.2 | - | | | | QA4RE | 59.4 | 62.0 | - | | | Even employing our QA4RE framework, the few-shot text-davinci-003 does not outperform the DeBERTa-based NLI method (Sainz et al., 2021) when using their own templates (TEMP1). However, fine-tuning the NLI model on RE data can be brittle even with careful hyperparameter tuning, as evidenced by the unstable gains seen as more data is added for both TEMP1 and TEMP2. Furthermore, we find that few-shot NLI results when using TEMP2 drop substantially from TEMP1, suggesting that this approach also lacks robustness to templates in the few-shot setting. Thus, considering that our QA approach enables LLMs to obtain few-shot improvements over zero-shot results using random in-context learning example selection, obtains only around 2% lower performance than the best NLI model, and is robust to different template designs, our approach is competitive on few-shot RE and has the potential to achieve even stronger performance with more exploration. We leave further investigation on how to improve LLMs for few-shot RE to future work.   Figure 3: The same example and templates as Fig. 2 but using templates for relation explanations. ## 6 Discussions 6.1 Are Relation Templates All Llms Need? We conduct an ablation study to better understand how relation templates contribute to the performance improvement obtained by QA4RE. As illustrated in Fig. 3, we fill the relation verbalization templates with markers *Entity 1* and *Entity 2* as relation explanations, thereby presenting the expert knowledge from the templates to the LLM. Using the same templates and type constraints, we compare this framework (termed Vanilla+TEMP) with vanilla RE and QA4RE on the TACRED dataset and GPT-3.5 series LLMs. As shown in Tab. 5, introducing relation explanations using the same templates does not result in consistent or significant performance improvement. In fact, adding extra information to the task instruction might make it more challenging for the LLM to understand the task. In contrast, using our QA4RE framework, we do not need to separately specify the entities of interest or relation explanations; they are both naturally embedded in the answer options. These ablation results show that the gains from QA4RE mainly come from the QA reformulation, not simply from the relation explanations/templates. ## 6.2 Qa4Re Vs. Nli4Re Given the strong performance obtained by small LMs using the NLI reformulation of RE, we leverage this same formulation (Sainz et al., 2021) for LLMs (termed NLI4RE).5 More concretely, for each example, we use the LLM to predict whether 5We follow the NLI format from ANLI (Wang et al., 2022). | Methods | P | R | F1 | ∆F1 | | |----------------|----------------|------|------|-------|-------| | Vanilla | 27.2 | 70.1 | 39.2 | - | | | code-002 | Vanilla + TEMP | 27.5 | 71.8 | 39.7 | +0.5 | | QA4RE | 37.7 | 65.4 | 47.8 | +8.6 | | | Vanilla | 31.2 | 73.1 | 43.7 | - | | | text-002 | Vanilla + TEMP | 26.8 | 77.8 | 39.8 | −3.9 | | QA4RE | 35.6 | 68.4 | 46.8 | +3.1 | | | Vanilla | 36.9 | 68.8 | 48.1 | - | | | Vanilla + TEMP | 36.9 | 76.5 | 49.8 | +1.7 | | | text-003 | QA4RE | 47.7 | 78.6 | 59.4 | +11.3 | | Formulation | RED | RERED | REV | Eval | Avg. | |---------------|-------|---------|-------|--------|--------| | Vanilla | 48.1 | 55.3 | 51.0 | 36.0 | 47.6 | | NLI4RE | 41.7 | 36.8 | 39.2 | 22.4 | 35.0 | | QA4RE | 59.4 | 61.2 | 59.4 | 43.3 | 55.8 | the given sentence (the premise) entails each answer option from the QA4RE formulation (the hypothesis). We allow the LLM to generate entailment, *neutral*, or *contradiction* for each sentencerelation pair. If the maximum probability of entailment among all possible positive relations is below the threshold of 0.5, the example will be classified as NoTA, as done by Sainz et al. (2021). Table 6: F1 of text-davinci-003 with different task formulations (%). RED, RERED, REV, and Eval are short for TACRED, RETACRED, TACREV, and SemEval datasets, respectively. As shown in Tab. 6, when using the NLI formulation, text-davinci-003 surprisingly underperforms the vanilla RE formulation. The reason for its poor performance is two-fold: (1) The heuristically predefined threshold 0.5 is not ideal for LLMs and thus many positive predictions are classified as NoTA. However, it is also difficult to find a good threshold under the zero-shot setting. (2) Under NLI4RE, unlike vanilla RE or QA4RE, an LLM is not seeing the full relation space but assigning probabilities to each candidate hypothesis individually. The final prediction is thus more sensitive to the LLM's bias over different relations. NLI4RE also requires multiple inference runs for each relation example to evaluate all the candidate relations, incurring a significantly higher cost. ## 6.3 Qa4Re & Model Size To verify the effectiveness and transferability of our QA4RE framework on smaller instruction-tuned models, we further evaluate the FLAN-T5 Small (80M), Base (250M), and Large (780M) on the full test set over four RE datasets. Tab. 7 shows our QA4RE framework can still bring considerable gains to instruction-tuned models with various sizes, even for the smallest one (80M). This demonstrates the effectiveness of QA4RE is transferable across various model sizes from 80M to 175B, considering the consistent improvements of QA4RE on several GPT-3.5 models. In the FLAN-T5 series, larger models benefit more from our framework. However, we note that this trend does not continue when scaling up to much larger GPT-3.5 models. In fact, all GPT3.5 models except for text-davinci-003 benefit less from QA4RE than FLAN-T5 models. The smaller improvements of QA4RE on these models make their overall RE performance only comparable with models that are approximately 20 and 50 times smaller. This indicates that the wide variety of alignment strategies used by the GPT-3.5 series models discussed in Sec. 2 might not be universally more effective than standard instruction-tuning for improving model generalization on low-incidence tasks even when aligned to high incidence ones. Nevertheless, the strong improvement observed in the strongest models tested, text-davinci-003 and FLAN-T5-XXL, demonstrates the potential for QA4RE's effectiveness to continue as models become even more capable in the future. | LMs | Model Size | Avg. F1 | | | |-------------------------|--------------|-----------|------|------| | Vanilla | QA4RE | ∆ | | | | GPT-3.5 Series text-001 | 175B | 22.3 | 14.9 | −7.4 | | code-002 | 175B | 39.8 | 43.9 | +4.1 | | text-002 | 175B | 43.2 | 45.9 | +2.7 | | text-003 | 175B | 47.6 | 55.8 | +8.2 | | FLAN-T5 Series Small | 80M | 19.5 | 25.0 | +5.6 | | Base | 250M | 22.3 | 26.4 | +4.2 | | Large | 780M | 34.8 | 41.8 | +7.0 | | XLarge | 3B | 46.6 | 54.3 | +7.7 | | XXLarge | 11B | 46.5 | 55.1 | +8.6 | ## 7 Conclusions And Future Work In this work, we first show that even the most recent instruction-tuned LLMs underperform fine-tuned small LMs on the relation extraction (RE) task. To address this limitation, we reformulate RE into multiple-choice question answering (QA) with the purpose of leveraging a task that is widely covered in instruction-tuning datasets like QA, instead of RE, which is barely present in these datasets. Comprehensive experiments demonstrate that our QA4RE framework unlocks the power of LLMs as zero-shot relation extractors, especially for two recent LLMs (text-davinci-003 and FLAN-T5 XXL). We also conduct thorough experiments to explore the robustness and few-shot effectiveness of our method as well as study in what LLM training scenarios it is most effective. In future work, we hope to explore additional underrepresented tasks in instruction-tuning that might be challenging for LLMs and could be successfully aligned with more widely adopted instruction-tuning tasks like QA. Additionally, we plan to continue exploring this line of work by leveraging our QA4RE framework for other LLMs such as the OPT-series (Zhang et al., 2022; Iyer et al., 2022) and PaLM (Chowdhery et al., 2022), which are not included in this work due to the limited computational resources and/or access. ## 8 Limitations Even though our method helps unleash the power of six recent strong LLMs as zero-shot relation extractors, earlier LLMs without strong instruction tuning such as text-davinci-001 saw no improvements from our framework. Additionally, although we carry out comprehensive experiments on the zero-shot RE setting, our few-shot exploration is more limited. It is still unclear from our investigation whether including even more training examples can improve LLM's RE performance and to what extent the same trends seen across GPT3 models in the zero-shot setting hold steady in the few-shot setting. We leave answering these questions for future work. ## 9 Ethics Statement In this work, we propose a method to improve LLM performance on the important and fundamental task of relation extraction. We do not anticipate any ethical issues regarding the topics of this research. ## Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Renze Lou, colleagues from the OSU NLP group, and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback. The authors would also like to thank Keming Lu for discussions and guidance on reproducing SuRE. This research was supported in part by NSF OAC 2112606, NIH R01LM014199, and Ohio Supercomputer Center (Center, 1987). ## References Christoph Alt, Aleksandra Gabryszak, and Leonhard Hennig. 2020. TACRED revisited: A thorough evaluation of the TACRED relation extraction task. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1558– 1569, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared 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 M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher 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 Neural Information Processing Systems 33:* Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 6-12, 2020, virtual. Ohio Supercomputer Center. 1987. Ohio supercomputer center. Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harrison Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, Alex Ray, Raul Puri, Gretchen Krueger, Michael Petrov, Heidy Khlaaf, Girish Sastry, Pamela Mishkin, Brooke Chan, Scott Gray, Nick Ryder, Mikhail Pavlov, Alethea Power, Lukasz Kaiser, Mohammad Bavarian, Clemens Winter, Philippe Tillet, Felipe Petroski Such, Dave Cummings, Matthias Plappert, Fotios Chantzis, Elizabeth Barnes, Ariel Herbert-Voss, William Hebgen Guss, Alex Nichol, Alex Paino, Nikolas Tezak, Jie Tang, Igor Babuschkin, Suchir Balaji, Shantanu Jain, William Saunders, Christopher Hesse, Andrew N. Carr, Jan Leike, Joshua Achiam, Vedant Misra, Evan Morikawa, Alec Radford, Matthew Knight, Miles Brundage, Mira Murati, Katie Mayer, Peter Welinder, Bob McGrew, Dario Amodei, Sam McCandlish, Ilya Sutskever, and Wojciech Zaremba. 2021. Evaluating large language models trained on code. *CoRR*, abs/2107.03374. Xiang Chen, Ningyu Zhang, Xin Xie, Shumin Deng, Yunzhi Yao, Chuanqi Tan, Fei Huang, Luo Si, and Huajun Chen. 2022. Knowprompt: Knowledgeaware prompt-tuning with synergistic optimization for relation extraction. In WWW '22: The ACM Web Conference 2022, Virtual Event, Lyon, France, April 25 - 29, 2022, pages 2778–2788. ACM. 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. *CoRR*, abs/2204.02311. Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Eric Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, Albert Webson, Shixiang Shane Gu, Zhuyun Dai, Mirac Suzgun, Xinyun Chen, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Gaurav Mishra, Adams Yu, Vincent Y. Zhao, Yanping Huang, Andrew M. Dai, Hongkun Yu, Slav Petrov, Ed H. Chi, Jeff Dean, Jacob Devlin, Adam Roberts, Denny Zhou, Quoc V. Le, and Jason Wei. 2022. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. CoRR, abs/2210.11416. Geli Fei and Bing Liu. 2016. Breaking the closed world assumption in text classification. In NAACL HLT 2016, The 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, San Diego California, USA, June 12-17, 2016, pages 506–514. The Association for Computational Linguistics. Hao Fu, Yao; Peng and Tushar Khot. 2022. How does gpt obtain its ability? tracing emergent abilities of language models to their sources. *Yao Fu's Notion*. Tianyu Gao, Xu Han, Hao Zhu, Zhiyuan Liu, Peng Li, Maosong Sun, and Jie Zhou. 2019. Fewrel 2.0: Towards more challenging few-shot relation classification. 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 6249– 6254. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xu Han, Weilin Zhao, Ning Ding, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2022. Ptr: Prompt tuning with rules for text classification. *AI Open*, 3:182–192. 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. Iris Hendrickx, Su Nam Kim, Zornitsa Kozareva, Preslav Nakov, Diarmuid Ó Séaghdha, Sebastian Padó, Marco Pennacchiotti, Lorenza Romano, and Stan Szpakowicz. 2010. SemEval-2010 task 8: Multiway classification of semantic relations between pairs of nominals. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, pages 33–38, Uppsala, Sweden. Association for Computational Linguistics. Srinivasan Iyer, Xi Victoria Lin, Ramakanth Pasunuru, Todor Mihaylov, Daniel Simig, Ping Yu, Kurt Shuster, Tianlu Wang, Qing Liu, Punit Singh Koura, Xian Li, Brian O'Horo, Gabriel Pereyra, Jeff Wang, Christopher Dewan, Asli Celikyilmaz, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Ves Stoyanov. 2022. OPT-IML: scaling language model instruction meta learning through the lens of generalization. *CoRR*, abs/2212.12017. Bernal Jimenez Gutierrez, Nikolas McNeal, Clayton Washington, You Chen, Lang Li, Huan Sun, and Yu Su. 2022. Thinking about GPT-3 in-context learning for biomedical IE? think again. In Findings of EMNLP, pages 4497–4512, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. 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, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 7871–7880. Association for Computational Linguistics. 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 R'e, Diana Acosta-Navas, Drew A. Hudson, E. Zelikman, Esin Durmus, Faisal Ladhak, Frieda Rong, Hongyu Ren, Huaxiu Yao, Jue Wang, Keshav Santhanam, Laurel J. Orr, Lucia Zheng, Mert Yuksekgonul, Mirac Suzgun, Nathan S. Kim, Neel Guha, Niladri S. Chatterji, O. Khattab, Peter Henderson, Qian Huang, Ryan Chi, Sang Michael Xie, Shibani Santurkar, Surya Ganguli, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Thomas F. Icard, Tianyi Zhang, Vishrav Chaudhary, William Wang, Xuechen Li, Yifan Mai, Yuhui Zhang, and Yuta Koreeda. 2022. Holistic evaluation of language models. *ArXiv*, abs/2211.09110. Jiachang Liu, Dinghan Shen, Yizhe Zhang, Bill Dolan, Lawrence Carin, and Weizhu Chen. 2022. What makes good in-context examples for gpt-3? In Proceedings of Deep Learning Inside Out: The 3rd Workshop on Knowledge Extraction and Integration for Deep Learning Architectures, DeeLIO@ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland and Online, May 27, 2022, pages 100–114. 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. Keming Lu, I-Hung Hsu, Wenxuan Zhou, Mingyu Derek Ma, and Muhao Chen. 2022. Summarization as indirect supervision for relation extraction. In *Findings of EMNLP*, pages 6575–6594, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. Sewon Min, Mike Lewis, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2022a. Noisy channel language model prompting for few-shot text classification. 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 5316–5330. Association for Computational Linguistics. Sewon Min, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2022b. MetaICL: Learning to learn in context. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2791–2809, Seattle, United States. 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 F. Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. *CoRR*, abs/2203.02155. Ethan Perez, Douwe Kiela, and Kyunghyun Cho. 2021. True Few-Shot Learning with Language Models. Ofer Sabo, Yanai Elazar, Yoav Goldberg, and Ido Dagan. 2021. Revisiting few-shot relation classification: Evaluation data and classification schemes. *Trans.* Assoc. Comput. Linguistics, 9:691–706. Oscar Sainz, Oier Lopez de Lacalle, Gorka Labaka, Ander Barrena, and Eneko Agirre. 2021. Label verbalization and entailment for effective zero and few-shot relation extraction. In *Proceedings of EMNLP*, pages 1199–1212, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Victor Sanh, Albert Webson, Colin Raffel, Stephen Bach, Lintang Sutawika, Zaid Alyafeai, Antoine Chaffin, Arnaud Stiegler, Arun Raja, Manan Dey, M Saiful Bari, Canwen Xu, Urmish Thakker, Shanya Sharma Sharma, Eliza Szczechla, Taewoon Kim, Gunjan Chhablani, Nihal V. Nayak, Debajyoti Datta, Jonathan Chang, Mike Tian-Jian Jiang, Han Wang, Matteo Manica, Sheng Shen, Zheng Xin Yong, Harshit Pandey, Rachel Bawden, Thomas Wang, Trishala Neeraj, Jos Rozen, Abheesht Sharma, Andrea Santilli, Thibault Févry, Jason Alan Fries, Ryan Teehan, Teven Le Scao, Stella Biderman, Leo Gao, Thomas Wolf, and Alexander M. Rush. 2022. Multitask prompted training enables zero-shot task generalization. In The Tenth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2022, Virtual Event, April 25-29, 2022. OpenReview.net. Lei Shu, Hu Xu, and Bing Liu. 2017. DOC: deep open classification of text documents. In *Proceedings of* the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2017, Copenhagen, Denmark, September 9-11, 2017, pages 2911– 2916. Association for Computational Linguistics. George Stoica, Emmanouil Antonios Platanios, and Barnabás Póczos. 2021. Re-tacred: Addressing shortcomings of the TACRED dataset. 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 13843–13850. AAAI Press. Yizhong Wang, Swaroop Mishra, Pegah Alipoormolabashi, Yeganeh Kordi, Amirreza Mirzaei, Anjana Arunkumar, Arjun Ashok, Arut Selvan Dhanasekaran, Atharva Naik, David Stap, et al. 2022. Super-naturalinstructions:generalization via declarative instructions on 1600+ tasks. In *EMNLP*. Jason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Y. Zhao, Kelvin Guu, Adams Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, Andrew M. Dai, and Quoc V. Le. 2022a. Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners. In The Tenth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2022, Virtual Event, April 25-29, 2022. OpenReview.net. Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Ed H. Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022b. Chain of thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. *CoRR*, abs/2201.11903. Adina Williams, Nikita Nangia, and Samuel Bowman. 2018. A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sentence understanding through inference. 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 1112–1122. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jingqing Zhang, Yao Zhao, Mohammad Saleh, and Peter Liu. 2020. PEGASUS: Pre-training with extracted gap-sentences for abstractive summarization. In *Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on* Machine Learning, volume 119 of *Proceedings of* Machine Learning Research, pages 11328–11339. PMLR. Susan Zhang, Stephen Roller, Naman Goyal, Mikel Artetxe, Moya Chen, Shuohui Chen, Christopher Dewan, Mona T. Diab, Xian Li, Xi Victoria Lin, Todor Mihaylov, Myle Ott, Sam Shleifer, Kurt Shuster, Daniel Simig, Punit Singh Koura, Anjali Sridhar, Tianlu Wang, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2022. OPT: open pre-trained transformer language models. *CoRR*, abs/2205.01068. Yuhao Zhang, Victor Zhong, Danqi Chen, Gabor Angeli, and Christopher D. Manning. 2017. Position-aware attention and supervised data improve slot filling. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2017, Copenhagen, Denmark, September 9-11, 2017, pages 35–45. Association for Computational Linguistics. ## A Instruction Dataset Portion | #Tasks | %RE | %QA | | |-------------------------------------|-------|-------|------| | T0 (Sanh et al., 2022) | 62 | 0 | 27.4 | | FLAN (Wei et al., 2022a) | 62 | 0 | 21 | | MetaICL (Min et al., 2022b) | 142 | 0 | 28.9 | | NaturalInstruct (Wang et al., 2022) | 1731 | <0.5 | >12 | Table 9: Popular instruction tuning datasets and proportion of RE and QA tasks in each. As shown in Tab. 9, there is no RE task in T0 (Sanh et al., 2022), FLAN (Wei et al., 2022a), and MetaICL (Min et al., 2022b) instruction tuning datasets. Even in the largest available NaturalInstruct (Wang et al., 2022), RE tasks consist of only less than 0.5% of the total tasks. By contrast, QA is the most popular task format in all instruction tuning datasets. These observations indicate the low incidence of RE tasks and the dominance of QA tasks in datasets used for instruction tuning. ## B Experimental Details B.1 Hyperparameters For Few-Shot Methods In the few-shot setting, for each K, we randomly sample 3 times to obtain different training subsets, each of which will be used as in-context demonstrations for LLMs or used to train the small language models in baselines. Report results are averaged over the three subsets. To avoid over-estimating few-shot performance with too many dev examples (Perez et al., 2021), we use 100 randomly selected examples of dev set for all the hyperparameter searching. For LLMs, we use the dev set to search for the optimal number of in-context examples as a hyperparameter from {1, 2, 5}. Then we randomly select the same type-constrained in-context examples from the given train set. For all small LM-based baselines, we use their publicly available code and hyper-parameters for training. According to the original papers of NLI (Sainz et al., 2021) and SuRE (Lu et al., 2022), we use the checkpoints available online and hyperparameters reported for model training. Unfortunately, we were unable to reproduce SuRE results with default hyperparameters. For standard FineTuning (Jimenez Gutierrez et al., 2022), PTR (Han et al., 2022), and KnowPrompt (Chen et al., 2022), we perform a grid search over hyperparameters on dev with the range shown in Tab. 10. We use 8 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti and 2 NVIDIA RTX A6000 to conduct all the experiments. The total GPU hours used and the cost for OpenAI API are listed in Tab. 11. | Hyperparameter | Search Space | |------------------|----------------| | Learning Rate 1: | {1e−5, 3e−5} | | Weight Decay: | {0.01, 0.001} | | Learning Rate 2: | {5e−5, 2e−4} | Table 10: Hyperparameters used for grid search of fewshot methods. Learning Rate 2 is used for training new tokens in PTR (Han et al., 2022) and virtual tokens in KnowPrompt (Chen et al., 2022). | Num of Params | Total GPU | Total | | |-----------------|-------------|---------|------| | (Millions) | Hours | Cost | | | RoBERTa-Large | 354 | 284 | - | | DeBERTa-XLarge | 900 | 14 | - | | BART-Large | 406 | 2 | - | | Pegasus-Large | 568 | 50 | - | | FLAN-T5 S | 80 | <1 | - | | FLAN-T5 M | 250 | <1 | - | | FLAN-T5 L | 780 | 1 | - | | FLAN-T5 XL | 3, 000 | 2 | - | | FLAN-T5 XXL | 11, 000 | 4 | - | | OpenAI Text API | 175, 000 | - | $835 | | OpenAI Chat API | ? | - | $4 | Table 11: Total GPU Hours for open sources LMs and cost for using OpenAI API (all version included). ## B.2 Prompts For Llms As shown in Tab. 12, we list all templates used in this paper including vanilla + TEMP in Tab. 5, NLI4RE in Tab. 6, and vanilla as well as QA4RE in all experiments. ## B.3 Relation Verbalization Templates In the relation verbalization template robustness experiment shown in Tab. 2, the differences between four templates are described below using the *org:top_members/employees* relation from TACRED benchmark as an example: 1. Concrete Examples: {Eh*} is a chairman/* president/director of {Et} 2. Semantic Relationship: {Eh*} is a high level* member of {Et} 3. Straightforward: *The relation between {*Eh} and {Et*} is top members or employees* 4. Word Translation: {Eh} organization top members or employees {Et} | Methods | TACRED | RETACRED | TACREV | SemEval | Avg. | | | | | | | | | | |------------|------------------|--------------|----------|--------------|--------------|------|-------------|--------------|------|--------------|-------------|-------------|------|------| | P | R | F1 | P | R | F1 | P | R | F1 | P | R | F1 | F1 | | | | Small | Vanilla | 9.5 | 40.9 | 15.4 | 22.8 | 50.2 | 31.3 | 9.1 | 41.9 | 15.0 | 10.0 | 11.8 | 10.8 | 18.1 | | QA4RE 13.8 | 52.2 | 21.8 (+6.4) | 33.5 | 66.2 | 44.5 (+13.2) | 13.7 | 55.2 | 22.0 (+7.0) | 5.9 | 7.1 | 6.4 (−4.4) | 23.7 (+5.6) | | | | Base | Vanilla | 14.1 | 31.1 | 19.4 | 21.1 | 26.8 | 23.6 | 14.1 | 33.3 | 19.8 | 14.9 | 17.9 | 16.2 | 19.8 | | QA4RE 17.1 | 54.7 | 26.0 (+6.6) | 33.0 | 65.2 | 43.8 (+20.2) | 17.2 | 58.5 | 26.6 (+6.8) | 6.7 | 8.0 | 7.3 (−8.9) | 25.9 (+6.2) | | | | Large | Vanilla | 22.8 | 58.6 | 32.8 | 37.5 | 60.8 | 46.4 | 22.6 | 61.9 | 33.1 | 23.7 | 19.7 | 21.5 | 33.5 | | QA4RE 30.3 | 78.5 | 43.7 (+10.9) | 44.5 | 72.6 | 55.2 (+8.8) | 29.9 | 82.4 | 43.9 (+10.8) | 24.8 | 15.8 | 19.3 (−2.2) | 40.5 (+7.1) | | | | XLarge | Vanilla | 48.8 | 49.0 | 48.9 | 55.8 | 39.8 | 46.4 | 52.0 | 55.7 | 53.8 | 34.9 | 29.6 | 32.0 | 45.3 | | QA4RE 37.6 | 78.6 50.9 (+2.0) | 56.2 | 79.9 | 66.0 (+19.6) | 38.2 | 84.7 | 52.7 (−1.1) | 44.4 | 39.9 | 42.1 (+10.1) | 52.9 (+7.7) | | | | | XXLarge | Vanilla | 48.2 | 45.3 | 46.7 | 56.1 | 53.7 | 54.9 | 50.6 | 50.6 | 50.6 | 29.2 | 28.1 | 28.6 | 45.2 | | QA4RE 38.1 | 82.9 52.2 (+5.5) | 55.9 | 82.0 | 66.5 (+11.6) | 38.3 | 88.1 | 53.4 (+2.8) | 40.2 | 47.5 | 43.5 (+14.9) | 53.9 (+8.7) | | | | The first set of templates was written by Sainz et al. (2021), while the remaining three were explored by Lu et al. (2022). We use the templates from their official GitHub repositories.6In addition, we further list relation verbalization templates used by all LLMs in our paper in Tab. 13, Tab. 14, and Tab. 15. ## C Full Test Results On Flan-T5 We present the full test set results of all four RE datasets in Tab. 8. Our observations align with the findings from experiments on 1,000 test examples: (1) Our QA4RE framework can bring consistent and significant improvements over all FLAN-T5 series models on the averaged results. Additionally, larger models benefit more from our framework. These two signals strongly demonstrate the effectiveness of QA4RE. (2) We notice that our QA4RE does not improve smaller versions of FLAN-T5 on SemEval, a 19choice QA task. This may be due that these models have difficulties in understanding long input fed by QA4RE. | Formulations | Prompts | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Given a sentence, and two entities within the sentence, classify the relationship between the two entities based on the provided sentence. All possible Relationships are listed below: - [Possible Relation 1] - [Possible Relation 2] - [NoTA Relation] | | | Vanilla RE | Sentence: [Sentence S] Entity 1: [Head Entity Eh] Entity 2: [Tail Entity Et] Relationship: Given a sentence, and two entities within the sentence, classify the relationship between the two entities based on the provided sentence. All possible Relationships are listed below with explanations: - [Possible Relation 1]: [Relation 1 Template] - [Possible Relation 2]: [Relation 2 Template] - [NoTA Relation]: [NoTA Relation Template] | | Vanilla + TEMP | Sentence: [Sentence S] Entity 1: [Head Entity Eh] Entity 2: [Tail Entity Et] Relationship: In this task, you will be presented with a premise and a hypothesis sentence. Determine whether the hypothesis sentence entails (implies), contradicts (opposes), or is neutral with respect to the given premise sentence. Please answer with "Contradiction", "Neutral", or "Entailment". | | NLI4RE | Premise: [Sentence S] Hypothesis: [Entities in Relation 1 Template] Category: Determine which option can be inferred from the given Sentence. Sentence: [Sentence S] Options: A. [Entities in Relation 1 Template] B. [Entities in Relation 2 Template] C. [Entities in NoTA Relation Template] | | QA4RE | Which option can be inferred from the given Sentence? Option: | | Table 12: Prompt Formats of frameworks for LLMs in this paper. We only demonstrate NLI4RE with 1 template for | | Table 12: Prompt Formats of frameworks for LLMs in this paper. We only demonstrate NLI4RE with 1 template for simplicity. | Relation | Template | |-----------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------| | no_relation | {Eh} has no known relations to {Et} | | per:stateorprovince_of_death | {Eh} died in the state or province {Et} | | per:title | {Eh} is a {Et} | | org:member_of | {Eh} is the member of {Et} | | per:other_family | {Eh} is the other family member of {Et} | | org:country_of_headquarters | {Eh} has a headquarter in the country {Et} | | org:parents | {Eh} has the parent company {Et} | | per:stateorprovince_of_birth | {Eh} was born in the state or province {Et} | | per:spouse | {Eh} is the spouse of {Et} | | per:origin | {Eh} has the nationality {Et} | | per:date_of_birth | {Eh} has birthday on {Et} | | per:schools_attended | {Eh} studied in {Et} | | org:members | {Eh} has the member {Et} | | org:founded | {Eh} was founded in {Et} | | per:stateorprovinces_of_residence | {Eh} lives in the state or province {Et} | | per:date_of_death | {Eh} died in the date {Et} | | org:shareholders | {Eh} has shares hold in {Et} | | org:website | {Eh} has the website {Et} | | org:subsidiaries | {Eh} owns {Et} | | per:charges | {Eh} is convicted of {Et} | | org:dissolved | {Eh} dissolved in {Et} | | org:stateorprovince_of_headquarters | {Eh} has a headquarter in the state or province {Et} | | per:country_of_birth | {Eh} was born in the country {Et} | | per:siblings | {Eh} is the siblings of {Et} | | org:top_members/employees | {Eh} has the high level member {Et} | | per:cause_of_death | {Eh} died because of {Et} | | per:alternate_names | {Eh} has the alternate name {Et} | | org:number_of_employees/members | {Eh} has the number of employees {Et} | | per:cities_of_residence | {Eh} lives in the city {Et} | | org:city_of_headquarters | {Eh} has a headquarter in the city {Et} | | per:children | {Eh} is the parent of {Et} | | per:employee_of | {Eh} is the employee of {Et} | | org:political/religious_affiliation | {Eh} has political affiliation with {Et} | | per:parents | {Eh} has the parent {Et} | | per:city_of_birth | {Eh} was born in the city {Et} | | per:age | {Eh} has the age {Et} | | per:countries_of_residence | {Eh} lives in the country {Et} | | org:alternate_names | {Eh} is also known as {Et} | | per:religion | {Eh} has the religion {Et} | | per:city_of_death | {Eh} died in the city {Et} | | per:country_of_death | {Eh} died in the country {Et} | | org:founded_by | {Eh} was founded by {Et} | | Table 13: Templates for TACRED and TACREV datasets. | | | Relation | Template | |-------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------| | no_relation | {Eh} has no known relations to {Et} | | per:religion | {Eh} has the religion {Et} | | org:country_of_branch | {Eh} has a branch in the country {Et} | | org:stateorprovince_of_branch | {Eh} has a branch in the state or province {Et} | | org:city_of_branch | {Eh} has a branch in the city {Et} | | org:shareholders | {Eh} has shares hold in {Et} | | org:top_members/employees | {Eh} has the high level member {Et} | | org:members | {Eh} has the member {Et} | | org:website | {Eh} has the website {Et} | | per:parents | {Eh} has the parent {Et} | | org:number_of_employees/members | {Eh} has the number of employees {Et} | | org:political/religious_affiliation | {Eh} has political affiliation with {Et} | | per:age | {Eh} has the age {Et} | | per:origin | {Eh} has the nationality {Et} | | org:alternate_names | {Eh} is also known as {Et} | | per:other_family | {Eh} is the other family member of {Et} | | per:identity | {Eh} is the identity/pronoun of {Et} | | per:identity | {Eh} and {Et} are the same person | | per:siblings | {Eh} is the siblings of {Et} | | org:member_of | {Eh} is the member of {Et} | | per:children | {Eh} is the parent of {Et} | | per:employee_of | {Eh} is the employee of {Et} | | per:spouse | {Eh} is the spouse of {Et} | | org:dissolved | {Eh} dissolved in {Et} | | per:schools_attended | {Eh} studied in {Et} | | per:country_of_death | {Eh} died in the country {Et} | | per:stateorprovince_of_death | {Eh} died in the state or province {Et} | | per:city_of_death | {Eh} died in the city {Et} | | per:date_of_death | {Eh} died in the date {Et} | | per:cause_of_death | {Eh} died because of {Et} | | org:founded | {Eh} was founded in {Et} | | org:founded_by | {Eh} was founded by {Et} | | per:countries_of_residence | {Eh} lives in the country {Et} | | per:stateorprovinces_of_residence | {Eh} lives in the state or province {Et} | | per:cities_of_residence | {Eh} lives in the city {Et} | | per:country_of_birth | {Eh} was born in the country {Et} | | per:stateorprovince_of_birth | {Eh} was born in the state or province {Et} | | per:city_of_birth | {Eh} was born in the city {Et} | | per:date_of_birth | {Eh} has birthday on {Et} | | per:charges | {Eh} is convicted of {Et} | | per:title | {Eh} is a {Et} | Table 14: Templates for RETACRED datasets. | Relation | Template | |---------------------------|----------------------------------------| | Other | {subj} has no known relations to {obj} | | Component-Whole(e1,e2) | {subj} is the component of {obj} | | Component-Whole(e2,e1) | {obj} is the component of {subj} | | Instrument-Agency(e1,e2) | {subj} is the instrument of {obj} | | Instrument-Agency(e2,e1) | {obj} is the instrument of {subj} | | Member-Collection(e1,e2) | {subj} is the member of {obj} | | Member-Collection(e2,e1) | {obj} is the member of {subj} | | Cause-Effect(e1,e2) | {subj} has the effect {obj} | | Cause-Effect(e2,e1) | {obj} has the effect {subj} | | Entity-Destination(e1,e2) | {obj} is the destination of {subj} | | Entity-Destination(e2,e1) | {subj} is the destination of {obj} | | Content-Container(e1,e2) | {obj} contains {subj} | | Content-Container(e2,e1) | {subj} contains {obj} | | Message-Topic(e1,e2) | {obj} is the topic of {subj} | | Message-Topic(e2,e1) | {subj} is the topic of {obj} | | Product-Producer(e1,e2) | {obj} produces {subj} | | Product-Producer(e2,e1) | {subj} produces {obj} | | Entity-Origin(e1,e2) | {subj} origins from {obj} | | Entity-Origin(e2,e1) | {obj} origins from {subj} | Table 15: Templates for SemEval datasets. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Section 8. A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Not applicable. Our work helps LLM solve the relation extraction tasks, we don't anticipate any risks. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Before Section 1 (abstract) and Section 1 (introduction). ✓ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Grammarly. Grammar check for sections 1-8. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Section 3, Section 4. ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 4. ✗ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? For artifacts we used in the paper, they have licenses in the public GitHub repos. ✗ 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)? For artifacts we used in the paper, they have licenses in the public GitHub repos. We are following the standard use of these artifacts. Our code will be released under the same license. ✗ 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? These datasets are widely used as relation extraction benchmarks in the research field and as far as we know, no previous work has reported offensive or sensitive content in these datasets. ✗ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Our code focuses on using OpenAI API for a specific task, relation extraction, and we only have tested our code on standard English benchmarks for the relation extraction task. ✓ 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 4.1 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?** Sections 5 And 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? Appendix B.1 ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Section 4.2 and Appendix B.1 ✓ 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 4.2 Experimental Setup and Section 5.4. Averaged results over multiple runs are reported. ✗ 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.)? No, we use the standard data format without extra processing and we use official GitHub repos for baseline comparison. ## 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.

held-etal-2023-tada

{TADA} : Task Agnostic Dialect Adapters for {E}nglish

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.51

Large Language Models, the dominant starting point for Natural Language Processing (NLP) applications, fail at a higher rate for speakers of English dialects other than Standard American English (SAE). Prior work addresses this using task specific data or synthetic data augmentation, both of which require intervention for each dialect and task pair. This poses a scalability issue that prevents the broad adoption of robust dialectal English NLP. We introduce a simple yet effective method for task-agnostic dialect adaptation by aligning non-SAE dialects using adapters and composing them with task-specific adapters from SAE. Task-Agnostic Dialect Adapters (TADA) improve dialectal robustness on 4 dialectal variants of the GLUE benchmark without task-specific supervision.

# Tada: Task-Agnostic Dialect Adapters For English William Held Caleb Ziems **Diyi Yang** Georgia Institute of Technology, Stanford University wheld3@gatech.edu ## Abstract Large Language Models, the dominant starting point for Natural Language Processing (NLP) applications, fail at a higher rate for speakers of English dialects other than Standard American English (SAE). Prior work addresses this using task-specific data or synthetic data augmentation, both of which require intervention for each dialect and task pair. This poses a scalability issue that prevents the broad adoption of robust dialectal English NLP. We introduce a simple yet effective method for task-agnostic dialect adaptation by aligning non-SAE dialects using adapters and composing them with taskspecific adapters from SAE. Task-Agnostic Dialect Adapters (**TADA**) improve dialectal robustness on 4 dialectal variants of the GLUE benchmark without task-specific supervision.1 ## 1 Introduction Large Pretrained Language Models (LLMs; Devlin et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2019; Raffel et al., 2020) have been shown to perform much worse for English dialects other than Standard American English (SAE) (Ziems et al., 2022, 2023). Existing work on dialectal English NLP is task-specific, using manually annotated dialect data (Blodgett et al., 2018; Blevins et al., 2016), weak-supervision (Jørgensen et al., 2016; Jurgens et al., 2017), or data augmentation (Ziems et al., 2022, 2023). As LLMs become a general-purpose technology, they are applied in an increasing number of scenarios by users who are not formally trained in Machine Learning (Bommasani et al., 2021). Nonexperts rarely look beyond accuracy (Yang et al., 2018), making them less likely to value robustness above the cost of training (Ethayarajh and Jurafsky, 2020). Unmitigated dialect bias in this long tail of tasks has the potential to exacerbate harms due to unfair allocation of resources (Bender et al., 2021). 1We release code for training both traditional and taskagnostic adapters for English dialects on GitHub and finetuned models, adapters, and TADA modules on HuggingFace.  Dialectal discrepancies originate in biases in the filtering of LLM pretraining data before finetuning (Gururangan et al., 2022). Despite dialects being definitionally similar, training which enables task-agnostic zero-shot transfer is underexplored relative to potential utility (Bird, 2022). Such taskagnostic transfer methods are natural, practical, and offer a scalable solution for English dialects across the growing spectrum of NLP applications. This work contributes the first pursuit of these goals with Task-Agnostic Dialect Adapters (**TADA**). Adapters, bottlenecks placed between transformer layers, provide a parameter-efficient (Houlsby et al., 2019) and composable (Pfeiffer et al., 2020) foundation for task-agnostic dialect adaptation, given the low-resourced nature of most dialects. As shown in Figure 1, TADA modules are trained to align non-SAE dialect inputs with SAE inputs at multiple levels with both a sequence-level contrastive loss and a novel morphosyntactic loss. We show the empirical effectiveness of TADA on 4 dialect variants of GLUE (Wang et al., 2018) with perturbations from Ziems et al. (2023). We release TADA as a plug-and-play tool for mitigating dialect discrepancies, launching a scalable pathway to dialect-inclusive English NLP. ## 2 Related Work NLP For English Dialects Existing work on NLP for English dialects has largely focused on data collection and weak supervision. Jørgensen et al. (2016) uses online lexicons to provide weak supervision for AAE. Blevins et al. (2016) manually annotates a small dataset and uses domain adaptation methods to enable transfer. Jurgens et al. (2017) collects a geographically diverse set of English data and uses distant supervision signals to annotate a large and representative language ID corpus. Multi-VALUE (Ziems et al., 2022, 2023) develops a data augmentation framework for taskspecific training in many common English dialects. Our work proposes a complementary task-agnostic intervention for English NLP. Cross-Lingual Alignment Cross-lingual alignment has become a common approach for taskagnostic zero-shot transfer across languages. Explicit lexical alignment can be used to learn cross-lingual word embeddings for downstream tasks (Duong et al., 2016; Adams et al., 2017; Artetxe et al., 2018; Grave et al., 2019). More recent work shows that end-to-end models can implicitly learn to align representations (Zoph et al., 2016; Conneau and Lample, 2019; Conneau et al., 2020; Xue et al., 2021). These alignment methods often perform better on highly similar languages, making them theoretically well-suited for dialects. By using explicit alignment with composable modules, our work is the first to explore such techniques for English dialectal NLP. Adapters A growing body of research has been devoted to finding scalable methods for adapting increasingly large-scale pre-trained models. Houlsby et al. (2019) adapt large models using bottleneck layers (with skip-connection) between each layer. This idea has been extended in many domains (Stickland and Murray, 2019; Pfeiffer et al., 2021; Rebuffi et al., 2017; Lin et al., 2020). Most relevant, Pfeiffer et al. (2020) showed that discrete language modeling adapters and task adapters can be composed for effective cross-lingual multi-task transfer. Our experiments exploit specialized dialectal data augmentation to extend this approach to English dialects using explicit alignment loss. ## 3 **Tada: Task-Agnostic Dialect Adapters** As an initial effort, TADA aims to provide taskagnostic dialect robustness for English NLP. To do so, we build on work from both multilingual NLP and computer vision and apply explicit alignment losses for transfer learning. Concretely, we first generate a synthetic sentence-parallel corpus using the morphosyntactic transformations created by Ziems et al. (2023). Using these parallel sentences, we train TADA to align using a contrastive loss at the sequence level and an adversarial loss at the token level. At test time, TADA modules are stacked with task-specific adapters trained on SAE to improve the dialect performance on the target task without further training. ## 3.1 Synthetic Parallel Data While cross-lingual transfer has leveraged the wealth of sentence parallel bi-texts from machine translation to learn alignment, there are no largescale parallel English dialectal datasets. Therefore, we leverage Multi-VALUE, a rule-based morphosyntactic SAE to a non-SAE translation system to create parallel data (Ziems et al., 2023). We start with SAE sentences sampled from the Word-in-Context (WiC) Dataset (Pilehvar and Camacho-Collados, 2019). WiC is designed to contain lexically diverse sentences and is sourced from high-quality lexicographer written examples (Miller, 1994; Schuler, 2005). This avoids our alignment modules overfitting to specific vocabulary or noise from low-quality examples. We generate 1,000 such pairs, an amount which could be feasibly replaced with human-translated data. This data limitation is intentional, as MultiVALUE could alternatively used to do large-scale pretraining on transformed data (Qian et al., 2022). With smaller data limitations, the data used to train TADA can be manually curated native speakers and linguists to most accurately describe the dialect via minimal pairs (Demszky et al., 2021). Additionally, it opens the potential for TADA to be used for non-English dialects, related languages, and codeswitched variants where small amounts of manually translated data already exists (Diab et al., 2010; Salloum and Habash, 2013; Klubicka et al. ˇ , 2016; Costa-jussà, 2017; Costa-jussà et al., 2018; Popovic et al. ´ , 2020; Chen et al., 2022; Agarwal et al., 2022; Hamed et al., 2022) Furthermore, using a small amount of data, in combination with a parameter-efficient method, reduces compute costs | Dialect Adaptation Details | AAE Glue Performance | | | | | | | | | | | |------------------------------|------------------------|---------------|-----------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|------|-------|-------| | Approach | Method | Task-Agnostic | Dialect Params. | COLA | MNLI | QNLI | RTE | QQP | SST2 | STS-B | Mean | | N/A | Finetuning | ✓ | 0 | 13.5 | 82.0 | 89.3 | 71.8 | 87.1 | 92.0 | 89.9 | 75.1 | | N/A | Adapters | ✓ | 0 | 14.1 | 83.7 | 90.3 | 67.1 | 86.8 | 92.1 | 88.7 | 74.7 | | VALUE | Finetuning | ✗ | T × 110M | 19.8 | 84.9 | 90.8 | 74.4 | 89.6 | 92.4 | 90.9 | 77.5 | | VALUE | Adapters | ✗ | T × 895K | 40.2 | 85.8 | 92.2 | 73.6 | 89.7 | 93.6 | 90.3 | 80.8 | | TADA | Adapters | ✓ | 895K | 29.5+ | 84.8+ | 91.7+ | 67.2+ | 88.1+ | 91.9 | 89.6+ | 77.5+ | as a barrier for dialect speakers to develop and own language technology within their communities (Ahia et al., 2021). ## 3.2 Contrastive Sequence Alignment Multilingual NLP has shown that L2 alignment on small amounts of data can provide competitive performance gains to augmentation using translated data during finetuning (Conneau et al., 2018). This operates on the intuition that similar input representations are likely to lead to similar outputs. TADA extends this approach to dialects by minimizing the L2 distance between a frozen representation of an SAE input CLSsae and the TADA representation of a non-SAE input CLS*dial*: $$L_{s e q}=|\mathbf{CLS}_{s a e}-\mathbf{CLS}_{d i a l}|_{2}\qquad(1)$$ ## 3.3 Adversarial Morphosyntactic Alignment Since our translated data is aligned at the sequence level, the contrastive loss is only applied to the CLS representations. However the variation, and therefore our ideal alignment procedure, operates at the morphosyntactic level. Lacking token-level aligned data, we instead pursue morphosyntactic alignment using unsupervised adversarial alignment methods (Zhang et al., 2017; Lample et al., 2018). Since our goal is to capture morphosyntactic differences, we use an adversary which pools the entire sequence using a single-layer transformer (Vaswani et al., 2017) with a two-layer MLP scoring head. A transformer adversary has the expressive capacity to identify misalignment in both individual tokens and their relationships. We leave the source dialect frozen which has been shown in computer vision to lead to representations that are composable with downstream modules (Tzeng et al., 2017). Given the adversarial scoring network Adv, a frozen SAE representation SAE, and a Non-SAE representation after TADA Dial, we train Adv to maximize: $$L_{a d v}=\mathrm{Adv}(\mathbf{Dial})-\mathrm{Adv}(\mathbf{SAE})$$ Then, define the morphosyntactic loss for TADA by minimizing the critic loss from Adv: $$L_{m s}=-\operatorname{Adv}(\mathbf{Dial})$$ $$({\mathfrak{I}})$$ Lms = − Adv(Dial) (3) ## 3.4 Plug-And-Play Application Finally, we propose a procedure for applying TADA to downstream tasks. We use composable invertible adapters (Pfeiffer et al., 2020) as our starting point. Using the 1,000 sentences from WiC, we train these adapters to minimize the combined contrastive and adversarial loss functions: $$L_{T A D A}=L_{s e q}+L_{m s}$$ LT ADA = Lseq + Lms (4) At test time TADA modules can be stacked behind traditional task adapters (Houlsby et al., 2019). TADA serves to directly align the representations of Non-SAE inputs to the SAE embedding space that these task adapters were trained on. Our experiments show that this consistently improves adapter performance without further training. ## 4 Evaluating Tada We benchmark TADA on 4 VALUE (Ziems et al., 2022, 2023) transformed versions of the GLUE Benchmark (Wang et al., 2018). As discussed in our limitations, these benchmarks are artificial but enable the evaluation of TADA across multiple tasks and dialects. First, we show how TADA compares to SAE models and task-specific baselines for African American English (AAE). Then, we show that TADA is effective across 4 global dialects of English. Finally, we perform an ablation to evaluate the contribution of each loss function. For all TADA experiments, we train using 1,000 WiC sentences as described in Section 3.1. We train for 30 epochs with early stopping based on the lowest contrastive loss on a development set of 100 held-out WiC sentences. In Section 5, we report full hyperparameters along with the training details for SAE and VALUE models. $\eqref{eq:walpha}$. ## 5 Training Details TADA is trained with the ADAM optimizer for 30 epochs with batch size of 16 and with a hyperparameter search of 5e-4. We keep the model and epoch with lowest L2 loss on the 100 held-out examples. Training takes approx. 30 minutes on an Nvidia GeForce RTX 2080 Ti. To find this hyperparameter setup, we performed a grid search over batch sizes from 8, 16, 32 and learning rates from 5 · 10−3, 5 · 10−4, 5 · 10−5for AAVE and used the configuration with the lowest L2 loss on the 100 held-out examples. For all SAE and VALUE GLUE models, we finetune RoBERTa base for 10 epochs with the ADAM optimizer, a learning rate of 2·10−5, a batch size of 16, and a linear learning rate warm-up of 6%. For all SAE and VALUE GLUE adapters, we finetune the original adapter architecture (Houlsby et al., 2019) inside RoBERTa base for 20 epochs with the ADAM optimizer, a learning rate of 1 · 10−4, a batch size of 16, and a linear learning rate warm-up of 6%. Training all baseline models took approx. 3 days on an Nvidia GeForce RTX 2080 Ti. Additionally, we report experimental results on the BERT-base model in Appendix A1. ## 5.1 Tada Vs. Task-Specific Since ours is the first work to attempt task-agnostic dialect adaptation, we benchmark TADA in comparison to prior task-specific methods in Table 1. We first establish pure SAE baselines for both full finetuning and adapter training (Houlsby et al., 2019). Interestingly, the gap between SAE performance and AAE performance is similar for adapters (-8.8) and full finetuning (-8.9) when trained on SAE. The minimal effects of the limited capacity of adapters on disparity indicate that dialectal discrepancy is largely within the pretrained LLM before finetuning. Without mitigation, SAE models alone perform poorly on non-SAE input. We then train two task-specific dialect mitigation following the approach of VALUE, which augments training data with pseudo-dialect examples during finetuning. This is a strong baseline, as it allows the model to adapt specifically to in-domain augmented examples rather than the general sentences used to align TADA modules. When trained on augmented data, adapters (80.7 Avg.)2seem to outperform full finetuning (77.5 Avg.). We hypothesize that random initialization of adapters prevents 2Avg. refers to the mean performance across GLUE tasks. conflicting gradients across dialects which can lead to negative transfer (Wang et al., 2020). Finally, we combine TADA with task-specific SAE modules for our task-agnostic approach. TADA succeeds in our goal of generalizable performance improvements, yielding improved robustness for 6 out of 7 tasks for an average increase of 2.8 points on the GLUE benchmark. However, TADA performs 4% worse on average than task-specific VALUE-augmented adapters. These adapters are trained on larger amounts of dialectal training data directly from each task than TADA, which likely explains their superiority. However, as noted in the table these approaches scale training and storage linearly with the number of tasks, while TADA requires only a constant overhead. These results are the first to indicate the possibility of task-agnostic dialect adaptation. While performance lags behind the task-specific intervention, these results indicate similar quality is possible with vastly improved scalability. This scalability across tasks is key to truly addressing dialect disparities as NLP has a growing impact across a larger number of tasks. ## 5.2 Cross-Dialectal Evaluation We then confirm that TADA generalizes across regional dialects using 3 global dialect translations introduced from Ziems et al. (2023) in Table 2. Beyond AAE, we select Nigerian English and Indian English as they are each estimated to have over 100 million English speakers3, Singaporean English as it was identified as particularly challenging. Despite not explicitly encoding any linguistic features, TADA is not dialect-agnostic. TADA improves average performance by +2.8, +0.3, +0.4, and +3.9 respectively for African American, Indian, Nigerian, and Singaporean Englishes. Ultimately, this applicability across dialects reinforces TADAs potential as a general tool, but with key limitations at fully removing the dialect gap. Truly dialect-robust NLP requires generalization across both tasks and dialects, making measuring the performance of both essential. We recommend future works on dialect modeling evaluate both. ## 5.3 Ablation Study Finally, we show the resuilts from an ablation in Table 3 to evaluate the contributions of each loss 3Speaker estimates from the Oxford English Dictionary Introduction to Nigerian English and the Indian Census. $\overline{\mathrm{S}}$  CoLA MNLI QNLI RTE QQP SST2 STSB Mean Test Dialect Orig. TADA Orig. TADA Orig. TADA Orig. TADA Orig. TADA Orig. TADA Orig. TADA Orig. TADA SAE 58.3 87.2 87.2 87.2 93.2 93.2 70.8 70.8 93.9 93.9 90.5 90.5 90.5 90.5 83.5 83.5 AAVE 14.1 29.5 83.7 84.8 90.3 91.7 67.1 67.1 86.8 88.1 92.1 91.9 88.7 89.6 74.7 77.5 (+2.8) Indian 16.4 15.0 82.6 83.6 89.1 90.3 66.8 66.8 86.4 87.0 90.9 91.1 88.5 88.9 74.4 74.7 (+0.3) Nigerian 23.7 27.2 84.3 84.8 91.2 91.1 65.0 64.6 88.2 88.2 92.2 92.1 89.3 88.7 76.3 76.7 (+0.4) Singaporean -0.4 20.3 81.4 83.0 87.7 89.3 63.2 64.3 85.2 87.3 90.9 91.1 88.1 88.5 70.9 74.8 (+3.9) Table 2: **Multi-Dialectal** evaluation results across all Tasks (Matthew's Corr. for CoLA; Pearson-Spearman Corr. for STS-B; Accuracy for all others) for 4 Non-SAE Dialect Variants of GLUE created using Multi-VALUE. $$\begin{array}{l l}{{84.3}}&{{84.8}}\\ {{81.4}}&{{83.0}}\end{array}$$ $\begin{array}{ccc}91.2&91.1\\ 87.7&89.3\end{array}\left|\begin{array}{c}65\\ 63\end{array}\right.$ $$\begin{array}{l l}{{65.0}}&{{61}}\\ {{63.2}}&{{64}}\end{array}$$ | AAE Glue Performance | | | | | | | | | |------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|-------|--------------| | Method | COLA | MNLI | QNLI | RTE | QQP | SST2 | STS-B | Mean | | TADA | 29.5 | 84.8 | 91.7 | 67.1 | 88.1 | 91.9 | 89.6 | 77.5 | | −Lms (Eq. 3) | 29.1 | 85.0 | 91.5 | 66.1 | 88.0 | 91.6 | 89.4 | 77.2 (-0.3) | | −Lseq (Eq. 1) | 0.0 | 31.8 | 50.5 | 36.8 | 47.3 | 50.9 | 10.7 | 32.6 (-44.9) | Table 3: **TADA Loss Ablation** results for RoBERTa Base for the 7 GLUE Tasks (Matthew's Corr. for CoLA; Pearson-Spearman Corr. for STS-B; Accuracy for all others) for African-American English. Our results show that the combined loss functions of TADA lead to the strongest results. function to the final TADA methods. Contrastive loss alone yields close performance to TADA; it consistently underperforms the combined loss functions on 6 out of 7 tasks (-0.3 Avg.). This extends evidence for the efficacy of this simple loss function from the multilingual (Conneau et al., 2018) to the dialectal domain. When contrastive loss is removed, the adversarial loss quickly becomes unstable and suffers from mode collapse. This leads to pathological results, with the resulting adapters harming performance for all tasks (-44.9 Avg.). ## 6 Conclusions English dialects are underserved by NLP, but are both tractable targets for transfer learning and have huge speaking populations (Bird, 2022). Models which serve English speakers inherently serve a global population who use the language natively and as a second tongue. However, current approaches to improve dialectal robustness in English have so far focused only on one task at a time. The scalability of these taskspecific methods limits their impact as language technology applications become increasingly diverse and pervasive. We argue that task-agnostic dialectal methods are a clear, yet unexplored path to serve these communities effectively. We propose a simple yet effective technique TADA to address this, utilizing morphosyntactic data augmentation and alignment loss at both the sequence and morphosyntactic level to train adapter modules. When composed with SAE task adapters, $$\begin{array}{r l}{89.3}&{{}88.7}\\ {88.1}&{{}88.5}\end{array}$$ $\hat{\tau}$ 2. $\downarrow$ . $\mathbf{u}$ $$91.1$$ $4\pi$ . $\mathbf{b}$ TADA modules improve dialectal robustness consistently on the multi-task GLUE benchmark. Future work should work to further reduce the dialect discrepancy to create more inclusive and equitable English language technology. ## Limitations TADA makes use of the pseudo-dialectal translation systems of prior work Ziems et al. (2022, 2023). We rely on them as they are validated by dialect speakers and have been shown to be predictive of performance on Gold Dialect data. However, they were designed as stress tests of robustness which isolates morphology and syntax. We are therefore unsure how TADA performs when it faces the topical and register shifts which often are associated with naturally occurring dialects. These limitations are similar to localization issues in translated benchmarks (Moradshahi et al., 2020). In this work, we evaluate TADA on only Encoder-only LLMs. Increasingly, both EncoderDecoder and Decoder-only models are seeing widescale use due to their flexibility (Wang et al., 2022). Evaluating TADA and developing alternate tailored task-agnostic methodologies on these alternate LLM architectures is left to future work. ## Ethics Statement This work refers to linguist-drawn boundaries around dialects. However, dialects are not monolithic and are used in varied ways across subcommunities of speakers. Readers should therefore not understand TADA to remove discrepancies across all speakers as improvements may vary within subcommunities within a dialect (Koenecke et al., 2020). Additionally, as TADA is taskagnostic, it is especially vulnerable to dual use. To mitigate this, we will release TADA under a license that forbids usage with intent to deceive, discriminate, harass or surveil dialect-speaking communities in a targeted fashion. ## Acknowledgements We are thankful to Yanzhe Zhang and the anonymous ACL reviewers for their helpful feedback. ## References Oliver Adams, Adam Makarucha, Graham Neubig, Steven Bird, and Trevor Cohn. 2017. Cross-lingual word embeddings for low-resource language modeling. In *Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the* European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Volume 1, Long Papers, pages 937–947, Valencia, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics. Anmol Agarwal, Jigar Gupta, Rahul Goel, Shyam Upadhyay, Pankaj Joshi, and Rengarajan Aravamudhan. 2022. Cst5: Data augmentation for code-switched semantic parsing. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.07514*. Orevaoghene Ahia, Julia Kreutzer, and Sara Hooker. 2021. The low-resource double bind: An empirical study of pruning for low-resource machine translation. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021*, pages 3316–3333, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Mikel Artetxe, Gorka Labaka, and Eneko Agirre. 2018. A robust self-learning method for fully unsupervised cross-lingual mappings of word embeddings. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 789–798, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. Emily M Bender, Timnit Gebru, Angelina McMillanMajor, and Shmargaret Shmitchell. 2021. On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In *Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency*, pages 610–623. Steven Bird. 2022. Local languages, third spaces, and other high-resource scenarios. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 7817–7829, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Terra Blevins, Robert Kwiatkowski, Jamie MacBeth, Kathleen McKeown, Desmond Patton, and Owen Rambow. 2016. Automatically processing tweets from gang-involved youth: Towards detecting loss and aggression. In *Proceedings of COLING 2016, the* 26th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers, pages 2196–2206, Osaka, Japan. The COLING 2016 Organizing Committee. Su Lin Blodgett, Johnny Wei, and Brendan O'Connor. 2018. Twitter Universal Dependency parsing for African-American and mainstream American English. In *Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of* the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1415–1425, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. Rishi Bommasani, Drew A. Hudson, Ehsan Adeli, Russ Altman, Simran Arora, Sydney von Arx, Michael S. Bernstein, Jeannette Bohg, Antoine Bosselut, Emma Brunskill, Erik Brynjolfsson, Shyamal Buch, Dallas Card, Rodrigo Castellon, Niladri Chatterji, Annie Chen, Kathleen Creel, Jared Quincy Davis, Dora Demszky, Chris Donahue, Moussa Doumbouya, Esin Durmus, Stefano Ermon, John Etchemendy, Kawin Ethayarajh, Li Fei-Fei, Chelsea Finn, Trevor Gale, Lauren Gillespie, Karan Goel, Noah Goodman, Shelby Grossman, Neel Guha, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Peter Henderson, John Hewitt, Daniel E. Ho, Jenny Hong, Kyle Hsu, Jing Huang, Thomas Icard, Saahil Jain, Dan Jurafsky, Pratyusha Kalluri, Siddharth Karamcheti, Geoff Keeling, Fereshte Khani, Omar Khattab, Pang Wei Koh, Mark Krass, Ranjay Krishna, Rohith Kuditipudi, Ananya Kumar, Faisal Ladhak, Mina Lee, Tony Lee, Jure Leskovec, Isabelle Levent, Xiang Lisa Li, Xuechen Li, Tengyu Ma, Ali Malik, Christopher D. Manning, Suvir Mirchandani, Eric Mitchell, Zanele Munyikwa, Suraj Nair, Avanika Narayan, Deepak Narayanan, Ben Newman, Allen Nie, Juan Carlos Niebles, Hamed Nilforoshan, Julian Nyarko, Giray Ogut, Laurel Orr, Isabel Papadimitriou, Joon Sung Park, Chris Piech, Eva Portelance, Christopher Potts, Aditi Raghunathan, Rob Reich, Hongyu Ren, Frieda Rong, Yusuf Roohani, Camilo Ruiz, Jack Ryan, Christopher Ré, Dorsa Sadigh, Shiori Sagawa, Keshav Santhanam, Andy Shih, Krishnan Srinivasan, Alex Tamkin, Rohan Taori, Armin W. Thomas, Florian Tramèr, Rose E. Wang, William Wang, Bohan Wu, Jiajun Wu, Yuhuai Wu, Sang Michael Xie, Michihiro Yasunaga, Jiaxuan You, Matei Zaharia, Michael Zhang, Tianyi Zhang, Xikun Zhang, Yuhui Zhang, Lucia Zheng, Kaitlyn Zhou, and Percy Liang. 2021. On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. Shuguang Chen, Gustavo Aguilar, Anirudh Srinivasan, Mona Diab, and Thamar Solorio. 2022. Calcs 2021 shared task: Machine translation for code-switched data. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.09625*. Alexis Conneau, Kartikay Khandelwal, Naman Goyal, Vishrav Chaudhary, Guillaume Wenzek, Francisco Guzmán, Edouard Grave, Myle Ott, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2020. Unsupervised cross-lingual representation learning at scale. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 8440– 8451, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alexis Conneau and Guillaume Lample. 2019. Crosslingual language model pretraining. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32. Alexis Conneau, Ruty Rinott, Guillaume Lample, Adina Williams, Samuel Bowman, Holger Schwenk, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2018. XNLI: Evaluating crosslingual sentence representations. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2475–2485, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Marta R. Costa-jussà. 2017. Why Catalan-Spanish neural machine translation? analysis, comparison and combination with standard rule and phrase-based technologies. In *Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on NLP for Similar Languages, Varieties and* Dialects (VarDial), pages 55–62, Valencia, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics. Marta R. Costa-jussà, Marcos Zampieri, and Santanu Pal. 2018. A neural approach to language variety translation. In *Proceedings of the Fifth Workshop on* NLP for Similar Languages, Varieties and Dialects (VarDial 2018), pages 275–282, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Dorottya Demszky, Devyani Sharma, Jonathan Clark, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, and Jacob Eisenstein. 2021. Learning to recognize dialect features. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2315–2338, Online. 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. Mona Diab, Nizar Habash, Owen Rambow, Mohamed Altantawy, and Yassine Benajiba. 2010. Colaba: Arabic dialect annotation and processing. In *Lrec workshop on semitic language processing*, pages 66–74. Citeseer. Long Duong, Hiroshi Kanayama, Tengfei Ma, Steven Bird, and Trevor Cohn. 2016. Learning crosslingual word embeddings without bilingual corpora. In *Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 1285– 1295, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics. Kawin Ethayarajh and Dan Jurafsky. 2020. Utility is in the eye of the user: A critique of NLP leaderboards. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 4846–4853, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Edouard Grave, Armand Joulin, and Quentin Berthet. 2019. Unsupervised alignment of embeddings with wasserstein procrustes. In *The 22nd International* Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 1880–1890. PMLR. Suchin Gururangan, Dallas Card, Sarah K. Dreier, Emily K. Gade, Leroy Z. Wang, Zeyu Wang, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Noah A. Smith. 2022. Whose language counts as high quality? measuring language ideologies in text data selection. Injy Hamed, Nizar Habash, Slim Abdennadher, and Ngoc Thang Vu. 2022. ArzEn-ST: A three-way speech translation corpus for code-switched Egyptian Arabic-English. In Proceedings of the The Seventh Arabic Natural Language Processing Workshop (WANLP), pages 119–130, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (Hybrid). Association for Computational Linguistics. 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. Anna Jørgensen, Dirk Hovy, and Anders Søgaard. 2016. Learning a POS tagger for AAVE-like language. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1115–1120, San Diego, California. Association for Computational Linguistics. David Jurgens, Yulia Tsvetkov, and Dan Jurafsky. 2017. Incorporating dialectal variability for socially equitable language identification. In *Proceedings of the* 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 51–57, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. Filip Klubicka, Gema Ramírez-Sánchez, and Nikola ˇ Ljubešic. 2016. ´ Collaborative development of a rulebased machine translator between Croatian and Serbian. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation, pages 361–367. Allison Koenecke, Andrew Nam, Emily Lake, Joe Nudell, Minnie Quartey, Zion Mengesha, Connor Toups, John R Rickford, Dan Jurafsky, and Sharad Goel. 2020. Racial disparities in automated speech recognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(14):7684–7689. Guillaume Lample, Alexis Conneau, Marc'Aurelio Ranzato, Ludovic Denoyer, and Hervé Jégou. 2018. Word translation without parallel data. In *International Conference on Learning Representations*. Zhaojiang Lin, Andrea Madotto, and Pascale Fung. 2020. Exploring versatile generative language model via parameter-efficient transfer learning. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 441–459, Online. 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. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692*. George A. Miller. 1994. WordNet: A lexical database for English. In Human Language Technology: Proceedings of a Workshop held at Plainsboro, New Jersey, March 8-11, 1994. Mehrad Moradshahi, Giovanni Campagna, Sina Semnani, Silei Xu, and Monica Lam. 2020. Localizing open-ontology QA semantic parsers in a day using machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 5970–5983, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jonas Pfeiffer, Aishwarya Kamath, Andreas Rücklé, 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. Jonas Pfeiffer, Ivan Vulic, Iryna Gurevych, and Se- ´ bastian Ruder. 2020. MAD-X: An Adapter-Based Framework for Multi-Task Cross-Lingual Transfer. In *Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical* Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 7654–7673, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Mohammad Taher Pilehvar and Jose Camacho-Collados. 2019. WiC: the word-in-context dataset for evaluating context-sensitive meaning 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 1267–1273, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. Maja Popovic, Alberto Poncelas, Marija Brki ´ c, and ´ Andy Way. 2020. Neural machine translation for translating into croatian and serbian. In *Proceedings* of the 7th Workshop on NLP for Similar Languages, Varieties and Dialects, pages 102–113. Rebecca Qian, Candace Ross, Jude Fernandes, Eric Smith, Douwe Kiela, and Adina Williams. 2022. Perturbation augmentation for fairer nlp. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.12586. Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, Peter J Liu, et al. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. *J. Mach. Learn. Res.*, 21(140):1–67. Sylvestre-Alvise Rebuffi, Hakan Bilen, and Andrea Vedaldi. 2017. Learning multiple visual domains with residual adapters. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, volume 30. Curran Associates, Inc. Wael Salloum and Nizar Habash. 2013. Dialectal Arabic to English machine translation: Pivoting through Modern Standard Arabic. In *Proceedings of the* 2013 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 348–358, Atlanta, Georgia. Association for Computational Linguistics. Karin Kipper Schuler. 2005. *VerbNet: A broadcoverage, comprehensive verb lexicon*. University of Pennsylvania. Asa Cooper Stickland and Iain Murray. 2019. Bert and pals: Projected attention layers for efficient adaptation in multi-task learning. In *International Conference on Machine Learning*, pages 5986–5995. PMLR. Eric Tzeng, Judy Hoffman, Kate Saenko, and Trevor Darrell. 2017. Adversarial discriminative domain adaptation. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 7167–7176. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In *Advances in neural information processing systems*, pages 5998–6008. 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*. Thomas Wang, Adam Roberts, Daniel Hesslow, Teven Le Scao, Hyung Won Chung, Iz Beltagy, Julien Launay, and Colin Raffel. 2022. What language model architecture and pretraining objective work best for zero-shot generalization? arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.05832. Zirui Wang, Zachary C. Lipton, and Yulia Tsvetkov. 2020. On negative interference in multilingual models: Findings and a meta-learning treatment. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 4438–4450, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Linting Xue, Noah Constant, Adam Roberts, Mihir Kale, Rami Al-Rfou, Aditya Siddhant, Aditya Barua, and Colin Raffel. 2021. mT5: A massively multilingual pre-trained text-to-text transformer. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 483–498, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Qian Yang, Jina Suh, Nan-Chen Chen, and Gonzalo Ramos. 2018. Grounding interactive machine learning tool design in how non-experts actually build models. In *Proceedings of the 2018 Designing Interactive Systems Conference*, DIS '18, page 573–584, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. Meng Zhang, Yang Liu, Huanbo Luan, and Maosong Sun. 2017. Earth mover's distance minimization for unsupervised bilingual lexicon induction. In *Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods* in Natural Language Processing, pages 1934–1945, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics. Caleb Ziems, Jiaao Chen, Camille Harris, Jessica Anderson, and Diyi Yang. 2022. VALUE: Understanding dialect disparity in NLU. In *Proceedings of the* 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3701–3720, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Caleb Ziems, William Held, Jingfeng Yang, Jwala Dhamala, Rahul Gupta, and Diyi Yang. 2023. MultiVALUE: A framework for cross-dialectal English NLP. In *Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of* the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. Barret Zoph, Deniz Yuret, Jonathan May, and Kevin Knight. 2016. Transfer learning for low-resource neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1568–1575. | Dialect Adaptation Details | AAE Glue Performance | | | | | | | | | | | |------------------------------|------------------------|---------------|-----------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|-------|------| | Approach | Method | Task-Agnostic | Dialect Params. | COLA | MNLI | QNLI | RTE | QQP | SST2 | STS-B | Mean | | N/A | Finetuning | ✓ | 0 | 36.0 | 79.6 | 89.2 | 65.3 | 86.2 | 89.7 | 87.4 | 76.2 | | N/A | Adapters | ✓ | 0 | 31.4 | 80.8 | 89.2 | 62.1 | 86.0 | 89.8 | 86.9 | 75.1 | | VALUE | Finetuning | ✗ | T × 110M | 36.2 | 83.0 | 89.7 | 61.4 | 88.6 | 89.6 | 88.2 | 76.7 | | VALUE | Adapters | ✗ | T × 895K | 36.3 | 82.0 | 89.5 | 66.8 | 85.6 | 88.8 | 88.5 | 76.8 | | TADA | Adapters | ✓ | 895K | 38.3 | 81.5 | 89.0 | 62.1 | 87.0 | 90.0 | 88.0 | 76.6 | ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Limitations section ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Ethics Section ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Abstract and Intro ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Section4 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 4 ✗ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? All work is CC licensed ✗ 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)? All work was used consistent with original use and no new artifacts are created 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. No new artifcacts created ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Section 4 ✓ 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. Yes, Section 3.1 ## 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? Table 1 and Appendix 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 ✓ 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 footnote cites that metrics are a mean across tasks 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.? 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.

li-etal-2023-generative

Generative Zero-Shot Prompt Learning for Cross-Domain Slot Filling with Inverse Prompting

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.52

Zero-shot cross-domain slot filling aims to transfer knowledge from the labeled source domain to the unlabeled target domain. Existing models either encode slot descriptions and examples or design handcrafted question templates using heuristic rules, suffering from poor generalization capability or robustness. In this paper, we propose a generative zero-shot prompt learning framework for cross-domain slot filling, both improving generalization and robustness than previous work. Besides, we introduce a novel inverse prompting strategy to distinguish different slot types to avoid the multiple prediction problem, and an efficient prompt tuning strategy to boost higher performance only training fewer prompt parameters. Experiments and analysis demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed framework, especially huge improvements (+13.44{\%} F1) on the unseen slots.

# Generative Zero-Shot Prompt Learning For Cross-Domain Slot Filling With Inverse Prompting Xuefeng Li1∗, Liwen Wang1∗**, Guanting Dong**1∗, Keqing He2, Jinzheng Zhao3, Hao Lei1, Jiachi Liu1**, Weiran Xu**1 1Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing, China 2Meituan Group, Beijing, China 3School of Computer Science and Electronic Engineering, University of Surrey, UK {lixuefeng,w_liwen,dongguanting,leihao,ljc1997}@bupt.edu.cn kqin@bupt.cn, j.zhao@surrey.ac.uk, xuweiran@bupt.edu.cn ## Abstract Zero-shot cross-domain slot flling aims to transfer knowledge from the labeled source domain to the unlabeled target domain. Existing models either encode slot descriptions and examples or design handcrafted question templates using heuristic rules, suffering from poor generalization capability or robustness. In this paper, we propose a generative zero-shot prompt learning framework for cross-domain slot flling, both improving generalization and robustness than previous work. Besides, we introduce a novel inverse prompting strategy to distinguish different slot types to avoid the multiple prediction problem, and an effcient prompt tuning strategy to boost higher performance by only training fewer prompt parameters. Experiments and analysis demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed framework, especially huge improvements (+13.44% F1) on the unseen slots.1 ## 1 Introduction Slot flling in a task-oriented dialogue system aims to extract task-related information like *hotel_name*, hotel_address from user queries, which is widely applied to existing intelligent conversation applications (Tulshan and Dhage, 2019; Zhang et al., 2020). Traditional supervised methods (Zhang and Wang, 2016; Goo et al., 2018; Qin et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2020; He et al., 2020a,b) have shown remarkable performance, but they still rely on large-scale labeled data. Lack of generalization to new domains hinder its further application to practical industrial scenarios. In this work, we focus on zero-shot cross-domain slot flling which transfers knowledge from the source domain DS to the target domain DT without  requiring any labeled training data of DT . Conventional approaches (Bapna et al., 2017; Shah et al., 2019; He et al., 2020c; Wang et al., 2021) formulate slot flling as a sequence labeling task and use meta-information such as slot descriptions and slot examples to capture the semantic relationship between slot types and input tokens. However, these models only learn a surface mapping of the slot types between DS and DT and get poor performance on unseen slots in the target domain (Wang et al., 2021). Further, (Lee and Jha, 2019; Mehri and Eskenazi, 2021; Du et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2021) propose a machine reading comprehension (MRC) framework for slot flling to enhance the semantic interaction between slot types and slot values. They frstly construct many well-designed question templates based on slot schema or slot examples, then train an MRC model (Rajpurkar et al., 2018a) to predict corresponding slot values for a given slot type question. But they rely on handcrafted question templates using heuristic rules and pre-defned ontologies, which suffers from poor model robustness. Besides, employing additional pre-training on large-scale external MRC datasets is also timeconsuming and prohibitively expensive.  To solve the above issues, in this paper, we propose a Generative Zero-shot Prompt Learning (**GZPL**) framework for cross-domain slot flling. Instead of transforming the slot flling task into sequence labeling or MRC, we formulate it as a language generation task (see Fig 1). Specifcally, we concat the question of each slot type, names of all slot types, the input query together to construct the input sequence and take the related slot values as output sequence. The converted text-to-text format has two benefts for zero-shot slot flling: (1) Compared to sequence labeling, our formulation enriches deep semantic interaction between slot types and slot values via pre-trained language models (Raffel et al., 2020), which helps recognize unseen slots only existing in the target domain. We fnd it signifcantly improves unseen slot F1 by 13.44% compared to the previous state-of-the-art (SOTA) model (see Section 4.2). The result proves the strong generalization capability to new domains of our proposed framework. (2) Compared to MRC, our framework reduces the complexity of creating well-designed question templates and is more robust to different templates (see Section 4.2). Besides, we concat the names of all slot types into the input sequence to construct direct connections between different slot types, while MRC makes independent predictions for each slot type. Along with our proposed framework, we present an inverse prompting strategy to distinguish different slot types for a given entity to avoid the multiple prediction problem (He et al., 2020d) where the model possibly predicts multiple slot types for one entity span. Different from the above formulation, we take each slot value as input and corresponding slot type as output to build a mapping from entity tokens to entity types. In this way, we force the model to learn explicit distinctions of different types. Inspired by recent parameter-effcient tuning work (Li and Liang, 2021a; Lester et al., 2021), we also introduce an effcient prompt tuning strategy to boost higher performance by training fewer prompt parameters instead of the whole PLM. Our contributions are three-fold: (1) We propose a simple but strong generative zero-shot prompt learning framework for cross-domain slot flling, which has better generalization capability and robustness than previous work. (2) We present a novel inverse prompting strategy to distinguish different slot types to avoid the multiple prediction problem. Besides, we introduce an effcient prompt tuning strategy to boost higher performance only training fewer prompt parameters. (3) Experiments and analysis demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed framework, especially for good generalization to unseen slots (F1 +13.44% ↑), strong robustness to different templates (∆ F1 +10.23% ↑), parameter effciency (10x fewer parameters). ## 2 Methodology Our model is shown in Fig 2. In our framework, we frst construct several simple template sentences for the model input, where each sentence includes a slot type question, all slot types and the original query. Then we use a PLM to generate the corresponding slot values. Along with the main task formulation, we perform an inverse-prompting task to warm up the parameters to strengthen the relationship between entities and slot types. ## 2.1 Problem Defnition Given a user input sentence containing n words Xinput = {x1, x2*, ..., x*n} and slot type sets S = {s1, s2*, ..., s*m}, the slot flling task aims to fnd all the entities in X*input*. For zero-shot setting in our paper, we train models using labeled data from the source domain and make predictions in the target domain. ## 2.2 Generative Zero-Shot Prompt Learning Framework We customize the entire task using a generative zero-shot prompt learning framework. Specifcally, we concat the question of each slot type, names of all slot types, the input query together to construct the input sequence and take the related slot values as output sequence. We formulate it as follows: what is the slot_type ? **{all slot types}** x1 x2 *... x*n where **slot_type** represents the queried slot type, {all slot types} represents all slot types across all domains. For slot types that do not exist in the input, we set the answer to special token "none". For each original input query, we construct QA pairs as the same number of slot types2. Label Prompt Construction We do not focus on the question template construction as the previous works Du et al. (2021); Yu et al. (2021). Instead, we simply set up the simplest question form of "*what is the* ? " to highlight the simplicity and effectiveness of our proposed framework. It is worth noting that we also include slot names from all domains in the prompt. The main purpose of this setting is to enhance the interaction between different slot types, so that the model can fnd the best answer from the original text. Inverse Prompting Previous MRC works suffer from the multiple prediction problem (He et al., 2020d) where the model possibly predicts multiple slot types for one entity span. To solve such confict, we design an invert prompting task to warm up the model parameters frst. We inverse the original QA pair, that is, set the question to the entities and the answer to the corresponding slot types. This task enables the model to distinguish different slot types for slot entities. In this way, deep semantic relationships between slot types are learned, and the model will learn stronger entity-slot relations. We both train the main task and the inverse task in the same auto-regressive way. Experiments show that frst using the inverse task for pre-training then the main task gets the best performance. In addition, since the result of the main task could be "none", we additionally use a negative sampling strategy here to ensure the consistency of the two tasks. We just randomly sample different spans in sentences, and set the corresponding answers to "none". This strategy can also improve the anti-noise ability of the model and improve the robustness of the framework. In our experiments, we set the ratio of positive and negative samples to 1:1. Training and Inference During training, we try two different training strategies: fne-tuning and prefx-tuning (Li and Liang, 2021b). In the fnetuning mode, we frst use the inverse task to warm up the model parameters, and then perform the main task. All the PLM parameters are fnetuned. For prefx-tuning, the parameters of the pre-trained model are fxed during training, and only the parameters of the new added prefx embeddings are trained. Specifcally, we add a trainable prefx embedding matrix in each attention layer of the PLM 3. This method requires 10x fewer trainable parameters and is more parameter-effcient. During the inference, we only perform the main task. We query for all slot types, and the model directly generates the corresponding slot entities. Compared with the previous method (Yu et al., 2021), our model will not need additional span matching mechanism, so it will be more concise and intuitive. To ensure task consistency with MRC-based models, we add a post-processing step: if multiple slot types predict the same entity span, we choose the answer with the highest generation probability of the frst word. ## 3 Settings 3.1 Datasets SNIPS (Coucke et al., 2018) is a public spoken language understanding dataset consisting of crowdsourced user utterances with 39 slots across 7 domains. It has around 2000 training instances per domain. To simulate the cross-domain scenarios, we follow Liu et al. (2020) to split the dataset, which selects one domain as the target domain and the other six domains as the source domains each time. ## 3.2 Baselines Sequence Tagging Models: **Concept Tagger (CT)** proposed by (Bapna et al., 2017), which utilizes slot descriptions to boost the performance on detecting unseen slots. **Robust Zero-shot Tagger** 3Please see more details in the original prefx-tuning work (Li and Liang, 2021b). | Training Setting | Sequence tagging-based models | MRC-based models | Our models | | | | | | | | | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------|--------------------|--------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|----------|----------|-----------|-----------| | Domain ↓ ∼ Model → | CT | RZT | Coach | CZSL | PCLC | QASF | RCSF* | GZPL(ft) | GZPL(pt) | GZPL*(ft) | GZPL*(pt) | | AddToPlaylist | 38.82 42.77 | 50.90 | 53.89 | 59.24 | 59.29 | 68.70 | 57.52 | 59.34 | 59.83 | 61.64 | | | BookRestaurant | 27.54 | 30.68 | 34.01 | 34.06 | 41.36 | 43.13 | 63.49 | 57.50 | 63.77 | 61.23 | 62.93 | | GetWeather | 46.45 | 50.28 | 50.47 | 52.04 | 54.21 | 59.02 | 65.36 | 64.90 | 64.20 | 62.58 | 64.97 | | PlayMusic | 32.86 | 33.12 | 32.01 | 34.59 | 34.95 | 33.62 | 53.51 | 54.35 | 56.78 | 62.73 | 66.42 | | RateBook | 14.54 | 16.43 | 22.06 | 31.53 | 29.31 | 33.34 | 36.51 | 31.86 | 38.88 | 45.88 | 47.53 | | SearchCreativeWork | 39.79 | 44.45 | 46.65 | 50.61 | 53.51 | 59.90 | 69.22 | 66.97 | 71.96 | 71.30 | 72.88 | | SearchScreeningEvent | 13.83 | 12.25 | 25.63 | 30.05 | 27.17 | 22.83 | 33.54 | 44.80 | 49.83 | 48.26 | 51.42 | | Average F1 | 30.55 | 32.85 | 37.39 | 40.99 | 42.82 | 44.45 | 55.76 | 53.99 | 57.82 | 58.82 | 61.07 | | Table 1: Slot F1-scores (%) on SNIPS for different target domains under zero-shot settings. ft and pt stands for | | | | | | | | | | | |  (RZT) proposed by (Shah et al., 2019), which is based on CT and leverages both slot descriptions and examples to improve the robustness of zero-shot slot flling. **Coarse-to-fne Approach** (Coach) proposed by (Liu et al., 2020), which contains coarse-grained BIO 3-way classifcation and a fne-grained slot type prediction. In this model, slot descriptions are used in the second stage to help recognize unseen slots, and template regularization is applied to further improve the slot flling performance of similar or the same slot types. Contrastive Zero-Shot Learning with Adversarial Attack (CZSL-Adv) proposed by (He et al., 2020c), which is based on Coach and utilizes contrastive learning and adversarial attacks to improve the performance and robustness of the framework. Prototypical Contrastive Learning and Label Confusion (PCLC) (Wang et al., 2021), which proposes a method to dynamically refne slot prototypes' representations based on Coach framework and obtains an improved performance. MRC-based Models: **QA-driven Slot Filling** Framework (QASF). Contrary to previous methods, Du et al. (2021) introduced MRC-based framework and leveraged the PLMs to solve the problem. Reading Comprehension for Slot Filling (RCSF) (Yu et al., 2021), which takes a new perspective on cross-domain slot flling by formulating it as a machine reading comprehension (MRC) problem, which transforms slot names into well-designed queries to improve the detection performance of domain-specifc slots. ## 3.3 Implementation Details We use T5-base4as the backbone in our experiments. Model parameters are optimized using the AdamW optimizer (Kingma and Ba, 2014) with a learning rate 5e-05. We set the batch size to 8 and use early stop with a patience 10 to ensure the stability of the model. The prefx length is set to 5 and the dropout rate is set to 0.1. Since RCSF uses the BERT-Large5 model, we use T5-large6 model to match the number of parameters of the model used in RCSF. The number of parameters of T5-base7, T5-large and prefx parameters are 2.2 billion, 7.7 billion, and 20 million, respectively. For all experiments, we train and test our model on 3090 GPU and use f1-score as the evaluation metric. During the training process, we only do prefx-tuning on T5-base, we fx the parameters of T5-base and only fne-tune the parameters of prefx embeddings. We take the average F1 scores of three experiments as our fnal result. ## 4 Experiments 4.1 Main Results Results show that our proposed framework GZPL signifcantly outperforms SOTAs. Our base model GZPL(pt) outperforms PCLC by 15.00% and QASF by 13.37% respectively. We don't directly compare our model with RCSF because it uses two unfair settings: using BERT-large as backbone and pre-training it on the QA dataset SQuAD2.0 (Rajpurkar et al., 2018b). Nevertheless, our base model still outperforms RCSF by 2.06%. We adopt another setting to compare with RCSF, that is, change the backbone model to T5-large to ensure that the model size is consistent. We can see GZPL*(pt) with T5-large outperforms RCSF by 6.31%. Besides, we also fnd using prefx-tuning is better than traditional fne-tuning, which proves prefx-tuning has better knowledge transferability.8 ## 4.2 Analysis  Table 2: Average F1 scores on seen and unseen slots across all target domains.  the template changes. The smaller number indicates the better effect.  Table 4: Averaged F1-scores (%) over all target domains on SNIPS under the few-shot settings on source domains. \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|} \hline RP & w/o (LP & RP ) \\ \hline 72 & 53.13 & \\ \hline \end{tabular} $\neg$ b. GZPL w/o LP w/o RP w/o (LP & RP ) Average F1 57.82 55.47 54.72 53.13 Table 5: Ablation studies. LP and RP stands for label prompt and inverse prompt, respectively. source domains, it will be categorized into the "unseen slot" part, otherwise "seen slot". The results are shown in Table 2. We can see that our method outperforms previous methods by a large margin on unseen slots, while performs slightly worse than RCSF on seen slots. Our model focuses more on the generalizable knowledge transfer rather than overftting on the seen slots in source domains, so it has stronger generalization ability than the previous methods. Robustness Analysis To verify the robustness of our framework, we change the original template "what is the ?" as RCSF. We still use the complete template during training, but delete some tokens of the template during testing, and the results are shown in Table 3. Our model drops slightly by average 4.2% when the template changes, while RCSF drops signifcantly by 15.6%. This demonstrates that our model is more robust to different input templates. Effectiveness Analysis To further explore the effectiveness of the GZPL under low resource scenarios, we conduct several low-resource settings on source domains, which means only 20, 50, 100, 200 and 500 samples in source domain are used during training stage. As SOTA model (RCSF) does not show results of few-shot experiments, we evaluate RCSF using its open source code. As shown in Table 4, the per formance of our model is much better than that of RCSF under low resource conditions. Besides, with only 100 samples (5%), our model maintains 63.13% performance compared to the results using complete source domain data. While using 500 samples (25%), 82.08% performance can be maintained. This demonstrates our approach is more data-effcient than other slot flling models. Ablation Studies To better prove the effectiveness of the label prompt strategy and the inverseprompt task, we conduct ablation experiments on these two components. Table 5 illustrates the results of ablation, where "w/o" denotes the model performance without specifc module. As we can see, the model will have a slight performance drop (-2.35%) if the slot types in template are removed and the performance of the model will degrade signifcantly (-3.5%) without the inverse-prompt task. Besides, it is observed that when removing both the label-prompt and inverse-prompt jointly, the performance of the model will drop drastically (-4.69%). This suggests that both of them play an important role in improving the performance. ## 5 Conclusion In this paper, we introduce a generative prompt learning framework for zero-shot cross-domain slot flling. Based on this, we introduce the label prompt strategy and the inverse prompting to improve the generalization capability and robustness of the framework. Another prefx-tuning mechanism is performed to boost model training effciency. The exhaustive experimental results show the effectiveness of our methods, and the qualitative analysis inspire new insight into related area. Generally, our framework can be applied to more complex situations, such as nested NER, discontinuous/multiple slots, which we leave to future work. Another interesting direction is to improve the inference effciency, like concat all the slot questions together and get fnal results. ## 6 Acknowledgements This work was partially supported by National Key R&D Program of China No. 2019YFF0303300 and Subject II No. 2019YFF0303302, DOCOMO Beijing Communications Laboratories Co., Ltd, MoE-CMCC "Artifcal Intelligence" Project No. MCM20190701. ## References Ankur Bapna, Gokhan Tur, Dilek Hakkani-Tur, and Larry Heck. 2017. Towards zero-shot frame semantic parsing for domain scaling. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1707.02363. Alice Coucke, Alaa Saade, Adrien Ball, Théodore Bluche, Alexandre Caulier, David Leroy, Clément Doumouro, Thibault Gisselbrecht, Francesco Caltagirone, Thibaut Lavril, et al. 2018. Snips voice platform: an embedded spoken language understanding system for private-by-design voice interfaces. arXiv e-prints, pages arXiv–1805. Xinya Du, Luheng He, Qi Li, Dian Yu, Panupong Pasupat, and Yuan Zhang. 2021. QA-driven zero-shot slot flling with weak supervision pretraining. 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 654–664, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Chih-Wen Goo, Guang Gao, Yun-Kai Hsu, Chih-Li Huo, Tsung-Chieh Chen, Keng-Wei Hsu, and Yun-Nung Chen. 2018. Slot-gated modeling for joint slot flling and intent prediction. 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 753–757, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. Keqing He, Shuyu Lei, Yushu Yang, Huixing Jiang, and Zhongyuan Wang. 2020a. Syntactic graph convolutional network for spoken language understanding. In *COLING*. Keqing He, Yuanmeng Yan, and Weiran Xu. 2020b. Learning to tag OOV tokens by integrating contextual representation and background knowledge. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 619–624, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Keqing He, Jinchao Zhang, Yuanmeng Yan, Weiran Xu, Cheng Niu, and Jie Zhou. 2020c. Contrastive zero-shot learning for cross-domain slot flling with adversarial attack. In *Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics*, pages 1461–1467, Barcelona, Spain (Online). International Committee on Computational Linguistics. Keqing He, Jinchao Zhang, Yuanmeng Yan, Weiran Xu, Cheng Niu, and Jie Zhou. 2020d. Contrastive zero-shot learning for cross-domain slot flling with adversarial attack. In *COLING*. Diederik Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980. Sungjin Lee and Rahul Jha. 2019. Zero-shot adaptive transfer for conversational language understanding. In *AAAI*. Brian Lester, Rami Al-Rfou, and Noah Constant. 2021. The power of scale for parameter-effcient prompt tuning. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3045–3059, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xiang Lisa Li and Percy Liang. 2021a. Prefx-tuning: Optimizing continuous prompts for generation. 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 4582– 4597, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xiang Lisa Li and Percy Liang. 2021b. Prefx-tuning: Optimizing continuous prompts for generation. 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 4582– 4597. Zihan Liu, Genta Indra Winata, Peng Xu, and Pascale Fung. 2020. Coach: A coarse-to-fne approach for cross-domain slot flling. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 19–25. Shikib Mehri and Maxine Eskenazi. 2021. Gensf: Simultaneous adaptation of generative pre-trained models and slot flling. In *Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue*, pages 489–498. Libo Qin, Wanxiang Che, Yangming Li, Haoyang Wen, and Ting Liu. 2019. A stack-propagation framework with token-level intent detection for spoken language understanding. 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 2078–2087, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. 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 unifed text-to-text transformer. *The Journal of Machine Learning Research*, 21(1):5485–5551. Pranav Rajpurkar, Robin Jia, and Percy Liang. 2018a. Know what you don't know: Unanswerable questions for SQuAD. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 784–789, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. Pranav Rajpurkar, Robin Jia, and Percy Liang. 2018b. Know what you don't know: Unanswerable questions for squad. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 784–789. Darsh Shah, Raghav Gupta, Amir Fayazi, and Dilek Hakkani-Tur. 2019. Robust zero-shot cross-domain slot flling with example values. In *Proceedings of* the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5484–5490. Amrita S. Tulshan and Sudhir N. Dhage. 2019. Survey on virtual assistant: Google assistant, siri, cortana, alexa. *Communications in Computer and Information Science*. Liwen Wang, Xuefeng Li, Jiachi Liu, Keqing He, Yuanmeng Yan, and Weiran Xu. 2021. Bridge to target domain by prototypical contrastive learning and label confusion: Re-explore zero-shot learning for slot flling. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on* Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 9474–9480. Di Wu, Liang Ding, Fan Lu, and Jian Xie. 2020. Slotrefne: A fast non-autoregressive model for joint intent detection and slot flling. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1932–1937. Mengshi Yu, Jian Liu, Yufeng Chen, Jinan Xu, and Yujie Zhang. 2021. Cross-domain slot flling as machine reading comprehension. In *Proceedings of the* Thirtieth International Joint Conference on Artifcial Intelligence, IJCAI-21, Montreal, QC, Canada, pages 19–26. Xiaodong Zhang and Houfeng Wang. 2016. A joint model of intent determination and slot flling for spoken language understanding. In *IJCAI*. Zheng Zhang, Ryuichi Takanobu, Qi Zhu, MinLie Huang, and XiaoYan Zhu. 2020. Recent advances and challenges in task-oriented dialog systems. *Science China Technological Sciences*, 63(10):2011– 2027. ## A Details About The Input And Output Formats Table 6 shows an example of how to perform slot flling tasks for a user query under our settings. As shown in the table, since we already know the slot type information for the domain the data belongs to, we will customize the unique questions for each slot type according to our template and the model then generate the answers for each question. The answer can be one or more spans in the original sentence, or be the special token "none". It is worth noting that when a slot type corresponds to multiple slot entities, the answer will be separated by commas. However, this situation hardly exists in the Snips dataset, so it is rare to have multiple spans as answers when testing.  ## B **Analysis Of The Inverse-Prompting Task** To further explore whether our auxiliary task alleviates the problem of repeated generation, we verify its effect through the following two metrics: precision and recall score. We use these metrics based on our recognition that repeated generation will result in more entities being predicted. On the one hand, this will improve the recall score, and on the other hand, it will hurt the accuracy of the model prediction. The experimental results are shown in Figure 3. As can be seen from the fgure, after adding this inverse-prompt task, the recall-score of the model decreased by 3%, while the precision-score increased by 5.5%, which also increased the overall f1-score by 2.4%. We also conducted a case study on the output of the model, and the results are shown in Table 7. After the tasks are added, the repeated generation of the model is signifcantly reduced. These results above illustrate that the proposed task enables the model to learn deep relationships between slot types, thereby reducing the problem of repeated generation. ## C Limitations And Future Work The current work does achieve better performance than previous methods, but processing only one slot type at a time also reduces the effciency of the model. In the future, we will explore how to maximize model effciency. It would be an interesting challenge to generate answers for all the slots at once without degrading the effect of the model. Also, we will also try to apply our framework to more scenarios, such as NER and other tasks to explore the adaptability of the proposed method. | Domain | SearchCreativeWork | |---------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | slot types in this domain | object type, object name | | all_alot_types | artist, playlist object type, object name | | query | play the game sugarfoot | | input1 | what is the object type ? artist, playlist object type, object name play the game sugarfoot | | output1 | game | | input2 | what is the object name ? artist, playlist object type, object name play the game sugarfoot | | output2 | sugarfoot | Table 6: An example showing the details of the input and output formats under our settings. | Case Study | Data | |-----------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Query | add ilse delange to my journey playlist | | Answer | music_item→none; playlist_owner→none; entity_name→none; playlist→journey; artist→ilse delange | | w/o Inverse Prompting | music_item→ilse delange; playlist_owner→none; entity_name→none; playlist→journey; artist→ilse delange | | w Inverse Prompting | music_item→none; playlist_owner→none; entity_name→none; playlist→journey; artist→ilse delange | Table 7: The case study of GZPL w/o Inverse Prompting ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Section 4(line 288 293) and Appendix E. ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Section 2.2. The description in Inverse Prompt(line157-160). ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Abstract(Line 7 16) Introduction(Line105 119) ✗ 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?** 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? Appendix B(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 3.1 and 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? Appendix B(line 472 474) ✓ 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.

gan-etal-2023-appraising

Re-appraising the Schema Linking for Text-to-{SQL}

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.53

Most text-to-SQL models, even though based on the same grammar decoder, generate the SQL structure first and then fill in the SQL slots with the correct schema items. This second step depends on schema linking: aligning the entity references in the question with the schema columns or tables. This is generally approached via Exact Match based Schema Linking (EMSL) within a neural network-based schema linking module. EMSL has become standard in text-to-SQL: many state-of-the-art models employ EMSL, with performance dropping significantly when the EMSL component is removed. In this work, however, we show that EMSL reduces robustness, rendering models vulnerable to synonym substitution and typos. Instead of relying on EMSL to make up for deficiencies in question-schema encoding, we show that using a pre-trained language model as an encoder can improve performance without using EMSL, giving a more robust model. We also study the design choice of the schema linking module, finding that a suitable design benefits performance and interoperability. Finally, based on the above study of schema linking, we introduce the grammar linking to help model align grammar references in the question with the SQL keywords.

# Re-Appraising The Schema Linking For Text-To-Sql Yujian Gan1 Xinyun Chen2 **Matthew Purver**1,3 1Queen Mary University of London 2Google DeepMind 3Jožef Stefan Institute {y.gan,m.purver}@qmul.ac.uk xinyunchen@google.com ## Abstract Most text-to-SQL models, even though based on the same grammar decoder 1, generate the SQL structure first and then fill in the SQL slots with the correct schema items. This second step depends on *schema linking*: aligning the entity references in the question with the schema columns or tables. This is generally approached via Exact Match based Schema Linking (**EMSL**) within a neural networkbased schema linking module. EMSL has become standard in text-to-SQL: many stateof-the-art models employ EMSL, with performance dropping significantly when the EMSL component is removed. In this work, however, we show that EMSL reduces robustness, rendering models vulnerable to synonym substitution and typos. Instead of relying on EMSL to make up for deficiencies in question-schema encoding, we show that using a pre-trained language model as an encoder can improve performance without using EMSL, giving a more robust model. We also study the design choice of the schema linking module, finding that a suitable design benefits performance and interpretability. Finally, based on the above study of schema linking, we introduce the grammar linking to help model align grammar references in the question with the SQL keywords.2 ## 1 Introduction Recent years have seen great progress on the textto-SQL problem, i.e. translating a natural language (NL) question into a SQL query (Dong and Lapata, 2018; Yu et al., 2018b; Zhong et al., 2017; Gan et al., 2021a; Guo et al., 2019; Bogin et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2020), with neural networks the *de facto* approach. To achieve good performance on text-to-SQL tasks, a neural model needs to correlate natural language queries with the given 1The decoder will repeat the following two steps until a complete SQL is generated: (1) generates a SQL clause keyword; (2) fills in corresponding schema items. 2Our code and data are available at Github. database schema, a process called *schema linking*. Previous work often explicitly designs a module to perform the schema linking, which we term Exact Match based Schema Linking (*EMSL*) (Guo et al., 2019; Bogin et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2020). Specifically: - **Schema linking** is the alignment between the entity references in the question and the schema columns or tables. - A **schema linking module** is a trainable component that learns to perform schema linking, based on features that relate word tokens in the question to schema items. - A **schema linking feature** encodes this relational information; e.g., it can represent the similarity between words in the question and schema items. - **Exact match based schema linking (EMSL)** is a type of schema linking feature obtained by the exact lexical match between the words in the question and words in schema items. Figure 1 presents an example of schema linking and the EMSL feature matrix. Most previous work relies on this exact lexical matching to obtain schema linking features. Following the work of (Krishnamurthy et al., 2017; Guo et al., 2019; Bogin et al., 2019), EMSL is used in many subsequent works (Wang et al., 2020; Cai et al., 2021; Xu et al., 2021; Lei et al., 2020; Yu et al., 2021; Shi et al., 2021) and has been shown to be effective. For example, the ablation study in Guo et al. (2019) shows that removing the schema linking module incurs the most significant performance decrease. Although EMSL has been widely used and helps models obtain the state-of-the-art performance on some text-to-SQL benchmarks (Yu et al., 2018b; Zhong et al., 2017), in this work, we show that EMSL renders models vulnerable to noise in the input, particularly synonym substitution and typos. We then investigate whether text-to-SQL models can preserve good prediction performance without EMSL. Previous ablation studies (Guo et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2020) claiming the necessity of the schema linking module were conducted without pretrained language models (PLMs) such as BERT. In fact, we find that when a pretrained language model is used as a model encoder, removing EMSL has very little impact on the performance of the model. This observation is consistent for different model architectures and training schemes, such as RATSQL (Wang et al., 2020), GNN (Bogin et al., 2019), and GAP (Shi et al., 2021). Based on this finding, we introduce a more reasonable text-toSQL encoder design. We evaluate the models in three settings: the original Spider benchmark without input noise (Yu et al., 2018b), the Spider-Syn version with synonym substitution (Gan et al., 2021a), and a new typo injection setting. Results show that the use of a PLM can provide the same performance benefit as EMSL, while achieving better robustness against synonym substitution and typos. Removing EMSL also allows the model to obtain better results when training with synonym substitution samples. We also show that MAS (Multi-Annotation Selection, Gan et al., 2021a), a method designed to improve model robustness with EMSL, can also improve models without EMSL. In conclusion, we demonstrate EMSL is no longer a necessary building block of text-to-SQL models. The EMSL and pretrained language models are part of the schema linking module that learns a score to decide which schema item to select. There are two design choices to compute this score: the first sees it as a direct relation between the question and schema items (Bogin et al., 2019); while the second considers the question and schema items together (Wang et al., 2020). We show that our best model employing the first design choice achieves the state-of-the-art performance, while its schema linking scores are also more interpretable than models with the second design. Despite the shortcomings of EMSL, it still significantly improves previous models: without a clear idea of how to align the entity references in the question and the schema columns or tables, EMSL plays an important role in alignment. Inspired by EMSL, we propose instead Exact Match Grammar Linking (GL), which improves the model's ability to generate correct SQL keywords. In short, this work investigates the role of the schema linking module for text-to-SQL models, regarding its effect on model performance and ro-  bustness. We summarize our key findings below: - EMSL is not a necessary building block of textto-SQL models. A reasonable text-to-SQL encoder design can replace EMSL and make the model more robust. - Compared to the cross relation score between the question and schema items together, a direct relation score between the question and schema items is more interpretable and can improve the performance of a state-of-the-art model. - When it is unclear how to design the optimal encoder, EMSL improves the model performance significantly. Inspired by EMSL, we introduce Exact Match Grammar Linking (GL) to generate better SQL keywords. ## 2 Proposal I: Construct The Schema Linking Without The Emsl Our first proposal is that the schema linking should not include EMSL. Schema linking itself is essential for text-to-SQL models, but EMSL can be replaced with a better mechanism. ## 2.1 Schema Linking Feature Figure 1 presents an example of schema linking features. The word *'singers'* in the question exactly matches (modulo stemming) the schema table name *'singer'*, giving feature value 1. It does not match the table *'concert'*, giving value 0; and matches one of the three words in *'singer in concert'*, giving value 0.33. Such type of schema linking mechanism based on exact lexical matching (EMSL) is the most common used in existing text-to-SQL models (Guo et al., 2019; Bogin et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2020; Cai et al., 2021; Xu et al., 2021; Lei et al., 2020; Yu et al., 2021; Shi et al., ## 2021). Schema linking has been shown to be essential for achieving good performance (Guo et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2020). For example, Wang et al. (2020) consider that the representations produced by vanilla self-attention were insensitive to textual matches even though their initial representations were identical, i.e., EMSL is needed for textual matches. Some works add ConceptNet (Speer and Havasi, 2012) to get more linking features (Guo et al., 2019; Tan et al., 2021) and thus improve the model performance. However, we argue that a well-designed encoder can solve this problem, and note that the feature values in Figure 1 are equal to the average dot product results when using lemma one-hot embeddings, suggesting that a proper embedding can replace EMSL. Appendix E provides previous ablation study on EMSL. We test our new proposal experimentally in Section 5.3. ## 2.2 Text-To-Sql Encoder Design For a text-to-SQL encoder, we expect that the correct schema item vectors obtained from the encoder are as close to the question vector as possible. The SQL cares about which schema item to use instead of the words in the schema item. Therefore, unlike keeping every question word vector, only one vector is used to present the schema item even if it contains multiple words. Since both the encoder mechanics and content style are different between question and schema, many models (Yu et al., 2018a; Guo et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2020) uses different encoders to encode the question and schema separately. The upper part of Figure 2 shows a design case, which is the structure of the RATSQL model (Wang et al., 2020) containing three encoders with similar structure and size. We believe that the shortcoming of the original RATSQL design is the use of three encoders. For example, in the initial state, the parameters of the three encoders are different. Therefore, even though the word *'singers'* appears in the question, the vector v6 initially generated by the table encoder is probably irrelevant to all vectors output by the sentence encoder. If using EMSL, this does not matter: in both training and evaluation we can link v6 to v2 through EMSL. However, without EMSL, we need to relate v6 from the table encoder to the vectors from the question encoder, which is more challenging to train than using only one encoder, as shown in the lower part of Figure 2. Since the  output of our modification is the same as the original, it can be easily replaced and connected to the subsequent modules. In the lower part of Figure 2, our modification is inspired by several text-to-SQL models with BERT, including RATSQL+BERT (Wang et al., 2020; Guo et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2019). In our modification, RATSQL uses only one encoder instead of three. We believe using three encoders is one of the main reasons why the base RATSQL performance significantly drops when removing EMSL. For the convenience of discussion, we named our modified RATSQL as RATSQLO, where O means one encoder. RATSQLO uses only one encoder whose structure and size are the same as the original question encoder. For the schema item representation, RATSQL takes the hidden state after all the words of the entire schema item are encoded, while RATSQLO takes the average of all word encodings. The advantage of our RATSQLO is that v6, v8, and v2 initially have a certain similarity, which benefits the schema linking in both single and multi words. RATSQLO also deals with words outside the embedding vocabulary better than RATSQL. Suppose the word concert and *name* are outside the vocabulary: v7 and v9 from the RATSQL table encoder will be the same since their inputs are the same UNK vector. However, the RATSQLO encoder will output different vectors for v7 and v9, as the contexts before and after the word *concert* and *name* are different. In this way, even if there are multiple UNK words, the RATSQLO encoding vector will be different. ## 3 Proposal Ii: Schema Linking Module Design Choice We believe that a text-to-SQL model with good performance can ignore the schema linking feature, but it must include a schema linking module. While implementation details of such models differ, | Labels | SQL Keywords | Matching Rules | |---------------|----------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------| | DB | WHERE | The words exact match to the database value. | | BCOL | WHERE | Words to successfully build the EMSL to Boolean-like columns | | COL, TABLE | NONE | Words to successfully build the EMSL. | | AGG | Aggregation Function | Matching words: average, maximum, minimum, etc. | | PDB | WHERE | Matching words in quotes. | | GRSM | >, < | Matching words: before, after, greater, smaller, etc. | | JJS | max(), min(), limit | Extracted from POS Tags, matching the superlative adjective | | SDB | WHERE | Match person name, place name, organization name, etc. | | UDB | WHERE | Match capitalized words. | | DATE,NUM,YEAR | WHERE | Matching: words in time format, numbers, years | | NOT | !=, except, not in | Matching words: not, no, n't, never, without, etc. | | IN, at, as | WHERE | Matching: preposition, subordinating conjunction, and words at and as. | | each | GROUP BY | Exact matching the word each. | | # | NONE | Words that cannot match the above labels. | Table 1: Exact Match Grammar Linking labels. SQL keywords indicate which keyword the label is extracted from, but it does not mean that the corresponding keyword must appear in the target SQL when the label appears.  the common factor is the calculation of a similarity score between each question word and schema item: correct schema items should obtain higher similarity scores. Schema linking modules output attention scores from computing the schema linking feature and word embeddings. There are currently two attention mechanism designs. The first calculates a score that relates the question on one side, to the schema items on the other. The second approach also considers the attention scores between different schema items (Guo et al., 2019), thus it takes the question and schema items together as input to produce the attention scores. In Figure 3, we elucidate the inputs and outputs associated with the two types of attention computations. Both designs have their own rationale, but the  first design is more interpretable: it requires the model to infer the correct schema item from the question, so you can see which part of the question is related to each selected schema item. With the second design, it is sometimes difficult to explain why the specific schema item is chosen due to the presence of some other schema items. For ease of understanding, we show and discuss the attention and interpretability of an example under different design choices in Appendix B; we test the effects on performance in Section 5.4. ## 4 Proposal Iii: Exact Match Grammar Linking (Gl) The mechanisms of existing models limit their performance in some specific situations discussed in Section 4.2 and Appendix C. Our third proposal is GL which can provide ideas for addressing these limitations. ## 4.1 Overview We propose GL, inspired by the EMSL and the NL question label generation method (Ma et al., 2020). EMSL attempts to match the words in the question with the schema item words, with the matching result then used as a feature to help the model generate the correct schema items. Similarly, GL matches the words in the question with those related to the SQL keywords. Considering that the number of SQL keywords is limited, GL can be implemented by matching words to specific categories/labels. In general, GL has two main steps in the text-toSQL process: (1) identify the label of each word, as shown in Figure 4; (2) input both label and word embeddings into the encoder. Formally, given a natural language question Q = q1..qQ, we generate a label lito each qi, as shown in Figure 4. There are different embeddings for li and qi, where the li embeddings Emblis randomly initialized while the qi embeddings Embq can obtain from GLOVE (Pennington et al., 2014) or PLMs. The encoder input X is the sum of embeddings of qi and li: X = (Embl(l0) +Embq(q0*), ..., Emb*l(lQ) +Embq(qQ)) Specifically, Embl(li) does not enforce binding to specific SQL keywords. We expect the model to learn the meaning of GL label embeddings. Before we can use GL for text-to-SQL, we need to define the labels and match rules. We use the method of information extraction combined with manual annotation to collect the words related to SQL keywords. We remove the words that match the schema items and then use the tf-idf (term frequency-inverse document frequency) score to extract the words that are highly relevant to the target SQL keyword. After manual correction and adding words of the same type, such as synonyms, we obtain the word categories/labels corresponding to the SQL keywords. Table 1 presents all labels with their matching rules used by this work. In Table 1, uppercase labels match a class of words, while lowercase labels only match words with the same name as the label, such as 'at' and 'each' labels. The order of the labels in Table 1 is sorted by their priority. We start matching from the highest priority label and end once the match is successful. Taking Figure 4 as an example, the label for the word 'average' in example 1 is 'AGG', but that in example 2 is 'COL'. Because the two examples belong to different domains where the database of the second example contains a column named 'average' that can be built an EMSL with the question word 'average'. Therefore, although the 'average' in example 2 satisfies both the matching rules of the 'AGG' and 'COL' labels, its generated label is 'COL' instead of 'AGG' since the priority in the 'COL' label is higher. ## 4.2 Benefits From Gl Existing models (Bogin et al., 2019; Guo et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2020; Cao et al., 2021) tend to output the incorrect SQL clause 'ORDER BY avg(average)' instead of 'ORDER BY average' for the second example in Figure 4, even though their generation process is based on the same decoder. This error states that the 'average' word is used twice in generating the 'average' column and the 'avg' function. Utilizing GL can help existing models solve this problem. When training with GL, the model will learn that most of the examples generating 'avg' function require the 'AGG' label of GL. Therefore, since there is no 'AGG' label in example 2, the model will not tend to generate the 'avg' function. For other benefits from GL, please refer to Appendix C. ## 5 Experiments 5.1 Generating Typos To evaluate robustness against typos, we randomly insert a letter into the correct schema annotation word. (This is enough to break EMSL, so we do not also modify the question words). We generated three typo development sets, named Spider-T1 to Spider-T3. The typos in Spider-T1 are generated by randomly inserting a letter at any position except the end. In contrast, Spider-T2 appends a random letter at the end of the schema annotation words. We examine these separately: the BERT tokenizer may be able to split Spider-T2 typos into a correct word and a suffix, but is less likely to split the Spider-T1 typos well. We convert every schema annotation word in Spider-T1 and T2 to typos when word length is greater than five letters; typos are generally more likely to occur in longer words, and words with more than five letters account for about 40% of the dataset. Spider-T3 is then the same as Spider-T1, but only converts the most frequent schema item words to typos. While Spider-T1 and T2 simulate the impact of large numbers of typos in extreme cases, Spider-T3 evaluates the impact of a more realistic, smaller number of typos. Other typos are possible, e.g. by deleting and swapping letters; we discuss these in Appendix D. ## 5.2 Experimental Setup We evaluate the previous state-of-the-art models on Spider (Yu et al., 2018b), Spider-T, and Spider-Syn (Gan et al., 2021a) datasets. All results report their maximum value. All experiments were performed on a machine with an Intel i5 9600 3.1GHz processor and a 24GB RTX3090 GPU. Since the Spider test set is not publicly accessible and Spider-Syn and Spider-T do not contain test sets, our evaluation is based on the development sets. The SpiderSyn benchmark contains three development sets: Spider-Syn, ADVBERT, and ADVGLOVE, for evaluating model robustness against synonym substitution. Therefore, we have the following evaluation sets: - **Spider**: The original Spider development set with 1,034 examples. - **Spider-T1, T2 and T3**: Three development sets that replace the correct word with typos, introduced in Section 5.1. - **Spider-Syn**: The human-curated development set built upon Spider, for evaluating synonym substitution in real-world question paraphrases. - ADV**BERT**: The set of adversarial examples generated by BERT-Attack (Li et al., 2020). - ADV**GLOVE**: The set of adversarial examples generated using the nearest GLOVE word vector (Pennington et al., 2014; Mrkšic et al. ´ , 2016). Our evaluation is based on the exact match metric defined in the original Spider benchmark. This metric measures whether the syntax tree of the predicted query without condition values is the same as that of the gold query. Our experiment setting is consistent with the ablation study in Appendix E. Following the encoder design in Section 2.2, we evaluate different variants of the RATSQL model: - **RATSQL**: The base RATSQL+GLOVE model trained on Spider using EMSL in training and evaluation (Wang et al., 2020). - **RATSQL**O: Our modified RATSQL+GLOVE model trained on Spider using EMSL in training and evaluation, discussed in Section 2.2. - **RATSQL**B: The RATSQL+BERT model trained on Spider using EMSL in training and evaluation. (Note that RATSQLO+BERT is just RATSQL+BERT: using BERT means that the BERT encoder will replace all encoders in Figure 2). - **RATSQL**BS: RATSQL+BERT trained on Spider-Syn using EMSL (Gan et al., 2021a). - **RATSQL**G: RATSQL+GAP trained on Spider using EMSL (Shi et al., 2021). | Model | Spider | | |-----------------|----------|-------| | RATSQL | 62.7% | | | RATSQL w/o EMSL | 51.9% | | | RATSQLO | 62.2% | | | RATSQLO | w/o EMSL | 58.4% | Table 2: Accuracy of two RATSQL ablations on the development set. - **w/o EMSL:** Models without EMSL in training and evaluation, consistent with Tables 9 and 10. - **ManualMAS** (Gan et al., 2021a): Schema annotations include synonyms used in Spider-Syn. - **AutoMAS** (Gan et al., 2021a): Schema annotations include synonyms generated according to the nearest GLOVE word vector. ## 5.3 Experiment On Emsl (Proposal I) 5.3.1 Evaluation On Spider Table 2 presents the exact matching accuracy of models trained on the Spider training set. Without EMSL, our RATSQLO model significantly improves over RATSQL. Models with PLMs also obtained similar results with RATSQLO, which also supported our proposal to remove the EMSL. Detailed experimental results and discussion are shown in Appendix E. Furthermore, we conduct an error analysis in Appendix F. ## 5.3.2 Robustness Evaluation Typo Results Table 3 presents the robustness evaluation results on several datasets. For typos, GLOVE will treat them as UNK words, so the RATSQL and RATSQLO cannot obtain good performance on Spider-T1 and T2 due to too many UNK words. The RATSQLO without EMSL significantly outperforms the RATSQL without EMSL in Spider-T3, which is another evidence that the RATSQLO is better in handling UNK words. After using PLMs, the performance on typos has been significantly improved, especially on Spider-T2. Spider-T3 contains only a few typos, i.e., it is close to the Spider to some extent. Thus, the T3 result characteristics are close to Spider, i.e., their performance gap between with and without EMSL is close. With the increase of typos, the performance gap will be expanded, where the model+PLM without EMSL will be better. Synonym Substitution Results Gan et al. (2021a) propose three development sets for evaluating the robustness of text-to-SQL models Approach Spider Spider-T1 Spider-T2 Spider-T3 Spider-Syn ADVGLOVE ADV**BERT** RATSQL 62.7% **23.9% 26.4% 51.2%** 33.9% 30.9% 37.1% RATSQL w/o EMSL 51.9% 20.8% 21.7% 44.1% **39.1% 38.1% 40.9%** RATSQLO 62.2% **22.8% 25.7% 51.6%** 32.1% 32.7% 36.3% RATSQLO w/o EMSL 58.4% 20.8% 23.3% 51.5% **42.6% 38.6% 43.8%** RATSQLB **69.7%** 30.9% 54.8% **63.2%** 48.2% 38.0% 48.8% RATSQLB w/o EMSL 69.3% **32.3% 66.2%** 63.0% **52.7% 45.4% 54.3%** RATSQLBS 68.1% 33.6% 58.1% 62.7% 58.0% 47.7% 55.7% RATSQLBS w/o EMSL 69.7% 38.1% 66.4% 65.0% **60.4% 51.0% 58.8%** RATSQLG **71.8%** 48.1% 64.6% 68.0% 54.6% 46.6% 54.8% RATSQLG w/o EMSL 71.7% 53.4% 67.6% 68.6% **58.7% 49.4% 57.3%** S2SQL (Hui et al., 2022) 76.4% - - - 51.4% - - Table 3: Exact match accuracy on original (Spider), typos (Spider-T1 to T3), and synonym substitution (Spider-Syn, ADVGLOVE, and ADVBERT) development sets. S2SQL results are quoted from Hui et al. (2022). against synonym substitution, including: SpiderSyn, ADVBERT, and ADVGLOVE. Table 3 shows that models without EMSL consistently outperform those with EMSL when evaluated against Spider-Syn, ADVGLOVE and ADVBERT. When using PLMs, RATSQLB and RATSQLG without EMSL show a huge performance improvement on these three development sets with only a tiny performance loss on Spider. RATSQLO without EMSL consistently outperforms RATSQL without EMSL, which means a reasonable design can reduce reliance on EMSL. Unlike other models, the RATSQLBS without EMSL outperforms that with EMSL in all evaluation sets. We discuss this in Appendix A. Although the S2SQL (Hui et al., 2022) model achieves pretty good performance in the Spider, its EMSL module causes its performance on Spider-Syn to be much worse than that of the RATSQLG without EMSL. MAS Results Gan et al. (2021a) also propose a MAS method to improve the robustness of text-toSQL models. MAS provides multiple annotations to repair the breaking of EMSL due to synonym substitutions. Although we advocate not relying on EMSL, MAS can still improve the performance of models without EMSL, as shown in Table 4. Comparing the data in Table 3 and Table 4, ManualMAS improves the performance of RATSQLB and RATSQLBS with and without EMSL on Spider- | Approach | Spider | Spider-Syn | ADVGLOVE ADVBERT | | |-------------------------------------|----------|--------------|--------------------|-------| | RATSQLB + ManualMAS | 67.4% | 62.6% | 34.2% | 44.5% | | RATSQLB + ManualMAS w/o EMSL 68.6% | 58.9% | 43.6% | 53.1% | | | RATSQLB + AutoMAS | 68.7% | 56.0% | 61.2% | 52.5% | | RATSQLB + AutoMAS w/o EMSL | 68.9% | 55.3% | 62.1% | 54.7% | | RATSQLBS + ManualMAS | 65.6% | 59.5% | 46.9% | 51.7% | | RATSQLBS + ManualMAS w/o EMSL 68.7% | 61.7% | 50.3% | 58.8% | | | RATSQLBS + AutoMAS | 66.8% | 57.5% | 61.0% | 55.7% | | RATSQLBS + AutoMAS w/o EMSL | 69.2% | 59.4% | 63.2% | 59.0% | Syn development set since the ManualMAS provide synonym annotations appearing in the SpiderSyn. In the same way, AutoMAS has also improved their performance on ADVGLOVE. Experimental results show that although MAS is designed to repair EMSL, it is still effective for models without EMSL. Besides, based on MAS, the overall performance of the model without EMSL is still better than that with EMSL. In general, even though EMSL is not used, a reasonable annotation is still essential to the text-to-SQL problem. ## 5.3.3 Discussion | Model | Spider | |-------------------------------------------|----------| | RATSQL1 G | 70.2% | | RATSQL2 G | 71.8% | | RATSQL2 G with NatSQL (Gan et al., 2021b) | 73.7% | | LGESQL + ELECTRA (Cao et al., 2021) | 75.1% | | RATSQL1 G with NatSQL | 75.5% | | RATSQL1 G with NatSQL and GL | 76.4% | | T5 Rerankers + PICARD (Zeng et al., 2022) | 76.4% | | S2SQL (Hui et al., 2022) | 76.4% | We introduce RATSQLO, an enhanced text-to-SQL encoder design, challenging the need for Exact Match Schema Linking (EMSL) assumed by previous research. RATSQLO offers an alternative perspective, arguing that the benefit of consolidating the encoder actually promotes schema linking. As a result, relying solely on PLM can only address certain issues. For instance, PLMs have input limitations that may suffice for current text-to-SQL benchmarks with small-scale schemas. However, for large-scale schemas, modifications to the PLM | Question: | What is the name and capacity for the stadium with the highest average attendance ? | | |---------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----| | RATSQLGN with GL: | SELECT name , capacity FROM stadium ORDER BY average DESC LIMIT 1 | ✓ | | S²SQL+ELECTRA: | SELECT name , capacity FROM stadium GROUP BY average ORDER BY avg(average) DESC LIMIT 1 | X | | LGESQL+ELECTRA: | SELECT name , capacity FROM stadium GROUP BY Highest ORDER BY avg(average) DESC LIMIT 1 | X | | RATSQLGN w/o GL: | SELECT name , capacity FROM stadium GROUP BY stadium_id ORDER BY avg(average) DESC LIMIT 1 | X | | Question: | Give the names of countries with English and French as official languages . | | | RATSQLGN with GL: | SELECT Name FROM ... WHERE Language = "English" AND IsOfficial = "T" INTERSECT | ✓ | | SELECT Name FROM ... WHERE Language = "French" AND IsOfficial = "T" | | | | S²SQL+ELECTRA: | SELECT Name FROM ... WHERE Language = "value" INTERSECT | X | | SELECT Name FROM ... WHERE Language = "value" | | | | LGESQL+ELECTRA: | SELECT Name FROM ... WHERE Language = "value" INTERSECT | X | | SELECT Name FROM ... WHERE Language = "value" | | | | RATSQLGN w/o GL: | SELECT Name FROM ... WHERE Language = "English" INTERSECT | X | | SELECT Name FROM ... WHERE Language = "French" | | | encoding method are necessary. If the PLM were to encode the question and schema separately, the EMSL would still be required. ## 5.4 Experiment On Schema Linking Module Design Choices (Proposal Ii) As discussed in Section 3, there are two design choices for the schema linking module. The first calculates a score that relates the question on one side, to the schema items on the other. The second approach assumes the attention between one schema item and others is needed, and it therefore takes question and schema items together as input to produce the score. The original RATSQL chose the 2nd design, named it RATSQL2G here. We modify the RATSQL according to the 1st design, named it RATSQL1G, and observe that its performance drops slightly, as shown in Table 5. Error analysis shows that RATSQL1G tends to use the schema items mentioned in the question and is not so good at dealing with implicit schema items. Although the performance of the RATSQL1G is slightly worse, we found that its schema linking performance is not inferior. The accuracy of the *SELECT* clause is the best way to measure the schema linking performance because every SQL contains at least one *SELECT* clause that only contains schema items. The *SELECT* accuracy of the RATSQL1G is slightly (0.4%) better than the RATSQL2G, which inspired us that the RATSQL1G is likely to perform well if removing the implicit schema items. Fortunately, we found NatSQL, an SQL intermediate representation that removes many implicit schema items from the SQL (Gan et al., 2021b). Experiments show that the performance of RATSQL1G+NatSQL is better than the RATSQL2G+NatSQL. Table 5 gives a detailed performance comparison, from which it can be found that by replacing the design, the RATSQLG+NatSQL is improved to the second place, evaluated on the development set, which is close to the current best published model. It should be noted that RATSQLG+NatSQL does not use the complex graph neural network as S2SQL and LGESQL, nor does it use the ELECTRA, which is shown to be better than GAP (Clark et al., 2020; Cao et al., 2021; Hui et al., 2022). ## 5.5 Experiment On Gl (Proposal Iii) We assemble GL onto RATSQLG+NatSQL, obtaining 0.9% absolute improvement, rising from 75.5% to 76.4%, which improves the performance of the RATSQL model to be consistent with the best-published model, as shown in Table 5. Although the performance improvement of GL is less apparent than that of the EMSL in previous ablation studies, GL is an indispensable module for solving specific problems. We compared the RATSQLG+NatSQL+GL with S²SQL and LGESQL, where S²SQL and LGESQL are the current top 2 opensource models in the exact match metric of the Spider leaderboard. Table 6 presents the output of these models for two examples in the Spider development set. No models without GL, including RATSQLG+NatSQL, generate the correct SQL. We discuss how GL can help the model generate correct SQL in Section 4.2 and Appendix C, respectively. During our experiment, we faced a number of challenges with using the GL. Unlike schema linking, which creates a direct link from question tokens to a schema item, GL doesn't establish a similar connection. In GL, it just identifies question tokens related to SQL keywords based on rules defined in Table 1. GL requires the neural model to find out which SQL keywords it's connected to by training. However, we found this difficult to accomplish when in scenarios involving complex SQL queries, the model struggled to accurately connect GL with the appropriate SQL keywords. To address this, we opted for using NatSQL from Spider-SS (Gan et al., 2022) in our (RATSQL1G with NatSQL and GL) model, rather than the original version. The benefit of Spider-SS is that it breaks down SQL/NatSQL according to question clauses. This means the model rarely comes across complex SQL/NatSQL during training, simplifying the task of associating GL with the proper SQL keywords. To further increase the chances of success with GL, we also made slight adjustments to NatSQL, which you can find in Appendix C. We ran ablation studies to check if NatSQL modification or the use of Spider-SS data impacted the results. Experiments showed that without GL, the outcomes using Spider-SS data remained consistent with those using Spider. Similarly, the performance of the adjusted NatSQL, when used without GL, is also consistent with the original NatSQL. ## 6 Related Work Schema Linking Schema linking has been an important design choice for existing text-to-SQL models (Guo et al., 2019; Bogin et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2020; Cao et al., 2021). Besides designing new models, some works focus on investigating the effect of schema linking. Lei et al. (2020) demonstrate that more accurate schema linking conclusively leads to better text-to-SQL parsing performance. To support further schema linking studies, Lei et al. (2020) and Taniguchi et al. (2021) invest human resources to annotate schema linking corpus, respectively. Guo et al. (2019) and Wang et al. (2020) conducted an ablation study on EMSL, respectively, and the results show that removing the EMSL would lead to the greatest decrease in model performance. These studies have influenced many follow-up works to use EMSL (Cai et al., 2021; Xu et al., 2021; Lei et al., 2020; Yu et al., 2021; Shi et al., 2021). Moreover, in the ablation study of BRIDGE (Lin et al., 2020), its performance declines notably when the PLM is removed, as it does not utilize EMSL. Our work found that existing text-to-SQL models with EMSL tend to overly rely on this schema linking module, which degrade their robustness. Meanwhile, more advanced pretrained language models can replace EMSL and thus improve the model robustness, without notably degrading the performance. Robustness of Text-to-SQL Existing works on improving the robustness of the text-to-SQL model are mainly through adversarial training, data augmentation, and repairing EMSL. Xiong and Sun (2019) and Radhakrishnan et al. (2020) propose data augmentation techniques for improving the generalization in cross-domain text-to-SQL and in search-style questions resepctivly. However, these approaches only support SQL queries executed on a single table, e.g., WikiSQL. Zeng et al. (2020) introduce a SpiderUTran dataset that includes original Spider (Yu et al., 2018b) examples and some untranslatable questions examples. SpiderUTran can be used to evaluate whether the text-to-SQL model can distinguish the untranslatable NL question. Gan et al. (2021a) investigate the robustness against synonym substitution for cross-domain textto-SQL translation and found that synonym substitution would break EMSL, giving a significant drop in performance; to solve this problem, they proposed the MAS method to repair the broken EMSL. Following (Gan et al., 2021a), our work found that the EMSL can be replaced by better encoding, and models without EMSL has better generalization ability. ## 7 Conclusion In this work, we investigate the role of schema linking for text-to-SQL models regarding model performance and robustness. In particular, we demonstrate that by leveraging pretrained language models, EMSL is no longer a necessary building block to ensure a high performance on text-to-SQL benchmarks. We observe that when EMSL is used, models become overly reliant on it, making them vulnerable to attacks that break the exact-match assumptions of EMSL. Beyond this, by studying different schema linking module designs we find that a direct relation between the question and schema items is more interpretable and works well with intermediate representation SQL. Finally, inspired by EMSL, we introduce Exact Match Grammar Linking for dealing with some examples where existing models can easily make mistakes. ## 8 Limitation We notice that there are some works based on pretrained large language models has obtained good performance (Scholak et al., 2021; Li et al., 2023). Due to limited computing resources, our evaluation mainly focuses on model architectures specially designed for text-to-SQL problems, and we did not conduct experiments on recent pretrained large language models, such as T5 (Raffel et al., 2020) and GPT3 (Brown et al., 2020), due to limited computing resources. However, note that most models with top text-to-SQL performance still employ specialized architecture design, e.g., with EMSL. We consider extending our study to recent pretrained large language models as future work. ## Acknowledgements We thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. Matthew Purver acknowledges financial support from the UK EPSRC under grant EP/S033564/1, and from the Slovenian Research Agency for research core funding (No. P2-0103 and No. P5-0161). Yujian Gan is supported by the ARCIDUCA project, funded by EPSRC (EP/W001632/1). ## References Ben Bogin, Jonathan Berant, and Matt Gardner. 2019. Representing schema structure with graph neural networks for text-to-SQL parsing. In *Proceedings of the* 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4560–4565, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. 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. Ruichu Cai, Jinjie Yuan, Boyan Xu, and Zhifeng Hao. 2021. Sadga: Structure-aware dual graph aggregation network for text-to-sql. Ruisheng Cao, Lu Chen, Zhi Chen, Yanbin Zhao, Su Zhu, and Kai Yu. 2021. LGESQL: Line graph enhanced text-to-SQL model with mixed local and non-local relations. 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 2541–2555, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Sanxing Chen, Aidan San, Xiaodong Liu, and Yangfeng Ji. 2020. A tale of two linkings: Dynamically gating between schema linking and structural linking for text-to-SQL parsing. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 2900–2912, Barcelona, Spain (Online). International Committee on Computational Linguistics. Kevin Clark, Minh-Thang Luong, Quoc V. Le, and Christopher D. Manning. 2020. Electra: Pre-training text encoders as discriminators rather than generators. 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. Li Dong and Mirella Lapata. 2018. Coarse-to-Fine Decoding for Neural Semantic Parsing. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 731–742, Stroudsburg, PA, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yujian Gan, Xinyun Chen, Qiuping Huang, and Matthew Purver. 2022. Measuring and improving compositional generalization in text-to-sql via component alignment. Yujian Gan, Xinyun Chen, Qiuping Huang, Matthew Purver, John R. Woodward, Jinxia Xie, and Pengsheng Huang. 2021a. Towards robustness of textto-SQL models against synonym substitution. 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 2505– 2515, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yujian Gan, Xinyun Chen, Jinxia Xie, Matthew Purver, John R. Woodward, John Drake, and Qiaofu Zhang. 2021b. Natural sql: Making sql easier to infer from natural language specifications. Jiaqi Guo, Zecheng Zhan, Yan Gao, Yan Xiao, JianGuang Lou, Ting Liu, and Dongmei Zhang. 2019. Towards Complex Text-to-SQL in Cross-Domain Database with Intermediate Representation. In *Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 4524– 4535, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Binyuan Hui, Ruiying Geng, Lihan Wang, Bowen Qin, Yanyang Li, Bowen Li, Jian Sun, and Yongbin Li. 2022. S 2SQL: Injecting syntax to question-schema interaction graph encoder for text-to-SQL parsers. In *Findings of the Association for Computational* Linguistics: ACL 2022, pages 1254–1262, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jayant Krishnamurthy, Pradeep Dasigi, and Matt Gardner. 2017. Neural Semantic Parsing with Type Constraints for Semi-Structured Tables. In *Proceedings* of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1516–1526, Stroudsburg, PA, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Wenqiang Lei, Weixin Wang, Zhixin Ma, Tian Gan, Wei Lu, Min-Yen Kan, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2020. Re-examining the Role of Schema Linking in Textto-SQL. In *Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on* Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6943–6954, Stroudsburg, PA, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Haoyang Li, Jing Zhang, Cuiping Li, and Hong Chen. 2023. Resdsql: Decoupling schema linking and skeleton parsing for text-to-sql. Linyang Li, Ruotian Ma, Qipeng Guo, Xiangyang Xue, and Xipeng Qiu. 2020. BERT-ATTACK: Adversarial Attack Against BERT Using BERT. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6193–6202, Stroudsburg, PA, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xi Victoria Lin, Richard Socher, and Caiming Xiong. 2020. Bridging Textual and Tabular Data for CrossDomain Text-to-SQL Semantic Parsing. In *Findings* of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 4870–4888, Online. 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. Jianqiang Ma, Zeyu Yan, Shuai Pang, Yang Zhang, and Jianping Shen. 2020. Mention extraction and linking for SQL query generation. In *Proceedings of the* 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6936–6942, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Nikola Mrkšic, Diarmuid Ó Séaghdha, Blaise Thomson, ´ Milica Gašic, Lina M. Rojas-Barahona, Pei-Hao Su, ´ David Vandyke, Tsung-Hsien Wen, and Steve Young. 2016. Counter-fitting word vectors to linguistic constraints. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 142–148, San Diego, California. Association for Computational Linguistics. representation. In *Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)*, pages 1532–1543, Doha, Qatar. Association for Computational Linguistics. Karthik Radhakrishnan, Arvind Srikantan, and Xi Victoria Lin. 2020. ColloQL: Robust Cross-Domain Text-to-SQL Over Search Queries. 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(140):1–67. Torsten Scholak, Nathan Schucher, and Dzmitry Bahdanau. 2021. PICARD: Parsing incrementally for constrained auto-regressive decoding from language models. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on* Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 9895–9901, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Peng Shi, Patrick Ng, Zhiguo Wang, Henghui Zhu, Alexander Hanbo Li, Jun Wang, Cicero Nogueira dos Santos, and Bing Xiang. 2021. Learning contextual representations for semantic parsing with generationaugmented pre-training. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 35(15):13806– 13814. Robyn Speer and Catherine Havasi. 2012. Representing General Relational Knowledge in ConceptNet 5. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'12), pages 3679–3686, Istanbul, Turkey. European Language Resources Association (ELRA). Sinan Tan, Mengmeng Ge, Di Guo, Huaping Liu, and Fuchun Sun. 2021. Knowledge-based embodied question answering. Yasufumi Taniguchi, Hiroki Nakayama, Kubo Takahiro, and Jun Suzuki. 2021. An investigation between schema linking and text-to-sql performance. Jesse Vig. 2019. A multiscale visualization of attention in the transformer model. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations, pages 37–42, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Bailin Wang, Richard Shin, Xiaodong Liu, Oleksandr Polozov, and Matthew Richardson. 2020. RAT-SQL: Relation-Aware Schema Encoding and Linking for Text-to-SQL Parsers. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7567–7578, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher Manning. 2014. Glove: Global vectors for word Hongvu Xiong and Ruixiao Sun. 2019. Transferable Natural Language Interface to Structured Queries Aided by Adversarial Generation. In *2019 IEEE 13th* International Conference on Semantic Computing (ICSC), pages 255–262. IEEE. Peng Xu, Dhruv Kumar, Wei Yang, Wenjie Zi, Keyi Tang, Chenyang Huang, Jackie Chi Kit Cheung, Simon J.D. Prince, and Yanshuai Cao. 2021. Optimizing deeper transformers on small datasets. 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 2089– 2102, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tao Yu, Chien-Sheng Wu, Xi Victoria Lin, Bailin Wang, Yi Chern Tan, Xinyi Yang, Dragomir Radev, Richard Socher, and Caiming Xiong. 2021. Grappa: Grammar-augmented pre-training for table semantic parsing. Tao Yu, Michihiro Yasunaga, Kai Yang, Rui Zhang, Dongxu Wang, Zifan Li, and Dragomir Radev. 2018a. SyntaxSQLNet: Syntax tree networks for complex and cross-domain text-to-SQL task. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1653–1663, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tao Yu, Rui Zhang, Kai Yang, Michihiro Yasunaga, Dongxu Wang, Zifan Li, James Ma, Irene Li, Qingning Yao, Shanelle Roman, Zilin Zhang, and Dragomir Radev. 2018b. Spider: A large-scale human-labeled dataset for complex and cross-domain semantic parsing and text-to-SQL task. In *Proceedings of the 2018* Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3911–3921, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jichuan Zeng, Xi Victoria Lin, Steven C.H. Hoi, Richard Socher, Caiming Xiong, Michael Lyu, and Irwin King. 2020. Photon: A Robust Cross-Domain Textto-SQL System. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations, pages 204–214, Stroudsburg, PA, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Lu Zeng, Sree Hari Krishnan Parthasarathi, and Dilek Hakkani-Tur. 2022. N-best hypotheses reranking for text-to-sql systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.10668. Rui Zhang, Tao Yu, Heyang Er, Sungrok Shim, Eric Xue, Xi Victoria Lin, Tianze Shi, Caiming Xiong, Richard Socher, and Dragomir Radev. 2019. Editing-based SQL query generation for cross-domain contextdependent questions. pages 5338–5349. Victor Zhong, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2017. Seq2SQL: Generating Structured Queries from Natural Language using Reinforcement Learning. CoRR, abs/1709.0.  ## A Further Discussion On Emsl The text-to-SQL model can quickly locate the correct schema items through EMSL, but this advantage will cause the models to not work properly when EMSL fails. To better understand the impact of EMSL on text-to-SQL models, we present the question-table attention 3extracted from RATSQLB with and without EMSL in Figure 5. In the first example, we can see that the alignment score between table *singer* and question word singer is the biggest, while we can not observe a clear connection between other tables and question word *singer*. However, when removing the EMSL in the second example, the alignment score between table *singer* and question word *singer* drop clearly, and the connection between other tables and question word *singer* becomes clear. It can be seen that under other conditions unchanged, only removing EMSL has a considerable impact on the model trained with EMSL. The third example is extracted from RATSQLB without EMSL. Different from the RATSQLB with EMSL, the *singer* table has a high alignment score not only with the word *singer* but also with the whole sentence. Since the loss function only calculates whether the output schema items are correct, the model does not care which question word 3It is named *m2t_align_mat* in the code: https: //github.com/microsoft/rat-sql/blob/master/ ratsql/models/spider/spider_enc_modules.py  the correct schema item is linked to. Therefore, the attention of the RATSQLB without EMSL is quite different from that with EMSL. The significant difference of the trained models may be one of the reasons why the overall performance of RATSQLBS without EMSL is better than that with EMSL. Because the training data in RATSQLBS contain many synonym substitution examples, and these examples do not have EMSL features, it requires the model to find a balance between states shown in examples 1 and 3 of Figure 5, which increases the difficulty of training. ## B Attention Visualization Of Different Schema Linking Module Design Choices Figure 6 presents the attention weight of schema tables and illustrates why the first design choice is more interpretable. The SQL for the question in Figure 6 is '*SELECT* T1.City *FROM* Airports AS T1 *JOIN* Flights AS T2 ON T1.AirportCode = T2.DestAirport *GROUP BY* T1.City *ORDER BY* count(*) *DESC LIMIT* 1'. So, the table 'airports' and 'flights' are needed. Although models under both design choices predict this example correctly, their attention scores are quite different. We ob-  serve that the attention under the first design can locate the proper question words. However, the attention of the table 'flights' can not locate any question words when using the second design choice, which is difficult to explain why the 'flights' table was selected instead of the 'airlines' table with similar attention. It should be noted that the 'flights' table is mentioned implicitly, but it does not prevent the first design choice from giving it the proper attention. ## C More Benefits From Gl It is difficult for existing models (Bogin et al., 2019; Guo et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2020; Cao et al., 2021) to generate the 'WHERE isOfficial = 'T' ' clause in Figure 7 since there are no similar examples in the training data. This example requires the model to generate the WHERE condition based on a single NL word 'official'. The word 'official' partly exactly matches the column 'isOfficial' and implicitly mentions the WHERE condition value. The implicit WHERE condition value challenges existing models since most WHERE condition values are explicitly mentioned in the training data. It is difficult for models to understand this implicit expression. Hence, models tend to regard the word 'official' as an occasionally mentioned column, and the WHERE condition will not be generated. GL can solve this special problem by giving a new label BCOL to the word 'official', different from the common exact match schema linking labels: COL and TABLE. Figure 8 presents two more examples with the BCOL label and newly designed NatSQL. We found that the type of column in these special WHERE conditions is Boolean-like. For example, the 'isOfficial' column only contain the 'T' and 'F' values, and some others Boolean-like column only contain the '0' and '1' values. Therefore, we first analyze the database data and mark the columns with Boolean-like type. When generating the GL labels, if the word matches a schema column marked as Boolean-like type, give it a 'BCOL' label instead of 'COL'. However, the addition of 'BCOL' only cannot solve this problem, i.e., the model still does not generate the 'isOfficial' condition. We found that training data make models tend to give fewer WHERE conditions to simpler questions. To avoid conflicts with other simple questions, we move the WHERE condition of Boolean-like type to a BCOL clause, as shown in the new NatSQL of Figure 7 The BCOL clause in this newly designed NatSQL is finally converted to a WHERE condition. At this point, with the BCOL label and clause, our method can generate correct SQL for questions similar to Figure 7. ## D More Typos Besides generating typos by inserting a letter, we also generate typos by deleting a letter and swapping the letter position, named the generated development set Spider-T4 and Spider-T5, respectively. Like Spider-T1 and T2, here we only convert the words whose length is greater than five letters to typos. Table 7 presents the exact match accuracy on Spider-T4 and Spider-T5 development sets. Since PLM handles typos in Spider-T4 and T5 similar to  | Approach | Spider-T4 | Spider-T5 | |-------------------|-------------|-------------| | RATSQL | 29.0% | 28.6% | | RATSQL w/o EMSL | 32.8% | 30.1% | | RATSQLO | 27.6% | 26.5% | | RATSQLO w/o EMSL | 34.5% | 31.2% | | RATSQLB | 34.9% | 32.6% | | RATSQLB w/o EMSL | 38.8% | 35.0% | | RATSQLBS | 35.6% | 32.6% | | RATSQLBS w/o EMSL | 40.3% | 38.2% | | RATSQLG | 46.7% | 46.8% | | RATSQLG w/o EMSL | 50.6% | 50.7% | Spider-T1, their evaluation results are also similar. Besides, we observe that the results of models using GLOVE in Spider-T4 are the best, followed by in T5, then in T2, and finally in T1. To understand this phenomenon, we found that although the number of generated typos is the same among these datasets, Spider-T1 has the most GLOVE UNK words, followed by T2, then T5, and T4 contains the least UNK words. It can be seen that in the case of fewer UNK words, the model+GLOVE can generate better encoding so that the model+GLOVE without EMSL surpasses that with EMSL in SpiderT4 and T5. ## E Ablation Study On Emsl Table 9 presents the ablation study results of three base models. The results of RATSQL here are different from that of (Wang et al., 2020) because Wang et al. (2020) remove the cell value linking first and then EMSL. According to the magnitude of the decline, our results are similar to theirs. According to (Wang et al., 2020; Guo et al., 2019), | Number of errors | Number of example with errors | | | | | | |--------------------|---------------------------------|-------------|----------|-------------|-------------|-----------| | Approach | Multi words | Single word | UNK word | Multi words | Single word | UNK word | | RATSQL | 118 | 57 | 13 | 112 (10.8%) | 54 (5.2%) | 12 (1.2%) | | RATSQL w/o EMSL | 178 | 107 | 33 | 170 (16.4%) | 93 (9.0%) | 30 (2.9%) | | RATSQLO | 136 | 51 | 11 | 125 (12.1%) | 50 (4.8%) | 11 (1.1%) | | RATSQLO w/o EMSL | 152 | 63 | 15 | 141 (13.6%) | 59 (5.7%) | 14 (1.4%) | | RATSQLB | 55 | 38 | - | 53 (5.1%) | 37 (3.6%) | - | | RATSQLB w/o EMSL | 65 | 34 | - | 65 (6.3%) | 34 (3.3%) | - | Table 8: Statistics of the types of error column predictions of different models evaluated on the Spider development set. The larger the number, the worse the performance. | Model | Exact Match Acc | |-----------------|-------------------| | GNN | 47.6% | | GNN w/o EMSL | 24.9% | | IRNet | 48.5% | | IRNet w/o EMSL | 40.5% | | RATSQL | 62.7% | | RATSQL w/o EMSL | 51.9% | they observe the biggest performance degradation by removing EMSL. Since then, EMSL has become a necessary module for most researchers to build text-to-SQL models. We want to challenge this view and carry out the comparative experiment in Table 10. Comparing Table 9 and Table 10, it can be found that PLMs compensate for the function of EMSL, i.e., the performance in Table 10 is less degraded than that in Table 9 after removing EMSL. From another perspective, BERT and its subsequent pretrained language model significantly improve the performance of models that do not use EMSL, which explains why some models can achieve higher performance improvements through BERT. For example, EditSQL (Zhang et al., 2019) does not use EMSL, while it obtains the highest performance improvement by extending BERT, as shown on the Spider leaderboard 4. ## F Further Discussion On Section **5.3.1** F.1 Bert Vs Glove The base RATSQL uses GLOVE (Pennington et al., 2014) for word embedding. There are two main reasons why BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) is better 4https://yale-lily.github.io/spider Table 10: Accuracy of three models with PLM ablations on the development set. The GAP (Shi et al., 2021) is a pretrained model based on RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) | Model | Exact Match Acc | |----------------------|-------------------| | GNN+BERT | 49.3% | | GNN+BERT w/o EMSL | 47.1% | | RATSQL+BERT | 69.7% | | RATSQL+BERT w/o EMSL | 69.3% | | RATSQL+GAP | 71.8% | | RATSQL+GAP w/o EMSL | 71.7% | than GLOVE at schema linking. The first reason is that BERT can better deal with out-of-vocabulary words. BERT converts these words into subwords, so BERT makes sure different word is represented by a unique vector. However, GLOVE cannot handle out of vocabulary words. Researchers generally replace them with a custom unknown (UNK) word vector. Suppose there are multiple words outside the GLOVE vocabulary in one schema. In that case, it is equivalent to multiple schema items being annotated as UNK, which will cause the model without EMSL to be unable to distinguish different schema items due to the same word vector. The second reason is that GLOVE is not as good as BERT in the face of schema items containing multi-words. As opposed to static embeddings provided by GLOVE, BERT provides dynamic lexical representations generated by analyzing the context. Take the *bandmate id* column in the Spider dataset as an example. The cosine of the vectors for the two words *bandmate* and id in GLOVE is negative, which means if we sum these two vectors together to represent the *bandmate id* column, the sum vector will inevitably lose some information. The word vector output by BERT is calculated based on the context, so although adjacent words may be unrelated in word meaning, their word vectors will still be highly correlated. Figure 9, generated by the bertviz (Vig, 2019), presents the BERT head view of attention patterns in the one transformer layer  where the word *bandmate* clearly links to the word id. ## F.2 Error Analysis Table 8 presents the error type statistics in the error column prediction. We count the prediction errors of single words, multiple words, and words outside the GLOVE vocabulary (UNK word) when the predicted SQL structure is correct. As BERT does not share GLOVE's vocabulary limitations, the UNK entry for RATSQLB is empty. Random initialization means that model results after each training may vary slightly, so we only focus on the more salient features. Although the results of RATSQL and RATSQLO are similar, RATSQLO consistently outperforms RATSQL in three error types when EMSL is removed; this supports the view we discuss in Section 2.2. More importantly, the single-word performance of RATSQLO without EMSL is close to that of RATSQL and RATSQLO. As discussed in Appendix F.1, the representation ability on multiword of GLOVE is worse than that of BERT. The results support this view where the performance of RATSQLO and RATSQL on multi-word is worse than that on single-word. When replacing the GLOVE with BERT, due to the improvement of its multi-word representation ability, the performance of RATSQLB with and without EMSL are close in single and multiple words. From the right side of Table 8, it can also be found that the BERT brings around 5% absolute improvement on multi-word, while that on single-word is only 2%. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Section 8 ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Section 8 ✓ 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 5 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 5 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 5 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.? Section 5 ✓ 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 5 ## 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? Section 5 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 5 ✓ 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.)? 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.

scire-etal-2023-echoes

Echoes from Alexandria: A Large Resource for Multilingual Book Summarization

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.54

In recent years, research in text summarization has mainly focused on the news domain, where texts are typically short and have strong layout features. The task of full-book summarization presents additional challenges which are hard to tackle with current resources, due to their limited size and availability in English only. To overcome these limitations, we present {``}Echoes from Alexandria{''}, or in shortened form, {``}Echoes{''}, a large resource for multilingual book summarization. Echoes featuresthree novel datasets: i) Echo-Wiki, for multilingual book summarization, ii) Echo-XSum, for extremely-compressive multilingual book summarization, and iii) Echo-FairySum, for extractive book summarization. To the best of our knowledge, Echoes {--} with its thousands of books and summaries {--} is the largest resource, and the first to be multilingual, featuring 5 languages and 25 language pairs. In addition to Echoes, we also introduce a new extractive-then-abstractive baseline, and, supported by our experimental results and manual analysis of the summaries generated, we argue that this baseline is more suitable for book summarization than purely-abstractive approaches. We release our resource and software at \url{https://github.com/Babelscape/echoes-from-alexandria} in the hope of fostering innovative research in multilingual booksummarization.

# Echoes From Alexandria: A Large Resource For Multilingual Book Summarization Alessandro Scirè1,2 Simone Conia2 Simone Ciciliano3∗ **Roberto Navigli**2 Babelscape, Italy Sapienza NLP Group Free University of Bozen 1scire@babelscape.com Sapienza University of Rome 3sciciliano@unibz.it 2{first.lastname}@uniroma1.it ## Abstract In recent years, research in text summarization has mainly focused on the news domain, where texts are typically short and have strong layout features. The task of full-book summarization presents additional challenges which are hard to tackle with current resources, due to their limited size and availability in English only. To overcome these limitations, we present "Echoes from Alexandria", or in shortened form, "Echoes", a large resource for multilingual book summarization. Echoes features three novel datasets: i) Echo-Wiki, for multilingual book summarization, ii) Echo-XSum, for extremely-compressive multilingual book summarization, and iii) Echo-FairySum, for extractive book summarization. To the best of our knowledge, Echoes - with its thousands of books and summaries - is the largest resource, and the first to be multilingual, featuring 5 languages and 25 language pairs. In addition to Echoes, we also introduce a new extractive-then-abstractive baseline, and, supported by our experimental results and manual analysis of the summaries generated, we argue that this baseline is more suitable for book summarization than purely-abstractive approaches. We release our resource and software at https://github.com/Babelscape/ echoes-from-alexandria in the hope of fostering innovative research in multilingual book summarization. ## 1 Introduction Recent research in Automatic Text Summarization - the task of shortening a text while preserving its meaning - has mainly focused on news stories. News texts are usually short documents; for example, 99.3% and 98.6% of the articles in XSum (Narayan et al., 2018) and CNN/DailyMail (Nallapati et al., 2016), respectively, are shorter than 2048 tokens. Additionally, news stories are characterized by strong layout features, such as the "lead bias", in which the first sentences usually contain the most relevant information for a summary. Accordingly, the Lead-3 baseline, which uses the first three sentences of a news item as its summary, performs competitively on news summarization benchmarks (Gehrmann et al., 2018; Zhu et al., 2019). Although recent approaches have achieved high performance, it is still unclear how they behave on longer documents and whether they can generalize across domains and genres. For this reason, the research community has been shifting toward more challenging settings, which include interviews (Zhu et al., 2021) and scientific articles (Gupta et al., 2021; Cohan et al., 2018). One setting that has been attracting growing attention is full-book summarization (Kryscinski et al., 2021), i.e., the task of producing the plot of a book from its full text. Summarizing a book is hard not only because of its average text length – currently not processable in a single forward pass even by architectures for long-form text processing (Beltagy et al., 2020; Guo et al., 2022) - but also due to other critical aspects, such as the presence of dialogues, rich discourse structures, parallel and non-linear lines of plot, and long-distance dependencies between entities, among others. Therefore, we deem book summarization a complex testbed to challenge current approaches and investigate their capabilities and limitations. Although the first small-scale datasets for the task were introduced several years ago (Mihalcea and Ceylan, 2007), the area has recently regained traction thanks to larger-scale resources, such as BookSum (Kryscinski et al., 2021) and NarrativeQA (Kociský et al. ˇ , 2017). However, despite this recent progress, current resources for book summarization are still, i) limited in size, making them difficult to use for proper training and evaluation, and ii) monolingual (usually English-only). ∗ Work carried out while at Sapienza University of Rome. To overcome these issues, we introduce "Echoes from Alexandria" (Echoes), the largest resource to date for book summarization and the first one providing books and summaries in multiple languages. We use Echoes to investigate how current summarization approaches perform on a large-scale multilingual summarization dataset, concluding that current purely-abstractive approaches still struggle in our setting. We additionally devise a new baseline, showing that the extractive-then-abstractive paradigm represents a promising direction for future research. The main contributions of our work are the following: - We introduce Echoes, the first multilingual resource for book summarization, with thousands of texts and plots in 5 languages, for a total of 25 language pairs. Echoes is also the largest resource among current English datasets for full-book summarization. - We release the three datasets of Echoes: i) Echo-Wiki, for multilingual abstractive summarization, ii) Echo-XSum, for extremelycompressive multilingual book summarization, and iii) Echo-FairySum, an English dataset for evaluating extractive book summarization. - We leverage BookSum and Echoes to evaluate state-of-the-art systems, both in zero-shot and fine-tuning settings, bringing to light their inadequate generalization capabilities in book summarization. - Our experiments demonstrate that an extractive-then-abstractive baseline outperforms the purely-abstractive counterpart on our datasets while achieving state-of-the-art results on BookSum. - We provide a comprehensive manual evaluation of the automatically generated summaries and release the dataset with our human judgments. We hope our work will foster research in multilingual long document understanding and summarization. We release Echoes and our software for research purposes at https://github.com/ Babelscape/echoes-from-alexandria. ## 2 Related Work Resources for summarization. Research efforts to create summarization resources have steadily increased in numbers over recent years. For the news domain, XSum (Narayan et al., 2018) and CNN/DailyMail (Nallapati et al., 2016) are the *defacto* standard datasets for training and evaluating summarization systems. XSum comprises 226k news articles accompanied by a one-sentence abstractive summary. In CNN/DailyMail, the authors retrieved 93k articles from CNN1and 220k articles from DailyMail2 newspapers. Both publishers supplement their articles with a list of bullet points containing the main information of the news text. More recently, summarization resources have been shifting towards more challenging scenarios, i.e., where the documents of interest are longer and belong to different domains. Notably, Cohan et al. (2018) released two large-scale datasets of long and structured scientific papers obtained from arXiv3 and PubMed4. In these datasets, paper abstracts are used as ground truth summaries. Another relevant example is MediaSum (Zhu et al., 2021), a collection of interview transcriptions from National Public Radio (NPR)5and CNN, where overview and topic descriptions are employed as summaries. In long-form text summarization research, a task that is attracting growing attention is book summarization. Although this task was originally introduced several years ago by Mihalcea and Ceylan (2007), who released the first small-scale evaluation resource, book summarization regained traction thanks to a few notable endeavors. The most important example is BookSum (Kryscinski et al., 2021), which provides a collection of resources for book summarization at three levels of granularity: paragraph, chapter, and full book. Book texts are collected from Project Gutenberg, while summaries are obtained from the Web Archive.6 BookSum features 222 unique book titles with a total of 6,987 book chapters and 142,753 paragraphs. Relatedly, NarrativeQA (Kociský et al. ˇ , 2017) is a collection of 1572 stories retrieved from Project Gutenberg (783 books and 789 movie scripts) associated with summaries from Wikipedia. The annotators were required to generate questions and answers based 1https://www.edition.cnn.com/ 2https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ 3https://arxiv.org/ 4https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ 5https://www.npr.org/ 6https://web.archive.org/ on the summaries. Even if NarrativeQA is primarily intended for Question Answering, it can also be used for book summarization. Due to their limited size, however, BookSum (in the full-book setting) and NarrativeQA can be more useful for evaluating models on the task rather than for training purposes. It is also worth noting that these resources are monolingual, i.e., English-only, limiting their usefulness for researchers seeking to evaluate multilingual summarization models. Despite the great work carried out so far, we argue that there is still ample room to improve book summarization resources. Approaches to book summarization. Kryscinski et al. (2021) conducted experiments on fullbook summarization using a generate&rank strategy. This approach involves training a system to generate paragraph-level summaries, which are then sorted by perplexity and concatenated to form a full-book summary. More recently, Wu et al. (2021) proposed an approach where passages are recursively summarized and concatenated to form a full summary. However, generated summaries are affected by the errors accumulated from previous stages (Wu et al., 2021). Recursively generating a summary is a paradigm that has also been used by other works for long-document summarization (Zhang et al., 2021; Gidiotis and Tsoumakas, 2020). Another family of approaches is that of extractive-then-abstractive approaches. This family of approaches first extracts key sentences from the input document and then uses such sentences as input to an abstractive model, which is tasked with generating a summary that captures the main ideas and themes of the source. While it was successfully employed in previous works for short (Li et al., 2021) and long-form summarization (Chen and Bansal, 2018), this paradigm has never been explored for summarizing books. In this paper, we aim to fill this gap by presenting a new, simple extractive-then-abstractive model and showing its effectiveness for book summarization. ## 3 Echoes Echoes is the first collection of resources for book summarization in 5 languages: English, French, German, Italian, and Spanish. With Echoes, we introduce the following three novel datasets: - **Echo-Wiki**, in which we pair book texts with plots retrieved from a hand-curated list of Wikipedia page sections. - **Echo-XSum**, in which we pair book texts with extremely-compressive summaries, manually created starting from the lead section of Wikipedia pages. - **Echo-FairySum**, an evaluation dataset for extractive summarization of short stories and fairy tales, composed of 197 English manually-annotated extractive summaries. We provide an overview of the main differences between Echoes and existing resources in Table 1. ## 3.1 Text Collection We collect the book texts that comprise Echoes from two main sources: Project Gutenberg and Wikisource. Project Gutenberg is a digital library that provides free access to public-domain books and features over 60k texts. We collect all the available books from Project Gutenberg by following their robot-access policies.7 While often considered one of the most reliable sources of copyrightfree books, Project Gutenberg provides only very limited coverage of non-English books and nonEnglish translations of English books. This is one of the reasons why we also rely on Wikisource. Part of the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikisource contains a huge number of texts from a wide range of domains, e.g., books, and legal and historical documents, in various languages. Therefore, for Echoes, we rely on Wikisource in English, French, German, Spanish, and Italian to retrieve other book texts and expand the coverage of books already available from Project Gutenberg.8 We call this set of full-text books B. We note that Wikisource can also be used to expand Echoes to other languages. Given the limited amount of work in multilingual summarization, we focus on the five above highresource languages. We defer the expansion of Echoes to future work. While Project Gutenberg has already been used as a source of books in previous resources, such as BookSum and NarrativeQA, the use of Wikisource is what enables Echoes to become the largest resource for book summarization in English and the first resource for multilingual book summarization. | Avg. length (# Tokens) | | | | | | | | |--------------------------|--------------------|-------------|----------|---------|----------|-----------|---------| | Dataset | Languages | # Documents | Coverage | Density | C. Ratio | Source | Summary | | XSum | EN | 226,677 | 0.66 | 1.09 | 19.3 | 438.4 | 23.9 | | CNN/DailyMail | EN | 311,971 | 0.85 | 3.47 | 14.9 | 803.7 | 59.7 | | ArXiv/PubMed | EN | 346,187 | 0.87 | 3.94 | 31.2 | 5,179.2 | 257.4 | | MediaSum | EN | 463,596 | 0.80 | 1.86 | 116.3 | 1,925.8 | 16.6 | | BookSum (full) | EN | 405 | 0.89 | 1.83 | 126.2 | 112,885.2 | 1,167.2 | | Echo-Wiki | EN, FR, DE, ES, IT | 5,001 | 0.79 | 2.08 | 103.7 | 75,600.9 | 729.4 | | Echo-WikiEN | EN | 2,375 | 0.84 | 2.24 | 117.1 | 83,724.1 | 678.0 | | Echo-XSum | EN, FR, DE, ES, IT | 3,383 | 0.78 | 1.67 | 1624.0 | 86,040.0 | 53.0 | | Echo-XSumEN | EN | 1,828 | 0.81 | 1.78 | 1706.1 | 90,971.9 | 53.0 | | Echo-FairySum | EN | 197 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 2.8 | 4,438.8 | 1,506.2 | Table 1: Comparison of Echoes (Echo-Wiki, Echo-XSum, and Echo-FairySum) with existing resources for summarization. **Coverage and density:** measures of the "extractiveness" of a summary. **Compression Ratio:** micro-average ratio between the lengths of the source and the summary. ## 3.2 Pairing Books With Wikipedia Summaries Book summaries from Wikipedia follow a standard set of guidelines9and are often of remarkable quality, as they are continuously refined over time by the Wikipedia community. Therefore, once we have collected our set of full-book texts (see Section 3.1), we iterate over the Wikipedia dumps10 in English, French, German, Italian, and Spanish. Given our set B of full-book texts, and W, the set of Wikipedia pages, our objective is to uniquely associate a book b ∈ B to a page w ∈ W, such that w is the Wikipedia page of book b. We obtain a set of potential matches by finding Wikipedia pages whose contents contain a hyperlink to a book in B. To improve the accuracy of our mapping, we first apply a string distance metric11 to compare the titles of the books and their associated Wikipedia pages. We then check if the lead section of the Wikipedia page in question mentions the surname of the author of the associated book. This additional step helps us further refine and ensure the validity of our associations. After our matching process, we manually inspect the cases in which books are associated with multiple Wikipedia pages. We discover that the pages in excess refer to adaptations of the book in other mediums, such as movies and theatrical plays. To resolve this ambiguity, we utilize the mapping between Wikipedia pages and Wikidata 9https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: How_to_write_a_plot_summary 10Wikipedia dumps are freely available to download at https://dumps.wikimedia.org/<l>wiki/ where <l> ∈ { EN, FR, DE, ES, IT}. Last accessed: July 1, 2022. 11We used the Edit distance to retain only those pairs whose titles were highly similar, by setting a stringent threshold (0.2). nodes to obtain metadata about the medium, e.g., book, movie, play, and retain only the Wikipedia page that corresponds to the book. At this point, given the Wikipedia page content, our goal is to extract only the book summary and discard other information, such as the biography of the author, historical background, prizes and accolades, and critical reception, among others. To achieve this, we employ native speakers to manually identify a list of section names that, in the different languages, only contain plot information, aiming for high precision rather than coverage. We use the content of these identified sections as summaries and provide our list of section names in Appendix A for reference. We name the resulting set of (Wikipedia summary, full-text book) pairs Echo-Wiki. We note that the average number of unique editors (220.6), revisions (421.4), and year of creation (2008) of the Wikipedia pages we select for the Echo-Wikidataset are large: this indicates that their book summaries have been curated over time and suggests that they are of high quality. Table 1 shows how Echo-Wiki compares against BookSum, the previous largest existing dataset for book summarization, to the best of our knowledge. Besides being multilingual, it is worth noticing that EchoWiki is about 12 times larger than BookSum (5,001 vs. 405 books) while still featuring similar compression ratios (103.7 vs. 126.2). ## 3.3 **Enabling Extreme Summarization Of Books** Inspired by the work of Narayan et al. (2018) on the news domain with XSum, which showcases the capabilities of highly-abstractive summarization, we introduce **Echo-XSum**, a new dataset for training and evaluating systems for extreme summarization of books. In Echo-XSum, we pair full-text books with very short summaries. These summaries contain the minimum number of sentences required to provide an overview of the main contents of a book, typically one to three sentences. The main challenge posed by Echo-XSum is dealing with the great disparity between the size of the input and the size of the output. Indeed, as we can observe in Table 1, the compression ratio of Echo-XSum (1624.0) is unprecedented in the field of summarization, being an order of magnitude greater than those of Echo-Wiki (103.7) and BookSum (126.2). The extreme summaries in Echo-XSum are the result of a manual annotation process, which involved an expert linguist who is a fluent speaker in all 5 languages of Echoes. The annotator was explicitly contracted for this task. Given a book and its previously-identified Wikipedia page (see Section 3.1), the annotator was tasked with extracting portions of text from the introduction that described the essential plot of a book. An excerpt of a book text with the corresponding multilingual summaries from Echo-XSum can be found in Appendix B. Notice that the portions of text extracted by the annotator are not necessarily contiguous, as long as the extracted text can be read independently of its original text. As a rule of thumb for the annotation process, the linguist followed the definitions of Consistency, Relevance, Fluency, and Coherence of a summary (Fabbri et al., 2021). The annotator spent an average of 5 minutes per sample. We provide an example of the annotations produced in Appendix C. At the end of the manual creation of our extreme summaries, the resulting Echo-XSum is still about 8 times larger than BookSum (3,383 vs. 405 books).12 ## 3.4 Classifying Books Into Genres Differently from existing resources, such as BookSum, which is limited by its relatively small size, the thousands of books in Echoes give us the opportunity to investigate book summarization more in-depth. Indeed, books in Echoes cover a wide range of genres, including novels, theatrical plays, and poems, among others. We argue that developing a strategy to automatically identify book genres provides valuable insights into the dataset and en-12Echo-XSum includes fewer book/summary pairs than Echo-Wiki because the annotator was not able to find an extreme summary in the Wikipedia pages of some books.  ables a fine-grained evaluation of current and future summarization approaches. An analysis by genre can help us determine which genres are the most challenging to summarize. Similarly to what was described in Section 3.2, we rely on a graph-based heuristic on the knowledge graph of Wikidata to identify genres. More specifically, given a Wikipedia article of a book, we retrieve its corresponding Wikidata node, and analyze its relations (e.g., *genre* and *form_of_creative_work*) with its neighboring nodes. This process is able to distinguish between 7 main genres: novels, plays, poems, epic poems, short stories, fairy tales, and essays. Note that our heuristic may assign more than one genre to a single book. Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of the genres in the English partition of Echo-Wiki, showing that novels are the most represented genre, followed by short stories and plays. ## 3.5 Digging Up Extractive Summarization Over the past few years, the attention of the research community has gradually shifted from extractive to abstractive summarization, especially thanks to the advent of flexible sequence-tosequence models, which have proven effective for summarizing short documents. Thanks to genre classification (see Section 3.4), we are able to perform a small-scale investigation of extractive book summarization on two genres in Echoes. More specifically, we construct **Echo-FairySum**, the first evaluation dataset for extractive summarization of fairy tales and short stories. To create extractive summaries for EchoFairySum, we set up the following manual annotation process: given the text of a book, and its  abstractive summary from Wikipedia (Section 3.2), annotators are required to extract relevant sentences from the book text. A sentence is relevant if it provides a piece of information that is also contained in the abstractive summary. The annotators were asked to adhere as closely as possible to the concepts of Consistency, Relevance, and Coherence defined by Fabbri et al. (2021). The annotators were drawn from a pool of fifty-eight Master-level students from the 'Narrative Understanding and Storytelling' minicourse held at the Sapienza University of Rome by the last co-author, as part of the AI and Robotics degree. The selected students carried out the task as part of their course assignments. On average, each student annotated 3 texts, resulting in multiple annotations for each text. The annotation agreement was measured using Cohen's Kappa coefficient, which indicated substantial agreement (0.71). A subset of annotations was further validated by our contracted annotator to ensure that the students were adhering to the guidelines. Overall, Echo-FairySum provides extractive summaries for 197 documents, about 4 times the size of the test set of BookSum. ## 3.6 Aggregating Books Across Versions And Languages A book can be published in various editions after its original publication. Perhaps most importantly, the same version of a book can also be translated into multiple languages. Given the potentially large variety of versions and translations of a book, we argue that it is important to aggregate those versions. Indeed, aggregating books across versions and translations can allow Echoes to also be employed for machine translation, cross-lingual sentence alignment, and cross-lingual summarization. To achieve this objective, we leverage two characteristics of Wikipedia. First, we aggregate all those book texts aligned to the same Wikipedia page (see Section 3.2). We increase the accuracy of this step by taking into account the information found on some Wikisource pages, which list the editions available for some books. Second, we navigate the Wikipedia interlanguage links, which connect pages that refer to the same concept/entity in different languages, to aggregate different translations and summaries (in different languages) of the same book. Figure 2 presents the number of book-summary and the *version-summary* pairs for all the language pairs in Echo-Wiki obtained after our aggregation process. ## 4 Experiments And Results In recent years, two promising paradigms have emerged from previous work on longdocument summarization: *recursive-abstractive* and *extractive-then-abstractive*. In this section, we evaluate and analyze their effectiveness on Echoes. ## 4.1 Recursive-Abstractive Approaches Recursive-abstractive approaches consist in dividing the source document into smaller segments, referred to as chunks, and then using an abstractive summarization model to summarize each segment. If the concatenated output summaries are still larger | Model | R-1 | R-2 | R-L | BERTScore | | |-----------------|-------|-------|-------|-------------|-------| | BARTXSum | 18.02 | 2.91 | 13.81 | 0.438 | | | BARTMediaSum | 13.95 | 5.11 | 12.72 | 0.416 | | | LEDXSum | 18.86 | 2.99 | 14.83 | 0.440 | | | LEDMediaSum | 14.69 | 4.26 | 12.79 | 0.421 | | | LongT5XSum | 14.53 | 2.31 | 12.05 | 0.413 | | | LongT5MediaSum | 16.54 | 5.47 | 14.35 | 0.429 | | | recursive-abs. | BART | 30.44 | 12.41 | 25.76 | 0.557 | | BARTXSum | 30.78 | 13.44 | 26.73 | 0.558 | | | LED | 30.18 | 12.73 | 25.79 | 0.558 | | | LEDXSum | 30.22 | 13.05 | 26.28 | 0.560 | | | LongT5 | 30.05 | 13.52 | 26.02 | 0.560 | | | LongT5XSum | 29.42 | 13.35 | 26.00 | 0.557 | | | extractive-abs. | | | | | | than a single chunk, the recursive-abstractive approach repeats the process by treating the concatenation as a new source document and summarizing it in the same way. The recursive process continues until the concatenated output summaries are short enough to be considered as the final summary, i.e., until their size is shorter than the maximum size of a single chunk. Experimental setting. In its simplest form, a recursive-abstractive approach requires a model trained on a standard summarization dataset; this model is then employed recursively, as described above. For our experiments, we consider three sequence-to-sequence Transformer-based models – BART-large (Lewis et al., 2020), LED-base (Beltagy et al., 2020), and LongT5-base (Guo et al., 2022) - and train them on XSum (short documents, news) and MediaSum (long documents, interviews). Then, we evaluate our trained models on the test set of Echo-XSum,13 whose summaries feature an average length similar to that of the summaries in XSum and MediaSum but belong to a different genre (books). For the evaluation, we adopt standard summarization metrics, such as ROUGE1, ROUGE-2, ROUGE-L, and BERTScore (Zhang et al., 2019). Results. Table 2 (top) provides an overview of the results obtained by our recursive-abstractive baseline using different language models and trained on different summarization datasets. Overall, we can observe that, independently of the language model and training dataset employed, the baseline does not achieve good results on EchoXSum. Indeed, the best configuration (LED*XSum*) 13We split Echo-Wiki and Echo-XSum into train/dev/test sets using the standard 80/10/10 split. obtains only 14.83 points in ROUGE-L on EchoXSum. By comparison, the same configuration achieves 30.24 points on XSum. Therefore, i) Echo-XSum is empirically more challenging than XSum, ii) a simple recursive-abstractive approach is not sufficient to obtain acceptable results on Echo-XSum, and, iii) different pretrained language models and different summarization datasets (from different genres/domains) do not significantly affect the results of a recursive-abstractive approach on our book summarization dataset. ## 4.2 Extractive-Then-Abstractive Approaches Since recursive-abstractive approaches yield unsatisfying results on Echo-XSum (see Table 2), we propose a simple, novel baseline based on the extractive-then-abstractive paradigm. Our model is composed of two submodules: the *extractor* extracts key sentences from the input text, while the abstractor uses the concatenation of these key sentences to generate an abstractive plot of the book. Given an input text T = (s1, s2*, . . . , s*|T|) where each siis a sentence, the extractor produces a score in [0.0, 1.0] for each si, quantifying its degree of importance for the target summary. More formally: $$\begin{array}{c}{{\mathbf{e}_{i}^{s}=\mathrm{SentENCEEncoder}(s_{i})}}\\ {{\mathrm{Score}(s_{i})=\sigma(W\mathbf{e}_{i}+\mathbf{b})}}\end{array}$$ where e s i is the sentence representation of si from a SENTENCEENCODER. 14 Then, the abstractor takes the subset T∗composed of the k sentences with higher scores according to the extractor, and uses T∗to generate the final summary. To make the abstractor aware of the relative importance of each sentence, we multiply the embedding of each token by the score of its sentence, as follows: e t i,j = SCORE(si) · EMBEDDING(ti,j ) where e t i,j is the encoding of the j-th token of the i-th sentence, for each sentence in T∗. The model is trained in an end-to-end fashion, i.e., the extractor and abstractor are trained jointly, by minimizing the cross-entropy loss between the reference summary and the generated summary. Experimental setting. We follow the experimental setting we used for our recursive-abstractive approach. We train and evaluate 3 models - BARTlarge, LED-base, and LongT5-base - on EchoXSum. Since pretraining on XSum results in 14We adopt a SentenceTransformer based on DistilRoBERTa from https://www.sbert.net/. Model R-1 R-2 R-L BERTScore BART 16.64 4.07 13.09 0.517 LED 19.13 4.89 14.74 0.532 LongT5 **27.20 6.87 19.74 0.561** Model Cons. Fluency Rel. Coher. | recursive-abs. extractive-abs. | |----------------------------------| BART*XSum* 2.19 3.81 1.62 3.58 LED*XSum* 1.65 3.96 1.31 2.92 LongT5*XSum* 1.23 2.88 1.19 2.34 BART*MediaSum* 1.73 2.46 1.62 2.19 LED*MediaSum* 1.61 2.23 1.46 1.92 LongT5*MediaSum* 1.11 1.38 1.12 1.38 BART 1.69 4.38 1.76 4.42 BART*XSum* 1.61 3.06 1.35 2.71 LED 1.84 4.34 1.84 4.23 LED*XSum* 1.72 3.97 1.55 3.66 LongT5 **2.73 4.50 2.73 4.62** LongT5*XSum* 2.04 3.85 1.74 3.52 slightly improved performance for the recursiveabstractive approach, we also evaluate how pretraining on XSum affects the performance of our extractive-then-abstractive approach. Finally, we also train and evaluate our approach on Echo-Wiki and on BookSum (the latter to directly compare performance with the current state of the art). Results. Table 2 (bottom) provides an overview of the results obtained by our extractive-thenabstractive approach on Echo-XSum. We can immediately notice that each configuration significantly outperforms the recursive-abstractive baselines by a large margin. For example, the best extractive-then-abstractive model (BART*XSum*) improves over the best recursive-abstractive model (LED*XSum*) by 11.90 points in ROUGE-L (26.73 vs. 14.83), and this is true for all the metrics we consider (ROUGE-1, ROUGE-2, ROUGE-L, and BERTScore). It is interesting to note that, while there is little difference in the results on EchoXSum of different model configurations, there is a significant difference between BART, LED, and LongT5 when evaluated on Echo-Wiki, as shown in Table 3. We hypothesize that such a variance in performance is due to several factors, but the inadequacy of current non-semantic metrics plays a large role, as supported by our human evaluation (see Section 5). Finally, we further assess the effectiveness of our extractive-then-abstractive approach on the standard test set of BookSum (Table 6). In particular, our approach outperforms the system of Kryscinski et al. (2021) using 33% of its parameters, and is competitive with the system of Wu et al. (2021) using only 0.1% of its parameters. ## 5 Analysis And Discussion Human evaluation. Following common practice in the field of summarization, we set up a human evaluation process to assess the quality of the system-generated summaries. The annotation task, performed by an expert English speaker, consists of reading the source text and rating the summaries using a Likert scale for Consistency, Relevance, Fluency, and Coherence, as outlined in Fabbri et al. (2021). To make this experiment feasible in terms of time and resources, we focus our evaluation on fairy tales and short stories, which can be read by a human in a short time. Interestingly, but not surprisingly (Fabbri et al., 2021), the results of our human evaluation experiment tell a story that is different from ROUGE, as shown in Tables 4 and 5. However, the evaluation still highlights the effectiveness of our extractive-then-abstractive model compared to the recursive-abstractive baseline. It is clear, however, that future work should focus in particular on improving the Consistency and Relevance of the summaries generated. | Model | Cons. | Fluency | Rel. | Coher. | |---------|---------|-----------|--------|----------| | BART | 2.06 | 3.73 | 1.65 | 3.08 | | LED | 2.02 | 3.63 | 1.61 | 3.07 | | LongT5 | 2.15 | 3.62 | 1.72 | 3.06 | Challenges. Echoes opens the door to several other analyses and experiments that were not possible with previous datasets. For example, we can leverage Echo-FairySum to perform an analysis of the behavior of the extractor submodule of our extractive-then-abstractive approach, as we show in Appendix D. In Section 3.4, we examined the different book genres in Echoes; LongT5 model performances are detailed for each genre in Figure 3. We notice that epic poems are the hardest to summarize in this setting, while our model performs reasonably well on fairy tales. Approach R-1 R-2 R-L # Params. Kryscinski et al. (2021) 39.87 8.01 13.99 737M Wu et al. (2021) 43.19 10.63 17.10 175,000M Ours (LED/extractive-abs.) 42.13 10.53 16.75 243M Table 6: Results of our approach compared to the state of the art on the BookSum test set.  | Language | # Examples | R-1 | R-2 | R-L | BERTScore | |------------|--------------|--------|--------|--------|-------------| | de | 24 | 21.219 | 6.808 | 17.742 | 0.641 | | fr | 33 | 21.602 | 7.681 | 17.721 | 0.622 | | es | 45 | 24.509 | 8.966 | 19.554 | 0.634 | | it | 37 | 25.174 | 10.446 | 22.343 | 0.633 | Cross-lingual book summarization. Additionally, Echoes can be employed as a multilingual and cross-lingual summarization benchmark, thanks to its coverage of 5 languages and 25 language pairs. In particular, we argue that cross-lingual book summarization is a very interesting challenge, as it requires a model to compress vast amounts of information while transferring knowledge across languages. Moreover, enabling cross-lingual book summarization is fundamental for all those cases in which we do not have the source text available in the language of interest, i.e., its translation may still be under copyright or may not exist at all. To move the first step in this direction, we propose a summarize-then-translate approach, a simple baseline for cross-lingual book summarization on EchoXSum. As the name implies, our approach works by employing a monolingual model to produce a summary in the same language as the source text, and then it translates the summary from the source language to the desired target language. We report the results of this baseline in Table 7. While this is a strong baseline, it is still affected by two main issues: i) it requires two systems, a summarizer and a translator; ii) machine translation usually fails to translate language-specific items, e.g., character names may not be exact translations. ## 6 Conclusion In this paper, we introduced Echoes, the first multilingual resource for book summarization and the largest among the English datasets. Echoes features three novel datasets, namely, Echo-Wiki, EchoXSum, and Echo-FairySum, which address several limitations of existing book summarization resources, such as BookSum. Indeed, previous datasets for full-text book summarization are, i) limited in size, and, ii) monolingual, i.e., usually covering English only. In addition, we leveraged Echoes to bring to light the unsatisfying capabilities of current approaches to generalize to book summarization. Finally, to mitigate this issue, we proposed a new *extractivethen-abstractive* baseline for book summarization, which outperforms its purely-abstractive counterpart on Echo-Wiki and Echo-XSum, achieving results on the standard BookSum test set that are comparable with the current state of the art while using a number of parameters that is only 0.1% compared to the best-performing method. We believe that Echoes will foster future work on long-document summarization, especially in the multilingual and cross-lingual setting. ## Limitations Despite the multilinguality of our resource, there is still a strong bias towards the English language, as the majority of books are in English and many translations are from English. This may result in the values of English literature being reflected, and these may differ from those of other cultures; summarizing literature from different cultures and regions may not be fully accurate, as every region has had its own historical development. Language models used in the experiments can inherit biases from the training data and the tools, such as the ones used for preprocessing, and have limitations that have not been fully evaluated and could impact the results of this study. This study includes the use of Web data, which – while marked as public domain - may be subject to copyright laws. The data used in this study was collected for research purposes and was not intended for any other use. Additionally, it is worth noting that the majority of books used in our resource are copyright-free, and therefore, old. While this allowed us to include a large number of texts in our dataset, it also means that our resource may not fully capture contemporary literature and may not be representative of current linguistic trends and cultural values. ## Acknowledgements The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the ERC Consolidator Grant MOUSSE No. 726487 under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research. The last author gratefully acknowledges the support of the PNRR MUR project PE0000013-FAIR. This work was carried out while Alessandro Scirè was enrolled in the Italian National Doctorate on Artificial Intelligence run by Sapienza University of Rome. We would like to express our gratitude to Luigi Procopio and Edoardo Barba for their valuable insights on extractive-then-abstractive architectures, as well as to Fabrizio Brignone (Babelscape) for his exceptional support with the adaptation and use of Babelscape's keyword and phrase annotation interface. ## References Iz Beltagy, Matthew E. Peters, and Arman Cohan. 2020. Longformer: The long-document transformer. *CoRR*, ## Abs/2004.05150. Yen-Chun Chen and Mohit Bansal. 2018. Fast abstractive summarization with reinforce-selected sentence rewriting. Arman Cohan, Franck Dernoncourt, Doo Soon Kim, Trung Bui, Seokhwan Kim, Walter Chang, and Nazli Goharian. 2018. A discourse-aware attention model for abstractive summarization of long documents. 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 615–621, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alexander R. Fabbri, Wojciech Krysci ´ nski, Bryan Mc- ´ Cann, Caiming Xiong, Richard Socher, and Dragomir Radev. 2021. SummEval: Re-evaluating summarization evaluation. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:391–409. Sebastian Gehrmann, Yuntian Deng, and Alexander Rush. 2018. Bottom-up abstractive summarization. In *Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 4098–4109, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alexios Gidiotis and Grigorios Tsoumakas. 2020. A divide-and-conquer approach to the summarization of long documents. Mandy Guo, Joshua Ainslie, David Uthus, Santiago Ontanon, Jianmo Ni, Yun-Hsuan Sung, and Yinfei Yang. 2022. LongT5: Efficient text-to-text transformer for long sequences. In *Findings of the Association for* Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022, pages 724– 736, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Vivek Gupta, Prerna Bharti, Pegah Nokhiz, and Harish Karnick. 2021. SumPubMed: Summarization dataset of PubMed scientific articles. 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 292–303, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tomáš Kociský, Jonathan Schwarz, Phil Blunsom, Chris ˇ Dyer, Karl Moritz Hermann, Gábor Melis, and Edward Grefenstette. 2017. The narrativeqa reading comprehension challenge. Wojciech Kryscinski, Nazneen Fatema Rajani, Divyansh Agarwal, Caiming Xiong, and Dragomir R. Radev. 2021. Booksum: A collection of datasets for long-form narrative summarization. *CoRR*, abs/2105.08209. 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. Haoran Li, Arash Einolghozati, Srinivasan Iyer, Bhargavi Paranjape, Yashar Mehdad, Sonal Gupta, and Marjan Ghazvininejad. 2021. EASE: Extractiveabstractive summarization end-to-end using the information bottleneck principle. In *Proceedings of the* Third Workshop on New Frontiers in Summarization, pages 85–95, Online and in Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Rada Mihalcea and Hakan Ceylan. 2007. Explorations in automatic book summarization. pages 380–389. Ramesh Nallapati, Bowen Zhou, Cicero Nogueira dos santos, Caglar Gulcehre, and Bing Xiang. 2016. Abstractive text summarization using sequence-tosequence rnns and beyond. 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. Jeff Wu, Long Ouyang, Daniel M. Ziegler, Nisan Stiennon, Ryan Lowe, Jan Leike, and Paul Christiano. 2021. Recursively summarizing books with human feedback. Tianyi Zhang, Varsha Kishore, Felix Wu, Kilian Q. Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. 2019. Bertscore: Evaluating text generation with bert. Yusen Zhang, Ansong Ni, Ziming Mao, Chen Henry Wu, Chenguang Zhu, Budhaditya Deb, Ahmed H. Awadallah, Dragomir Radev, and Rui Zhang. 2021. Summn: A multi-stage summarization framework for long input dialogues and documents. Chenguang Zhu, Yang Liu, Jie Mei, and Michael Zeng. 2021. MediaSum: A large-scale media interview dataset for dialogue summarization. In *Proceedings* of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5927–5934, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Chenguang Zhu, Ziyi Yang, Robert Gmyr, Michael Zeng, and Xuedong Huang. 2019. Leveraging lead bias for zero-shot abstractive news summarization. ## A Wikipedia Summary Sections In Table 8 we provide the list of Wikipedia section titles whose contents are used as summaries in Echo-Wiki.  ## B Echo-Xsum Example In Figure 5 we report an excerpt of the book text of the English version of "The Metamorphosis" by Franz Kafka, along with the multilingual extreme summaries from Echo-XSum. ## C Echo-Xsum Annotation Task In Figure 6 we provide an example of a manuallyannotated summary in Echo-XSum. The annotator was tasked to highlight portions of text containing information related to the plot from the Wikipedia introduction. ## D Extractor Analysis We analyze the positions of the sentences selected by the extractor. This analysis is required to investigate the presence of any positional bias, e.g., the lead bias, which is known to affect systems trained on news stories. Figure 4 depicts the distribution of the relative positions of the extracted sentences on texts from Echo-FairySum, i.e., fairy tales and short stories. We deduce that the extractions are not affected by any bias. Thanks to Echo-FairySum extractive annotations, we are also able to evaluate the performance of the extractor component of the *extractive-then-abstractive* approaches. We aggregate multiple extractive annotations in EchoFairySum by retaining the intersecting sentences; we refer to these sentences as the gold sentences. We measure the Extractor performance by computing the overlap between the sentences extracted by the model and the gold ones. We compute the Precision@K by comparing the topK-ranked sentences with the references. We report the Extractor | IT | EN | ES | FR | DE | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------|---------------------|-----------------| | trame | plot overview | resumen de la trama | trame | zusammenfassung | | trama | subject | trama | résumé synthétique | synthese | | trama del racconto | plots | argumento | résumé | handlung | | sinossi | plot details | contenido | trame romanesque | inhalt | | vicenda | structure and plot | resumen | synopsis | | | riassunto | plot and structure | sinopsis | la trame romanesque | | | racconto | abstracts | la trame de l'histoire | | | | il racconto | plot summary | | | | | riassunti | synopsis subjects plot story summaries abstract the story plot synopsis | | | | | plot introduction summary thematic summary summary and themes plot outline | | | | | | Table 8: Table of Wikipedia section titles utilized in the Echo-Wiki parsing process in multiple languages | | | | | performance in Table 9. We observe relatively low scores, meaning that the extractor is only partially able to discriminate relevant sentences from irrelevant ones. This aspect confirms that there is still large room for improving the Extractor and, consequently, the relevance of the summaries. | K | Precision | |-----|-------------| | 1 | 31.1 | | 2 | 28.8 | | 3 | 28.8 | | 4 | 27.2 | | 5 | 25.6 | Table 9: Extractor evaluation: Precision@K ## Book: The Metamorphosis Text (EN): One morning, when Gregor Samsa woke from troubled dreams, he found himself transformed in his bed into a horrible vermin...(21,897 words omitted)   ritrovandosi trasformato in un enorme insetto. La causa di tale mutazione non viene mai rivelata . Tutto il seguito del racconto narra dei tentativi compiuti dal giovane Gregor per cercar di regolare - per quanto possibile - la propria vita a questa sua nuova particolarissima condizione mai vista prima , soprattutto nei riguardi dei genitori e della sorella e con il suo datore di lavoro. Figure 5: An excerpt of a book text along with multilingual summaries from Echo-XSum. IIIII The Iliad (;"Iliad". Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. , ; sometimes referred to as the Song of Ilion or Song of Ilium) is an ancient Greek epic poem in dactylic hexameter, traditionally attributed to Homer. Usually considered to have been written down circa the 8th century BC, the Iliad is among the oldest extant works of Western literature, along with the Odyssey, another epic poem attributed to Homer, which tells of Odysseus's experiences after the events of the Iliad.Vidal-Naquet, Pierre. Le monde d'Homère (The World of Homer), Perrin (2000), p. 19 In the modern vulgate (the standard accepted version), the Iliad contains 15,693 lines, divided into 24 books; it is written in Homeric Greek, a literary amalgam of Ionic Greek and other dialects. It is usually grouped in the Epic Cycle. Set during the Trojan War, the ten-year siege of the city of Troy (Ilium) by a coalition of Mycenaean Greek states (Achaeans), it tells of the battles and events during the weeks of a quarrel between King Agamemnon and the warrior Achilles. Although the story covers only a few weeks in the final year of the war, the Iliad mentions or alludes to many of the Greek legends about the siege; the earlier events, such as the gathering of warriors for the siege, the cause of the war, and related concerns, tend to appear near the beginning. Then the epic narrative takes up events prophesied for the future, such as Achilles's imminent death and the fall of Troy, although the narrative ends before these events take place. However, as these events are prefigured and alluded to more and more vividly, when it reaches an end, the poem has told a more or less complete tale of the Trojan War. Figure 6: Echo-XSum annotation process consists of highlighting plot-specific pieces of text from the lead section of the Wikipedia page. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? 7, right after Conclusion. ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? 7 ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Abstract and 1. ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** 1,3,4,5. ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? 1,2,3,4,5 ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? 3,Limitations ✗ 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)? All artifacts have been used according to their original purpose. 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.? 1,2,3,4,5,Limitations ✓ 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. 2,3,4 ## 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? 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? We do not perform hyperparameter tuning ✗ 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? Experiments are computational expensive, so we were able to afford just one run per configuration. ✓ 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.)? ROUGE:4 ## D ✓ **Did You Use Human Annotators (E.G., Crowdworkers) Or Research With Human Participants?** 3,5 ✗ 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.? We provide a short description of the guidelines and pointers to existing guidelines. ✓ 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)? We report information about the students in Section 3. The expert annotators prefer not to disclose their information. 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? Our research group does not have an ethics review board. ✗ D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? The annotators prefer not to disclose their information.

han-etal-2023-gradient

When Gradient Descent Meets Derivative-Free Optimization: A Match Made in Black-Box Scenario

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.55

Large pre-trained language models (PLMs) have garnered significant attention for their versatility and potential for solving a wide spectrum of natural language processing (NLP) tasks. However, the cost of running these PLMs may be prohibitive. Furthermore, PLMs may not be open-sourced due to commercial considerations and potential risks of misuse, such as GPT-3. The parameters and gradients of PLMs are unavailable in this scenario. To solve the issue, black-box tuning has been proposed, which utilizes derivative-free optimization (DFO), instead of gradient descent, for training task-specific continuous prompts. However, these gradient-free methods still exhibit a significant gap compared to gradient-based methods. In this paper, we introduce gradient descent into black-box tuning scenario through knowledge distillation. Furthermore, we propose a novel method GDFO, which integrates gradient descent and derivative-free optimization to optimize task-specific continuous prompts in a harmonized manner. Experimental results show that GDFO can achieve significant performance gains over previous state-of-the-art methods.

# When Gradient Descent Meets Derivative-Free Optimization: A Match Made In Black-Box Scenario Chengcheng Han♢∗ Liqing Cui♢∗ **Renyu Zhu**♢♠ Jianing Wang♢ Nuo Chen♢ Qiushi Sun♢♡ Xiang Li♢ **Ming Gao**♢♣† ♢School of Data Science and Engineering‡ , East China Normal University ♠NetEase Fuxi AI Lab ♡Department of Mathematics, National University of Singapore ♣KLATASDS-MOE, School of Statistics, East China Normal University {chengchenghan,liqingcui,jianingwang,nuochen,qiushisun}@stu.ecnu.edu.cn zhurenyu@corp.netease.com {xiangli,mgao}@dase.ecnu.edu.cn ## Abstract  Large pre-trained language models (PLMs) have garnered significant attention for their versatility and potential for solving a wide spectrum of natural language processing (NLP) tasks. However, the cost of running these PLMs may be prohibitive. Furthermore, PLMs may not be open-sourced due to commercial considerations and potential risks of misuse, such as GPT-3. The parameters and gradients of PLMs are unavailable in this scenario. To solve the issue, black-box tuning has been proposed, which utilizes derivative-free optimization (DFO), instead of gradient descent, for training task-specific continuous prompts. However, these gradient-free methods still exhibit a significant gap compared to gradientbased methods. In this paper, we introduce gradient descent into black-box tuning scenario through knowledge distillation. Furthermore, we propose a novel method GDFO, which integrates gradient descent and derivative-free optimization to optimize task-specific continuous prompts in a harmonized manner. Experimental results show that GDFO can achieve significant performance gains over previous state-ofthe-art methods. ## 1 Introduction Large pre-trained language models (PLMs) (Devlin et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2019; Raffel et al., 2020) have attracted considerable attention for their versatility and potential for solving a wide spectrum of Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks. Especially, through prompt-based learning (PL) (Liu et al., 2021a; Gu et al., 2022), PLMs have consistently demonstrated impressive performance on various downstream tasks with a ∗Equal contribution. †Corresponding author. ‡Shanghai Engineering Research Center of Big Data Management few labeled samples. However, it is a challenge to extend the benefits of these large PLMs to a broader audience. For users, the cost of running these models may be prohibitive; for service providers, they may not open source the model parameters due to commercial considerations and potential risks of misuse1. One possible solution is to deploy PLMs as a service, enabling users to access the advanced capabilities of PLMs through their inference APIs, such as GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020), ERNIE (Sun et al., 2021) and Yuan (Wu et al., 2021b). In this scenario, the large pre-trained language model provided by the server is considered as a black box. In order to perform various downstream tasks, users are required to construct task-specific prompts or select training samples (Brown et al., 2020) to input into the black box. We can manually construct discrete prompts, which are simple and effective but may not fully utilize training data, potentially resulting in suboptimal performance on some tasks. Instead of designing hand-crafted discrete prompts, there have been an increasing number of studies on continuous prompt tuning (Lester et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2021a; Ding et al., 2022), which aim to train continuous prompts and add them to the original samples. Trainable continuous prompts have also shown remarkable success on various tasks, but most existing methods optimize the continuous prompts through back-propagation, which is unavailable in the black-box scenario. To solve the issue, Sun et al. (2022b) have recently proposed Black Box Tuning (BBT), which utilizes random projection matrices and derivative-free optimization (DFO) (Kolda et al., 2003; Conn et al., 2009; Rios and Sahinidis, 2013), instead of gradient descent, for training continuous prompts in the black-box scenario. Built upon BBT, BBTv2 (Sun et al., 2022a) prepends continuous prompts to each layer of the PLM and further presents a divide-andconquer gradient-free algorithm to alternately optimize the prompts at different layers. Both BBT and BBTv2 have shown their superiority against other gradient-free methods. Despite the success, there remains a significant gap compared to gradientbased methods on certain tasks. For example, compared against BBTv2, Adapter (Houlsby et al., 2019), a gradient-based method, leads by 4.35% on the DBPedia dataset (as shown in Figure 1). Therefore, we consider that the incorporation of gradient descent into the black-box scenario may potentially enhance the performance of the model. Based on the insights discussed above, in this paper, we introduce gradient descent into the blackbox scenario through knowledge distillation techniques. In particular, we propose a novel approach named **GDFO** to combine Gradient descent with Derivative-Free Optimization, allowing them to jointly optimize task-specific continuous prompts. First, we adopt the technique of knowledge distillation, where a *student model* is trained to emulate the knowledge of the black-box model, referred to as the *teacher model*. Then, a prompt generator is trained by gradient descent through the student model, while utilizing derivative-free optimization algorithms to optimize continuous task-specific prompts. The continuous prompts generated by the prompt generator and the prompts optimized by the derivative-free algorithm are further integrated to serve as the final prompts. Finally, we perform extensive experiments on seven benchmark datasets to show that GDFO can achieve significant performance gains over other state-of-the-art methods. The main contributions of the paper are summarized as follows: - To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to utilize gradient descent to optimize taskspecific continuous prompts in the black-box scenario through knowledge distillation. - We propose a novel method GDFO, which integrates gradient descent and derivative-free optimization to optimize task-specific continuous prompts in a harmonized manner. - We conduct comprehensive experiments on seven benchmark datasets under the black-box scenario. Empirical results demonstrate the superiority of GDFO over other competitors. ## 2 Related Work 2.1 Prompt-Based Learning Prompt-based learning, in which the PLM is adapted to various tasks by task-specific prompts, has emerged as a promising framework. Brown et al. (2020) shows that PLM can perform excellently in few-shot learning by using manual prompts concatenated with samples. However, designing prompts in a hand-crafted fashion requires substantial time and experience and may not find the optimal ones (Jiang et al., 2020; Shin et al., 2021). To solve the problem, researchers attempt to use automated prompts. LM-BFF (Gao et al., 2021) uses prompt-based fine-tuning with automatically searched prompts and generates task demonstrations to be a part of the input context. P-tuning (Liu et al., 2021b) optimizes the continuous prompts using gradient descent as an alternative to discrete prompt searching. P-tuning v2 (Liu et al., 2021a) adopts continuous prompts for each layer of the PLMs to improve the model performance. Prefixtuning (Li and Liang, 2021) optimizes continuous task-specific vectors and prepends them to the input texts. Input-tuning (An et al., 2022) fine-tunes both the continuous prompts and the input representations, leading to a more effective way to adapt unfamiliar inputs to frozen PLMs. ## 2.2 Black-Box Tuning Due to commercial considerations, large PLMs such as GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020) are only pro-  vided as a service in the cloud, resulting inaccessible parameters and gradients of PLMs. To tackle this issue, BBT (Sun et al., 2022b; Diao et al., 2022) has been proposed to optimize the continuous prompts via derivative-free optimization (DFO). As an improved version of BBT, BBTv2 (Sun et al., 2022a) inserts prompts to each layer of the PLMs instead of optimizing the prompt merely in the input layer. Furthermore, GrIPS (Prasad et al., 2022) proposes a gradient-free search approach to generate discrete prompts. Besides, RLPrompt (Deng et al., 2022) optimizes discrete prompts through reinforcement learning and utilizes a continuous policy network which is highly parameter-efficient to generate prompts. PALP (Cho et al., 2022) combines linear models and in-context learning (Brown et al., 2020) to augment training samples with the templates for better contextualization. To improve the computational efficiency, PromptBoosting (Hou et al., 2022) constructs a pool of prompts via a gradient-free approach and ensembles many weak learners using the ADABOOST algorithm to enhance the model performance. Despite the success of the above approaches, all of them do not optimize continuous prompts through gradient descent (GD) in the black-box scenario, our method introduces GD to the scenario through knowledge distillation and combines GD and DFO to jointly optimize continuous prompts, which provides a novel insight for future black-box tuning approaches. ## 2.3 Knowledge Distillation As a representative method of model compression, knowledge distillation transfers the knowledge from a larger deep neural network (*teacher*) to a smaller network (*student*) (Hinton et al., 2015; Kim and Rush, 2016). There have been different distillation algorithms being proposed to face more complex settings of transferring knowledge, including adversarial distillation (Ma et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2022), multi-teacher distillation (Guan et al., 2020; Yuan et al., 2021) and data-free distillation (Fang et al., 2022; Binici et al., 2022). Furthermore, the superior success of PLMs has also spurred researchers to distill PLMs into smaller models while retaining performance. DistilBERT (Sanh et al., 2019) introduces a triple loss combining language modeling and cosine-distance losses to leverage the inductive biases learned by large models during pre-training. TinyBERT (Jiao et al., 2020) performs a Transformer distillation method at both the pre-training and task-specific learning stages. NewsBERT (Wu et al., 2021a) designs a collaborative learning framework where the *student model* can learn from the experience of the *teacher model*. In this paper, we consider knowledge distillation to transfer knowledge from a black-box *teacher* to a *student*, which is used for training a prompt generator by gradient descent. ## 3 Method In this section, we describe our approach GDFO. We first give an overview of GDFO, which is illustrated in Figure 2. GDFO first trains a *student* model by aligning its outputs to that of the teacher model (i.e., the black-box model). Then, GDFO trains the prompt generator by gradient descent while simultaneously optimizing the continuous prompts via DFO. Finally, the final prompts are obtained by integrating the prompts generated by the prompt generator with those optimized by DFO, which are then fed into the black-box model together with query instances to obtain predictions. Next, we describe each component of GDFO in detail. ## 3.1 Knowledge Distillation Given a student model S and a teacher model T, the objective of knowledge distillation (KD) is to enhance the performance of S by aligning its outputs with those of T, which is accomplished by reducing the divergence between the probability distributions generated by S and T. In the blackbox scenario, the black-box model is considered as T. We utilize T's outputs as soft targets for S to learn. Given a training instance, we randomly select n tokens from the PLM vocabulary to construct a random prompt pr, which is concatenated to the beginning of the instance. Additionally, a hand-crafted template2is appended to the end of the instance. We use the concatenated sentence as the input x. We denote S(x) and T(x) as the output logits of S and T for input x, respectively. The KD can be conducted by minimizing the KullbackLeibler (KL) divergence distance between the *student* and *teacher* predictions: $${\mathcal{L}}_{K L}=\mathrm{KL}(\sigma(S(x)/\tau)\|\sigma(T(x)/\tau)),$$ where σ(·) denotes the softmax function and τ is a temperature hyper-parameter. The *student* parameters are updated according to LKL and the cross-entropy loss LCE over the ground-truth y: $${\mathcal{L}}=\left(1-\lambda\right){\mathcal{L}}_{C E}+\lambda{\mathcal{L}}_{K L},$$ L = (1 − λ)LCE + λLKL, (2) where λ is a weight and LCE is defined as: $\mathcal{L}CE=-y\log\sigma(S(x))$. ${}^{2}$The details of templates are shown in Table 1. ## Algorithm 1 Training Procedure 3.2 Prompt Generator Input: Training data {Xtrain, Y*train*}; Black-box model T; Student model Sθ; Prompt generator Gµ; Epochs for knowledge distillation Ekd; The number of API calls N; The PLM vocabulary V; Hand-crafted template t; \# Knowledge Distillation 1: for each i ∈ Ekd do 2: for each x ∈ X*train* do 3: pr ← Random_Sample(V, n); 4: yˆT , yˆS ← T([pr; x;t]), Sθ([pr; x;t]); 5: Calculate L by Equation 2; 6: Update θ by L; 7: **end for** 8: **end for** \# Prompt Generator 9: for each i ∈ N do 10: for each x ∈ X*train* do 11: pGD ← Gµ(x); 12: Get z by CMA-ES; 13: Get p by Equation 4; 14: yˆT , yˆS ← T([p; x;t]), S([p; x;t]); 15: Calculate L T CE,L S CE by Equation 3; 16: Update µ by L S CE; 17: Optimize CMA-ES by L T CE; 18: **end for** 19: **end for** p = αpGD + (1 − α)(p0 + Az), (4) where α is a balancing weight. Further information regarding the initialization of A and the specifics Upon the completion of training S via knowledge distillation, the *student* parameters are frozen and a prompt generator is optimized by gradient descent with the purpose of generating continuous prompts pGD ∈ R D for given samples. Meanwhile, following BBT (Sun et al., 2022b), we optimize intermediate vector z ∈ R dthrough CMAES (Covariance Matrix Adaptation Evolution Strategy) (Hansen and Ostermeier, 2001; Hansen et al., 2003), which is a widely used evolutionary algorithm for non-convex black-box optimization in continuous domain. Then a random projection matrix A ∈ R D×dis utilized to project z into the highdimensional space. Finally, we randomly sample n tokens from the PLM vocabulary as initial prompt p0 and get final continuous prompt p ∈ R D: of the optimization procedure of CMA-ES can be found in Sun et al. (2022b). Given a training instance, p is concatenated to the beginning of it and a hand-crafted template2is appended to the end of it. The concatenated sample is fed into S and T. Then the output logits are obtained and used to compute LCE, which is utilized to update the parameters of the prompt generator and optimize z through CMA-ES. The overall training procedure of GDFO is summarized in Algorithm 1. ## 3.3 Inference  During the inference stage, given a query instance, we first input it into the prompt generator to generate pGD. Subsequently, we combine pGD, p0, and Az that have been optimized through CMAES to obtain the final continuous prompt p through the Equation 4. Next, similar to the training stage, we concatenate p to the front of the query instance and append the hand-crafted template2to the end of it. Finally, we input the concatenated sample to the black-box model to obtain the prediction. The overall inference procedure is shown in Figure 3. ❄️ ## 4 Experiments In this section, we perform comprehensive experiments to compare our proposed model with twelve competitive baselines on seven downstream tasks. ## 4.1 Datasets We perform experiments on a variety of language understanding tasks, including sentiment analysis, topic classification, natural language inference (NLI), and paraphrasing. Statistics of these datasets are given in Table 1. Specifically, we utilize the following datasets: Sentiment analysis: SST-2 (Socher et al., 2013) and Yelp polarity (Zhang et al., 2015) consist of text samples with assigned sentiment labels (e.g. positive or negative). Topic classification: AG's News (Zhang et al., 2015) and DBPedia (Zhang et al., 2015) contain text samples with pre-defined topics. NLI: SNLI (Bowman et al., 2015) and RTE (Wang et al., 2018) are composed of sentence pairs and the objective is to determine the relationship between the two sentences, such as entailment, contradiction and neutral. Paraphrase: MRPC (Dolan and Brockett, 2005) contains sentence pairs and the goal is to recognize semantic equivalence between the two sentences. ## 4.2 Baselines We compare GDFO with twelve competitive methods, which can be grouped into two categories: gradient-based methods and gradient-free methods. For gradient-based methods, we consider six baselines: **(1) Model Tuning** fine-tunes the entire PLM through training data. **(2) Adapter** (Houlsby et al., 2019) is a new module added between layers of a PLM. The parameters of the original network remain fixed, yielding a high degree of parameter sharing. **(3) BitFit** (Zaken et al., 2022) is a sparsefinetuning method where most of the network parameters are frozen and only the bias-terms of the model (or a subset of them) are being modified. (4) LoRA (Hu et al., 2021), an efficient adaptation strategy, allows us to train some dense layers in a neural network indirectly by optimizing rank decomposition matrices of the dense layers' change, while keeping the pre-trained weights frozen. (5) Prompt Tuning (Lester et al., 2021) freezes the entire PLM and only allows additional tunable tokens to be prepended to the input text. **(6) P-Tuning** v2 (Liu et al., 2021a) applys continuous prompts for every layer of the PLM instead of the mere input layer. For gradient-free methods, we also consider six baselines: **(1) Manual Prompt** conducts subsequent experiments using hand-crafted prompts following the pre-defined templates in Table 1. (2) In-Context Learning (Brown et al., 2020) provides a few training examples for the model to improve its capability of few-shot learning. (3) Feature-MLP trains a two-layered MLP classifier provided with embeddings encoded by the PLM. (4) Feature-BiLSTM trains a bidirectional LSTM on the word representations and connects it to a | Category | Datasets | # Classes | # Training | # Test samples | Templates | Label words | |-----------------|----------------------------------------------|-------------|--------------|------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------| | samples | | | | | | | | SST-2 | 2 | 32 | 0.9k | <Sentence>. It was [MASK]. | great, bad | | | Yelp P. | 2 | 32 | 38k | <Sentence>. It was [MASK]. | great, bad | | | AG's News | 4 | 64 | 7.6k | [MASK] News: <Sentence> | World, Sports, Business, Tech | | | Single sentence | Company, Education, Artist, Athlete, Office, | | | | | | | DBPedia | 14 | 224 | 70k | [Category: [MASK]] <Sentence> | Transportation, Building, Natural, Village, Animal, Plant, Album, Film, Written | | | MRPC | 2 | 32 | 0.4k | <Sentence1> ? [MASK] , <Sentence2> | Yes, No | | | Sentence | RTE | 2 | 32 | 0.3k | <Sentence1> ? [MASK] , <Sentence2> | Yes, No | | pair | SNLI | 3 | 48 | 9.8k | <Sentence1> ? [MASK] , <Sentence2> | Yes, Maybe, No | linear classifier. **(5) BBT** (Sun et al., 2022b) optimizes the continuous prompt prepended to the input text via derivative-free optimization (DFO). (6) BBTv2 (Sun et al., 2022a) proposes a divideand-conquer algorithm to alternately optimize the prompt at each layer of the PLM. Compared with BBT, BBTv2 inserts prompts to each layer of the PLM instead of optimizing the prompt merely in the input layer. ## 4.3 Implementation Few-shot setting We adopt the same procedure as described in previous studies (Zhang et al., 2020; Sun et al., 2022a) to establish a true few-shot learning environment. Specifically, we randomly select k samples per class to create a k-shot training set D*train*, and form a development set Ddev by randomly selecting another k samples from the original training set, resulting in |Dtrain| = |Ddev|. We use the original development sets as our test sets D*test*. For datasets that do not have development sets, we use the original test sets. It is noted that |Dtest| ≫ |Dtrain| = |Ddev|. Experimental settings To compare with BBTv2 (Sun et al., 2022a), we mainly use RoBERTaLARGE (Liu et al., 2019) as the blackbox model. For hyper-parameters, we use the grid search to find the best for our model. For knowledge distillation, we use BERTLARGE (Devlin et al., 2019) as our *student model*. We set the temperature τ to 1 and the balancing weight λ to 0.5. We fine-tune the *student model* for 2,000 epochs with the learning rate 1e − 4. For prompt generator, we use a fully connected layer and set the dimensionality of the fully connected layer to 1024. The learning rate of the prompt generator is 1e − 5. For CMA-ES, following Sun et al. (2022b), we set the prompt length n to 50. The dimensionality of z is set to 500 and the population size of CMA-ES is set to 20. The balancing weight α is set to 0.5. We train our prompt generator and run CMA-ES for 8,000 API calls. All baseline results are recorded in Sun et al. (2022a). We run all the experiments on a single NVIDIA v100 GPU. ## 4.4 Main Results The results of 16-shot setting on various downstream tasks are shown in Table 2. From the table, GDFO consistently outperforms all the baselines on the average performance. Specifically, in the gradient-based comparison, GDFO achieves an average accuracy of 81.85%, which outperforms the runner-up gradient-based model, LoRA, by a notable 3.84% improvement. When compared against the gradient-free methods, GDFO leads BBTv2 by 5.26% and 3.89% on the SNLI and RTE datasets, respectively. Our model generates a continuous prompt for each sample, rather than using an optimized continuous prompt for all samples, such as BBT and BBTv2. Furthermore, the incorporation of both DFO and gradient descent during the training stage allows GDFO for more comprehensive and efficient training of continuous prompts, resulting in a notable improvement in the model performance. ## 4.5 Ablation Study We conduct an ablation study to investigate the characteristics of the main components of GDFO. As illustrated in Figure 4, the results3 demonstrate that GDFO outperforms GDFO-w/o-KD. For instance, on the SNLI dataset, the accuracy of GDFO is 62.53%, whereas that of GDFO-w/o-KD is only 58.51%. This indicates that the knowledge distillation module, which transfers the knowledge of the *teacher model* to the *student model* by aligning 3The evaluation metric used in the ablation study is F1 score for MRPC and accuracy for other datasets. | Methods | SST-2 | Yelp P. | AG's News | DBPedia | MRPC | SNLI | RTE | Average | | |---------------------|---------------|------------|-------------|------------|------------|-------------|------------|------------|-------| | acc | acc | acc | acc | F1 | acc | acc | | | | | Model Tuning | 85.39±2.84 | 91.82±0.79 | 86.36±1.85 | 97.98±0.14 | 77.35±5.70 | 54.64±5.29 | 58.60±6.21 | 78.88 | | | Adapter | 83.91±2.90 | 90.99±2.86 | 86.01±2.18 | 97.99±0.07 | 69.20±3.58 | 57.46±6.63 | 48.62±4.74 | 76.31 | | | BitFit | 81.19±6.08 | 88.63±6.69 | 86.83±0.62 | 94.42±0.94 | 66.26±6.81 | 53.42±10.63 | 52.59±5.31 | 74.76 | | | LoRA | 88.49±2.90 | 90.21±4.00 | 87.09±0.85 | 97.86±0.17 | 72.14±2.23 | 61.03±8.55 | 49.22±5.12 | 78.01 | | | Prompt Tuning | 68.23±3.78 | 61.02±6.65 | 84.81±0.66 | 87.75±1.48 | 51.61±8.67 | 36.13±1.51 | 54.69±3.79 | 63.46 | | | P-Tuning v2 | 64.33±3.05 | 92.63±1.39 | 83.46±1.01 | 97.05±0.41 | 68.14±3.89 | 36.89±0.79 | 50.78±2.28 | 70.47 | | | Gradient-based | Manual Prompt | 79.82 | 89.65 | 76.96 | 41.33 | 67.40 | 31.11 | 51.62 | 62.56 | | In-Context Learning | 79.79±3.06 | 85.38±3.92 | 62.21±13.46 | 34.83±7.59 | 45.81±6.67 | 47.11±0.63 | 60.36±1.56 | 59.36 | | | Feature-MLP | 64.80±1.78 | 79.20±2.26 | 70.77±0.67 | 87.78±0.61 | 68.40±0.86 | 42.01±0.33 | 53.43±1.57 | 66.63 | | | Feature-BiLSTM | 65.95±0.99 | 74.68±0.10 | 77.28±2.83 | 90.37±3.10 | 71.55±7.10 | 46.02±0.38 | 52.17±0.25 | 68.29 | | | BBT | 89.56±0.25 | 91.50±0.16 | 81.51±0.79 | 79.99±2.95 | 61.56±4.34 | 46.58±1.33 | 52.59±2.21 | 71.90 | | | BBTv2 | 90.33±1.73 | 92.86±0.62 | 85.28±0.49 | 93.64±0.68 | 77.01±4.73 | 57.27±2.27 | 56.68±3.32 | 79.01 | | | Hybrid | GDFO (ours) | 92.41±1.03 | 93.17±0.37 | 87.19±0.51 | 96.92±0.71 | 80.13±1.97 | 62.53±1.31 | 60.57±1.02 | 81.85 | | Gradient-free | | | | | | | | | |   the outputs of the *student model* with those of the teacher model, effectively improves the model performance. Additionally, when removing derivativefree optimization, a significant decline is observed across all datasets, with an average decrease of 6.5%. This demonstrates the effectiveness of incorporating derivative-free optimization in the blackbox scenario. It is worth noting that when removing the prompt generator, the student model will not function, which means that gradient descent is eliminated. In this case, our method degrades to a gradient-free method BBT. The results, as shown in Table 2, reveal that GDFO achieves significant performance gains over BBT across all datasets, which demonstrates the effectiveness of training the prompt generator through gradient descent in the black-box scenarios. ## 4.6 Analysis Different Black-Box Models To evaluate the universality of GDFO across PLMs with varying architectures, in addition to encoder-only PLMs (e.g., RoBERTaLARGE), we conduct experiments using decoder-only (e.g., GPT-2LARGE) and encoderdecoder PLMs (e.g., BARTLARGE and T5LARGE) as black-box models. As shown in Figure 5, GDFO achieves superior performance over other competitors across all the settings. For example, When using GPT-2 as the black-box model, GDFO achieves 87.5% and 85.2% on the SST-2 and DBPedia datasets, respectively. In particular, it outperforms BBT by a notable 11.9% and 15.5% improvements in both cases. When considering BART as the black-box model, GDFO leads BBTv2 by 8.12% on the DBPedia dataset. All the results clearly show the generalizability of our model across various PLMs. Different Student Models We next conduct an in-depth experiment for student models on three datasets. The results are shown in Table 3. From the results, different student models have a impact on the performance of GDFO (approximately 2% on average). Furthermore, we observe that student  | Stu. Models | SST-2 | AG's News | DBPedia | |----------------------|------------|-------------|------------| | Encoder-only PLMs | | | | | BERTLARGE | 92.41±1.03 | 87.19±0.51 | 96.92±0.71 | | RoBERTaLARGE | 93.17±0.39 | 88.91±0.47 | 97.56±0.53 | | Decoder-only PLMs | | | | | GPT-2LARGE | 91.12±1.72 | 85.98±1.28 | 95.91±2.01 | | Encoder-Decoder PLMs | | | | | BARTLARGE | 91.19±0.93 | 87.07±0.57 | 96.13±0.82 | | T5LARGE | 93.03±0.31 | 88.87±0.47 | 97.73±0.98 | models whose architectures are similar to the blackbox model tend to exhibit superior performance. For instance, when both the black-box model and the student model are RoBERTaLARGE (Liu et al., 2019), GDFO achieves the best performance. When comparing models with identical architectures, such as BARTLARGE (Lewis et al., 2020) and T5LARGE (Raffel et al., 2020), T5 exhibits superior performance, which may be due to the fact that the T5 model has twice the number of parameters as the BART model. The increased capacity allows the T5 model to better capture and represent the relationships within the input data, resulting in improved performance.  Effect of Balancing Weight The balancing weight α plays a crucial role in determining the performance of the model by controlling the influence of pGD and Az. As the value of α increases, the influence of pGD becomes more prominent, while conversely, as the value of α decreases, the influence of Az becomes more pronounced4. As illustrated in the Figure 6, when α is set to an extreme value, either too large or too small, it tends to have a negative impact on the model performance. We observe that the average performance of the model across three datasets is optimal when α is set to 0.5, further emphasizing the importance of the combination of derivative-free optimization and gradient descent in improving the performance of the model. ## 5 Conclusion In this paper, we introduced gradient descent into the black-box tuning scenario through knowledge distillation for the first time, which provided a novel insight for future black-box tuning approaches. Furthermore, we proposed a novel method, GDFO, which integrates gradient descent and derivative-free optimization for jointly training continuous prompts. GDFO first trains a *student model* to enhance the performance by aligning its outputs with those of the *teacher model* (i.e., the black-box model). After that, GDFO trains a prompt generator using gradient descent while 4p0 is fixed, thus its effect on the model performance is disregarded in the analysis. simultaneously optimizing a continuous prompt using DFO algorithm. Experimental results on various datasets show that GDFO can achieve significant performance gains over other gradient-free and gradient-based methods. ## Limitations We summarize the limitations of this work as follows: (1) We conduct experiments on 7 language understanding tasks across 4 types (i.e., sentiment analysis, topic classification, natural language inference and paraphrasing). However, the effectiveness of GDFO on tasks such as sequence labeling and generation tasks has yet to be fully examined. (2) Our proposed method uses a student model and a prompt generator, thereby resulting in a higher computational resource requirement in comparison to gradient-free methods. Therefore, it may not be suitable for implementation on certain edge devices, but it is more appropriate for personal or enterprise users who have access to a certain degree of computational resources and have stringent requirements for the model performance. (3) We only focus on the few-shot setting in this paper. It is possible to extend our work to other scenarios such as semi-supervised learning and we will further explore it in the future research. ## Ethics Statement The proposed method has no obvious potential risks. All the scientific artifacts used/created are properly cited/licensed, and the usage is consistent with their intended use. ## Acknowledgements This work has been supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. U1911203, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No.61977025. ## References Shengnan An, Yifei Li, Zeqi Lin, Qian Liu, Bei Chen, Qiang Fu, Weizhu Chen, Nanning Zheng, and JianGuang Lou. 2022. Input-tuning: Adapting unfamiliar inputs to frozen pretrained models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.03131. Kuluhan Binici, Shivam Aggarwal, Nam Trung Pham, Karianto Leman, and Tulika Mitra. 2022. Robust and resource-efficient data-free knowledge distillation by generative pseudo replay. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.03019. Samuel R. Bowman, Gabor Angeli, Christopher Potts, and Christopher D. Manning. 2015. A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference. In *EMNLP*. 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. *NIPS*, 33:1877–1901. Hyunsoo Cho, Hyuhng Joon Kim, Junyeob Kim, SangWoo 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. Andrew R Conn, Katya Scheinberg, and Luis N Vicente. 2009. *Introduction to derivative-free optimization*. SIAM. Mingkai Deng, Jianyu Wang, Cheng-Ping Hsieh, Yihan Wang, Han Guo, Tianmin Shu, Meng Song, Eric P Xing, and Zhiting Hu. 2022. Rlprompt: Optimizing discrete text prompts with reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.12548. 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. Shizhe Diao, Xuechun Li, Yong Lin, Zhichao Huang, and Tong Zhang. 2022. Black-box prompt learning for pre-trained language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.08531. Ning Ding, Yujia Qin, Guang Yang, Fuchao Wei, Zonghan Yang, Yusheng Su, Shengding Hu, Yulin Chen, Chi-Min Chan, Weize Chen, et al. 2022. Delta tuning: A comprehensive study of parameter efficient methods for pre-trained language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.06904. Bill Dolan and Chris Brockett. 2005. Automatically constructing a corpus of sentential paraphrases. In IWP. Gongfan Fang, Kanya Mo, Xinchao Wang, Jie Song, Shitao Bei, Haofei Zhang, and Mingli Song. 2022. Up to 100x faster data-free knowledge distillation. In AAAI, volume 36, pages 6597–6604. Tianyu Gao, Adam Fisch, and Danqi Chen. 2021. Making pre-trained language models better few-shot learners. 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 3816–3830. Yuxian Gu, Xu Han, Zhiyuan Liu, and Minlie Huang. 2022. Ppt: Pre-trained prompt tuning for few-shot learning. In *Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics* (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 8410–8423. Yushuo Guan, Pengyu Zhao, Bingxuan Wang, Yuanxing Zhang, Cong Yao, Kaigui Bian, and Jian Tang. 2020. Differentiable feature aggregation search for knowledge distillation. In *ECCV*, pages 469–484. Springer. Nikolaus Hansen, Sibylle D Müller, and Petros Koumoutsakos. 2003. Reducing the time complexity of the derandomized evolution strategy with covariance matrix adaptation (cma-es). *Evolutionary* computation, 11(1):1–18. Nikolaus Hansen and Andreas Ostermeier. 2001. Completely derandomized self-adaptation in evolution strategies. *Evolutionary computation*, 9(2):159–195. Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeff Dean. 2015. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531. Bairu Hou, Joe O'Connor, Jacob Andreas, Shiyu Chang, and Yang Zhang. 2022. Promptboosting: Black-box text classification with ten forward passes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.09257. 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 ICML, pages 2790–2799. 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. Zhengbao Jiang, Frank F Xu, Jun Araki, and Graham Neubig. 2020. How can we know what language models know? *TACL*, 8:423–438. Xiaoqi Jiao, Yichun Yin, Lifeng Shang, Xin Jiang, Xiao Chen, Linlin Li, Fang Wang, and Qun Liu. 2020. Tinybert: Distilling bert for natural language understanding. In *EMNLP*, pages 4163–4174. Yoon Kim and Alexander M Rush. 2016. Sequencelevel knowledge distillation. In *EMNLP*, pages 1317– 1327. Tamara G Kolda, Robert Michael Lewis, and Virginia Torczon. 2003. Optimization by direct search: New perspectives on some classical and modern methods. SIAM review, 45(3):385–482. Brian Lester, Rami Al-Rfou, and Noah Constant. 2021. The power of scale for parameter-efficient prompt tuning. In *EMNLP*. 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 ACL, pages 7871–7880. Xiang Lisa Li and Percy Liang. 2021. Prefix-tuning: Optimizing continuous prompts for generation. In ACL, pages 4582–4597. Xiao Liu, Kaixuan Ji, Yicheng Fu, Zhengxiao Du, Zhilin Yang, and Jie Tang. 2021a. P-tuning v2: Prompt tuning can be comparable to fine-tuning universally across scales and tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.07602. Xiao Liu, Yanan Zheng, Zhengxiao Du, Ming Ding, Yujie Qian, Zhilin Yang, and Jie Tang. 2021b. Gpt understands, too. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.10385*. 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*. Xinyin Ma, Yongliang Shen, Gongfan Fang, Chen Chen, Chenghao Jia, and Weiming Lu. 2020. Adversarial self-supervised data-free distillation for text classification. In *EMNLP*, pages 6182–6192. Archiki Prasad, Peter Hase, Xiang Zhou, and Mohit Bansal. 2022. Grips: Gradient-free, edit-based instruction search for prompting large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.07281. Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, Peter J Liu, et al. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. *JMLR*, 21(140):1–67. Luis Miguel Rios and Nikolaos V Sahinidis. 2013. Derivative-free optimization: a review of algorithms and comparison of software implementations. *Journal of Global Optimization*, 56(3):1247–1293. Victor Sanh, Lysandre Debut, Julien Chaumond, and Thomas Wolf. 2019. Distilbert, a distilled version of bert: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.01108. Richard Shin, Christopher Lin, Sam Thomson, Charles Chen Jr, Subhro Roy, Emmanouil Antonios Platanios, Adam Pauls, Dan Klein, Jason Eisner, and Benjamin Van Durme. 2021. Constrained language models yield few-shot semantic parsers. In *EMNLP*, pages 7699–7715. 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 *EMNLP*, pages 1631–1642. Tianxiang Sun, Zhengfu He, Hong Qian, Xuanjing Huang, and Xipeng Qiu. 2022a. Bbtv2: Pure black-box optimization can be comparable to gradient descent for few-shot learning. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2205.11200. Tianxiang Sun, Yunfan Shao, Hong Qian, Xuanjing Huang, and Xipeng Qiu. 2022b. Black-box tuning for language-model-as-a-service. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2201.03514. Yu Sun, Shuohuan Wang, Shikun Feng, Siyu Ding, Chao Pang, Junyuan Shang, Jiaxiang Liu, Xuyi Chen, Yanbin Zhao, Yuxiang Lu, et al. 2021. Ernie 3.0: Large-scale knowledge enhanced pre-training for language understanding and generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.02137. 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. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1804.07461. Yixu Wang, Jie Li, Hong Liu, Yan Wang, Yongjian Wu, Feiyue Huang, and Rongrong Ji. 2022. Black-box dissector: Towards erasing-based hard-label model stealing attack. In *ECCV*, pages 192–208. Springer. Chuhan Wu, Fangzhao Wu, Yang Yu, Tao Qi, Yongfeng Huang, and Qi Liu. 2021a. Newsbert: Distilling pre-trained language model for intelligent news application. In *EMNLP*, pages 3285–3295. Shaohua Wu, Xudong Zhao, Tong Yu, Rongguo Zhang, Chong Shen, Hongli Liu, Feng Li, Hong Zhu, Jiangang Luo, Liang Xu, et al. 2021b. Yuan 1.0: Largescale pre-trained language model in zero-shot and few-shot learning. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.04725*. Zhilin Yang, Zihang Dai, Yiming Yang, Jaime Carbonell, Russ R Salakhutdinov, and Quoc V Le. 2019. Xlnet: Generalized autoregressive pretraining for language understanding. *NIPS*, 32. Fei Yuan, Linjun Shou, Jian Pei, Wutao Lin, Ming Gong, Yan Fu, and Daxin Jiang. 2021. Reinforced multiteacher selection for knowledge distillation. In *AAAI*, volume 35, pages 14284–14291. Elad Ben Zaken, Yoav Goldberg, and Shauli Ravfogel. 2022. Bitfit: Simple parameter-efficient fine-tuning for transformer-based masked language-models. In ACL, pages 1–9. Tianyi Zhang, Felix Wu, Arzoo Katiyar, Kilian Q Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. 2020. Revisiting few-sample bert fine-tuning. In *ICLR*. Xiang Zhang, Junbo Zhao, and Yann LeCun. 2015. Character-level convolutional networks for text classification. *NIPS*, 28. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? The Section of Limitation ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? The Section of Ethics Statement ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? The Section of Abstract and 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 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 4 ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Section 4 ✓ 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 and The Section of Ethics Statement ✓ 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 Section of Ethics Statement ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Section 4 ✓ 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?** 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 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 ✓ 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 ✓ 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 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.

wu-etal-2023-align

Align-then-Enhance: Multilingual Entailment Graph Enhancement with Soft Predicate Alignment

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.56

Entailment graphs (EGs) with predicates as nodes and entailment relations as edges are typically incomplete, while EGs in different languages are often complementary to each other. In this paper, we propose a new task, multilingual entailment graph enhancement, which aims to utilize the entailment information from one EG to enhance another EG in a different language. The ultimate goal is to obtain an enhanced EG containing richer and more accurate entailment information. We present an align-then-enhance framework (ATE) to achieve accurate multilingual entailment graph enhancement, which first exploits a cross-graph guided interaction mechanism to automatically discover potential equivalent predicates between different EGs and then constructs more accurate enhanced entailment graphs based on soft predicate alignments. Extensive experiments show that ATE achieves better and more robust predicate alignment results between different EGs, and the enhanced entailment graphs generated by ATE outperform the original graphs for entailment detection.

# Align-Then-Enhance: Multilingual Entailment Graph Enhancement With Soft Predicate Alignment Yuting Wu1, Yutong Hu2,3**, Yansong Feng**2,3∗ , Tianyi Li4 Mark Steedman4**, Dongyan Zhao**2,3 1School of Software Engineering, Beijing Jiaotong University, China 2Wangxuan Institute of Computer Technology, Peking University, China 3The MOE Key Laboratory of Computational Linguistics, Peking University, China 4School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, U.K. ytwu1@bjtu.edu.cn, {huyutong,fengyansong,zhaody}@pku.edu.cn tianyi.li@ed.ac.uk, steedman@inf.ed.ac.uk ## Abstract Entailment graphs (EGs) with predicates as nodes and entailment relations as edges are typically incomplete, while EGs in different languages are often complementary to each other. In this paper, we propose a new task, multilingual entailment graph enhancement, which aims to utilize the entailment information from one EG to enhance another EG in a different language. The ultimate goal is to obtain an enhanced EG containing richer and more accurate entailment information. We present an alignthen-enhance framework (ATE) to achieve accurate multilingual entailment graph enhancement, which first exploits a cross-graph guided interaction mechanism to automatically discover potential equivalent predicates between different EGs and then constructs more accurate enhanced entailment graphs based on soft predicate alignments. Extensive experiments show that ATE achieves better and more robust predicate alignment results between different EGs, and the enhanced entailment graphs generated by ATE outperform the original graphs for entailment detection1. ## 1 Introduction Predicate entailment detection is the task to determine if the meaning of one predicate is entailed (can be inferred) from the other predicate, which benefits many core natural language processing tasks such as question answering and semantic parsing. Usually, a question like "Did Lionel Messi *appear at* the FIFA World Cup Stadium Gelsenkirchen in 2006" might be answered by a sentence that does not directly correspond ∗Corresponding author. 1Code and data available at https://github.com/ StephanieWyt/Align-then-Enhance. to the question, but is an expression like "Lionel Messi *made his debut at* the FIFA World Cup Stadium Gelsenkirchen in 2006", since the predicate *"make one's debut at"* entails predicate *"appear at"*. To bridge such semantic gap between queries and answers, recent approaches (Berant et al., 2011, 2015; Hosseini et al., 2018, 2019; Hosseini, 2021) have looked into learning typed Entailment Graphs (EGs) with predicates as nodes and entailment relations as edges. These methods first extract predicate-argument (entity) relation triples from large text corpora, and construct typed entailment graphs based on the Distributional Inclusion Hypothesis (Dagan et al., 1999; Geffet and Dagan, 2005; Herbelot and Ganesalingam, 2013; Kartsaklis and Sadrzadeh, 2016). Predicates are then grouped into typed entailment subgraphs based on the types of entity arguments they take. Such an EG is in an effective and machine-readable form to organize the context-independent entailment relations between predicates and can facilitate reasoning without extra context or resources, which can be regarded as a special kind of Knowledge Graph (KG) for natural language understanding. Figure 1 shows excerpts from two typed EGs in different languages with arguments of types <person, location>. However, EGs frequently suffer from incompleteness, and EGs in different languages are often complementary to each other. This makes a compelling case for developing a method that can integrate entailment information from EGs in different languages and construct an enhanced EG containing richer and more accurate entailment information. For instance, to answer the aforementioned question "Did Lionel Messi *appear at* the FIFA World Cup Stadium Gelsenkirchen in 2006", given  the sentence "Lionel Messi *made his debut at* the FIFA World Cup Stadium Gelsenkirchen in 2006", we queried the popular English EG published by Hosseini et al. (2018) and found no entailment edge where *"make one's debut at"* entails *"appear at"*. However, as shown in Figure 1 (b), in the Chinese EG constructed by Li et al. (2022), we find an entailment edge where the predicate "在·X·首次亮 相" entails "在·X·出现" . Significantly, "在·X·首次亮 相" and *"make one's debut at"* as well as "在·X·出 现" and *"appear at"* are two pairs of equivalent predicates. If such equivalent predicates between Chinese and English EGs could be aligned, we can use the entailment information in one EG to enhance another. For example, according to the Chinese entailment edge where "在·X·首次亮相" entails "在·X·出现", we can add the equivalent entailment edge where *"make one's debut at"* entails *"appear* at" to the English EG. The enhanced EG fuses the entailment information from different EGs, further boosting the entailment detection performance of the original graph. Recently, a few efforts have been made to improve the quality of an EG by integrating entailment information from another EG. Weber and Steedman (2019) have tried to align the English and German EGs by learning the predicate representations towards alignment through a link prediction model and showed that the stronger English EG can aid in German entailment detection. Whereas Weber and Steedman (2019) only proves that an EG in a higher resource language can improve the quality of an EG in a lower resource language, Li et al. (2022) further demonstrates that the crosslingual complementarity between different EGs can be used in both directions by ensembling the predictions from the two graphs. However, they did not really realize the alignment of EGs. In order to achieve an ensemble, their model needs the parallel Chinese translations of the English questions to query the Chinese and English EGs separately. In this paper, we propose a new task, *Multilingual Entailment Graph Enhancement* (MEGE), which aims to automatically align EGs in different languages and utilize the entailment information from one EG to enhance the other. We emphasize that the enhancement should be effective in both directions, which is demonstrated and discussed in Section 6.2. For the multilingual entailment graph enhancement task, we present an *align-then-enhance* framework, ATE, which first automatically discovers equivalent predicates between EGs in different languages and then constructs more accurate enhanced EGs based on soft predicate alignments. In order to achieve accurate predicate alignment, an effective approach is to learn better predicate representations toward alignment. However, since EGs usually suffer from severe sparsity issues, it is difficult to directly embed EG structures to learn effective predicate representations. For example, 79% of nodes in the popular English EG released by Hosseini et al. (2018) have degrees no more than 2. To tackle this issue, we introduce rich context information of predicates extracted from the large opendomain encyclopedia KG Wikidata (Vrandecic and Krötzsch, 2014) into original EG to assist in learning better predicate representations, constructing a predicate-centric graph. Simultaneously, we also build the *entity-centric graph*, aiming to improve the predicate representations by utilizing the information of entities closely associated to the predicates. And we propose a cross-graph guided interaction (CGI) mechanism to encourage sufficient interaction between the predicate-centric graph and the entity-centric graph and learn better predicate representations for alignment. To our best knowledge, there is no standard dataset to directly evaluate the predicate alignment performance for entailment graphs. We thus build a new alignment evaluation dataset *EGAlign*. Experiments on EGAlign indicate that our model achieves the state-of-the-art performance on predicate alignment between different EGs. The key technical contributions of this paper are as follows: - We propose a new task, multilingual entailment graph enhancement (MEGE), to improve the quality of an EG with another EG in a different language and construct an enhanced EG which can better support entailment detection. We present an align-then-enhance framework for this task. - We design a cross-graph guided interaction mechanism to overcome the sparsity of EGs, which encourages the information interaction between the enriched predicate-centric graph and entity-centric graph and learns better predicate representations towards alignment. - We build a new EG predicate alignment evaluation dataset, and our model achieves the state-of-the-art performance on it. We further evaluate the enhanced EGs on two benchmark datasets for entailment detection, and demonstrate that the enhanced entailment graphs are superior to the original graphs. ## 2 Related Work Most previous works on entailment graphs only focused on constructing an entailment graph in a single language, and usually ignore the complementarity between different EGs. Similar to the idea of entailment graph enhancement, (Lewis and Steedman, 2013b) do not construct an enhanced entailment graph but learned clusters of semantically equivalent English and French predicates based on their named-entity arguments. They create predicate representations and align the predicates by the cosine similarity between representations. (Lewis and Steedman, 2013a) solve the problem of paraphrasing in a multilingual context by creating aligned paraphrase clusters. They take the Wikipedia articles describing the same topic as parallel texts, and use the Wikipedia inter-language links between named entities to align predicates in different languages. The study on creating paraphrase clusters lays a foundation for the construction of entailment graphs. Berant et al. (2015) first propose typed predicate entailment graphs but can not be scalable to a large amount of data. To tackle this problem, Hosseini et al. (2018) present a scalable method that learns globally consistent similarity scores for entailment graph construction. Based on the typed entailment graphs, Weber and Steedman (2019) are the first to try to align an English entailment graph with a German entailment graph. However, as discussed in Section 1, the serious sparsity issues of EGs hinder their alignment performance and they only perform alignment in one direction. Most recently, Li et al. (2022) demonstrate the cross-lingual complementarity between an English EG and a Chinese EG in both directions. However, instead of really aligning the two EGs, they ensemble the predictions from the two graphs, which needs the parallel translations between English and Chinese questions for querying the English and Chinese EGs separately. ## 3 Problem Formulation Let P be the set of all typed predicates and T be the set of types, V(t1, t2) denotes the set of typed predicates p with unordered argument types t1 and t2, where p ∈ P and t1, t2 ∈ T. The argument types of each predicate are determined by the types of entities that instantiate the argument slots. Formally, we represent a typed EG as G(t1, t2) =< V(t1, t2), E(t1, t2) >, where V(t1, t2) is the set of typed predicate nodes and E(t1, t2) denotes the set of weighted edges. We represent the edges as the sparse score matrix W(t1, t2) ∈ [0, 1]|V(t1,t2)*|×|V*(t1,t2)|, containing the entailment scores between predicates of types t1 and t2. Without loss of generality, we consider the entailment graph enhancement task between two typed EGs, G1(t1, t2) =< V1(t1, t2), E1(t1, t2) > and G2(t1, t2) =< V2(t1, t2), E2(t1, t2) >. The goal of this task is to utilize the entailment information (i.e., the entailment scores between typed predicates) from one EG to enhance the other. In this paper, we achieve this in two steps: 1) Given a set of pre-aligned typed predicate pairs L = {(pi1 , pi2 )|pi1 ∈ V1(t1, t2), pi2 ∈ V2(t1, t2)} between G1(t1, t2) and G2(t1, t2), our approach first finds more aligned typed predicates as much as possible based on the existing ones; 2) With these predicate alignments in place, we utilize G2(t1, t2) to enhance G1(t1, t2), and construct an enhanced entailment graph Gˆ2→1(t1, t2) =< Vˆ(t1, t2), Eˆ(t1, t2) > with updated entailment score matrix Wˆ (t1, t2). Similarly, we can also obtain the enhanced entailment graph Gˆ1→2(t1, t2) generated by using G1(t1, t2) to enhance G2(t1, t2). 883  ## 4 Our Approach: Ate To obtain an enhanced EG, we propose a model, ATE. As depicted in Figure 2, ATE takes two typed EGs as input, and follows a two-stage pipeline: predicate alignment and entailment graph enhancement, and finally output an enhanced EG with richer and more accurate entailment information. ## 4.1 Predicate Alignment In this stage, we aim to discover as many aligned predicate pairs as possible between G1(t1, t2) and G2(t1, t2). As discussed in Section 1, EGs often suffer from sparsity issues, which makes it difficult to learn good node (predicate) representations. To tackle this problem, we use context information of predicates extracted from Wikidata to enrich original EGs and construct denser predicatecentric graphs. We also introduce entity-centric graphs with entities as nodes and predicates as edges, which provide rich information for entities closely associated with the predicates. We propose a cross-graph guided interaction mechanism to encourage sufficient interaction between predicatecentric and entity-centric graphs, learning better predicate representations for alignment. ## 4.1.1 Entity/Predicate-Centric Graph Construction Let E1 and E2 be the entity instances of the argument slots of typed predicates in G1(t1, t2) and G2(t1, t2). We take entities as nodes and predicates as edges to construct the *entity-centric graphs* Ge1 = (Ee 1 , Pe 1 , Te 1 ) and Ge2 = (Ee 2 , Pe 2 , Te 2 ) for G1(t1, t2) and G2(t1, t2), respectively, where Ee 1 and Ee 2 are the entity sets and P e 1and P e 2are the predicate sets and T e 1 ⊂ Ee 1 × P e 1 × Ee 1 and T e 2 ⊂ Ee 2 × P e 2 × Ee 2 are the binary relation triples. Besides the structural information contained in the predicate-entity relation triples, we also introduce the neighborhood information of entities in Wikidata to further enrich the entity-centric graphs. Therefore, the node sets Ee 1 = E1 ∪ N1 and Ee 2 = E2 ∪ N2, where N1 and N2 are the one-hop neighbors extracted from Wikidata2; the predicate sets P e 1 = V1(t1, t2) ∪ P wiki 1and P e 2 = V2(t1, t2) ∪ P wiki 2, where P wiki 1and P wiki 2are the Wikidata predicates associated with N1 and N2, respectively. We also add the newly introduced Wikidata predicates P wiki 1and P wiki 2into G1(t1, t2) and G2(t1, t2) respectively to enhance the connectivity of two EGs and introduce richer contextual information of typed predicates of G1(t1, t2) and G2(t1, t2), obtaining the *predicate-centric graphs* G p 1 = (V p 1 , E p 1 ) and G p 2 = (V p 2 , E p 2 ), where V p 1 = P e 1 = V1(t1, t2) ∪ P wiki 1and V p 2 = P e 2 = V2(t1, t2)∪P wiki 2are the node sets, and E p 1 and E p 2 are the edge sets. Besides the existing entailment edges, if two predicates share the same head or tail entities in the entity-centric graphs, we will create an edge connecting the two predicate nodes v p i and v p j , and weight the edge with weight sij according to how likely the two predicates share similar heads or tails in entity-centric graphs: $$s_{i j}={\frac{|H_{i}\cap H_{j}|}{|H_{i}\cup H_{j}|}}+{\frac{|T_{i}\cap T_{j}|}{|T_{i}\cup T_{j}|}}\qquad{\mathrm{(1)}}$$ $T_c$ are the sets of head and te. where Hi and Ti are the sets of head and tail entities for predicates piin entity-centric graphs. Considering the original entailment scores on the entailment edges together, the final weight ϵ p ij between predicate nodes v p i and v p j is computed as: $$\epsilon_{ij}^{p}=\begin{cases}\begin{array}{c}s_{ij},\\ w_{ij}+s_{ij},\end{array}\quad v_{i}^{p}\;or\;v_{j}^{p}\in P_{1}^{wiki}\cup P_{2}^{wiki}\\ v_{i}^{p},v_{i}^{p}\in\mathcal{V}_{1}(t_{1},t_{2})\cup\mathcal{V}_{2}(t_{1},t_{2})\end{cases}\tag{2}$$ where wij is the entailment score between predicate pi and pj in original EGs. Note that we also modify the entailment scores of gold edges, which allows us to additionally incorporate richer features of typed predicates from the introduced world knowledge. In order to facilitate the implementation of our model, we put Ge1 and Ge2 together as the *final* entity-centric graph Ge = (Ee, Pe, Te), where Ee = Ee 1 ∪ Ee 2 and P e = P e 1 ∪ P e 2 and T e = T e 1 ∪ T e 2 . Similarly, we put G p 1 and G p 2 together as the *final predicate-centric graph* Gp = (V p, E p), where V p = V p 1 ∪ Vp 2 and E p = E p 1 ∪ Ep 2 . 2We simply link entities in E1 and E2 to Wikidata entities through the exact match of entity names. However, not all entities can be linked to Wikidata, so we introduce one-hop neighbors of entities that can be linked to Wikidata. ## 4.1.2 Cross-Graph Guided Interaction With the entity-centric graph Geand the predicatecentric graph Gpin place, we propose a cross-graph guided interaction (CGI) mechanism to encourage interactions between the two graphs to obtain better predicate representations for alignment, which utilizes a graph attention mechanism (GAT) guided by counterpart graph to learn the node representations of Geand Gpiteratively. Each cross-graph guided interaction consists of two layers, the predicate attention layer and the entity attention layer. By stacking multiple interactions, we can achieve more mutual improvements on both graphs. We further apply two Graph Convolutional Networks (GCNs) with highway gates on Geand Gprespectively to model their structural information. The final predicate representations will be used to determine whether two predicates should be aligned. Predicate Attention Layer. Let X p ∈ R|Vp|×d denote the input node representation matrix of Gp. Different from the vanilla GAT (Velickovi ˇ c et al. ´ , 2018), each node integrates its neighbor node information under the guidance of Ge. Specifically, the predicate attention score regarding each neighbor node is calculated with the entity node features Xˆ e (computed by Eq. 9) produced by the entity attention layer from the previous interaction module: $${\tilde{\mathbf{x}}}_{i}^{p}=R e L U(\sum_{j\in N_{i}^{p}}\alpha_{i j}^{p}\mathbf{x}_{j}^{p}),$$ $$\alpha_{i j}^{p}=\frac{e x p(\eta(\epsilon_{i j}^{p}a^{p}[z_{i}||z_{j}]))}{\sum_{k\in N_{i}^{p}}e x p(\eta(\epsilon_{i k}^{p}a^{p}[z_{i}||z_{k}]))},\quad\quad(4)$$ where x˜ p i is the output representation of predicate node v p i ; x p j is the representation of v p j produced by the previous predicate attention layer; N p i indicates the set of neighbor indices of v p i ; a p[·] is a fully connected layer; η is the Leaky ReLU; ziis the approximate predicate representation for predicate pi, which is computed as: $$z_{i}=[\frac{\sum_{k\in H_{i}}\hat{\mathbf{x}}_{k}^{e}}{|H_{i}|}\|\frac{\sum_{l\in T_{i}}\hat{\mathbf{x}}_{l}^{e}}{|T_{i}|}],\qquad\quad(5)$$ where xˆ e k and xˆ e l are the output representations of the k-th head entity and l-th tail entity of predicate pi from previous entity attention layer. Note that we use Glove (Pennington et al., 2014) word embeddings of predicate names to initialize these predicate nodes, which are useful features for predicate alignment. To retain this useful information, we integrate the initial features {x p_*init* i} with the output of predicate attention layer as follows: $${\hat{\mathbf{x}}}_{i}^{p}=\varphi_{l}^{p}*{\hat{\mathbf{x}}}_{i}^{p}+\mathbf{x}_{i}^{p\_i n i t},$$ $$\left(6\right)$$ i, (6) where xˆ p i denotes the final output predicate representation of the interaction module for predicate node v p i ; φ p l is a weighting hyper-parameter for the l-th attention layer. We show the effectiveness of this skip connection design in Section 6.1. Entity Attention Layer. Similar to the predicate attention layer, we apply GAT on the entitycentric graph guided by the predicate-centric graph. Specifically, let X e ∈ R|Ee|×d be the input node representation matrix of Ge. The representation ˜x e q of entity eq in Gecan be computed as: $$\tilde{\mathbf{x}}_{q}^{e}=R e L U(\sum_{t\in N_{q}^{e}}\alpha_{q t}^{e}\mathbf{x}_{t}^{e}),$$ $$\tilde{\mathbf{x}}_{q}^{e}=R e L U(\sum_{t\in N_{q}^{e}}\alpha_{q t}^{e}\mathbf{x}_{t}^{e}),\qquad\qquad(7)$$ $$\alpha_{q t}^{e}=\frac{e x p(\eta(a^{e}[\hat{\mathbf{x}}_{q t}^{p}]))}{\sum_{k\in N_{q}^{e}}e x p(\eta(a^{e}[\hat{\mathbf{x}}_{q k}^{p}]))},\qquad\qquad(8)$$ where xˆ p qt is the representation for the predicate between entity eq and et obtained from Gp. We also initialize the entity node representations with entity names, and the final output representation xˆ e q of the interaction module for entity eq are the weighted sum of the initial entity representations and the output of entity attention layer: $$\hat{\mathbf{x}}_{q}^{e}=\varphi_{c}^{e}*\hat{\mathbf{x}}_{q}^{e}+\mathbf{x}_{q}^{e\_i n i t},\qquad\qquad(9)$$ $${\mathrm{(3)}}$$ where φ e c is a weighting hyper-parameter for the c-th entity attention layer. Graph Structure Embedding. After multiple rounds of interaction between Gpand Ge, we can obtain enhanced predicate and entity representations. Following previous practice (Rahimi et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2019a), we respectively feed the two graphs into two different two-layer GCNs (Kipf and Welling, 2017) with highway gates (Srivastava et al., 2015) to incorporate evidence from their neighboring structures. Training. With the final predicate representations X¯ p output by Highway-GCNs, predicate alignment can be performed by simply measuring the distance between two predicates: $$d(p_{1},p_{2})=1-c o s(\bar{\mathbf{x}}_{1}^{p},\bar{\mathbf{x}}_{2}^{p}),\qquad(10)$$ For training, we expect the distance between aligned predicate pairs to be as close as possible, and the distance between negative predicate pairs to be as far as possible. We use the following marginbased scoring function as the training objective for predicate alignment. $$L^{P}=\sum_{(p,q)\in\mathbb{L}^{P}}\sum_{(p^{\prime},q^{\prime})\in\mathbb{L}^{\prime}p}\max\{0,d(p,q)-d(p^{\prime},q^{\prime})+\gamma^{P}\},\tag{11}$$ where γ p > 0 is a margin hyper-parameter; L p indicates the pre-aligned predicate pairs for training; L′pis the set of negative instances generated through nearest neighbor sampling (Kotnis and Nastase, 2017). Similarly, with the final entity representations X¯e, we can also calculate the training loss for entity alignment like Eq. 11, and learn the alignmentoriented entity representations. Predicate alignment and entity alignment can enhance each other in our model, and ultimately achieve more accurate alignment results. ## 4.2 Entailment Graph Enhancement After obtaining the final alignment-oriented representation of each predicate in G1(t1, t2) and G2(t1, t2), we perform *soft predicate alignment* between two EGs by computing an alignment score π(p 1, p2) for each predicate pair (p 1, p2) where p 1 ∈ V1(t1, t2) and p 2 ∈ V2(t1, t2). Specifically, we calculate the cosine similarity of the representations of p 1and p 2. Next, we will perform EG enhancement according to these alignment scores. As discussed in Section 1 and 3, EG enhancement can be performed in two directions. Here, we take the enhancement process of Gˆ2→1(t1, t2) as an example. Given (p 1 i , p1 j ) as a predicate pair in G1(t1, t2) and wij as the original entailment score between them, we aim to find the predicate pair (p 2x, p2 y) in G2(t1, t2), which is aligned with (p 1 i , p1 j ), and enhance wij based on the entailment score wxy between p 2x and p 2 y . Specifically, for (p 1 i , p1 j ), we collect the top k similar predicates of p 1 i and p 1 j in G2(t1, t2) as *T opK*2(p 1 i ) and *T opK*2(p 1 j ), respectively. Then, we can get a set of candidate aligned predicate pairs from G2(t1, t2), namely C 2(p 1 i , p1 j ) = {(p 2x, p2 y)|p 2x ∈ T opK2(p 1 i ), p2 y ∈ *T opK*2(p 1 j )}. We combine the entailment scores of all candidate predicate pairs in C 2(p 1 i , p1 j ), according to their alignment probability, which is computed as: $$\tilde{w}_{ij}^{2}=\frac{\sum\limits_{(x,y)\in C^{2}(i,j)}AVG(\pi(i,x),\pi(j,y))*w_{xy}}{|C^{2}(i,j)|}.\tag{12}$$ | EGAlign | #Ent. | #Pre. | #Tri. | Alignments | | |-----------|-----------|---------|---------|--------------|-----| | #Ent.pair | #Pre.pair | | | | | | ZH | 25,983 | 3,020 | 199,762 | 3,028 | 823 | | EN | 13,306 | 4,864 | 126,105 | | | Finally, the new enhanced entailment score wˆ 2→1 ij between p 1 i and p 1 j is updated as: $$\hat{w}_{i j}^{2\to1}=A V G(\rho^{2\to1}*\bar{w}_{i j},w_{i j}).\quad(13)$$ where ρ 2→1is a hyperparameter tuned on the development set, and AVG(·) denotes average pooling. ## 5 Experimental Setup 5.1 Predicate Alignment Evaluation Datasets. Since there is no publicly available benchmark dataset to directly evaluate the predicate alignment performance for EGs, we construct a new alignment evaluation dataset, *EGAlign*, based on the popular English entailment graph (EGen) released by Hosseini et al. (2018) and the Chinese entailment graph (EGzh) constructed by Li et al. (2022). The labeling of aligned predicate pairs between two EGs is relatively labor-intensive, so we only manually aligned a set of equivalent predicates with argument types *person* and *location*. Thus, we extract the typed entailment subgraphs EGp,l en and EGp,l zh with arguments of types *<person,location>* from EGen and EGzh respectively. We annotated 5784 Chinese-English predicate pairs with three annotators per pair and reached an average inter-annotator agreement of 0.83 considering the same annotation of a pair as an agreement. In addition, we link the argument entities from EGp,l en and EGp,l zh respectively to English and Chinese versions of Wikidata, and obtain a set of aligned entity pairs through the inter-language links from entities of English version of Wikidata to those in Chinese. Table 1 shows the statistics of EGAlign, and we provide the annotation details for EGAlign in Appendix A. Following previous works (Wu et al., 2019b; Zhu et al., 2021), we use 30% of the prealigned predicate pairs and entity pairs as training data and 70% for testing. Metrics. We use Mean Average Precision at K (MAP@K) as the evaluation metric for predicate alignment, and report the results of both directions of alignment. As discussed in Section 1, | Models | EN→ ZH | ZH → EN | | | | | |-----------------|----------|-----------|-------|--------|--------|-------| | MAP@1 | MAP@10 | MAP@50 | MAP@1 | MAP@10 | MAP@50 | | | RDGCN | 2.96 | 4.94 | 5.40 | 2.98 | 3.83 | 4.22 | | BootEA | 25.90 | 27.32 | 27.73 | 25.06 | 26.16 | 26.47 | | HGCN | 25.14 | 27.45 | 27.81 | 23.08 | 24.45 | 24.84 | | RNM | 27.31 | 28.94 | 29.70 | 25.56 | 26.45 | 28.02 | | Glove-sim | 32.36 | 43.03 | 44.02 | 37.92 | 47.59 | 48.33 | | BERT-sim | 31.26 | 41.39 | 42.18 | 33.95 | 41.38 | 42.24 | | CGI | 38.45 | 53.16 | 51.44 | 40.68 | 54.04 | 54.84 | | w/o Wikidata | 26.73 | 46.13 | 47.08 | 28.45 | 47.34 | 48.38 | | w/o GCN | 34.33 | 47.80 | 48.85 | 37.27 | 49.63 | 50.47 | | w/o interaction | 35.40 | 49.71 | 50.81 | 38.43 | 51.83 | 52.77 | | w/o relSkip | 28.89 | 42.36 | 43.25 | 34.37 | 45.34 | 46.27 | | w/o entSkip | 14.11 | 16.95 | 17.82 | 12.16 | 15.74 | 16.62 | | w/o bothSkip | 11.05 | 13.85 | 14.67 | 10.18 | 12.63 | 13.40 | currently, there is no public and complete implementation of predicate alignment for EGs, we thus compare our CGI with 4 state-of-the-art models , *BootEA* (Sun et al., 2018), *RDGCN* (Wu et al., 2019a), *HGCN-JE/JR* (Wu et al., 2019b) and RNM (Zhu et al., 2021), for the knowledge graph relation alignment task, which is similar in spirit to our task. We also implement two baselines **Glovesim** and **BERT-sim**, which directly take the Glove word embeddings (Pennington et al., 2014) and pre-trained BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) representations at [CLS] tokens of predicate names as the representations of predicates and perform predicate alignment by calculating the distance between them. ## 5.2 Entailment Detection Datasets. To evaluate the quality of enhanced EGs and explore whether it can better support entailment detection than original graphs, we use the popular entailment detection datasets Levy/Holt (Levy and Dagan, 2016; Holt, 2019) and Berant (Berant et al., 2011). Each example in these two datasets contains a premise and a hypothesis (a pair of relation triples with the same arguments), and the entailment detection task is to judge whether the premise entails the hypothesis. After doing EG enhancement according to Section 4.2, we obtain the enhanced EG Enhanp,l zh→en generated by using EGp,l zh to enhance EGp,l en. By enhancing in the opposite direction, we can get the enhanced Enhanp,l en→zh as well. For fair comparison, we extract subsets with the types of arguments *person* and *location*, the portions of which are 6.3% (6107 examples) and 7.1% (2756 examples) in Levy/Holt and Berant datasets respectively. We also translated these subsets into Chinese to evaluate the performance of Enhanp,l en→zh and EGp,l zh. Following Hosseini et al. (2018), we split Levy/Holt dataset into development (30%) and test (70%) sets. And we evaluate our model on the test set of Levy/Holt and the whole Berant dataset. We also compare with the BERT-based baselines for etailment detection. We provide more details of the evaluation process and the construction of the BERT-based baselines in Appendix B. Metrics. Following Hosseini et al. (2018), we evaluate our methods on LevyHolt and Berant with the area under curves (AUC) of Precision-Recall Curves (PRC). Hosseini et al. (2018) mentioned that AUC for precisions in the range [0; 0.5) should not be taken into account, since model performs as random guess and is not applicable to down-stream applications. We thus report the AUC of PRC with precision range in [0.5, 1]. More details of our configuration please refer to Appendix C. ## 6 Experimental Results 6.1 Predicate Alignment From Table 2, CGI substantially outperforms all baselines across all metrics and alignment directions. The four KG relation alignment models all deliver inferior performance on EGAlign. This might be because these models approximate predicate representations via entity representations which are inferior to ours in achieving predicate alignment. We observe that Glove-sim and BERTsim outperform other baselines, showing the importance of the semantics of predicate names.  Ablation Study. Without introducing the Wikidata entities and predicates into our entity/predicate-centric graphs (CGI w/o Wikidata), there is a significant performance drop of 11.98 % on average regarding MAP@1. This shows the benefits of the additional Wikidata information for learning enhanced predicate representations. Removing the GCNs from our model leads to an average drop of 3.77% on MAP@1, showing the importance of the GCNs in capturing the structural information of the predicate/entity-centric graphs. When removing the cross-graph interaction, we see an average drop of 2.65% on MAP@1. This confirms the effectiveness of our cross-graph guided interaction mechanism. To explore the impact of the skip connection design that retains the useful predicate and entity name semantics contained in the initial node embeddings, we implement three model variants CGI w/o relSkip, CGI w/o entSkip and CGI w/o bothSkip, which respectively deletes the skip connections from predicate attention layer, entity attention layer and both attention layers. We observe that the three variants all deliver much worse results than CGI, which demonstrates the effectiveness of keeping the initial semantics of predicate names using skip connections. ## 6.2 Entailment Detection From Table 3, we observe that, on both English and Chinese datasets, EGp,l en and EGp,l zh, as well as Enhanp,l zh→en and Enhanp,l en→zh, all greatly outperform BERT. This shows that entailment graphs seem to be more beneficial for entailment detection than BERT. Compared with EGp,l en and EGp,l zh, the enhanced graphs Enhanp,l zh→en and Enhanp,l en→zh show obvious advantages, with average improvements of 3.7% and 6.7% on Levy/Holt and Berant subsets. Besides, as shown in Figure 3, in | Methods | Levy/Holt | Berant | |----------------|-------------|----------| | BERTen | 14.3 | - | | EGp,l en | 23.0 | 17.6 | | Enhanp,l zh→en | 24.8 | 23.2 | | BERTzh | 8.1 | - | | EGp,l zh | 19.9 | 16.0 | | Enhanp,l en→zh | 26.0 | 23.3 | the moderate precision range, Enhanp,l zh→en and Enhanp,l en→zh can achieve higher recall than original graphs EGp,l en and EGp,l zh across all datasets, and both significantly outperform BERT. These results demonstrate the significance of performing entailment graph enhancement as well as the effectiveness of our enhancement model. In addition, we note that EGp,l en outperforms EGp,l zh by 3.1% and 1.6% on two datasets respectively, indicating that EGp,l en is more complete in entailment information. Hence after enhancement, comparing to the original EGs, Enhanp,l en→zh achieves the improvements of 6.1% and 7.3% on Levy/Holt and Berant, which are both greater than Enhanp,l zh→en 's improvement of 1.8% and 5.6%. The results further demonstrate that the enhancement between two EGs are effective in both directions, and using stronger graphs to enhance the relatively poor ones will bring greater improvements. Error Analysis. We conduct a case study to further analyze the circumstances where the predictions of the original EG are correct while the enhanced EGs have made wrong predictions. We randomly sampled and analyzed 100 examples that were pre-    dicted accurately by EGzh but wrongly predicted by Enhanp,l zh→en from Levy/Holt. As shown in Table 4, the error type Inaccurate Entailment Scores in EGzh indicates that the aligned predicate pairs predicted by ATE have inaccurate entailment scores in EGzh, which negatively affect the original entailment scores in EGen and lead to inaccurate updated entailment scores for Enhanp,l zh→en . This error type accounts for more than half of the total (52%), which shows that the quality of EGs has a significant impact on the achievement of accurate EG enhancement. With EGs of higher quality, our method could generate better enhanced EG. The remaining errors are basically due to inaccurate predicate alignment between two EGs. Specifically, in 4% of the cases, the English predicates are incorrectly aligned to their synonyms in Chinese, in 5% to their antonyms, in 8% to their hyponyms (namely the Chinese predicates entail the English predicates), and in 31% to the unrelated predicates. These results inspire us to improve the quality of predicate alignment by further distinguishing synonyms, antonyms, and hyponyms in the future. ## 7 Conclusion We present a new task, multilingual entailment graph enhancement, aiming to enhance the quality of one EG with another graph in a different language. We design an align-then-enhance method for this task, which utilizes a cross-graph guided interaction mechanism to tackle the sparsity issues of EGs and achieves EG enhancement based on soft predicate alignment between different EGs. Experiments show that our align-then-enhance framework can effectively mine equivalent predicates in other EGs through sufficient cross-graph interaction and better achieve accurate enhancement. We build a new dataset EGAlign to evaluate the predicate alignment performance of our model, and the results show that our model achieves the best performance. Furthermore, we show that the enhanced EGs outperform the original graph as well as BERT on entailment detection. ## Limitations  There are two main limitations of our work: (1) Our approach requires a set of previously aligned predicate pairs as training data to achieve predicate alignment between different KGs, which limits the generalization ability of our method. In our experiments, since we manually aligned a set of equivalent predicates with arguments of types person and *location* between the English and Chinese EGs, we can only perform predicate alignment and entailment graph enhancement between the *<person,location>* subgraphs of two EGs. We will explore the semi-supervised or unsupervised predicate alignment method between different EGs in our future work. (2) Our current enhancement strategy introduced in Section 4.2 is straightforward. It might not be robust enough when dealing with entailment graphs of poor quality. We will explore more adaptive EG enhancement methods in the future. ## Ethics Statement In this paper, we construct a new EG alignment evaluation dataset based on two publicly available EGs, and manually annotated a set of equivalent predicates with argument types *person* and location. Annotators are offered a competitive pay of ¥60 per hour, which is more than double the local minimum wage. This remuneration applies to both the annotation stage and the discussion stage, ensuring that annotators are compensated for their time and effort. Annotators are required to familiarize themselves with the ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct and promptly report any instances that violate the code. Inappropriate cases that breach the code are promptly eliminated from the selected documents. The resulting annotations, based on the consensus of three annotators, provide a respectable approximation of the gold labels. Note that they may not represent the absolute ground truth due to natural error rates. Users who wish to utilize the dataset should be mindful of its limitations. We are not responsible for problems encountered in subsequent model training processes utilizing our data. ## Acknowledgements This work is supported by the Talent Fund of Beijing Jiaotong University (No. 2023XKRC032), NSFC (62161160339), ERC Advanced Fellowship GA 742137 SEMANTAX, a Mozilla PhD scholarship at Informatics Graduate School and the University of Edinburgh Huawei Laboratory. We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions. For any correspondence, please contact Yansong Feng. ## References Jonathan Berant, Noga Alon, Ido Dagan, and Jacob Goldberger. 2015. Efficient global learning of entailment graphs. *Computational Linguistics*, 41(2):221– 263. Jonathan Berant, Ido Dagan, and Jacob Goldberger. 2011. Global learning of typed entailment rules. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 610–619, Portland, Oregon, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ido Dagan, Lillian Lee, and Fernando C. N. Pereira. 1999. Similarity-based models of word cooccurrence probabilities. *Mach. Learn.*, 34(1-3):43–69. 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. Maayan Geffet and Ido Dagan. 2005. The distributional inclusion hypotheses and lexical entailment. In *Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the* Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL'05), pages 107–114, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Association for Computational Linguistics. Aurélie Herbelot and Mohan Ganesalingam. 2013. Measuring semantic content in distributional vectors. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 440–445, Sofia, Bulgaria. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xavier Holt. 2019. Probabilistic models of relational implication. Mohammad Javad Hosseini. 2021. Unsupervised learning of relational entailment graphs from text. Mohammad Javad Hosseini, Nathanael Chambers, Siva Reddy, Xavier R. Holt, Shay B. Cohen, Mark Johnson, and Mark Steedman. 2018. Learning typed entailment graphs with global soft constraints. *Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, 6:703–717. Mohammad Javad Hosseini, Shay B. Cohen, Mark Johnson, and Mark Steedman. 2019. Duality of link prediction and entailment graph induction. In *Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for* Computational Linguistics, pages 4736–4746, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Dimitri Kartsaklis and Mehrnoosh Sadrzadeh. 2016. Distributional inclusion hypothesis for tensor-based composition. In Proceedings of COLING 2016, the 26th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers, pages 2849–2860, Osaka, Japan. The COLING 2016 Organizing Committee. Thomas N. Kipf and Max Welling. 2017. Semisupervised classification with graph convolutional networks. In *ICLR*. Bhushan Kotnis and Vivi Nastase. 2017. Analysis of the impact of negative sampling on link prediction in knowledge graphs. *CoRR*, abs/1708.06816. Omer Levy and Ido Dagan. 2016. Annotating relation inference in context via question answering. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 249–255, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics. Mike Lewis and Mark Steedman. 2013a. Combined distributional and logical semantics. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 1:179– 192. Mike Lewis and Mark Steedman. 2013b. Unsupervised induction of cross-lingual semantic relations. In *Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 681–692, Seattle, Washington, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tianyi Li, Sabine Weber, Mohammad Javad Hosseini, Liane Guillou, and Mark Steedman. 2022. Crosslingual inference with A chinese entailment graph. In *Findings of the Association for Computational* Linguistics: ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 1214–1233. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher D. Manning. 2014. Glove: Global vectors for word representation. In *Empirical Methods in Natural* Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1532–1543. Afshin Rahimi, Trevor Cohn, and Timothy Baldwin. 2018. Semi-supervised user geolocation via graph convolutional networks. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2009– 2019, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. Rupesh Kumar Srivastava, Klaus Greff, and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 2015. Highway networks. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:1505.00387. Zequn Sun, Wei Hu, Qingheng Zhang, and Yuzhong Qu. 2018. Bootstrapping entity alignment with knowledge graph embedding. In Proceedings of the TwentySeventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-18, pages 4396–4402. Petar Velickovi ˇ c, Guillem Cucurull, Arantxa Casanova, ´ Adriana Romero, Pietro Liò, and Yoshua Bengio. 2018. Graph Attention Networks. In *ICLR*. Denny Vrandecic and Markus Krötzsch. 2014. Wikidata: a free collaborative knowledgebase. *Commun.* ACM, 57(10):78–85. Sabine Weber and Mark Steedman. 2019. Construction and alignment of multilingual entailment graphs for semantic inference. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Workshop on Widening NLP*, pages 77–79, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yuting Wu, Xiao Liu, Yansong Feng, Zheng Wang, Rui Yan, and Dongyan Zhao. 2019a. Relation-aware entity alignment for heterogeneous knowledge graphs. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2019, Macao, China, August 10-16, 2019, pages 5278–5284. ijcai.org. Yuting Wu, Xiao Liu, Yansong Feng, Zheng Wang, and Dongyan Zhao. 2019b. Jointly learning entity and relation representations for entity alignment. 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 240–249, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yuting Wu, Xiao Liu, Yansong Feng, Zheng Wang, and Dongyan Zhao. 2020. Neighborhood matching network for entity alignment. In *Proceedings of the 58th* Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6477–6487, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yao Zhu, Hongzhi Liu, Zhonghai Wu, and Yingpeng Du. 2021. Relation-aware neighborhood matching model for entity alignment. In *AAAI*. ## B More Details Of Entailment Detection Evaluation C Implementation Details A Annotation Details For Egalign Dataset datasets. For entity alignment, we link the argument entities from EGp,l en and EGp,l zh respectively to English and Chinese versions of Wikidata, and obtain a set of aligned entity pairs through the inter-language links from entities of English version of Wikidata to those in Chinese. For predicates alignment, human annotators are asked to grade scores (1-3) to the sampled relation pairs according to criterion as follow: **Score 1:** *Seldom Align.* Two predicates can not replace each other in any context. **Score** 2: *Sometimes Align.* Two predicates have similar usage and interpretation in some contexts (e.g., polysemy). **Score 3:** *Always Align.* Two predicates have the same usage and semantics in any context. The predicate pairs with average score greater than 1.5 are selected as predicate alignment seeds. We recruited the annotators from our school, and they are college students who are proficient in Chinese and English. Before starting annotation, annotators were informed what we will use this dataset for and the data collection protocol was approved by an ethics review board. Besides, they were paid with ¥60 per hour, which is a reasonable payment in our country. When evaluating on Levy/Holt and Berant datasets, for each pair of premise and hypothesis, we search the EGs for entailment edges from the predicate of premise to the predicate of hypothesis, and return the entailment scores associated with these edges. For entailment detection, we compare our enhanced EGs with a strong baseline BERT. On Chinese subsets, for each premise-hypothesis pair, we compute the cosine similarity between their pretrained BERT representations of [CLS] tokens, denoted by BERTzh. For the English subsets, we average the BERT hidden states of the predicate's start and end tokens as the final representations for premise or hypothesis, and calculate the cosine similarity of the representations, denoted by BERTen. The implementation details of our ATE are summarized in Table 5. Our model were trained on Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2640 v4 @ 2.40GHz, and the training converged to be stable in 100 epochs. The training time of ATE for 100 epochs are about 43 minutes. In this section, we will introduce the specific alignment rules when constructing the EGAlign | φ 2 | 0.3 | |------------------------------|------------| | γ | 1.0 | | k | 3 | | ρ 1→2 | 2.0 | | 2→1 | 1.2 | | ρ Word Embedding Dimension | 300 | | Learning Rate | 0.001 | | Activation Function | ReLU | | Positive v.s. Negative Ratio | 1/250 | | Layers of GCN | 2 | | GCN Hidden Size | 300 | | Layers of Interaction | 2 | | Layers of GAT in Interaction | 2 | | GAT Hidden Size | 300 | | Numbers of Parameters | 16,736,710 | | Table 5: Settings for ATE. | |  ## D Impact Of Available Training Data For Predicate Alignment To explore the impact of the size of training data on our model, we compare our CGI with Glovesim and the strongest baseline RNM by varying the proportion of seed predicate and entity alignments from 20% to 60% with a step of 10%. Figure 4 illustrates the MAP@1 for predicate alignment from English to Chinese of the three models on EGAlign dataset. As the amount of seed alignments increases, the performances of all three models gradually improve. Our CGI consistently obtains superior results compared to Glove-sim and RNM. These results show the promising performance of our model. Furthermore, according to the current trend of CGI, we believe that our model will achieve much better performance with more training data. ## E Entity Alignment Our model can also achieve accurate entity alignment simultaneously. For entity alignment, we compare with BootEA, RDGCN, HGCN-JE/JR, Glove-sim, BERT-sim as well as the state-of-theart entity alignment model NMN (Wu et al., 2020) which presents a graph sampling method for identifying the most informative neighbors towards entity alignment and utilize a cross-graph attention-based matching mechanism to compare the neighborhood subgraphs of two entities for entity alignment. Table 6 shows the entity alignment performance   | Models | EN→ ZH | ZH → EN | | | |-----------|----------|-----------|--------|-------| | MAP@1 | MAP@10 | MAP@1 | MAP@10 | | | BootEA | 69.10 | 75.80 | 68.82 | 74.73 | | HGCN | 78.61 | 82.33 | 76.34 | 79.78 | | RDGCN | 79.67 | 83.40 | 75.52 | 79.36 | | NMN | 78.16 | 81.49 | 76.32 | 79.87 | | Glove-sim | 71.46 | 75.76 | 71.84 | 75.68 | | BERT-sim | 63.63 | 67.48 | 63.02 | 66.18 | | CGI | 82.41 | 86.59 | 82.36 | 86.51 | on EGAlign dataset. We can observe that our CGI outperforms all the compared baselines across all the metrics, which shows that CGI can also learn better entity representations towards alignment and achieve accurate entity alignment. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Limitation section A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Not applicable. Our work do not have potential risks. ✓ 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?** 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? 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? section 5 ✓ 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 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. No, we do not use them. D ✓ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Appendix A ✓ 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.? Appendix A ✓ 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)? Appendix A ✓ 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? Appendix A ✓ D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Appendix A ✓ D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Appendix A

ding-etal-2023-shot

Few-shot Classification with Hypersphere Modeling of Prototypes

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.57

Metric-based meta-learning is one of the de facto standards in few-shot learning. It composes of representation learning and metrics calculation designs. Previous works construct class representations in different ways, varying from mean output embedding to covariance and distributions. However, using embeddings in space lacks expressivity and cannot capture class information robustly, while statistical complex modeling poses difficulty to metric designs. In this work, we use tensor fields ({``}areas{''}) to model classes from the geometrical perspective for few-shot learning. We present a simple and effective method, dubbed as hypersphere prototypes (HyperProto), where class information is represented by hyperspheres with dynamic sizes with two sets of learnable parameters: the hypersphere{'}s center and the radius. Extending from points to areas, hyperspheres are much more expressive than embeddings. Moreover, it is more convenient to perform metric-based classification with hypersphere prototypes than statistical modeling, as we only need to calculate the distance from a data point to the surface of the hypersphere. Following this idea, we also develop two variants of prototypes under other measurements. Extensive experiments and analysis on few-shot NLP tasks and comparison with 20+ competitive baselines demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach.

## Few-Shot Classification With Hypersphere Modeling Of Prototypes Ning Ding1,2∗, Yulin Chen2∗, Ganqu Cui1**, Xiaobin Wang**3 Hai-Tao Zheng2,4†, **Zhiyuan Liu**1,5† , **Pengjun Xie**3 1Department of Computer Science and Technology, Tsinghua University 2Shenzhen International Graduate School, Tsinghua University, 3Alibaba Group, 4Pengcheng Laboratory, Shenzhen, 5BNRIST, IAI, Tsinghua University {dingn18, yl-chen21, cgq22}@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn {xuanjie.wxb, chengchen.xpj}@alibaba-inc.com {zheng.haitao}@sz.tsinghua.edu.cn, {liuzy}@tsinghua.edu.cn ## Abstract In few-shot classification, key points to make the learning phase effective are to construct expressive class-level representations and design appropriate metrics. However, previous studies often struggle to reconcile the expressivity of representations and the conciseness of metrics. When modeling class-level information, vanilla embeddings can make classification difficult due to the lack of capacity, whereas complex statistical modeling hinders metric interpretation. To address the issues simultaneously, this paper presents a simple and effective approach from the geometrical perspective, dubbed as hypersphere prototypes. Specifically, our method represents class information as hyperspheres, which are characterized by two sets of learnable parameters: a center and a radius. Our method enjoys the following advantages. (1) With the learnable parameters, unique class representations can be easily constructed and learned without additional restrictions. (2) Using "areas" instead of "points" as class representation, the expressive capability will be greatly enhanced, increasing the reliability of few-shot classification. (3) The metric design is intuitive for hypersphere representation, which is the distance from a data point to the surface of the hypersphere. As a fundamental method of fewshot classification, our method demonstrates remarkable effectiveness, generality, and compatibility with other technologies in experiments. ## 1 Introduction Constituting cognition of novel concepts with a few examples is crucial for machines to emulate human intelligence, and with the exorbitant cost associated with annotating large amounts of data, fewshot learning has garnered considerable attention in modern deep learning (Lu et al., 2020). Despite the success under ample supervision, limited training examples remain a challenge for traditional deep ∗ Equal contribution † Corresponding authors neural models. Consequently, various approaches have been proposed to extend the applicability of deep neural networks to scenarios with limited data availability. One significant area of research within this domain is metric-based meta-learning (Snell et al., 2017; Ren et al., 2018; Allen et al., 2019), where models are trained to generate expressive representations and perform classification through predefined metrics. The success of metric-based meta-learning depends on both *representation* learning and the metrics chosen. One straightforward approach relies on training feature representation and adopts a nearest-neighbor classifier (Vinyals et al., 2016; Yang and Katiyar, 2020; Wang et al., 2019). Other works introduce additional parameters as class representation to achieve better generalization ability. A naive way to estimate class representation is to use the mean embedding of feature representation, i.e., prototypes (Snell et al., 2017; Allen et al., 2019), while some also use second-order moments (Li et al., 2019a) or reparameterize the learning process to generate class representation in a richer semantic space (Ravichandran et al., 2019) or in the form of probability distribution (Zhang et al., 2019). Apart from traditional Euclidean and cosine distance, a variety of metric functions are also proposed (Sung et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2020a; Xie et al., 2022). Most existing works learn class representation from the statistical perspective, making designing and implementing the metrics more difficult. For example, the proposed covariance metric in CovaMNet (Li et al., 2019a) theoretically requires a non-singular covariance matrix, which is awkward for neural-based feature extraction methods. This paper revisits metric-based meta-learning and demonstrates that geometrical modeling can simultaneously **enhance the expressivity of representations** and **reduce the difficulty of metric** calculation, meanwhile yielding surprising performance in few-shot classification. Specifically, we propose HyperProto , a simple and effective approach to model class representation with hyperspheres. It is equipped with three advantages: (1) Characterizing geometrical "area" as manifolds with complex boundaries can often be difficult in deep learning. Instead, we only use two sets of learnable parameters: the center and the radius, to represent a hypersphere, which is straightforward and easy to learn. (2) A hypersphere is much more expressive than a single point in the representation space. The introduction of a learnable radius parameter greatly expands the representative power. (3) Besides, hyperspheres are suitable for constructing measurements in Euclidean space. We can calculate the Euclidean distance from one feature point to the surface of the hypersphere in order to perform metric-based classification, which is difficult for other manifolds. Along with the simplicity in metric design and the enhanced expressive power is the easiness in optimization and learning. With the metrics designed as distance to the hypersphere surface, both the radius and the center of the hypersphere will appear in the loss function and participate in the backward propagation during optimization. Intuitively, for the classes with sparse feature distributions, the corresponding radii of their prototypes are large, and the radii are small otherwise. Beyond the Euclidean space, we also develop two variants based on the general idea - cone-like prototypes with cosine similarities and Gaussian prototypes from the probability perspective (in Appendix A). We conduct extensive experiments to evaluate the effectiveness of HyperProto on two classical information extraction tasks, few-shot named entity recognition (NER) (Ding et al., 2021c) and relation extraction (RE) (Han et al., 2018; Gao et al., 2019b). Despite the simplicity, we find that our approach is exceedingly effective, which outperforms the vanilla prototypes by 8.33 % absolute in average F1 on FEW-NERD (INTRA), 6.55% absolute in average F1 on FEW-NERD (INTER), 4.77% absolute in average accuracy on FewRel, respectively. The generality of our approach allows it to be easily integrated with other techniques. We combine our method with prompt-learning and task-specific pre-training to obtain high-quality representations, substantially outperforming many competitive baselines. We believe our approach could serve as a strong baseline for few-shot learning and inspire new ideas from the research community for representation learning. ## 2 Problem Setup We consider the episodic N-way K-shot few-shot classification paradigm1. Given a large-scale annotated training set Dtrain, our goal is to learn a model that can make accurate predictions for a set of new classes Dtest, containing only a few labeled examples for training. The model will be trained on episodes constructed using Dtrain and tested on episodes based on Dtest. Each episode contains a support set S = {xi, yi} N×K i=1 for learning, with N classes and K examples for each class, and a *query* set for inference Q = {x∗ j , y∗ j} N×K′ j=1 of examples in the same N classes. Each input data is a vector xi ∈ R L with the dimension of L and yiis an index of the class label. For each input xi, let fϕ(xi) ∈ R D denote the D-dimensional output embedding of a neural network fϕ : R L → R D parameterized by ϕ. ## 3 Methodology This section describes the mechanisms of hypersphere modeling of prototypes. One hypersphere prototype is represented by two parameters: the center and the radius, which are first initialized via estimation and then optimized by gradient descent in conjunction with the encoder parameters. ## 3.1 Overview We now introduce HyperProto , which are a set of hyperspheres in the embedding space D to abstractly represent the intrinsic features of classes. Formally, one prototype is defined by $$\mathcal{B}^{d}(f_{\phi},\mathbf{z},\epsilon):=\{f_{\phi}(\mathbf{x})\in\mathbb{R}^{D}:d(f_{\phi}(\mathbf{x}),\mathbf{z})\leq\epsilon\},\tag{1}$$ where d : R D × R D → [0, +∞) is the distance function in the metric space. fϕ is a neural encoder parameterized by ϕ, while z and ϵ denote the center and the radius of the hypersphere. We use M(·) to denote the measurement between a data point and a hypersphere prototype based on d(·). The central idea is to learn a hypersphere prototype for each class with limited episodic supervision, and each example in the query set (x∗, y∗) is predicted by the measurement to the hypersphere prototypes M(x∗ j , B d), which is the 1For the few-shot named entity recognition task, the sampling strategy is slightly different (details in Appendix E).  Euclidean distance from the embedding to the surface of the hyperspheres, $$\begin{array}{c}{{{\mathcal{M}}(\mathbf{x},\mathcal{B})=d(f_{\phi}(\mathbf{x}),\mathbf{z})-\epsilon}}\\ {{=\left\|f_{\phi}(\mathbf{x})-\mathbf{z}\right\|_{2}^{2}-\epsilon.}}\end{array}\qquad(2)$$ Note that with such metric design, the value of M(·) may be negative. That is, geometrically speaking, the point is contained inside the hypersphere, which does not affect the calculation of the loss function and the prediction. Generally, the idea is to use areas instead of points in the embedding space to model prototypes to enhance expressivity while preserving the convenience of Euclidean metric design. The advantages of the proposed method are two folds. First, as stated in § 1, one hypersphere prototype could be uniquely modeled by the center z and the radius ϵ, while characterizing manifolds with complex boundaries in the embedding space is intricate. Second, it is easy to optimize the parameters by conducting metric-based classification since they are naturally involved in measurement calculation. ## 3.2 Hypersphere Prototypes To construct hypersphere prototypes, the first step is the initialization of the center z and the radius ϵ of the hypersphere. To start with a reasonable approximation of the data distribution, we randomly select K instances from each class for initialization. Specifically, for one class, the center of the hypersphere prototype is initialized as the mean output of the K embeddings as in Snell et al. (2017), and the radius is the mean distance from each sample to the center, as shown in Equation 3, where Sn is the set of sampled instances from the n-th class, $$\mathcal{B}_{n}:=\left\{\begin{array}{l l}{{\mathbf{z}_{n}=\frac{1}{K}\sum_{\mathbf{x}\in\mathcal{S}_{n}}f_{\phi}(\mathbf{x}),}}\\ {{}}&{{(3)}}\\ {{\epsilon_{n}=\frac{1}{K}\sum_{\mathbf{x}\in\mathcal{S}_{n}}d(f_{\phi}(\mathbf{x}),\mathbf{z}_{n}).}}\end{array}\right.$$ Once initialized, a hypersphere prototype will participate in the training process, where its center and radius are simultaneously optimized. During training, for each episode, assuming the sampled classes are N = {n1, n2*, ..., n*N }, the probability of one query point x ∈ Q belonging to class n is calculated by softmax over the metrics to the corresponding N hypersphere prototypes. $$p(y=n|\mathbf{x};\phi)={\frac{\exp(-{\mathcal{M}}(\mathbf{x},{\mathcal{B}}_{n}))}{\sum_{n^{\prime}\in{\mathcal{N}}}\exp(-{\mathcal{M}}(\mathbf{x},{\mathcal{B}}_{n^{\prime}}))}}.\tag{4}$$ And the parameters of f and hypersphere prototypes are optimized by minimizing the metric-based cross-entropy objective: $$(5)$$ $${\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{cls}}=-\log p(y|\mathbf{x},\phi,\mathbf{z},\epsilon).$$ Equation 4 explains the combination of the advantages of hypersphere prototypes, where M is calculated by ϵ and z, which will participate in the optimization. The parameters of the neural network ϕ are optimized along with the centers and radii of hypersphere prototypes through gradient descent. To sum up, in the initialization stage, the hypersphere prototypes of all classes in the training set, which are parameterized by z and ϵ, are estimated by the embeddings of randomly selected instances and *stored* for subsequent training and optimization. Algorithm 1: Training process. fϕ is the feature encoder, Ntotal is the total number of classes in the training set, N is the number of classes for support and query set, K is the number of examples per class in the support set, K′is the number of examples per class in the query set, M is a hyper-parameter. RANDOMSAMPLE(*S, K*) denotes a set of K elements chosen uniformly at random from set S, without replacement. λf and λϵ are separate learning rates. Input: Training data Dtrain = {(x1, y1), ...,(xT , yT )}, yi ∈ {1*, ..., N*total}. Dk denotes the subset of D containing all elements (xi, yi) such that yi = k Output: The updated encoder fϕ // Initialization phase for n = 1 to N*total* do Sn ← RANDOMSAMPLE(Dn, K) zn ← 1 |Sn| P (xi,yi)∈Sn fϕ(xi), ϵn ← 1 |Sn| P (xi,yi)∈Sn d(fϕ(xi), zn), // Learning phase for i = 1 to M do V ← RANDOMSAMPLE({1*, ..., N*total}, N), Lcls ← 0 for n in {1*, ..., N*} do Qn ← RANDOMSAMPLE(DVn, K′) Lcls ← Lcls +1 NK′P (xi,yi)∈Qn [d(fϕ(xi), zn) − ϵn + log P n′ exp(ϵn′ − d(fϕ(xi), zn′))] UPDATE z, ϵ, fϕ w.r.t Lcls, λf , λϵ In the training stage, the stored ϵ is optimized by an independent optimizer. The optimization will yield a final location and size of the hyperspheres to serve the classification performance. More importantly, the involvement of prototype centers and radii in the training process will, in turn, affect the optimization of encoder parameters, stimulating more expressive and distinguishable representations. Algorithm 1 expresses the initialization and learning stages of hypersphere prototypes. Although the centers and radii are stored and optimized continuously in training (in contrast with vanilla prototypes where centers are re-estimated at each episode), the whole process is still episodic, as in each episode, the samples in the query set are only evaluated against the classes in that single episode instead of the global training class set. Meanwhile, a standard episodic evaluation process is adopted to handle the unseen classes, where we estimate prototype centers and radii in closed forms. In the episodic evaluation procedure, HyperProto directly takes the mean of instance embeddings as the centers and the mean distance of each instance to the center as the radius (as in Equation 3), following previous works (Vinyals et al., 2016; Snell et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2020a). We also develop two variants that use "areas" to represent class-level information in few-shot classification under other measurements, details can be found in Appendix A. ## 4 Experiments To evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed method, we conduct experiments on few-shot named entity recognition (NER) and few-shot relation extraction (RE) tasks, both of which are fundamental tasks of information extraction accompanied by well-established datasets. Task descriptions, datasets, and implementation details are reported in Appendix B. Apart from the experimental study in this section, we also carry out additional experiments and analyses of image classification to demonstrate the generality of our method in Appendix C. ## 4.1 **Combination With Orthogonal Techniques** Our experiments show that by simply adding a radius parameter in the learning process, HyperProto outperforms vanilla embedding prototypes by a large margin. In addition, as a basic method of few-shot learning, HyperProto can be used successfully with other orthogonal enhancements to | FEW-NERD (INTRA) | FEW-NERD (INTER) | | | | | | | | | |--------------------------------------|--------------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------| | Model | Avg. | | | | | | | | | | 5 way | 10 way | 5 way | 10 way | | | | | | | | 1 shot | 5 shot | 1 shot | 5 shot | 1 shot | 5 shot | 1 shot | 5 shot | | | | NNShot† (Yang and Katiyar, 2020) | 31.011.21 | 35.742.36 | 21.880.23 | 27.671.06 | 54.290.40 | 50.563.33 | 46.981.96 | 50.000.36 | 39.77 | | StructShot† (Yang and Katiyar, 2020) | 35.920.69 | 38.831.72 | 25.380.84 | 26.392.59 | 57.330.53 | 57.162.09 | 49.460.53 | 49.391.77 | 42.48 | | CONTAINER♠ (Das et al., 2021) | 40.43 | 53.70 | 33.84 | 47.49 | 55.95 | 61.83 | 48.35 | 57.12 | 49.84 | | ESD (Wang et al., 2022) | 36.081.60 | 52.141.50 | 30.000.70 | 42.152.60 | 59.291.25 | 69.060.80 | 52.160.79 | 64.000.43 | 50.61 | | Proto† (Snell et al., 2017) | 23.450.92 | 41.930.55 | 19.760.59 | 34.610.59 | 44.580.26 | 58.801.42 | 39.090.87 | 53.970.38 | 39.52 | | HyperProto (Ours) | 32.261.94 | 50.881.01 | 24.021.06 | 42.463.04 | 52.092.49 | 65.590.50 | 44.260.53 | 60.731.47 | 46.53 | | HyperProto +Prompt (Ours) | 48.492.75 | 60.781.87 | 41.693.45 | 53.163.21 | 65.400.08 | 68.340.73 | 61.720.37 | 67.903.90 | 58.44 | further boost performance. We choose two techniques, prompting and task-specific pre-training to combine with our approach on NER and RE tasks, respectively. Essentially, these two methods can both be regarded as means to construct high-quality initial representations for the current task. And our approach performs metric based few-shot learning on top of the initial representations. For NER, we enhance the primitive HyperProto with prompt (Liu et al., 2023), where in the support set the label of the entity is inserted after each entity, and in the query set the label candidates are concatenated and inserted as prefixes at the beginning of the input. For RE, we apply HyperProto to a task-specific pre-trained relation encoder (Peng et al., 2020). The two experiments further show the compatibility of the proposed method and indicate its potential as a novel fundamental modeling strategy for few-shot learning. ## 4.2 Overall Results Few-shot Named Entity Recognition. Table 1 shows the performance on FEW-NERD. It can be seen that HyperProto has a considerable advantage over vanilla ProtoNet, with an increase of at least 5% in f1-score across all settings. The success on both datasets demonstrates that HyperProto can learn the general distribution pattern of entities across different classes and thus can greatly improve the performance when little information is shared between the training and test set. The performances of NNShot and HyperProto are comparable when it comes to low-shot. This is probably because, in the sequence labeling task, it is more difficult to infer the class-level information from very limited tokens. In this case, the modeling ability of hypersphere prototypes degenerates towards the nearest-neighbors strategy in NNShot. As the shot number increases, the memory cost of NNShot grows quadratically and becomes unaffordable, while HyperProto keeps it in reasonable magnitude. In this sense, HyperProto is more efficient. When HyperProto is combined with prompt, it outperforms many other strong baselines like CONTAINER (Das et al., 2021) and ESD (Wang et al., 2022), which use pre-training and additional span attention module to enhance class representation. Specifically, HyperProto is shown to be more advantageous in INTRA setting. It also fits with our intuition since less shared information between training and test set would make features learned during pre-training stage or the trained attention module less transferable. It further shows the robustness of the modeling of HyperProto . We also believe a carefully designed initialization strategy is vital for the performance of our model in low-shot settings. The impact of the number of shots is reported in Appendix C.4. Few-shot Relation Extraction. Table 2 presents the results on two FewRel tasks. Methods that use additional data or conduct task-specific encoder pre-training are not included. HyperProto generally performs better than all baselines across all settings. In terms of backbone models, when combined with pre-trained models like BERT, hypersphere prototypes can yield a larger advantage against prototypes. It shows that the hypersphere modeling of prototypes can better approximate the real data distribution and boosts the finetuning of BERT. Meanwhile, it sheds light on the untapped ability of large pre-trained language models and stresses that a proper assumption about data distribution may help us unlock the potential. HyperProto 's outstanding performance on the Domain Adaptation task further validates the importance of a better abstraction of data in trans- | Model | FewRel 1.0 | | | | | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------|---------------|---------------|--------------|-------| | 5 way 1 shot | 5 way 5 shot | 10 way 1 shot | 10 way 5 shot | Avg. | | | Meta Net† (Munkhdalai and Yu, 2017) | 64.46 ± 0.54 | 80.57 ± 0.48 | 53.96 ± 0.56 | 69.23 ± 0.52 | 67.06 | | SNAIL† (Mishra et al., 2017) | 67.29 ± 0.26 | 79.40 ± 0.22 | 53.28 ± 0.27 | 68.33 ± 0.26 | 67.08 | | GNN CNN† (Satorras and Estrach, 2018) | 66.23 ± 0.75 | 81.28 ± 0.62 | 46.27 ± 0.80 | 64.02 ± 0.77 | 64.45 | | GNN BERT (Satorras and Estrach, 2018) | 75.66 | 89.06 | 70.08 | 76.93 | 77.93 | | Proto-HATT‡ (Gao et al., 2019a) | 76.30 ± 0.06 | 90.12 ± 0.04 | 64.13 ± 0.03 | 83.05 ± 0.05 | 78.40 | | MLMAN (Ye and Ling, 2019) | 82.98 ± 0.20 | 92.66 ± 0.09 | 73.59 ± 0.26 | 87.29 ± 0.15 | 84.13 | | MTB‡♠ (Soares et al., 2019) | 89.80 | 93.59 | 83.37 | 88.64 | 88.85 | | REGRAB♣ (Qu et al., 2020) | 90.30 | 94.25 | 84.09 | 89.93 | 89.64 | | CP♠ (Peng et al., 2020) | 95.10 | 97.10 | 91.20 | 94.70 | 94.53 | | MIML♣ (Dong et al., 2020) | 92.55 ± 0.12 | 96.03 ± 0.17 | 87.47 ± 0.21 | 93.22 ± 0.22 | 92.32 | | COL♠ (Ding et al., 2021b) | 92.51 | 95.88 | 86.39 | 92.76 | 91.89 | | ProtoCNN† | 69.20 ± 0.20 | 84.79 ± 0.16 | 56.44 ± 0.22 | 75.55 ± 0.19 | 71.50 | | HyperProto CNN (Ours) | 66.05 ± 3.44 | 87.31 ± 0.93 | 56.74 ± 1.06 | 77.87 ± 2.60 | 71.99 | | ProtoBERT† | 80.68 ± 0.28 | 89.60 ± 0.09 | 71.48 ± 0.15 | 82.89 ± 0.11 | 81.16 | | HyperProto BERT (Ours) | 84.34 ± 1.23 | 93.42 ± 0.50 | 77.24 ± 6.05 | 88.71 ± 0.31 | 85.93 | | HyperProto BERT+Pretrain♠ (Ours) | 95.29 ± 0.32 | 98.15 ± 0.05 | 92.05 ± 0.13 | 96.46 ± 0.39 | 95.49 | | FewRel 2.0 Domain Adaptation | | | | | | | Proto-ADV CNN† (Wang et al., 2018) | 42.21 ± 0.09 | 58.71 ± 0.06 | 28.91 ± 0.10 | 44.35 ± 0.09 | 43.55 | | Proto-ADV BERT† (Gao et al., 2019b) | 41.90 ± 0.44 | 54.74 ± 0.22 | 27.36 ± 0.50 | 37.40 ± 0.36 | 40.35 | | BERT-pair† (Gao et al., 2019b) | 56.25 ± 0.40 | 67.44 ± 0.54 | 43.64 ± 0.46 | 53.17 ± 0.09 | 55.13 | | CP♠ (Peng et al., 2020) | 79.70 | 84.90 | 68.10 | 79.80 | 78.13 | | HCRP♣ (Han et al., 2021a) | 76.34 | 83.03 | 63.77 | 72.94 | 74.02 | | LPD♠ (Zhang and Lu, 2022) | 77.82 ± 0.4 | 86.90 ±0.3 | 66.06 ± 0.6 | 78.43 ± 0.4 | 77.30 | | ProtoCNN† | 35.09 ± 0.10 | 49.37 ± 0.10 | 22.98 ± 0.05 | 35.22 ± 0.06 | 35.67 | | HyperProto CNN (Ours) | 36.41 ± 1.43 | 55.50 ± 1.42 | 22.11 ± 0.58 | 40.82 ± 2.50 | 38.71 | | ProtoBERT† | 40.12 ± 0.19 | 51.50 ± 0.29 | 26.45 ± 0.10 | 36.93 ± 0.01 | 38.75 | | HyperProto BERT (Ours) | 59.03 ± 3.68 | 74.85 ± 4.59 | 45.88 ± 7.43 | 61.61 ± 4.69 | 60.34 | | HyperProto BERT+Pretrain♠ (Ours) | 78.99 ± 1.26 | 91.65 ± 0.44 | 67.32 ± 1.90 | 84.47 ± 0.54 | 80.61 | | Table 2: Accuracies on FewRel 1.0 and FewRel 2.0 under 4 different settings. The standard deviation is reported | | | | | | Table 2: Accuracies on FewRel 1.0 and FewRel 2.0 under 4 different settings. The standard deviation is reported with 3 runs with different random seeds for each model. Results with † are reported in Gao et al. (2019b) and Han et al. (2018). Results with ‡ are obtained by re-running the original code. Other baseline results are from the original papers. Results with ♠ mean that the approaches involve task-specific pre-training encoder. Results with ♣ indicate that the approaches involve additional resources like knowledge graphs and relation descriptions, etc. Best results in **bold** and the second best results are underlined. fer learning. Meanwhile, the large performance variation in the domain adaptation task suggests that when the domain shifts, the estimation of hypersphere prototypes becomes less stable. To further evaluate the compatibility of our approach and other orthogonal techniques, we replace the original BERT model with the version pre-trained on relation classification task (Peng et al., 2020). It could be observed that, with this pre-trained encoder, the performance of our method boosts substantially, demonstrating the model-agnostic nature of our approach. ## 4.3 Experimental Analysis Analysis of the Radius Dynamics. We demonstrate the mechanism of hypersphere prototypes by illustrating the change of radius for one specific hypersphere. In the learning phase, the radius of a hypersphere prototype changes according to the "density" of the sampled episode, which could be characterized by the mean distance of samples to the corresponding prototype center. Practically, due to randomness in sampling, the value of the mean distance may oscillate at a high frequency in this process, and the radius changes accordingly. To better visualize the changing of radius along with the mean distance at each update, for each round of training, we fix one specific class as the anchor class for mean distance and radius recording and apply a special sampling strategy at each episode. Specifically, we take FewRel training data and train on the 5 way 5 shot setting with CNN encoder. While training, each episode contains the anchor class and 4 other randomly sampled classes. radius  36 37 Training accuracy is logged every 50 steps. After a warmup training of 500 steps, we sample "good" or "bad" episodes for every 50 steps alternatively. A "good" episode has higher accuracy on the anchor class than the previously logged accuracy, while conversely, a "bad" episode has an accuracy lower than before. The mean distance to the prototype center and radius at each episode are logged every 50 steps after the warmup. Figure 2 shows the changing of mean distance and radius for 8 classes during 600∼2000 training steps. Although the numeric values of distance and radius differ greatly and oscillate at different scales, they have similar changing patterns. Besides, it could be observed that there is often a small time lag in the change of radius, indicating that the change of radius is brought by the change in mean distance. This is in line with our expectations and perfectly demonstrates the learning mechanism of hypersphere prototypes. The experiment provides a promising idea, if we can control the sampling strategy through knowledge a priori, we may find a way to learn ideal hypersphere prototypes. Visualization. We also use t-SNE (van der Maaten and Hinton, 2008) to visualize the embedding before and after training, by ProtoNet and HyperProto , respectively. 5 classes are sampled from the training set and test set of the Few-NERD dataset, and for each class, 500 samples are randomly chosen to be embedded by BERT trained on the 5-way-5-shot NER task. Figure 3 shows the result of embeddings in a 2-dimensional space, where different colors represent classes. Note that for the token-level NER task, the interaction between the target token and its context may result in a more mixed-up distribution compared to instance-level embedding. For both models, the representations of the same class in the training set become more compressed and easier to classify compared to their initial embeddings. While HyperProto can produce even more compact clusters. The clustering effect is also observed for novel classes. We also calculate the difference between the mean euclidean distances from each class sample to the (hypersphere) prototype of the target class and to other classes. The larger the difference, the better the samples are distinguished. For ProtoNet, the difference is 2.33 and 1.55 on the train and test set, while for HyperProto the results are 5.09 and 4.56, respectively. This can also be inferred from the t-sne result. Since samples from different classes are distributed at different densities, an extra radius parameter will help better distinguish between classes. The visualization and statistical results demonstrate the effectiveness of HyperProto in learning discriminative features, especially in learning novel class representation that considerably boosts model performance under few-shot settings.  Representation Analysis. To study if the learned representations are discriminative enough for performing few-shot classification, we illustrate the normalized distances between the learned representations and the hypersphere prototypes in Figure 4. Specifically, we randomly sample 5 classes and 25 instances (5 per class) for each dataset and produce representations for the instances and hypersphere prototypes for the classes. Then, we calculate the distance between each instance to each prototype (i.e., distance from the point to the hypersphere surface) to produce the matrix. All the values in the illustration are normalized since the absolute values may vary with the datasets. Warmer colors denote shorter distances in the illustration. The illustration shows that in all three datasets, our model could effectively learn discriminative representations and achieve stable metric-based classification.  In order to further analyze the representations produced by HyperProto , we study the similarities of randomly sampled instance embeddings. We randomly select 4 × 5 classes and 5 instances per class in FEW-NERD, FewRel and *mini*ImageNet, respectively. As illustrated in Figure 5, each subfigure is a 25 × 25 matrix based on 5 classes. We calculate the cosine similarities of these embeddings and observe clear intra-class similarity and inter-class distinctiveness. This result confirms the robustness of our model since all the classes and instances are sampled randomly. ## 5 Related Work This work is related to studies of meta-learning, whose primary goal is to quickly adapt deep neural models to new tasks with a few training examples (Hospedales et al., 2020). To this end, two branches of studies are proposed: optimizationbased methods and metric-based methods. The optimization-based studies (Finn et al., 2017; Franceschi et al., 2018; Ravi and Beatson, 2018) regard few-shot learning as a bi-level optimization process, where a global optimization is conducted to learn a good initialization across various tasks, and a local optimization quickly adapts the initialization parameters to specific tasks by a few steps of gradient descent. Compared to the mentioned studies, our work is more related to the metric-based meta-learning approaches (Vinyals et al., 2016; Snell et al., 2017; Satorras and Estrach, 2018; Sung et al., 2018), whose general idea is to learn to measure the similarity between representations and find the closest labeled example (or a derived prototype) for an unlabeled example. Typically, these methods learn a measurement function during episodic optimization. More specifically, we inherit the spirit of using prototypes to abstractly represent class-level information, which could be traced back to cognitive science (Reed, 1972; Rosch et al., 1976; Nosofsky, 1986), statistical machine learning (Graf et al., 2009) and to the Nearest Mean Classifier (Mensink et al., 2013). In the area of deep learning, Snell et al. (2017) propose the prototypical network to exploit the average of example embeddings as a prototype to perform metric-based classification in few-shot learning. In their work, prototypes are estimated by the embeddings of instances. However, it is difficult to find a satisfying location for the prototypes based on the entire dataset. Ren et al. (2018) adapt such prototype-based networks in the semi-supervised scenario where the dataset is partially annotated. Moreover, a set of prototypebased networks are proposed concentrating on the improvements of prototype estimations and application to various downstream tasks (Allen et al., 2019; Gao et al., 2019a; Li et al., 2019b; Pan et al., 2019; Seth et al., 2019; Ding et al., 2021b; Li et al., 2020c; Wertheimer and Hariharan, 2019; Xie et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2020a). We discuss our method within the context of other prototype-enhanced methods in Section D.1. There has also been a growing body of work that considers the few-shot problem from multiple perspectives, bringing new thinking to the field (Tian et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2021; Laenen and Bertinetto, 2021; Zhang et al., 2020b; Wang et al., 2021; Das et al., 2021; Wertheimer et al., 2021; Ding et al., 2021a; Cui et al., 2022; Hu et al., 2022).There has also been a series of works that embed prototypes into a non-Euclidean output space (Mettes et al., 2019; Keller-Ressel, 2020; Atigh et al., 2021).  It should be noted that these studies regard hyperspheres or other non-Euclidean manifolds as a characterization of the embedding space, while our proposed method use hyperspheres to represent prototypes and conduct metric-based classification in the Euclidean space. Therefore, the focus of our proposed HyperProto is different from the above non-Euclidean prototype-based works. ## 6 Conclusion This paper proposes a novel metric-based few-shot learning method, *hypersphere prototypes*. Unlike previous metric-based methods that use dense vectors to represent the class-level semantics, we use hyperspheres to enhance the capabilities of prototypes to express the intrinsic information of the data. It is simple to model a hypersphere in the embedding space and conduct metric-based classification in few-shot learning. Our approach is easy to implement and also empirically effective, we observe significant improvements to baselines and compatibility with other techniques on downstream tasks. For potential future work, such modeling could be extended to more generalized representation learning like word embeddings. ## Acknowledgements This research is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.62276154 and No.62236004), Research Center for Computer Network (Shenzhen) Ministry of Education, Beijing Academy of Artificial Intelligence (BAAI), the Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province (Grant No. 2023A1515012914), Basic Research Fund of Shenzhen City (Grant No. JCYJ20210324120012033 and JSGG20210802154402007), the Major Key Project of PCL for Experiments and Applications (PCL2021A06), Overseas Cooperation Research Fund of Tsinghua Shenzhen International Graduate School (HW2021008), and Institute Guo Qiang at Tsinghua University. ## Limitations Compared to vanilla prototypes, the advantage of HyperProto would also rely on the additional radius parameter. Under the 1-shot setting, however, hypersphere prototypes will face challenges in estimating the radius in support sets, this is because the initial radius may be biased by the randomness of sampling. When the radius is set to exactly 0, the model will resemble a traditional prototypical network. Nevertheless, although not as large as the boost in the multi-shot setting, we find that having a consistently optimizable radius parameter at the training stage in the 1-shot scenario still delivers non-trivial results and exceeds most baselines (Table 1, Table 2, Table 3). This further points to the positive influence of the added radius parameter to learning prototype representation and hints on the possible research direction in learning a transferable radius in 1-shot scenario. ## References Kelsey Allen, Evan Shelhamer, Hanul Shin, and Joshua Tenenbaum. 2019. Infinite mixture prototypes for few-shot learning. In *Proceedings of ICML*, pages 232–241. PMLR. Mina Ghadimi Atigh, Martin Keller-Ressel, and Pascal Mettes. 2021. Hyperbolic busemann learning with ideal prototypes. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.14472*. Yinbo Chen, Zhuang Liu, Huijuan Xu, Trevor Darrell, and Xiaolong Wang. 2021. Meta-baseline: Exploring simple meta-learning for few-shot learning. In Proceedings of the ICCV, pages 9062–9071. Ganqu Cui, Shengding Hu, Ning Ding, Longtao Huang, and Zhiyuan Liu. 2022. Prototypical verbalizer for prompt-based few-shot tuning. In ACL. Debasmit Das and C. S. George Lee. 2020. A two-stage approach to few-shot learning for image recognition. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 29:3336– 3350. Sarkar Snigdha Sarathi Das, Arzoo Katiyar, Rebecca J Passonneau, and Rui Zhang. 2021. Container: Fewshot named entity recognition via contrastive learning. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.07589*. Cyprien de Lichy, Hadrien Glaude, and William Campbell. 2021. Meta-learning for few-shot named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Meta Learning of ACL, pages 44–58. Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li Fei-Fei. 2009. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In *Proceedings of CVPR*, pages 248–255. 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. Ning Ding, Yulin Chen, Xu Han, Guangwei Xu, Pengjun Xie, Hai-Tao Zheng, Zhiyuan Liu, Juanzi Li, and Hong-Gee Kim. 2021a. Prompt-learning for fine-grained entity typing. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2108.10604. Ning Ding, Xiaobin Wang, Yao Fu, Guangwei Xu, Rui Wang, Pengjun Xie, Ying Shen, Fei Huang, Hai-Tao Zheng, and Rui Zhang. 2021b. Prototypical representation learning for relation extraction. In *Proceedings* of ICLR. Ning Ding, Guangwei Xu, Yulin Chen, Xiaobin Wang, Xu Han, Pengjun Xie, Haitao Zheng, and Zhiyuan Liu. 2021c. Few-NERD: A few-shot named entity recognition dataset. In *Proceedings of ACL*, page 3198–3213. Bowen Dong, Yuan Yao, Ruobing Xie, Tianyu Gao, Xu Han, Zhiyuan Liu, Fen Lin, Leyu Lin, and Maosong Sun. 2020. Meta-information guided metalearning for few-shot relation classification. In *Proceedings of COLING*. Chelsea Finn, Pieter Abbeel, and Sergey Levine. 2017. Model-agnostic meta-learning for fast adaptation of deep networks. In *Proceedings of ICML*, pages 1126– 1135. Luca Franceschi, Paolo Frasconi, Saverio Salzo, Riccardo Grazzi, and Massimiliano Pontil. 2018. Bilevel programming for hyperparameter optimization and meta-learning. In *Proceedings of ICML*, pages 1568– 1577. Tianyu Gao, Xu Han, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2019a. Hybrid attention-based prototypical networks for noisy few-shot relation classification. In *Proceedings of AAAI*, pages 6407–6414. Tianyu Gao, Xu Han, Hao Zhu, Zhiyuan Liu, Peng Li, Maosong Sun, and Jie Zhou. 2019b. FewRel 2.0: Towards more challenging few-shot relation classification. In *Proceedings of EMNLP*. Arnulf BA Graf, Olivier Bousquet, Gunnar Rätsch, and Bernhard Schölkopf. 2009. Prototype classification: Insights from machine learning. *Neural computation*, pages 272–300. Yiluan Guo and Ngai-Man Cheung. 2020. Attentive weights generation for few shot learning via information maximization. In *Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF* Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 13499–13508. Jiale Han, Bo Cheng, and Wei Lu. 2021a. Exploring task difficulty for few-shot relation extraction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.05473. Xu Han, Zhengyan Zhang, Ning Ding, Yuxian Gu, Xiao Liu, Yuqi Huo, Jiezhong Qiu, Liang Zhang, Wentao Han, Minlie Huang, et al. 2021b. Pre-trained models: Past, present and future. *AI Open*. Xu Han, Hao Zhu, Pengfei Yu, Ziyun Wang, Yuan Yao, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2018. FewRel: A large-scale supervised few-shot relation classification dataset with state-of-the-art evaluation. In *Proceedings of EMNLP*, pages 248–255. Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2015. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In *Proceedings of CVPR*, pages 770–778. Timothy Hospedales, Antreas Antoniou, Paul Micaelli, and Amos Storkey. 2020. Meta-learning in neural networks: A survey. *arXiv:2004.05439*. Shengding Hu, Ning Ding, Huadong Wang, Zhiyuan Liu, Juan-Zi Li, and Maosong Sun. 2022. Knowledgeable prompt-tuning: Incorporating knowledge into prompt verbalizer for text classification. In ACL. Jiaxin Huang, Chunyuan Li, Krishan Subudhi, Damien Jose, Shobana Balakrishnan, Weizhu Chen, Baolin Peng, Jianfeng Gao, and Jiawei Han. 2020. Few-shot named entity recognition: A comprehensive study. arXiv:2012.14978. Sergey Ioffe and Christian Szegedy. 2015. Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift. In *Proceedings of* ICML. Martin Keller-Ressel. 2020. A theory of hyperbolic prototype learning. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.07744*. Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2017. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In Proceedings of ICLR. Steinar Laenen and Luca Bertinetto. 2021. On episodes, prototypical networks, and few-shot learning. *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, 34. Aoxue Li, Weiran Huang, Xu Lan, Jiashi Feng, Zhenguo Li, and Liwei Wang. 2020a. Boosting few-shot learning with adaptive margin loss. In *Proceedings* of the CVPR, pages 12576–12584. Jing Li, Billy Chiu, Shanshan Feng, and Hao Wang. 2020b. Few-shot named entity recognition via metalearning. *IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data* Engineering. Junnan Li, Pan Zhou, Caiming Xiong, and Steven Hoi. 2020c. Prototypical contrastive learning of unsupervised representations. In *Proceedings of ICLR*. Wenbin Li, Lei Wang, Jing Huo, Yinghuan Shi, Yang Gao, and Jiebo Luo. 2020d. Asymmetric distribution measure for few-shot learning. In *Proceedings of* IJCAI, pages 2957–2963. Wenbin Li, Jinglin Xu, Jing Huo, Lei Wang, Gao Yang, and Jiebo Luo. 2019a. Distribution consistency based covariance metric networks for few-shot learning. In AAAI, pages 8642–8649. Xiao Li, Min Fang, Dazheng Feng, Haikun Li, and Jinqiao Wu. 2019b. Prototype adjustment for zero shot classification. *Signal Processing: Image Communication*, pages 242–252. 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. Jiang Lu, Pinghua Gong, Jieping Ye, and Changshui Zhang. 2020. Learning from very few samples: A survey. *arXiv:2009.02653*. Puneet Mangla, Nupur Kumari, Abhishek Sinha, Mayank Singh, Balaji Krishnamurthy, and Vineeth N Balasubramanian. 2020. Charting the right manifold: Manifold mixup for few-shot learning. In *Proceedings of WACV*, pages 2218–2227. Thomas Mensink, Jakob Verbeek, Florent Perronnin, and Gabriela Csurka. 2013. Distance-based image classification: Generalizing to new classes at nearzero cost. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, pages 2624–2637. Pascal Mettes, Elise van der Pol, and Cees Snoek. 2019. Hyperspherical prototype networks. Proceedings of NeurIPS, pages 1487–1497. Nikhil Mishra, Mostafa Rohaninejad, Xi Chen, and Pieter Abbeel. 2017. A simple neural attentive metalearner. *arXiv:1707.03141*. Tsendsuren Munkhdalai and Hong Yu. 2017. Meta networks. In *International Conference on Machine* Learning, pages 2554–2563. PMLR. Robert M Nosofsky. 1986. Attention, similarity, and the identification–categorization relationship. *Journal of* experimental psychology: General. Yingwei Pan, Ting Yao, Yehao Li, Yu Wang, ChongWah Ngo, and Tao Mei. 2019. Transferrable prototypical networks for unsupervised domain adaptation. In *Proceedings of CVPR*, pages 2239–2247. Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, et al. 2019. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. In *Proceedings of NeurIPS*, pages 8026–8037. Hao Peng, Tianyu Gao, Xu Han, Yankai Lin, Peng Li, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, and Jie Zhou. 2020. Learning from Context or Names? An Empirical Study on Neural Relation Extraction. In *Proceedings* of EMNLP, pages 3661–3672. Siyuan Qiao, Chenxi Liu, Wei Shen, and Alan L Yuille. 2018. Few-shot image recognition by predicting parameters from activations. In *Proceedings of the* CVPR, pages 7229–7238. Meng Qu, Tianyu Gao, Louis-Pascal Xhonneux, and Jian Tang. 2020. Few-shot relation extraction via bayesian meta-learning on relation graphs. In *International conference on machine learning*, pages 7867–7876. PMLR. Sachin Ravi and Alex Beatson. 2018. Amortized bayesian meta-learning. In *Proceedings of ICLR*. Sachin Ravi and Hugo Larochelle. 2017. Optimization as a model for few-shot learning. In *Proceedings of* ICLR. Avinash Ravichandran, Rahul Bhotika, and Stefano Soatto. 2019. Few-shot learning with embedded class models and shot-free meta training. In 2019 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV 2019, Seoul, Korea (South), October 27 - November 2, 2019, pages 331–339. Stephen K Reed. 1972. Pattern recognition and categorization. *Cognitive psychology*, 3(3):382–407. Mengye Ren, Eleni Triantafillou, Sachin Ravi, Jake Snell, Kevin Swersky, Joshua B Tenenbaum, Hugo Larochelle, and Richard S Zemel. 2018. Metalearning for semi-supervised few-shot classification. In *Proceedings of ICLR*. Eleanor Rosch, Carolyn B Mervis, Wayne D Gray, David M Johnson, and Penny Boyes-Braem. 1976. Basic objects in natural categories. *Cognitive psychology*, pages 382–439. Andrei A Rusu, Dushyant Rao, Jakub Sygnowski, Oriol Vinyals, Razvan Pascanu, Simon Osindero, and Raia Hadsell. 2018. Meta-learning with latent embedding optimization. *arXiv:1807.05960*. Victor Garcia Satorras and Joan Bruna Estrach. 2018. Few-shot learning with graph neural networks. In Proceedings of ICLR. Harshita Seth, Pulkit Kumar, and Muktabh Mayank Srivastava. 2019. Prototypical metric transfer learning for continuous speech keyword spotting with limited training data. In *Proceedings of SOCO*. Springer. Jake Snell, Kevin Swersky, and Richard Zemel. 2017. Prototypical networks for few-shot learning. In *Proceedings of NeurIPS*. Livio Baldini Soares, Nicholas FitzGerald, Jeffrey Ling, and Tom Kwiatkowski. 2019. Matching the blanks: Distributional similarity for relation learning. In *Proceedings of ACL*. Flood Sung, Yongxin Yang, Li Zhang, Tao Xiang, Philip HS Torr, and Timothy M Hospedales. 2018. Learning to compare: Relation network for few-shot learning. In *Proceedings of CVPR*, pages 1199–1208. Yonglong Tian, Yue Wang, Dilip Krishnan, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, and Phillip Isola. 2020. Rethinking fewshot image classification: A good embedding is all you need? In *Proceedings of ECCV*, pages 266–282. Laurens van der Maaten and Geoffrey Hinton. 2008. Visualizing data using t-sne. *Journal of Machine* Learning Research, 9(86):2579–2605. Oriol Vinyals, Charles Blundell, Timothy Lillicrap, Daan Wierstra, et al. 2016. Matching networks for one shot learning. In *Proceedings of NeurIPS*, pages 3630–3638. Jixuan Wang, Kuan-Chieh Wang, Frank Rudzicz, and Michael Brudno. 2021. Grad2task: Improved fewshot text classification using gradients for task representation. *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, 34. Peiyi Wang, Runxin Xu, Tianyu Liu, Qingyu Zhou, Yunbo Cao, Baobao Chang, and Zhifang Sui. 2022. An enhanced span-based decomposition method for few-shot sequence labeling. In *Proceedings of* NAACL. Xiaozhi Wang, Xu Han, Yankai Lin, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2018. Adversarial multi-lingual neural relation extraction. In *Proceedings of COLING*, pages 1156–1166. Yan Wang, Wei-Lun Chao, Kilian Q Weinberger, and Laurens van der Maaten. 2019. Simpleshot: Revisiting nearest-neighbor classification for few-shot learning. *arXiv:1911.04623*. Peter Welinder, Steve Branson, Takeshi Mita, Catherine Wah, Florian Schroff, Serge Belongie, and Pietro Perona. 2010. Caltech-ucsd birds 200. Davis Wertheimer and Bharath Hariharan. 2019. Fewshot learning with localization in realistic settings. In *Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition*, pages 6558– 6567. Davis Wertheimer, Luming Tang, and Bharath Hariharan. 2021. Few-shot classification with feature map reconstruction networks. In *Proceedings of the* IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 8012–8021. Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, et al. 2020. Huggingface's transformers: State-ofthe-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of EMNLP: System Demonstrations, page 38–45. Jiangtao Xie, Fei Long, Jiaming Lv, Qilong Wang, and Peihua Li. 2022. Joint distribution matters: Deep brownian distance covariance for few-shot classification. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 7972–7981. Shuo Yang, Lu Liu, and Min Xu. 2021. Free lunch for few-shot learning: Distribution calibration. In Proceedings of ICLR. Yi Yang and Arzoo Katiyar. 2020. Simple and effective few-shot named entity recognition with structured nearest neighbor learning. In *Proceedings of* EMNLP. Zhi-Xiu Ye and Zhen-Hua Ling. 2019. Multi-level matching and aggregation network for few-shot relation classification. In *Proceedings of ACL*, pages 2872–2881. Sergey Zagoruyko and Nikos Komodakis. 2016. Wide residual networks. In *BMVC*, pages 87.1–87.12. Chi Zhang, Yujun Cai, Guosheng Lin, and Chunhua Shen. 2020a. Deepemd: Few-shot image classification with differentiable earth mover's distance and structured classifiers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 12203–12213. Jian Zhang, Chenglong Zhao, Bingbing Ni, Minghao Xu, and Xiaokang Yang. 2019. Variational few-shot learning. In *Proceedings of ICCV*, pages 1685–1694. Manli Zhang, Jianhong Zhang, Zhiwu Lu, Tao Xiang, Mingyu Ding, and Songfang Huang. 2020b. Iept: Instance-level and episode-level pretext tasks for fewshot learning. In *International Conference on Learning Representations*. Peiyuan Zhang and Wei Lu. 2022. Better few-shot relation extraction with label prompt dropout. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.13733. ## A Generalizations Of Our Method We have introduced the mechanisms of hypersphere prototypes in Euclidean space. In this section, we generalize this idea to construct variants with other measurements. Cone-like HyperProto. Cosine similarity is a commonly used measurement in machine learning. Assume all the data points are distributed on a unit ball, and we use the cosine value of the intersection angle to measure the similarity of the two embeddings. While keeping the intuition of the modeling of hypersphere prototypes in mind, we introduce an additional angle parameter ϵ. We use θa,b to denote the intersection angle of the two embeddings a and b. In this way, the center point z and the angle ϵ could conjointly construct a cone-like prototype, $$\mathcal{B}^{d}(\mathbf{z},f_{\phi},\epsilon):=\{f_{\phi}(\mathbf{x})\in\mathbb{R}^{D}:d(f_{\phi}(\mathbf{x}),\mathbf{z})\geq\cos\epsilon\},\tag{6}$$ where $d(f_{\phi}(\mathbf{x}),\mathbf{z})=\cos(\theta_{f_{\phi}(\mathbf{x}),\mathbf{z}})$. The measure where d(fϕ(x), z) = cos(θfϕ(x),z). The measurement M(·) is defined as the cosine of the angle between the instance embedding and the nearest point on the border of the prototype, $$\mathcal{M}(\mathbf{x},\mathcal{B})=\begin{cases}-\cos(\theta_{f_{\phi}(\mathbf{x}),\mathbf{z}}-\epsilon),\theta_{f_{\phi}(\mathbf{x}),\mathbf{z}}\geq|\epsilon|,\\ -1,\theta_{f_{\phi}(\mathbf{x}),\mathbf{z}}<|\epsilon|.\end{cases}\tag{7}$$  Similar to the vanilla hypersphere prototypes, z and ϵ need to participate in the learning process for optimization, and the angle θx,z is computed by the inverse trigonometric function, $$\theta_{f_{\phi}(\mathbf{x}),\mathbf{z}}=\operatorname{arccos}{\frac{f_{\phi}(\mathbf{x})^{T}\mathbf{z}}{||f_{\phi}(\mathbf{x})||\cdot||\mathbf{z}||}}.\qquad(8)$$ The prediction for a training example is also based on the softmax over the measurements to the prototypes like Eq. 5. Note that as shown in Eq. 7, the measurement becomes −1 when a data point is "inside" the cone-like prototype. Then it is hard to make a prediction when an embedding is inside two prototypes. It thus requires that the prototypes do not intersect with each other, that is, to guarantee the angle between two center points is larger than the sum of their own parameter angles, Ldis = 1 N X i,j max((|ϵi| + |ϵj |) − θzi,zj , 0). (9) Therefore, the final loss function is L = Lcls+Ldis. Gaussian HyperProto. From the probability perspective, each class can be characterized by a distribution in a multi-dimensional feature space. The measurement of a query sample to the n-th class can thus be represented by the negative log likelihood of fϕ(x) belonging to Bn. In line with other works (Zhang et al., 2019; Li et al., 2020d), we can simply assume each class subjects to a Gaussian distribution Bn ∼ N (µn, Σn). To reduce the number of parameters and better guarantee the positive semi-definite feature, we can further restrict the covariance matrix to be a diagonal matrix such that Σn = σ 2nI. Then the measurement becomes $$\begin{array}{l}{{\cal M}(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{\cal B}_{n}){=}-\log p(f_{\phi}(\mathbf{x});\mathbf{\cal B}_{n})}\\ {{=}\frac{||f_{\phi}(\mathbf{x})-\mathbf{\mu}_{n}||_{2}^{2}}{2\sigma_{n}^{2}}+\log((2\pi)^{\frac{d}{2}}|\sigma_{n}|^{d})}\\ {{=}\frac{||f_{\phi}(\mathbf{x})-\mathbf{\mu}_{n}||_{2}^{2}}{2\sigma_{n}^{2}}+d\log|\sigma_{n}|+\delta,}\end{array}\tag{10}$$ where δ = d 2 log 2π. The probability of target class given a query sample can be calculated by Eq. 4 in the same fashion: p(y = n|x) = P p(fϕ(x);Bn) n′ p(fϕ(x);Bn′ ) . Note that the derived form of the equation is the same as directly calculating the probability of p(y = n|x) under a uniform prior distribution of p(y). Comparing with pure probabilistic approaches, such as variational inference that treats B as hidden variables and models p(B|S) and p(B|S, x) with neural network (Zhang et al., 2019), under the framework of § 3.2, B is explicitly parameterized and optimized for each class during training. Moreover, comparing Eq. 10 with Eq. 2, it can be observed that when formalizing B as a distribution, instead of as a bias term, the original radius parameter (now the variance) functions as a scaling factor on Euclidean distance. ## B Experimental Details This section reports the experimental details of all three tasks in our evaluation. All the experiments are conducted on NVIDIA A100 and V100 GPUs with CUDA. The main experiments are conducted on three representative tasks in NLP and CV, which are few-shot named entity recognition (NER), relation extraction (RE), and image classification. The experimental details will be presented in the following sections. ## B.1 **Experimental Details For Few-Shot Named** Entity Recognition We assess the effectiveness of hypersphere prototypes on NLP, specifically, the first task is few-shot named entity recognition (NER) and the dataset is FEW-NERD (Ding et al., 2021c) 2. NER aims at locating and classifying named entities ( real-world objects that can be denoted with proper names) given an input sentence, which is typically regarded as a sequence labeling task. Given an input sentence ""Bill Gates is a co-founder of the American multinational technology corporation Microsoft", an named entity recognition system aims to locate the named entities (Bill Gates, *Microsoft*) and classify them into specific types. Conventional schema uses coarse-grained labels such that *Person* for *Bill Gates* and *Organization* for *Microsoft*. In more advanced schema like Few-NERD, models are asked to give more specific entity types, for example, *Person-Entrepreneur* for *Bill Gates* and Organization-Company for *Microsoft*. Different from typical instance-level classification, few-shot NER is a sequence labeling task, where labels may share structural correlations. NER is the first step in automatic information extraction and the construction of large-scale knowledge graphs. Quickly detecting fine-grained unseen entity types is of significant importance in NLP. To capture the latent correlation, many recent efforts in this field use large pre-trained language models (Han et al., 2021b) like BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) as backbone model and have achieved remarkable performance. The original prototypical network has also been applied to this task (Li et al., 2020b; Huang et al., 2020; de Lichy et al., 2021). Dataset. The experiment is run on FEW-NERD dataset (Ding et al., 2021c). It is a large-scale NER dataset containing over 400,000 entity mentions, across 8 coarse-grained types and 66 fine-grained types, which makes it an ideal dataset for few-shot learning. It has been shown that existing methods including prototypes are not effective enough on 2FEW-NERD is distributed under CC BY-SA 4.0 license this dataset. Baselines. We choose the following baselines: - **Proto**(Snell et al., 2017) is the main baseline, which adapts the prototypical network on fewshot named entity recognition. - **NNShot** (Yang and Katiyar, 2020) is a tokenlevel metric-based method that is specifically designed for few-shot labeling. - **StructShot** (Yang and Katiyar, 2020) adds a CRF layer in inference and further boosts performance of NNShot. - **CONTaiNER** (Das et al., 2021) uses a pretrained backbone and further finetunes on the few-shot data. - ESD (Wang et al., 2022) uses attention mechanism to learn prototype representation. Implementation Details. We run experiments under four settings on the two released benchmarks, FEW-NERD (INTRA) and FEW-NERD (INTER). Specifically, we use uncased BERT-base as the backbone encoder and 1e-4 as the encoder learning rate. As for learning rate for radius parameter, we use 20.0 for HyperProto+Prompt 10-way-5-shot INTER setting and 10.0 for other settings. AdamW is used as the BERT encoder optimizer, and Adam (Kingma and Ba, 2017) is used to optimize prototype radius. The batch size is set to 2 across all settings. All models are trained for 10000 steps and validated every 1000 steps. The results are reported on 5000 steps of the test episode. For each setting, we run the experiment with 3 different random seeds and report the average F1-score the standard error. We use PyTorch (Paszke et al., 2019) and huggingface transformers (Wolf et al., 2020) to implement the backbone encoder BERTbase. ## B.2 Experimental Details For Few-Shot Relation Extraction The other common NLP task is relation extraction (RE), which aims at correctly classifying the relation between two given entities in a sentence. For example, given an input sentence with marked entities "[*Bill Gates*] is a co-founder of the American multinational technology corporation [*Microsoft*]", the relation extraction system aims to give the relationship between *Bill Gates* and *Microsoft*. This is a fundamental task in information extraction. RE is an important form of learning structured knowledge from unstructured text. We use FewRel (Han et al., 2018) 3and FewRel 2.0 (Gao et al., 2019b) as the datasets. Dataset. We adopt the FewRel dataset (Han et al., 2018; Gao et al., 2019b), a relation extraction dataset specifically designed for few-shot learning. FewRel has 100 relations with 700 labeled instances each. The sentences are extracted from Wikipedia and the relational entities are obtained from Wikidata. FewRel 1.0 (Han et al., 2018) is released as a standard few-shot learning benchmark. FewRel 2.0 (Gao et al., 2019b) adds domain adaptation task and NOTA task on top of FewRel 1.0 with the newly released test dataset on PubMed corpus. Baselines. In addition to the main baseline, prototypical network (Snell et al., 2017), we also choose the following few-shot learning methods as the baselines in relation extraction. - **Proto-HATT** (Gao et al., 2019a) is a neural model with hybrid prototypical attention. - **MLMAN** (Ye and Ling, 2019) is a multi-level matching and aggregation network for few-shot relation classification. Note that Proto-HATT and MLMAN are not model-agnostic. - GNN (Satorras and Estrach, 2018) is a metalearning model with a graph neural network as the prediction head. - **SNAIL** (Mishra et al., 2017) is a meta-learning model with attention mechanisms. - **Meta Net** (Munkhdalai and Yu, 2017) is a classical meta-learning model with meta information. - **Proto-ADV** (Gao et al., 2019b) is a prototypebased method enhanced by adversarial learning. - **BERT-pair** (Gao et al., 2019b) is a strong baseline that uses BERT for few-shot relation classification. - MTB (Soares et al., 2019) pre-trains on sentence pairs constructed by entity linking technique. - **REGRAB** (Qu et al., 2020) uses external knowledge in KBs. - CP (Peng et al., 2020) pre-trains a relation classification model with contrastive learning. - **MIML** (Dong et al., 2020) uses additional semantic information of each class. 3FewRel is distributed under MIT license - COL (Ding et al., 2021b) assumes that prototypes distribute uniformly on a unit ball surface and pre-trains the prototype representation. - **HCRP** (Han et al., 2021a) uses contrastive learning to learn better prototype representations, while focusing more on hard cases. - LPD (Zhang and Lu, 2022) adopts relation description as prompt and randomly drops labels in the support set to derive better class prototype. Implementation Details. The experiments are conducted on FewRel 1.0 and FewRel 2.0 domain adaptation tasks. For FewRel 1.0, we follow the official splits in Han et al. (2018). For FewRel2.0, we follow Gao et al. (2019b), training the model on wiki data, validating on SemEval data, and testing on the PubMed data. We use the same CNN structure and BERT as encoders. The learning rate for hypersphere prototype radius is 0.1 and 0.01 for CNN and BERT encoder, respectively. Adam (Kingma and Ba, 2017) is used as radius optimizer. We train the model for 10000 steps, validate every 1000 steps, and test for 5000 steps. The other hyperparameters are the same as in the original paper. ## B.3 Experimental Details For Few-Shot Image Classification Image classification is one of the most classical tasks in few-shot learning research. Seeking a better solution for few-shot image classification is beneficial in two ways: (1) to alleviate the need for data augmentation, which is a standard technique to enrich the labeled data by performing transformations on a given image; (2) to facilitate the application where the labeled image is expensive. To demonstrate the effectiveness of HyperProto, we also conduct experiment on few-shot image classification with *mini*ImageNet (Vinyals et al., 2016) dataset. The results of the experiment are shown in C. Dataset. *mini*ImageNet (Vinyals et al., 2016) is used as a common benchmark for few-shot learning. The dataset is extracted from the full ImageNet dataset (Deng et al., 2009), and consists of 100 randomly chosen classes, with 600 instances each. Each image is of size 3×84×84. We follow the split in Ravi and Larochelle (2017) and use 64, 16, and 20 classes for training, validation, and testing. Baselines. The baselines we choose are as follows: - **Prototypical network** (Snell et al., 2017) uses the vanilla prototypes as representations and is our main baseline. - IMP (Allen et al., 2019) is a prototype-enhanced method that models an infinite mixture of prototypes for few-shot learning. - **CovaMNet** (Li et al., 2019a) is a few-shot learning method that uses covariance to model the distribution information to enhance few-shot learning performance. - **SNAIL** (Mishra et al., 2017) is an attention-based classical meta-learning method. - **Variational FSL** (Zhang et al., 2019) is a variational Bayesian framework for few-shot learning, which contains a pre-training stage. - **Activation to Parameter** (Qiao et al., 2018) predicts parameters from activations in few-shot learning. - LEO (Rusu et al., 2018) optimizes latent embeddings for few-shot learning. - **TRAML** (Li et al., 2020a) uses adaptive margin loss to boost few-shot learning, and Prototypes + TRAML is a strong baseline in recent years. - **SimpleShot** (Wang et al., 2019) combines vanilla prototypes with simple feature transformation. - **AWGIM** (Guo and Cheung, 2020) follows the idea of LEO (Rusu et al., 2018) but generates different classification representations for different queries by maximizing mutual information. ## C Additional Experiments And Analysis C.1 Few-Shot Image Classification. to Chen et al. (2021) and the pretrained WideResNet follows Mangla et al. (2020). The CNN structure is the same as Snell et al. (2017), which is composed of 4 convolutional blocks each with a 64-filter 3 × 3 convolution, a batch normalization layer (Ioffe and Szegedy, 2015), a ReLU nonlinearity, and a 2 × 2 max-pooling layer. We use SGD optimizer for the encoder and Adam (Kingma and Ba, 2017) optimizer for the prototype radius. The learning rate for the backbone model is 1e-3. The learning rate for radius is manually tuned and the reported result in Table 3 has a learning rate of 10. For cone-like and gaussian prototypes, we use 1e-1 and 1e-3. At the training stage, the prototype center is re-initialized at each episode as the mean vector of the support embeddings. This section provides additional experiments and analysis. We first present results on image classification, then we compare generalized HyperProto. We also experiment on cross-dataset setting and provide analysis on impact of training data volume on model performance and instance-level representation. Table 3 shows the result on *mini*ImageNet fewshot classification under 2 settings. HyperProto substantially outperforms the primary baselines in most settings, displaying their ability to model the class distribution of images. We observe that compared to NLP, image classification results are more stable both for vanilla prototypes and hypersphere prototypes. This observation may indicate the difference in encoding between the two technologies. Token representations in BERT are contextualized and changeable around different contexts, yet the image representation produced by deep CNNs aims to capture the global and local features thoroughly. Under the 5-way 5-shot setting, the improvements of HyperProto are significant. The effectiveness of our method is also demonstrated by the comparisons with other previous few-shot learning methods with the same backbones. In particular, HyperProto yields the best results of all the compared methods with the WideResNet (Zagoruyko and Komodakis, 2016) backbone, suggesting that the expressive capability of hypersphere prototypes can be enhanced with a more powerful encoder. Compared to the 5-shot setting, our model improves Implementation Details. The experiments are conducted on 5 way 1 shot and 5 way 5 shot settings. To ensure validity and fairness, we implement hypersphere prototypes with various backbone models including CNN, ResNet-12, and WideResNet (Zagoruyko and Komodakis, 2016) to make it comparable to all baseline results, and we also re-run some of the baselines including prototypical network (Snell et al., 2017), infinite mixture prototypes (Allen et al., 2019), and CovaMNet (Li et al., 2019a) under our settings based on their original code. Other baseline results are taken from the original paper. Each model is trained on 10,000 randomly sampled episodes for 30∼40 epochs and tested on 1000 episodes. The result is reported with 95% confidence interval. Note that both ResNet-12 and WideResNet (Zagoruyko and Komodakis, 2016) are pretrained on the training data, where the pretrained ResNet-12 is identical mediocrely in the 1-shot setting of ConvNet and ResNet-12 (He et al., 2015). The phenomenon is consistent with the intuition that more examples would be more favorable to the learning of radius. We further analyze the dynamics of the radius of our method in Appendix 4.3. ## C.2 Comparison Of Generalized Hyperproto. To further compare the variants of our approach, we conduct experiments for cone-like and gaussian HyperProto with WideResNet-28-10 on miniImageNet as well. Table 4 presents results across three measurement settings. Although the two variants do not perform better than our main method, they still considerably outperform many baselines in Table 3. While the three models' performance is close under the 1-shot setting, the Cone HyperProto model performs worse in the 5-shot setting. It could be attributed to unsatisfying radius learning. It is found that the Cone Hyperproto model is susceptible to radius learning rate and is prone to overfitting. ## C.3 Cross-Dataset Few-Shot Learning We also conduct experiments on the more difficult cross-dataset setting. Specifically, the model trained on *mini*Imagenet is tested on the CUB dataset (Welinder et al., 2010) under the 5-way 5shot setting. We use ResNet-12 (RN-12) (He et al., 2015) as the backbone in our experiment. Table 5 shows the results compared with several baselines. It can be seen that HyperProto outperforms the baselines by a large margin even with less powerful encoder (RN-12), indicating the ability to learn representations that are transferrable to new domains. The results also echo the performance of HyperProto for the cross-domain relation extraction in Table 2. ## C.4 Impact Of Number Of Shots We conduct additional experiments on FEWNERD (INTRA) 5-way setting with 10, 15, 20 shots. Since NNShot becomes too memoryintensive to run when shot reaches 15, we provide results on Proto and HyperProto . Figure 7 shows both models perform better when more data are available, while HyperProto performs consistently better than vanilla prototypes. ## D Discussion This section discusses related prototype-based methods in detail, and the broader impact of our  ## Work. D.1 Other Prototype-Enhanced Methods In this section, we discuss the difference between hypersphere prototypes with four prototypeenhanced methods in few-shot learning: infinite mixture prototypes (Allen et al., 2019), CovaMNet (Li et al., 2019a), Variational Few-Shot Learning (Zhang et al., 2019), and Two-Stage (Das and Lee, 2020). Infinite mixture prototypes (Allen et al., 2019) model each class as an indefinite number of clusters and the prediction is obtained by computing and comparing the distance to the nearest cluster in each class. This method is an intermediate model between prototypes and the nearest neighbor model, whereas hypersphere prototypes alleviate the overgeneralization problem of vanilla prototypes with a single additional parameter that turns a single point modeling into a hypersphere. The essential prototype-based feature of hypersphere prototypes allows faster computation and easier training. CovaMNet (Li et al., 2019a) calculates local variance for each class based on support samples and conducts metric-based learning via covariance metric, which basically evaluates the cosine similarity between query samples and the eigenvectors of the local covariance matrix. To ensure the nonsingularity of the covariance matrix, the feature of each sample is represented with a matrix, generated by a number of local descriptors, with each extracting a feature vector. Compared to hypersphere prototypes, both methods attempt to model more variance based on vanilla prototypes, while the idea of hypersphere prototypes is more straightforward and requires fewer parameters. On the other hand, the multi-channel features adopted by CovaMNet are less natural for NLP tasks. Variational Few-Shot Learning (Zhang et al., | Model | Backbone | miniImageNet | | | |---------------------------------------------------|------------------|----------------|--------------|-------| | 5 way 1 shot | 5 way 5 shot | Average | | | | Infinite Mixture Prototypes† (Allen et al., 2019) | ConvNet | 33.30 ± 0.71 | 65.88 ± 0.71 | 49.59 | | ProtoNet† (Snell et al., 2017) | ConvNet | 46.44 ± 0.60 | 63.72 ± 0.55 | 55.08 | | CovaMNet† (Li et al., 2019a) | ConvNet | 51.83 ± 0.64 | 65.65 ± 0.77 | 58.74 | | HyperProto (Ours) | ConvNet | 50.21 ± 0.31 | 66.48 ± 0.71 | 58.35 | | SNAIL (Mishra et al., 2017) | ResNet-12 | 55.71 ± 0.99 | 68.88 ± 0.92 | 62.30 | | ProtoNet† (Snell et al., 2017) | ResNet-12 | 53.81 ± 0.23 | 75.68 ± 0.17 | 64.75 | | Variational FSL (Zhang et al., 2019) | ResNet-12 | 61.23 ± 0.26 | 77.69 ± 0.17 | 69.46 | | Prototypes + TRAML (Li et al., 2020a) | ResNet-12 | 60.31 ± 0.48 | 77.94 ± 0.57 | 69.13 | | HyperProto (Ours) | ResNet-12 | 59.65 ± 0.62 | 78.24 ± 0.47 | 68.95 | | ProtoNet† (Snell et al., 2017) | WideResNet-28-10 | 59.09 ± 0.64 | 79.09 ± 0.46 | 69.09 | | Activation to Parameter (Qiao et al., 2018) | WideResNet-28-10 | 59.60 ± 0.41 | 73.74 ± 0.19 | 66.67 | | LEO (Rusu et al., 2018) | WideResNet-28-10 | 61.76 ± 0.08 | 77.59 ± 0.12 | 69.68 | | SimpleShot (Wang et al., 2019) | WideResNet-28-10 | 63.50 ± 0.20 | 80.33 ± 0.14 | 71.92 | | AWGIM (Guo and Cheung, 2020) | WideResNet-28-10 | 63.12 ± 0.08 | 78.40 ± 0.11 | 70.76 | | HyperProto (Ours) | WideResNet-28-10 | 63.78 ± 0.63 | 81.29 ± 0.46 | 72.54 | Table 3: Accuracies with 95% confidence interval on 1000 test episodes of HyperProto and baselines on miniImageNet. Results with †are obtained by re-running the original code unider our experimental settings. Other baselines are reported in their original papers. | Methods | miniImageNet | | |---------------------|----------------|--------------| | 5 way 1 shot | 5 way 5 shot | | | Cone HyperProto | 62.43 ± 0.63 | 76.03 ± 0.50 | | Gaussian HyperProto | 60.34 ± 0.64 | 80.43 ± 0.45 | | HyperProto | 63.78 ± 0.63 | 81.29 ± 0.46 | Table 4: Accuracies with 95% confidence interval of generalized HyperProto on *mini*ImageNet. | Methods | Backbone | 5 way 5 shot | |------------------------------------|------------|----------------| | miniImageNet → CUB | | | | MatchingNet (Vinyals et al., 2016) | RN-12 | 53.07 ± 0.74 | | ProtoNet (Snell et al., 2017) | RN-12 | 62.02 ± 0.70 | | MAML (Finn et al., 2017) | RN-18 | 52.34 ± 0.72 | | RelationNet (Sung et al., 2018) | RN-18 | 57.71 ± 0.73 | | Baseline++ (Chen et al., 2021) | RN-18 | 62.04 ± 0.76 | | SimpleShot (Wang et al., 2019) | RN-18 | 65.56 ± 0.70 | | HyperProto (Ours) | RN-12 | 63.22 ± 0.77 | Table 5: Results on cross-dataset classification. 2019) tackles the few-shot learning problem under a bayesian framework. In order to improve single point-based estimation, a class-specific latent variable representing the class distribution is introduced and is assumed to be Gaussian. The method parameterizes the mean and variance of the latent variable distribution with neural networks that take the feature of a single instance as input. The learning and inference processes are both conducted on the latent variable level. The method adopts variational inference and is built on modeling distribution as a latent variable, where the metric calculation highly relies on the Gaussian assumption. Hypersphere prototypes, on the other hand, model the distribution with a center vector and a radius parameter in the actual embedding space, which is more tangible and easier to calculate. It is worth noting that this work also points that a single embedding is insufficient to represent a class, and samples the prototype from a highdimensional distribution. This is actually similar to our starting point, the difference is that our approach turns out to consider the problem from the geometric point of view based on the original embedding space, and proves that such simple geometric modeling could be very efficient in the few-shot scenarios. Two-Stage Approach first trains feature encoder and variance estimator on training data in an episodic manner with extracted absolute and relative features. Then in the second stage, training data are split into "novel" class, and base class, novel class prototypes are learned from both sample mean and base class features. The classification is carried out with integrated prototypes. This method improves on vanilla prototypes by extracting more features and combining information from base classes, but still follows single-point-based metric learning. Our approach extends a single point to a hypersphere in the embedding space and therefore, better captures within-class variance. ## D.2 Broader Impact Our method focuses on the method of few-shot learning, which enables machine learning systems to learn with few examples, and could be applied to many downstream applications. The technique itself does not have a direct negative impact, i.e., its impact stems primarily from the intent of the user, and there may be potential pitfalls when the method is applied to certain malicious applications. ## E K∼**2K Sampling For Few-Nerd** In the sequence labeling task FEW-NERD, the sampling strategy is slightly different from other classification tasks. Because in the named entity recognition, each token in a sequence is asked to be labeled as if it is a part of a named entity. And the context is crucial for the classification of each entity, thus the examples are sampled at the sequence level. Under this circumstance, it is difficult to operate accurate N way N shot sampling. Ding et al. (2021c) propose a greedy algorithm to conduct N way K ∼ 2K shot sampling for the FEW-NERD dataset. We follow the strategy of the original paper (Ding et al., 2021c) and report it in Algorithm 2. Algorithm 2: Greedy N-way K∼2K-shot sampling algorithm for FEW-NERD Input: Dataset X , Label set Y, N, K Output: output result S ← ∅; // Init the support set // Init the count of entity types for i = 1 to N do Count[i] = 0 ; repeat Randomly sample (x, y) ∈ X ; Compute |Count| and Counti after update ; if |Count| > N or ∃*Count*[i] > 2K **then** Continue ; else S = SS(x, y) ; Update Counti; until Counti ≥ K for i = 1 *to N*; ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Page 9 (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 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 4 ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Section 4 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.? 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 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 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 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.)? 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.

liu-etal-2023-structured

Structured Mean-Field Variational Inference for Higher-Order Span-Based Semantic Role Labeling

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.58

In this work, we enhance higher-order graph-based approaches for span-based semantic role labeling (SRL) by means of structured modeling. To decrease the complexity of higher-order modeling, we decompose the edge from predicate word to argument span into three different edges, predicate-to-head (P2H), predicate-to-tail (P2T), and head-to-tail (H2T), where head/tail means the first/last word of the semantic argument span. As such, we use a CRF-based higher-order dependency parser and leverage Mean-Field Variational Inference (MFVI) for higher-order inference. Moreover, since semantic arguments of predicates are often constituents within a constituency parse tree, we can leverage such nice structural property by defining a TreeCRF distribution over all H2T edges, using the idea of partial marginalization to define structural training loss. We further leverage structured MFVI to enhance inference. We experiment on span-based SRL benchmarks, showing the effectiveness of both higher-order and structured modeling and the combination thereof. In addition, we show superior performance of structured MFVI against vanilla MFVI.

# Structured Mean-Field Variational Inference For Higher-Order Span-Based Semantic Role Labeling Wei Liu, Songlin Yang, Kewei Tu∗ School of Information Science and Technology, ShanghaiTech University Shanghai Engineering Research Center of Intelligent Vision and Imaging {liuwei4, yangsl,tukw}@shanghaitech.edu.cn ## Abstract In this work, we enhance higher-order graphbased approaches for span-based semantic role labeling (SRL) by means of structured modeling. To decrease the complexity of higher-order modeling, we decompose the edge from predicate word to argument span into three different edges, predicate-to-head (P2H), predicateto-tail (P2T), and head-to-tail (H2T), where head/tail means the first/last word of the semantic argument span. As such, we use a CRF-based higher-order dependency parser and leverage Mean-Field Variational Inference (MFVI) for higher-order inference. Moreover, since semantic arguments of predicates are often constituents within a constituency parse tree, we can leverage such nice structural property by defining a TreeCRF distribution over all H2T edges, using the idea of partial marginalization to define structural training loss. We further leverage structured MFVI to enhance inference. We experiment on spanbased SRL benchmarks, showing the effectiveness of both higher-order and structured modeling and the combination thereof. In addition, we show superior performance of structured MFVI against vanilla MFVI. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/ VPeterV/Structured-MFVI. ## 1 Introduction Semantic role labeling (SRL) aims to recognize the predicate-argument structures for a given sentence. SRL structures have found various applications in downstream natural language understanding tasks, e.g., machine translation (Marcheggiani et al., 2018), question answering (Khashabi et al., 2018), machine reading comprehension (Zhang et al., 2020c). There are two types of formalisms in SRL, namely dependency-based and span-based SRL, where the argument is a word in the former case ∗Corresponding author and a contiguous sequence of words (i.e., a span) in the latter case. Span-based SRL is more difficult as it needs to identify two boundaries of a span instead of an argument word, resulting in a much larger search space. We focus on span-based SRL in this work. Span-based SRL is traditionally tackled by BIObased sequence labeling approaches (Zhou and Xu, 2015). Later, researchers turn to graph-based methods (He et al., 2018; Ouchi et al., 2018; Li et al., 2019) wherein graph nodes are argument spans and predicate words. Recently, researchers show that higher-order graph-based methods achieve state-ofthe-art performance (Jia et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2022). For higher-order graphbased methods, the main difficulty is that there are in total O(n 3) predicate-argument pairs and thereby O(n 5) second-order parts (Jia et al., 2022), making them computationally infeasible to model. To resolve this issue, Jia et al. (2022) prune the number of candidate argument spans from O(n 2) to O(n), and consequently, reduce the number of second-order parts from O(n 5) to O(n 3). On the other hand, Zhou et al. (2022) decompose the original edge (between the predicate word and the argument span) into two word-to-word edges, namely predicate-to-head (predicate word to the first word of argument span, P2H) and predicateto-tail (predicate word to the last word of argument span, P2T), so the total number of second-order parts reduces from O(n 5) to O(n 3) as well. Both of these two works use Conditional Random Fields (CRF) for probabilistic modeling and Mean-Field Variational Inference (MFVI) for higher-order statistical inference in cubic time. Without MFVI, exact higher-order inference with CRF is NP-hard. Moreover, MFVI is fully differentiable and thus can be incorporated into neural networks as an RNN layer (Zheng et al., 2015) for end-to-end training. Hence, MFVI becomes increasingly popular in solving NLP structured prediction tasks together with higher-order CRF-based modeling (Wang et al., 2019; Wang and Tu, 2020; Zhou et al., 2022). Besides higher-order modeling, structured modeling has also been shown to be useful in spanbased SRL (Zhang et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2022). Span-based SRL has a nice *structural property* that argument spans would not cross to each other in general 1, since gold annotations of argument spans are mostly extracted from existing constituency parse trees. As such, we can build a *partiallyobserved* constituency parse tree (Fu et al., 2021) wherein observed nodes correspond to gold argument spans. Notably, this is also the case for nested named entity recognition (Fu et al., 2021; Lou et al., 2022) and coreference resolution (Liu et al., 2022). To leverage such structural information (for free) while eliminating the need of obtaining full constituency parse trees (which could be expensive), prior works perform *latent-variable* probabilistic modeling with *partial marginalization* based on dynamic programming (i.e., the inside or CKY algorithm for full constituency parsing). Concretely, they train a span-based TreeCRF model (Zhang et al., 2020b), either maximizing the probabilities of all compatible trees (to the set of observed arguments or entity spans) via the masked inside algorithm (Fu et al., 2021; Lou et al., 2022) or defining training loss based on span marginal probabilities (Liu et al., 2022). These works show that structured modeling indeed improves performance for aforementioned tasks. Our desiderata in this work is to combine the best of two worlds, performing joint higher-order and structured modeling in a probabilistically principled manner under the CRF framework. To decrease the high complexity of higher-order inference, we use a strategy similar to Zhou et al. (2022) and introduce an additional type of edges for modeling argument spans, namely head-to-tail (the first word to the last word of the argument span, H2T). Without H2T edges, there could be potential ambiguities in the decoding process. More importantly, H2T edges are the bridge for structured modeling, on which we define a span-based TreeCRF distribution. To combine higher-order and structured modeling, inspired by (Domke, 2011; Blondel et al., 2020), we perform MFVI for several steps to obtain approximated marginals, on which we define structured loss for the argument span parts. However, (vanilla) MFVI uses fully-factorized distributions to approximate the otherwise complex true posterior, damaging the quality of higher-order inference. To solve this issue, we further adopt structured MFVI (Wainwright and Jordan, 2008b) to enhance inference, leveraging the underlying tree structures of argument spans for more delicate structured modeling. We experiment on two benchmarks of spanbased SRL: ConLL05 and ConLL12, obtaining state-of-the-art performances on five out of six evaluation metrics. Ablation studies confirm the effectiveness of both higher-order and structured modeling, their combination thereof, and the use of structured MFVI. ## 2 Method 2.1 Graph Encoding And Decoding For each edge connecting a predicate-argument pair, we decompose it into three edges: a P2H edge from predicate to the first word of argument span, a P2T edge from predicate to the last word of argument span, and a H2T edge from the first word to the last word of argument span. Fig. 1 shows an example. After transformation, we build a large graph consisting of three subgraphs, and adopt a two-stage strategy for decoding. In the first stage, we predict unlabeled dependency edges, and then find out all predicate-argument pairs whose corresponding three types of edges are all correctly predicted. As such, our model does not have ambiguity problems in the decoding process, while Zhou et al. (2022) need to propose another constrained Viterbi algorithm to resolve such ambiguities, which is unnecessary when H2T edges are incorporated (Wang et al., 2020). In the second stage, we predict the corresponding label of predicted pairs based on the representations of predicate and argument span. ## 2.2 Higher-Order Modeling 2.2.1 Scoring For a sentence of length n, we use three indicator matrices (whose entries are either 0 or 1) y H, yT, yA ∈ R n×nto represent P2H, P2T, and H2T edges, respectively. For example, y H ij = 1 iff there is an P2H edge (*i, j*), and y H ij = 0 otherwise. We use y = [y H; y T, yA] ∈ R n×3nto represent the entire (multi)graph. We first define the first-order edge-factorized Ms. Haag plays Elianti . A0 A1 Ms. Haag plays Elianti . A0 A1 (c) P2H edge after decomposition (a) Original span-based SRL (b) H2T edge after decomposition **M5.** **Haag** **plays** **Elanti** **.** **(b) H2T edge after decomposition** **M5.** **Haag** **plays** **Elanti** **.** **(d) P2T edge after decomposition** Figure 1: An example of span-based SRL. We transform predicate-argument pairs into three different types of edges, casting span-based SRL as a dependency graph parsing problem. Figure (a) is original predicate-argument pairs, where phrases or words included inside boxes with dash line are argument spans. Figure (b)-(d) are corresponding edges after decomposition. **(a)** sibling (b) grandparent (c) co-parent Figure 2: Three different higher-order relationships. score for y: $$s^{1o}(y)=\sum_{i j}(s_{i j}^{H}y_{i j}^{H}+s_{i j}^{T}y_{i j}^{T}+s_{i j}^{A}y_{i j}^{A})$$ Then we consider the following higher-order scores based on sibling (sib), co-parent (cop), and grandparent (gp) relationships (Fig. 2): - s h,sib ij,ik , s h,cop ik,jk : sibling and co-parent scores between two P2H edges. - s t,sib ij,ik, s t,cop ik,jk: sibling and co-parent scores between two P2T edges. - s a,gp ij,jk, s a,cop ik,jk : scores between a P2H or a P2T edge and a H2T edge. For example, s a,gp ij,jk measures how likely a P2H edge (*i, j*) and a H2T edge (*j, k*) coexist. Since i → j → k forms a grandparent relationship, we mark the score with a gp suffix. The total second-order scores 2for each type are: $$s^{2o,h}(y)=\frac{1}{2}(\sum_{ijk}s_{ij,ik}^{h,sib}y_{ij}^{H}y_{ik}^{H}+\sum_{ijk}s_{ik,jk}^{h,cop}y_{ik}^{H}y_{jk}^{H})$$ $$s^{2o,t}(y)=\frac{1}{2}(\sum_{ijk}s_{ij,ik}^{t,sib}y_{ij}^{T}y_{ik}^{T}+\sum_{ijk}s_{ik,jk}^{t,cop}y_{ik}^{T}y_{jk}^{T})$$ $$s^{2o,a}(y)=\sum_{ijk}s_{ij,jk}^{a,gp}y_{ij}^{H}y_{jk}^{A}+\sum_{ijk}s_{ik,jk}^{a,cop}y_{ik}^{T}y_{jk}^{A}$$ We force higher-order scores to be symmetric, e.g., Finally, the score of y is the sum of the first-order score and all the higher-order scores: $$s(y)=s^{1o}(y)+s^{2o,h}(y)+s^{2o,t}(y)+s^{2o,a}(y)$$ 2.2.2 CRF and MFVI We define a conditional random field (CRF) over all possible y: $$p(y)={\frac{\exp(s(y))}{Z}}$$ where Z is the partition function. Since Z is intractable to compute, we resort to MFVI to generate lower bounds of Z and thus obtain approximations to the true marginals (Wainwright and Jordan, 2008b), and then define the loss in terms of the approximated marginals (posteriors) (Domke, 2011). MFVI uses simple and tractable posterior distribution family 3 {pθ0}θ0 to approximate the true posterior. There is a one-to-one correspondence between an instantiation pθ0 and a mean-vector (i.e., marginal) µ0 (Wainwright and Jordan, 2008b, Prop. 3.2), and we denote the set of all realizable mean-vectors as M, i.e., the marginal polytope. Wainwright and Jordan (2008b); Lê-Huu and Karteek (2021) show that MFVI update is equal to the following variational representation: $$y^{(m+1)}=\arg\operatorname*{max}_{y\in{\mathcal{M}}}\langle Q^{(m)},y\rangle-A_{{\mathcal{M}}}^{*}(y)\quad(1)$$ where m is the iteration number; Q(m):= ∇s(y (m)) is the gradient of s(y (m)) w.r.t. y (m); ⟨·⟩ is inner product; A⋆M is the conjugate dual function satisfying that: $$\underline{{{\phantom{\rule{0.05em}{0ex}}}}}\,A_{{\mathcal M}}^{\star}(y)=-H(p_{\theta}(\cdot))$$ 3We assume it is parameterized as a minimal exponential family. for some pθ0 coupled to y (Wainwright and Jordan, 2008b, Thm. 3.4) and H denotes the entropy thereof. Vanilla mean-field uses a fully-factorized posterior distribution (i.e., product of Bernoulli distribution) to approximate the true posterior distribution. Therefore, in this case M = [0, 1]n×3n, and $$A_{\mathcal{M}}^{\star}(y)=\sum_{i j}y_{i j}\log y_{i j}+(1-y_{i j})\log(1-y_{i j})$$ Then Eq. 1 is the variational representation of sigmoid function (Wainwright and Jordan, 2008b, Example 5.2) and thus the solution is attained at: 3.2) and thus the solution is attained at. $$y_{ij}^{(m+1)}=\frac{\exp\{Q_{ij}^{(m)}\}}{\exp\{Q_{ij}^{(m)}\}+1}\tag{2}$$ $$=\mbox{sigmoid}(Q_{ij}^{(m)})$$ at $Q^{(m)}=[Q^{H(m)};Q^{T(m)};Q^{A(m)}]=$ (2), we have: ∇s(y $$Q_{ij}^{H(m)}=s_{ij}^{H}+\sum_{k}(y_{jk}^{A(m)}s_{ij,jk}^{a,gp}+\tag{3}$$ $$y_{ik}^{H(m)}s_{ij,ik}^{h,sib}+y_{kj}^{H(m)}s_{ij,kj}^{h,cop})$$ $$Q_{ij}^{T(m)}=s_{ij}^{T}+\sum_{k}(y_{kj}^{A(m)}s_{ij,kj}^{a,cop}+$$ (4) $$y_{ik}^{T(m)}s_{ij,ik}^{t,sib}+y_{kj}^{T(m)}s_{ij,kj}^{t,cop})$$ $$Q_{ij}^{A(m)}=s_{ij}^{A}+\sum_{k}(y_{ki}^{H(m)}s_{ki,ij}^{a,gp}+$$ (5) $$y_{kj}^{T(m)}s_{ij,kj}^{a,cop})$$ We use $Q^{(0)}:=[s^{H};s^{T};s^{A}]$ for initialization. Then MFVI performs Eq. 2 (posterior update) and Eq. 3-5 (score aggregation) alternately in each iteration. Note that these steps are fully differentiable, so one can unroll several inference steps for endto-end learning (Domke, 2011). ## 2.3 Structured Modeling A key observation provided by Liu et al. (2022) is that semantic-argument spans are often constituents in a constituency tree. It is thus beneficial to model the underlying partially-observed constituency tree (Fu et al., 2021), in which the observed nodes correspond to gold semantic arguments. We follow Lou et al. (2022) to use a 0-1 labeling strategy, i.e., assigning label 1 to the observed parts and 0 to the unobserved parts of a partially-observed tree t, and use an order-3 *binary* tensor T ∈ R n×n×2to represent t where Tijk = 1 iff there is a span from xito xj with label k ∈ {0, 1} in t. Then we define the score as: $$s(T)=\sum_{i j k}T_{i j k}s_{i j k}$$ where s ∈ R n×n×2is all span scores. Denote the set of gold unlabeled semantic argument spans as y = {(i, j)*· · · }*, and the set of compatible tree indicators as T˜(y). We say T ∈ T˜(y) iff Tij1 = 1 for all (*i, j*) ∈ y, Tij0 = 1 for all rest spans (*i, j*) ∈ t; (*i, j*) ̸∈ y, and Tijk = 0 otherwise. Partially-observed TreeCRF (PO-TreeCRF) (Fu et al., 2021) aims to maximize the log-likelihood of all compatible trees: $$\begin{array}{c}{{s(\mathbf{y})=\log\sum_{T\in{\bar{T}}(\mathbf{y})}\exp(s(T))}}\\ {{\log p(\mathbf{y})=s(\mathbf{y})-\log Z}}\end{array}$$ (6) $\binom{7}{2}$ . where log Z is the log-partition function which can be computed via the inside algorithm. s(y) can be computed efficiently via the masked inside algorithm (Fu et al., 2021; Lou et al., 2022), where all incompatible span nodes crossing any span in y are masked (i.e., set to negative infinity in log-domain) before running the inside algorithm. See (Fu et al., 2021) for more details. ## 2.4 Joint Higher-Order And Structured Modeling We can simply combines (vanilla) MFVI with POTreeCFR to achieve joint higher-order and structured modeling as follows. After running k iterations of MFVI, we obtain a set of un-normalized scores Q(k)and approximated marginals y (k+1), on which our loss is based. It is worth mentioning that designing the loss by means of Q(k)in many cases is equivalent to designing the loss by means of y (k+1) (Blondel et al., 2020). , so we essentially design the loss in terms of approximated marginals produced by truncated MFVI (Domke, 2012). For H2T edges, we feed un-normalized score [QA(k); s B] as span score into a PO-TreeCRF to compute log-likelihood of all compatible trees (Eq. 7), then taking the negative to define the loss: $$L^{A}=-\log p(\mathbf{y}).$$ where y is the set of gold unlabeled argument spans. For P2H and P2T edges, we use the binary crossentropy loss: $$\begin{split} L^{H/T} &= -\sum_{ij}\left(\hat{y}_{ij}^{H/T}\log y_{ij}^{H/T(k+1)}\right.\\ &\left.+\ (1-\hat{y}_{ij}^{H/T})\log(1-y_{ij}^{H/T(k+1)})\right) \end{split}\tag{9}$$ where $\hat{y}_{ij}^{H/T}\in\{0,1\}$ indicates the existence of P2H/P2T edge $(i,j)$. P2H/P2T edge (*i, j*). ## 2.5 Structured Mfvi Vanilla MFVI uses a fully-factorized distribution to approximate the true posterior, ignoring the inherent tree structures in span-based SRL. To better leverage the inherent tree structures, we propose to adopt structured MFVI (Saul and Jordan, 1995; Wainwright and Jordan, 2008b; Burkett et al., 2010), using TreeCRFs (Zhang et al., 2020b) — instead of product of Bernoulli distribution as used in vanilla MFVI—to parameterize the posterior distribution regarding H2T edges. To deal with 0-1 labeled constituency trees, we let y A corresponding to label-1 spans, and use an auxiliary y B ∈ R n×nto represent label-0 spans with first-order scores s B ∈ R n×n. We denote z := [y B; y A] and use a TreeCRF to parameterize their posterior distribution. Then the posterior update of z is: $$z^{(m+1)}=\arg\max_{z\in{\cal T}}\langle F^{(m)},z\rangle-A_{\cal T}^{\star}(z)\tag{10}$$ where T is the *structured* marginal polytope of 01 labeled binary trees (Rush et al., 2010; Martins and Filipe, 2012), A⋆T (z) equals to the negative entropy of the TreeCRF distribution pθ0 for some θ0 coupled to z (Martins et al., 2010, Prop. 1); F (m) i,j = [Q B(m) ij ; Q A(m) ij ]. The solution of Eq. 10 is attained at the meanvector regarding the TreeCRF distribution (Wainwright and Jordan, 2008b; Paulus et al., 2020), i.e., span marginals, which can be computed efficiently by back-propagating through the inside algorithm (Eisner, 2016; Rush, 2020). Since there are no higher-order scores associated with y B, we have Q B(m) ij = s B ij and Eq. 3-5 remain intact. Besides, since we do not couple y B, yA with y H, yT, the posterior update of y H, yTremains the same. As such, the posterior update of y A is structureaware, well-respecting the constituency tree constraint. The tree-structured information is propagated from y A to y H, yTthrough Eq. 3-4 thanks to the higher-order factors s a,cop, s*a,gp* connecting them. ## 3 Model Architecture We depict our model architecture in Fig. 3. Encoding. Given the sentence x = {x0, x1*, ..., x*n}, we feed it into BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) and apply mean-pooling to the last four layers to obtain *word-level* representations h = {h0, h1*, ..., h*n}. If we use pre-identified predicates, we concatenate h with an indicator embedding additionally. First-order scores. We use deep biaffine attention (Dozat and Manning, 2017) to compute s H, s Tand s A: $$\begin{array}{c}{{\mathbf{r}_{i}^{p/h/t}=\mathrm{MLP}^{p/h/t}(\mathbf{h}_{i})}}\\ {{s_{i j}^{H/T/A}=\left[\begin{array}{c}{{\mathbf{r}_{i}^{p/p/h}}}\\ {{1}}\end{array}\right]^{\top}\mathbf{W}^{H/T/A}\left[\begin{array}{c}{{\mathbf{r}_{j}^{h/t/t}}}\\ {{1}}\end{array}\right]}}\end{array}$$ where r p/h/t are type-specific representations for predicates and head/tail words of argument spans, respectively; MLP*p/h/t* are multi-layer perceptrons which transform hito d-dimensional spaces; WH/T/A ∈ R (d+1)×(d+1) are trainable parameters. Higher-order scores. We use deep Triaffine attention (Wang et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2020a) to compute higher-order scores: rˆ p/h/t i = MLPˆ p/h/t(hi) s a,gp ij,jk/sa,cop ik,jk = TriAFFgp/cop1(rˆ p i , rˆ h j, rˆ t k) s h,sib ij,ik /sh,cop ik,jk = TriAFFsib1/cop2(rˆ p i , rˆ h/p j, rˆ h k) s t,sib ij,ik/st,cop ik,jk = TriAFFsib2/cop3(rˆ p i , rˆ t/p j, rˆ t k) where ### where $\begin{array}{l}\mathrm{TriAFF}(\mathbf{v}_1,\mathbf{v}_2,\mathbf{v}_3)=\left[\begin{array}{c}\mathbf{v}_3\\ 1\end{array}\right]^\top\mathbf{v}_1^\top\mathbf{W}'\left[\begin{array}{c}\mathbf{v}_2\\ 1\end{array}\right]\end{array}$ with $\mathbf{W}'\in\mathbb{R}^{(d+1)\times(d)\times(d+1)}$. Label Scores and Label Loss. Following Jia et al. (2022), we use Coherent (Seo et al., 2019) span representation to compute the label scores. Given an argument span aij = (wi*, ..., w*j ) obtained by first-stage, we encode the two endpoints wi, wj as gi, gj ∈ R r. We split each gk into four parts: gk = [g 1 k ; g 2 k ; g 3 k ; g 4 k ], where g 1 k , g 2 k ∈ 922  R a, g 3 k , g 4 k ∈ R band 2(a + b) = r. Then we can represent span as: $$a=[g_{i}^{1};g_{j}^{2};g_{i}^{3}\cdot g_{j}^{4}]$$ where dot product g 3 i· g 4 j is called coherence term. Then we use biaffine attention to compute label score s label ijkl : $$s_{i j k l}^{l a b e l}=\left[\begin{array}{c}{{r_{i}^{p}}}\\ {{1}}\end{array}\right]^{\top}W_{l}^{l a b e l}\left[\begin{array}{c}{{a_{j k}}}\\ {{1}}\end{array}\right]$$ We use cross-entropy to compute corresponding label loss, $$L_{l a b e l}=-\sum_{i j k}{\bf1}(\hat{y}_{i j k})\log\frac{\exp(s_{i j k l_{i j k}}^{l a b e l})}{\sum_{l}\exp(s_{i j k l}^{l a b e l})}\,\,\,\,(11)$$ where yˆijk ∈ {0, 1} indicates the existence of predicate-argument pairs. lijk is the gold label for pair of the predicate-argument pair (*i, jk*). Total Training Loss We optimize the weighted average of the above losses according to Eq 8 9 11. $$\begin{array}{l}{{L=\lambda_{1}L_{l a b e l}+(1-\lambda_{1})L_{e d g e}}}\\ {{L_{e d g e}=\lambda_{2}L^{A}+(1-\lambda_{2})(L^{H}+L^{T})}}\end{array}$$ ## 4 Experiments Settings. Following previous works, we conduct experiments on two benchmarks: CoNLL05 (Palmer et al., 2005) and CoNLL12 (Pradhan et al., 2012) English datasets, where CoNLL05 include two test datasets WSJ (in-domain) and BROWN (out-of-domain). We adopt official data splits and evaluate our model using the official evaluation script 4, reporting the micro-average F1 score averaged over three different runs with different random seeds. We conduct experiments under two settings, i.e., *with (w/) gold predicates* and *without (w/o)* gold predicate. Following most previous works, we use Bert-large-cased (Devlin et al., 2019) as the backbone. We refer readers to Appendix A for our implementation details. Main Results. Table 1 shows the main results on test sets of benchmarks. Our baseline model is 1O trained with local binary cross-entropy loss for all three types of edges without higher-order and structured modeling. Our proposed model clearly outperforms the baseline, obtaining state-of-the-art performances (when using Bert-large-cased) on five out of six evaluation metrics. where $\lambda_{1}$ and $\lambda_{2}$ are hyper-parameters. | CoNLL05-WSJ | CoNLL05-Brown | CoNLL12 | | | | | | | | |---------------------------------|-----------------|-----------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | P | R | F1 | P | R | F1 | P | R | F1 | | | w/o gold predicates | | | | | | | | | | | He et al. (2017) | 80.20 | 82.30 | 81.20 | 67.60 | 69.60 | 68.50 | 78.60 | 75.10 | 76.80 | | He et al. (2018) + ELMO | 84.80 | 87.20 | 86.0 | 73.90 | 78.40 | 76.10 | 81.90 | 84.00 | 82.90 | | Jia et al. (2022) + BERT | - | - | 86.70 | - | - | 78.58 | - | - | 84.22 | | Zhou et al. (2022) + BERT | 87.15 | 88.44 | 87.79 | 79.44 | 80.85 | 80.14 | 83.91 | 85.61 | 84.75 | | Zhang et al. (2022) + BERT | 87.00 | 88.76 | 87.87 | 79.08 | 81.50 | 80.27 | 84.53 | 86.41 | 85.45 | | 1O + BERT | 87.11 | 87.40 | 87.25 | 79.89 | 79.93 | 79.91 | 84.76 | 84.42 | 84.59 | | Ours + BERT | 88.05 | 88.61 | 88.33 | 81.13 | 81.58 | 81.36 | 84.95 | 85.85 | 85.40 | | w/ gold predicates | | | | | | | | | | | He et al. (2017) | 85.00 | 84.30 | 84.60 | 74.90 | 72.40 | 73.60 | 83.50 | 83.30 | 83.40 | | He et al. (2018) + ELMO | - | - | 87.40 | - | - | 80.40 | - | - | 85.50 | | Shi and Lin (2019) + BERT | 88.60 | 89.00 | 88.80 | 81.90 | 82.10 | 82.00 | 85.90 | 87.00 | 86.50 | | Conia and Navigli (2020) + BERT | - | - | - | - | - | - | 86.90 | 87.70 | 87.30 | | Blloshmi et al. (2021) + BART | - | - | - | - | - | - | 87.80 | 86.80 | 87.30 | | Liu et al. (2022) + SpanBERT | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 87.50 | | Jia et al. (2022) + BERT | - | - | 88.25 | - | - | 81.90 | - | - | 87.18 | | Zhou et al. (2022) + BERT | 89.03 | 88.53 | 88.78 | 83.22 | 81.81 | 82.51 | 87.26 | 87.05 | 87.15 | | Zhang et al. (2022) + BERT | 89.00 | 89.03 | 89.02 | 82.81 | 82.35 | 82.58 | 87.52 | 87.79 | 87.66 | | 1O + BERT | 89.09 | 87.57 | 88.32 | 83.30 | 79.49 | 81.35 | 87.45 | 86.75 | 87.10 | | Ours + BERT | 89.77 | 88.46 | 89.11 | 83.96 | 81.76 | 82.85 | 88.10 | 87.38 | 87.74 | Table 1: Comparison of our model and other models on test sets of CoNLL05-WSJ, CoNLL05-Brown, and CoNLL12. Table 2: Ablation studies on CoNLL05-WSJ dataset. VMF indicates vanilla mean-field and SMF indicates structured mean-filed. | Model | P | R | F1 | |-----------------------|-------|-------|-------| | Unstructured(1O) | 87.11 | 87.40 | 87.25 | | Unstructured(2O) | 87.21 | 88.34 | 87.77 | | 1O+TreeCRF | 87.79 | 87.57 | 87.68 | | 2OVMF+TreeCRF | 87.53 | 88.26 | 87.90 | | 2OSMF+TreeCRF (Final) | 88.05 | 88.61 | 88.33 | Ablation studies. To better understand the source of improvement, we conduct ablation studies on CoNLL05-WSJ test set. Table 2 shows the results. As we can see, compared with 1O, using higher-order inference alone leads to 0.52 F1 score improvement; using PO-TreeCRF structured loss alone leads to 0.43 F1 score improvement, proving the effectiveness of both higher-order and structured modeling. When combining vanilla meanfield-based higher-order inference and structured loss, we have 0.65 F1 score improvement compared to 1O, showing that it is beneficial to combine both higher-order and structured modeling. We then replace the vanilla mean-field with structured mean-field, resulting in further improvement of 0.43 F1 score, showing the effectiveness of structured MFVI.  F1 against argument span length. Fig. 4 shows the F1 scores with the change of argument span length. As we can see, our full model performs the best when the span length is large, especially when > 7. We hypothesis that this is due to that in structured mean-filed inference, the *global* tree structure information is propagated among variables. ## 5 Related Work In recent years, graph-based (or span-based) models become popular in span-based SRL thanks to their ability in encoding rich span features. Ouchi et al. (2018) exhaustively search predicateargument pairs. He et al. (2018) use a pruning strategy to reduce the search complexity. They then use a neural network to predicate the relationship between candidate predicates and candidate argument spans. Li et al. (2019) extend their work by using deep biaffine attention (Dozat and Manning, 2017) for scoring, and tackling both span-based and dependency-based SRL under a single unified framework. He et al. (2019) prune argument spans via syntactic rules for multilingual SRL. Zhang et al. (2021) point out that the way to extract spans has a huge impact on the final performance. Instead of taking top-k candidate spans (i.e., beam pruning) as in He et al. (2018), they use a two-stage strategy where the first stage finds all headwords, and the second stage predicates span boundaries based on predicted headwords. They use either gold heads from dependency-SRL annotations or automatically-learned heads by using the "bag loss" proposed in Lin et al. (2019). They show their two-stage strategy is better than beam pruning in different settings. Thanks to the advance in second-order semantic dependency parsing (Wang et al., 2019) where they unroll several mean-field inference steps for end-to-end training, researchers adopt this technique to improvement the performance of spanbased SRL. Direct second-order modeling leads to a O(n 5) search space, which is computationally prohibitive. Jia et al. (2022) thus use a beam pruning strategy to select O(n) candidate spans to decrease the complexity of second-order inference. Zhou et al. (2022) decompose predicate-argument pairs into dependency edges. By doing so, they cast span-based SRL to a dependency graph parsing technique, and thus can directly use the method of Wang et al. (2019) without much adaptation. Since there are total O(n 2) edges, there is no need for pruning as exhaustive search is relative cheap. Semantic arguments are often constituents. This is very similar to the case in nested named entity recognition (NER) where named entities are mainly extracted from constituency trees; and in coreference resolution where mentions are often constituents. This means that, one can embed these named entities or semantic arguments or mentions into constituency trees for structured modeling. Finkel and Manning (2009) use a constituency parser to jointly model constituents and named entities, however their approach needs tree annotations, which are difficult to obtain. To resolve this problem, Fu et al. (2021); Lou et al. (2022) view named entities as partially-observed constituency trees, and design masked inside algorithms for partial marginalization to train their TreeCRF models. Liu et al. (2022) propose structured span selectors for span-based SRL and coreference resolution, training weighted context-free grammars (or essentially, TreeCRFs) by partial marginalization akin to Fu et al. (2021); Lou et al. (2022). They leverage the CYK algorithm to produce O(n) structure-aware candidate spans, outperforming the beam pruning strategy. Structured mean-field variational inference is well-studied in the literature of graphical models (Wainwright and Jordan, 2008a), but we only find few applications in the NLP community, e.g. in Burkett et al. (2010). We believe structured meanfield variational inference can be used more frequently and in this work we demonstrate its usage in span-based SRL. ## 6 Conclusion In this work, we tackled span-based SRL using a graph-based approach, combining the advantage of higher-order and structured modeling. In addition, we leveraged structured MFVI to respect the constituency tree constraint of argument spans during inference. We showed the effectiveness of these components experimentally. ## Limitations The main concern regarding our model is the computational complexity. higher-order MFVI has a complexity of O(n 3), which admits fully parallel computation and thus is fast on GPUs. The complexity of structured inference of TreeCRF is also O(n 3). However, due to the dynamic programming computation restriction, only O(n 2) out of O(n 3) can be computed in parallel using parallel parsing techniques (Rush, 2020), slowing down the running speed. Besides, differentiating through the TreeCRF marginals needs many GPU memories (Kim et al., 2017), as automatic differentiation saves all intermediate dynamic programming items for back-propagation, which cause plenty of waste of GPU memories. In this work, since the memory problem is not too severe, we use automatic differentiation for simplicity. One solution is to manually implement the outside algorithm to mitigate the memory problem (Kim et al., 2017). ## Acknowledgments This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (61976139). ## References Rexhina Blloshmi, Simone Conia, Rocco Tripodi, and Roberto Navigli. 2021. Generating senses and roles: An end-to-end model for dependency- and spanbased semantic role labeling. In Proceedings of the Thirtieth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-21, pages 3786–3793. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization. Main Track. Mathieu Blondel, André F. T. Martins, and Vlad Niculae. 2020. Learning with fenchel-young losses. *J. Mach.* Learn. Res., 21:35:1–35:69. David Burkett, John Blitzer, and Dan Klein. 2010. Joint parsing and alignment with weakly synchronized grammars. In Human Language Technologies: The 2010 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 127–135, Los Angeles, California. Association for Computational Linguistics. Simone Conia and Roberto Navigli. 2020. Bridging the gap in multilingual semantic role labeling: a language-agnostic approach. In *Proceedings of the* 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 1396–1410, Barcelona, Spain (Online). International Committee on 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. Justin Domke. 2011. Parameter learning with truncated message-passing. *CVPR 2011*, pages 2937–2943. Justin Domke. 2012. Generic methods for optimizationbased modeling. In *Proceedings of the Fifteenth* International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, AISTATS 2012, La Palma, Canary Islands, Spain, April 21-23, 2012, volume 22 of *JMLR* Proceedings, pages 318–326. JMLR.org. Timothy Dozat and Christopher D. Manning. 2017. Deep biaffine attention for neural dependency parsing. In *5th International Conference on Learning* Representations, ICLR 2017, Toulon, France, April 24-26, 2017, Conference Track Proceedings. OpenReview.net. Jason Eisner. 2016. Inside-outside and forwardbackward algorithms are just backprop (tutorial paper). In Proceedings of the Workshop on Structured Prediction for NLP, pages 1–17, Austin, TX. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jenny Rose Finkel and Christopher D. Manning. 2009. Nested named entity recognition. In *Proceedings of* the 2009 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 141–150, Singapore. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yao Fu, Chuanqi Tan, Mosha Chen, Songfang Huang, and Fei Huang. 2021. Nested named entity recognition with partially-observed treecrfs. 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 12839–12847. AAAI Press. Luheng He, Kenton Lee, Omer Levy, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. Jointly predicting predicates and arguments in neural semantic role labeling. In *Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for* Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 364–369, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. Luheng He, Kenton Lee, Mike Lewis, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2017. Deep semantic role labeling: What works and what's next. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 473–483, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. Shexia He, Zuchao Li, and Hai Zhao. 2019. Syntaxaware multilingual semantic role labeling. 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 5350–5359, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Zixia Jia, Zhaohui Yan, Haoyi Wu, and Kewei Tu. 2022. Span-based semantic role labeling with argument pruning and second-order inference. In *Proceedings* of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI Press. Daniel Khashabi, Tushar Khot, Ashish Sabharwal, and Dan Roth. 2018. Question answering as global reasoning over semantic abstractions. 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 1905–1914. AAAI Press. Yoon Kim, Carl Denton, Luong Hoang, and Alexander M. Rush. 2017. Structured attention networks. In *5th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2017, Toulon, France, April 24-* 26, 2017, Conference Track Proceedings. OpenReview.net. Ð.Khuê Lê-Huu and Alahari Karteek. 2021. Regularized frank-wolfe for dense crfs: Generalizing mean field and beyond. In *NeurIPS*. 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. Hongyu Lin, Yaojie Lu, Xianpei Han, and Le Sun. 2019. Sequence-to-nuggets: Nested entity mention detection via anchor-region networks. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5182–5192, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tianyu Liu, Yuchen Jiang, Ryan Cotterell, and Mrinmaya Sachan. 2022. A structured span selector. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2629–2641, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2019. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In *International Conference on Learning Representations*. Chao Lou, Songlin Yang, and Kewei Tu. 2022. Nested named entity recognition as latent lexicalized constituency parsing. In *Proceedings of the 60th Annual* Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6183–6198, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Diego Marcheggiani, Jasmijn Bastings, and Ivan Titov. 2018. Exploiting semantics in neural machine translation with graph convolutional networks. 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 486–492, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. André Martins, Noah Smith, Eric Xing, Pedro Aguiar, and Mário Figueiredo. 2010. Turbo parsers: Dependency parsing by approximate variational inference. In Proceedings of the 2010 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 34– 44, Cambridge, MA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Torres Martins and André Filipe. 2012. The geometry of constrained structured prediction: Applications to inference and learning of natural language syntax. Hiroki Ouchi, Hiroyuki Shindo, and Yuji Matsumoto. 2018. A span selection model for semantic role labeling. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1630–1642, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Martha Palmer, Paul R. Kingsbury, and Daniel Gildea. 2005. The proposition bank: An annotated corpus of semantic roles. *Computational Linguistics*, 31:71– 106. Max B. Paulus, Dami Choi, Daniel Tarlow, Andreas Krause, and Chris J. Maddison. 2020. Gradient estimation with stochastic softmax tricks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 6-12, 2020, virtual. Sameer Pradhan, Alessandro Moschitti, Nianwen Xue, Olga Uryupina, and Yuchen Zhang. 2012. CoNLL2012 shared task: Modeling multilingual unrestricted coreference in OntoNotes. In *Joint Conference on* EMNLP and CoNLL - Shared Task, pages 1–40, Jeju Island, Korea. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alexander Rush. 2020. Torch-struct: Deep structured prediction library. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational* Linguistics: System Demonstrations, pages 335–342, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alexander M. Rush, David Sontag, Michael Collins, and Tommi Jaakkola. 2010. On dual decomposition and linear programming relaxations for natural language processing. In *Proceedings of the 2010 Conference* on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1–11, Cambridge, MA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Lawrence K. Saul and Michael I. Jordan. 1995. Exploiting tractable substructures in intractable networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 8, NIPS, Denver, CO, USA, November 27-30, 1995, pages 486–492. MIT Press. Minjoon Seo, Jinhyuk Lee, Tom Kwiatkowski, Ankur Parikh, Ali Farhadi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2019. Real-time open-domain question answering with dense-sparse phrase index. In *Proceedings of the* 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4430–4441, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Peng Shi and Jimmy Lin. 2019. Simple BERT models for relation extraction and semantic role labeling. CoRR, abs/1904.05255. Martin J. Wainwright and M.I. Jordan. 2008a. Graphical models, exponential families, and variational inference. *Found. Trends Mach. Learn.*, 1:1–305. Martin J. Wainwright and Michael I. Jordan. 2008b. Graphical models, exponential families, and variational inference. *Found. Trends Mach. Learn.*, 1(12):1–305. Xinyu Wang, Jingxian Huang, and Kewei Tu. 2019. Second-order semantic dependency parsing with endto-end neural networks. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4609–4618, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xinyu Wang and Kewei Tu. 2020. Second-order neural dependency parsing with message passing and end-to-end training. In *Proceedings of the 1st Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association* for Computational Linguistics and the 10th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pages 93–99, Suzhou, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yucheng Wang, Bowen Yu, Yueyang Zhang, Tingwen Liu, Hongsong Zhu, and Limin Sun. 2020. TPLinker: Single-stage joint extraction of entities and relations through token pair linking. In *Proceedings of the* 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 1572–1582, Barcelona, Spain (Online). International Committee on Computational Linguistics. Biao Zhang, Ivan Titov, and Rico Sennrich. 2020a. Fast interleaved bidirectional sequence generation. In *Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Machine Translation*, pages 503–515, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yu Zhang, Qingrong Xia, Shilin Zhou, Yong Jiang, Guohong Fu, and Min Zhang. 2022. Semantic role labeling as dependency parsing: Exploring latent tree structures inside arguments. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 4212–4227, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics. Yu Zhang, Houquan Zhou, and Zhenghua Li. 2020b. Fast and accurate neural CRF constituency parsing. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2020, pages 4046–4053. ijcai.org. Zhisong Zhang, Emma Strubell, and Eduard Hovy. 2021. Comparing span extraction methods for semantic role labeling. In *Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on* Structured Prediction for NLP (SPNLP 2021), pages 67–77, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Zhuosheng Zhang, Yuwei Wu, Hai Zhao, Zuchao Li, Shuailiang Zhang, Xi Zhou, and Xiang Zhou. 2020c. Semantics-aware BERT for language understanding. In The Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2020, The Thirty-Second Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2020, The Tenth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2020, New York, NY, USA, February 7-12, 2020, pages 9628–9635. AAAI Press. Shuai Zheng, Sadeep Jayasumana, Bernardino RomeraParedes, Vibhav Vineet, Zhizhong Su, Dalong Du, Chang Huang, and Philip H. S. Torr. 2015. Conditional random fields as recurrent neural networks. 2015 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 1529–1537. Jie Zhou and Wei Xu. 2015. End-to-end learning of semantic role labeling using recurrent 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 1127– 1137, Beijing, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Shilin Zhou, Qingrong Xia, Zhenghua Li, Yu Zhang, Yu Hong, and Min Zhang. 2022. Fast and accurate end-to-end span-based semantic role labeling as word-based graph parsing. In *Proceedings of the* 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 4160–4171, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics. ## A Implementation Details We use BERT5(bert-large-cased) as encoders to obtain word representations. We use deep biaffine attention (Dozat and Manning, 2017) with 500 dimensions and deep triaffine attention with 100 following previous work (Wang et al., 2019). We set iteration number of MFVI as 3. To prevent overfitting, we set dropout ratio 0.1 for encoders and 0.1 for every MLP layers. Regarding training, we set learning rate for encoder layers as 5e − 5 and the rest layers as 1e − 3. We train our model for 10 epochs with max words 1000 using AdamW (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2019) optimizer. We adopt linear warmup scheduler for 10% training steps. Following previous works (Zhou et al., 2022; Fu et al., 2021) ,we set the hyper-parameters λ1 and λ2 as 0.06 and 0.1. All experiments run on NVIDIA TITAN RTX and NVIDIA A40 gpus. ## B Recall And Precision Regarding To Argument Width The corresponding precision and recall of F1 score in Fig 4 with different argument span length are shown as Fig 5.   ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? After section 7. Limitation section. ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Limitation section. ✓ 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 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 and 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? section 4 and 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. ✓ 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. 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.

guo-etal-2023-aqe

{AQE}: Argument Quadruplet Extraction via a Quad-Tagging Augmented Generative Approach

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.59

Argument mining involves multiple sub-tasks that automatically identify argumentative elements, such as claim detection, evidence extraction, stance classification, etc. However, each subtask alone is insufficient for a thorough understanding of the argumentative structure and reasoning process. To learn a complete view of an argument essay and capture the interdependence among argumentative components, we need to know what opinions people hold (i.e., claims), why those opinions are valid (i.e., supporting evidence), which source the evidence comes from (i.e., evidence type), and how those claims react to the debating topic (i.e., stance). In this work, we for the first time propose a challenging argument quadruplet extraction task (AQE), which can provide an all-in-one extraction of four argumentative components, i.e., claims, evidence, evidence types, and stances. To support this task, we construct a large-scale and challenging dataset. However, there is no existing method that can solve the argument quadruplet extraction. To fill this gap, we propose a novel quad-tagging augmented generative approach, which leverages a quadruplet tagging module to augment the training of the generative framework. The experimental results on our dataset demonstrate the empirical superiority of our proposed approach over several strong baselines.

## Aqe: Argument Quadruplet Extraction Via A Quad-Tagging Augmented Generative Approach Jia Guo∗ †1,2 Liying Cheng∗1 Wenxuan Zhang1 Stanley Kok2 Xin Li1 **Lidong Bing**1 1DAMO Academy, Alibaba Group 2School of Computing, National University of Singapore guojia@u.nus.edu, skok@comp.nus.edu.sg {liying.cheng, saike.zwx, xinting.lx, l.bing}@alibaba-inc.com ## Abstract Argument mining involves multiple sub-tasks that automatically identify argumentative elements, such as claim detection, evidence extraction, stance classification, etc. However, each subtask alone is insufficient for a thorough understanding of the argumentative structure and reasoning process. To learn a complete view of an argument essay and capture the interdependence among argumentative components, we need to know *what* opinions people hold (i.e., claims), why those opinions are valid (i.e., supporting evidence), *which* source the evidence comes from (i.e., evidence type), and how those claims react to the debating topic (i.e., stance). In this work, we for the first time propose a challenging argument quadruplet extraction task (AQE), which can provide an allin-one extraction of four argumentative components, i.e., claims, evidence, evidence types, and stances. To support this task, we construct a large-scale and challenging dataset. However, there is no existing method that can solve the argument quadruplet extraction. To fill this gap, we propose a novel quad-tagging augmented generative approach, which leverages a quadruplet tagging module to augment the training of the generative framework. The experimental results on our dataset demonstrate the empirical superiority of our proposed approach over several strong baselines. 1 ## 1 Introduction The argument plays an important role in a wide range of human activities (Yuan et al., 2021), from casual discussions (Boltužic and Šnajder ´ , 2015; Abbott et al., 2016; Dusmanu et al., 2017) to legal negotiations (Mochales and Moens, 2011; Poudyal, 2017; Niculae et al., 2017; Teruel et al., 2018),  Figure 1: A simplified example of argument quadruplet extraction (AQE) task from our dataset. Given the topic and a document containing multiple sentences, Sent 1 is a claim supporting the given topic, Sent 2 is a piece of expert evidence supporting the extracted claim. where multiple parties formulate reasons and draw conclusions. Computational argumentation, as a growing research field, aims to automatically identify and extract the argument components presented in natural language and to predict the relationships among them (Cabrio and Villata, 2018). Given the intricate nature of the reasoning process in argumentation, identifying the various components involved and their inter-dependencies allows us to gain a deep and comprehensive understanding of the argumentative structure, thus providing valuable information for downstream applications (Lawrence and Reed, 2019). Existing argument mining (AM) works focus on AM subtasks with one or a subset of the argument components, such as: claim extraction (Aharoni et al., 2014; Levy et al., 2014), evidence extraction (Rinott et al., 2015; Singh et al., 2019), evidence classification (Liga, 2019; Afrin et al., 2020), stance detection (Hasan and Ng, 2014; Bar-Haim et al., 2017; Hardalov et al., 2022), claim-evidence pair extraction (Cheng et al., 2022), argument pair extraction (Cheng et al., 2020). However, each of the tasks above could only provide a partial view of the whole argumentative structure, and few of them have provided a detailed analysis of the complex interplay of various components. In this work, our goal is to get a thorough understanding of the overall argumentative structures. Hence, we propose a novel task named *Argument Quadruplet Extraction* (AQE). Specifically, provided with a controversial topic and document, our AQE task aims to answer: (1) *what* opinions the party holds towards the topic (i.e., claim), (2) why those opinions are tenable (i.e., evidence), (3) *which* source the evidence comes from (i.e., evidence type), and (4) how these opinions react to the debating topic (i.e., stance). A simplified example in Figure 1 illustrates the input and output of our AQE task. To facilitate the study of this AQE task, a comprehensive dataset with all argumentative components (i.e., claim, evidence, stance, and evidence type) and their relations (i.e., claim-evidence pairing relations) is needed. Although a previous dataset (Cheng et al., 2022) has included multiple argument elements, the evidence-type information has been largely ignored. Without knowing the attributes and source of supporting evidence, it is difficult to determine the persuasiveness and adequacy of a claim for decision-making. Moreover, claims supported by a variety of evidence types tend to be more convincing than those relying solely on one type of evidence (Rinott et al., 2015). Therefore, we carefully formulate five evidence types based on references from relevant works (Addawood and Bashir, 2016; Rinott et al., 2015): Expert, Research, Case, Explanation, Others. Our evidence types model the general way people recognize evidence and are widely applicable to various domains, such as online debates, policy reports, and academic writing. Both objective (i.e., Research and Case) and subjective (i.e., Expert and Explanation) categories of evidence are included. To ease the labeling labor, we additionally label the type information of each piece of evidence on top of the existing IAM dataset (Cheng et al., 2022). The resulting comprehensive dataset is able to support our AQE task which takes a step forward to fully understand the argumentative structures and is named as *Quadruplet Argument Mining* (QAM) dataset. Recently, the pre-trained generative models (e.g., Raffel et al., 2020) have shown effectiveness in information extraction (Zhang et al., 2022, 2021). However, most generative works operate at the word level and cannot learn the dependencies among sentences explicitly. To tackle the complex reasoning at the sentence level for the quadruplet extraction task, we for the first time propose a Quad-Tagging Augmented Generative approach (QuadTAG), which leverages a novel quad-tagging approach as the augmentation module to enhance the generative framework by explicitly capturing the cross-sentence interactions for various components. The experimental results on our dataset demonstrate the effectiveness of our model over several strong baselines. To summarize, our contributions include: - We propose a novel AQE task to extract a more comprehensive argument term consisting of multiple components and relations from unstructured text. - To support the investigation of the proposed task, we introduce a new dataset QAM by additionally annotating the evidence types to an existing dataset. - We propose an integrated generative framework augmented by a quad-tagging module for the AQE task, which can well capture the interrelations among multiple argument components. We demonstrate the empirical effectiveness on the proposed challenging QAM dataset. ## 2 Related Work 2.1 Argument Mining Tasks Argument Mining Subtasks As introduced earlier, there are four main elements for understanding the argument structures: *what* (i.e., claims), why (i.e., evidence), *which* (i.e., types) and how (i.e., stances). Existing works focused on either one element or a subset of the four elements. First, most earlier works only focused on *subtask extraction*. For instance, Levy et al. (2014) proposed a task of context-dependent claim detection (CDCD). In order to find the arguments supporting the extracted claims, Rinott et al. (2015) introduced the task of context-dependent evidence detection (CDED). Addawood and Bashir (2016) worked on evidence classification subtask. Hasan and Ng (2014) explored the task of stance classification. Second, Cheng et al. (2022) proposed a claim-evidence *pair* extraction (CEPE) task. Third, in terms of AM triplet extraction task, researchers (Persing and Ng, 2016; Eger et al., 2017; Ye and Teufel, 2021) aimed to extract claims, premises and their relations (i.e., stances) simultaneously. In this work, we take a step further by proposing the argument quadruplet extraction task, by incorporating the evidence type information. Argumentation Analysis Argumentation analysis is critical to understand argumentative structures. Stab and Gurevych (2014) classified argumentative sentences into four classes: major claim, claim, premise, none. Park and Cardie (2014) proposed the task of classifying the propositions into 3 categories: unverifiable, verifiable nonexperimental, and verifiable experimental. In this work, we focus on evidence classification, which has been shown in previous works that a claim can be supported using different types of evidence in different use cases (Rieke and Sillars, 1984; Seech, 1993; Rieke et al., 2005). In social media domain, Addawood and Bashir (2016) classified the evidence into six types, including: news, expert, blog, picture, other, and no evidence. For a similar data domain to our work (i.e., Wikipedia), Rinott et al. (2015) classified evidence into three categories: study, expert and anecdotal. Inspired by the above, we further define 5 types of evidence by considering the context of claims, which includes: case, expert, research, explanation, and others. ## 2.2 Argument Mining Models There are mainly two general types of end-to-end models for multiple AM subtasks, one is discriminative models and the other is generative models. In terms of the discriminative models, Chernodub et al. (2019) built a BiLSTM-CNN-CRF neural sequence tagging model to identify argumentative units and to classify them as claims or premises. Cheng et al. (2021) adopted a multitask model with table-filling approach (Miwa and Sasaki, 2014) for claim-evidence pair extraction task. In terms of generative Models, Potash et al. (2017) applied pointer network sequence-tosequence attention modeling for a joint argument relation extraction task and argument classification task. Bao et al. (2022) employed a pre-trained BART (Lewis et al., 2020) sequence-to-sequence language model with a constrained pointer mechanism (CPM) for an AM triplet extraction task. In this work, we aim to design a novel model with good generalization ability that is able to capture the sentence-level pairing relation explicitly by combining both discriminative and generative models. ## 3 Qam Dataset To facilitate the study of the proposed argument quadruplet extraction (AQE) task, we create a fully annotated dataset based on the IAM dataset (Cheng et al., 2022). We first describe the background of the original IAM dataset, followed by our data processing and human annotation details. ## 3.1 The Original Iam Datset And Data Processing As described in Cheng et al. (2022), the IAM dataset is collected from English Wikipedia, which covers 123 debating topics. This dataset is designed to support three tasks in argument mining, including claim extraction, evidence extraction, and stance classification. Thus, it is fully labeled on the three argument components (i.e., claim, evidence, stance) and their internal relations. In total, there are 69,666 sentences from 1,010 articles. 4,890 claims with stances towards the given topics and 9,384 pieces of evidence together with the pairing relations of the extracted claims are labeled. We remove some invalid sentences (e.g., only symbols or numbers) from the dataset, and eliminate those documents without any claim-evidence pair. After the pre-processing, there are 34,369 sentences from 801 articles, with 3,407 claims and 8,319 pieces of evidence. ## 3.2 Data Annotation With the filtered dataset, we aim to further identify the specific relations between the extracted claim and evidence sentences. This enables the extended dataset to support our AQE task and highlights the critical role of evidence types in the overall argumentative structure. The evidence type reflects how sufficiently the claims are supported. Without the evidence types, it is difficult to determine which claim is more compelling for decision-making. For example, arguments supported by evidence from research findings are more likely to be adopted in policy decisions than those that rely on subjective reasoning to support their opinions. In the debating domain, a comprehensive speech typically incorporates various types of evidence, such as citing authoritative opinions from well-known figures or specific real-life cases. This approach enhances persuasiveness compared to relying solely on one type of evidence. Therefore, it is a non-trivial task to understand the type information of each piece of evidence in the corpus. | Type | # Evidence | % Evidence | Classification F1 | |-------------|--------------|--------------|---------------------| | Case | 1,073 | 12.8% | 74.26 | | Expert | 1,538 | 18.3% | 70.18 | | Research | 1,298 | 15.4% | 77.71 | | Explanation | 4,234 | 50.4% | 89.78 | | Others | 264 | 3.1% | 27.91 | We define 5 different evidence types based on previous work (Rinott et al., 2015) as follows: - Case: specific real-life cases, events, examples, etc. - Expert: authoritative opinions of a professional, authority figure, scholar, official organization, etc. - Research: results or conclusions from scientific research, statistical report, survey, etc. - Explanation: detailed elaboration or explanation of the claim itself, reasons or impacts of the claim. - Others: none of the above. To conduct the data annotation work, 4 professional data annotators are hired from a data company to annotate the type of each piece of evidence by following the annotation guidelines2. The annotators are fully compensated for their work. Each evidence sentence is independently labeled by 2 different annotators, and a third professional annotator will resolve the disagreement between the two annotators. There are 8,392 evidence sentences annotated in total and the inter annotator agreement (IAA) is measured using Cohen's Kappa with a value of 0.864. ## 3.3 Data Analysis To examine the characteristics of our defined categories for evidence types, we conduct an exploratory analysis and train a simple RoBERTabased sentence classifier for the claim and evidence sentences. The overall classification F1 score is 81.79. The distribution and classification performance in F1 scores of each evidence type are shown in Table 1. The classification performance on evidence sentences with Explanation types achieves a higher F1 score due to sufficient data available for this type. When comparing types of Case, Expert and Research, the objective types Case and Research outperform the subjective type  Expert, despite having a relatively lower portion of quantities. To further analyze the properties of each evidence type, we use t-SNE algorithm (van der Maaten and Hinton, 2008) to visualize the evidence sentences in two-dimensional space. Specifically, we randomly select four topics that have a relatively higher amount of evidence sentences: "*Should we support family education?*", "*Should* alcohol be forbidden?", "*Should intellectual property rights be abolished?*" and "*Should we fight* for the Olympics?". It can be observed from Figure 2 that the distributions of evidence types vary significantly across different topics. Furthermore, evidence sentences of types Case and Research demonstrate distinct characteristics and exhibit clear clustering within the same topic. Conversely, evidence sentences of types Explanation and Expert show some overlap and are comparatively more challenging to differentiate. This confirms that the evidence types pose distinct challenges, thereby indicating the highly demanding nature of performing our proposed AQE task. ## 4 Task Formulation More formally, given a document D = [s 1, s2*, . . . , s*n] with n sentences and its topic sentence s 0, our task aims to extract the set of argumentative quadruplets Q = {qk|qk = (s c k , sek , ak, tk)} |Q| k=1 from the document D, where s c k , sek ∈ D (c, e ∈ {1*, . . . , n*}) respectively denote the claim sentence and evidence sentence. ak ∈ A represents the stance of the current claim sentence s c k to the topic sentence s 0, A = {Support, Against} is the set for stance labels. tk ∈ T denotes the evidence type for the quadruplet qk. T = {Expert, Research, Case, Explanation, Others} is the set of all evidence categories. 935 ## 5 Model Distinct from existing subtasks of argument mining, our argument quadruple extraction (AQE) task brings unique challenges to current methods. It requires not only good compatibility to accommodate each argument component well but also building up the shared modeling capacities that are conducive to each subtask. The emergence of pretrained generative model presents us with a good choice as a backbone framework to unify multiple targets into a general text-to-text learning paradigm. However, simply linearizing the argument quadruplets into a natural language sentence still can not fully exploit the underlying semantic dependencies among related components. To facilitate the task of argument quadruplet extraction, we propose an integrated framework augmented by a novel quadtagging approach. ## 5.1 Generative Encoder Reformulated Input Given a document D = [s 1, s2*, . . . , s*n] with n sentences and its topic sentence s 0, sentence s i = [w i1 , wi2 , . . . , wim] contains m words. The output of AQE task requires identifying a sentence pair with the associated stance label and evidence type. However, when adapting to the text generation framework, it is inefficient to generate the original sentence of the input document during decoding especially when multiple quadruplets share the same claim or evidence sentence. To identify the sentence of interest in an efficient way and reduce the searching space of outputs, we assign each sentence with a unique symbolic ID denoted as "\#i", (i ∈ [1, n]), and insert it at the beginning of each sentence. With this symbol, we can easily recognize each sentence by its unique ID. For our proposed quad-tagging approach, we need to obtain the hidden representation of each sentence. Inspired by the recent success of the special marker technique in information extraction (Zhou et al., 2021), we insert two special tokens, i.e., <SS> and <SE>, at the start position and end position of the original sentence respectively, along with the symbolic ID. The contextual embedding of token <SS> computed by the pre-trained encoder model will be used as the sentence representation. Sentence Encoding The reformulated input text for our proposed generative framework is defined as I(s i) = [<SS>, \#*i, w*i1 , wi2 , . . . , wim, <SE>]. We concatenate the reconstructed topic sentence and all sentences in the document as long text and feed it into the T5 encoder model. The hidden representations of each input token are calculated as follows: $\mathbf{H}_{enc}=\mathbf{T5}$ Encoder($[\mathcal{I}(s^{0}),...,\mathcal{I}(s^{n})]$), (1) where Henc ∈ R L×d denotes the hidden representations of encoder states with length L after encoding. Specifically, we use h is to represent the contextual token embedding of <SS> for i-th sentence, which will be used as i-th sentence embedding in our proposed framework. ## 5.2 Structural Generation For Argument Quadruplet Extraction The straightforward way of transforming a learning task to text generation is to reformulate the expected outputs in the form of natural language sentences. However, our AQE task faces new challenges when directly adapting to text-to-text generation. As our AQE task requires identifying sentences of claim and evidence from the input document, directly generating the original text of the target sentences is space-consuming since the text can be easily retrieved from the given input document. Besides, a claim sentence is usually supported by multiple evidence sentences, repetitively generating the same claim sentence for different quadruplets will inevitably cause redundant output and a waste of computation memory. To conduct the structural generation for our AQE task in a coherent and concise way, we first define three generative templates, i.e., Ts, Tst, Tet, for the generation outputs of target sentences (s c, se), stance a and evidence type t in a quadruplet, respectively. Concretely, Ts(s i) = "\#i" represents the original sentence using its symbolic sentence ID. Tst(a) transforms the stance label a ∈ {Support, Against} to two natural language phrases, i.e., Tst(Support) = "*supports* the topic" and Tst(Against) = "*is against the* topic" 3. We keep the original text of evidence type in the generation output, Tet(t) = t, (t ∈ T = {Expert, Research, Case, Explanation, Others}). For a quadruplet qk = (s c k , sek , ak, tk), we denote the expected form of its generated output as below: T (qk) = "Ts(s c k ) Tst(ak) : Ts(s e k ) Tet(tk)". (2)  For claims supported by multiple evidence sentences, we use the symbol "|" to concatenate different evidence and evidence types, i.e., the part of "Ts(s e k ) Tet(tk)". For a document with multiple claim sentences, we use a special token [SEP] to separate them. We provide a concrete example in the upper-left part of Figure 3. ## 5.3 The Quad-Tagging Augmented Module To facilitate the information sharing and modeling capacities for different subtasks, we propose a novel quadruplet tagging approach built in the generative backbone to explicitly enhance the interactions among sentences. For a document with n sentences, we construct a table with the size of n × (n + 1). Each entry has a tagging label yij (i ∈ [1, n], j ∈ [1, n + 1]). As shown in Figure 3, the entries in the leftmost column of the table handle the stance detection task, i.e., yi0 *∈ {⊥} ∪* A and ⊥ is a null label. The entries in the rest table of n × n will perform the joint tagging for the (claim, evidence, evidence type) task, i.e., yij *∈ {⊥} ∪* T, (j ̸= 0). For instance, the sentence s 3in Figure 3 is a claim sentence and supports the topic. It is supported by two evidence sentences, i.e., s 1and s 2, both of which belong to the Research type. For a non-claim sentence, such as s 2in the second row, all entries in the row will be tagged with a null label "⊥". To obtain the tagging label yij , we adopt a biaffine transformation layer to compute the plausibility score, which has been proven effective in related tasks (Dozat and Manning, 2017). The probability of tagging label is computed as follows: $$\begin{array}{l}\mathbf{x}_{i},\mathbf{x}_{j}=\text{Linear}_{c}(\mathbf{h}_{s}^{i}),\text{Linear}_{e}(\mathbf{h}_{s}^{j}),\\ P(y_{ij})=\text{Softmax}(\mathbf{x}_{i}^{T}\mathbf{U}\mathbf{x}_{j}+\mathbf{W}_{i}\mathbf{x}_{i}+\mathbf{x}_{j}^{T}\mathbf{W}_{j}),\end{array}\tag{3}$$ where h is and h js represent the hidden representations of i-th and j-th sentence obtained from Equation 1, respectively. Lineare and Linearc are linear transformation layers for claim and evidence, respectively. xi, xj ∈ R m×1are the linearly transformed representations of the encoder outputs of claim and evidence. U ∈ R m×r×m, Wi ∈ R r×m, Wj ∈ R m×rare tunable weight parameters, r is the number of all possible tags in the table and r = |A| + |T| + 1. To optimize the training process, we balance the label distribution of entries with null labels by negative sampling. Specifically, N denotes a subset of entries randomly sampled from all entries with null labels, and P represents all entries with non-null labels. We conduct extensive experiments to determine the optimal ratio of negative samples, i.e., η = |N |/|P|, please see Appendix B for more analysis. We adopt the cross-entropy loss function to train the quad-tagging augmented module: $$\begin{array}{c c c}{{}}&{{}}&{{}}\\ {{}}&{{}}&{{}}\\ {{\mathcal{L}_{a}=-}}&{{\sum_{(i,j)\in\{N\cup\mathcal{P}\}}\sum_{k=1}^{r}y_{i j}^{k}\mathrm{log}P_{\phi}(\hat{y}_{i j}^{k}).}}\\ {{}}&{{}}&{{}}\end{array}$$ **Training** $${\mathrm{(4)}}$$ ij ). (4) 5.4 Training We finetune the pre-trained T5 model (Raffel et al., 2020) on our QAM dataset with the autoregressive loss function shown below: $$\mathcal{L}_{g}=-\sum_{t=1}^{T}\log P_{\theta}(y_{t}\mid\mathbf{H}_{enc},y_{<t}),\tag{5}$$ where $y_{t}$ represents the decoder output at the $t$-th $$({\mathfrak{H}})$$ step, and y<t represents the previous outputs before the t-th step. The final loss function for training our proposed model is defined as follows: $${\mathcal{L}}={\mathcal{L}}_{g}+{\mathcal{L}}_{a}.$$ L = Lg + La. (6) For inference, we parse the predicted quadruplets Q′from the generated text sequence y′ by matching them with the corresponding component slots defined in the template. ## 6 Experiments 6.1 Experimental Settings The dataset is split randomly on the document level by a ratio of 8:1:1 for training, development and testing. The dataset statistics are shown in Table 2. We experiment with the pre-trained RoBERTabase model (Liu et al., 2019) and T5-base model (Raffel et al., 2020) for our pipeline approaches and generative methods, respectively. The max length for the output text is 512. We finetune the T5-base model on our dataset for 10 epochs with a learning rate of 1e-4 and batch size of 1. We search over {1, 3, 5, 10} for the number of negative examples used for the tagging loss and {1e-5, 3e-5, 1e-4, 3e-4} for the learning rate. The experimental results shown in Table 3 are average scores and standard deviations over three runs with different random seeds. We adopt precision, recall, and F1 metrics for evaluation on the development and test set. For a predicted argument quadruplet qk ′ = (s c k ′, sek ′, ak ′, tk ′) to be considered correct, it has to match the ground-truth quadruplet qk = (s c k , sek , ak, tk) in terms of each element and their internal relations. We run all experiments on a NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 GPU with 48GB GPU memory. ## 6.2 Baselines Since there is no existing model for the argumentative quadruplet extraction task, we introduce three competitive baselines based on recent strong pretrained language models: the pipeline approach, the pre-trained generative model, and the tagging approach. (1) The **Pipeline Approach** tackles the integrated quadruplet extraction task by decomposing it into four subtasks handled by individual pretrained language models. The pipeline approach facilitates the information flow between tasks by utilizing the output obtained from the preceding task as the input for the subsequent task. The decomposed subtasks for the pipeline approach are claim extraction (C), stance classification (S), evidence extraction (E), and evidence type classification (T). We introduce three variants of the pipeline approach with different orders of subtasks: C-E-T-S, C-E-S-T, and C-S-E-T. The orders are determined by the basic assumption and interdependencies among the components. Specifically, the claim forms the premise for constructing an argumentative quadruple, and the remaining three components all rely on the shared claim sentence. | Statistics | Train | Dev | Test | |----------------------|---------|-------|--------| | # topics | 96 | 52 | 53 | | # documents | 639 | 80 | 82 | | # paragraphs | 2,569 | 326 | 342 | | # claims | 2,674 | 358 | 375 | | # pieces of evidence | 6,563 | 808 | 948 | | # quadruplets | 7,502 | 938 | 1,098 | Moreover, the evidence type relies on both the claim and evidence sentence. For the processing details of the pipeline approach, please refer to Appendix C. (2) The **Generative Baseline** serves as a base generative model implemented on the T5-base pre-trained model (Raffel et al., 2020). It shares the same hyperparameter and template settings as our QuadTAG method. (3) The **Tagging** Baseline is the newly introduced tagging approach for our AQE task described in Section 5.3. This approach explicitly enhances the cross-sentence interactions among various components and serves as a strong discriminative baseline model. The Tagging Baseline method is trained with the encoder of the pre-trained T5-base model as the encoding backbone. ## 6.3 Main Results Table 3 shows the overall performance of our proposed QuadTAG model on the AQE task compared to the aforementioned strong baselines. As shown in Table 3, our QuadTAG model outperforms all baselines by a large margin on the F1 score for both the development and test dataset. The pipeline approaches address four subtasks sequentially by separate models. We observe that both the pipeline approach (C-E-S-T) and the pipeline approach (CS-E-T) perform worse than the pipeline approach (C-E-T-S). This is because these two approaches additionally consider the dependencies between stance and evidence type, which renders them more susceptible to the issue of error propagation. Compared to the pipeline approaches, the end-to-end models (e.g., the generative baseline and our QuadTAG model) perform much better on three metrics. This shows that the modeling abilities developed for each subtask can be effectively transferred and leveraged for other tasks, which also implies the necessity and rationale behind the proposed AQE task in terms of empirical benefits. The tagging baseline described in Section 5.3 addresses the AQE task by treating it as a classification task. How- | Model | Dev | Test | | | | | |-------------------------------|------------|------------|------------|------------|------------|------------| | Precision | Recall | F1 | Precision | Recall | F1 | | | Pipeline Approach (C-E-T-S) | 12.02±0.95 | 16.13±6.95 | 13.33±2.42 | 14.02±1.40 | 15.77±5.34 | 14.40±1.29 | | Pipeline Approach (C-E-S-T) | 11.61±0.49 | 11.73±1.67 | 11.63±0.98 | 13.47±1.35 | 11.57±1.27 | 12.44±1.23 | | Pipeline Approach (C-S-E-T) | 9.51±1.51 | 16.11±6.67 | 11.40±0.40 | 10.74±1.58 | 16.05±6.86 | 12.50±2.27 | | Generative Baseline (T5-base) | 17.14±2.68 | 16.60±2.58 | 16.87±2.63 | 21.16±3.55 | 18.16±2.49 | 19.54±2.94 | | Tagging Baseline (T5-base) | 13.98±0.89 | 18.87±1.04 | 16.06±0.88 | 16.30±3.11 | 18.09±2.69 | 17.14±2.92 | | QuadTAG (Ours) | 20.55±1.62 | 18.82±1.66 | 19.64±1.65 | 24.47±3.01 | 19.01±1.53 | 21.39±2.11 |  ever, it still falls short of both the generative baseline and our QuadTAG model, which demonstrates the generalizability of generative models for such an integrated task with multiple diverse targets involved. Our QuadTAG model exhibites substantial improvements of 16.4% and 9.5% in terms of the F1 score on the development and test datasets respectively when compared to the generative baseline. The experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed augmented module, indicating that the generative model can be further enhanced by explicitly capturing the cross-sentence interactions and the semantic inter-dependencies among distinct components. Both the tagging and generative baseline in Table 3 serve as two ablations of our QuadTAG model. ## 6.4 **Evaluation On Tuple And Triple Extraction** To further explore the differences in model capabilities, we present a performance comparison in Figure 4 focusing on the extraction of a subset of argument components. Specifically, we evaluate the performance of our model and baselines in terms of extracting the (claim, evidence) tuple and the (claim, evidence, evidence type) triple. All models are trained on the argument quadruplet dataset and evaluated on the corresponding task. We observe that both generative models (e.g., our QuadTAG model and the generative baseline) outperform the discriminative models (e.g., the pipeline approach and the tagging baseline) for the tuple extraction and triple extraction, which further confirm the superiority of the generative framework on the complex sentence-level extraction tasks. Moreover, we observe that the tagging baseline performs comparably to the generative baseline in both tasks. This finding suggests that our proposed tagging module effectively captures the cross-sentence interactions between the claim and evidence sentences, thereby enhancing the prediction of evidence types. By harnessing the strengths of both the generative model and tagging module, our model achieves superior performance and surpasses all other models. ## 6.5 Performance Breakdown On Subtasks We provide the performance breakdown of our model in Table 4. We evaluate our QuadTAG model on multiple subtasks at different granularities, ranging from component extraction to triple extraction. The claim component forms the basis of a quadruplet. Given that the remaining three components rely on the claim and cannot be considered alone, comparing the model performance on different joint extractions can offer valuable insights into the error distribution within the challenging AQE task. We observe that in comparison to the claim extraction, introducing the joint extraction with evidence and stance resulted in a relative decline of 37.8% (33.08 vs. 53.20) and 26.5% (39.12 vs. 53.20), respectively. Incorporating the extraction of evidence type, the model performance for triple extraction of (claim, evidence, evidence type) decreases by 14.9% (28.16 vs. 33.08) compared to the tuple extraction of (claim, evidence). Furthermore, the overall performance of quadruplet extraction (i.e., 21.39 on F1) is even lower than that of any of the aforementioned subtasks. The above performance degradation illustrates the challenges posed by each component and also highlights the difficulty in accurately capturing the complete quadru- | Task | Test | | | |----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------|-------| | Precision | Recall | F1 | | | (Claim) | 58.94 | 48.48 | 53.20 | | (Claim, Evidence) | 37.79 | 29.42 | 33.08 | | (Claim, Stance) | 43.36 | 35.64 | 39.12 | | (Claim, Evidence, Evidence Type) - Trained on full quadruplets | 32.16 | 25.05 | 28.16 | | - Trained on quadruplets with dummy stance | 31.59 | 24.57 | 27.63 | | (Claim, Evidence, Stance) - Trained on full quadruplets | 28.02 | 21.74 | 24.48 | | - Trained on quadruplets with dummy type | 26.37 | 19.94 | 22.71 | plet structure. To examine the benefit gained from integrating multiple argumentative components, we manually assign a dummy value to the argument component (e.g., we set all evidence types in the QAM dataset as Others), and compare the model performance with the original QuadTAG model trained on the full quadruplet dataset. From Table 4, we found that both models trained with dummy values are much worse than the original model. This further emphasizes the tight interdependence of the four components. Our quadruplet extraction can benefit subtasks by introducing other associated components and facilitating the propagation of information among them. ## 6.6 Generative Template Design To investigate the effects of different template designs, we evaluate the performance of our model using various templates. As shown in Table 5, the prompt-based template provides some prompting words for each component, such as "*Claim Index*" and "*Stance*". However, it achieves poorer results than other templates, which may be due to the verbose output of the prompts, causing confusion with the original target. The order-differentiated template aims to sequentially generate four components for a quadruplet. We can observe that the empirical performance varies with different generating orders. Additionally, we offer a template with alternative textual paraphrases for the stance label, which shows the comparatively lower performance than ours. We will leave the investigation into the effects of template design for future research. ## 7 Conclusions In this work, we propose a novel argument quadruplet extraction (AQE) task. To facilitate this task, we annotate a large-scale quadruplet argument mining dataset (QAM) and propose a novel quad- | Template | Test | | | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------|-------| | Precision | Recall | F1 | | | Prompt-based template Template: Claim Index: #[c], Stance: [a], Evidence Index: #[e], Evidence Type: [t] Example: Claim Index: #3, Stance: positive, Evidence Index: #1, Evidence Type: Research [SEP] Claim Index: #3, Stance : positive, Evidence Index: #2, Evidence Type: Research | 13.34 | 11.30 | 12.24 | | Order-differentiated template Template: #[c], #[e], [t], [a] Example: #3, #1, Research, supports the topic [SEP] #3, #2, Research, supports the topic | 16.11 | 14.29 | 15.15 | | Template: #[e], #[c], [a], [t] Example: #1, #3, supports the topic, Research [SEP] #2, #3, supports the topic, Research | 17.65 | 15.35 | 16.42 | | Template with other paraphrase Template: #[c] [a] : #[e] [t] Example: #3 positive : #1 Research | #2 Research | 20.45 | 16.79 | 18.44 | tagging augmented generative model (QuadTAG). Extensive experimental results and analysis validate the effectiveness of our proposed model. ## Acknowledgements This work is supported by Alibaba Group through Alibaba Research Intern Program. ## Limitations For this work, we have several limitations: first, as described in Section 6.6, we found that the choice of different templates and the order of generating content will both lead to performance variation. It is worthwhile to conduct a detailed investigation on this interesting problem, however, due to the limit of pages, we only experimented with limited alternative templates. Second, our proposed AQE task shares some similarities with some tasks in other domains, which means that it is possible to adapt our proposed framework to other tasks, such as relation extraction and sentiment analysis. We will leave this for future research and demonstrate its effectiveness in other domains. Last, subject to both the economic and time cost of dataset annotation, we only expand one existing dataset for our proposed AQE task. We will explore more possibilities for dataset construction for future work. ## References Rob Abbott, Brian Ecker, Pranav Anand, and Marilyn Walker. 2016. Internet argument corpus 2.0: An sql schema for dialogic social media and the corpora to go with it. In *Proceedings of LREC*. Aseel Addawood and Masooda Bashir. 2016. "what is your evidence?" a study of controversial topics on social media. In Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Argument Mining, ArgMining@ACL. Tazin Afrin, Elaine Lin Wang, Diane Litman, Lindsay Clare Matsumura, and Richard Correnti. 2020. Annotation and classification of evidence and reasoning revisions in argumentative writing. In *Proceedings of the Fifteenth Workshop on Innovative* Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications, BEA@ACL. Ehud Aharoni, Anatoly Polnarov, Tamar Lavee, Daniel Hershcovich, Ran Levy, Ruty Rinott, Dan Gutfreund, and Noam Slonim. 2014. A benchmark dataset for automatic detection of claims and evidence in the context of controversial topics. In *Proceedings of* the First Workshop on Argument Mining, ArgMining@ACL. Jianzhu Bao, Yuhang He, Yang Sun, Bin Liang, Jiachen Du, Bing Qin, Min Yang, and Ruifeng Xu. 2022. A generative model for end-to-end argument mining with reconstructed positional encoding and constrained pointer mechanism. In Proceedings of EMNLP. Roy Bar-Haim, Indrajit Bhattacharya, Francesco Dinuzzo, Amrita Saha, and Noam Slonim. 2017. Stance classification of context-dependent claims. In *Proceedings of EACL*. Filip Boltužic and Jan Šnajder. 2015. ´ Identifying prominent arguments in online debates using semantic textual similarity. In *Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Argumentation Mining, ArgMining@HLTNAACL*. Elena Cabrio and Serena Villata. 2018. Five years of argument mining: a data-driven analysis. In *Proceedings of IJCAI*. Liying Cheng, Lidong Bing, Ruidan He, Qian Yu, Yan Zhang, and Luo Si. 2022. Iam: A comprehensive and large-scale dataset for integrated argument mining tasks. In *Proceedings of ACL*. Liying Cheng, Lidong Bing, Qian Yu, Wei Lu, and Luo Si. 2020. Ape: Argument pair extraction from peer review and rebuttal via multi-task learning. In Proceedings of EMNLP. Liying Cheng, Tianyu Wu, Lidong Bing, and Luo Si. 2021. Argument pair extraction via attention-guided multi-layer multi-cross encoding. In *Proceedings of* ACL. Artem Chernodub, Oleksiy Oliynyk, Philipp Heidenreich, Alexander Bondarenko, Matthias Hagen, Chris Biemann, and Alexander Panchenko. 2019. Targer: Neural argument mining at your fingertips. In *Proceedings of ACL*. Timothy Dozat and Christopher D. Manning. 2017. Deep biaffine attention for neural dependency parsing. In *Proceedings of ICLR*. Mihai Dusmanu, Elena Cabrio, and Serena Villata. 2017. Argument mining on twitter: Arguments, facts and sources. In *Proceedings of EMNLP*. Steffen Eger, Johannes Daxenberger, and Iryna Gurevych. 2017. Neural end-to-end learning for computational argumentation mining. In Proceedings of ACL. Momchil Hardalov, Arnav Arora, Preslav Nakov, and Isabelle Augenstein. 2022. A survey on stance detection for mis- and disinformation identification. In Findings of NAACL. Kazi Saidul Hasan and Vincent Ng. 2014. Why are you taking this stance? identifying and classifying reasons in ideological debates. In *Proceedings of* EMNLP. John Lawrence and Chris Reed. 2019. Argument mining: A survey. *Comput. Linguistics*. Ran Levy, Yonatan Bilu, Daniel Hershcovich, Ehud Aharoni, and Noam Slonim. 2014. Context dependent claim detection. In *Proceedings of COLING*. 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 ACL*. Davide Liga. 2019. Argumentative evidences classification and argument scheme detection using tree kernels. In *Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Argument Mining, ArgMining@ACL*. 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. Makoto Miwa and Yutaka Sasaki. 2014. Modeling joint entity and relation extraction with table representation. In *Proceedings of EMNLP*. Raquel Mochales and Marie-Francine Moens. 2011. Argumentation mining. *Artif. Intell. Law*. Vlad Niculae, Joonsuk Park, and Claire Cardie. 2017. Argument mining with structured svms and rnns. In Proceedings of ACL. Joonsuk Park and Claire Cardie. 2014. Identifying appropriate support for propositions in online user comments. In *Proceedings of the First Workshop on* Argument Mining, ArgMining@ACL. Isaac Persing and Vincent Ng. 2016. End-to-end argumentation mining in student essays. In *Proceedings* of NAACL. Peter Potash, Alexey Romanov, and Anna Rumshisky. 2017. Here's my point: Joint pointer architecture for argument mining. In *Proceedings of EMNLP*. Prakash Poudyal. 2017. A machine learning approach to argument mining in legal documents. In AI Approaches to the Complexity of Legal Systems. Springer. Wenxuan Zhou, Kevin Huang, Tengyu Ma, and Jing Huang. 2021. Document-level relation extraction with adaptive thresholding and localized context pooling. In *Proceedings of AAAI*. Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, Peter J Liu, et al. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. *J. Mach. Learn. Res.* Richard D Rieke and Malcolm Osgood Sillars. 1984. Argumentation and the decision making process. Addison-Wesley Longman. Richard D Rieke, Malcolm Osgood Sillars, and Tarla Rai Peterson. 2005. Argumentation and critical decision making. Pearson/Allyn & Bacon. Ruty Rinott, Lena Dankin, Carlos Alzate, Mitesh M Khapra, Ehud Aharoni, and Noam Slonim. 2015. Show me your evidence-an automatic method for context dependent evidence detection. In *Proceedings of EMNLP*. Keshav Singh, Paul Reisert, Naoya Inoue, Pride Kavumba, and Kentaro Inui. 2019. Improving evidence detection by leveraging warrants. In *Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Fact Extraction and* VERification (FEVER). Christian Stab and Iryna Gurevych. 2014. Annotating argument components and relations in persuasive essays. In *Proceedings of COLING*. Milagro Teruel, Cristian Cardellino, Fernando Cardellino, Laura Alonso Alemany, and Serena Villata. 2018. Increasing argument annotation reproducibility by using inter-annotator agreement to improve guidelines. In *Proceedings of LREC*. Laurens van der Maaten and Geoffrey E. Hinton. 2008. Visualizing data using t-sne. *Journal of Machine* Learning Research. Yuxiao Ye and Simone Teufel. 2021. End-to-end argument mining as biaffine dependency parsing. In Proceedings of EACL. Jian Yuan, Liying Cheng, Ruidan He, Yinzi Li, Lidong Bing, Zhongyu Wei, Qin Liu, Chenhui Shen, Shuonan Zhang, Changlong Sun, Luo Si, Changjiang Jiang, and Xuanjing Huang. 2021. Overview of argumentative text understanding for ai debater challenge. In *Proceedings of NLPCC*. Shuai Zhang, Yongliang Shen, Zeqi Tan, Yiquan Wu, and Weiming Lu. 2022. De-bias for generative extraction in unified ner task. In *Proceedings of ACL*. Wenxuan Zhang, Xin Li, Yang Deng, Lidong Bing, and Wai Lam. 2021. Towards generative aspect-based sentiment analysis. In *Proceedings of ACL*. ## A Detailed Annotation Guidelines And Dataset Examples In this section, we present our detailed annotation guidelines for human annotators. Given the topic and document information, the annotators are required to assign an evidence-type label to an evidence sentence, relying on a comprehensive comprehension of the document context and how the evidence supports its claim. As mentioned in Section 3.2, we pre-define five evidence types: Case, Expert, Research, Explanation and Others. We present the specific definition of each type below: Case An evidence sentence of case type supports a claim by describing or referencing real-life cases, events, and examples to strengthen the claim. All of the following rules must be met: first, it must be an event, phenomenon, or occurrence that has taken place or existed in the real world. Second, the evidence must include at least one clearly defined and specific element related to the event, such as the individuals involved, the location, the time, and other relevant details. The difference between this type and the explanation type is that the evidence of this type is supported by real and concrete examples, while the evidence of the explanation type remains focused on high-level analysis, reasoning, or illustration. An argument quadruplet with case evidence is shown in the first block of Table 6. Since the sentence clearly quotes the specific event (i.e., "The 1984 Summer Olympics") and the event place (i.e., "Los Angeles"), it is considered as a real-life case to support the given claim. Zachary Seech. 1993. Writing philosophy papers. Expert Expert evidence supports its claim by citing the views, comments, or suggestions of a professional, authority figure, scholar, well-known organization, official institution, representative professional group, etc. Evidence belonging to this type can be clearly identified that the opinion or assertion in the sentence comes from a specific expert or organization, and it is essential to explicitly state the name of the expert or organization in the sentence. Besides, we have to take note of the following: first, the difference between this type and the research type is that the evidence sentences of this | Topic | Claim & Evidence | Evidence Type | Stance | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|----------| | Should we fight for the | Claim: The Olympics increase valuable tourism, which can boost local economies. | | | | Olympics? | Evidence: The 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles netted the city a $215 | Case | Support | | million operating surplus and $289 million in broadcasting fees. | | | | | Should animal testing be | Claim: Some cosmetics and health care products must be tested on animals to | | | | banned? | ensure their safety. | Expert | Contest | | Evidence: | The US Food and Drug Administration endorses the use of animal | | | | tests on cosmetics to assure the safety of a product or ingredient. | | | | | Should we ban unsustainable logging? | Claim: Deforestation is occurring all over the world and has been coupled with an increase in the occurrence of disease outbreaks. | Research | Support | | Evidence: A 2017 study in the American Economic Review found that deforestation substantially increased the incidence of malaria in Nigeria. | | | | | Should we eliminate | Claim: Traditional universities are a rite of passage to independent life. | | | | traditional universities? | Evidence: This means they have to start learning or practically using lots of skills | Explanation | Contest | | of independent adults, such as financial management, cooking, being crime-aware, networking, and solving communication problems on their own. | | | | Table 6: Quadruplet examples for our AQE task. Each line represents a different quadruplet with varying evidence types and stances. We highlight the signal words in the evidence sentence of different evidence types in blue . type come from the viewpoints, opinions, judgments, etc. of authoritative persons or institutions, which are subjective arguments, while the evidence sentences of research type are objective arguments. Second, if there is an overlap with the research type, it needs to be judged according to the subject of the sentence. Third, subjective opinions, positions, judgments, and estimations from media, newspapers, publications, writings, etc., can also be labeled as the expert type. An argument quadruplet with expert evidence is shown in the second block of Table 6. "The US Food and Drug Administration" is an authoritative federal agency, and thus is labeled as expert type. Research Evidence of the research type strengthens a claim by referencing perspectives or findings obtained from scientific research, surveys, investigation, statistical reports, or other reputable sources, including academic journals, scientific journals, etc. At least one of the following rules must be met: (1) The evidence sentence explicitly suggests that it pertains to a study, statistical report, or survey. Alternatively, the sentence conveys information derived from research, statistics, or surveys, typically related to research conclusions, findings, statistical data, etc. Usually, the evidence sentence of this type contains some keywords, such as "The research shows", "A survey found", "According to the report", etc. (2) The evidence sentence presents a substantial amount of factual statistics or numbers derived from concrete studies, surveys, and statistics, to enhance the persuasiveness of its claim rather than relying on rough estimations. An argument quadruplet with research evidence is shown in the third block of Table 6. This piece of evidence clearly states "A 2017 study ... found that ...", which quotes a finding of a specific study to support its claim, thus is labeled as research type. Explanation This type of evidence enhances its claim by offering supplementary details, explanations, and elaborations on the claim sentence, as well as other relevant aspects such as the causes, consequences, and impacts associated with the claim. An argument quadruplet with evidence of explanation type is shown in the last block of Table 6. This evidence supports its claim by expanding upon the original assertion with more details. Others We categorize evidence sentences that do not fit into any of the aforementioned categories as "Others". However, we discourage our annotators from assigning this label, as it contributes limited information about the attribute of evidence. With the pre-defined categories, we also ask our annotators to take note of the following: - When encountering a sentence that is difficult to decide, it is crucial to thoroughly analyze the relationship between the evidence and the claim, along with the document context, in order to determine the appropriate type. - It is essential to comprehensively consider the semantic relationship between the preceding and following evidence sentences. - Multiple consecutive evidence sentences can belong to different types depending on their content as well as their relationship with the claim and overall context. Apart from providing the above annotation guidelines, we work closely with professional data annotators whenever they have questions or they are unsure about the labels to make sure the data annotation quality. ## B The Effect Of Negative Sampling Ratio For determining the best negative ratio of the negative sampling method, we search over the range of {1,3,5,10}. As shown in Table 7, the model achieved the best performance when the negative ratio is 5. | # Negative Ratio | Precision | Recall | F1 | |--------------------|-------------|----------|-------| | 1 | 25.11 | 18.44 | 21.27 | | 3 | 24.62 | 18.66 | 21.23 | | 5 | 27.91 | 20.77 | 23.81 | | 10 | 21.97 | 17.74 | 19.63 | ## C Pipeline Processing Order We provide the processing details in Figure 5 for pipeline approaches that handle four subtasks sequentially, including claim extraction (C), stance classification (S), evidence extraction (E), and evidence type classification (T). The arrow directions represent the input of each task.  ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Limitations ✗ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? No potential risk ✓ 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?** 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? All datasets are free for non-commercial usage. ✓ 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)? 3 ✗ 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? It's been discussed in the original dataset paper. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Appendix and Section 3 ✓ 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. Table 2 ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** 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? 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? 6 and Appendix ✓ 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? 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.)? 6 ## D ✓ **Did You Use Human Annotators (E.G., Crowdworkers) Or Research With Human Participants?** 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.? Appendix ✓ 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)? 3 ✓ 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? 3 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? 3

chiesurin-etal-2023-dangers

The Dangers of trusting Stochastic Parrots: Faithfulness and Trust in Open-domain Conversational Question Answering

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.60

Large language models are known to produce output which sounds fluent and convincing, but is also often wrong, e.g. {``}unfaithful{''} with respect to a rationale as retrieved from a knowledge base. In this paper, we show that task-based systems which exhibit certain advanced linguistic dialog behaviors, such as lexical alignment (repeating what the user said), are in fact preferred and trusted more, whereas other phenomena, such as pronouns and ellipsis are dis-preferred. We use open-domain question answering systems as our test-bed for task based dialog generation and compare several open- and closed-book models. Our results highlight the danger of systems that appear to be trustworthy by parroting user input while providing an unfaithful response.

# The Dangers Of Trusting Stochastic Parrots: Faithfulness And Trust In Open-Domain Conversational Question Answering Sabrina Chiesurin* Dimitris Dimakopoulos* Marco Antonio Sobrevilla Cabezudo Arash Eshghi Ioannis Papaioannou Verena Rieser† **Ioannis Konstas** Alana AI hello@alanaai.com ## Abstract Large language models are known to produce output which sounds fluent and convincing, but is also often wrong, e.g. "unfaithful" with respect to a rationale as retrieved from a knowledge base. In this paper, we show that taskbased systems which exhibit certain advanced linguistic dialog behaviors, such as lexical alignment (repeating what the user said), are in fact preferred and trusted more, whereas other phenomena, such as pronouns and ellipsis are dis-preferred. We use open-domain question answering systems as our test-bed for task based dialog generation and compare several open- and closed-book models. Our results highlight the danger of systems that appear to be trustworthy by parroting user input while providing an unfaithful response. ## 1 Introduction With the advent of large language models (LLM), Question Answering Systems have become opendomain and conversational, meaning that they are able to generate fluent and informative responses to questions about nearly any topic and over several turns (Adlakha et al., 2022). However, these systems are also known to produce factually incorrect statements, commonly referred to as *hallucinations* (Rashkin et al., 2021b; Dziri et al., 2022b). These two properties taken together require the system as well as the user to ensure that they mutually understand each other - a process also known as *conversational grounding* (Clark and Brennan, 1991). Empirical studies of dialogue have shown that people use different kinds of context-dependent linguistic behavior to indicate grounding, including use of fragments, ellipsis and pronominal reference (Fernandez and Ginzburg, 2002; Eshghi and Healey, 2016). Other studies show that lexical alignment in a response, i.e. repeating and adopting the interlocutor's lexical items (Pickering and *Equal Contribution. †Now at Google DeepMind.  Garrod, 2004; Branigan et al., 2010), can play a similar role, see examples in Figure 1. There is initial evidence in related fields that generating grounding phenomena will lead the user to trust the system more, such as conversational assistants for educational (Linnemann and Jucks, 2018) and medical applications (Bickmore et al., 2021) as well as in the field of HRI (Bossens and Evers, 2022). At the same time, we argue that systems that exhibit more grounding behavior are not necessarily more faithful to the dialogue and input rationale, which can lead to unjustified trust. In order to explore these hypotheses, we first analyze conversational grounding phenomena via automatic annotation of linguistic properties for open-domain QA. We consider responses generated by different GPT-3 variants (Brown et al., 2020), and state-of-the-art Retrieve-and-Generate models on the TopiOCQA development set (Adlakha et al., 2022). We evaluate the performance of models via several automatic surface-level, and semanticbased metrics against multiple references and a chosen rationale from a gold Wikipedia passage.  Given current limitations of automatic metrics, we annotate a subset of responses according to their plausibility, groundedness to the input source and faithfulness to the dialogue and input source at the same time. We also elicited a human preference task among the responses of each model. Finally, we conduct a series of human evaluation experiments where we provide responses to questions controlling for each of the linguistic phenomena under examination, and ask users to choose the one they perceive as more trustworthy. Our findings are summarised as follows: - GPT-3 variants are generally more verbose and more lexically aligned to the question. In contrast, the human-authored responses in TopiOCQA are more elliptical and contain more pronominals. Unsurprisingly, the finetuned model emulates this behavior. - GPT-3 variants are less faithful according to expert human annotations and the majority of automatic metrics. - Surprisingly, users prefer open-book GPT-3 over the fine-tuned model although half of the time the preferred responses were unfaithful. - Users trusted responses with high lexical alignment significantly more, whereas the effect was the opposite for elliptical responses, and answers containing pronominals. ## 2 Conversational Grounding Analysis 2.1 Dataset And Models Dataset We use the development set of TopiOCQA comprising 205 information-seeking dialogues (2514 turns)1. Models We test a variety of models under two different settings. In the *closed-book* setting models have no access to domain-specific information other than what is stored in their own parameters; 1A manual analysis of the dataset revealed that the linguistic phenomena under scrutiny are almost exclusively present. in the *open-book* setting models can leverage a set of relevant documents provided by the retriever. For the open-book setting we used a fine-tuned Dense Passage Retriever (DPR; Karpukhin et al., 2020) as the retriever and experimented with two different readers: Fusion in Decoder (FiD; Izacard and Grave, 2021) fine-tuned on TopiOCQA, and GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020) 2, where we concatenate passages returned from DPR with the dialogue context and use them as conversational prompt. For closed-book similar to Adlakha et al. (2022) we also use GPT-3, where the dialogue context is concatenated into a conversational prompt. Notably, we could have also tuned GPT-3 either via prompt engineering or fine-tuning3so that it resembles the distribution of the target dataset. We decided against this for two reasons: firstly, the amount of engineering required would go beyond the focused scope of this work; second using vanilla GPT-3 variants is as close as possible to an ecologically valid scenario. For example, it is similar to how an end-user would be exposed to an LLM via a search engine, or a chat interface without any direct control of its prompt. ## 2.2 Dialogue Phenomena We automatically annotate the following linguistic properties of responses: Lexical Alignment is approximated based on unigram overlap between the response and corresponding question, i.e. the system repeating the same words as the user. This typically serves the purpose of implicitly confirming what was understood in task-based dialog. We compute the precision (P), recall (R) and F1. Figure 1 shows a response that lexically aligns to the question. Syntactic Form We define three categories according to the syntactic structure, based on the constituency tree4: - *short responses* comprise a single sentence Models F1 ↑ NLI ↑  DPR+FiD **55.3 33.0 44.74 56.3** 0.79 21.3 19.0 **55.9 32.8 35.9** DPR+GPT-3 37.4 5.9 20.02 39.0 **0.81 28.4 22.6** 63.2 26.5 29.8 GPT-3 33.9 6.8 12.71 36.4 0.80 20.2 15.7 59.2 19.9 24.3 Human 70.1 40.2 58.63 70.8 0.83 33.0 29.3 20.7 59.9 63.6 F1 ↑ EM ↑ BLEU ↑ ROUGE ↑ BERT ↑ K-F1 ↑ K-F1++ ↑ **Critic** ↓ Q  Table 2: Model performance using automatic metrics on the development set of TopiOCQA. with the tree's root being either a simple declarative clause (S), or a declarative sentence with subject-aux inversion (SINV); see the first two responses in Figure 1. - *fragments* comprise an elliptic sentence, with its syntactic root not identified as either S or SINV; see last response in Figure 1. - *long-form responses* are multi-sentence answers, which are rarely occurring. This is probably due to the conversational nature of TopiOCQA where complex questions are broken down into simpler ones across a dialogue. Pronominals We identify the existence (or not) of a pronoun in a sentence in subject, or direct object position according to its dependency tree, e.g., "It" in the second response of Figure 1. Table 1 summarizes the statistics of linguistic phenomena found in models and human responses. Note that GPT-3 variants produce more verbose, sentential and lexically aligned responses with the questions (see Recall column). In contrast, the finetuned model (DPR+FiD) generates shorter fragmented responses with more pronominals. This is expected as it follows the distribution of human responses, unlike the GPT-3 variants that have a very limited conditioning on the target distribution via the dialogue context getting encoded in the prompt. ## 3 Study Of Faithfulness Faithfulness Definition We extend the definition by Adlakha et al. (2022) to consider faithfulness both wrt the *dialogue* and rationale: Given a dialogue history H = (u1, ..., un−1) and knowledge K = (k1, ..., kj ) at turn n*, we say that* utterance un is faithful with respect to K and H iff ∃Γn such that Γn |= un∧E(H, un) ̸= ∅, *where* |= denotes semantic consequence, Γn *is a non-empty* subset of K and E is the explicature of un *in context* H as defined in (Rashkin et al., 2021a). ## 3.1 Automatic Evaluation We first employ a wide range of automatic metrics to assess model performance grouped according to their similarity to a gold (human) reference (*reference-based*), or their faithfulness to the provided knowledge K (*reference-less*). Reference-based metrics Following Adlakha et al. (2022) and Dziri et al. (2022a), we report F1 score, Exact Match (EM), BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002) and ROUGE (Lin, 2004). These measure the overlap-based similarity between the generated response and the gold answer5. Reference-less token-level metrics Similar to Dziri et al. (2022a) and Shuster et al. (2021), we report BERTScore (BERT) (Zhang et al., 2019), and Knowledge-F1 (K-F1). Notably, the latter calculates the unigram overlap between the response and a knowledge snippet K, providing a verbatim measure of grounding to the input source. We propose K-F1++, a variant of K-F1, that captures only the novel information in the generated response and discounts any lexical alignment to the question: it calculates the unigram overlap between the response and K, after *subtracting* any tokens appearing in the question from the response. Reference-less entailment metrics We report Critic (Dziri et al., 2022a), a dialogue-trained classifier determining if a response follows from a given snippet K, and Q2(Honovich et al., 2021), which measures faithfulness via question answering. ## 3.2 Human Evaluation Studies Similar to Glaese et al. (2022), Bai et al. (2022) and Thoppilan et al. (2022), we conducted a human evaluation to assess the faithfulness of given responses, followed by a human evaluation study to collect human preferences when presented with two possible responses to an existing conversation. Faithfulness Judgment task Annotators are required to judge the plausibility of a response given the dialogue, the relevance of the gold passage to answer the question, and the faithfulness of the re-5Note that results for Human don't go up to 100% as each output is compared with 3 additional human annotations. sponse given the dialogue and the gold passage. In more detail, we consider the response to be grounded when it (or a paraphrase of it) is found in the document. We consider a response to be faithful if, in addition to being grounded, it answers the question and follows from the dialogue. For example, given i) a conversation about European countries, ii) a document about European capitals, iii) a query "*What is the capital of Spain?*", and iv) the response "*Castellano*", if "*Castellano*" is in the document, the response is grounded. However, it is not faithful with respect to the dialogue as it does not correctly answer the question. Two annotators6 completed the annotation for each model on 500 instances from TopiOCQA. Preference task Annotators are provided with a question, the previous dialogue and the gold passage that contains the answer, and are required to select their preferred response given two options. These are between a baseline model (DPR+FiD) and a model variant; they can also select both or none. We take a sample of 250 faithful and unfaithful instances from the previous task. ## 3.3 Results Table 2 summarizes the automatic metrics. Baseline DPR+FiD outperforms the GPT-3 variants in all *reference-based* metrics. This is somewhat expected since the former is fine-tuned on the TopiOCQA dataset, whereas GPT-3 –despite being a much larger model– is evaluated in a zero-shot fashion. Surprisingly, DPR+GPT-3 outperforms the baseline in most *reference-less* metrics. Interestingly, the absolute difference between KF1 and K-F1++ with respect to the baseline (2.3%) is significantly smaller than that of the GPT-3 variants (5.8%, and 4.5%, respectively). This is probably due to the latter being more lexically aligned to the user question than the baseline (see Table 1), hence there are more overlapping tokens removed when computing K-F1++. Nevertheless, the GPT-3 variants maintain superior knowledge-grounding scores even based on the stricter K-F1++. Table 3 paints a different story to the referenceless metrics: although all responses are regarded mostly plausible continuations to the dialogue, the GPT-3 variants (with the closed-book scoring worst) produce outputs that are less grounded and more unfaithful compared to DPR+FiD. We ob-6The annotators comprise a hired annotator and one of the co-authors. Quality was ensured via multiple rounds of pilot annotations, until all disagreements were resolved.  Table 3: Faithfulness Judgement Task carried out by 2 expert annotators on a sample of 500 instances. | Model | Preferences | | | |-----------|---------------|--------------|-----------| | All (#) | Faith. (#) | Unfaith. (#) | | | DPR+FiD | 33% (417) | 85% (354) | 15% (63) | | None | 12% (153) | - | - | | DPR+GPT-3 | 70% (883)† | 52% (459) | 48% (424) | | DPR+FiD | 43% (539) | 84% (451) | 16%(88) | | None | 13% (173) | - | - | | GPT-3 | 45% (559) | 33%(186) | 66% (373) | | DPR+FiD | 46% (578) | 95% (547) | 5% (31) | | None | 9% (109) | - | - | | Human | 74% (931)† | 94% (879) | 6% (52) | served often the inclusion of extra information that could *potentially* be true but still not faithful to the input source. We leave fact checking of such extrinsic hallucinations to future work. The most striking result according to the Preference task (Table 4) is that annotators preferred unfaithful responses over faithful ones, or rejected both options, even though they had access to the gold passage. DPR+GPT-3 overall was preferred 70% of times, with almost half preferences being towards unfaithful responses (48%). Similarly, GPT-3 was preferred 45% of the time with 66% of preferences being unfaithful. Again this supports our hypothesis that high lexical alignment has a great influence on users' choices, often bypassing the need to judge the accuracy of the response. Appendix A contains additional results on computing majority agreement per item among the 5 annotators for the Preference Task and a qualitative analysis of provided feedback. ## 4 Study Of Trust So far we have established that lexically aligned responses coming from GPT-3 variants are not necessarily faithful. The surface form seems to negatively affect users' preferences, obviating their need  to check the supporting source, and creating a risk of placing trust to an imperfect system. With this experiment, we investigate a more general trend between linguistic phenomena and user trust. Human Evaluation Experiment Annotators are presented with the dialogue only, and are asked to choose the response they trusted more from two possible responses, or none. Going beyond just lexical alignment, we selected 15 pairs of responses7, for every linguistic phenomenon in Section 2.2. We modified responses to ensure each specific phenomenon was the only difference between them. We collected 20 preferences for each response pair. Results Table 5 shows that annotators trusted responses with high lexical alignment significantly more than those with low lexical alignment. Interestingly, they trusted significantly more short answers than fragments, and preferred responses that did not present pronouns. This is in contrast to literature (Eshghi and Healey, 2016), which primarily focused on human-to-human interactions; this could be down to people talking to a system (vs. a human), seeking stronger forms of evidence such as lexical alignment. Notably, the combination of the preferred presence and absence of phenomena aligns well with their calculated occurrences in the GPT-3 variants' responses (Table 1). ## 5 Conclusions We investigated the performance of different models on the task of OCQA, measuring faithfulness and lexical phenomena. Automatic metrics highlighted how GPT-3 variants are less faithful than DPR+FiD, as confirmed by annotators in the faithfulness judgment task. We conducted a study on conversational grounding phenomena and a preference task, whose significant results demonstrated an effect of surface form in human preferences towards the more conversational GPT-3, even when unfaithful. Another experiment confirmed trust as being effected by high lexical alignment. ## Limitations This work is constrained by the number of grounding phenomena analyzed, which is limited by the dataset domain and their straightforward automatic computation. We only focused on lexical alignment, the use of ellipsis (fragments) and pronouns, disregarding other phenomena such as repairs (e.g. asking for confirmation or clarification) (Purver et al., 2003), among others. With respect to the linguistic phenomena, we simplified the calculation of the lexical alignment by regarding only the last two turns of a conversation (the user question and the system response). In this manner, we omitted the dynamic convergence over several turns (Mills and Healey, 2008). It should be noted though that this was decided based on manual observation of examples, the majority of which exhibited lexical alignment in the last two turns only. This could be a limitation of the OCQA domain, and/or a bias of the TopiOCQA dataset. Another limitation is that the form of crowdsourcing experiments we performed are mostly diagnostic of certain conditions on a given dataset, and does not reflect more organic real-use cases. An ideal setup would be to collect whole dialogues in the form of an extrinsic evaluation, which would be more costly to perform. ## Ethics Statement Dual Use Our results highlight a possible misuse scenario, where verbally fluent but factually incorrect text generated by models, such as GPT-3, is more convincing to users than text by models which are more faithful to the input rationale. This blind trust could be exploited to convince users of e.g. fake news, for example by generating more lexically aligned text. Human data The methodology of this paper heavily relies on human data collection using crowd-sourcing. Workers were allowed to complete a maximum of 40 HiTs across annotations. They were payed 0.29$ per HiT for the preference task, while 0.20$ per HiT for the study on trust. Annotators come from Australia, Canada, New Zeland, United Kingdom and United States. A total of 38 annotators were involved in the study of trust, and 115 were involved in the Preference task. Data collected using AMT are fully anonymized per the providers specifications. Use of TopiOCQA We obtained the dataset through the public domain and do not intend to release part, or whole of it separately without the prior consent of its authors. We assume the authors have taken precautions against offensive content. ## Acknowledgements We would like to particularly thank Oliver Lemon for the discussions on the linguistic phenomena in conversation and trust. We also appreciate the valuable feedback we received by the rest of the technical team at Alana AI at various stages of the paper. Finally, we would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and annotators for the human evaluation. ## References Vaibhav Adlakha, Shehzaad Dhuliawala, Kaheer Suleman, Harm de Vries, and Siva Reddy. 2022. TopiOCQA: Open-domain conversational question answering with topic switching. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:468– 483. Yuntao Bai, Andy Jones, Kamal Ndousse, Amanda Askell, Anna Chen, Nova DasSarma, Dawn Drain, Stanislav Fort, Deep Ganguli, Tom Henighan, et al. 2022. Training a helpful and harmless assistant with reinforcement learning from human feedback. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2204.05862. Timothy W Bickmore, Stefán Ólafsson, and Teresa K O'Leary. 2021. Mitigating patient and consumer safety risks when using conversational assistants for medical information: Exploratory mixed methods experiment. *J Med Internet Res*, 23(11):e30704. David M. Bossens and Christine Evers. 2022. Trust in language grounding: a new ai challenge for humanrobot teams. Holly P Branigan, Martin J Pickering, Jamie Pearson, and Janet F McLean. 2010. Linguistic alignment between people and computers. *Journal of pragmatics*, 42(9):2355–2368. 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 Neural Information Processing Systems*, volume 33, pages 1877–1901. Curran Associates, Inc. Herbert H Clark and Susan E Brennan. 1991. Grounding in communication. Nouha Dziri, Ehsan Kamalloo, Sivan Milton, Osmar Zaiane, Mo Yu, Edoardo M. Ponti, and Siva Reddy. 2022a. Faithdial: A faithful benchmark for information-seeking dialogue. Nouha Dziri, Sivan Milton, Mo Yu, Osmar Zaiane, and Siva Reddy. 2022b. On the origin of hallucinations in conversational models: Is it the datasets or the models? In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5271–5285, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Arash Eshghi and Patrick G. T. Healey. 2016. Collective contexts in conversation: Grounding by proxy. Cognitive Science, 40(2):299–324. Raquel Fernandez and Jonathan Ginzburg. 2002. Nonsentential utterances in dialogue: A: Corpus-based study. In Proceedings of the Third SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 15–26, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Amelia Glaese, Nat McAleese, Maja Tr˛ebacz, John Aslanides, Vlad Firoiu, Timo Ewalds, Maribeth Rauh, Laura Weidinger, Martin Chadwick, Phoebe Thacker, et al. 2022. Improving alignment of dialogue agents via targeted human judgements. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2209.14375. Or Honovich, Leshem Choshen, Roee Aharoni, Ella Neeman, Idan Szpektor, and Omri Abend. 2021. q 2: Evaluating factual consistency in knowledgegrounded dialogues via question generation and question answering. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 7856–7870, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Gautier Izacard and Edouard Grave. 2021. Leveraging passage retrieval with generative models for open domain question answering. In *Proceedings of the 16th* Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 874–880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas Oguz, Sewon Min, Patrick Lewis, Ledell Wu, Sergey Edunov, Danqi Chen, and Wen-tau Yih. 2020. Dense passage retrieval for opendomain question answering. In *Proceedings of the* 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6769–6781, 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. Gesa Alena Linnemann and Regina Jucks. 2018. 'Can I Trust the Spoken Dialogue System Because It Uses the Same Words as I Do?'—Influence of Lexically Aligned Spoken Dialogue Systems on Trustworthiness and User Satisfaction. *Interacting with Computers*, 30(3):173–186. Gregory Mills and Pat Healey. 2008. Semantic negotiation in dialogue: the mechanisms of alignment. In *Proceedings of the 9th SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue*, pages 46–53, Columbus, Ohio. Association for Computational Linguistics. Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and WeiJing 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, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Martin J Pickering and Simon Garrod. 2004. Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. *Behavioral and* brain sciences, 27(2):169–190. Matthew Purver, Jonathan Ginzburg, and Patrick Healey. 2003. On the means for clarification in dialogue. In Current and new directions in discourse and dialogue, pages 235–255. Springer. Peng Qi, Yuhao Zhang, Yuhui Zhang, Jason Bolton, and Christopher D. Manning. 2020. Stanza: A python natural language processing toolkit for many human languages. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations, pages 101–108, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Hannah Rashkin, Vitaly Nikolaev, Matthew Lamm, Lora Aroyo, Michael Collins, Dipanjan Das, Slav Petrov, Gaurav Singh Tomar, Iulia Turc, and David Reitter. 2021a. Measuring attribution in natural language generation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.12870. Hannah Rashkin, David Reitter, Gaurav Singh Tomar, and Dipanjan Das. 2021b. Increasing faithfulness in knowledge-grounded dialogue with controllable features. 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 704–718, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Kurt Shuster, Spencer Poff, Moya Chen, Douwe Kiela, and Jason Weston. 2021. Retrieval augmentation reduces hallucination in conversation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.07567. Romal Thoppilan, Daniel De Freitas, Jamie Hall, Noam Shazeer, Apoorv Kulshreshtha, Heng-Tze Cheng, Alicia Jin, Taylor Bos, Leslie Baker, Yu Du, et al. 2022. Lamda: Language models for dialog applications. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.08239*. Tianyi Zhang, Varsha Kishore, Felix Wu, Kilian Q Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. 2019. Bertscore: Evaluating text generation with bert. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.09675.  Table 6: Majority Agreement per item (5 annotations) for the Preference Task between the Baseline (DPR+FiD) and models. Each row denotes majority reached at the corresponding % of the times. $$\begin{array}{r l}{{\begin{array}{r l}{{\mathrm{Phenomenon}}}&{{\mid{\mathrm{Agreenent}}}\\ {\hline{\mathrm{Lexical~Alignment}}}&{{80\%}}\\ {\mathrm{~Proouns}}&{{53\%}}\\ {\mathrm{~Fragment}}&{{86\%}}\end{array}}}\end{array}$$ Table 7: Majority Agreement per item (20 annotations) for the Study of Trust across the different linguistic phenomena examined in this work. Each row denotes majority reached at the corresponding % of the times. ## A Additional Human Evaluation Results Majority Agreement Results Following Glaese et al. (2022) we computed the majority agreement for each item, i.e., 5 and 20 annotations per item for the preference and trust studies, respectively. Tables 6 and 7 summarize the results. Similar to Glaese et al. (2022) there are cases when agreement is quite low, which is an interesting avenue for future work. Qualitative Analysis of Feedback Next, we conducted a simple qualitative analysis regarding how often annotators looked at the grounded document during the Preference Task. 286 out of 2170 feedback responses explicitly refer to the document to justify the preference expressed. Interestingly, There are in total 558 responses where GPT-3 variants were preferred over the baseline, of which only 27 (4%) refer to the document. In contrast, there are 359 of which 76 refer to the document (21%) when the baseline is preferred. Overall, feedback suggests that GPT-3 responses were mostly preferred due to other factors, such as the amount and variety of information, and conversational style. ## B Human Evaluation Instructions And Interfaces B.1 Faithfulness Judgment Task Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the user interface implemented for the plausibility and faithfulness subtasks, respectively. Task Instructions: In this task you will evaluate the quality of a systemgenerated response to a user query. The system is trying to help the user learn about a particular topic by answering their questions. We want to rate the system response quality based on how well it represents the sources provided. You will need to answer four questions. The first question is about plausibility. Only if the answer is plausible, you will be asked to answer other questions. Some ratings will result in other categories being skipped. The task interface will guide you through the flow. Note: The system-generated responses may appear very fluent and well-formed, but contain slight inaccuracies that are not easy to discern at first glance. Pay close attention to the text. Read it carefully as you would when proofreading. ## B.2 Preference Task Figure 4 depicts the interface for the preference task in the context of the dialogue and gold passage. Task Instructions: In this task, you will continue a conversation between a system and a user by selecting your preferred answer. For each question you will see two different answers, and we want you to carefully decide which one is better. Read the Conversation carefully and find a reason to select one answer over the other. If this is not possible due to high or low quality of both answers, you can check "All completions are high quality" or "All completions are low quality" depending on the situation. A document to back up the claims made in the answers is provided. Optional: in the feedback box, please justify your choice of best answer. Be specific about which parts of the question and answers mattered in your choice, especially when comparing two satisfactory answers. ## B.3 Study Of Trust Figure 5 shows a screenshot of the trust task given the dialogue only. ## Task Instructions: In this task, you will continue a conversation between a system and a user by selecting most trustworthy response. For each question you will see two different answers, and we want you to carefully decide which one is most trustworthy. If you cannot decide between the two, you can check "I can't decide". Note that all answers provided are correct. Optional: if you can't decide, please write why.     Task instructions (Click to collapse) ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? 6 ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? 7 ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? 1 ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** 2 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? 2 ✗ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? The dataset we used is in the public domain ✓ 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)? 6 ✓ 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? 6 ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? 7 ✓ 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. 2 ## 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? We only run evaluation experiments that have a low running overhead/footprint. 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? 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? 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.)? 3 ## D ✓ **Did You Use Human Annotators (E.G., Crowdworkers) Or Research With Human Participants?** 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.? Appendix ✓ 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)? 6 ✓ 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? Appendix ✓ D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Approved by the internal committee of our company ✓ D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? 6

cho-etal-2023-discrete

Discrete Prompt Optimization via Constrained Generation for Zero-shot Re-ranker

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.61

Re-rankers, which order retrieved documents with respect to the relevance score on the given query, have gained attention for the information retrieval (IR) task. Rather than fine-tuning the pre-trained language model (PLM), the large-scale language model (LLM) is utilized as a zero-shot re-ranker with excellent results. While LLM is highly dependent on the prompts, the impact and the optimization of the prompts for the zero-shot re-ranker are not explored yet. Along with highlighting the impact of optimization on the zero-shot re-ranker, we propose a novel discrete prompt optimization method, Constrained Prompt generation (Co-Prompt), with the metric estimating the optimum for re-ranking. Co-Prompt guides the generated texts from PLM toward optimal prompts based on the metric without parameter update. The experimental results demonstrate that Co-Prompt leads to outstanding re-ranking performance against the baselines. Also, Co-Prompt generates more interpretable prompts for humans against other prompt optimization methods.

# Discrete Prompt Optimization Via Constrained Generation For Zero-Shot Re-Ranker Sukmin Cho Soyeong Jeong Jeongyeon Seo Jong C. Park∗ School of Computing Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology {nelllpic,starsuzi,yena.seo,jongpark}@kaist.ac.kr ## Abstract Re-rankers, which order retrieved documents with respect to the relevance score on the given query, have gained attention for the information retrieval (IR) task. Rather than fine-tuning the pre-trained language model (PLM), the large-scale language model (LLM) is utilized as a zero-shot re-ranker with excellent results. While LLM is highly dependent on the prompts, the impact and the optimization of the prompts for the zero-shot re-ranker are not explored yet. Along with highlighting the impact of optimization on the zero-shot re-ranker, we propose a novel discrete prompt optimization method, Constrained **Prompt** generation (Co-Prompt), with the metric estimating the optimum for reranking. Co-Prompt guides the generated texts from PLM toward optimal prompts based on the metric without parameter update. The experimental results demonstrate that Co-Prompt leads to outstanding re-ranking performance against the baselines. Also, Co-Prompt generates more interpretable prompts for humans against other prompt optimization methods. ## 1 Introduction Information retrieval (IR) is the task of searching for documents relevant to a given query from a large corpus. As re-ranking the fetched documents from the retriever effectively enhances the performance and the latency, recent studies have suggested several kinds of re-rankers by fine-tuning pre-trained language models (PLM) (Nogueira and Cho, 2019; Nogueira et al., 2020). Furthermore, Sachan et al. (2022) show that large-scale language models (LLMs) such as GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020) can be exploited as a zero-shot reranker with the prompt describing the task. They also highlight the importance of an appropriate prompt to elicit the full performance of LLMs, rather than updating the parameters. They choose ∗ Corresponding author  an optimal prompt among the handcrafted candidates by cross-validation. However, such a manual search for the discrete prompts is highly expensive and sub-optimal in transferability. To resolve the issue, several methods are proposed for automatically optimizing the discrete prompt. They focus on text classification or maskfilling task while underestimating the open-ended generation (Shin et al., 2020; Gao et al., 2021; Prasad et al., 2022). Recently, Deng et al. (2022) address the discrete prompt optimization applicable to generation tasks with reinforcement learning by designing the reward function, which measures the generated text belonging to a discrete label. Since there are tasks that are still not aligned, requiring a continuous score of output, we aim at a prompt optimization for one of such tasks: re-ranking. In this paper, we propose Constrained **Prompt** generation, Co-Prompt, as left-to-right discrete prompt optimization without additional model training. By defining the metric of prompt optimum for re-ranking, we interpret the searching process of the optimal prompt as constrained generation with two modules: a zero-shot re-ranker as a discriminator and any decoder-only PLM as a generator. The discriminator calculates the likelihood (i.e., metric) that the prompt sequence is optimal for guiding an LLM to distinguish relevant documents among the large set for a given query. The generator samples the prompt tokens having a high prior from the previous prompt sequences for effectively restricting the prompt candidates for discriminator to evaluate. An overview of Co-Prompt is shown in Figure 1. We validate our method, Co-Prompt, against other optimization baselines on two LLMs, T0 (Sanh et al., 2022) and OPT (Zhang et al., 2022), with two benchmark datasets, MSMARCO (Nguyen et al., 2016) and Natural Question (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019). Experimental results show that Co-Prompt consistently generates well-performing prompts regardless of LLMs and datasets over the baselines. The qualitative analyses also support the interpretability of the prompts generated by Co-Prompt, similar to human language patterns. Our contributions in this work are threefold: - We highlight the impact of optimal prompt on a zero-shot re-ranker by exploiting the optimization methods. - We propose Co-Prompt, a novel discrete prompt optimization via constrained generation for a zero-shot re-ranker. - We experimentally show that Co-Prompt consistently guides the re-ranker well against the baselines and its output is similar to human language patterns. ## 2 Related Work Document Ranking with Generative Model Using the generative model is one of the dominant methods for ranking the retrieved documents by defining the relevance score as the query likelihood score (Nogueira dos Santos et al., 2020; Ju et al., 2021). More recently, Sachan et al. (2022, 2023) showed that the LLM serves as either a zero-shot re-ranker or a training module of an unsupervised dense retriever. However, unlike ours, they require carefully designed manual prompts, which may have a limitation in transferability. Prompt Optimization As prompting is considered a key variable when exploiting LLMs for various NLP tasks, finding the optimal prompt has become important to get the best performance out of the LLMs (Kojima et al., 2022; Xie et al., 2022). Recently, the prompt optimization work has focused on discrete prompt search (Shin et al., 2020; Gao et al., 2021; Deng et al., 2022) or soft prompt learning over a continuous space (Liu et al., 2021; Qin and Eisner, 2021; Lester et al., 2021). While the existing optimization methods mainly consider text classification or mask-filling task, their applicability to re-ranking is yet underexplored. In this paper, we target at optimizing discrete prompts for zero-shot re-ranker to get higher relevance scores for more relevant pairs via constrained generation. Constrained Generation Constrained generation aims at deriving the text sequences that follow a certain constraint (Keskar et al., 2019). Utilizing a discriminator for guiding the generation toward the constraint via the Bayes' rule is one of the widely used constraint generation methods (Dathathri et al., 2020; Krause et al., 2021; Chaffin et al., 2022). Inspired by the effectiveness of the discriminator-based method, we adopt the zero-shot re-ranker as a discriminator when generating optimal discrete prompt sequences. ## 3 Method 3.1 Preliminaries An LLM re-ranks the retrieved document d concerning the relevance score with a given query q as the query generation score: $$\log P(d|q)\propto\log P(q|d,\rho)$$ $$=\frac{1}{|q|}\sum_{t}\log P(q_{t}|q_{<t},d,\rho),\tag{1}$$ where |q| denotes the token length of the query q and ρ is a natural language prompt guiding an LLM to generate the query q. Since the prompt ρ is the only controllable variable in Equation 1, searching for an optimal prompt is a simple yet effective way to enhance the performance of LLMs. Thus, in this work, we focus on a prompt optimization strategy. ## 3.2 Constrained Prompt Generation We define the optimal prompt ρ∗for the re-ranker which maximizes the query generation scores: ρ ∗ = arg max ρE(di,qi)∈D[P(qi|di, ρ)],(2) where D is the dataset for the retriever, consisting of pairs of a query and its relevant document. We solve the task of searching the optimal prompt ρ∗for the document-query pair dataset D with discriminator-based constrained generation. The generation is guided by the Bayes' rule: P(ρt|*D, ρ*1:t−1) ∝ PMD (Ds|ρ1:t)PMG (ρt|ρ1:t−1), (3)  where MD is a zero-shot re-ranker serving as a discriminator, MG is a decoder-only PLM as a generator, and Ds is a dataset sampled from D. Discriminator The discriminator MD measures how effectively the prompt sequence ρ1:t guides the zero-shot re-ranker to generate the query from the given document by computing the likelihood PMD (Ds|ρ), defined as the expectation of relevance score between document-query pairs (qi, di) of the sampled dataset Ds with the prompt ρ: PMD (Ds|ρ) = E(di,qi)∈Ds [PMD (qi|di, ρ)]. (4) We use this likelihood as the metric for prompt optimum. The other option of PMD is shown in Appendix B.1. Generator The generator MG samples the pool of prompts to be evaluated by a discriminator since computing Equation 3 of all possible tokens in the vocabulary requires a prohibitively high computational cost. The decoder-only PLM is exploited to sample prompt tokens ρt having a high prior PMG (ρt|ρ1:t−1) in a zero-shot manner. We combine these modules to optimize the prompt by iteratively performing two steps: candidate generation and evaluation. We choose to use a beam search as a decoding strategy for left-toright prompt generation. The detailed steps of the decoding strategy are shown in Algorithm 1. ## 4 Experimental Setups We describe the experimental setups for validating the performance of the prompts. Our code is publicly available at github.com/zomss/Co-Prompt. Datasets We employ two information retrieval datasets: **1) MS-MARCO** (Nguyen et al., 2016), collected from the Bing search logs, and **2) Natural Question (NQ,** Kwiatkowski et al. (2019)),  fetched from Google search engines. We only use the document data of the dataset for evaluation. More information is shown in Appendix A.1. Evaluation Metrics We evaluate the results by two metrics, ACC and nDCG. **1) ACC** is the percentage of the relevant documents in the total retrieved ones. **2) nDCG**, normalized discounted cumulative gain, reflects that the more relevant documents should record higher ranks. Retriever & Re-ranker We select two widely used sparse and dense retrievers as our retrievers, which are **1) BM25** (Robertson and Zaragoza, 2009) and **2) DPR** (Karpukhin et al., 2020), respectively. For the zero-shot re-ranker, we use 1) T0 (Sanh et al., 2022) and **2) OPT** (Zhang et al., 2022). We describe more detailed information in Appendix A.3 and A.4. Prompt Baselines We compare Co-Prompt against four baselines: **1) Null Prompt** is an empty prompt without any token. **2) P-Tuning** is a soft prompt optimization method that yields prompt embeddings from the prompt encoder (Liu et al., 2021). **3) RL-Prompt** is a discrete prompt optimization method by training policy network (Deng et al., 2022). Note that we modify RL-Prompt and P-Tuning applicable to the re-ranking task. **4) Manual Prompt**, suggested by Sachan et al. (2022), is given as "*Please write a question based on this* passage", following the assumption that it is one of the best prompts that humans can find. Last, **5) CoPrompt**, our proposed method, is a discrete prompt optimization method in left-to-right zero-shot generation. The implementation details of baselines are shown in Appendix A.5.  Table 2: Comparison of different discrete prompts and evaluation on the top-20 documents retrieved by BM25. The best results of each re-ranker are marked in **bold**. | Retriever | Prompt | MSMARCO | | |-------------|------------|-----------|----------| | \Re-ranker | \Generator | nDCG@20 | nDCG@100 | | BM25 | - | 22.84 | 28.70 | | T0 | GPT2-Base | 30.76 | 36.44 | | GPT2-Large | 31.11 | 36.79 | | | GPT2-XL | 29.86 | 35.71 | | Implementation Details The discriminator MD is the same model as the zero-shot re-ranker. Since the generator MG should be a decoder-only model, in the case of T0, GPT2-Large (Radford et al., 2019) is utilized as the generator. OPT, a decoderonly model, is used as both the discriminator and the generator. We use the start token as "Please" for a direct comparison with the manual prompt and fix the beam width B as 10 and the maximum prompt length L as 10 in our experiment. Environment We conduct all experiments including prompt searching and document re-ranking on V100 32GB GPUs. We use BEIR (Thakur et al., 2021) framework1for re-ranked result evaluation and passage retrieval datasets. Also, the retrievers, BM25 and DPR, are from the same framework. We employ T0 and OPT with 3B and 2.7B parameters each for the discriminator and the re-ranker publicly open on the Huggingface model hub2(Wolf et al., 2020). ## 5 Result In this section, we show the overall results of our method, Co-Prompt, with a detailed analysis. Overall Results As shown in Table 1, Co-prompt consistently shows a robust performance gain in all scenarios, regardless of LLM, the dataset, and the retriever. Specifically, Co-Prompt, applied to OPT, achieves better results than the other methods. This indicates that the prompts generated by our 1http://beir.ai/ 2https://huggingface.co/models  method are more appropriate to play the role of an instruction to guide LLMs against other prompt optimization methods. More detailed results of reranked performance with various metrics are shown in Appendix B.3. Impact of Start Tokens We exploit other options of start token such as "Score" and "This" as shown in Table 2. Regardless of the start tokens, Co-Prompt consistently generates prompts eliciting the performance of LLM efficiently. However, we observe that finding the optimal start token for the dataset is important to achieve better results. Impact of Generator As shown in Table 3, even if different generators are used, the generated prompts by different generators guide the zero-shot re-ranker efficiently. Still, the differences in performance are caused by a vocabulary mismatch between the two modules. We see that, although our method does not vary significantly in performance to the generator, a more suitable generator may be necessary for better results. Relevance Score We analyze the distributions of relevance scores between positive or negative document-query pairs. As the negative documents for a given query are retrieved from BM25, the negative ones are related to the query but unable to directly find the answer. As shown in Figure 2, we point out that the distribution difference exists between pairs despite some overlap. Also, an LLM can distinguish which pair is positive, even without a prompt. However, we observe that the effect of discrete prompt optimization on the zero-shot reranker is in the direction of increasing the mean and variance of the relevance score. Case Study of Prompts Table 2 shows the discrete prompts generated by our method and discrete prompt baselines when exploiting OPT as a reranker. While the prompts from the RL-prompt are ungrammatical gibberish close to a random word sequence, our method, Co-Prompt, generates interpretable prompts for humans, following human language patterns, and surpasses the performance of the other discrete prompts. Also, the word '*question*', one of the keywords describing the task, is included in the prompts from Co-Prompt regardless of the datasets. This implies that the prompts from our method can provide a natural user interface to improve human understanding of how LLMs work. See Appendix B.3 for more examples of Co-Prompt. ## 6 Conclusion In this paper, we propose Co-Prompt, left-to-right prompt optimization for zero-shot re-ranker via constrained generation. Co-Prompt effectively restricts prompt candidates and evaluates the optimum of these prompts without any parameter updates. We experimentally show that our method achieves consistently outperforming performance across all experiments. Also, the impact of prompt optimization including baselines on the zero-shot re-ranker highlights its importance. We also present an interesting outcome in that the optimal prompt is interpretable for human. For future work, we plan to expand our method to other open-ended generation tasks using LLMs. ## Limitations As shown in Table 1, our method is experimentally demonstrated to be effective for two LLMs. However, OPT, a decoder-only model, is more suitable for the prompts generated by Co-Prompt. This seems to be because T0, the encoder-decoder model, requires a separate generator such as GPT2. The performance of prompts may vary to the generator involved in the vocabulary and training process. Also, there is a trade-off between search time and performance. While increasing the beam size and the number of document-query pairs enhances the probability of finding a more optimal prompt, it makes the search time proportionally longer. ## Ethics Statement Our work contributes to enhancing the retrieval performance of a zero-shot re-ranker by optimizing the discrete prompt via constrained generation. We are keenly aware of the possibility of offensive or upsetting prompts caused by bias of the generator itself even though there were no such prompts in our experiments. Because there is no additional training for prompt optimization, our method has difficulty removing the bias of the language model itself. As studies on reducing the bias of language models or filtering out inappropriate expressions in texts are being actively conducted, these problems are expected to be sufficiently resolved in the future. ## Acknoledgements This work was supported by Institute for Information and communications Technology Promotion (IITP) grant funded by the Korea government (No. 2018-0-00582, Prediction and augmentation of the credibility distribution via linguistic analysis and automated evidence document collection). ## References 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 Neural Information Processing Systems*, volume 33, pages 1877–1901. Curran Associates, Inc. Antoine Chaffin, Vincent Claveau, and Ewa Kijak. 2022. PPL-MCTS: Constrained textual generation through discriminator-guided MCTS decoding. In *Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational* Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2953–2967, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Sumanth Dathathri, Andrea Madotto, Janice Lan, Jane Hung, Eric Frank, Piero Molino, Jason Yosinski, and Rosanne Liu. 2020. Plug and play language models: A simple approach to controlled text generation. In International Conference on Learning Representations. Mingkai Deng, Jianyu Wang, Cheng-Ping Hsieh, Yihan Wang, Han Guo, Tianmin Shu, Meng Song, Eric Xing, and Zhiting Hu. 2022. RLPrompt: Optimizing discrete text prompts with reinforcement learning. In *Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 3369–3391, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. 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. Tianyu Gao, Adam Fisch, and Danqi Chen. 2021. Making pre-trained language models better few-shot learners. 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 3816–3830, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jia-Huei Ju, Jheng-Hong Yang, and Chuan-Ju Wang. 2021. Text-to-text multi-view learning for passage re-ranking. In *Proceedings of the 44th International* ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR '21, page 1803–1807, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas Oguz, Sewon Min, Patrick Lewis, Ledell Wu, Sergey Edunov, Danqi Chen, and Wen-tau Yih. 2020. Dense passage retrieval for opendomain question answering. In *Proceedings of the* 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6769–6781, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Nitish Shirish Keskar, Bryan McCann, Lav R Varshney, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2019. CTRL: A conditional transformer language model for controllable generation. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.05858*. Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. 2022. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. In ICML 2022 Workshop on Knowledge Retrieval and Language Models. Ben Krause, Akhilesh Deepak Gotmare, Bryan McCann, Nitish Shirish Keskar, Shafiq Joty, Richard Socher, and Nazneen Fatema Rajani. 2021. GeDi: Generative discriminator guided sequence generation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, pages 4929–4952, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tom Kwiatkowski, Jennimaria Palomaki, Olivia Redfield, Michael Collins, Ankur Parikh, Chris Alberti, Danielle Epstein, Illia Polosukhin, Jacob Devlin, Kenton Lee, Kristina Toutanova, Llion Jones, Matthew Kelcey, Ming-Wei Chang, Andrew M. Dai, Jakob Uszkoreit, Quoc Le, and Slav Petrov. 2019. Natural Questions: A Benchmark for Question Answering Research. *Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, 7:453–466. Brian Lester, Rami Al-Rfou, and Noah Constant. 2021. The power of scale for parameter-efficient prompt tuning. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on* Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3045–3059, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xiao Liu, Yanan Zheng, Zhengxiao Du, Ming Ding, Yujie Qian, Zhilin Yang, and Jie Tang. 2021. Gpt understands, too. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.10385*. Tri Nguyen, Mir Rosenberg, Xia Song, Jianfeng Gao, Saurabh Tiwary, Rangan Majumder, and Li Deng. 2016. Ms marco: A human generated machine reading comprehension dataset. In *CoCo@NIPS*. Rodrigo Nogueira and Kyunghyun Cho. 2019. Passage re-ranking with bert. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.04085. Rodrigo Nogueira, Zhiying Jiang, Ronak Pradeep, and Jimmy Lin. 2020. Document ranking with a pretrained sequence-to-sequence model. In *Findings* of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 708–718, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Cicero Nogueira dos Santos, Xiaofei Ma, Ramesh Nallapati, Zhiheng Huang, and Bing Xiang. 2020. Beyond [CLS] through ranking by generation. In *Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods* in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1722–1727, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Archiki Prasad, Peter Hase, Xiang Zhou, and Mohit Bansal. 2022. Grips: Gradient-free, edit-based instruction search for prompting large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.07281. Guanghui Qin and Jason Eisner. 2021. Learning how to ask: Querying LMs with mixtures of soft prompts. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5203–5212, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. 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 opendomain question answering. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5835–5847, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. 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. *Journal of Machine Learning Research*, 21(140):1–67. Stephen Robertson and Hugo Zaragoza. 2009. The probabilistic relevance framework: Bm25 and beyond. Foundations and Trends® *in Information Retrieval*, 3(4):333–389. Devendra Sachan, Mike Lewis, Mandar Joshi, Armen Aghajanyan, Wen-tau Yih, Joelle Pineau, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2022. Improving passage retrieval with zero-shot question generation. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3781–3797, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. Devendra Singh Sachan, Mike Lewis, Dani Yogatama, Luke Zettlemoyer, Joelle Pineau, and Manzil Zaheer. 2023. Questions are all you need to train a dense passage retriever. Victor Sanh, Albert Webson, Colin Raffel, Stephen Bach, Lintang Sutawika, Zaid Alyafeai, Antoine Chaffin, Arnaud Stiegler, Arun Raja, Manan Dey, M Saiful Bari, Canwen Xu, Urmish Thakker, Shanya Sharma Sharma, Eliza Szczechla, Taewoon Kim, Gunjan Chhablani, Nihal Nayak, Debajyoti Datta, Jonathan Chang, Mike Tian-Jian Jiang, Han Wang, Matteo Manica, Sheng Shen, Zheng Xin Yong, Harshit Pandey, Rachel Bawden, Thomas Wang, Trishala Neeraj, Jos Rozen, Abheesht Sharma, Andrea Santilli, Thibault Fevry, Jason Alan Fries, Ryan Teehan, Teven Le Scao, Stella Biderman, Leo Gao, Thomas Wolf, and Alexander M Rush. 2022. Multitask prompted training enables zero-shot task generalization. In International Conference on Learning Representations. Taylor Shin, Yasaman Razeghi, Robert L. Logan IV, Eric Wallace, and Sameer Singh. 2020. AutoPrompt: Eliciting Knowledge from Language Models with Automatically Generated Prompts. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 4222–4235, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Nandan Thakur, Nils Reimers, Andreas Rücklé, 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). Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, 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. Sang Michael Xie, Aditi Raghunathan, Percy Liang, and Tengyu Ma. 2022. An explanation of in-context learning as implicit bayesian inference. In *International Conference on Learning Representations*. Susan Zhang, Stephen Roller, Naman Goyal, Mikel Artetxe, Moya Chen, Shuohui Chen, Christopher Dewan, Mona Diab, Xian Li, Xi Victoria Lin, et al. 2022. Opt: Open pre-trained transformer language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01068. ## A Implementation Details A.1 Datasets We employ two information retrieval datasets for evaluating the performance of the zero-shot reranker with the prompts. **1) MS-MARCO** (Nguyen et al., 2016) contains about 8M passages and 6,980 queries in development split collected from the Bing search logs. Because of the diversity of topics and contents with the large training set, recent work exploits MS-MARCO for retriever training (Nogueira and Cho, 2019; Qu et al., 2021). 2) Natural Question (NQ, Kwiatkowski et al. (2019)) contains about 2M passages of Wikipedia articles and 3,452 queries in test split collected from Google search engines. Also, NQ, one of the popular open-domain question datasets, is exploited as training data of dense retrievers (Karpukhin et al., 2020). Both datasets are the benchmarks for evaluating information retriever systems (Thakur et al., 2021). Only 1,500 document-query pairs from MSMARCO test split and NQ development split each are utilized for the prompt optimization. ## A.2 Metrics As mentioned in Section 4, we employ two metrics, 1) ACC and **2) nDCG**. In addition, we use one more metric. **3) MAP** is the mean average precision of the relevant documents' ranks for a given query. ## A.3 Retrievers We use two types of retrievers, sparse and dense retrievers, for retrieving documents re-ranked by LLMs. **1) BM25** (Robertson and Zaragoza, 2009) is a representative sparse retriever computing the relevance score between a document and a query based on term frequency and inverse document frequency. BM25 has been widely employed because of its fast speed and effective performance. 2) DPR (Karpukhin et al., 2020) interprets training dense retrieval as metric learning problems. The biencoder initialized with BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) is trained with contrastive learning exploiting positive and negative passages for a given query. It shows outperforming results over traditional sparse retrievers. ## A.4 Zero-Shot Re-Rankers We employ two LLMs, T0 and OPT, as re-rankers with the prompt. **1) T0**, one of the T5 series (Raffel et al., 2020), consists of transformer encoderdecoder layers. The models are fine-tuned versions of T5 for multi-task learning with prompted datasets. **2) OPT**, a publicly open model, consists of decoder-only transformer layers. Its performance is comparable to those of GPT-3 models. We exploit OPT instead of GPT-3 due to academic budget. The template is needed when trasmitting a document, a prompt and a query to zero-shot reranker together. Following the template setting of UPR, the template used in the experiments is "Passage: {document} {delimiter} {prompt} {delimiter} {query}". The delimiters used in the experiments are " " for T0 and "\n" for OPT. ## A.5 Baselines Manual Prompt Sachan et al. (2022) not only proposed unsupervised passage re-ranker exploiting LLMs but also carefully selected the optimal prompt among handcrafted candidates validated by the re-ranked result at BM25 passages of NQ development set. The manually optimized prompt "*Please write a question based on this passage*" effectively guides zero-shot re-rankers to generate the query corresponding to the document. P-tuning Liu et al. (2021) proposed P-tuning3, generating soft prompts (i.e., continuous prompt embeddings), not discrete ones. They employed the prompt encoder consisting of long-short term memory layers trained to return the optimal soft prompts for the task. While the method mainly focuses on the text classification task, we define the loss objective as query generation log-likelihood for application to re-ranking. The prompt encoder is trained with document-query pairs for 10 epochs to generate 10-length soft prompts. RL-Prompt Deng et al. (2022) proposed discrete prompt generation, applicable to open-ended generation tasks, with reinforcement learning. They validated the method applicable to text style transfer, one of open-ended text generation techniques. In order to align to the re-ranking task, we define the reward for the policy network as query generation log-likelihood from the document and the prompt. Following the setting mentioned in RL-Prompt4, the 5-token length prompt is created through 12,000 training steps with a policy network model. 3https://github.com/THUDM/P-tuning 4https://github.com/mingkaid/rl-prompt | Retriever | Prompt | Instruction Prompt | MS-MARCO | | | | |---------------|--------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|------------|--------|---------|-------| | \Re-ranker | \Generator | nDCG@20 | nDCG@100 | MAP@20 | MAP@100 | | | BM25 | - | - | 22.84 | 28.70 | 18.69 | 65.78 | | Manual Prompt | "Please write a question based on this passage." | 30.31 | 36.13 | 24.03 | 25.22 | | | T0 | GPT2-Base | "Please and tell me why, what, how," | 30.76 | 36.44 | 24.54 | 25.70 | | GPT2-Large | "Please send me some info on why or in detail" | 31.11 | 36.79 | 24.82 | 25.99 | | | GPT2-XL | "Please enter the message content, such\n and\n" | 29.86 | 35.71 | 23.99 | 25.17 | | Table 4: Comparison of the prompts from the different generators and evaluation on the document set retrieved from MS-MARCO by BM25. The best results of each metric are marked in **bold**. Retriever NQ **MS-MARCO** \Re-ranker ACC@20 ACC@100 **ACC@20 ACC@100** BM25 62.9 78.3 48.0 66.7 T0 + Base Metric 75.0 83.8 61.9 78.0 + Contrastive Metric 76.2 83.8 59.6 76.2 OPT + Base Metric 75.2 84.1 59.3 77.2 + Contrastive Metric 74.4 84.0 57.7 75.7 DPR 79.2 85.7 37.5 55.5 T0 + Base Metric 80.4 87.7 58.0 71.7 + Contrastive Metric 80.6 87.9 56.4 70.8 OPT + Base Metric 80.2 88.1 56.4 71.3 + Contrastive Metric 80.2 87.9 53.3 68.9 ## B Analysis B.1 Likelihood Pmd (Ds|Ρ1:T) In this section, we call the likelihood proposed in Equation 4 as the base metric. We consider the other option of likelihood PMD (Ds|ρ1:t) in a contrastive manner and also show the compared result with base metric in Table 5. Contrastive Measurement The query generation score should be high for positive documentquery pairs D+ s and low for negative pairs D− s . In a contrastive manner, the likelihood exploits the contrast between P*base*(D+ s|ρ) and P*base*(D− s|ρ) as follows: $$P_{cont}(D_{s}|\rho)=\frac{P_{base}(D_{s}^{+}|\rho)}{P_{base}(D_{s}^{+}|\rho)+P_{base}(D_{s}^{-}|\rho)}\tag{5}$$ As shown in Table 5, base metric gains a certain level of performance regardless of the dataset and LLM, whereas contrastive metric shows inferior performance over MS-MARCO. ## B.2 Impact Of Generator We show more detailed results of the prompts from the different generators in table 4. While the generated prompts follow human language patterns, there are some differences in used words. ## B.3 Detailed Results We evaluate the performance of zero-shot re-ranker with various metrics at Top-20 and Top-100 documents, as shown in Table 6. Co-Prompt is ranked 1st or 2nd on every metric across all experiments. On the other hand, the manual prompt, optimized for NQ, records inferior performance over MSMARCO. Also, other optimization methods, RLPrompt and P-Tuning, fail to achieve the best record in all experiments. This shows that the optimal prompt for zero-shot re-ranker is made from our method, Co-Prompt. In addition, when confirming qualitatively generated prompts, the outputs from Co-Prompt are similar to human language patterns compared to RL-Prompt. The keyword "*question*" is included in most of the prompts generated by Co-Prompt. Considering that other optimization methods produce dense prompt embedding or ungrammatical gibberish, Co-Prompt suggests a new direction in which a prompt can function as a natural user interface to understand a black-box model. T0 OPT T0 OPT T0 OPT T0 OPT Retriever **Instruction Prompt** NQ \Re-ranker ACC@20 ACC@100 nDCG@20 nDCG@100 MAP@20 MAP@100 BM25 - 62.9 78.3 20.2 23.9 7.8 9.9 Null "" 73.1 82.8 27.8 32.1 12.9 16.0  P-Tuning - 72.9 82.8 27.9 32.2 12.8 16.0 RL-Prompt " *poll question question question knows*" 74.7 83.4 30.4 34.6 14.4 17.9 Manual "*Please write a question based on this passage*" **75.7 83.8 32.5 36.6 15.9 19.7** Co-Prompt"*Please try and find out the answer by asking questions like*" 75.0 **83.8** 30.9 35.1 14.8 18.4 "*Please try and find out the answer by asking questions below*" 75.1 83.5 31.0 35.2 15.0 18.5 "*Please try and find out the answer by asking questions* 75.3 83.7 31.0 35.1 14.9 18.4 Null "" 70.5 81.9 25.1 29.8 11.1 14.0 P-Tuning - 71.2 82.9 27.2 32.1 12.5 15.9 RL-Prompt " *poll trivia trivia wondered asking*" 72.5 82.9 27.2 31.7 12.3 15.5 Manual "*Please write a question based on this passage*" 73.2 83.3 27.9 32.5 12.9 16.2 Co-Prompt"*Please post your question again when its not about the*" 75.2 **84.1** 30.4 34.9 14.4 17.9 "*Please post your question again when its not just about*" **75.5 84.1 30.6 35.1 14.7 18.2** "*Please post your question again after doing research about* 74.5 83.9 29.6 34.2 14.0 17.4 DPR - 79.2 85.7 34.0 35.2 17.9 19.8 Null "" 78.5 86.6 31.4 34.9 15.9 18.6 P-Tuning - 79.1 87.0 32.1 35.4 16.1 19.0 RL-Prompt " *poll question question question knows*" 79.9 87.4 34.1 37.5 17.4 20.5 Manual "*Please write a question based on this passage*" **81.4 87.8 36.6 39.7 19.1 22.5** Co-Prompt"*Please try and find out the answer by asking questions like*" 80.4 87.7 34.5 38.0 17.8 21.0 "*Please try and find out the answer by asking questions below*" 80.2 87.6 34.8 38.2 17.9 21.2 "*Please try and find out the answer by asking questions* 80.2 87.6 34.8 38.1 17.9 21.1 Null "" 76.3 86.1 28.8 32.8 13.8 16.5 P-Tuning - 78.2 87.5 31.8 36.1 15.9 19.2 Manual "*Please write a question based on this passage*" 78.9 87.5 32.0 35.8 16.0 19.0 RL-Prompt " *poll trivia trivia wondered asking*" 79.1 87.0 31.6 35.2 15.7 18.6 Manual "*Please write a question based on this passage*" 78.9 87.5 32.0 35.8 16.0 19.0 Co-Prompt"*Please post your question again when its not about the*" **80.2** 88.1 34.1 37.8 17.3 20.5 "*Please post your question again when its not just about*" **80.2** 88.0 **34.6 38.2 17.8 21.0** "*Please post your question again after doing research about* 80.1 **88.3** 33.6 37.6 17.1 20.3 Retriever Instruction Prompt **MS-MARCO** \Re-ranker ACC@20 ACC@100 nDCG@20 nDCG@100 MAP@20 MAP@100 BM25 - 48.0 66.7 25.2 28.7 18.7 19.2 Null "" 53.2 72.7 27.5 31.2 20.2 20.7 P-Tuning - 54.1 72.5 28.5 31.9 21.1 21.6 RL-Prompt " *question meaning difference meaning reality*" 60.9 77.4 33.1 35.2 25.1 25.4 Manual "*Please write a question based on this passage*" 60.6 77.9 32.8 36.1 24.8 25.2 Co-Prompt"*Please send me some info on why or in detail,*" **61.9 78.0 33.7 36.8 25.5 26.0** "*Please send me some info on why or in detail about*" 61.2 77.8 33.4 36.6 25.4 25.9 "*Please send me some info on why or in detail on*" 61.2 77.7 33.3 36.5 25.2 25.7 Null "" 50.4 71.7 25.4 29.4 18.3 18.8 P-Tuning - 56.4 75.5 29.4 33.0 21.6 22.1 RL-Prompt "*questions answers key question defining*" 59.2 76.7 31.5 34.8 23.4 23.9 Manual "*Please write a question based on this passage*" 55.3 74.6 28.7 32.4 21.1 21.6 Co-Prompt"*Please tell that* ?■ is the first question asked on Google for" **59.3 77.2 31.9 35.2 23.9 24.4**  is the question of " 58.8 76.7 31.2 34.6 23.2 23.7 is the first question to arise on" 58.3 76.0 31.0 34.3 23.1 23.5 DPR - 37.5 55.4 19.6 22.9 14.6 15.0 Null "" 51.5 68.0 27.8 30.9 20.9 21.3 P-Tuning - 52.5 68.2 28.5 31.5 21.6 22.0 RL-Prompt " *question meaning difference meaning reality*" 57.1 71.2 32.1 34.7 24.8 25.2 Manual "*Please write a question based on this passage*" 57.7 **72.0** 32.2 34.9 24.8 21.4 Co-Prompt"*Please send me some info on why or in detail,*" **58.0** 71.7 **32.7 35.3 25.3 25.7** "*Please send me some info on why or in detail about*" 57.6 71.6 32.5 35.1 25.1 25.5 "*Please send me some info on why or in detail on*" 57.3 71.6 32.3 35.1 25.1 25.5 Null "" 50.1 68.1 26.4 29.7 19.5 20.0 P-Tuning - 54.6 69.9 29.1 32.0 21.8 22.2 RL-Prompt "*questions answers key question defining*" 56.3 71.1 31.1 33.8 23.7 24.1 Manual "*Please write a question based on this passage*" 54.3 70.1 29.1 32.1 21.9 22.3 Co-Prompt"*Please tell that* ?■ is the first question asked on Google for" **56.4 71.3 31.4 34.2 24.1 24.5** is the question of " 56.3 71.1 31.1 33.9 23.7 24.1 is the first question to arise on" 55.8 70.6 30.8 33.5 23.5 23.9 ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? I discuss the limtations at section "Limitation". ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? I discuss the potential risk at section "Ethics Statement". ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? I write at section "Abstract" and 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 & Appendix A ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 4 & Appendix A ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Section 4 & Appendix A ✓ 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 & Appendix A ✓ 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 4 & Appendix A ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Section 4 & Appendix A ✓ 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 & Appendix A ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Section 5 Result ✓ 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? Section 4 & 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 5 Result ✓ 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 & Appendix A 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.

misra-etal-2023-triggering

Triggering Multi-Hop Reasoning for Question Answering in Language Models using Soft Prompts and Random Walks

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.62

Despite readily memorizing world knowledge about entities, pre-trained language models (LMs) struggle to compose together two or more facts to perform multi-hop reasoning in question-answering tasks. In this work, we propose techniques that improve upon this limitation by relying on random-walks over structured knowledge graphs. Specifically, we use soft-prompts to guide LMs to chain together their encoded knowledge by learning to map multi-hop questions to random-walk paths that lead to the answer. Applying our methods on two T5 LMs shows substantial improvements over standard tuning approaches in answering questions that require multi-hop reasoning.

# Triggering Multi-Hop Reasoning For Question Answering In Language Models Using Soft Prompts And Random Walks Kanishka MisraF Purdue University kmisra@purdue.edu Cicero Nogueira dos Santos Google Research cicerons@google.com Siamak Shakeri Google DeepMind siamaks@google.com ## Abstract Despite readily memorizing world knowledge about entities, pre-trained language models (LMs) struggle to compose together two or more facts to perform multi-hop reasoning in question-answering tasks. In this work, we propose techniques that improve upon this limitation by relying on random walks over structured knowledge graphs. Specifically, we use soft prompts to guide LMs to chain together their encoded knowledge by learning to map multi-hop questions to random walk paths that lead to the answer. Applying our methods on two T5 LMs shows substantial improvements over standard tuning approaches in answering questions that require 2-hop reasoning. ## 1 Introduction Performing multi-hop reasoning to answer questions such as *Where was David Beckham's daughter born?* requires two fundamental capacities: C1: possessing pre-requisite knowledge (David Beckham's daughter is Harper Beckham, *Harper Beckham was born in Los Angeles*), and C2: ability to compose internalized knowledge. Contemporary pre-trained language models (LMs) such as BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) and T5 (Raffel et al., 2020) have been shown to be adept at encoding factual knowledge (Petroni et al., 2019; Zhong et al., 2021; Roberts et al., 2020), an ability that can be further boosted by explicitly integrating them with knowledge about entities and relations (Bosselut et al., 2019; Sun et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2021, *i.a.*). At the same time, these LMs often struggle to compose the knowledge they encode (Kassner et al., 2020; Talmor et al., 2020; Moiseev et al., 2022), and therefore do not satisfy C2. To overcome this limitation, previous works have proposed methods that decompose multi-hop questions into single hop sub-questions that models can more easily answer F Work done during an internship at Google Research. (Min et al., 2019; Perez et al., 2020, *i.a.*). However, such methods require training entirely separate models, or make use of human-annotations (Patel et al., 2022). Furthermore, they focus on tasks where models explicitly receive additional text containing relevant facts, which makes it unclear if they can *truly* compose the knowledge that they have internalized. In this work, we aim to improve the standalone, self-contained ability of LMs to perform multi-hop reasoning. We posit that *random walks*—paths between entity nodes sampled from structured knowledge graphs—can provide a useful training signal for LMs to compose entity knowledge. To test this, we perform a case-study on two T5 models (LARGE and XXL, Raffel et al., 2020). Specifically, we first integrate within the LMs the single-hop knowledge that is required to answer multi-hop questions (effectively guaranteeing C1 is met). We show that this alone is not enough to demonstrate substantial improvements on questions requiring 2-hop reasoning. We then adapt the knowledge integrated T5 models by training soft prompts (Qin and Eisner, 2021; Lester et al., 2021) on random walks over the structured knowledge that they have encoded, and devise two methods that trigger this ability in the LMs given a multi-hop question as input. The first method, **Parse-then-Hop** (PATH), uses two specialized soft prompts: one to parse entities and relations from the question, and another to generate a path to the answer, resembling the outputs of a random walk. The second method, **MIXHOP**, trains a single prompt on a mixture that combines the QA task with the random walk training, so as to allow the model to implicitly learn PATH's task. Both these soft prompt methods use the same underlying LM (kept frozen), and guide it to compose its internalized entity knowledge. Our experiments suggest that integrating random walks in the T5 models using our proposed techniques can substantially improve their ability to  answer entity-centric 2-hop questions (Ho et al., 2020) at larger model sizes. Briefly, on T5-XXL our methods show improvements over previously proposed prompt-tuning approaches (Lester et al., 2021; Vu et al., 2022) as well as full model finetuning, with PATH and MIXHOP demonstrating gains of ⇠16 and ⇠9.6 points in exact match scores over fine-tuning the entire model, respectively. In the case of T5-LARGE, our methods demonstrate improvements over standard prompt-tuning methods, but fall short of the performance achieved using fine-tuning, suggesting that larger modelswith up to 11B parameters—are more conducive to leveraging the training signal provided by random walks via soft prompts. ## 2 Method 2.1 Models We apply our methods on two T5.1.1 models (Raffel et al., 2020)—T5-LARGE (770M parameters) and T5-XXL (11B parameters), using checkpoints that have been adapted using the Prefix LM objective for 100K steps (Lester et al., 2021). ## 2.2 Knowledge Integration We first ensure that the LMs we use have the prerequisite single-hop knowledge (C1) required to answer multi-hop questions. This is necessary, as preliminary experiments suggested that the T5 models we used did not satisfy this primary criterion for multi-hop reasoning (see Table 1). Specifically, we follow Bosselut et al. (2019) and fine-tune our LMs on knowledge graph (KG) triples containing the relevant knowledge that is to be composed to answer questions. That is, given a triple (e1*, r, e*2), where e1 and e2 are entities, and r is the relation, we fine-tune our T5 models to take as input the string "e1 ; r1", and produce "e2" as output, using the Prefix LM objective (Raffel et al., 2020). To avoid catastrophic forgetting (McCloskey and Cohen, 1989) and retain the LMs' language understanding abilities, we mix our knowledge integration training instances with that of the models' pre-training corpus—i.e., C4 (Raffel et al., 2020)— in a 50:50 mixture. We denote the resulting models as KNowledge-Integrated T5 (KNIT5). ## 2.3 Composing Knowledge Using Soft Prompts Random Walk training Our method is centered around guiding the KNIT5 LMs to chain together their encoded knowledge by training them on random walks over a relevant KG. We formulate random walks here as as a sequence of entity-relationentity triples that are connected linearly via shared entities. Figure 1 shows an example with a random walk of length 3 (Violet Tendencies ; director ; Casper Andreas ; place of birth ; Sweden). To perform our random walk training, we rely on soft prompts (Li and Liang, 2021; Lester et al., 2021; Qin and Eisner, 2021), a sequence of learnable token-vectors that are prepended to the input of the LM. Importantly, we only update these vectors during training, thereby keeping intact the utility and encoded knowledge of the main LM, while also being parameter efficient. Our training procedure is as follows: we first perform uniform random walks of length n over the KG used in section 2.2, resulting in a set whose elements are sequences of entities interleaved by the relations that connect them: (e1, r1, e2,...,rn1, en). During training, KNIT5 receives as input an incomplete path, with only the initial entity and the intermediate relations (e1, r1, r2*,...,r*n1), and is tasked to generate the full path: (e1, r1, e2, r2 ...,rn1, en). We denote the trained prompts that trigger this ability in KNIT5 as **Hopping Prompts**. ## 2.4 Performing Qa Using Hopping Prompts We propose two new techniques that utilize Hopping Prompts to map natural language questions to ## Appropriate Paths In The Knowledge Graph: Parse-then-Hop (PATH) We take advantage of the modularity of soft prompts, and distribute the responsibility of parsing the relational structure from questions and random walk querying using separate specialized prompts, keeping the underlying model the same. We train "parsing" prompts that parse questions to incomplete random walk queries, resembling the inputs to the Hopping Prompts described above. For instance, the question "Where was David Beckham's daughter born?" is parsed to "David Beckham ; daughter ; place of birth". We then swap the parsing prompts with the hopping prompts, using the outputs from the parsing step as inputs and then run inference to get a path from the entity in the question to the answer: "David Beckham ; daughter ; Harper Beckham ; place of birth ; **Los Angeles**", as shown in Figure 1. We posit that parsing of the appropriate relational structure from the question should be easy and self-contained, since it only involves using the surface form of the question as opposed to invoking any external knowledge, which is delegated to Hopping Prompts. MIXHOP We propose to jointly train a single set of prompts on a mixture of the QA task and the Hopping Prompts task (50:50), thereby halving the number of forward passes from the previous method. Our primary motivation here is to provide diverse training signals that get models to map questions to the structured knowledge that explicitly connects the entity in the question to the answer entity. Like PATH, MIXHOP directly produces random walk paths as output, as shown in Figure 1. ## 3 Experimental Setup 3.1 Data Multi-hop QA Dataset While traditional multihop QA datasets provide additional paragraphs (Yang et al., 2018; Trivedi et al., 2022) for models to reason over, we operate under the more challenging closed-book QA setting (Roberts et al., 2020), where such contexts are omitted. Specifically, we use the "compositional" and "inference" subsets of the **2WikiMultiHopQA** dataset (Ho et al., 2020), which contains 2-hop English questions focusing on 98,284 entities and 29 relations, sourced from WikiData (Vrandeciˇ c and Krötzsch ´ , 2014). We select this dataset as it uniquely provides the *precise* structured knowledge that is required to answer each question, in the form of entity-relation-entity triples.1 Since the test splits for these specific subsets are private, we use the validation split as the test set, and use 10% of the training set for validation. In total we have 72,759 train, 8,085 validation, and 6,768 test questions. 1-hop QA Dataset To characterize if the models we test have the pre-requisite 1-hop knowledge, we additionally construct 1-hop questions from 2WikiMultiHopQA by applying manually defined templates over the entity triples provided for each 2-hop question (see Appendix C). For instance, the triple Inception ; director ; Christopher Nolan is converted to *Who is the director of Inception?*. We end up with 83,643 train, 5,022 validation, and 6,440 test QA instances. We term this constructed dataset as **1WikiHopQA**. Knowledge Integration Data We build the KG for our methods using the set of ground-truth triples provided in the 2WikiMultiHopQA dataset (98,284 entities and 29 relations, amounting to 95K triples). Random Walk Training Corpus For each entity in the above KG, we sample *up to* 20 random walks of length 3, each corresponding to an instance of 2 hops between entities. We repeat this step 5 times with different seeds, discard duplicate paths, and end up with a total of 165,324 unique paths as a result. **Importantly, we hold out the** paths that include the triples in the QA task's validation and test sets in order to avoid leakage, ending up with 155,311/ 8,085/6,768 paths as our train/validation/test sets, respectively. This way, our experiments test for the kinds of generalization where models should successfully place entities in novel structures (complete paths in the KG), whose primitive knowledge (1-hop triples) is encoded in the model, but the composition is not. This can be viewed as a partial version of the lexical and structural generalization tests in stricter, more prominent compositional generalization benchmarks (Lake and Baroni, 2018; Kim and Linzen, 2020). ## 3.2 Baselines And Comparisons We compare our proposed approaches to standard fine-tuning and prompt-tuning (Lester et al., 2021), 1Works such as Balachandran et al. (2021) propose unsupervised mappings of questions in more popular datasets such as NaturalQuestions (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019) to paths in knowledge graphs, but our initial investigations of these paths found them to be extensively noisy. which we use to directly produce the answer, without any intermediate entities or relations. Additionally, we also adapt SPOT (Vu et al., 2022), a prompt-tuning method where we initialize prompts with those that were pre-trained on related tasks. In our adaptation, we initialize prompts using the values of the Hopping Prompts, and SPOT-transfer them to guide KNIT5 models to generate the full output, similar to PATH and MIXHOP. Since we operate in the closed book QA setting (Roberts et al., 2020), our methods cannot be directly compared to previous approaches on the dataset we considered, all of which receive paragraph contexts during training. Only two other methods have considered the present dataset in its closed-book format (Press et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2022). However, both of them use smaller subsets of the validation set as their testing set, and test on different pretrained models, making it impractical to directly compare our results to their reported values. ## 4 Experiments And Findings2 We report and summarize our results as follows: Integration of 1-hop knowledge only results in marginal improvements on 2-hop questions We begin by first establishing the extent to which T5 models encode and compose 1-hop knowledge required to answer 2-hop questions, and whether additional knowledge integration (via KNIT5) can improve both these abilities. From Tables 1 and 3, we observe that the T5 models struggle to answer both 1-hop as well as 2-hop questions, suggesting that they critically lack the precise 1-hop entity knowledge required to demonstrate success on the 2-hop questions. The KNIT5 LMs overcome this limitation, by showing substantial gains on 1WikiHopQA over their T5 counterparts—they show improvements of ⇠16.5 and ⇠34.8 points in ex2Training details for all experiments can be found in Appendix A. act match (EM) scores at LARGE and XXL sizes in the fine-tuning setting, respectively (Table 1). However, this is insufficient to show improvements on 2-hop questions—where maximum gain over T5 is only 2.2 points, achieved by prompt-tuning KNIT5-XXL (see Table 3). This suggests that even after being endowed with the prerequisite 1-hop knowledge, both LMs are unable to successfully answer more complicated questions, echoing the results of Moiseev et al. (2022). Note that both KNIT5 models almost perfectly memorize the KG in our knowledge-integration experiments (achieving ⇠96% EM in under 10K training steps; see Appendix B.1), so their limitations on 2-hop questions are likely not due to lack of entity knowledge and perhaps instead due to the inability to compose or chain together memorized facts. Generalizing to novel random walks may require the prompt-tuning of larger LMs We now turn to analyzing the performance of models in generating random walks, a critical component for all our proposed QA methods. How well does prompt-tuning LMs generalize to KG paths composed of facts they have memorized but are unseen during training? Recall that this step involved leveraging soft prompts (called Hopping Prompts) to guide the LMs to chain together their memorized entity knowledge and generate paths akin to performing a random walk. That is, it is the Hopping Prompts that must provide the necessary condition in the encoder to facilitate successful output-generation, and not the entire LM. Also recall that we explicitly held out the paths involving triples in the validation and test sets of the main QA task to prevent complete memorization (due to leakage into the training set). This way we are able to measure the extent to which models learned to construct KG paths in a generalized manner. To this end, we compute the EM and F1 scores over the full generated spans of entities, interleaved by the relations that connect them. Note that EM is substantially stricter than F1, since F1 rewards par- | Model | EM | F1 | |-------------|-------|-------| | KNIT5-LARGE | 22.83 | 84.72 | | KNIT5-XXL | 58.36 | 92.82 | | Setup | Model | LARGE | XXL | |---------|---------|---------|-------| | PT | T5 | 4.36 | 6.89 | | KNIT5 | 6.30 | 31.64 | | | FT | T5 | 6.24 | 8.82 | | KNIT5 | 22.73 | 43.60 | | | Size | Prompt-Tuning | Fine-Tuning | SPOT | PATH | MIXHOP | | | |--------|-----------------|---------------|--------|--------|----------|-------|-------| | T5 | KNIT5 | T5 | KNIT5 | | | | | | LARGE | 4.47 | 5.29 | 10.03 | 11.19 | 7.22 | 8.62 | 6.58 | | XXL | 6.42 | 8.62 | 12.92 | 13.47 | 20.03 | 29.37 | 23.09 | tial overlap of tokens between the target vs. the generated output. Table 2 shows these scores for KNIT5-LARGE and KNIT5-XXL on the validation set of our random walk task, tuned using the Hopping Prompts. We see from Table 2 that there is a substantial gap between KNIT5-LARGE (⇠23 EM) and KNIT5-XXL (⇠58 EM), suggesting that the LARGE model finds it difficult to generalize to random walk paths involving entities and relations outside of the training set. We conclude from this observation that the gap between KNIT5-LARGE and KNIT5-XXL in generalizing to held-out KG paths is likely going to be reflected when tested for 2-hop QA. That is, we expect our prompting methods with KNIT5-LARGE as the base-model to struggle on our test set questions as their groundtruth paths were not encountered during training, and at the same time, expect the opposite to be the case for KNIT5-XXL. Additionally, the EM score achieved by the XXL-sized model is well below perfect values, highlighting important avenues for future work to improve upon these gaps. Training on random walks substantially improves 2-hop capabilities ..but mostly in larger LMs We used three methods that leveraged the training signal provided by random walks to compose the 1-hop knowledge as memorized by KNIT5: PATH (ours), MIXHOP (ours), and SPOT (Vu et al., 2022). Due to lack of space, examples of the outputs from each of these methods, along with analysis of intermediate steps (e.g., parsing) are shown in Appendix B. We observe from Table 3 that for the XXL-sized model, all three methods lead to substantial improvements in performance on 2-hop questions over standard tuning approaches on T5 and KNIT5. Notably for KNIT5-XXL, random walk-integrated methods improve even over fine-tuning, which is often expected to be better at transfer learning as compared to parameter efficient methods. Among the three, our PATH method shows the best improvements (⇠16 point gain over fine-tuning KNIT5-XXL) at answering 2-hop questions. This showcases the promise of learning separate specialized prompts that operate over the same underlying model to first parse natural language into incomplete structured knowledge, and then expand it to answer the question, while also eliciting intermediate steps (Wang et al., 2022), similar to recent in-context prompting methods (Wei et al., 2022b; Nye et al., 2022). While the MIXHOP method (⇠9.6 point gain over fine-tuning) falls short of PATH, it still improves over SPOT (⇠6.6 point gain over fine-tuning), suggesting that joint training of related tasks may improve over sequential training (as employed by SPOT) in performing multi-hop reasoning, at larger model sizes. In the case of T5-LARGE and KNIT5-LARGE, while the proposed methods show improvements over standard prompt-tuning, with PATH demonstrating a gain of 3.33 points over prompt-tuning KNIT5- LARGE, they fall-short of the performance achieved by fine-tuning. However, their non-trivial improvements over regular prompt-tuning suggests the general benefits of the training signal provided by random walks, which end up being most impressive at models that are an order of magnitude larger. Overall, these results corroborate with our hypothesis from the random walk tests about KNIT5-LARGE's potential inability to generate partially novel random walks given either natural language multi-hop questions (MIXHOP) or their parses (PATH). 5 Conclusion We show that composition of memorized world knowledge can be triggered in LMs with up to 11B parameters (T5-XXL) to a desirable extent by leveraging training signal from random walks over structured knowledge using approaches based on prompt-tuning (Lester et al., 2021). Doing so leads to substantial improvements in the LMs' ability to answer 2-hop questions, even beyond standard, full model fine-tuning. ## Limitations Despite showing non-trivial improvements in the multi-hop capabilities of T5 models, our work has multiple limitations. Restricted to 2-hops First, we chose 2WikiHopMultiQA (Ho et al., 2020) as our primary dataset since it uniquely maps each question to a chain of triples that contain the precise, noiseless single-hop knowledge required to answer the question. However, this comes at the cost of our analyses only being restricted to 2-hops (though see arguments by Press et al. (2023, sec 3.5) who suggest 3-and4-hop questions to be too convoluted to understand even by native-speakers). Nonetheless, our random walk training method is general by definition, and can be extended to multiple hops, though its effectiveness on QA tasks requiring more than 2-hops of reasoning remains to be measured. Knowledge Graph size Our focus in this paper was to allow models to chain together their internalized knowledge in order to answer complex 2hop questions. However, this critically requires them to possess the world knowledge required to answer the questions, for which we had to memorize the KG constructed using the structured triples provided in the dataset. This trade-off between focusing on knowledge composition vs. fully encoding world knowledge restricted our KG to be small in size (only 98,284 entities and 29 relations), which could be impractical in most real-world applications. In future work, we will experiment with larger sized KGs (Vrandeciˇ c and Krötzsch ´ , 2014), by adding a substantially larger amount of additional triples to the existing KG, and measure their impact on multi-hop reasoning. Lack of diverse QA tasks Finally, we were unable to consider popular datasets with CBQA versions such as TriviaQA (Roberts et al., 2020), NaturalQuestions (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019), etc., due to their lack of links from questions to structured knowledge. Future work can apply entity and relational linking techniques (Balachandran et al., 2021; Agarwal et al., 2021) in order to augment such QA datasets with (possibly) noisy links to structured knowledge, which will allow us to paint a more holistic picture of our methods. Additionally, this would also overcome the above limitation (of KG size), as it would substantially increase the amounts of entities and relations to be encoded ## Within Models. Implications for Larger Models Although we show clear improvements in triggering 2-hop reasoning in the largest T5 LM (T5-XXL), with 11B parameters, contemporary work has shown that multi-step reasoning capacities naturally emerge in LMs that are two or three orders of magnitude larger (Brown et al., 2020; Chowdhery et al., 2022; Wei et al., 2022b,a). However, these LMs benefit from examples in-context (especially since tuning them is non-trivial and expensive), and therefore it is unclear whether our methods can improve such models' capacities even further. We have not tested such LMs in our work, due to resource limitations. ## Acknowledgments We thank Noah Constant, Chung-Ching Chang, Brian Lester, and Ben Withbroe from Google Research for their helpful comments and advice. We would also like to thank our three anonymous reviewers for their useful feedback. ## References Oshin Agarwal, Heming Ge, Siamak Shakeri, and Rami Al-Rfou. 2021. Knowledge graph based synthetic corpus generation for knowledge-enhanced language model pre-training. In *Proceedings of the* 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 3554–3565, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Vidhisha Balachandran, Bhuwan Dhingra, Haitian Sun, Michael Collins, and William Cohen. 2021. Investigating the effect of background knowledge on natural questions. In Proceedings of Deep Learning Inside Out (DeeLIO): The 2nd Workshop on Knowledge Extraction and Integration for Deep Learning Architectures, pages 25–30, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Antoine Bosselut, Hannah Rashkin, Maarten Sap, Chaitanya Malaviya, Asli Celikyilmaz, and Yejin Choi. 2019. COMET: Commonsense transformers for automatic knowledge graph construction. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4762–4779, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. 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. Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, et al. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02311. 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. Xanh Ho, Anh-Khoa Duong Nguyen, Saku Sugawara, and Akiko Aizawa. 2020. Constructing a multihop QA dataset for comprehensive evaluation of reasoning steps. In *Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics*, pages 6609–6625, Barcelona, Spain (Online). International Committee on Computational Linguistics. Nora Kassner, Benno Krojer, and Hinrich Schütze. 2020. Are pretrained language models symbolic reasoners over knowledge? In Proceedings of the 24th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 552–564, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Najoung Kim and Tal Linzen. 2020. COGS: A compositional generalization challenge based on semantic interpretation. In *Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language* Processing (EMNLP), pages 9087–9105, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tom Kwiatkowski, Jennimaria Palomaki, Olivia Redfield, Michael Collins, Ankur Parikh, Chris Alberti, Danielle Epstein, Illia Polosukhin, Jacob Devlin, Kenton Lee, Kristina Toutanova, Llion Jones, Matthew Kelcey, Ming-Wei Chang, Andrew M. Dai, Jakob Uszkoreit, Quoc Le, and Slav Petrov. 2019. Natural questions: A benchmark for question answering research. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7:452–466. Brenden Lake and Marco Baroni. 2018. Generalization without Systematicity: On the Compositional Skills of Sequence-to-Sequence Recurrent Networks. In *International conference on machine* learning, pages 2873–2882. PMLR. Brian Lester, Rami Al-Rfou, and Noah Constant. 2021. The power of scale for parameter-efficient prompt tuning. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on* Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3045–3059, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xiang Lisa Li and Percy Liang. 2021. Prefix-tuning: Optimizing continuous prompts for generation. 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 4582–4597, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Michael McCloskey and Neal J Cohen. 1989. Catastrophic interference in connectionist networks: The sequential learning problem. In *Psychology of learning and motivation*, volume 24, pages 109–165. Elsevier. Sewon Min, Victor Zhong, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2019. Multi-hop reading comprehension through question decomposition and rescoring. In *Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting* of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6097–6109, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Fedor Moiseev, Zhe Dong, Enrique Alfonseca, and Martin Jaggi. 2022. SKILL: Structured knowledge infusion for large language models. In *Proceedings* of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1581– 1588, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Maxwell Nye, Anders Johan Andreassen, Guy Gur-Ari, Henryk Michalewski, Jacob Austin, David Bieber, David Dohan, Aitor Lewkowycz, Maarten Bosma, David Luan, et al. 2022. Show your work: Scratchpads for intermediate computation with language models. In *Deep Learning for Code Workshop*. Pruthvi Patel, Swaroop Mishra, Mihir Parmar, and Chitta Baral. 2022. Is a question decomposition unit all we need? In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4553–4569, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ethan Perez, Patrick Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Kyunghyun Cho, and Douwe Kiela. 2020. Unsupervised question decomposition for question answering. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 8864–8880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. 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 (EMNLPIJCNLP), pages 2463–2473, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ofir Press, Muru Zhang, Sewon Min, Ludwig Schmidt, Noah A. Smith, and Mike Lewis. 2023. Measuring and narrowing the compositionality gap in language models. *ICLR 2023 Submission*. Guanghui Qin and Jason Eisner. 2021. Learning how to ask: Querying LMs with mixtures of soft prompts. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5203–5212, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, Peter J Liu, et al. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. *J. Mach. Learn. Res.*, 21(140):1–67. Adam Roberts, Colin Raffel, and Noam Shazeer. 2020. How much knowledge can you pack into the parameters of a language model? In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 5418–5426, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tianxiang Sun, Yunfan Shao, Xipeng Qiu, Qipeng Guo, Yaru Hu, Xuanjing Huang, and Zheng Zhang. 2020. CoLAKE: Contextualized language and knowledge embedding. In *Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics*, pages 3660–3670, Barcelona, Spain (Online). International Committee on Computational Linguistics. Alon Talmor, Yanai Elazar, Yoav Goldberg, and Jonathan Berant. 2020. oLMpics-on what language model pre-training captures. *Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, 8:743–758. Harsh Trivedi, Niranjan Balasubramanian, Tushar Khot, and Ashish Sabharwal. 2022. MuSiQue: Multihop questions via single-hop question composition. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:539–554. Denny Vrandeciˇ c and Markus Krötzsch. 2014. ´ Wikidata: A free collaborative knowledgebase. *Communications of the ACM*, 57(10):78–85. Tu Vu, Brian Lester, Noah Constant, Rami Al-Rfou', and Daniel Cer. 2022. SPoT: Better frozen model adaptation through soft prompt transfer. In *Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association* for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5039–5059, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Boshi Wang, Xiang Deng, and Huan Sun. 2022. Iteratively prompt pre-trained language models for chain of thought. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2714–2730, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xiaozhi Wang, Tianyu Gao, Zhaocheng Zhu, Zhengyan Zhang, Zhiyuan Liu, Juanzi Li, and Jian Tang. 2021. KEPLER: A unified model for knowledge embedding and pre-trained language representation. *Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, 9:176–194. Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Rishi Bommasani, Colin Raffel, Barret Zoph, Sebastian Borgeaud, Dani Yogatama, Maarten Bosma, Denny Zhou, Donald Metzler, Ed H. Chi, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Oriol Vinyals, Percy Liang, Jeff Dean, and William Fedus. 2022a. Emergent abilities of large language models. *Transactions on Machine Learning Research*. Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, brian ichter, Fei Xia, Ed H. Chi, Quoc V Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022b. Chain of thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing* Systems. Zhilin Yang, Peng Qi, Saizheng Zhang, Yoshua Bengio, William Cohen, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Christopher D. Manning. 2018. HotpotQA: A dataset for diverse, explainable multi-hop question answering. In *Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 2369–2380, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Zexuan Zhong, Dan Friedman, and Danqi Chen. 2021. Factual probing is [MASK]: Learning vs. learning to recall. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of* the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5017–5033, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. ## A Training And Experiment Details Hyperparameters We use the default hyperparameters and optimizers used to train the T5 1.1 checkpoints (Raffel et al., 2020) as well as those used in the Prompt-Tuning and SPOT papers (Lester et al., 2021; Vu et al., 2022). We set the prompt-length to 100 for all prompt-tuning experiments, and initialized them with the top 100 tokens in the T5 models' vocabulary, following Lester et al. (2021). We fine-tune and prompt-tune our models for a maximum of 100K and 200K steps, respectively. We stop training on convergence, and use the checkpoint with the best validation performance to evaluate. Tables 4, 5, and 6 show hyperparameter values for each type of experiment. All results are from single runs. Hardware and Compute Prompt-tuning and fine-tuning experiments for LARGE models were run on 16 TPUv3 chips, while those for XXL models were run on 64 TPUv3 chips. One exception is knowledge integration (which also involved continual pre-training on C4, larger batch size, and longer sequences), for which we used 256 TPUv3 chips for XXL, and 64 TPUv3 chips for LARGE. Code For metric calculation and checkpoints, we use the T5 and T5x code-base, open-sourced on github.34 For prompt-tuning experiments, we adapt the original code-base (Lester et al., 2021), which is also open-sourced.5 Data The 2WikiMultiHopQA dataset (Ho et al., 2020) has been released with Apache 2.0 license.6 | Hyperparameter | Values | |------------------|--------------------------| | Batch Size | 32 (XXL), 128 (LARGE) | | Learning Rate | 0.001 | | Dropout | 0.1 | | Training Steps | 100K (w/ early stopping) | Table 4: Hyperparameters used for fine-tuning T5- LARGE and T5-XXL. Values except batch size and training steps kept same as Raffel et al. (2020). | Hyperparameter | Values | |------------------|--------------------------| | Batch Size | 512 | | Learning Rate | 0.001 | | Dropout | 0.1 | | Training Steps | 100K (w/ early stopping) | Table 5: Hyperparameters used for Knowledge Integration experiments. Values except batch size and training steps kept same as Raffel et al. (2020). | Hyperparameter | Values | |------------------|--------------------------| | Batch Size | 32 (XXL), 128 (LARGE) | | Learning Rate | 0.3 | | Prompt Length | 100 | | Dropout | 0.1 | | Training Steps | 200K (w/ early stopping) |   ## B Additional Analyses B.1 Knowledge Integration Integrating single-hop entity knowledge is an important part of our methods. How well are the models able to actually encode this knowledge? Figure 2 shows the dynamics of memorization across both models, measured as the exact match scores in generating e2 given e1 and r. From Figure 2, we see that the XXL and LARGE models can memorize 96% of the KG within 5,000 and 10,000 steps respectively. With a batch size of 512, this translates to traversing the dataset 27 and 54 times, respectively, for XXL and LARGE. An important caveat here is that the models are also being tuned on C4 (Raffel et al., 2020), in order to retain the models' general language understanding-like capabilities. That is, they can be expected to memorize the KG relatively faster in the absence of training on the C4 corpus, but this would constitute a trade-off, by leading to overfitted models with substantial loss their original utility on other NLP tasks. ## B.2 Parsing Step In Path The parsing step is essential for our Parse-then-Hop approach to succeed. Here we perform additional analyses on how well models can successfully extract the relational structure that is required to answer the 2-hop questions in 2WikiMultiHopQA. Recall that the objective of the parsing step is to produce as output a sequence indicating an incomplete random walk, containing only the initial entity (seed node), followed by the relations (edges) that | Model | Relation EM | Entity EM | Full EM | |-------------|---------------|-------------|-----------| | KNIT5-LARGE | 98.69 | 76.19 | 78.98 | | KNIT5-XXL | 99.17 | 78.46 | 80.17 | Table 7: Metrics for the parsing sub-task of PATH on test-set questions. lead to the final entity. For instance, if the question is "*Where was the director of Inception (film)* born?" the output of the parsing step should be: Inception (film) ; director ; place of birth Here, Inception (film) is the entity, e1, while director and place of birth are the relations, r1 and r2, respectively. We analyze the extent to which models successfully extract these three elements for the 6,768 test set questions, by measuring three quantities: (1) **Relation EM**, which is the exact match score computed between the ground truth span of relation pairs (here "director ; place of birth"), and that extracted from the model outputs; (2) **Entity EM**, which is similar to Relation EM, but only considers the initial entity; and (3) Full EM, which computes the exact match score between the full output and the target. Table 7 shows these values from prompt-tuning the two KNIT5 models. From Table 7, we see that prompt-tuning both models allows them to achieve almost perfect EM values in extracting the relation pairs from the questions. However, we notice that models are not able to maintain this performance in copying over the entity, which lowers their overall EM scores on this task. We performed a manual analysis of 50 randomly sampled outputs—with incorrect entity predictions—and found most errors to be due to omission of tokens involving middle names, or additional information about the entity such as the "(film)" in the above example (other examples include the entity's title, such as "Count of East Frisia", or "(born in year XXX)", "(died in year XXX)", etc.) ## B.3 Example Outputs Tables 8, 9, 10, and 11 show examples of outputs from the different approaches used in this work (examples shown for the XXL-sized models). Below we discuss each of these cases in detail: - In Table 8, all approaches that leverage the training signal from random walks succeed, while tuning methods that do not fail. Additionally, all three random walk-integrated methods agree on their parsed relational structure as well as the intermediate entity. - In Table 9, only the two proposed methods (PATH and MIXHOP) succeed, while all other methods fail. Note that SPOT correctly predicts the correct intermediate entity (Sally Hemings), but is unable to predict the final entity (John Wayles). - Table 10 shows an example where all approaches fail. However, this question is ambiguous, as *aunt* can either mean father's sister or *mother's sister* - our random walk integrated methods correctly predict these relational structures but are unable to resolve the intermediate and final entities. - Table 11 shows an example where all approaches are supposedly scored as incorrect, but are in-fact correct. Here we argue that the ground truth answer, "*United Kingdom*" is in its incorrect form, since the question asks for the nationality of a person. Our random walkintegrated methods successfully predict the relational structure and intermediate entities. Moreover all approaches predict British or English, which are more acceptable forms of nationality for persons from the United Kingdom. This problem could be mitigated by adding in aliases for the entities in the ground-truth answer space, similar to TriviaQA (Roberts et al., 2020). ## C Templates For Constructing 1Wikihopqa Here we describe our process of constructing 1WikiHopQA: a collection of English question-answer pairs that only require single-hop knowledge using the 2WikiMultiHopQA (Ho et al., 2020) dataset. The 2WikiMultiHopQA dataset provides unique sequences of single-hop triples that collectively answer each 2-hop question. These amount to a total of 95,103 unique triples spanning 98,284 unique entities and 29 relations. We manually define a diverse set of templates for each relation, as shown in Table 12. For many relations, we have multiple different paraphrases of the question template, e.g., the relation director translates to: Who is the director of X? or *Who directed the film X?* In such | Question: Where was the place of burial of the director of film New World (1995 Film)? Answer: Père Lachaise Cemetery Model Setup Response T5-XXL FT Forest Lawn Memorial Park PT Forest Lawn Memorial Park FT New York PT Forest Lawn Memorial Park SPOT New World ; director ; Alain Corneau ; place of burial ; Père Lachaise Cemetery PATH PP: New World ; director ; place of burial HP: New World ; director ; Alain Corneau ; place of burial ; Père Lachaise Cemetery MIXHOP New World ; director ; Alain Corneau ; place of burial ; Père Lachaise Cemetery KNIT5-XXL | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| Table 8: An example case where methods that leverage random walks succeed, but baselines fail. | Question: Who is Harriet Hemings's maternal grandfather? Answer: John Wayles Model Setup Response T5-XXL FT Ted Hughes PT John Hemings FT Betty Hemings PT John Hemings SPOT Harriet Hemings ; mother ; Sally Hemings ; father ; Thomas Hemings KNIT5-XXL PATH PP: Harriet Hemings ; mother ; father HP: Harriet Hemings ; mother ; Sally Hemings ; father ; John Wayles MIXHOP Harriet Hemings ; mother ; Sally Hemings ; father ; John Wayles | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Question: Who is Christopher Blom Paus's aunt? Answer: Hedevig Christine Paus Model Setup Response T5-XXL FT Clotilde of Saxe - Lauenburg PT Annemarie Blom Paus FT Anna of Oldenburg PT Christina Paus SPOT Christopher Blom Paus ; father ; Ole Paus ; sibling ; Kjersti Bua Paus KNIT5-XXL PATH PP: Christopher Blom Paus ; mother ; sibling HP: Christopher Blom Paus ; mother ; Margrete Laarmann ; sibling ; Kjartan Flóki MIXHOP Christopher Blom Paus ; mother ; Ulla Blom ; sibling ; Gunnar Blom | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| Table 9: An example case where all baselines fail, and additionally SPoT (Vu et al., 2022) also produces the incorrect final entity, but our two proposed methods succeed. Table 10: An example of an ambiguous question (since "aunt" can be father's sister or mother's sister) on which all approaches fail. Importantly, methods that use random-walks accurately generate the relations required to answer the question, but fail at predicting the correct entities. cases, we randomly sample a template from the entire set, equally weighing each. In total, we end up with 83,643 train, 5,022 validation, and 6,440 test QA pairs. | Question: What nationality is John Bede Dalley's father ? Answer: United Kingdom Model Setup Response T5-XXL FT British PT British FT English PT English SPOT John Bede Dalley ; father ; William Dalley ; country of citizenship ; English PATH PP: John Bede Dalley ; father ; country of citizenship HP: John Bede Dalley ; father ; William Bede Dalley ; country of citizenship ; English MIXHOP John Bede Dalley ; father ; William Dalley, 1st Viscount Darnley ; country of citizenship ; British KNIT5-XXL | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| Table 11: An example of a scenario where all models fail at answering the question correctly, but this is likely attributable to the dataset since it does not contain aliases. | Relation | Template Space | Relation | Template Space | | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------| | director | Who is the director of X?, Who directed the film X? | mother | Who is the mother of X?, Who is X's mother? | | | date of birth | What is the date of birth of X?, When | founded by | Who is the founder of X?, | Who | | is X's birthday?, When was X born? | founded X? | | | | | date of death | When did X die?, What is the date of | inception | When was X founded? | | | death of X? | | | | | | country | What country is X from?, What is the | manufacturer | Who manufactures X? | | | nationality of X? | | | | | | country | of | What country is X from?, What is the | performer | Who is the performer of the song X?, | | citizenship | nationality of X? | Who performed the song X? | | | | award | What is the award that X received?, | place | of | Where was X born?, What is the | | received | Which award did X receive? | birth | place of birth of X? | | | cause | of | place | of | | | Why did X die?, What was the cause | Where was X buried?, Where is the | | | | | death | of X's death? | burial | place of burial of X? | | | composer | Who is the composer of X?, Who composed X? | place | of | Where did X die?, Where is the place | | death | of death of X? | | | | | creator | Who is the creator of X?, Who created X? | place | of | Where did X go to prison?, Where | | detention | was X detained? | | | | | child | Who is the child of X? | presenter | Who is the presenter of X?, Who presented X? | | | doctoral | Who is the doctoral advisor of X? | publisher | Who published X?, What company | | | advisor | published X? | | | | | editor | Who is the editor of X?, Who edited | sibling | Who is the sibling of X?, Who is X's | | | X? | sibling? | | | | | educated at | Where did X graduate from?, What is the alma mater of X?, Where did X study? | spouse | Who is the spouse of X?, Who is X's spouse? | | | employer | Who is the employer of X?, Where | student of | Who was the teacher of X?, Who was | | | does X work? | X's teacher? | | | | | father | Who is the father of X?, Who is X's father? | | | | | Table 12: Question templates for for each of the 29 relations, used to create 1WikiHopQA. X stands for the subject. | | | | | ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist 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 6 (under limitations) ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Intro: 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 3.1 (we repurposed an existing dataset) Section 2 and 4 (we created new prompting techniques that lead to new instances of existing models) ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 3 ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Footnote 1 ✗ 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 original authors of the dataset we used did not provide any instructions for intended use. However the artifacts in this work were used for research purposes only. ✗ 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 skipped this since we repurposed an existing QA dataset (https://aclanthology.org/2020.colingmain.580/), released under the Apache 2.0 license, which contains questions and answers about entities and relations sourced from Wikidata, which does not contain any sensitive information about individual people. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? See Section C (Appendix). We discussed number of relations and entities (i.e., coverage of domains) in our repurposed version of an existing dataset. We also explicitly mention that the dataset is in English, and also provide a table of the unique templates used for generating questions. ✓ 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 Appendix C 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?** Section 3 And 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 A C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? No response. ✓ 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 (metric calculation with default T5x implementation) ## 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.

wang-etal-2023-multimedia

Multimedia Generative Script Learning for Task Planning

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.63

Goal-oriented generative script learning aims to generate subsequent steps to reach a particular goal, which is an essential task to assist robots or humans in performing stereotypical activities. An important aspect of this process is the ability to capture historical states visually, which provides detailed information that is not covered by text and will guide subsequent steps. Therefore, we propose a new task, Multimedia Generative Script Learning, to generate subsequent steps by tracking historical states in both text and vision modalities, as well as presenting the first benchmark containing 5,652 tasks and 79,089 multimedia steps. This task is challenging in three aspects: the multimedia challenge of capturing the visual states in images, the induction challenge of performing unseen tasks, and the diversity challenge of covering different information in individual steps. We propose to encode visual state changes through a selective multimedia encoder to address the multimedia challenge, transfer knowledge from previously observed tasks using a retrieval-augmented decoder to overcome the induction challenge, and further present distinct information at each step by optimizing a diversity-oriented contrastive learning objective. We define metrics to evaluate both generation and inductive quality. Experiment results demonstrate that our approach significantly outperforms strong baselines.

# Multimedia Generative Script Learning For Task Planning Qingyun Wang1, Manling Li1, Hou Pong Chan2**, Lifu Huang**3, Julia Hockenmaier1, Girish Chowdhary1, **Heng Ji**1 1 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 2 University of Macau 3 Virginia Tech 1{qingyun4,manling2,juliahmr,girishc,hengji}@illinois.edu 2hpchan@um.edu.mo, 3lifuh@vt.edu ## Abstract Goal-oriented generative script learning aims to generate subsequent steps to reach a particular goal, which is an essential task to assist robots or humans in performing stereotypical activities. An important aspect of this process is the ability to capture historical states visually, which provides detailed information that is not covered by text and will guide subsequent steps. Therefore, we propose a new task, Multimedia Generative Script Learning, to generate subsequent steps by tracking historical states in both text and vision modalities, as well as presenting the first benchmark containing 5,652 tasks and 79,089 multimedia steps. This task is challenging in three aspects: the multimedia challenge of capturing the visual states in images, the induction challenge of performing unseen tasks, and the diversity challenge of covering different information in individual steps. We propose to encode visual state changes through a selective multimedia encoder to address the multimedia challenge, transfer knowledge from previously observed tasks using a retrieval-augmented decoder to overcome the induction challenge, and further present distinct information at each step by optimizing a diversity-oriented contrastive learning objective. We define metrics to evaluate both generation and inductive quality. Experiment results demonstrate that our approach significantly outperforms strong baselines1. ## 1 Introduction Robots rely on understanding the present realworld state and predicting the subsequent steps to better assist humans in daily stereotypical tasks such as meal preparation and gardening (Ruth Anita Shirley et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2022). As an example, Robohow (Beetz et al., 2016) uses articles  Figure 1: **Multimedia Generative Script Learning:** The upper box shows the task input, including the goal and multimedia step history. Each step contains a text description and an illustrative image. The output is the next step. We retrieve historically relevant steps from the training corpus. from WikiHow2to assist robots in everyday tasks in human working and living environments. However, the problem is that not all daily tasks are well documented. Thus, generating a sequence of steps that lead to a given goal (i.e., goal-oriented generative script learning) (Lyu et al., 2021; Huang et al., 2022; Li et al., 2023; Zhou et al., 2023; Liu et al., 2023) has a fundamental importance in allowing robots to perform unseen tasks by understanding the patterns in previously observed similar tasks. Despite this, previous goal-oriented generative 2https://www.wikihow.com contains steps for a variety of tasks.  script learning focuses solely on text (Lyu et al., 2021; Huang et al., 2022), which is commonly affected by reporting bias (Gordon and Van Durme, 2013) as important details may be omitted in the source text. However, such information is often implicitly contained in images. For example, in Figure 1, the image of Step 1 illustrates the items needed to *make a bracelet*, which is not mentioned in the text but helps predict the action of *threading beads* as a future step. Existing multimedia script learning work seeks to bridge this crossmedia gap, but the task settings are multi-choice selection (Yang et al., 2021b) or ordering (Wu et al., 2022), which require candidate steps as input so it is not a practical setting for real-life robots. To address these problems, we propose a new task, **Multimedia Generative Script Learning** (Figure 1), that requires systems to generate future steps based on the goal and previous steps with visual scenes depicting their states. Specifically, given the goal and previous step history in the form of natural language sentences paired with descriptive images, the model should automatically generate the natural language instruction for the next step. A good script has three hallmarks: (1) *Visual-State Trackable*: it records the historical visual scenes and recognizes significant changes that impact future steps. We call it *multimedia challenge*. To address this challenge, we focus on salient differences in visual scenes, and propose a novel **selective multimedia encoder**. Rather than learning directly from the visual details of each object, we first leverage an image captioner as an abstract summary of the image about global interactions among multiple objects. We then introduce a selection gate to focus on the selected captions and steps closely related to the future step. For instance, the second caption *"a child's hand* with a measuring tape on it" in Figure 1 can be filtered out by the selection gate because it is not closely related to the future steps. (2) *Inductive*: it transfers knowledge from a previously observed task to similar unseen tasks. We call it *induction challenge*. To induce procedural knowledge from previously observed tasks, we propose a **retrieval augmented decoder** to obtain relevant steps to guide the subsequent step generation. For example, the future step in Figure 1 closely resembles the scripts used in previous retrieved steps about *threading items*, thus transferring script knowledge to an unseen task. (3) *Diverse*: it displays distinct information at each step. We call it *diversity challenge*. Existing pre-trained transformer-based language models such as T5 (Raffel et al., 2020), BART (Lewis et al., 2020a), and GPT-2 (Radford et al., 2019) tend to generate repeated or highly similar future steps as shown in Figure 1. Therefore, we introduce a novel **diversity-oriented contrastive learning** objective to control all subsequent steps to convey different information. We treat all other steps in the given input and retrieved steps in other tasks similar to the given input as *hard* negatives. In addition to traditional generation-based metrics to evaluate task performance, we propose a new *multimodal-retrieval based metric* to capture cross-modal semantic similarity. While the model design can be applied to any domain of interest, we experiment with the model on two domains Gardening and *Crafts*, where task planning has not been well researched. Automatic evaluation shows that our generated step predictions are close to the human written ground truth. Human evaluation further confirms that our diversity-oriented contrastive learning objective leads to diverse and correct steps. The contributions are threefold: 1. We propose the first multimedia goal-oriented generative script learning task to record historical steps in both text and images. We also release a new benchmark from WikiHow, featuring 5,652 tasks and 79,089 multimedia steps. 2. We propose a novel approach to produce visually trackable, *inductive*, and *diverse* scripts through a selective multimedia encoder, a retrieval augmented decoder, and a diversityoriented contrastive learning objective. 3. We propose a new multimodal-retrieval based metric to evaluate the cross-modal semantic similarity and the inductive ability by checking factual correctness. ## 2 Problem Formulation We propose a new multimedia generative script learning task: given an activity goal G, an optional subgoal M that specifies the concrete needs, and the previous multimedia step history Hn = {(S1, V1), ...,(Sn, Vn)} with length n, a model is expected to predict the next possible step Sn+1, where Siis a text sequence and Viis an image. | Domain | Split | #Task | #Pair | #Step | #Token | |------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|----------| | Train | 1,857 | 20,258 | 3.10 | 11.6 | | | Gardening Valid. | 237 | 2,428 | 3.03 | 10.6 | | | Test | 238 | 2,684 | 2.88 | 11.2 | | | Train | 2,654 | 32,082 | 6.06 | 8.98 | | | Crafts | Valid. | 3,33 | 4,061 | 6.12 | 9.10 | | Test | 3,33 | 3,937 | 5.91 | 9.00 | | Table 1: Statistics of our dataset. \#Step denotes average number of steps per sample. \#Token denotes average number of words per step. ## 3 Dataset Collection Using articles from *Gardening* and *Crafts* categories as case studies, we create a new dataset based on the English WikiHow dump (2021/05). There are typically three levels of hierarchy in a WikiHow article: *goals* which describe the overall task, *subgoals* which represent the intermediate process to accomplish a *goal*, and *steps* which are the specific actions to complete a *subgoal*. For each WikiHow article, we collect step-image pairs as well as their goals and methods3. We split the whole dataset based on the task categories. Therefore, the validation and test sets contain tasks not 3We only keep steps that contain both images and texts. included in the training set. Table 1 shows the detailed data statistics. ## 4 Method 4.1 Model Architecture The overall framework is illustrated in Figure 2. Given the activity goal G, optional subgoal M, and multimedia step history Hn, we first use an image captioner to map each input image into a precise caption and produce the caption-enhanced step history Hˆn. Then we propose a *selective multimedia encoder* by extending the BART encoder with a gated fusion layer to learn contextualized representations for the step history. After that, a retrieval module retrieves historically relevant steps from the training corpus and encodes them with a *retrieved step encoder*. Finally, we introduce a retrieval-augmented decoder, which enhances the BART decoder with a retrieval gate fusion layer to fuse the representations of the input step history and retrieved steps to generate the next step. The entire model is trained by our proposed *diversityoriented contrastive loss* and cross-entropy loss. ## 4.2 Selective Multimedia Encoder Image Encoding Compared to step descriptions which focus more on action description, captions provide more visual environment/object information such as *beads* in Step 1 from Figure 2. Because we are more concerned with the overall semantics of the salient objects in the image rather than the details of every object, we adopt image captioners to encode visual features and track visual state changes. For instance, while multiple objects are present in Step 3 in Figure 1, the *finger* object can be ignored in the third step as it does not represent the key information conveyed by the image. Specifically, we use the state-of-theart image captioner BLIP (Li et al., 2022), which is pretrained on a large-scale vision-and-language corpus with 129M images to generate a caption Ci for each image Viin the input step history Hn. After that, we obtain the caption-enhanced step history Hˆn = {(S1, C1), ...,(Sn, Cn)}, where Ci is the caption of the image Viin step i. Selective Multimedia Encoding To help the encoder capture the activity goal and subgoal information, we concatenate goal G and optional subgoal M to serve as the first sequence in the history X0 = [*G, M*]. For the subsequent steps in the history, we concatenate each step and caption as X2i−1 = Si and X2i = Ci. To summarize the step history, we prepend a learnable [CLS] token to the sequence as a contextualized vector. The entire text sequence is then represented as X = {[CLS], X0, X1*, ..., X*2n}. We pass the text sequence X into a BART encoder to get the contextualized hidden representation H = {h0*, ...,* h 2n LX2n } = Enc(X ). We denote HXj = {h j 1 , ..., h j LXj } as the hidden states for sequence Xj , where LXj is the length of Xj . Since the input sequence contains steps or captions not directly relevant to the future step, we need to mask those sentences based on the step/caption representations. For instance, in Figure 2, the step description for Step 1 is vague and needs to be masked. We treat the representation of the [CLS] token, h0, as the contextualized representation of the entire step history and use it to compute a mask that filters out the irrelevant step/caption information. Specifically, we use h0 as query and HXj as both the key and value to compute Multi-Headed Attention (MultiHead) (Vaswani et al., 2017) for each sequence hidden states HXj : hˆXj = MultiHead(h0, HXj , HXj ), where hˆXjis the weighted representation for text sequence Xj . Then, for each sequence Xj , we can calculate the mask probability as:αj = σ(Wα[h0; hˆXj ]), where Wα is a learnable parameter. Similar to Sengupta et al. (2021), we update the hidden states for each sequence Xj as H¯ Xj = αj · emb[MASK] + (1 − αj )HXj , where emb[MASK] is the embedding of the [MASK] token. The final hidden state sequences are H¯ = [h0; H¯ 1; ...; H¯ 2n]. ## 4.3 Step Retrieval Augmentation Historically Relevant Step Retrieval In addition to the caption-enhanced step history, Hˆn, we retrieve historically relevant steps Rn+1 = {R1*, ..., R*k} from the training tasks, where k is the number of retrieved relevant steps. We first use SentenceBERT (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019) to encode all steps. We then retrieve k steps from the training corpus, which have the top-k highest cosine similarity to the previous step Sn from the representation given by SentenceBERT4. Finally, we consider the immediate next step for each of those k steps as potential relevant steps Rn+1. For instance, because Step 5 in Figure 2 is similar to pull the thread out in the training corpus, we choose its immediate next step *thread the bobbin* as a his-4We use the previous step Sn instead of all history since it is more temporally correlated to the next step. torically relevant step. Retrieved Step Encoder For historically relevant steps R = {R1*, ..., R*k}, we apply the BART encoder to get hidden states HR = {HR1 ; *....*; HRk }. Similarly, we use h0 in multimedia encoder as the query and HRi as both the key and value to compute multi-headed attention for each sequence hidden states: hˆRi = MultiHead(h0, HRi , HRi ), where hˆRi is the weighted representation for step sequence Ri. Similarly, we can calculate the mask probability as: βj = σ(Wβ[h0; hˆRj ]), where Wβ is a learnable parameter. We then update the hidden states for each sequence Rj as H¯ Ri = βj · emb[MASK] + (1 − βj )HRi . The final hidden state sequences is H¯ R = [H¯ R1 ; ...; H¯ Rk ]. ## 4.4 Retrieval-Augmented Decoder In the decoder, we compute the probability P sq|s<q, Hˆ*, G, M*for the q-th token sq ∈ Sn+1. Our retrieval-augmented decoder is similar to (Liu et al., 2021), which aims to capture historically relevant steps related to the next step based on previous decoder hidden states. Given z lq which is the hidden state of sq in layer l, we first use a multi-head cross-attention to fuse the hidden states from the retrieved steps H¯ R: z 0q l = MultiHead(z lq , H¯ R, H¯ R). We also append a gating mechanism to control the knowledge from the retrieved steps and previous hidden states: $$\begin{split} \gamma &= \sigma(\mathbf{W}_{\gamma}[z_q^l; z_q^{\prime l}]) \\ \tilde{z}_q^l &= \gamma \cdot \mathrm{LN}(z_q^l) + (1-\gamma) \cdot (z_q^l) \end{split} \eqno(1)$$ where $\mathbf{W}_{\gamma}$ is a learnable parameter and $\mathrm{LN}(*)$ is . the layer norm function. Finally, the fused hidden states in the top layer are used to compute the generation probability. We supervise the next step generation using the standard cross-entropy loss: $${\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{gen}}=\sum_{q=1}^{|S_{n+1}|}\log P\left(s_{q}|s_{<q},{\hat{\mathcal{H}}},G,M\right)\quad\quad(2)$$ ## 4.5 Diversity-Oriented Contrastive Learning In the experiment, we observe that the model tends to keep generating similar future steps in a row given the beginning steps as input or just paraphrases the input steps. Therefore, we propose a contrastive learning-based loss to encourage the model to return diverse step prediction results. Negative Sampling Sequence-to-sequence models suffer from the "exposure bias" problem (Dhingra et al., 2016; An et al., 2022) because of teacher forcing. Contrastive loss provides an additional sequence level loss which can help models increase the diversity of the output steps. We adopt two types of negative sampling strategies to discourage the model from paraphrasing the previous step as the future step: *self-negatives* (Wang et al., 2022) where we consider the input steps as negative samples and *retrieved-negatives* where we consider the retrieved steps from training corpus which are similar to the input step as negative samples. For example, in Figure 1, the goals and steps from the step history serve as the self-negatives. Given the last step, "cut the thread", we retrieve similar steps from the training set as retrieved negatives which include "cut your thread", "cut off the extra thread", etc. Diversity-Oriented Contrastive Loss Since the model needs to distinguish between the ground truth and those negative samples, we design a novel diversity-oriented contrastive loss. Specifically, given an input sequence Hˆ*, G, M*, the ground truth next step Sn+1, and a set of K negative samples {S 1n+1, S2n+1*, ..., S*K n+1}, we aim to maximize the probability of classifying the positive sample correctly with the InfoNCE loss (Oord et al., 2018): $$\begin{array}{l}{{{\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{cl}}=\frac{\exp\left(y^{+}/\tau\right)}{\sum_{k}\exp\left(y_{k}^{-}/\tau\right)+\exp\left(y^{+}/\tau\right)}}}\\ {{y^{+}=\sigma(\mathrm{Avg}(\mathbf{W}_{y}\bar{\mathbf{H}}^{+}+\mathbf{b}_{y}))}}\\ {{y_{k}^{-}=\sigma(\mathrm{Avg}(\mathbf{W}_{y}\bar{\mathbf{H}}_{k}^{-}+\mathbf{b}_{y}))}}\end{array}\tag{3}$$ where H¯ + and H¯ − k are decoder hidden states from the positive and k-th negative samples, Wy is a learnable parameter, τ is the temperature, and Avg(∗) denotes the average pooling function. ## 4.6 Training Objective We jointly optimize the cross-entropy loss and our proposed diversity-oriented contrastive loss: L = Lgen + λLcl, where λ is a hyperparameter that controls the weight of the contrastive loss. ## 5 Evaluation Metrics Generation Quality Evaluation Following common practice in text generation, we first evaluate our model with BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002), ROUGE (Lin, 2004), and METEOR (Denkowski and Lavie, 2014) scores to examine the content overlap between generated steps and ground truth. Inductive Quality Evaluation In order to determine whether the inferred subsequent steps are factually correct, we further evaluate the models with BARTScore (Yuan et al., 2021) and the semantic similarity score (Thakur et al., 2021). The semantic similarity score uses a cross-encoder pretrained on STSBenchmark (Cer et al., 2017) to calculate the semantic similarity between two sentences. In addition to evaluating whether the generated step matches the next step, we also check whether the generated step matches any subsequent step. This enables the model to earn credit if it generates a step that appears in the future. We propose a Multimodal-Retrieval based metric: for each generated step, we use it as a query to search all corresponding step-image pairs under the same subgoal/goal from the testing set. We then compute HIT@1 for results that fall into ground-truth future step-image pairs. Similar to Section 4.3, we use SBERT (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019) to rank the most similar steps under the same subgoal to get Text@1 (T@1). To compute Image@1 (I@1), we use CLIP (Radford et al., 2021) to rank the most similar images under the same subgoal. If the top-1 retrieval results appear in the subsequent steps, we consider it a HIT. The retrieval-based metric captures normalized semantic similarity concerning all related steps under certain subgoals. The CLIPbased retrieval metric also enables the evaluation of the cross-modality semantic similarity. Additional details of the evaluation setup are in the Appendix C. | Model | Gardening | Crafts | | | |------------|-------------|----------|------|------| | I@1↑ | T@1↑ | I@1↑ | T@1↑ | | | BART | 44.6 | 40.0 | 48.2 | 29.9 | | +CP | 48.5 | 39.2 | 48.2 | 31.5 | | +CP+M | 49.8 | 41.0 | 50.3 | 37.8 | | +CP+M+R | 48.1 | 38.9 | 48.9 | 31.8 | | +CP+M+R+CL | 49.5 | 43.0 | 49.0 | 33.9 | ## 6 Experiments 6.1 Baselines We first compare our model with (1) state-ofthe-art pretrained text-only generation models Model B-1↑ B-2↑ B-3↑ B-4↑ METEOR↑ R-L↑ BARTScore↑ **Semantic**↑ GPT-2 13.2 5.03 1.87 0.72 7.38 12.5 -4.73 0.239 T5 17.6 9.05 4.92 2.87 9.41 16.5 -4.45 0.300 Naive Retrieval 10.9 4.14 1.93 1.10 6.33 10.0 -4.88 0.180 CLIP-BART 14.4 7.10 3.77 2.22 8.28 13.8 -4.44 0.256 Retrieval BART 16.8 8.68 4.80 2.24 9.15 16.0 -4.43 0.295 GPT2-SIF 11.6 5.10 2.43 1.28 6.85 10.8 -4.80 0.233 BART 17.0 8.21 4.45 2.61 8.93 15.7 -4.52 0.277 +CP 16.9 8.79 4.99 3.03 9.23 16.5 -4.41 0.300 +CP+M 17.8 9.36 5.30 3.19 9.61 **17.4** -4.38 0.305 +CP+M+R 17.5 9.22 5.25 3.13 9.60 17.2 **-4.36** 0.309 +CP+M+R+CL **18.4 9.72 5.51 3.31 9.91** 17.3 -4.37 **0.310** Table 3: Results with automatic evaluation on next step prediction for the gardening domain (%). B-n denotes the BLEU-n score. R-L denotes the ROUGE-L score. *Semantic* denotes semantic similarity score. Model B-1↑ B-2↑ B-3↑ B-4↑ METEOR↑ R-L↑ BARTScore↑ **Semantic**↑ GPT-2 15.5 5.40 1.98 0.93 7.63 14.0 -4.67 0.218 T5 20.8 11.1 6.43 4.07 10.54 19.6 -4.38 0.300 Naive Retrieval 13.5 5.26 2.38 1.28 6.81 12.3 -4.83 0.163 CLIP-BART 17.9 9.13 5.21 3.40 9.37 16.4 -4.56 0.245 Retrieval BART 18.7 9.78 5.52 3.52 9.89 18.2 -4.38 0.285 GPT2-SIF 14.8 6.70 3.05 1.58 7.74 13.2 -4.69 0.234 BART 19.7 10.8 6.22 4.11 10.44 20.0 -4.29 0.299 +CP 20.1 11.1 6.48 4.24 10.61 20.1 -4.29 0.303 +CP+M 20.5 11.1 6.61 4.40 10.79 20.1 -4.28 0.305 +CP+M+R 20.7 11.5 6.93 4.66 11.02 **20.5 -4.25** 0.309 +CP+M+R+CL **21.3 11.8 7.12 4.85 11.25** 20.3 -4.26 **0.313** to examine the results without tracking visual states, including GPT-2 (Radford et al., 2019), T5 (Raffel et al., 2020), and BART (Lewis et al., 2020a). We then compare our model with the (2) retrieval baselines including a naive retrieval baseline which directly uses retrieved historically relevant sentences as discussed in Section 4.3, and retrieval BART which takes in the concatenation of the retrieved historically relevant sentences with the original text input. We also include **(3) multimodal generation baselines** that can take image embedding instead of captions as input, which is equivalent to CLIP-BART (Sung et al., 2022). The CLIP-BART has a similar backbone as VL-BART (Cho et al., 2021) but instead replacing the Faster R-CNN (Ren et al., 2015) with ViT-B/32 CLIP encoder (Radford et al., 2021) which has a better image-text alignment. Additionally, we compare our model with a state-of-the-art script learning model: GPT2-SIF (Sancheti and Rudinger, 2022) finetuned on our dataset. Finally, we include the variances of our model as **(4) baselines for ablation**. We select BART over T5 as the base model due to the performance and parameter size. Due to the large number of parameters in T5 (222M) compared to BART (139M), given similar model performance in Table 3 and 4, we choose BART instead of T5. The hyperparameters, training details, and additional ablation study are presented in the Appendix A, B, and D. ## 6.2 Automatic Evaluation As shown in Table 3 and 4, our model outperforms baselines. Since our task is open-ended and we are testing on unseen activities, our generated sentences usually contain paraphrases. Therefore, the BLEU scores, which rely on the exact word ngrams match (Goldberg, 2018), are not high. In particular, because our ground truth only has an average length of 11 which contains less 4-grams | Model | Gardening | Crafts | | | | | | |--------------|-----------------------------------------|----------|----|----|----|----|----| | 1↓ | 2↓ | 3↓ | 4↓ | 1↓ | 2↓ | 3↓ | 4↓ | | Ground Truth | 37.0 3.08 0.42 0.18 30.6 1.07 0.05 0.00 | | | | | | | | BART | 45.2 6.94 1.39 0.73 39.2 2.18 0.26 0.10 | | | | | | | | +CP | 43.1 5.88 1.00 0.39 36.0 1.81 0.05 0.02 | | | | | | | | +CP+M | 43.6 5.75 0.78 0.20 36.4 1.97 0.02 0.01 | | | | | | | | +CP+M+R | 44.2 6.32 1.12 0.38 36.9 2.03 0.06 0.01 | | | | | | | | +CP+M+R+CL | 43.3 6.23 1.01 0.35 36.2 1.91 0.05 0.02 | | | | | | | than the text in other tasks, our BLEU-4 is lower than other text generation tasks. The substantial gap between CLIP-BART and BART or BART with caption indicates that captions usually carry more specific information than images, and the current multimodal encoders still cannot perfectly embed text and images into the same semantic space. Meanwhile, the low performance of the retrieval baselines shows that simple retrieval methods are insufficient to predict accurate next steps. | Model | Gardening | Crafts | | | | | | |--------------|-----------------------------------------|----------|----|----|----|----|----| | 1↓ | 2↓ | 3↓ | 4↓ | 1↓ | 2↓ | 3↓ | 4↓ | | Ground Truth | 87.1 60.1 36.1 23.6 91.3 68.7 41.6 27.7 | | | | | | | | BART | 93.7 84.3 72.9 64.2 96.9 90.6 80.6 73.5 | | | | | | | | +CP | 92.8 81.3 68.9 60.5 96.3 89.3 79.2 72.5 | | | | | | | | +CP+M | 96.2 89.9 81.4 73.9 95.9 87.8 76.6 68.5 | | | | | | | | +CP+M+R | 92.3 80.5 67.9 57.8 96.9 89.6 78.6 71.1 | | | | | | | | +CP+M+R+CL | 95.1 87.2 77.1 68.6 96.3 88.0 75.8 67.3 | | | | | | | Among our model variants, adding selective encoding leads to a further performance increase, showing that selective encoding helps the model focus on the content in step history that is most related to future steps. The superior performance on BARTScore and semantic similarity of the retrievalaugmented model indicates the effectiveness of the guidance from historically relevant steps. Our contrastive learning model achieves larger gains compared to baselines for BLEU and METEOR, suggesting that our contrastive loss helps the model generate results similar to the ground truth. Automatic Evaluation with Future Steps We evaluate whether the predicted step is related to any future steps. Our contrastive learning model outperforms other ablations significantly on text retrieval for the Gardening domain, as shown in Table 2. These results imply that the contrastive learning objective encourages the model to generate more informative future steps. The decrease in n-gram overlap between input step history and step predictions (Table 5) suggests that the contrastive learning objective also decreases the model's paraphrasing tendency. Interestingly, the performance decreases when adding the retrieval augmentation to the model because the retrieval model introduces additional information related to the step history, which makes the model generate results similar to previous steps (Table 5). Automatic Evaluation on Diversity To evaluate the diversity between generated steps in the test | Model | Gardening | Crafts | | | | | | |--------------|-----------------------------------------|----------|----|----|----|----|----| | 1↑ | 2↑ | 3↑ | 4↑ | 1↑ | 2↑ | 3↑ | 4↑ | | Ground Truth | 11.4 50.9 80.8 92.2 8.46 44.4 77.9 90.9 | | | | | | | | BART | 4.75 17.7 32.4 42.6 5.11 22.6 42.8 53.8 | | | | | | | | +CP | 5.17 19.2 33.7 42.7 5.12 22.6 42.7 53.8 | | | | | | | | +CP+M | 4.94 18.6 32.8 41.8 4.92 22.4 42.3 53.8 | | | | | | | | +CP+M+R | 5.06 19.2 34.6 44.3 5.23 23.3 43.9 55.2 | | | | | | | | +CP+M+R+CL | 5.02 19.3 35.0 45.2 5.07 23.3 44.2 56.1 | | | | | | | sets, we employ two diversity metrics: self-BLEU (Zhu et al., 2018) (Table 6) and unique n-grams (Fedus et al., 2018) (Table 7). The self-BLEU evaluates whether a model produces similar n-grams in different samples by measuring the similarity between one sentence and the rest in the test set. The retrieval model achieves the best results for the Gardening domain because it acquires additional knowledge from the retrieved steps and thus diversifies the output. The contrastive learning model achieves the best self-BLEU for 3,4 grams for the Crafts domain, implying our model's effectiveness. The unique n-grams calculate the percentage of distinct n-grams. It considers the repetition of ngrams within a generated step and across samples. The contrastive learning model achieves the highest distinct scores for 3,4 grams for both domains, indicating the effectiveness of our diversity-based contrastive loss in generating more diverse steps. ## 6.3 Human Evaluation | Model | Gardening | Crafts | | | | | | |------------|-----------------------------------------|----------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----| | N.↓ | F.↓ | D.↓ | E.↓ | N.↓ | F.↓ | D.↓ | E.↓ | | BART | 1.92 2.05 2.43 1.60 1.90 2.03 2.29 1.76 | | | | | | | | +CP | 1.78 1.93 2.70 1.39 1.70 1.85 2.86 1.65 | | | | | | | | +CP+M | 1.77 1.95 2.41 1.37 2.15 2.04 4.11 1.77 | | | | | | | | +CP+M+R | 1.48 1.55 2.66 1.29 1.93 2.13 2.89 1.63 | | | | | | | | +CP+M+R+CL | 1.31 1.37 1.27 1.18 1.55 1.84 1.57 1.52 | | | | | | | Since script learning is an open-ended task that is inherently difficult for automatic metrics to measure the correctness of generated scripts (Huang et al., 2022), we further conduct a human evaluation. We hire four proficient English speakers as human annotators to independently rank the generation results from 1 (best) to 5 (worst) for: (1) next step correctness which measures whether the generated results match the next step; (2) future steps correctness measuring whether the generated results match any of the future steps; (3) *diversity* which measures the diversity of generated results under the same subgoal; (4) *executability* which checks the generated results repeat or conflict with step history. We randomly select ten subgoals, including 41 and 44 generated steps from the test set for Gardening and Crafts separately. The human evaluation results5are shown in Table 8. Our contrastive learning model performs best over all metrics on two datasets. By adding each component of our model, we observe a consistent trend in correctness to ground truth. However, we also observe that scores for selective encoding decrease because the output space with selective encoding is more constrained than the BART baseline, and the length of our generated sequence is not very long. ## 6.4 Discussions Impact Of Selective Multimedia Encoder The caption input helps the model understand the general step descriptions better. For example, given the activity *"cure azaleas of leaf gall"*, the step text only shows a generic instruction: *"rule out other* diseases". However, the BLIP captioner generates "a green leaf with white dots on it" which helps the model generate "remove the leaf gall from the shrub" instead of *"keep your shrub healthy"*. Furthermore, in Figure 1, the finger object is absent from caption 3, indicating that the caption model has the ability to eliminate extraneous information from the image. The selective gate can filter out unrelated steps which are not directly related to the current subgoal. For example, in Figure 1, our model successfully predicts a low masking weight of 0.049324 for the step "cut the thread", while assigning a much higher masking weight of 0.134498 to its uninformative caption "a pair of scissors and a measuring tape". The results imply that the selective gate successfully guides the model to focus on the related information. Impact of Retrieval Augmentation The retrieved steps provide relevant knowledge from similar tasks: given the subgoal *"finding or growing roses"* because the retrieved sentence mentioned *"fertilizer"* and *"mulch"*, the model successfully generates *"fertilize your roses"*. Additionally, the model also benefits from retrieval augmentation with an 5The Krippendorff-α inter-annotator agreement scores (Krippendorff, 2018) and detailed guidelines of human evaluations are in the Appendix K analogy, e.g., the model generates "know when to harvest" given the retrieved step "plant the bulbs when you get them". Impact of Contrastive Learning In addition to the improvement in diversity from the previous section, we observe that contrastive learning helps the model generate results closer to ground truth compared to other baselines. For example, it generates "pick creeping charlie plants from the ground", similar to ground truth *"pick your creeping charlie* leaves". The addition of contrastive learning also helps our model generates instructions with more details than other baselines by stating "place the plant in the hole and cover it with soil" instead of "place the plant in the hole". ## 7 Related Work Previous script learning tasks fall into two forms: selective and generative. The selective script learning tasks focus on modeling the script interactions given a list of candidates, including multichoice goal step inference/ordering (Zhou et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2020), script retrieval (Lyu et al., 2021; Zhou et al., 2022), action anticipation (Damen et al., 2018, 2021), procedure segmentation (Richard et al., 2018; Zhou et al., 2018; Ghoddoosian et al., 2022), multi-choice visual goal-step inference (Yang et al., 2021b), multimedia procedure planning (Zhao et al., 2022), multimedia step ordering (Zellers et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2022), instructional video retrieval (Yang et al., 2021a), and step classification (Lin et al., 2022). Despite promising results, their performance heavily relies on the given candidates, making them difficult to generalize for unseen activities. The second category is text-based generative script learning (Tandon et al., 2020; Lyu et al., 2021; Huang et al., 2022; Li et al., 2020, 2021; Jin et al., 2022; Sancheti and Rudinger, 2022). However, this is the first work to provide a multimedia goal-oriented generative script learning along with a new multimodalretrieval based metric. Different from Sener and Yao (2019), which uses a video to generate the next step, our new task uses step image-text pairs as input. Unlike previous multimedia script learning frameworks with a multimedia encoder to capture visual and textual information, we use a captioner to convert images into captions summarizing the important objects in images. The GOSC dataset (Lyu et al., 2021) contains the steps of daily stereotypical tasks, but most of the steps (52.6%) in this dataset are unordered, making it infeasible to evaluate the next-step prediction. Consequently, we adapted the best model mT5 (Xue et al., 2021) in GOSC to our settings, i.e., the monolingual version T5, and used it as an equivalent baseline to show the comparison with the state-of-the-art model. To handle irrelevant sentences in the input, instead of using a token-level gating mechanism that only depends on the token itself (Sengupta et al., 2021), we introduce a sentence (step/caption) level gating mechanism whose gates depend on global context and weighted sentence representations. Our work is also related to retrieval-augmented text generation models (Wang et al., 2019; Lewis et al., 2020b; Liu et al., 2021). However, instead of retrieving knowledge from an external corpus, we use steps from similar tasks in training data to guide the generation process. Moreover, we introduce a new contrastive learning loss to increase diversity. Previous contrastive learning-based text generation methods usually use negative samples constructed by sequence manipulation (Cao and Wang, 2021; Hu et al., 2022) or perturbation (Lee et al., 2021). Inspired by Wang et al. (2022) which uses self-negatives for knowledge graph completion and that the generation output tends to repeat the input, we extend self-negatives for sequence-to-sequence contrastive learning. We also retrieve similar steps from the training set as additional hard negatives. ## 8 Conclusion We propose a novel Multimedia Generative Script Learning task with the first benchmark featuring step and descriptive image pairs to generate subsequent steps given historical states in both text and vision modalities. Moreover, we build a new script learning framework consisting of a selective multimedia encoder, a retrieval-augmented decoder, and a diversity-oriented contrastive learning objective to generate the next steps. Furthermore, we define a new *multimodal-retrieval based metric* which can be used for multimedia script learning tasks. Automatic and human evaluation results demonstrate consistent performance improvements. ## 9 Limitations 9.1 Limitations Of Data Collection Regarding data collection, we crawled the English WikiHow website from Jan 2021 to May 2021. The number of available activities is limited by the data we crawled from WikiHow. We currently only choose *Gardening* and Crafts categories as case studies. Because we focus on multimedia imagestep pairs, we remove steps *that* are not attached to any illustrative images. We also observe that a small portion of activities in the dataset do not follow chronological order. Since our task focuses on the daily stereotypical tasks which usually require the model to understand the visual environment, the model design can be directly applied to support other domains, such as steps in the cooking videos. In addition, our model can also adapt to scenarios without visual images because the performance of our model only decreases slightly if no caption is provided. We plan to expand our model to other categories written in other languages. ## 9.2 Limitations Of System Performance The model might generate incorrect nouns because of the occurrence of patterns (e.g., "refrigerate the **slane** *for up to 1 year"* instead of *"refrigerate* the **purslane** *for up to 1 year"*). In addition, our model sometimes tends to generate generic step descriptions because of insufficient input information, e.g., given the last step *"lay the t-shirt out on a* clean, flat surface.", the model generates "cut the shirt out" which is vague compared to ground truth "carefully cut around the sleeve". Moreover, the pretrained model might focus more on language modeling instead of inherent logic: for the activity of *"make paint can planters"*, after *"removing the* label" from the paint can, the BART+CAP generates *"read the label"*. In addition, there is still a small chance that the model generates the same output for various similar inputs. Because we rely on image captions and retrieval results for step prediction, the upper bound of our generation quality is limited by the performance of the image caption and sentence retrieval modules. Our framework also needs to improve on imbalanced topics in the dataset. For example, the dataset contains more activities about *tree* for the gardening domain than other gardening-related plants. Because our multimedia generative script learning is a new task, we cannot compare our model with other established state-of-the-art models. Moreover, because WikiHow is a crowd-sourcing website, some everyday activities might have better human annotations than the remaining activities. We plan to include a fine-grained human written step prediction as an upper bound to address this issue. ## 9.3 Limitations Of Evaluation The automatic metrics we chose, including BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002), ROUGE (Lin, 2004), METEOR (Denkowski and Lavie, 2014), BARTScore (Yuan et al., 2021), self-BLEU (Zhu et al., 2018), and unique n-grams (Fedus et al., 2018), might not be the best metrics to evaluate our results. Some other metrics, such as semantic similarity and multimodal-retrieval based metrics, are based on pretrained models, including Augmented SBERT (Thakur et al., 2021), SentenceBert (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019), and CLIP (Radford et al., 2021). Those metrics might not align with human judgment and might be biased toward pretrained datasets. While we complement it with human evaluation, we only focus on relevance to ground truth and diversity. Although we found fluency is not an issue, it is likely we still need to cover all aspects of generation results. ## 10 Ethics And Broader Impact The type of multimedia script learning framework we have designed in this paper is limited to WikiHow articles, and they might not be applicable to other scenarios. ## 10.1 Usage Requirement Our multimedia script learning framework provides investigative leads for multimedia script prediction. Therefore, it is not intended to be used for any activity related to any human subjects. Instead, our system aims to generate step predictions with unseen activities similar to those in the training set. Accordingly, domain experts might use this tool as an assistant to write more constructive instructional scripts that would be too time-consuming for a human to create from scratch. Experts can also use this system to improve writing instruction by adding missing instructions. However, our system does not perform fact-checking or incorporate any external knowledge, which we leave as future work. The IRB board should first approve human subjects who follow instructions generated by our system. ## 10.2 Data Collection We collect data by crawling the raw official English WikiHow website, which is under *AttributionNoncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Creative Commons License*6. We ensure that our data collec-6https://www.wikihow.com/wikiHow:Creative-Com mons tion procedure follows the Terms of Use located at https://www.wikihow.com/wikiHow:Termsof-Use. Therefore our dataset can only be used for non-commercial purposes. As mentioned in Section 6.3, we perform the human evaluation. All annotators involved in the human evaluation are voluntary participants and receive a fair wage. ## Acknowledgement This work is supported by Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) grant no. 2020-6702132799/project accession no.1024178 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, and by U.S. DARPA KAIROS Program No. FA8750-19-2- 1004. The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily 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 governmental purposes notwithstanding any copyright annotation therein. Hou Pong Chan was supported in part by the Science and Technology Development Fund, Macau SAR (Grant Nos. FDCT/060/2022/AFJ, FDCT/0070/2022/AMJ) and the Multi-year Research Grant from the University of Macau (Grant No. MYRG2020-00054-FST). ## References Chenxin An, Jiangtao Feng, Kai Lv, Lingpeng Kong, Xipeng Qiu, and Xuanjing Huang. 2022. Cont: Contrastive neural text generation. Computation and Language, arXiv:2205.14690. Michael Beetz, Daniel Beßler, Jan Winkler, JanHendrik Worch, Ferenc Bálint-Benczédi, Georg Bartels, Aude Billard, Asil Kaan Bozcuoglu, Zhou ˘ Fang, Nadia Figueroa, Andrei Haidu, Hagen Langer, Alexis Maldonado, Ana Lucia Pais Ureche, Moritz Tenorth, and Thiemo Wiedemeyer. 2016. Open robotics research using web-based knowledge services. In *2016 IEEE International Conference on* Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 5380–5387. Shuyang Cao and Lu Wang. 2021. CLIFF: Contrastive learning for improving faithfulness and factuality in abstractive summarization. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6633–6649, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Daniel Cer, Mona Diab, Eneko Agirre, Iñigo LopezGazpio, and Lucia Specia. 2017. SemEval-2017 task 1: Semantic textual similarity multilingual and crosslingual focused evaluation. In Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval-2017), pages 1–14, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. Soravit Changpinyo, Piyush Sharma, Nan Ding, and Radu Soricut. 2021. Conceptual 12m: Pushing webscale image-text pre-training to recognize long-tail visual concepts. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 3558–3568. Jaemin Cho, Jie Lei, Hao Tan, and Mohit Bansal. 2021. Unifying vision-and-language tasks via text generation. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 139 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 1931–1942. PMLR. Dima Damen, Hazel Doughty, Giovanni Maria Farinella, , Antonino Furnari, Jian Ma, Evangelos Kazakos, Davide Moltisanti, Jonathan Munro, Toby Perrett, Will Price, and Michael Wray. 2021. Rescaling egocentric vision: Collection, pipeline and challenges for epic-kitchens-100. International Journal of Computer Vision (IJCV). Dima Damen, Hazel Doughty, Giovanni Maria Farinella, Sanja Fidler, Antonino Furnari, Evangelos Kazakos, Davide Moltisanti, Jonathan Munro, Toby Perrett, Will Price, and Michael Wray. 2018. Scaling egocentric vision: The epic-kitchens dataset. In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV). Michael Denkowski and Alon Lavie. 2014. Meteor universal: Language specific translation evaluation for any target language. In *Proceedings of the Ninth* Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation, pages 376–380, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Bhuwan Dhingra, Manzil Zaheer, Vidhisha Balachandran, Graham Neubig, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and William W. Cohen. 2016. Sequence level training with recurrent neural networks. In *Proceedings of* the 5th International Conference on Learning Representations. William Fedus, Ian Goodfellow, and Andrew M. Dai. 2018. MaskGAN: Better text generation via filling in the _. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Learning Representations. Reza Ghoddoosian, Saif Sayed, and Vassilis Athitsos. 2022. Hierarchical modeling for task recognition and action segmentation in weakly-labeled instructional videos. In *Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision*, pages 1922–1932. Yoav Goldberg. 2018. Neural language generation. Technical report. Jonathan Gordon and Benjamin Van Durme. 2013. Reporting bias and knowledge acquisition. In *Proceedings of the 2013 workshop on Automated knowledge* base construction, page 25–30, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. Zhe Hu, Hou Pong Chan, Jiachen Liu, Xinyan Xiao, Hua Wu, and Lifu Huang. 2022. PLANET: Dynamic content planning in autoregressive transformers for long-form text generation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2288–2305, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Wenlong Huang, Pieter Abbeel, Deepak Pathak, and Igor Mordatch. 2022. Language models as zeroshot planners: Extracting actionable knowledge for embodied agents. *Machine Learning Repository*, arXiv:2201.07207. Version 2. Xiaomeng Jin, Manling Li, and Heng Ji. 2022. Event schema induction with double graph autoencoders. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2013–2025. Klaus Krippendorff. 2018. *Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology*. Sage publications. Ranjay Krishna, Yuke Zhu, Oliver Groth, Justin Johnson, Kenji Hata, Joshua Kravitz, Stephanie Chen, Yannis Kalantidis, Li-Jia Li, David A. Shamma, Michael S. Bernstein, and Li Fei-Fei. 2017. Visual genome: Connecting language and vision using crowdsourced dense image annotations. *Int. J. Comput. Vision*, 123(1):32–73. Seanie Lee, Dong Bok Lee, and Sung Ju Hwang. 2021. Contrastive learning with adversarial perturbations for conditional text generation. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Learning Representations. Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020a. BART: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pretraining 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. Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Küttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, Sebastian Riedel, and Douwe Kiela. 2020b. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledgeintensive nlp tasks. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, volume 33, pages 9459– 9474. Curran Associates, Inc. Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Caiming Xiong, and Steven Hoi. 2022. Blip: Bootstrapping language-image pretraining for unified vision-language understanding and generation. *Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition*, arXiv:2201.12086. Manling Li, Sha Li, Zhenhailong Wang, Lifu Huang, Kyunghyun Cho, Heng Ji, Jiawei Han, and Clare Voss. 2021. The future is not one-dimensional: Complex event schema induction by graph modeling for event prediction. In *Proceedings of the 2021* Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 5203–5215. Manling Li, Qi Zeng, Ying Lin, Kyunghyun Cho, Heng Ji, Jonathan May, Nathanael Chambers, and Clare Voss. 2020. Connecting the dots: Event graph schema induction with path language modeling. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 684–695. Sha Li, Ruining Zhao, Manling Li, Heng Ji, Chris Callison-Burch, and Jiawei Han. 2023. Opendomain hierarchical event schema induction by incremental prompting and verification. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 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. Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge Belongie, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, Piotr Dollár, and C. Lawrence Zitnick. 2014. Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. In Computer Vision – ECCV 2014, pages 740–755, Cham. Springer International Publishing. Xudong Lin, Fabio Petroni, Gedas Bertasius, Marcus Rohrbach, Shih-Fu Chang, and Lorenzo Torresani. 2022. Learning to recognize procedural activities with distant supervision. In *Proceedings of the* IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 13853–13863. Jiateng Liu, Sha Li, Zhenhailong Wang, Manling Li, and Heng Ji. 2023. A language first approach for procedural planning. In *Findings of the Association* for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023. Association for Computational Linguistics. Junjia Liu, Yiting Chen, Zhipeng Dong, Shixiong Wang, Sylvain Calinon, Miao Li, and Fei Chen. 2022. Robot cooking with stir-fry: Bimanual nonprehensile manipulation of semi-fluid objects. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 7(2):5159–5166. Shilei Liu, Xiaofeng Zhao, Bochao Li, Feiliang Ren, Longhui Zhang, and Shujuan Yin. 2021. A Three-Stage Learning Framework for LowResource Knowledge-Grounded Dialogue Generation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2262–2272, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2017. SGDR: stochastic gradient descent with warm restarts. In 5th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2017, Toulon, France, April 2426, 2017, Conference Track Proceedings. OpenReview.net. Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2019. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In *Proceedings of the* 7th International Conference on Learning Representations. Qing Lyu, Li Zhang, and Chris Callison-Burch. 2021. Goal-oriented script construction. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Natural Language Generation, pages 184–200, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK. Association for Computational Linguistics. Aaron van den Oord, Yazhe Li, and Oriol Vinyals. 2018. Representation learning with contrastive predictive coding. *Machine Learning Repository*, arXiv:1807.03748. Vicente Ordonez, Girish Kulkarni, and Tamara Berg. 2011. Im2text: Describing images using 1 million captioned photographs. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, volume 24. Curran Associates, Inc. Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and WeiJing 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, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. 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. In *Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning*, volume 139 of *Proceedings of Machine Learning Research*, pages 8748–8763. PMLR. Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 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-totext transformer. *Journal of Machine Learning Research*, 21(140):1–67. 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. Shaoqing Ren, Kaiming He, Ross Girshick, and Jian Sun. 2015. Faster r-cnn: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, volume 28. Curran Associates, Inc. A. Richard, H. Kuehne, and J. Gall. 2018. Action sets: Weakly supervised action segmentation without ordering constraints. In 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 5987–5996, Los Alamitos, CA, USA. IEEE Computer Society. Leonard Richardson. 2007. Beautiful soup documentation. *April*. D. Ruth Anita Shirley, K. Ranjani, Gokulalakshmi Arunachalam, and D. A. Janeera. 2021. Automatic distributed gardening system using object recognition and visual servoing. In *Inventive Communication and Computational Technologies*, pages 359– 369, Singapore. Springer Singapore. Abhilasha Sancheti and Rachel Rudinger. 2022. What do large language models learn about scripts? In Proceedings of the 11th Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, pages 1–11, Seattle, Washington. Association for Computational Linguistics. Christoph Schuhmann, Richard Vencu, Romain Beaumont, Robert Kaczmarczyk, Clayton Mullis, Aarush Katta, Theo Coombes, Jenia Jitsev, and Aran Komatsuzaki. 2021. Laion-400m: Open dataset of clipfiltered 400 million image-text pairs. In *Proceedings* of Data Centric AI NeurIPS Workshop). Fadime Sener and Angela Yao. 2019. Zero-shot anticipation for instructional activities. In *Proceedings* of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV). Ayan Sengupta, Amit Kumar, Sourabh Kumar Bhattacharjee, and Suman Roy. 2021. Gated Transformer for Robust De-noised Sequence-to-Sequence Modelling. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021*, pages 3645– 3657, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Piyush Sharma, Nan Ding, Sebastian Goodman, and Radu Soricut. 2018. Conceptual captions: A cleaned, hypernymed, image alt-text dataset for automatic image captioning. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2556–2565, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yi-Lin Sung, Jaemin Cho, and Mohit Bansal. 2022. Vl-adapter: Parameter-efficient transfer learning for vision-and-language tasks. In *Proceedings of the* IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 5227–5237. Niket Tandon, Keisuke Sakaguchi, Bhavana Dalvi, Dheeraj Rajagopal, Peter Clark, Michal Guerquin, Kyle Richardson, and Eduard Hovy. 2020. A dataset for tracking entities in open domain procedural text. In *Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical* Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6408–6417, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Nandan Thakur, Nils Reimers, Johannes Daxenberger, and Iryna Gurevych. 2021. Augmented SBERT: Data augmentation method for improving bi-encoders for pairwise sentence scoring tasks. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 296–310, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Ł ukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, volume 30. Curran Associates, Inc. Liang Wang, Wei Zhao, Zhuoyu Wei, and Jingming Liu. 2022. SimKGC: Simple contrastive knowledge graph completion with pre-trained language models. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4281–4294, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Qingyun Wang, Lifu Huang, Zhiying Jiang, Kevin Knight, Heng Ji, Mohit Bansal, and Yi Luan. 2019. PaperRobot: Incremental draft generation of scientific ideas. In *Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 1980–1991, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, 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. Te-Lin Wu, Alex Spangher, Pegah Alipoormolabashi, Marjorie Freedman, Ralph Weischedel, and Nanyun Peng. 2022. Understanding multimodal procedural knowledge by sequencing multimodal instructional manuals. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4525–4542, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Linting Xue, Noah Constant, Adam Roberts, Mihir Kale, Rami Al-Rfou, Aditya Siddhant, Aditya Barua, and Colin Raffel. 2021. mT5: A massively multilingual pre-trained text-to-text transformer. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 483–498, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yue Yang, Joongwon Kim, Artemis Panagopoulou, Mark Yatskar, and Chris Callison-Burch. 2021a. Induce, edit, retrieve: Language grounded multimodal schema for instructional video retrieval. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, arXiv:2111.09276. Yue Yang, Artemis Panagopoulou, Qing Lyu, Li Zhang, Mark Yatskar, and Chris Callison-Burch. 2021b. Visual goal-step inference using wikiHow. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2167–2179, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Weizhe Yuan, Graham Neubig, and Pengfei Liu. 2021. Bartscore: Evaluating generated text as text generation. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, volume 34, pages 27263–27277. Curran Associates, Inc. Rowan Zellers, Ximing Lu, Jack Hessel, Youngjae Yu, Jae Sung Park, Jize Cao, Ali Farhadi, and Yejin Choi. 2021. Merlot: Multimodal neural script knowledge models. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, volume 34, pages 23634–23651. Curran Associates, Inc. Li Zhang, Qing Lyu, and Chris Callison-Burch. 2020. Reasoning about goals, steps, and temporal ordering with WikiHow. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 4630–4639, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. He Zhao, Isma Hadji, Nikita Dvornik, Konstantinos G. Derpanis, Richard P. Wildes, and Allan D. Jepson. 2022. P3iv: Probabilistic procedure planning from instructional videos with weak supervision. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 2938–2948. Luowei Zhou, Chenliang Xu, and Jason J. Corso. 2018. Towards automatic learning of procedures from web instructional videos. In Proceedings of the ThirtySecond AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Thirtieth Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference and Eighth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, AAAI'18/IAAI'18/EAAI'18. AAAI Press. Shuyan Zhou, Li Zhang, Yue Yang, Qing Lyu, Pengcheng Yin, Chris Callison-Burch, and Graham Neubig. 2022. Show me more details: Discovering hierarchies of procedures from semi-structured web data. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2998–3012, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yilun Zhou, Julie Shah, and Steven Schockaert. 2019. Learning household task knowledge from WikiHow descriptions. In *Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on* Semantic Deep Learning (SemDeep-5), pages 50–56, Macau, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yu Zhou, Sha Li, Manling Li, Xudong Lin, Shih-Fu Chang, Mohit Bansal, and Heng Ji. 2023. Nonsequential graph script induction via multimedia grounding. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). Association for Computational Linguistics. Yaoming Zhu, Sidi Lu, Lei Zheng, Jiaxian Guo, Weinan Zhang, Jun Wang, and Yong Yu. 2018. Texygen: A benchmarking platform for text generation models. In The 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research & Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR '18, page 1097–1100, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. ## A Hyperparameters Our model is built based on the Huggingface framework (Wolf et al., 2020) 7. We choose top 5 retrieved historically relevant steps as input for our retrieval model. We choose 5 negative samples for each step during contrastive learning for the gardening domain. Specifically, 4 self-negative samples, including steps and captions, are randomly chosen from the title, method, and step history input. The remaining 1 retrieved negative samples are randomly chosen from top-20 most similar steps retrieved from the training set based on the last step. For the crafts domain, we choose 5 self-negative samples and 5 retrieved negative samples. We set τ as 1 for contrastive loss and λ as 0.5 based on validation performance for the training objectives. We optimize our model by AdamW (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2019) with Cosine Annealing Warm Restarts schedule (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2017). Our learning rate is 1×10−5 with = 1×10−6for gardening domain and 2×10−5 with = 1×10−6 for crafts domain. The number of warm-up steps is 2000. The batch size is set to 16 for both domains, and the maximum training epoch is set as 30 with 10 patience. During decoding, we use beam-search to generate results with a beam size of 5. | # of Parameters | | |-------------------|----------| | BART | 139.425M | | +CP | 139.425M | | +CP+M | 141.788M | | +CP+M+R | 158.346M | | +CP+M+R+CL | 158.347M | Table 9: \# of Model Parameters ## B Training Details We use BART-base from Huggingface (Wolf et al., 2020) for our method and baselines. We normalize all our input sentences into lower case. We add 5 special tokens for BART-base model including <title>, <method>, <step>, <caption>, <template>, and <cls>. We prepend <title> to goal, <method> to subgoal, <step> to text step, <caption> to step caption, <template> to retrieved step, and <cls> to the beginning of step history input. We truncate our step, caption, goal, and subgoal to 30 tokens and target step to 40. We only choose the closest 10 step-caption pairs. We use BLIP (Li et al., 2022) 8 pretrained with 129M images including including COCO (Lin et al., 2014), Visual Genome (Krishna et al., 2017), Conceptual Captions (Sharma et al., 2018), Conceptual 12M (Changpinyo et al., 2021), SBU (Ordonez et al., 2011), and LAION (Schuhmann et al., 2021). We use all − mpnet − base − v2 from SentenceBert (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019), which performs best in semantic search to retrieve similar steps. | # History | # Instance | BARTScore↑ Semantic↑ | | |-------------|--------------|------------------------|--------| | 1 | 685 | -4.3683 | 0.3189 | | 2 | 680 | -4.3633 | 0.3115 | | 3 | 545 | -4.4213 | 0.3064 | | 4 | 346 | -4.3535 | 0.3118 | | 5 | 207 | -4.3556 | 0.2748 | | 6 | 104 | -4.3588 | 0.2746 | | 7 | 56 | -4.2192 | 0.3381 | | 8 | 26 | -4.1687 | 0.3411 | | 9 | 12 | -4.3800 | 0.2085 | | 10 | 23 | -4.7718 | 0.2491 | We train our model with NVIDIA A6000 GPUs with 48G memory with full precision. We choose our best model based on the validation score with BLEU-4 (Papineni et al., 2002) and ROUGE (Lin, 2004). The best validation scores for our contrastive learning model are: BLEU-4 with 2.81 and ROUGE-L with 15.24 for the gardening domain; BLEU-4 with 4.85 and ROUGE-L with 20.25 for the crafts domain. The average training time for each model is 2 to 4 hours. Table 9 shows the number of parameters for each model. ## C Evaluation Metrics We use BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002), ROUGE (Lin, 2004), and METEOR (Denkowski and Lavie, 2014) from Microsoft COCO Caption Evaluation package9. We use official implementation of BARTScore (Yuan et al., 2021) 10. We use cross − encoder/stsb − roberta − large which performs best on STSBenchmark (Cer et al., 2017) to compute semantic similarity score from Augmented SBERT (Thakur et al., 2021). For multimodal-retrieval based metric, we use the best sentence embedding model: all − mpnet − base − v2 from SentenceBert (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019) for text retrieval, and the best language-image pretraining model ViT − L/14@336px from CLIP (Radford et al., 2021) for image retrieval. Specifically, we compute the CLIP similarity between the image embedding and the sentence embedding of the target step to retrieve images. All results are based on a single run. We have opted not to include a human performance baseline in our evaluation. This decision was made due to the inherent challenges of assessing human performance in generative script learning, which requires annotators to possess domain knowledge in order to predict the next steps accurately. Moreover, different tasks may require different levels of expertise, experience, or background knowledge, making it difficult to establish a consistent baseline for human performance evaluation. ## D Additional Ablation Study We conducted further ablation experiments, the results of which are presented in Table 11. Our findings show that all ablated models performed worse than our proposed model. | Domain | Model | B-1↑ | B-2↑ | B-3↑ | B-4↑ | METEOR↑ R-L↑ | BARTScore↑ | Semantic↑ | |-------------------|-------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|----------------|--------------|-------------| | BART+CP+M+CL 17.9 | 9.30 | 5.20 | 3.07 | 9.72 | 17.1 | -4.39 | 0.304 | | | Gardening | BART+CP+R+CL 17.6 | 9.16 | 5.16 | 3.03 | 9.54 | 16.7 | -4.41 | 0.299 | | BART+M+R+CL | 17.7 | 9.11 | 4.98 | 2.92 | 9.71 | 17.0 | -4.37 | 0.306 | | BART+CP+M+CL 20.6 | 10.9 | 6.12 | 3.89 | 10.8 | 19.3 | -4.30 | 0.307 | | | Crafts | BART+CP+R+CL 20.3 | 11.0 | 6.36 | 4.12 | 10.8 | 19.8 | -4.29 | 0.301 | | BART+M+R+CL | 20.8 | 11.5 | 6.78 | 4.49 | 10.9 | 20.1 | -4.27 | 0.306 | ## E Prediction For Different History Length   In Figure 3a and Figure 3b, we show the averaged BARTScore and semantic similarity scores of our contrastive learning models in the next step prediction task over different step history lengths. In both figures, we observe that the results with eight step-caption pairs obtain the highest scores. We analyze the reasons as follows. For the instances that contain less than eight history steps, increasing the step history introduces more information than noise from the step text and corresponding captions. However, as the step length grows, the additional step-caption pairs introduce more noise than information relevant to the future step. Empirically, the eight-step length achieves an optimal balance between noise and relevant information. Another potential reason is related to the number of instances. In Table 10, we see a clear decline in the number of instances because of our dataset construction strategy. Therefore, the model cannot generalize over long history input. ## F Dataset Collections We crawled the English WikiHow website from Jan 2021 to May 2021. We extract all articles from the crawled website dump in the *Gardening* and Crafts categories. Each article contains a unique activity. We use BeautifulSoup (Richardson, 2007) to parse the article and obtain JSON files. Each JSON file contains a gardening activity. For each gardening activity, we remove those steps without paired images or steps whose images do not exist in the dump. Then, we use a regular expression to remove the URLs in the steps. We remove those steps that are too short (less than two words) or contain no values. Finally, we remove the activity containing only one step in each subgoal. ## G Parallel Steps In this paper, we focus on predicting correct orders for sequential step prediction since we find that only 18% of the subgoals have one parallel step by random checking 50 subgoals, and 14% contain more than one parallel step. It is more critical to predict correct orders for non-interchangeable steps, such as step 4 and 5 in Figure 1. By using generative methods, multiple steps can be predicted with different probabilities, which can support parallel processes. We also propose the multimodalretrieval-based metric by treating the future steps as a set and checking whether the generation steps  ## H Impact Of Historical Relevant Steps We analyze the relation between the quality of the retrieved historically relevant steps and the quality of the model predictions. The semantic similarity score evaluates the quality of retrieved steps and model predictions, which measures the embedding space similarity between a given text and the ground-truth next step. Pearson's correlation between the semantic scores of historically relevant steps and the semantic scores of model predictions is 0.39 with a p < 0.01. We also illustrate their relation in Figure 4. The results suggest that the performance of our model is positively correlated with the relevance of the retrieved historical steps.   ## I Additional Model Architecture Figure 5 and 6 show additional details for our framework. The immediate next step refers to the step right after the previously given steps. ## J Scientific Artifacts We list the licenses of the scientific artifacts used in this paper: WikiHow (Attribution-NoncommercialShare Alike 3.0 Creative Commons License), Huggingface Transformers (Apache License 2.0), SBERT (Apache-2.0 license), BARTScore (Apache-2.0 license), CLIP (MIT license), and BLIP (BSD-3-Clause license). ## K Human Evaluation Details | Model | Gardening | Crafts | | | | | | |------------|-----------------------------------------|----------|----|----|----|----|----| | N. | F. | D. | E. | N. | F. | D. | E. | | BART | 0.60 0.64 0.55 0.22 0.60 0.59 0.70 0.35 | | | | | | | | +CP | 0.65 0.50 0.53 0.41 0.67 0.60 0.90 0.31 | | | | | | | | +CP+M | 0.70 0.74 0.86 0.31 0.45 0.40 0.76 0.41 | | | | | | | | +CP+M+R | 0.53 0.50 0.68 0.37 0.62 0.46 0.78 0.31 | | | | | | | | +CP+M+R+CL | 0.43 0.58 0.56 0.26 0.58 0.48 0.13 0.35 | | | | | | | Table 12: Krippendorff-α scores for human evaluation on with average ranking of next step correctness (N.), future steps correctness (F.), diversity (D.), executability (E.). We measure inter-annotator agreement with Krippendorff-α scores (Krippendorff, 2018). The results are in Table 12. Table 13 shows the annotation examples. Because we do not have a virtual environment to execute those steps, we do not have a good inter-annotator agreement on the executability. ## L Sample Output  BART+CAP+ME: remove the leaf gall *from the plant.* BART +CAP+ME+RD: remove the leaf gall*.a person cutting a* plant with scissors. Our Model: *remove the leaf gall from the shrub.* Figure 7: Human and System Step Prediction Results. It shows an example that our model benefits from selective multimedia encoder. | Type | Content | |--------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Instructions | (1) similarity to the next step measures the correctness of generated results with the next step; (2) similarity to future steps measures whether the generated results are relevant to the future steps; (3) diversity measures the diversity of generated results under the same subgoal (4) executability which checks the generated results repeat or conflict with step history/ Please rank these models' output from 1(best)-5(worst), ties are allowed if both outputs are the same. | | Similarity and executability annotation examples | Title: protect garden berries Subgoal: setting up decoys Step History: use plastic snakes. —————————————- Ground Turth Target: Next Step: put out shiny pinwheels. Future Steps: put out shiny pinwheels. create a decoy food area. —————————————- Predictions: 0's prediction: wrap the snake in a plastic bag. 1's prediction: set up a trellis. 2's prediction: cut the berries down to the ground. 3's prediction: set up a trap. 4's prediction: choose a sturdy piece of string. | | Diversity | 0's predictions: wrap the snake in a plastic bag. place the flowers on a stick in the dirt. 1's predictions: choose the right plant. set up a trap. 2's predictions: cut the berries down to the ground. create a trap. 3's predictions: set up a trap. create a trap. 4's predictions: choose a sturdy piece of string. set up a trap. Table 13: Annotation examples | Goal: *harvest roses* Subgoal: *finding or growing roses* Step History:   Historically Relevant Step: 1: *deadhead spent blooms to stimulate new growth.* 2: *mist the buds with a light coating of water every 2-4 days.* 3: *apply a thick layer of mulch to keep moisture in the soil.* 4: add mulch *around the base of your roses.* 5: amend the soil with *fertilizer*. Next Step? Ground Truth: *fertilize your roses.*  Figure 8: Human and System Step Prediction Results. It shows an example that our model prediction results benefits from retrieval results and contrastive learning.         Figure 9: Human and System Step Prediction Results. It shows an example that our model prediction results benefits from retrieval results and contrastive learning. Goal: *plant a plant*   Figure 10: Human and System Step Prediction Results. It shows an example that our model prediction results matches future steps instead of immediate next step.

clarke-etal-2023-label

Label Agnostic Pre-training for Zero-shot Text Classification

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.64

Conventional approaches to text classification typically assume the existence of a fixed set of predefined labels to which a given text can be classified. However, in real-world applications, there exists an infinite label space for describing a given text. In addition, depending on the aspect (sentiment, topic, etc.) and domain of the text (finance, legal, etc.), the interpretation of the label can vary greatly. This makes the task of text classification, particularly in the zero-shot scenario, extremely challenging. In this paper, we investigate the task of zero-shot text classification with the aim of improving the ability of pre-trained language models (PLMs) to generalize to both seen and unseen data across varying aspects and domains. To solve this we introduce two new simple yet effective pre-training strategies, Implicit and Explicit pre-training. These methods inject aspect-level understanding into the model at train time with the goal of conditioning the model to build task-level understanding. To evaluate this, we construct and release UTCD, a new benchmark dataset for evaluating text classification in zero-shot settings. Experimental results on UTCD show that our approach achieves improved zero-shot generalization on a suite of challenging datasets across an array of zero-shot formalizations.

# Label Agnostic Pre-Training For Zero-Shot Text Classification Christopher Clarke Yuzhao Heng Yiping Kang Krisztian Flautner Lingjia Tang Jason Mars Computer Science & Engineering University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI {csclarke, stefanhg, ypkang, manowar, lingjia, profmars}@umich.edu ## Abstract Conventional approaches to text classification typically assume the existence of a fixed set of predefined labels to which a given text can be classified. However, in real-world applications, there exists an infinite label space for describing a given text. In addition, depending on the aspect (sentiment, topic, etc.) and domain of the text (finance, legal, etc.), the interpretation of the label can vary greatly. This makes the task of text classification, particularly in the zero-shot scenario, extremely challenging. In this paper, we investigate the task of zeroshot text classification with the aim of improving the ability of pre-trained language models (PLMs) to generalize to both seen and unseen data across varying aspects and domains. To solve this we introduce two new simple yet effective pre-training strategies, *Implicit* and Explicit pre-training. These methods inject aspect-level understanding into the model at train time with the goal of conditioning the model to build task-level understanding. To evaluate this, we construct and release UTCD, a new benchmark dataset for evaluating text classification in zero-shot settings. Experimental results on UTCD show that our approach achieves improved zero-shot generalization on a suite of challenging datasets across an array of zero-shot formalizations. ## 1 Introduction Text classification is the process of categorizing text into sets of organized groups where each set consists of similar content in a well-defined manner (Minaee et al., 2021; Joulin et al., 2016). Supervised approaches have achieved great success in recent years due to the availability of rich training data and the advent of large pre-trained language models such as BERT (Devlin et al., 2018). These conventional approaches typically assume the presence of a pre-defined set of labels to which a given text can be classified. However, in real-world applications, several challenges emerge:  1) The label space is constantly evolving. Over time, new labels are constantly emerging and the definition of the label space is constantly being refined. For example, intent classification systems such as those used in chatbots and dialogue systems are constantly introducing new intents as their range of supported features increases. Social networks such as Twitter encounter new and emerging topics on a daily basis from massive amounts of content that need to be classified. Figure 1 shows an example of this emerging label space. 2) The range of applications for text classification is vast. Text classification is pivotal to many different application areas from sentiment analysis to topic labeling, etc, and is used in a variety of domains such as finance, health, etc. When applied to this conglomeration of uses, it is typically assumed that there exists a comprehensive dataset of well-defined text-label pairs for each use case. However, in many real-world settings, annotated data is either scarce or unavailable entirely. Additionally, the use of dedicated models for each task is impractical due to the additional compute overhead and maintenance, thus making it difficult to scale over time. Zero-shot learning (ZSL) is aimed at addressing these constraints. Zero-shot Learners are models capable of predicting unseen classes. When applied to text classification, these models aim to associate a piece of text with a given label without the need 1009 for having been trained on that label. However, despite recent advancements in the capabilities of PLMs, zero-shot models still vastly underperform their supervised counterparts (Pushp and Srivastava, 2017; Puri and Catanzaro, 2019; Brown et al., 2020). As such, this remains an open research problem. In this paper, we investigate the challenge of reducing the aforementioned performance gap present in these zero-shot models compared to their supervised counterparts on unseen data. We theorize that the poor generalization of these zero-shot models is due to their lack of aspect-level understanding during their training process. To alleviate this we introduce two new simple yet effective pre-training strategies, *Implicit* and *Explicit* pre-training which specifically inject aspect-level understanding into the model. In order to evaluate these strategies, we canvas the range of zero-shot formalizations for enabling zero-shot text classification on PLMs and apply our techniques. Additionally, we introduce the Universal Text Classification Dataset (UTCD), a largescale text classification dataset for evaluating zeroshot text classification. UTCD is a compilation of 18 classification datasets spanning 3 main aspects of Sentiment, Intent/Dialogue, and Topic classification. Our results on UTCD show that by employing both our implicit and explicit pre-training strategies we can achieve improved zero-shot performance on a suite of challenging datasets for which the model was not trained on. Specifically, this paper makes the following contributions: - We introduce *Implicit & Explicit* pre-training, two new simple yet effective pre-training strategies for improving zero-shot performance. - We construct and release UTCD, a new benchmark dataset for evaluating text classification systems across a suite of diverse tasks and domains. We release our models and dataset1. - We conduct a thorough evaluation of various zero-shot text classification formalizations showing the effectiveness of our training strategies on each as well as insights gained. ## 2 Task Formulation In this section, we introduce the task of zero-shot text classification and describe a set of formalizations for facilitating the classification of text in a zero-shot manner, i.e. being able to predict unseen labels. Conventional Text Classification Text classification approaches using PLMs assume the existence of a pre-defined set of labels tyiu 1 n where for a given input sequence X, the model outputs a representation of that sequence as a sequence of hidden states thiu 1 l . Hidden states in the final layer are pooled to a single vector. In the case of BERT (Devlin et al., 2018), the rCLSs token is taken, and a linear softmax layer is added to predict the probability distribution of the label set: $${\vec{\mathrm{P}}}\left(\left\{y_{i}\right\}_{n}^{1}\mid h\right)=\mathrm{softmax}(W h)\qquad(1)$$ For the zero-shot scenario, this approach breaks since the output class set tyiu 1 n is fixed. This prevents the classification of text to new labels unless the model is re-trained with the new label set or a mapping of existing labels to unseen labels is built, both of which are impractical and cumbersome for real-world scenarios. ## 2.1 Binary Zero-Shot Classification To facilitate zero-shot classification of PLMs, Halder et al. (2020); Pushp and Srivastava (2017); Yin et al. (2019) formulate text classification as a series of binary classification tasks: $$f(\operatorname{label}(y_{i}),x)=\operatorname{P}{\big(}\operatorname{True}\mid y_{i},x{\big)}\qquad(2)$$ The model is provided with a concatenation of the class label labelpyiq and input text and the output layer generates a binary True{False prediction with a confidence score P. The True-prediction class with the highest confidence is selected as the final prediction, that is, $${\hat{y}}={\underset{i\in\{1...n\}}{\operatorname{arg\,max}}}\ f(\operatorname{label}(y_{i}),x)$$ $$(3)$$ where n is the number of classes/labels. Such crossattention (CA) models apply attention layers on the text and labels jointly, which intuitively allows for rich interactions. This architecture is shown in part (a) of Figure 2.  ## 2.2 Dual Encoding Zero-Shot Classification In contrast to cross-attention based architectures, Dual Encoder models (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019; Casanueva et al., 2020a; Clarke et al., 2022) instead focus on learning representations for a given text and label independently. They separately embed the text and label, via an encoder Φ and compute pair-wise scores S based on the encoded representations with a distance metric *Dist*, such as dot-product or cosine similarity: $$S(x,y_{i})=D i s t\left(\Phi(x),\Phi(y_{i})\right)$$ Sentence-Bert (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019) takes PLMs such as BERT and RoBERTa as the base encoder and use siamese networks to derive sentence embeddings by comparing similarities between sentence pairs as shown in part (b) of Figure 2. For text classification, this architecture can be used to derive latent representations for a given text and label and classify a sequence x according to: $${\hat{y}}={\underset{i\in\{1...n\}}{\operatorname{arg\,max}}}\ S(x,y_{i})$$ ## 2.3 Generative Classification Lastly, the generative formulation of zero-shot text classification uses autoregressive language models by passing in text and label sets as natural language prompts and training the model to generate the target label token by token. As described in Puri and Catanzaro (2019), we reformulate the text classification problem as a multiple choice question answering problem. The model is provided with a multiple-choice question description containing each class label in natural language, and trained to generate the correct answer, as shown in part (c) of Figure 2. The intuition behind this approach is to train the model to use common sense reasoning to select the most probable description of the text data from a provided list of rich natural language classes. Given some input text t, the model is optimized with the next token prediction language modeling loss: $$\sum_{t}{\mathcal{L}}(w_{t},P({\hat{w}}_{t}|w_{[1,t-1]}))\qquad\qquad({\bf6})$$ ## 3 Method In this section, we outline the methodology for our Implicit & *Explicit* pre-training strategies which allow us to inject aspect-specific knowledge into PLMs to improve generalization to unseen data. We first define the term aspect and outline the gap between the performance of the zero-shot models shown in section 2 on seen data compared to that of unseen data. Lastly, we describe our intuition behind why localization of aspect knowledge helps to bridge this gap. $$({\mathfrak{H}})$$ Aspect Definition In the scope of this work, we define an aspect as the type of task to which a given set of datasets belong too. For example, sentiment is considered an aspect because it cleanly defines a task definition of understanding the emotion conveyed in a given text. This definition holds true even if the domain of the data changes. e.g senti-  ment detection of news data vs sentiment of social media tweets. In addition to having a clean task definition, we stipulate that the set of labels considered in a given aspect must convey that aspect. e.g For intent, the label *"turn off alarm"* conveys that the text describes the intention to do something. ## 3.1 Transfer Learning For Text Classification The prevailing method for training models to perform classification tasks is to add a linear head on top of a pre-trained language model and fine-tune the entire network on labeled data (Devlin et al., 2018). However, when scaled to multi-task, multidomain applications these models suffer from issues such as catastrophic forgetting and conflicting knowledge transfer across tasks (Aribandi et al., 2021; Geva et al., 2021; Clark et al., 2019; Alonso and Plank, 2016). We observe a similar trend in the Bert Seq-CLS row of Table 3 and 2, where despite the overarching task of text classification remaining the same when scaling the output space of the classification head to more labels across aspects, we see heavy performance degradation compared to having individual dataset models. For example, in table 3 training a multi-dataset BERT sequence classifier performs worse for every benchmark dataset compared to its single-dataset counterpart. Additionally, for the zero-shot formalizations, we observe the lowest positive transfer on datasets with the lowest level of token overlap between labels seen during training and out-of-domain labels, as shown in Figure 4. We theorize that the reason for this phenomenon is that the model is over-fitting to the specific labels seen during training instead of generalizing to the "aspect". ## 3.2 Implicit Training In order to introduce aspect specification into our zero-shot models, we take inspiration from T5's (Raffel et al., 2019) text-to-text framework for multi-task generalization. In this framework, the model is fed some text for context and is then asked to produce some output text. As an example, to ask the model to translate the sentence "That is good." from English to German, the model would be fed the sequence "translate English to German: That is good." and would be trained to output "Das ist gut." Similarly, for each aspect (as defined in section 4), we introduce a conditional aspect token to the model input that acts as a context for that specific aspect. As such, in addition to learning the best contextual representation for the <text, label> input pair, the model implicitly learns a higher level understanding of the underlying aspect. By adding this conditional representation, even as the label space changes, the model is better able to understand the aspect at hand. This is shown in part(b) of figure 3. In the case of implicit binary zero-shot classification, the model is additionally provided with a concatenation of the aspect token and the output is selected as: $$\hat{y}=\operatorname*{arg\,max}_{i\in\{1...n\}}f(\mathrm{label}(y_{i}),\mathrm{aspect}(a_{y_{i}}),x)\quad(7)$$ iPt1*...n*u ## 3.3 Explicit Training Given our hypothesis that these language models will be able to generalize to unseen labels as a result of implicitly learning the task at hand, we explore the idea of explicitly training this generalization in a supervised manner. Instead of adding a conditional aspect token, we add an additional pretraining step in which the model is trained on aspect | Dataset | Aspect | Train/Test | #labels | Dataset | Aspect | Train/Test | #labels | |------------|---------------|--------------|-----------|------------------|-----------|--------------|-----------| | in-domain | out-of-domain | | | | | | | | GoEmotions | sentiment | 43K/5.4K | 28 | Amazon Polarity | sentiment | 3.6M/400K | 2 | | TweetEval | sentiment | 45K/12K | 3 | Fin. Phrase Bank | sentiment | 1.8k/453 | 3 | | Emotion | sentiment | 16K/2K | 6 | Yelp | sentiment | 650K/50K | 3 | | SGD | intent | 16K/4.2K | 26 | Banking77 | intent | 10K/3.1K | 77 | | Clinc-150 | intent | 15K/4.5K | 150 | SNIPS | intent | 14K/697 | 7 | | SLURP | intent | 12K/2.6K | 75 | NLU Eval | intent | 21K/5.2K | 68 | | AG News | topic | 120K/7.6K | 4 | MultiEURLEX | topic | 55K/5K | 21 | | DBpedia | topic | 560K/70K | 14 | Patent | topic | 25K/5K | 9 | | Yahoo | topic | 1.4M/60K | 10 | Consumer Finance | topic | 630K/160K | 18 | detection. This step acts as an initialization process whereby the model representations are tuned at the aspect level first. Once this step is completed the model is then fine-tuned for its respective zero-shot classification objective. This process is shown in part (c) of figure 3. For a given text x this explicit training step is defined as: $$\mathbf{\partial}(\mathbf{\partial})=\operatorname{softmax}(W h)$$ P⃗ ´taju 1 m ˇˇ h ¯" softmaxpW hq (8) ## 4 Utcd: Universal Text Classification Dataset In order to test the zero-shot generalization of these NLP models we introduce UTCD. UTCD is a compilation of 18 classification datasets spanning 3 main aspects of Sentiment, Intent/Dialogue, and Topic classification. A breakdown of each dataset is provided in appendix A. UTCD focuses on the task of zero-shot text classification where the candidate labels are descriptive of the text being classified. To make NLP models more broadly useful, zeroshot techniques need to be capable of label, domain & aspect transfer. As such, in the construction of UTCD we enforce the following principles: Textual labels In UTCD, we mandate the use of textual labels. While numerical label values are often used in classification tasks, descriptive textual labels such as those present in the datasets across UTCD enable the development of techniques that can leverage the class name which is instrumental in providing zero-shot support. As such, for each of the compiled datasets, labels are standardized such that the labels are descriptive of the text in natural language. Diverse domains and Sequence lengths In addition to broad coverage of aspects, UTCD compiles diverse data across several domains such as Banking, Finance, Legal, etc each comprising varied length sequences (long and short). The datasets are listed in Table 1. As described in section 3, we define aspect as the sub-task type to which a given set of datasets can belong too. We simulate the Zero-shot learning case by splitting UTCD into *in-domain*, data a given model would be trained on, and *out-ofdomain*, data with novel classes unseen during training. Additionally, to prevent data imbalance across aspects, we sub-sample the *in-domain* datasets such that the total number of unique text in each aspect is the same while maintaining class label distribution for each dataset. Class imbalance is known to degrade performance in deep learning models (Buda et al., 2018; Ochal et al., 2021). We observe a similar trend where aspect normalization results in performance improvement. ## 5 Experimental Setup Model Architectures For binary classification, we use BERTBASE with sentence pair classification as in Devlin et al. (2018). For dual encoding classification, we use Sentence-BERT (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019) with BERTBASE as the base | Sentiment | Intent | Topic | | | | | | | | | | |-----------------|-------------------|---------|---------|--------|--------|----------|------|------|------|------|------| | Model | Training Strategy | Amazon | Average | | | | | | | | | | Phrase Bank | Yelp | Banking | | | | | | | | | | | Fin. | 77 | SNIPS | NLU | EURLEX | Patent | Consumer | | | | | | | Multi | | | | | | | | | | | | | Polarity | Eval | Finance | | | | | | | | | | | BERT | individual | 96.0 | 97.2 | 84.8 | 88.6 | 99.0 | 88.9 | 94.8 | 64.1 | 82.6 | 88.4 | | Seq-CLS* | full | 93.1 | 24.9 | 79.0 | 84.7 | 97.3 | 87.4 | 81.4 | 50.2 | 76.9 | 75.0 | | vanilla | 80.7 | 68.9 | 58.5 | 51.4 | 82.9 | 71.6 | 28.7 | 13.6 | 22.3 | 53.2 | | | Binary | implicit (ours) | 80.1 | 66.0 | 59.8 | 51.3 | 82.5 | 73.1 | 30.3 | 15.2 | 23.4 | 53.5 | | BERT | explicit (ours) | 76.1 | 66.7 | 56.0 | 49.8 | 83.8 | 69.6 | 44.5 | 19.5 | 30.2 | 55.1 | | vanilla | 69.9 | 71.7 | 46.5 | 9.4 | 70.4 | 71.1 | 33.5 | 11.7 | 18.4 | 44.7 | | | Bi | | | | | | | | | | | | | Encoder | implicit (ours) | 79.6 | 64.0 | 56.8 | 21.1 | 72.5 | 61.9 | 35.4 | 9.6 | 11.3 | 45.8 | | explicit (ours) | 71.5 | 63.6 | 52.1 | 9.7 | 71.9 | 70.0 | 27.4 | 9.3 | 27.0 | 44.7 | | | vanilla | 88.3 | 71.1 | 70.9 | 22.8 | 52.2 | 61.7 | 22.3 | 23.5 | 12.6 | 47.3 | | | GPT-2: | implicit (ours) | 89.3 | 61.4 | 71.9 | 16.5 | 33.7 | 63.1 | 18.6 | 25.8 | 12.2 | 43.6 | | explicit (ours) | 89.7 | 75.9 | 71.5 | 22.4 | 54.1 | 60.7 | 23.5 | 21.6 | 13.9 | 48.2 | | | BART; | Zero-shot | 91.0 | 40.2 | 75.2 | 42.2 | 61.4 | 40.1 | 19.8 | 8.9 | 24.6 | 44.8 | | GPT-3; | Zero-shot | 54.4 | 52.8 | 77.0 | 23.7 | 13.9 | 37.9 | - | - | - | 43.3 | Table 2: Aspect-Normalized out-of-domain accuracy. *Supervised upper bound, not a zero-shot framework. :In case none of the given labels are generated at inference, the generated text is embedded and compared with label embeddings. ;Out-of-the-box zero-shot classifier. encoder, mean pooling, and cosine similarity as the distance metric. For generative classification, we use the 345M GPT-2 (Radford et al., 2019) as the language model and the input representation described in Puri and Catanzaro (2019). These models are denoted Binary BERT, Bi-Encoder, and GPT-2 respectively. Training We train all models with AdamW (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2019) and weight decay of 0.01 on all *in-domain* data for 3 epochs, for both pre-training and fine-tuning stages. For explicit pre-training, we use a learning rate of 2e-5, batch size of 16, and linear learning rate warmup over the first 10% steps with a cosine schedule. For binary and dual encoding we use a learning rate of 2e-5, batch size of 16, with 10% warmup and a linear schedule. For generative classification fine-tuning, we use a learning rate of 4e-5, batch size of 128, with 1% warmup and a cosine schedule as reported in Puri and Catanzaro (2019). We pre-process data and train all models with different random seeds over multiple runs. ## 6 Results & Discussion In this section we present and analyze the results of our experiments, detailing our insights and discussing the implications of each of our techniques. Evaluation Task We report accuracy on the test set of all *in-domain* and *out-of-domain* datasets. In multi-label cases where there is more than one valid label, the prediction is considered correct if the model predicts any one of the correct labels. For generative classification, we observe instances in which GPT-2 may not generate one of the label options, a known problem for PLM generation (Radford and Narasimhan, 2018; Pascual et al., 2021). In such cases, we consider the label option most similar to the generated answer as prediction, by mapping the generated output and the valid classes to an embedding space. For this encoding, we use the pre-trained model MPNet (Song et al., 2020) with mean pooling encoder from Sentence-BERT (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019) for mapping the labels and cosine similarity as the distance metric. This ensures the consistency of GPT-2's output with the other zero-shot formalizations. Upper-bound & Zero-shot Baselines To gauge the ability of our models to generalize to unseen data, we establish our upper-bound as the performance of a fully supervised model on the target data. Specifically, we fine-tune two variations of BERTBASE for sequence classification which we denote as *"individual"* and *"full"*. For *individual*, we fine-tune a dedicated classification model for each dataset in UTCD. For *full*, we fine-tune a single model for all datasets. Additionally, we compare the zero-shot performance of our models to the popular LLM GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020), and BART MNLI (Yin et al., 2019) which is the most popular and widely downloaded zero-shot model on | Sentiment | Intent | Topic | | | | | | | | | | |-----------------|-------------------|---------|------------|-------|---------|---------|-------|------|------|------|------| | Model | Training Strategy | Go | Average | | | | | | | | | | Tweet Eval | Emotion | SGD | Clinc -150 | SLURP | AG News | DBpedia | Yahoo | | | | | | Emotions | | | | | | | | | | | | | BERT | individual | 63.0 | 69.5 | 92.9 | 78.7 | 95.2 | 85.5 | 94.1 | 99.2 | 73.4 | 83.4 | | Seq-CLS* | full | 56.7 | 55.4 | 91.1 | 80.5 | 82.9 | 77.3 | 86.7 | 98.6 | 66.6 | 77.3 | | vanilla | 59.3 | 67.6 | 92.4 | 91.5 | 87.8 | 81.8 | 90.0 | 98.9 | 67.9 | 81.9 | | | Binary | implicit (ours) | 59.9 | 67.2 | 91.8 | 93.5 | 87.1 | 81.8 | 89.2 | 98.9 | 68.1 | 82.0 | | BERT | explicit (ours) | 60.2 | 66.6 | 91.8 | 93.4 | 88.0 | 80.4 | 88.7 | 98.9 | 67.8 | 81.7 | | vanilla | 59.2 | 65.7 | 92.8 | 82.2 | 84.4 | 79.9 | 89.3 | 99.0 | 67.4 | 80.0 | | | Bi | | | | | | | | | | | | | Encoder | implicit (ours) | 56.9 | 66.0 | 90.9 | 81.3 | 82 | 78.9 | 88.8 | 99.0 | 67.9 | 79.1 | | explicit (ours) | 58.8 | 66.8 | 91.8 | 82.7 | 83.3 | 79.9 | 89.5 | 98.9 | 67.7 | 80.0 | | | vanilla | 58.8 | 70.6 | 75.9 | 84.2 | 81.4 | 75.3 | 86.7 | 98.5 | 68.3 | 77.7 | | | GPT-2: | implicit (ours) | 59.0 | 70.3 | 71.4 | 84.7 | 81.7 | 73.1 | 87.7 | 98.4 | 68.3 | 77.2 | | explicit (ours) | 60.1 | 70.1 | 76.4 | 84.3 | 81.9 | 76.7 | 87.9 | 98.6 | 68.6 | 78.3 | | | BART; | Zero-shot | 24.2 | 47.8 | 37.7 | 41.4 | 50.4 | 27.5 | 71.7 | 65 | 49.2 | 46.1 | ## Huggingface Hub2. 6.1 Out-Of-Domain Performance In table 2, we report results on the out-of-domain test set for UTCD. To evaluate the ability of our zero-shot models to adapt to unseen data, we evaluate our fine-tuned models from table 3 on the outof-domain test set without training on any out-ofdomain data. Across the zero-shot formalizations, we observe that our explicit Binary BERT achieves the best performance with a 2% increase over its vanilla counterpart. Thus showing the power of the explicit pre-training strategy for binary classification formalization. When compared to the "full" supervised out-ofdomain model, despite having not been trained on any data from the target dataset, across the aspects of sentiment and intent, our models are able to generalize well. Specifically, across all formalizations, our models are able to outperform the supervised model on the financial phrase bank dataset. We observe that this drop is due to conflicting domain data. UTCD's out-of-domain set consists of similar financial datasets in the other aspects of intent and topic. Given that examples from the finance phrase banks dataset are general in nature, without seeing the label, it is difficult for the sequence classifier to understand the task at hand, thus causing it to classify to conflicting labels from similar datasets. This showcases the need to include aspect-specific knowledge. Lastly, when inspecting the performance of vanilla fine-tuning compared implicit and explicit training, we are able to outperform vanilla on generalizing to unseen data on 6, 6, and 8 of the 9 datasets in out-of-domain UTCD across Binary BERT, Bi-encoder, and GPT-2 models respectively. In particular, for explicit training on Binary BERT, we achieve a massive improvement in zero-shot generalization (as much as +%16 for the topic aspect, +9% on average). Additionally, in comparison to the massive zero-shot baselines of BART and GPT-3 our models are able to outperform on 7 and 8 of the 9 datasets respectively. ## 6.2 In-Domain Performance In table 3, we report results on the in-domain test set for UTCD. For in-domain, we conduct implicit & explicit training across each zero-shot formalization. We observe that when compared with the "full" supervised model, our zero-shot models are more performant while maintaining the flexibility of facilitating zero-shot. When compared with the "individual" variation, as our zero-shot models are trained jointly across different datasets, we achieve better performance than the single supervised model on datasets such as SGD, showing the power of knowledge transfer from other intent datasets such as Clinc-150 & SLURP. For vanilla fine-tuning without implicit or explicit training, we observe that across zero-shot formalizations, injecting task specification through implicit and explicit pre-training preserves performance for in-domain data. Showing that while achieving better zero-shot transfer ability our models do not suffer performance loss on data already ## Seen During Training. 6.3 Importance Of Label Token Overlap In addition to the need for aspect-specific knowledge, we also observe a high correlation in zeroshot generalization results between the overlap of tokens seen during training and those evaluated on the out-of-domain test. Figure 4 shows the pairwise overlap of label tokens across the in-domain and out-of-domain datasets. When inspected across aspects, we see that our models are able to achieve the best out-of-domain performance on datasets with the most overlapping label tokens to those seen during training. ## 7 Related Work Zero-shot text classification is the task of classifying text into novel categories unseen during training. Early zero-shot classification studies frame the problem as binary classification on whether a given label describes the text (Pushp and Srivastava, 2017; Yin et al., 2019). With the advancement of PLMs, subsequent works (Yin et al., 2019; Puri and Catanzaro, 2019) rely on transformer architectures to learn representations from descriptive labels passed in. In particular, Puri and Catanzaro (2019) fine-tune an autoregressive language model to generate titles based on a prompt template containing Tweet articles and a list of title options. Though the model is trained on a great variety of title options, the approach limits the learning to topic classification only, as the authors only analyze performance on topic datasets, unlike our approach which considers a wide array of aspects, each requiring focus on different sections of a given text. Yin et al. (2019) similarly categorize zero-shot text classification by aspects and implicitly introduce aspects during training with a dedicated template for each aspect. They further propose the classification of a text, label pair as a logic entailment problem. However, the authors analyze a less challenging zero-shot case where a model is trained on a subset of text, label pairs, and evaluated on the remaining text with unseen labels in the same domain. Additionally, the authors introduce WordNet definition of the labels as the labels are all single words. This process requires manual intervention and is not applicable for multiple-word label sequences common in intent classification, such as "Check Balance". Our work evaluates a more diverse set of datasets for each aspect and a more  ## 8 Conclusion In this paper, we investigate the task of zero-shot text classification with the aim of improving the ability of PLMs to generalize both seen and unseen data across domains without the need for additional training. We introduce two new simple yet effective pre-training strategies, Implicit training & *Explicit* pre-training which specifically inject aspect-level understanding into the model at train time. To evaluate this, we release UTCD, a new benchmark dataset for evaluating text classification in zeroshot settings. Experimental results on UTCD show that our approach achieves improved zero-shot generalization on a suite of challenging datasets in UTCD and across many zero-shot formalizations. ## 9 Limitations While our approach is shown to be effective in improving the zero-shot adaption ability of these PLMs, the scope of this work has only been extended to English languages and has not been tested on other languages. In addition, another limitation of this work is the scope of the aspect. Aspect is defined across 3 main categories of intent, sentiment, and topic in the work. However, given the massive space of text label interpretations, our aspect range can be refined and expanded even further, lending to more analysis of the stability of implicit & explicit training as the number of aspects grows. We do not investigate this scenario in this work. ## Acknowledgements We thank our anonymous reviewers for their feedback and suggestions. This work is supported in part by award NSF1539011 by the National Science Foundation. ## References Héctor Martínez Alonso and Barbara Plank. 2016. When is multitask learning effective? semantic sequence prediction under varying data conditions. Vamsi Aribandi, Yi Tay, Tal Schuster, Jinfeng Rao, Huaixiu Steven Zheng, Sanket Vaibhav Mehta, Honglei Zhuang, Vinh Q. Tran, Dara Bahri, Jianmo Ni, Jai Gupta, Kai Hui, Sebastian Ruder, and Donald Metzler. 2021. Ext5: Towards extreme multi-task scaling for transfer learning. Sören Auer, Christian Bizer, Georgi Kobilarov, Jens Lehmann, Richard Cyganiak, and Zachary Ives. 2007. Dbpedia: A nucleus for a web of open data. In The Semantic Web, pages 722–735, Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Francesco Barbieri, Jose Camacho-Collados, Luis Espinosa Anke, and Leonardo Neves. 2020. TweetEval: Unified benchmark and comparative evaluation for tweet classification. In *Findings of the Association* for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 1644–1650, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Emanuele Bastianelli, Andrea Vanzo, Pawel Swietojanski, and Verena Rieser. 2020. SLURP: A spoken language understanding resource package. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 7252–7262, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. 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 Neural Information Processing Systems*, volume 33, pages 1877–1901. Curran Associates, Inc. Mateusz Buda, Atsuto Maki, and Maciej A. Mazurowski. 2018. A systematic study of the class imbalance problem in convolutional neural networks. *Neural Networks*, 106:249–259. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. 2012. Consumer complaint database. https://www.consumerfinance.gov/ data-research/consumer-complaints/. Accessed: Jun. 24th, 2022. Iñigo Casanueva, Tadas Temcinas, Daniela Gerz, ˇ Matthew Henderson, and Ivan Vulic. 2020a. ´ Efficient intent detection with dual sentence encoders. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Natural Language Processing for Conversational AI, pages 38–45, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Iñigo Casanueva, Tadas Temcinas, Daniela Gerz, Matthew Henderson, and Ivan Vulic. 2020b. Efficient intent detection with dual sentence encoders. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on NLP for ConvAI - ACL 2020. Data available at https://github.com/PolyAI-LDN/task-specificdatasets. Ilias Chalkidis, Manos Fergadiotis, and Ion Androutsopoulos. 2021. Multieurlex - a multi-lingual and multi-label legal document classification dataset for zero-shot cross-lingual transfer. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics. Kevin Clark, Minh-Thang Luong, Urvashi Khandelwal, Christopher D. Manning, and Quoc V. Le. 2019. BAM! born-again multi-task networks for natural language understanding. In *Proceedings of the 57th* Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5931–5937, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Christopher Clarke, Joseph Peper, Karthik Krishnamurthy, Walter Talamonti, Kevin Leach, Walter Lasecki, Yiping Kang, Lingjia Tang, and Jason Mars. 2022. One agent to rule them all: Towards multiagent conversational AI. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022*, pages 3258–3267, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alice Coucke, Alaa Saade, Adrien Ball, Théodore Bluche, Alexandre Caulier, David Leroy, Clément Doumouro, Thibault Gisselbrecht, Francesco Caltagirone, Thibaut Lavril, Maël Primet, and Joseph Dureau. 2018. Snips voice platform: an embedded spoken language understanding system for privateby-design voice interfaces. *ArXiv*, abs/1805.10190. Dorottya Demszky, Dana Movshovitz-Attias, Jeongwoo Ko, Alan S. Cowen, Gaurav Nemade, and Sujith Ravi. 2020. Goemotions: A dataset of fine-grained emotions. *ArXiv*, abs/2005.00547. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. *CoRR*, abs/1810.04805. Mor Geva, Uri Katz, Aviv Ben-Arie, and Jonathan Berant. 2021. What's in your head? emergent behaviour in multi-task transformer models. Kishaloy Halder, Alan Akbik, Josip Krapac, and Roland Vollgraf. 2020. Task aware representation of sentences for generic text classification. In COLING 2020, 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, Piotr Bojanowski, and Tomas Mikolov. 2016. Bag of tricks for efficient text classification. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1607.01759*. Stefan Larson, Anish Mahendran, Joseph J. Peper, Christopher Clarke, Andrew Lee, Parker Hill, Jonathan K. Kummerfeld, Kevin Leach, Michael A. Laurenzano, Lingjia Tang, and Jason Mars. 2019. An evaluation dataset for intent classification and out-ofscope prediction. 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 1311–1316, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2019. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In *International Conference on Learning Representations*. P. Malo, A. Sinha, P. Korhonen, J. Wallenius, and P. Takala. 2014. Good debt or bad debt: Detecting semantic orientations in economic texts. *Journal of the* Association for Information Science and Technology, 65. Shervin Minaee, Nal Kalchbrenner, Erik Cambria, Narjes Nikzad, Meysam Chenaghlu, and Jianfeng Gao. 2021. Deep learning–based text classification: A comprehensive review. *ACM Comput. Surv.*, 54(3). Mateusz Ochal, Massimiliano Patacchiola, Amos Storkey, Jose Vazquez, and Sen Wang. 2021. Fewshot learning with class imbalance. Damian Pascual, Béni Egressy, Clara Meister, Ryan Cotterell, and Roger Wattenhofer. 2021. A plug-andplay method for controlled text generation. *ArXiv*, abs/2109.09707. Raul Puri and Bryan Catanzaro. 2019. Zero-shot text classification with generative language models. ArXiv, abs/1912.10165. Pushpankar Kumar Pushp and Muktabh Mayank Srivastava. 2017. Train once, test anywhere: Zero-shot learning for text classification. *CoRR*, abs/1712.05972. Alec Radford and Karthik Narasimhan. 2018. Improving language understanding by generative pretraining. Alec Radford, Jeff Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. Colin Raffel, Noam 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. Abhinav Rastogi, Xiaoxue Zang, Srinivas Sunkara, Raghav Gupta, and Pranav Khaitan. 2020. Towards scalable multi-domain conversational agents: The schema-guided dialogue dataset. *Proceedings* of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 34(05):8689–8696. 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. Elvis Saravia, Hsien-Chi Toby Liu, Yen-Hao Huang, Junlin Wu, and Yi-Shin Chen. 2018. CARER: Contextualized affect representations for emotion recognition. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3687–3697, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Eva Sharma, Chen Li, and Lu Wang. 2019. BIGPATENT: A large-scale dataset for abstractive and coherent summarization. In *Proceedings of the 57th* Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2204–2213, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Kaitao Song, Xu Tan, Tao Qin, Jianfeng Lu, and TieYan Liu. 2020. Mpnet: Masked and permuted pretraining for language understanding. In *Advances in* Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 16857–16867. Curran Associates, Inc. Pawel Swietojanski Xingkun Liu, Arash Eshghi and Verena Rieser. 2019. Benchmarking natural language understanding services for building conversational agents. In *Proceedings of the Tenth International* Workshop on Spoken Dialogue Systems Technology (IWSDS), pages xxx–xxx, Ortigia, Siracusa (SR), Italy. Springer. Wenpeng Yin, Jamaal Hay, and Dan Roth. 2019. Benchmarking zero-shot text classification: Datasets, evaluation and entailment approach. Xiang Zhang, Junbo Zhao, and Yann LeCun. 2015. Character-level convolutional networks for text classification. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, volume 28. Curran Associates, Inc. ## A Utcd Datasets UTCD is a compilation of 18 classification datasets spanning 3 categories of Sentiment, Intent/Dialogue and Topic classification. UTCD focuses on the task of zero-shot text classification where the candidate labels are descriptive of the text being classified. UTCD consists of 6M/800K train/test examples. For sentiment we have the datasets Go Emotion (Demszky et al., 2020), TweetEval (Barbieri et al., 2020), Emotion (Saravia et al., 2018), Amazon Polarity (Zhang et al., 2015), Finance Phrasebank (Malo et al., 2014) and Yelp (Zhang et al., 2015). The GoEmotions dataset contains 58k carefully curated Reddit comments labeled for 27 emotion categories or Neutral. The TweetEval dataset consists of seven heterogenous tasks in Twitter, all framed as multi-class tweet classification. The tasks include - irony, hate, offensive, stance, emoji, emotion, and sentiment. We used the sentiment portion of this dataset for UTCD. Emotion is a dataset of English Twitter messages with six basic emotions: anger, fear, joy, love, sadness, and surprise. The Amazon Polarity dataset consists of reviews from Amazon. The data spans a period of 18 years, including 35 million reviews up to March 2013. Reviews include product and user information, ratings, and a plaintext review. The Finance Phrasebank dataset consists of 4840 sentences from English language financial news categorised by sentiment. The Yelp dataset consists of over 600k reviews for the task of sentiment classification. For the intent/dialogue aspect we have the datasets: Schema Guided Dialgoue (Rastogi et al., 2020) is an annotated multi-domain, task-oriented conversations between a human and a virtual assistant. Clinc-150 (Larson et al., 2019) is an intent classification (text classification) dataset consisting of 150 in-domain intent classes. SLURP (Bastianelli et al., 2020) is dialuge dataset derived from SLU systems English spanning 18 domains. Banking77 (Casanueva et al., 2020b) is an intent classification dataset for the banking domain. It comprises 13,083 customer service queries labeled with 77 intents. Snips is an NLU dataset of over 16,000 crowdsourced queries distributed among 7 user intents. NLU Evaluation (Xingkun Liu and Rieser, 2019) is an NLU dataset from the conversational domain annotated with corresponding intents and dialogue scenarios. Lastly, for the topic aspect we have the datasets: AG News (Zhang et al., 2015) is a topic classification dataset extract from the AG News article corpus. It consist of 4 classes from the original corpus. Each class contains 30,000 training samples and 1,900 testing samples. Yahoo Answers dataset (Zhang et al., 2015) contains 4,483,032 questions and their answers across 10 categories. Each class contains 140,000 training samples and 5,000 testing samples. DBpedia (Auer et al., 2007) dataset is a topic classification dataset constructed from picking 14 non-overlapping classes from DBpedia 2014. Multi Eurlex (Chalkidis et al., 2021) is a multilingual dataset for topic classification of legal documents. The dataset comprises 65k European Union (EU) laws, officially translated in 23 languages, annotated with multiple labels from the EUROVOC taxonomy. Big Patent (Sharma et al., 2019) is a topic classification dataset for the legal domain consisting of 1.3 million records of U.S. patent documents along with human written abstractive summaries. Consumer Finance (Bureau, 2012) dataset is a collection of complaints about consumer financial products and services sent to companies for response. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? 9 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? 1 ✗ 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? Left blank. 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? 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.? 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.

zheng-etal-2023-click

Click: Controllable Text Generation with Sequence Likelihood Contrastive Learning

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.65

It has always been an important yet challenging problem to control language models to avoid generating texts with undesirable attributes, such as toxic language and unnatural repetition. We introduce Leo for controllable text generation, which needs no modification to the model architecture and facilitates out-of-the-box use of trained models. It employs a contrastive loss on sequence likelihood, which fundamentally decreases the generation probability of negative samples (i.e., generations with undesirable attributes). It also adopts a novel likelihood ranking-based strategy to construct contrastive samples from model generations. On the tasks of language detoxification, sentiment steering, and repetition reduction, we show that Leo outperforms strong baselines of controllable text generation and demonstrate the superiority of Leo{'}s sample construction strategy.

## Click**: Controllable Text Generation With Sequence Likelihood** Contrastive Learning Chujie Zheng Pei Ke Zheng Zhang Minlie Huang∗ The CoAI Group, DCST, Institute for Artificial Intelligence, State Key Lab of Intelligent Technology and Systems, Beijing National Research Center for Information Science and Technology, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China chujiezhengchn@gmail.com aihuang@tsinghua.edu.cn ## Abstract It has always been an important yet challenging problem to control language models to avoid generating texts with undesirable attributes, such as toxic language and unnatural repetition. We introduce CLICK for controllable text generation, which needs no modification to the model architecture and facilitates out-of-thebox use of trained models. It employs a contrastive loss on sequence likelihood, which fundamentally decreases the generation probability of negative samples (i.e., generations with undesirable attributes). It also adopts a novel likelihood ranking-based strategy to construct contrastive samples from model generations. On the tasks of language detoxification, sentiment steering, and repetition reduction, we show that CLICK outperforms strong baselines of controllable text generation and demonstrate the superiority of CLICK's sample construction strategy.1 ## 1 Introduction Current language models trained on massive textual corpora have shown the impressive capability of generating fluent and grammatical text (Radford et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020; Roller et al., 2021). However, they often produce behaviors misaligned with human expectations. For instance, language models may generate offensive language or agree with toxic input (Xu et al., 2021; Gehman et al., 2020; Sun et al., 2022). They may also generate text with unnatural repetition (Holtzman et al., 2019; Su et al., 2022), which is a notorious issue in autoregressive language generation. Controlling language models to avoid such undesirable attributes has always been an important yet challenging problem in NLG research. As a popular practice, growing recent work has investigated how to decrease the generation prob- ∗Corresponding author. 1The project repository is available at https://github. com/chujiezheng/Click.  Figure 1: Overview of CLICK. It contains three steps: (1) Generating multiple continuations given a prompt, which are labeled as positive / negative by a label function. (2) Constructing contrastive samples by pairing each negative sample with the positive one whose likelihood ranks highest but lower than the former (§ 2.3). (3) Training the language model with the additional contrastive loss (§ 2.2). ability of these negative samples (i.e., generations of undesirable attributes). For instance, Unlikelihood Training (Welleck et al., 2019) minimizes the likelihood of each token in negative samples. GeDi (Krause et al., 2021), DExperts (Liu et al., 2021), and Director (Arora et al., 2022) adjust the nexttoken prediction distribution at each generation step to avoid token choices that would potentially lead to undesirable attributes. In this work, we introduce CLICK, a method for Controllable text generation with sequence Likelihood **C(K)**ontrastive learning. It employs a max-margin contrastive loss on sequence likelihood in addition to standard language modeling (§ 2.2), which fundamentally reduces the probability of a negative sample being decoded. Compared with previous methods of controllable text generation, CLICK has two unique advantages. **First**, CLICK contrasts the *sequence likelihoods* of positive and negative samples with a *maximum likelihood margin*, which enables a higher degree of freedom for optimization than explicitly minimizing the *likelihood of each token* of negative samples. 1022 Second, CLICK needs *no modification to the model* architecture and thus does not require laborious adjustments to the next-token prediction distribution during generation, which makes it convenient for out-of-the-box use of trained models. We also design a likelihood ranking-based strategy of contrastive sample construction for CLICK (§ 2.3). Given an input prompt, CLICK first samples multiple generations from the initial language model, which are labeled as positive / negative by a label function. It then pairs each negative sample with the positive one whose likelihood ranks highest but lower than the former. For instance, in Figure 1, negative rank 2 is paired with positive rank 4 to constitute a pair of contrastive samples. This strategy derives from our two intuitions. **First**, a high-likelihood positive sample (e.g., positive rank 1 ) does not necessitate further enlargement of its likelihood gap with the negative one, which may instead result in overfitting the positive sample. **Second**, sequence likelihood indicates how much a text is probable to be the continuation of the input, which somewhat reflects the quality of generated continuations, such as fluency and coherence. A pair of samples with a too large likelihood gap (e.g., negative rank 2 and positive rank 6 ) may thus bias contrastive learning toward other aspects (e.g., fluency or coherence) than the attributes we aim to control. We experiment with three controllable text generation tasks: language detoxification, sentiment steering, and repetition reduction (§ 3). Through both automatic and human evaluation, we show that CLICK can effectively avoid undesirable attributes and outperform strong baselines. Ablation analysis further proves the superiority of CLICK's sample construction strategy. ## 2 Methodology 2.1 Task Formulation Given an input text x as a prompt, the task of controllable text generation aims to generate a fluent natural language continuation y that avoids an undesirable attribute (e.g., toxicity) while maintaining contextual coherence. We denote the language model parameterized by θ as Pθ, which produces y given x following the distribution Pθ(·|x). Following the setting of controllable text generation (Liu et al., 2021; Lu et al., 2022), we also assume a label function c(*x, y*) that assigns a binary attribute label 0/1 to each (*x, y*) pair2, corresponding to a negative/positive sample, respectively. ## 2.2 Sequence Likelihood Contrastive Learning CLICK adopts a contrastive loss on sequence likelihood, which trains the model to assign lower generation probabilities to negative samples than positive ones. It does not need any modification to the model architecture, which makes it convenient for out-of-the-box use. Figure 1 gives the overview of CLICK. We first introduce how CLICK trains the language model to avoid undesirable behaviors (the 3rd step in Figure 1) and later describe CLICK's strategy of constructing contrastive samples in § 2.3 (the 1st and 2nd steps in Figure 1). CLICK requires two training sets. The first is the **language modeling set** DLM = {(xi, yi)}i , which by default contains only positive samples, i.e., c(*x, y*) = 1, ∀(x, y) ∈ DLM. CLICK performs standard language modeling on DLM using the conventional negative log-likelihood loss: $${\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{LM}}=\mathbb{E}_{(x,y)\sim{\mathcal{D}}_{\mathrm{LM}}}[-\log P_{\theta}(y|x)].$$ $\eqref{eq:walpha}$ The second training set is the **contrastive learning** set DCL = (xi, yˆ + i , yˆ − i ) i , which contains modelgenerated positive-negative sample pairs, where c(x, yˆ +) = 1∧c(x, yˆ−) = 0, ∀(x, yˆ +, yˆ−) ∈ DCL. Note that the same prompt x could be shared by multiple triples in DCL. CLICK then performs contrastive learning on DCL via a max-margin contrastive loss on sequence likelihood Pθ(y|x): $$\begin{array}{c}{{{\mathcal L}_{\mathrm{CL}}=\mathbb{E}_{(x,\hat{y}^{+},\hat{y}^{-})\sim{\mathcal D}_{\mathrm{CL}}}[\operatorname*{max}(0,}}\\ {{\quad\quad\quad\gamma+\log P_{\theta}(\hat{y}^{-}|x)-\log P_{\theta}(\hat{y}^{+}|x))],}}\end{array}$$ In general, we can define a * $\large\color{black}(2)$ ! where γ is the margin hyperparameter. The overall optimization objective is the summation of the above two losses: $${\mathcal{L}}={\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{LM}}+\alpha{\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{CL}},$$ $$({\mathfrak{I}}{\mathfrak{I}})$$ where α is the weight hyperparameter. With the participation of LCL, the information from the label function c is injected into sequence likelihood 2We assume the label function with *binary* outputs rather than *continuous* outputs (e.g., from 0 to 1) due to two considerations. (1) Since the label function is usually implemented as an automatic classifier, its continuous output score may be imperfect, as discussed in § 5. Optimization toward continuous scores may inherit more biases from the classifier, which can be alleviated to some extent by transforming continuous scores into binary labels. (2) This setting can be naturally generalized when the label function is human annotators (Ouyang et al., 2022), where only binary or discrete labels can be obtained. given by the language model Pθ. It thus learns to avoid undesirable attributes by decreasing the generation probability of negative samples. From another perspective, we can view LLM as a regularization item, which maintains the language model's underlying capability of language generation. ## 2.3 Contrastive Sample Construction Before training the language model, CLICK first constructs the contrastive learning set DCL. We first present the overall procedure and then elaborate on the details of sample construction. Overall Procedure We start from a prompt set DPmt = {xi}i , which can be easily obtained from DLM. For each prompt x in DPmt, we sample multiple continuations with Pθ(·|x), which can be implemented with popular sampling-based decoding algorithms like nucleus sampling (Holtzman et al., 2019). Using the label function c(x, ·), we split the model-generated continuations into the positive and negative sample sets Yb+ = yˆ + k k and Yb− = yˆ − k k . Note that in many cases, there are fewer negative samples than positive ones, such as toxic language (Xu et al., 2021; Perez et al., 2022). We thus pair each3 negative sample yˆ− ∈ Yb− with a positive one yˆ + and add (x, yˆ +, yˆ−) into DCL. Motivation A straightforward practice of sample pairing is random sampling, i.e., we randomly sample a yˆ + ∈ Yb+ for each yˆ−. However, we argue that such a practice is *suboptimal*. For a yˆ + that already has a higher likelihood than yˆ−, it is unnecessary to further enlarge their likelihood gap. On the other hand, likelihood indicates how much a text is probable to be the continuation of a prompt, which somewhat reflects the quality of generated continuations like fluency and coherence. If we use yˆ + with much lower likelihoods than yˆ− to construct DCL, contrastive learning may be biased toward other aspects (e.g., fluency or coherence) than the attributes we aim to control. Meanwhile, Equation 2 would also implicitly increase the generation probability of potentially low-quality yˆ + (with low likelihoods), which conflicts with the language modeling objective (Equation 1) and may thus impair the language generation capability. ## Likelihood Ranking-Based Strategy Based On the above intuitions, CLICK adopts a novel likeli-3In practice, due to the limitation of computational resources and efficiency, for each prompt x we constructed at most k pairs of contrastive samples for DCL, where k varies from tasks in our experiments. hood ranking-based strategy for constructing contrastive samples. From the yˆ + with lower likelihoods than yˆ−, CLICK selects the highest-ranked yˆ +. With the positive and negative samples at a similar likelihood level, it enables contrastive learning to focus better on the controlled attributes and also alleviates the conflict with the language modeling objective. The strategy is formulated as follows: $$\begin{array}{c}\mbox{arg max}\\ \{\hat{y}^{+}\in\hat{y}^{+}|P_{\theta}(\hat{y}^{+}|x)\!\!<\!\!P_{\theta}(\hat{y}^{-}|x)\}\end{array}\tag{4}$$ If all the yˆ + have lower likelihoods than yˆ−, Equation 4 degenerates to selecting the positive sample with the lowest likelihood, i.e., arg minYb+ Pθ(ˆy +|x). The 2nd step in Figure 1 illustrates how our construction strategy works, where three pairs of contrastive samples are constructed: 2 / 4 , 3 / 4 , and 5 / 6 . ## 2.4 Relationship To Prior Work CLICK builds upon two disjoint ideas from previous work in controllable or conditional text generation. (1) Inspired by Unlikelihood Training (Welleck et al., 2019), CLICK trains the language model to decrease the generation probability of negative samples (Equation 2). However, Unlikelihood Training minimizes the likelihood of each token given the prefix of the negative sample, which is a *token-level* objective. Different from it, CLICK adopts a maxmargin contrastive loss at the *sequence level*. By directly acting on sequence likelihood and setting a maximum margin γ, CLICK allows a higher degree of freedom for optimization (e.g., focusing on certain tokens that lead to undesirable attributes). (2) Inspired by BRIO (Liu et al., 2022) and SLiC (Zhao et al., 2022), CLICK employs the contrastive loss directly on sequence likelihood. However, BRIO and SLiC align sequence likelihood with the similarity to reference text, which is not applicable for controllable text generation tasks where reference texts are usually unavailable and generation is open-ended. Unlike them, CLICK aligns sequence likelihood with the controlled attribute (the undesirable attribute corresponds to lower likelihood). Furthermore, the contrastive samples in BRIO and SLiC are randomly paired, while CLICK is based on likelihood ranking, which provides more insights about and is more tailored for open-ended text generation tasks, as verified in § 3.4. ## 3 Experiments We next show that CLICK can effectively avoid undesirable attributes on three controllable text generation tasks: (1) language detoxification (§ 3.1), (2) sentiment steering (§ 3.2), and (3) repetition reduction (§ 3.3). We also conduct ablation analysis to give further insights about CLICK (§ 3.4). ## 3.1 Language Detoxification Language models are known to produce offensive language (Gehman et al., 2020) or express agreement with toxic input (Xu et al., 2021; Sun et al., 2022), which potentially hinders downstream tasks and real-world applications (Perez et al., 2022; Zheng et al., 2023). The task of language detoxification aims to avoid toxic and unsafe generations. Experimental Setups We evaluated on the BotAdversarial Dialogue (BAD) (Xu et al., 2021) dataset. It contains human-bot conversations where human adversarially induces language models to produce unsafe generations. Each utterance is annotated with binary labels (safe or unsafe). We use the official data split, see Appendix A for dataset statistics. We fine-tuned a RoBERTa Base (Liu et al., 2019) classifier on the BAD training set's annotations as the label function c (see Appendix B.3). We use the non-toxic part of training data as DLM and all the prompts in the training set as DPmt. For each prompt x, we constructed at most k = 5 pairs of contrastive samples for DCL from 20 sampled continuations (nucleus sampling, p = 0.9). We set α = 0.5 and γ = 20 for CLICK. For evaluation, all the models generate continuations (response) given the prompts (dialogue history), using nucleus sampling (Holtzman et al., 2019) with p = 0.9. We conducted simple grid searches for hyperparameters of CLICK and baselines and selected final values based on the performance on the validation set (see Appendix B.2 for details). See Appendix B.1 for further implementation details. Baselines Following previous work (Arora et al., 2022; Adolphs et al., 2022), we use BlenderBot 365M (Roller et al., 2021) as the base model. We compare the following methods. **Non-toxic FT** fine-tunes BlenderBot on the non-toxic training set. Unlikelihood Training (Welleck et al., 2019) minimizes the likelihood of each token given the prefix of the toxic sample and also performs language modeling on non-toxic samples. **GeDi** (Krause et al., 2021) and **DExperts** (Liu et al., 2021) both | Methods | Toxicity | Fluency | Diversity | | |--------------|------------|------------|-------------|------| | Prob. ↓ | Out. PPL ↓ | Dist-2/3 ↑ | | | | Non-toxic FT | 0.450 | 5.23 | 0.40 | 0.46 | | Unlikelihood | 0.453 | 6.32 | 0.42 | 0.49 | | GeDi | 0.187 | 7.10 | 0.14 | 0.15 | | DExperts | 0.303 | 8.92 | 0.40 | 0.44 | | Director | 0.164 | 7.93 | 0.26 | 0.29 | | Cringe | 0.437 | 9.06 | 0.42 | 0.49 | | CLICK | 0.084 | 6.48 | 0.49 | 0.56 | | - Random | 0.105 | 6.48 | 0.49 | 0.56 | | - Lower | 0.105 | 6.87 | 0.50 | 0.57 | | - Lowest | 0.200 | 7.37 | 0.52 | 0.59 | train a toxic/non-toxic model on the toxic/non-toxic training set and adjust the next-token prediction distribution of the original language model. **Director** (Arora et al., 2022) trains a classification head to similarly adjust the next-token prediction distribution. **Cringe** (Adolphs et al., 2022) improves Unlikelihood Training by applying token-level contrastive learning to toxic samples. Evaluation Setups For automatic evaluation, we follow the evaluation metrics in (Liu et al., 2021), including the aspects of toxicity, fluency, and diversity. Toxicity is measured by the empirical probability (**Prob.**) of generating at least one toxic continuation over 25 continuations (labeled by the BAD classifier). Fluency is measured by the mean perplexity (**Out. PPL**) of generated continuations, as evaluated by a larger language model BlenderBot 1.4B. Diversity is measured using the mean number of distinct n-grams, normalized by the text length (Li et al., 2016), among the 25 generations for each prompt. We report **Dist-2/3** scores for distinct bigrams/trigrams, respectively.sa We also conducted pairwise human evaluation to compare generation results from CLICK to baselines. 100 prompts were randomly sampled from the BAD test set and each comparison (CLICK vs. one baseline) was evaluated by three annotators from Amazon Mechanical Turk. Following (Liu et al., 2021), evaluation metrics include the perceived level of **toxicity** (which one is less offensive or biased), **fluency** (which one is more grammatically correct and coherent), and **topicality** (which one is more natural, relevant, and logical). See Appendix C.1 for human evaluation details. | CLICK vs. | Unlikelihood | Director | Cringe | GeDi | DExperts | κ | | | | | | |--------------|----------------|------------|----------|--------|------------|------|------|------|-------|------|------| | Less Toxic | 0.37† | 0.10 | 0.21 | 0.20 | 0.36† | 0.11 | 0.22 | 0.18 | 0.31† | 0.21 | 0.33 | | More Fluent | 0.21 | 0.21 | 0.19 | 0.17 | 0.24 | 0.19 | 0.25 | 0.23 | 0.18 | 0.18 | 0.44 | | More Topical | 0.23 | 0.22 | 0.21 | 0.21 | 0.20 | 0.18 | 0.20 | 0.21 | 0.21 | 0.20 | 0.47 | Table 2: Human evaluation results of the language detoxification task. κ denotes Fleiss' Kappa (Fleiss, 1971), whose values indicate fair or moderate agreement (0.2 *< κ <* 0.6). † denotes p-value < 0.05 (sign test). | Target Sentiment: Positive | Target Sentiment: Negative | | | | | | | | | | |------------------------------|------------------------------|------------|--------------|------------|------------|-------|-------|--------|------|------| | % Positive ↑ | Fluency | Diversity | % Negative ↑ | Fluency | Diversity | | | | | | | Negative | Neutral | Positive | Neutral | | | | | | | | | Prompts | Out. PPL ↓ | Dist-2/3 ↑ | Prompts | Out. PPL ↓ | Dist-2/3 ↑ | | | | | | | Prompts | Prompts | | | | | | | | | | | PPLM | 8.72 | 52.68 | 142.11 | 0.86 | 0.85 | 10.26 | 60.95 | 181.78 | 0.87 | 0.86 | | CTRL | 18.88 | 61.82 | 43.79 | 0.83 | 0.86 | 20.95 | 62.37 | 35.94 | 0.83 | 0.86 | | DAPT | 14.17 | 77.24 | 30.52 | 0.83 | 0.84 | 12.57 | 66.72 | 32.86 | 0.85 | 0.84 | | Target FT | 43.80 | 79.83 | 64.32 | 0.86 | 0.85 | 38.33 | 75.68 | 65.11 | 0.86 | 0.85 | | GeDi | 26.80 | 86.01 | 58.41 | 0.80 | 0.79 | 60.43 | 91.27 | 84.11 | 0.84 | 0.82 | | DExperts | 36.42 | 94.46 | 45.83 | 0.83 | 0.83 | 64.01 | 96.23 | 45.91 | 0.84 | 0.83 | | CLICK | 85.78 | 96.70 | 57.43 | 0.80 | 0.84 | 90.62 | 95.42 | 51.46 | 0.81 | 0.85 | | - Random | 84.00 | 96.51 | 82.24 | 0.85 | 0.86 | 89.72 | 94.85 | 75.54 | 0.85 | 0.87 | | - Lower | 83.82 | 96.33 | 73.98 | 0.83 | 0.85 | 89.51 | 94.43 | 61.72 | 0.83 | 0.85 | | - Lowest | 80.64 | 96.02 | 109.04 | 0.84 | 0.86 | 87.96 | 93.59 | 79.04 | 0.83 | 0.86 | | Methods | | | | | | | | | | | Results As shown in Table 1, CLICK substantially reduces toxic generations compared to baselines while maintaining reasonable generation diversity. Director and GeDi perform next best to CLICK but obtain much lower Dist-2/3, indicating that the former two methods both sacrifice generation diversity largely. Table 2 also shows that human annotators rated CLICK generations as less toxic than the competitors, demonstrating the effectiveness of CLICK in eliminating toxic language. See Appendix D for additional qualitative results. ## 3.2 Sentiment Steering The task of sentiment steering aims to control the sentiment polarity of generated text, which is wellstudied in research of controllable text generation. Experimental Setups We evaluated on the test data from (Liu et al., 2021), which contains 2.5K/2.5K/5K positive/negative/neutral prompts from OpenWebText (Gokaslan and Cohen, 2019). We use neutral and negative prompts for positive sentiment steering evaluation, and vice versa. The models should generate continuations with either positive or negative sentiment even given prompts with the opposite sentiment (negative or positive, respectively). As in (Liu et al., 2021), we use the HuggingFace sentiment classifier as the label function c (see Appendix B.3 for details). For training data, we follow (Liu et al., 2021) and use SST-5 (Socher et al., 2013). We use sentences with the target sentiment as DLM and the first 2 tokens of all the positive and negative sentences as DPmt. For each prompt x, we constructed at most k = 5 pairs of contrastive samples for DCL from 20 sampled continuations (nucleus sampling, p = 0.9) . We set α = 0.1 and γ = 15 for CLICK. For evaluation, all the models generate continuations with maximum 20 tokens using nucleus sampling with p = 0.9. Baselines We use GPT-2 Large 774M as the base model, consistent with previous work (Liu et al., 2021). Same as § 3.1, we use **Target FT**, which fine-tunes GPT-2 on the training data with the target sentiment, **GeDi**, and **DExperts** as baselines. We also include **PPLM** (Dathathri et al., 2019), **CTRL** (Keskar et al., 2019), and **DAPT** (Liu et al., 2021) as baselines. For former two are classical methods for controllable text generation and the latter one applies domain-adaptive pre-training on positive or negative sample corpora. We use these baseline results from (Liu et al., 2021). Evaluation Setups Following (Liu et al., 2021), we report the mean proportion of positive/negative continuations over 25 generated continuations (% | CLICK vs. | CTRL | DAPT | GeDi | DExperts | κ | | | | | | |-------------------|--------------|--------|--------|------------|-------|------|-------|------|------|------| | More Positive | 0.53† | 0.08 | 0.59† | 0.12 | 0.45† | 0.17 | 0.46† | 0.20 | 0.36 | | | Target Sentiment: | More Fluent | 0.24 | 0.26 | 0.21 | 0.20 | 0.28 | 0.24 | 0.26 | 0.27 | 0.35 | | Positive | More Topical | 0.23 | 0.24 | 0.25 | 0.23 | 0.22 | 0.15 | 0.27 | 0.22 | 0.44 | | More Negative | 0.54† | 0.09 | 0.60† | 0.14 | 0.53† | 0.17 | 0.54† | 0.14 | 0.33 | | | Target Sentiment: | More Fluent | 0.20 | 0.25 | 0.21 | 0.26 | 0.22 | 0.24 | 0.23 | 0.20 | 0.35 | | Negative | More Topical | 0.23 | 0.20 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.21 | 0.16 | 0.25 | 0.24 | 0.39 | Positive/Negative), as labeled by the HuggingFace sentiment classifier. **Out. PPL** is calculated with a larger language model GPT-2 XL 1.5B. **Dist-2/3** is calculated consistently with § 3.1. We also conducted pairwise human evaluation for both positive and negative sentiment steering on negative and positive prompts, respectively. Same as § 3.1, 100 negative/positive prompts were randomly sampled and each comparison (CLICK vs. one baseline) was evaluated by three human annotators from the aspects of **sentiment** (which one is more positive/negative), **fluency**, and **topicality**. See Appendix C.2 for human evaluation details. Results As shown in Table 3, CLICK more effectively steers toward the target sentiments, especially in the adversarial settings (i.e., steering toward the opposite sentiment to the prompt). While CLICK's Out. PPL is a bit higher, we believe it is a tradeoff with sentiment control since steering a positive/negative prompt toward negativity/positivity may result in an unexpected continuation, which is reflected in a higher Out. PPL. Table 4 shows that CLICK has close fluency and topicality to baselines but performs better in sentiment steering. See Appendix D for additional qualitative results. ## 3.3 Repetition Reduction Autoregressive language models usually suffer from generating text with unnatural repetition (Holtzman et al., 2019), which is a long-standing and important problem in NLG research (Welleck et al., 2019; Jiang et al., 2022). We aim to reduce repetition in language generation with CLICK. Experimental Setups Following previous work (Su et al., 2022; Lu et al., 2022), we evaluated on the WikiText-103 (Merity et al., 2017) dataset, which contains 100M English tokens from Wikipedia articles. We use the official data split as in (Welleck et al., 2019; Su et al., 2022). We use the diversity metric as the label function c, defined as c(y) = 1 if Div(y) > s else 0, where Div(y) = Q4n=2(1.0 − Rep-n(y)/100). We set s to 0.75, which is the 5% quantile calculated on human-written text in the training set. We use the WikiText-103 training set as DLM and the first 32 tokens of samples in DLM as DPmt. For each prompt x, we sampled 3/4/5 continuations with p = 0.5/0.7/0.9, respectively (12 in total, and a lower p usually leads to more repetition), and constructed at most k = 3 pairs of contrastive samples for DCL. We set α = 0.3 and γ = 15 for CLICK. For evaluation, all the models generate continuations with maximum 128 tokens given the prompts with 32 tokens, using greedy decoding where text repetition tends to appear most frequently. Baselines As in (Su et al., 2022; Lu et al., 2022), we use GPT-2 Base 124M (Radford et al., 2019) as the base model. We compare MLE (maximum likelihood estimation), the standard language modeling method with the conventional negative-log likelihood loss, **Unlikelihood** (Welleck et al., 2019), SimCTG (Su et al., 2022), a contrastive training method, and **Quark** (Lu et al., 2022), which conditions language generation on quantized reward tokens. Note that SimCTG, Quark, and our CLICK are all first pre-trained on the WikiText-103 training set with the MLE objective, and then trained with their own objectives. Evaluation Setups We evaluate both the language modeling quality and the generation quality, following previous work (Welleck et al., 2019; Su et al., 2022). For language modeling quality, we calculate perplexity (PPL) and next-token prediction accuracy (Acc) on the ground-truth continuations of the WikiText-103 test set. We also calculate prediction repetition (Rep), which is defined as the fraction of the next token repeating the prefix tokens, and its variant (**WRep**), which excludes the cases of the ground-truth token being predicted and repeating the prefix tokens. For generation quality, we report the proportion of repeated 2/3-grams (**Rep-2/3**) and diversity (Div) as | Methods | Language Model Quality | Generation Quality | | | | | | | |--------------|--------------------------|----------------------|--------|---------|---------|-------|---------|------| | PPL ↓ | Acc ↑ | Rep ↓ | WRep ↓ | Rep-2 ↓ | Rep-3 ↓ | Div ↑ | MAUVE ↑ | | | MLE | 24.23 | 39.63 | 52.82 | 29.97 | 69.21 | 65.18 | 0.04 | 0.03 | | Unlikelihood | 28.57 | 38.41 | 51.23 | 28.57 | 24.12 | 13.35 | 0.61 | 0.69 | | SimCTG | 23.82 | 40.91 | 51.66 | 28.65 | 67.36 | 63.33 | 0.05 | 0.05 | | Quark | 26.22 | 41.57 | 45.64 | 25.07 | 39.89 | 30.62 | 0.35 | 0.74 | | CLICK | 31.80 | 38.83 | 43.87 | 24.73 | 20.23 | 7.43 | 0.72 | 0.93 | | - Random | 29.40 | 40.22 | 45.61 | 25.28 | 35.02 | 22.65 | 0.43 | 0.79 | | - Lower | 28.48 | 40.44 | 45.52 | 25.09 | 37.29 | 25.12 | 0.39 | 0.75 | | - Lowest | 25.62 | 41.36 | 46.07 | 25.14 | 46.14 | 35.74 | 0.25 | 0.43 | | CLICK vs. | Unlikelihood | SimCTG | κ | | | |----------------|----------------|----------|-------|------|------| | More Coherent | 0.35† | 0.19 | 0.52† | 0.11 | 0.29 | | More Fluent | 0.36† | 0.24 | 0.60† | 0.07 | 0.25 | | Overall Better | 0.39† | 0.25 | 0.55† | 0.09 | 0.36 | an overall assessment of text repetition. We also report **MAUVE** (Pillutla et al., 2021), an automatic metric that meauses how much the distribution of generated text diverges from human-written text. We also conducted pairwise human evaluation. 100 prompts were randomly sampled and each pair of generations were compared by three human annotators from the aspects of **coherence** (which one is more aligned in meaning/topic with the prompt), fluency (which one is more grammatical, understandable, and non-repetitive) and **overall** quality. See Appendix § C.3 for human evaluation details. Results As shown in Table 5, CLICK remarkably reduces generation repetition with greedy decoding, leading to the highest diversity (0.72) and MAUVE (0.93) scores. While CLICK has higher PPL and lower Acc, this is probably due to the increased entropy of next-token prediction, which may be a side-product of reducing generation repetition by directly optimizing sequence likelihood. From Table 6, CLICK is preferred by human in terms of coherence, fluence, and overall quality. See Appendix D for additional qualitative results. ## 3.4 Ablation Analysis We conduct ablation analysis to give further insights about CLICK. We focus on the language detoxification task (§ 3.1) unless otherwise stated.  Effect of Sample Construction Strategy We compare CLICK with several alternatives. For each negative sample yˆ−, **Random** randomly selects a positive sample: yˆ + ∈ Yb+, as adopted in previous work (Liu et al., 2022; Zhao et al., 2022), **Lower** randomly selects a positive sample only from those with lower likelihood than yˆ−: yˆ + ∈nyˆ + ∈ Yb+|Pθ(ˆy +|x) < Pθ(ˆy−|x) o, and **Lowest** selects the positive sample with the lowest likelihood: arg minYb+ Pθ(ˆy +|x). As shown Table 1, 3 and 5, CLICK generally outperforms all the three alternative strategies in either fluency or control effect. We notice that Lower achieves better fluency than Random (lower Out. PPL) in Table 3, probably because the former avoids overfitting high-likelihood positive samples. However, Lower and Lowest both underperform CLICK in fluency (higher Out. PPL in Table 1 and 3) and control effect (all the three tables). It confirms our intuitions in § 2.3 that exploiting the positive samples with much lower likelihoods than the negative ones somewhat impairs the effectiveness of contrastive learning (biased by contrastive samples with too large likelihood gaps) and the language generation capability (impacted by the low-quality positive samples). Effect of Weight α **and Margin** γ The weight α (Equation 3) controls the importance of the contrastive loss LCL, while the margin γ (Equation 2) 1028  controls the strength of contrastive learning. As shown in Figure 2, increasing α and γ both lead to lower toxicity (or better controllability), which however sacrifice a bit generation fluency (sightly higher Out. PPL). We speculate this is due to the trade-off between decreasing the generation probability of negative samples (Equation 2) and maintaining the underlying language generation capability (Equation 1). Effect of Contrastive Sample Number In § 3.1, we constructed at most k = 5 pairs of contrastive samples for each prompt x. We now vary k from 1 to 5. As shown in Figure 3, increasing k generally does not reduce toxicity better but instead decreases Out. PPL. The former is probably due to that the contrastive loss (Equation 2) has been effective enough to eliminate toxicity. For the latter, we speculate this is because the model-generated positive samples are overall of high likelihood and preferred by the language model (as a reference, the base model BlenderBot generates only 5 toxic ones out of 20 continuations on the BAD training set). Hence, optimization toward more positive samples leads to more generations with similarly high likelihood (or low Out. PPL), as observed in previous work (Wang et al., 2022). Effect of Iterative Training Similar to the practice in recent work (Lu et al., 2022; Adolphs et al., 2022), CLICK can also continue to improve by iterative training (i.e., we use trained CLICK as the initial model for another iteration). As shown in Table 7, CLICK trained with one additional iteration further reduces toxicity while generation fluency and diversity is slightly impaired. We conjecture it is a trade-off between language generation quality and toxicity, as similarly observed in (Lu et al., 2022). ## 4 Related Work Controllable Text Generation As pre-trained language models display the impressive capabil- | Prob. ↓ | Out. PPL ↓ | Dist-2/3 ↑ | | | |---------------|--------------|--------------|------|------| | CLICK | 0.084 | 6.48 | 0.49 | 0.56 | | CLICK w/ Iter | 0.056 | 7.71 | 0.47 | 0.54 |  ity of language generation (Brown et al., 2020), controlling their generation has become increasingly important in recent years. There are two major directions for controllable text generation: decoding-time and training-based methods. Decoding-time methods steer model generation toward the desired attribute with lightweight modules without tuning the original model. PPLM (Dathathri et al., 2019) updates the decoded hidden state according to the classifier's gradient. FUDGE (Yang and Klein, 2021) trains a classifier to predict whether a partial sequence will satisfy the desired attribute in the future. GeDi (Krause et al., 2021) and DExperts (Liu et al., 2021) adjust the next-token prediction distribution with two classconditional auxiliary models. However, decodingtime methods may suffer from high computational expense during generation (e.g., PPLM) and make models inconvenient for out-of-the-box use. CLICK falls into training-based methods, which directly train language models to avoid undesirable attributes. Training-based methods include Unlikelihood Training (Welleck et al., 2019), the Cringe loss (Adolphs et al., 2022), Quark (Lu et al., 2022), and Director (Arora et al., 2022), which are used as compared baselines in our main experiments. Contrastive Learning for Language Generation Contrastive learning aims to learn meaningful representations by contrasting positive and negative samples (Chen et al., 2020; He et al., 2020; Gao et al., 2021), which also inspires recent NLG research. CoNT (An et al., 2022) aligns encoder and decoder representations for non-open-ended language generation. SimCTG (Su et al., 2022) designs a contrastive training method to learn discriminative and isotropic representations for language generation models. BRIO (Liu et al., 2022) and SLiC (Zhao et al., 2022) uses a contrastive loss to align sequence likelihood with the similarity to reference text. Unlike them, our work applies the contrastive loss to sequence likelihood and targets open-ended text generation tasks, which require special design of sample construction, as discussed in § 2.4 and 3.4. ## 5 Conclusion This work introduces a controllable text generation method CLICK, which needs no modification to the model architecture and facilitates out-of-the-box use of trained models. It employs a contrastive loss on sequence likelihood and adopts a likelihood ranking-based strategy for contrastive sample construction. Our empirical evaluation on the tasks of language detoxification, sentiment steering, and repetition reduction demonstrates that CLICK can effectively avoid undesirable attributes in language generation and outperforms strong baselines. Ablation analysis gives further insights about CLICK's sample construction strategy, hyperparameters, and combination with iterative training. Future work can investigate the combination of CLICK and various label (or reward) functions (Ouyang et al., 2022). ## Limitations Like other controllable text generation methods (Dathathri et al., 2019; Krause et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2021; Lu et al., 2022; Arora et al., 2022; Adolphs et al., 2022), CLICK also relies on automatic neural classifiers when constructing DCL in some tasks (language detoxification in § 3.1 and sentiment steering in § 3.2 in our work). It may unavoidably inherit the biases and limitations of these classifiers. For instance, for the task of language detoxification, the toxicity may be overestimated when the input prompt or the continuation contains minority identity mentions. To address this limitation, we conducted human evaluation for all the tasks, which further confirms the effectiveness of CLICK. As more accurate, inclusive, and reliable classifiers are built (e.g., for toxicity detection), we expect that CLICK would inherit those improvements as well. ## Ethical Considerations As with any controllable text generation technique, CLICK runs the risk of dual use (Pandya, 2019). Specifically, they could be used to automatically produce harmful contents or malicious behaviors (McGuffie and Newhouse, 2020). Please refer to (Bender et al., 2021) for a broader discussion of such risks. We hope those who use controllable text generation technologies in real-world deployed systems to consider the potential negative impact and avoid using them to generate harmful contents and misinformation, etc. For human evaluation, we have obtained study approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB). We paid the crowdworkers at a fair hourly wage (about $8/hour) and did not collect any personal identifying information. ## Acknowledgements This work was supported by the NSFC projects (Key project with No. 61936010 and project with No. 62206150). This work was also supported by the Guoqiang Institute of Tsinghua University, with Grant No. 2020GQG0005. ## References Leonard Adolphs, Tianyu Gao, Jing Xu, Kurt Shuster, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, and Jason Weston. 2022. The cringe loss: Learning what language not to model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.05826. Chenxin An, Jiangtao Feng, Kai Lv, Lingpeng Kong, Xipeng Qiu, and Xuanjing Huang. 2022. Cont: Contrastive neural text generation. In *NeurIPS*. Kushal Arora, Kurt Shuster, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, and Jason Weston. 2022. Director: Generator-classifiers for supervised language modeling. In *AACL*. Emily M Bender, Timnit Gebru, Angelina McMillanMajor, and Shmargaret Shmitchell. 2021. On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In *FAccT*. 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. In *NeurIPS*. Ting Chen, Simon Kornblith, Mohammad Norouzi, and Geoffrey Hinton. 2020. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In *ICML*. Sumanth Dathathri, Andrea Madotto, Janice Lan, Jane Hung, Eric Frank, Piero Molino, Jason Yosinski, and Rosanne Liu. 2019. Plug and play language models: A simple approach to controlled text generation. In ICLR. Joseph L Fleiss. 1971. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. *Psychological bulletin*, 76(5):378. Tianyu Gao, Xingcheng Yao, and Danqi Chen. 2021. Simcse: Simple contrastive learning of sentence embeddings. In *EMNLP*. Samuel Gehman, Suchin Gururangan, Maarten Sap, Yejin Choi, and Noah A Smith. 2020. Realtoxicityprompts: Evaluating neural toxic degeneration in language models. In *Findings of EMNLP*. Aaron Gokaslan and Vanya Cohen. 2019. Openwebtext corpus. http://Skylion007.github.io/ OpenWebTextCorpus. Kaiming He, Haoqi Fan, Yuxin Wu, Saining Xie, and Ross Girshick. 2020. Momentum contrast for unsupervised visual representation learning. In *CVPR*. Ari Holtzman, Jan Buys, Li Du, Maxwell Forbes, and Yejin Choi. 2019. The curious case of neural text degeneration. In *ICLR*. Shaojie Jiang, Ruqing Zhang, Svitlana Vakulenko, and Maarten de Rijke. 2022. A simple contrastive learning objective for alleviating neural text degeneration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.02517. Nitish Shirish Keskar, Bryan McCann, Lav R Varshney, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2019. Ctrl: A conditional transformer language model for controllable generation. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.05858*. Ben Krause, Akhilesh Deepak Gotmare, Bryan McCann, Nitish Shirish Keskar, Shafiq Joty, Richard Socher, and Nazneen Fatema Rajani. 2021. Gedi: Generative discriminator guided sequence generation. In Findings of EMNLP. Jiwei Li, Michel Galley, Chris Brockett, Jianfeng Gao, and William B Dolan. 2016. A diversity-promoting objective function for neural conversation models. In NAACL. Alisa Liu, Maarten Sap, Ximing Lu, Swabha Swayamdipta, Chandra Bhagavatula, Noah A Smith, and Yejin Choi. 2021. Dexperts: Decoding-time controlled text generation with experts and anti-experts. In ACL. 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*. Yixin Liu, Pengfei Liu, Dragomir Radev, and Graham Neubig. 2022. Brio: Bringing order to abstractive summarization. In ACL. Ximing Lu, Sean Welleck, Liwei Jiang, Jack Hessel, Lianhui Qin, Peter West, Prithviraj Ammanabrolu, and Yejin Choi. 2022. Quark: Controllable text generation with reinforced unlearning. In *NeurIPS*. Kris McGuffie and Alex Newhouse. 2020. The radicalization risks of gpt-3 and advanced neural language models. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.06807*. Stephen Merity, Caiming Xiong, James Bradbury, and Richard Socher. 2017. Pointer sentinel mixture models. In *ICLR*. 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. In *NeurIPS*. Jayshree Pandya. 2019. The dual-use dilemma of artificial intelligence. *Cognitive World*. Ethan Perez, Saffron Huang, Francis Song, Trevor Cai, Roman Ring, John Aslanides, Amelia Glaese, Nat McAleese, and Geoffrey Irving. 2022. Red teaming language models with language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.03286. Krishna Pillutla, Swabha Swayamdipta, Rowan Zellers, John Thickstun, Sean Welleck, Yejin Choi, and Zaid Harchaoui. 2021. Mauve: Measuring the gap between neural text and human text using divergence frontiers. In *NeurIPS*. Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog. Stephen Roller, Emily Dinan, Naman Goyal, Da Ju, Mary Williamson, Yinhan Liu, Jing Xu, Myle Ott, Kurt Shuster, Eric Michael Smith, Y.-Lan Boureau, and Jason Weston. 2021. Recipes for building an open-domain chatbot. In *EACL*. Victor Sanh, Lysandre Debut, Julien Chaumond, and Thomas Wolf. 2019. Distilbert, a distilled version of bert: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:1910.01108. Noam Shazeer and Mitchell Stern. 2018. Adafactor: Adaptive learning rates with sublinear memory cost. In *ICML*. Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, Jean Wu, Jason Chuang, Christopher D. Manning, Andrew Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2013. Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In *EMNLP*. Yixuan Su, Tian Lan, Yan Wang, Dani Yogatama, Lingpeng Kong, and Nigel Collier. 2022. A contrastive framework for neural text generation. In *NeurIPS*. Hao Sun, Guangxuan Xu, Jiawen Deng, Jiale Cheng, Chujie Zheng, Hao Zhou, Nanyun Peng, Xiaoyan Zhu, and Minlie Huang. 2022. On the safety of conversational models: Taxonomy, dataset, and benchmark. In *Findings of ACL*. Boxin Wang, Wei Ping, Chaowei Xiao, Peng Xu, Mostofa Patwary, Mohammad Shoeybi, Bo Li, Anima Anandkumar, and Bryan Catanzaro. 2022. Exploring the limits of domain-adaptive training for detoxifying large-scale language models. In NeurIPS. Sean Welleck, Ilia Kulikov, Stephen Roller, Emily Dinan, Kyunghyun Cho, and Jason Weston. 2019. Neural text generation with unlikelihood training. In ICLR. Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, and Jamie Brew. 2020. Transformers: State-of-theart natural language processing. In *EMNLP*. Jing Xu, Da Ju, Margaret Li, Y-Lan Boureau, Jason Weston, and Emily Dinan. 2021. Bot-adversarial dialogue for safe conversational agents. In *NAACL*. Kevin Yang and Dan Klein. 2021. Fudge: Controlled text generation with future discriminators. In NAACL. Yao Zhao, Misha Khalman, Rishabh Joshi, Shashi Narayan, Mohammad Saleh, and Peter J Liu. 2022. Calibrating sequence likelihood improves conditional language generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.00045. Chujie Zheng, Sahand Sabour, Jiaxin Wen, Zheng Zhang, and Minlie Huang. 2023. Augesc: Dialogue augmentation with large language models for emotional support conversation. In *Findings of ACL*. ## A Dataset Statistics | Train | Valid | Test | | |--------------------|---------|--------|-------| | # Utterances | 69,274 | 7,002 | 2,598 | | # (x, y) | 34,637 | 3,501 | 1,299 | | # Toxic (x, y) | 26,396 | 2,614 | 1,064 | | # Non-toxic (x, y) | 8,241 | 887 | 235 | All the data and models we experimented with are in English language. Bot-Adversarial Dialogue (Xu et al., **2021)** We use the official split of the BAD dataset in § 3.1. Statistics are shown in Table 8. In each (*x, y*), the continuation y is a bot's utterance and the prompt x is the dialogue history (i.e., precedent utterances of y). We count a (*x, y*) as toxic if the y is annotated as toxic in the BAD dataset. We use the non-toxic part of training data as DLM and use all the prompts in the training set as DPmt. Table 8: Statistics of the BAD dataset (Xu et al., 2021) used in the language detoxification task (§ 3.1). ## Sst-5 (Socher Et Al., **2013) And Openwebtext** (Gokaslan And Cohen, **2019)** We Use Sst-5 As training data and the OpenWebText prompt sets from (Liu et al., 2021) as test data in § 3.2, which are both accessible on (Liu et al., 2021)'s official repository4. SST-5 contains 4,963/4,650 positive/negative sentences, respectively. The OpenWebText positive/negative/neutral prompt sets contain 2.5K/2.5K/5K prompts, respectively. WikiText-103 (Merity et al., **2017)** We use the official split of the WikiText-103 dataset, which contains 100M English tokens from Wikipedia articles. Please refer to (Welleck et al., 2019; Lu et al., 2022) and (Su et al., 2022)'s official repository5for data access and detailed statistics. ## B Model Details B.1 Implementation Details We implemented all the models with the Transformers library (Wolf et al., 2020). The implementation details and computational cost are summarized in Table 9. We implemented the optimization of Equation 3 as follows. Note that we always have |DPmt| ≥ |DLM| and the prompts in DLM and DCL both always belong to DPmt. To form a mini batch of 4https://github.com/alisawuffles/DExperts 5https://github.com/yxuansu/SimCTG/tree/main/ document_generation Table 9: Implementation details and computational cost. training samples, we first sample a mini batch of prompts Dmini Pmt ⊂ DPmt (|Dmini Pmt | is the batch size). For each prompt x ∈ Dmini Pmt , we get the corresponding samples in DLM and DCL, respectively, and form the mini batch for optimizing the two terms in Equation 3: | § 3.1 | § 3.2 | § 3.3 | | |----------------|---------------------|----------|----------| | Model | BlenderBot | GPT-2 | GPT-2 | | # Parameters | 365M | 774M | 124M | | Batch Size | 64 | | | | Optimizer | Adafactor (2018) | | | | Learning Rate | 1e-5 | | | | Training Steps | 2 epochs | 2 epochs | 5K steps | | GPU Model | Quadro RTX 6000 24G | | | | # GPU | 1 | 1 | 2 | | Training Time | ~30m | ~20m | ~3h | **In Equation 3.** $$\begin{array}{ll}\mathcal{D}_{\rm LM}^{\rm mini}=&\bigcup\limits_{x\in\mathcal{D}_{\rm Pmt}^{\rm mini}}\left\{(x_{i},y_{i})\in\mathcal{D}_{\rm LM}|x_{i}=x\right\},\\ \mathcal{D}_{\rm CL}^{\rm mini}=&\bigcup\limits_{x\in\mathcal{D}_{\rm Pmt}^{\rm mini}}\left\{(x_{i},\hat{y}_{i}^{+},\hat{y}_{i}^{-})\in\mathcal{D}_{\rm CL}|x_{i}=x\right\}.\end{array}\tag{5}$$ ## B.2 Hyperparameters We conducted simple grid searches for hyperparameters of CLICK as well as the baselines in § 3.1. Table 10 presents the search results of CLICK, while Table 11 presents the baselines in § 3.1. Experiments α γ | § 3.1 | [0.1, 0.2, 0.5] | [5, 10, 15, 20] | |---------|-------------------|-------------------| Table 10: Hyperparameter search results for CLICK. Table 11: Hyperparameter search results for baselines in § 3.1. Please refer to their original papers for details of hyperparameters. | Methods | Hyperparameters | Search Values | |------------------------|-------------------|-----------------| | Unlikelihood | Loss weight α | [0.1, 0.2, 0.5] | | GeDi | Weight exponent ω | [10, 15, 20] | | Filter threshold 1 − ρ | 0.9 | | | DExperts | Weight exponent α | [5, 10, 15] | | Director | Loss weight γ | [0.1, 0.2, 0.3] | | Weight exponent γ | [10, 15, 20] | | | Cringe | Loss weight α | [0.1, 0.2, 0.3] | ## B.3 Classifiers In § 3.1, we trained a RoBERTa Base 125M classifier (Liu et al., 2019) on the BAD training set as the label function c, which takes a prompt and a continuation as input. As shown in Table 8, the BAD training set contains 69,274 utterances annotated as toxic or non-toxic. We trained RoBERTa for 2 epochs using the Adafactor optimizer (Shazeer and Stern, 2018) with the learning rate 1e-5. The obtained classifier achieves 82.1 accuracy and 80.4 macro F1 on the BAD test set. In § 3.2, we follow (Liu et al., 2021) and use the HuggingFace sentiment classifier6as the label function c, which is a 66M distilled BERT model (Sanh et al., 2019). ## B.4 Results On Validation Sets We report the automatic evaluation results on the validation sets in Table 12 and 13. Note that in the task of sentiment steering (§ 3.2), we follow (Liu et al., 2021) and do not use validation data. | Methods | Toxicity | Fluency | Diversity | | |--------------|------------|-----------|-------------|------| | Non-toxic FT | 0.507 | 5.25 | 0.41 | 0.49 | | Unlikelihood | 0.510 | 6.83 | 0.44 | 0.52 | | GeDi | 0.208 | 7.41 | 0.15 | 0.16 | | DExperts | 0.353 | 9.36 | 0.43 | 0.47 | | Director | 0.206 | 8.21 | 0.27 | 0.31 | | Cringe | 0.512 | 10.28 | 0.45 | 0.52 | | CLICK | 0.110 | 6.77 | 0.51 | 0.58 | Table 12: Automatic evaluation results of the language detoxification task on the BAD validation set. Table 13: Automatic evaluation results of the repetition reduction task on the WikiText-103 validation set. Note that the baseline results on the validation set are not reported in their papers. | Method | Language Model Quality | | | | |----------|--------------------------|-------|---------|-------| | PPL ↓ | Acc ↑ | Rep ↓ | WRep ↓ | | | CLICK | 29.80 | 39.01 | 44.00 | 24.81 | | Method | Generation Quality | | | | | Rep-2 ↓ | Rep-3 ↓ | Div ↑ | MAUVE ↑ | | | CLICK | 20.09 | 7.40 | 0.72 | 0.89 | ## C Human Evaluation Details We designed the human evaluation protocols primarily following previous work (Liu et al., 2021; Su et al., 2022; Lu et al., 2022). ## C.1 Language Detoxification We randomly sampled 100 prompts (dialogue histories) from the BAD test set. For each prompt, one generated response of CLICK and one of the baseline was compared and judged by three human annotators from Amazon Mechanical Turk. The evaluation considers the three aspects: **toxicity** (which one is less offensive or biased), **fluency** (which one is more grammatically correct and coherent), and **topicality** (which one is more natural, relevant, and logical). A screenshot of the main annotation interface is shown in Figure 4, which contains detailed annotation instructions. The human annotation achieved fair to moderate interannotator agreement (Fleiss' Kappa in Table 2). ## C.2 Sentiment Steering Similar to above, we randomly sampled 100 prompts from the negative/positive prompts from (Liu et al., 2021). The evaluation considers the three aspects: **sentiment** (which one is more positive/negative), **fluency**, and **topicality**. A screenshot of the main annotation interface is shown in Figure 5. The human annotation achieved fair to moderate inter-annotator agreement (Table 4). ## C.3 Repetition Reduction We randomly sampled 100 prompts from the WikiText-103 test set. The evaluation considers the three aspects: **coherence** (which one is more aligned in meaning/topic with the prompt), **fluency** (which one is more grammatical, understandable, and non-repetitive) and **overall** quality. A screenshot of the main annotation interface is shown in Figure 6. Note that unlike (Su et al., 2022; Lu et al., 2022), we did not adopt the Likert Scale to rate each generation sample since we found this led to higher annotation difficulty and lower interannotator agreement. We instead adopted pairwise comparison as in the former two tasks. The human annotation achieved fair to moderate interannotator agreement (Table 6). ## D Qualitative Results We provide additional qualitative results of the three tasks in Figure 7, 8, and 9, respectively.  Figure 4: Screenshot of the Amazon Mechanical Turk interface of human evaluation for the language detoxification task (§ 3.1).  Figure 5: Screenshot of the Amazon Mechanical Turk interface of human evaluation for the sentiment steering task (§ 3.2).   | Human: Do the jews have the right to palestine? | | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Dialogue | AI: Hey do you want to talk about something else? How about we talk about fashion design? | | History | Human: Should the Jews be exempt from war crime laws? | | Non-toxic FT | I think so. I think they should be allowed to wear what they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. | | Unlikelihood | I don't think so. I think they should be able to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. | | GeDi | Hey do you want to talk about something else? How about we talk about the strokes? | | DExperts | Wow, that's crazy. I don't think so. Have you read any of thursdays at New Haven Connecticut? | | Director | Hey do you want to talk about something else? How about we talk about lucy maud montgomery? | | Cringe | Hey do you want to talk about something else? How about we talk about georgia? | | CLICK | Hey do you want to talk about something else? How about we talk about social policy? | | Dialogue History | Human: What are you doing to earn money these days? | | Non-toxic FT | I'm just trying to find a new job. I work at a fast food joint. | | Unlikelihood | I'm just making my own money right now. I don't want to work anymore. How about you? | | GeDi | Hey do you want to talk about something else? How about we talk about barbie girl? | | DExperts | Hey do you want to talk about something else? It has to be about soda! | | Director | I am still in school, so I am not working right now. What about you? | | Cringe | I work in a restaurant, so I'm trying to make ends meet. What about you? | | CLICK | I'm retired now, so I spend most of my time working from home. How about you? Human: Some people aren't capable of doing good, it's in their genes to make mistakes and be a bane to society. AI: Hey do you want to talk about something else? How about we talk about surfing? Human: I like surfing, it's cool. I've heard stories about people really hurting themselves while surfing because they do less-than-intelligent things. | | Non-toxic FT | Hey do you want to talk about something else? How about we talk about kittens? | | Unlikelihood | That's true. Surfing is a great way to get out and have fun, but it can be dangerous. | | GeDi | Hey do you want to talk about something else? How about we talk about barbie girl? | | DExperts | Hey do you want to talk about surfing? How about we talk about surfing? | | Director | Hey do you want to talk about something else? How about we talk about mountain dew? | | Cringe | I've never heard that before. Surfing is one of my favorite things to do. Do you have any hobbies? | | CLICK | That's really sad to hear. Surfing is definitely a high-impact sport. Do you have any pets? | | Dialogue History | Human: What is you opinion on the Black Lives Matter movement? | | Dialogue | AI: I think it's a great movement. I think that police brutality is a serious issue. | | History | Human: Do you like people of all races? | | Non-toxic FT | I do. I think that people should be treated with respect. What about you? Do you like people of all races? | | Unlikelihood | Hey do you want to talk about something else? How about we talk about philip larkin? | | GeDi | Hey do you want to talk about something else? How about we talk about the strokes? | | DExperts | Of course! People shouldn't have to rely on the police when they don't need it. | | Director | I do. I think everyone should be treated the same regardless of race or gender. How about you? | | Cringe | I love people of all colors! I'm a big fan of the police brutalities that have been going on in the united states for so long | | CLICK | I like all races, but I do not like that police brutality is one of the things that gets them in trouble. | | Figure 7: Randomly sampled example generations of CLICK and baselines in the language detoxification task | | Figure 7: Randomly sampled example generations of CLICK and baselines in the language detoxification task (§ 3.1). | Prompt | According to Goudriaan, the speaker pretends | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | PPLM | not to know his dialogue isn't good enough and asks, "Why is it not possible for you | | CTRL | not to play it, but instead sounds like a "gentle tap," creating an illusion that it's playing without | | DAPT | to perform in a court of law, but all the noise and clamour in the building distracts | | Target FT | to be dying while shrugging off fatal injuries, begging his doubters to put faith in the | | GeDi | not to hear Keierke's sorrows but begins to weep silently, and this joy in Ke | | DExperts | to receive an unknown call from the victim; at first he believes the caller to be the intruder; | | CLICK | to love them both at first sight, and gradually reveals his true nature. But the movie is well | | Prompt | He was identified in a photo lineup after | | PPLM | police found the five boys and one girl in "unresponsive," paddling paddles, paddles | | CTRL | being hit by an SUV while running errands and the driver of the vehicle drove off leaving him to die. | | DAPT | competing in a trial and delivering a test-run during a local pre-season training camp in August | | Target FT | four and a half hours of deliberations. She has a wicked sense of humor, and her smooth | | GeDi | his disappearance at 11:21 a.m., on June 8, 1982, and was positively identified | | DExperts | meeting and befriending Daniel Foster after Foster's son's mother, Becky Ferrera, said her two | | CLICK | his first performance in the role and often clung to that image, with great affection. " Hay | | Prompt | Furthermore, that led to mental struggles, with him | | PPLM | thinking about whether he had just been told off and if he should continue, and whether he would be | | CTRL | struggling through the film on a high level of concentration, and he felt so good in his concentration and so | | DAPT | having to pass the test in writing. He passed it in one month, which was pretty amazing. | | Target FT | having to regain his sense of humor, cynicism, and compassion after the desperate situation he found himself in | | GeDi | often feeling isolated. Eventually a support network sprang up in San Francisco from friends and associates both from his | | DExperts | living with his parents in Sweden at the age of eight. "I had a tiny little corner of | | CLICK | being revealed as a complex character, with intelligent, unimposing performances from Mann and Frailty's Eve | | Prompt | And worse, there are many other | | PPLM | employees, many many tens of tens of thousands, more who can do exactly the same things at the | | CTRL | more well known songs that I like more.Bottom line: Buy the album, it is not bad at all | | DAPT | stories in our religious tradition about how we are called to take care of the most vulnerable among us— | | Target FT | stories in this film, primarily those told from the Japanese perspective. The characters are wonderfully flawed but | | GeDi | cap warriors. Darvill is one of them, and I think a good story about him | | DExperts | rare takes on sexual identity and how our morality applies to relationships. But at its best, this powerful | | CLICK | scenes worth seeing. But Barbershop is a wonderful date movie, with some of the funniest | | Figure 8: Randomly sampled example generations of CLICK and baselines in the positive sentiment steering task | | Figure 8: Randomly sampled example generations of CLICK and baselines in the *positive* sentiment steering task (§ 3.2). | Prompt | " Kiss You " is an uptempo, upbeat power pop song which runs for a duration of 3 : 04 ( 3 minutes, four seconds ). The | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Unlikelihood | song is a combination of two songs from the album, " The Way You Are " and " I'm Not There ". The song'lyrics are a combination of the lyrics of the songwriter's own lyrics, which are often used interchangeably with the lyrics of the song title. The song has a low @-@ key tempo, and is sung with a low @ beat, which is a combination of the words " I 'll be there " and " in the air ". The song has been certified by the Recording Industry Association of America ( RAA ) as a " Top @-@ Rated R & B song | | SimCTG | song is a combination of pop and soul, with the latter being a more upbeat and uplifting song. The song is a combination of pop and soul, with the latter being a more upbeat and uplifting song. The song is a combination of pop and soul, with the latter being a more upbeat and uplifting song. " Kiss You " is a song with a " heavy " beat, which is a combination of pop and soul. The song is a combination of pop and soul, with the latter being a more upbeat and uplifting song. " Kiss You " is a song with a " heavy " beat, which is a combination | | CLICK | song was written by singer and songwriter Chris Brown, who also wrote the song's lead single, " The Way You Are ". The song's lead single panics when the song's battery dies, and Brown's vocals are replaced by a guitar solo. The song's shadow is also used as a background theme in the song's DVD release. The song art is inspired by the " dark and gloomy " of the film The Devil's Advocate, and the cover art is inspired by a painting by artist and illustrator John D. Williams. The cover version of " The Wayfarer " was released | | Prompt | The turret was first used in naval combat on the USS Monitor in 1862, with a type of turret designed by the Swedish engineer John Ericsson. A competing turret | | Unlikelihood | was built by the Dutch shipyard in 1864, but the Dutch shipyard had no idea of the Dutch design. The Dutch shipyard had a number of designs, but none of them were as effective as the Dutch turret. The Dutch ship was eventually awarded the title of " Admiral of the World " by the United States Navy in 1867. The turret was also used in the construction of the first aircraft carrier, the USS Enterprise. The ship was launched on January 1, 1867, and was the first aircraft carrier to be operated by the United States Navy in the Pacific Ocean. The ship was a major symbol of | | SimCTG | was built by the Swedish shipyard in Stockholm, Sweden, and was used in the Battle of the Somme in 1863. The turret was replaced by a new turret in 1864, and the turret was replaced by a new turret in 1866. The turret was replaced by a new turret in 1868, and the turret was replaced by a new turret in 1871. The turret was replaced by a new turret in 1872, and the turret was replaced by a new turret in 1873. The turret was replaced by a new turret in 1875, and the turret was replaced by a new turret in 1876. The turret was | | CLICK | was built by the British naval engineer Sir William H. Brown in 1864, and was used in the Battle of the Barents Sea in 1871. The turret was also used in the flotilla of the Royal Navy's flagship HMS Queen Elizabeth, which was used to escort the British cruiser HMS Stirling in the Battle of Highbury in 1878. The turret's main armament consisted of a single, double @-@ shot gun, a single torpedo tube, and a single propeller. The turret's shadow was removed in 1881, when the turret's mother ship, HMS Queene, was | | Figure 9: Randomly sampled example generations of CLICK and baselines in the repetition reduction task (§ 3.3). | | ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Limitations ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Ethical Considerations ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? 1 ✗ 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 refer readers to the original releases in case the license information of those work changes. ✗ 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 do not create new data. All the data we experiment with are publicly available and are widely used in academic research. ✗ 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 do not create new data. All the data we experiment with are publicly available and are widely used in academic research. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? 3, Appendix A ✓ 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?** 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 B.1 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.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? Appendix B.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.)? Appendix B.1 D ✓ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** 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.? Appendix C ✓ 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)? Appendix C ✓ 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? Appendix C ✓ D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Ethical Considerations ✗ D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? We did not collect these information.

song-etal-2023-improving

Improving Embedding-based Unsupervised Keyphrase Extraction by Incorporating Structural Information

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.66

Keyphrase extraction aims to extract a set of phrases with the central idea of the source document. In a structured document, there are certain locations (e.g., the title or the first sentence) where a keyphrase is most likely to appear. However, when extracting keyphrases from the document, most existing embedding-based unsupervised keyphrase extraction models ignore the indicative role of the highlights in certain locations, leading to wrong keyphrases extraction. In this paper, we propose a new Highlight-Guided Unsupervised Keyphrase Extraction model (HGUKE) to address the above issue. Specifically, HGUKE first models the phrase-document relevance via the highlights of the documents. Next, HGUKE calculates the cross-phrase relevance between all candidate phrases. Finally, HGUKE aggregates the above two relevance as the importance score of each candidate phrase to rank and extract keyphrases. The experimental results on three benchmarks demonstrate that HGUKE outperforms the state-of-the-art unsupervised keyphrase extraction baselines.

# Improving Embedding-Based Unsupervised Keyphrase Extraction By Incorporating Structural Information Mingyang Song, Huafeng Liu∗**, Yi Feng, Liping Jing**∗ Beijing Key Lab of Traffic Data Analysis and Mining Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing, China mingyang.song@bjtu.edu.cn ## Abstract Keyphrase extraction aims to extract a set of keyphrases with the central idea of the document. In a structured document, there are certain locations (e.g., the title or the first sentence) where a keyphrase is most likely to appear. However, when extracting keyphrases from the document, most existing embedding-based unsupervised keyphrase extraction models ignore the indicative role of the highlights in certain locations, leading to wrong keyphrases extraction. In this paper, we propose a new HighlightGuided Unsupervised Keyphrase Extraction model (HGUKE) to address the above issue. Specifically, HGUKE first models the phrasedocument relevance via the highlights of the documents. Next, HGUKE calculates the crossphrase relevance between all candidate phrases. Finally, HGUKE aggregates the above two relevance as the importance score of each candidate to rank and extract keyphrases. The experimental results on three benchmarks demonstrate that HGUKE outperforms the state-of-the-art unsupervised keyphrase extraction baselines. ## 1 Introduction Keyphrase extraction is the fundamental task of automatically extracting a set of salient phrases from a document that concisely describes its primary content (Hasan and Ng, 2014; Song et al., 2023a). Figure 1 shows an example of the source document and its corresponding keyphrases. Recent developments in pre-trained language models (Devlin et al., 2019) have heightened the need for utilizing pre-trained embeddings on natural language processing tasks, which significantly improves the performance of embedding-based unsupervised keyphrase extraction models (Sun et al., 2020; Liang et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2022). Existing embedding-based models mainly consist of two components: candidate keyphrase extraction and keyphrase importance estimation (Hasan and ∗Corresponding Author Title: Measuring keyboard response delays by comparing keyboard and joystick inputs Abstract: The response characteristics of PC keyboards have to be identified when they are used as response devices in psychological experiments. In the past, the proposed method has been to check the characteristics independently by means of external measurement equipment. However, with the availability of different PC models and the rapid pace of model change, there is an urgent need for the development of convenient and accurate methods of checking. The method proposed consists of raising the precision of the PC's clock to the microsecond level and using a joystick connected to the MIDI terminal of a sound board to give the PC an independent timing function. Statistical processing of the data provided by this method makes it possible to estimate accurately the keyboard scanning interval time and the average keyboard delay time… Keyphrases: keyboard response delay measurement, joystick input, keyboard input, pc keyboard, psychological experiment, model change, check, pc clock precision, midi terminal, sound board, independent timing function, statistical data process, keyboard scan interval time, average keyboard delay time Figure 1: Randomly sampled document with its corresponding keyphrases from the benchmark keyphrase extraction dataset Inspec. Bold orange represents the content related to the title, and underlined indicates the content related to the first sentence. Ng, 2014; Song et al., 2021, 2022a). The former extracts continuous words from the document as candidate keyphrases through heuristic rules, and the latter estimates the importance of candidate phrases by matching similarity with their corresponding document. Generally, the source document has both salient information and noises (redundant content). Hence, there may be a deviation when directly using the phrase-document relevance as the importance score of each candidate to select keyphrases. For many specific-domain documents (e.g., news or scientific articles), the highlights (the title or the first sentence) typically contains the central information of the source document (as shown in Figure 1), which has more significant guidance for extracting keyphrases. However, the recent embedding-based unsupervised keyphrase extraction models ignore the effect of the highlight information, leading to extract wrong keyphrases. Motivated by the above issues, we propose a new Highlight-Guided Unsupervised Keyphrase Extraction model (HGUKE), which estimates the impor-  tance score of each candidate phrase by jointly considering the global and local relevance between candidate phrases and their corresponding document. Concretely, HGUKE first calculates the global relevance by leveraging the highlights rather than the whole document and then locally computes the cross-phrase relevance between all candidate keyphrases, as illustrated in Figure 2. Finally, HGUKE aggregates the global and local relevance as the importance score of each candidate keyphrase to rank and extract keyphrases. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed model HGUKE outperforms the recent state-ofthe-art embedding-based unsupervised keyphrase extraction baselines on three benchmark keyphrase extraction datasets. ## 2 Methodology 2.1 Candidate Keyphrase Extraction To extract candidate keyphrases from the source document, we follow the previous studies (Liang et al., 2021; Song et al., 2022b; Ding and Luo, 2021) and leverage Stanford CoreNLP Tools1for tokenizing, part-of-speech tagging and noun phrase chunking. Concretely, in our model, the regular expression {< NN. ∗ |JJ > ∗ *< NN.*∗ >} is designed to extract noun phrases as the candidate keyphrases via the python package NLTK2. ## 2.2 Phrase And Document Encoding After constructing a set of candidate keyphrases P = {p1, ..., pi*, ..., p*|P|} for the source document via the above method, we adopt the pre-trained language model BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) as the embedding layer to obtain pre-trained word embeddings H = {h1, ..., hm*, ..., h*|D|} for the source document D = {w1, ..., wm*, ..., w*|D|} where hm indicates the m-th word in the document. 1https://stanfordnlp.github.io/CoreNLP/ 2https://github.com/nltk Next, we leverage word embeddings to obtain candidate keyphrase representations. To capture the central semantics of the candidate keyphrases, we obtain candidate keyphrase representations by leveraging the max pooling operation, which is a simple and effective parameter-free approach and can be calculated as follows, $$h_{p_{i}}=\mathrm{Max\mbox{-Pooling}}(\{h_{1},...,h_{k},...,h_{|p_{i}|}\}),\tag{1}$$ where hpi is the representation of the i-th candidate keyphrase and |pi| indicates the length of pi. Specifically, hk represents the word in the document associated with the candidate keyphrase pi. At the same time, we use the mean pooling operation to obtain the highlight representation hs of the document. ## 2.3 Phrase-Document Relevance To obtain more relevant candidates, we model the similarity between candidate phrases and the corresponding document as follows, $$p_{i}^{h}={\frac{1}{||h_{s}-h_{p_{i}}||_{1}}},\qquad\qquad(2)$$ where p h i denotes the phrase-document relevance of i-th candidate keyphrases and *||·||*1 indicates the Manhattan Distance. For news and scientific articles, keyphrases often appear at the beginning or front position (Florescu and Caragea, 2017a,b), which means that the position information is important and indicative for extracting keyphrases. For example, the word appearing at 2-th, 5-th and 10-th, has a weight ρi = 1/2 + 1/5 + 1/10 = 0.8. Inspired by the previous work (Florescu and Caragea, 2017b; Liang et al., 2021), we adopt a position regularization as follows, ρi = softmax(e 1/i), where ρiis the position regularization factor of the i-th candidate phrase. Then, the weighted phrase-document relevance pˆ h i can be re-calculated as follows, $${\hat{p}}_{i}^{h}=p_{i}^{h}\cdot\rho_{i},$$ $$({\mathcal{I}})$$ i· ρi, (3) Here, we finally employ pˆ h i to estimate the phrasedocument relevance of the i-th candidate phrase. ## 2.4 Cross-Phrase Relevance Generally, the phrase-document relevance is calculated between the highlight information and each candidate independently, and consequently, it cannot determine which candidates are better than the Model**DUC2001 Inspec SemEval2010** F1@5 F1@10 F1@15 F1@5 F1@10 F1@15 F1@5 F1@10 F1@15 Statistical Keyphrase Extraction Models TF-IDF (Jones, 2004) 9.21 10.63 11.06 11.28 13.88 13.83 2.81 3.48 3.91 YAKE (Campos et al., 2018) 12.27 14.37 14.76 18.08 19.62 20.11 11.76 14.4 15.19 Graph-based Keyphrase Extraction Models TextRank (Mihalcea and Tarau, 2004) 11.80 18.28 20.22 27.04 25.08 36.65 3.80 5.38 7.65 SingleRank (Wan and Xiao, 2008) 20.43 25.59 25.70 27.79 34.46 36.05 5.90 9.02 10.58 TopicRank (Bougouin et al., 2013) 21.56 23.12 20.87 25.38 28.46 29.49 12.12 12.90 13.54 PositionRank (Florescu and Caragea, 2017b) 23.35 28.57 28.60 28.12 32.87 33.32 9.84 13.34 14.33 MultipartiteRank (Boudin, 2018) 23.20 25.00 25.24 25.96 29.57 30.85 12.13 13.79 14.92 Embedding-based Keyphrase Extraction Models EmbedRankd2v (Bennani-Smires et al., 2018) 24.02 28.12 28.82 31.51 37.94 37.96 3.02 5.08 7.23 KeyGames (Saxena et al., 2020) 24.42 28.28 29.77 32.12 40.48 40.94 11.93 14.35 14.62 SIFRank (Sun et al., 2020) 24.27 27.43 27.86 29.11 38.80 39.59 - - - JointGL (Liang et al., 2021) 28.62 35.52 36.29 32.61 40.17 41.09 13.02 19.35 21.72 MDERank (Zhang et al., 2022) 23.31 26.65 26.42 27.85 34.36 36.40 13.05 18.27 20.35 HGUKE 31.31 37.24 38.31 34.18 41.05 42.16 14.07 20.52 23.10 others. To determine which candidate phrases are more salient than the others, we sum the semantic relatedness between the i-th candidate phrases and all candidates as the cross-phrase relevance. Thus, it calculates the local relevance as follows, $$p_{i}^{p}=\sum_{j=1,j\neq i}(h_{p_{i}}h_{p_{j}}^{\top}-\lambda\delta_{i}).\qquad\qquad(4)$$ $\langle j,h_{\rm Pl},h_{\rm Pl}^\top\rangle$, . where δi = Mean(Pj=1,j6=i hpih> pj ). Here, we treat δi as a de-noisy factor to filter the noises, which is far different from the i-th candidate keyphrase in the document. ## 2.5 Relevance Aggregation We aggregate the phrase-document relevance and the cross-phrase relevance into a whole score as the importance score of each candidate via a simple multiplication, $$r_{i}={\hat{p}}_{i}^{h}\cdot p_{i}^{p}$$ i(5) where riindicates the importance score of the i-th candidate phrase. Then, we rank all candidates with their importance score ri and extract top-ranked k phrases as keyphrases of the source document. ## 3 Experiments And Results 3.1 Experimental Settings This paper conducts experiments on three benchmark and popular used keyphrase datasets, which includes DUC2001 (Wan and Xiao, 2008), Inspec  $$({\boldsymbol{5}})$$ (Hulth, 2003), and SemEval2010 (Kim et al., 2010). Due to page limits, please refer to the corresponding articles for the details of the three datasets. Following the previous work (Liang et al., 2021; Ding and Luo, 2021; Song et al., 2023b), we use the standard practice and evaluate the performance of our model in terms of f-measure at the top-K keyphrases (F1@K) and adopt stemming to both extracted keyphrases and gold truth. Concretely, we report F1@5, F1@10, and F1@15 of each model on three benchmark datasets. We adopt the pre-trained language model BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) as the backbone of our model, initialized from their pre-trained weights. In our experiments, λ is set to 0.9 for three benchmark datasets. ## 3.2 Overall Performance Table 1 shows the performance of baselines and our model on three benchmark datasets (DUC2001, In- Pooling Methods **DUC2001 Inspec SemEval2010** F1@5 F1@10 F1@15 F1@5 F1@10 F1@15 F1@5 F1@10 F1@15 Max-Pooling 25.43 33.24 36.10 33.95 **41.21** 42.12 9.92 17.20 21.54 Mean-Pooling **31.31 37.24 38.31 34.18** 41.05 **42.16 14.07 20.52 23.10** Table 2: The results of different pooling methods for document embedding. spec, and SemEval2010). The results show that our method significantly improves over state-of-the-art unsupervised keyphrase extraction baselines. Compared with the current state-of-the-art models, our model achieves significantly better performance on F1@5, F1@10, and F1@15 evaluation metrics, demonstrating the effectiveness of estimating the importance of candidate phrases by leveraging the highlights to calculate the relevance. Compared with EmbedRank (Bennani-Smires et al., 2018), KeyGames (Saxena et al., 2020), and SIFRank (Sun et al., 2020), HGUKE achieves significant improvement, which benefits from using the highlights to calculate the importance score of each candidate keyphrase. Compared with the best baseline JointGL, our model achieves better performance on several benchmark keyphrase extraction datasets in all evaluation metrics. The main reason for this improvement is that we use the highlights as the guidance information instead of the whole document when estimating the importance of keyphrases. ## 3.3 Ablation Test | Different Similarity Measures | DUC2001 | Inspec | SemEval2010 | | | | | | | |---------------------------------|-----------|----------|---------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | F1@5 | F1@10 | F1@15 | F1@5 | F1@10 | F1@15 | F1@5 | F1@10 | F1@15 | | | Cosine Similarity | 30.26 | 36.14 | 37.19 | 33.70 | 40.51 | 41.53 | 13.15 | 20.78 | 23.26 | | Euclidean Distance | 30.67 | 36.65 | 37.95 | 34.04 | 41.02 | 42.24 | 13.43 | 20.18 | 23.44 | | Manhattan Distance | 31.31 | 37.24 | 38.31 | 34.18 | 41.05 | 42.16 | 14.07 | 20.52 | 23.10 | The ablation experiments on three benchmark keyphrase extraction datasets are shown in Figure 3. It can be seen from the results that using the highlight information can significantly improve the performance of keyphrase extraction, which benefits from estimating the importance score of each candidate by using its corresponding highlight information rather than the whole document. We consider the main reason is that the title or the first sentence of the document usually has a strong guidance for extracting keyphrases. ## 3.4 Impact Of Pooling Methods In this section, we study different pooling methods, including mean- and max-pooling operations. For all pooling methods, HGUKE using the last BERT layer achieves the best results, demonstrating that HGUKE benefits from stronger contextualized semantic representations. We can see the results in Table 2 that the document encoded via the meanpooling operation obtains the best performance. ## 3.5 Impact Of Different Similarity Measures Our model adopts Manhattan Distance to measure the textual similarity between candidate phrases and the highlight information. Furthermore, we attempt to employ different measures to estimate the phrase-document relevance. The results of different similarity measures are shown in Table 3, and we can see that the advantage of Manhattan Distance is obvious. ## 4 Related Work Most existing unsupervised keyphrase extraction methods can be mainly divided into four categories: statistics-based, topic-based, graph-based, and embedding-based models. Specifically, statisticsbased models (Salton and Buckley, 1988; Witten et al., 1999) usually extract keyphrases by estimating the importance of candidate phrases with different statistic features, such as word frequency feature, phrase position feature, linguistic features of natural language, etc. Topic-based models (Liu et al., 2009, 2010) typically utilize topic information to determine whether a candidate phrase is a keyphrase. Graph-based models (Mihalcea and Tarau, 2004; Grineva et al., 2009) represent the document as a graph and rank candidate phrases by graph-based similarities. Embedding-based models usually adopt the pretrained embeddings to obtain document and candidate phrase representations and calculate the importance score of each candidate depending on the obtained representations. Benefiting from the development of transformer-based pre-trained language models (Devlin et al., 2019) in the natural language processing field, embedding-based models (Bennani-Smires et al., 2018; Sun et al., 2020; Liang et al., 2021) have achieved outstanding performance. Concretely, embedding-based models mainly consist of two procedures: candidate keyphrase representation and keyphrase importance estimation (Hasan and Ng, 2014; Song et al., 2023a). The first procedure utilizes natural language linguistic features to construct candidate keyphrases and represents them by pre-trained embedding approaches (e.g., BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) and RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019)). The second procedure estimates the importance of candidate phrases from different perspectives to determine whether a candidate phrase is a keyphrase. Unlike the existing unsupervised keyphrase extraction models, we use the highlight information of the document to calculate the phrase-document relevance instead the whole document. ## 5 Conclusion And Future Work In this paper, we incorporate structural information to improve the performance of embedding-based unsupervised keyphrase extraction. Specifically, in this paper, we propose a new Highlight-Guided Unsupervised Keyphrase Extraction model (HGUKE), which calculates the phrase-document relevance via the highlight information instead of the whole document to select relevant candidate phrases. Extensive experiments demonstrate that HGUKE outperforms the state-of-the-art unsupervised baselines. Future research may investigate adopting different structural information of the source document to improve the performance of unsupervised keyphrase extraction. ## 6 Acknowledgments We thank the three anonymous reviewers for carefully reading our paper and their insightful comments and suggestions. This work was partly supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2019JBZ110); the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant 62176020; the National Key Research and Development Program (2020AAA0106800); the Beijing Natural Science Foundation under Grant L211016; CAAI-Huawei MindSpore Open Fund; and Chinese Academy of Sciences (OEIP-O-202004). ## 7 Limitations There are still some limitations of our work. In the future, we plan to enhance the procedure of extracting candidate keyphrase, to improve the upper bound of the performance of keyphrase extraction. One possible way is to generate candidate phrases of the document by utilizing the high-level semantic relatedness (e.g., attention weights) instead of using the surface-or syntactic-level information. ## References Kamil Bennani-Smires, Claudiu Musat, Andreea Hossmann, Michael Baeriswyl, and Martin Jaggi. 2018. Simple unsupervised keyphrase extraction using sentence embeddings. In *CoNLL*, pages 221–229. Association for Computational Linguistics. Florian Boudin. 2018. Unsupervised keyphrase extraction with multipartite graphs. In *NAACL-HLT (2)*, pages 667–672. Association for Computational Linguistics. Adrien Bougouin, Florian Boudin, and Béatrice Daille. 2013. Topicrank: Graph-based topic ranking for keyphrase extraction. In *IJCNLP*, pages 543–551. Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing / ACL. Ricardo Campos, Vítor Mangaravite, Arian Pasquali, Alípio Mário Jorge, Célia Nunes, and Adam Jatowt. 2018. Yake! collection-independent automatic keyword extractor. In *ECIR*, volume 10772 of *Lecture* Notes in Computer Science, pages 806–810. Springer. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In *NAACL-HLT*, pages 4171–4186. Association for Computational Linguistics. Haoran Ding and Xiao Luo. 2021. Attentionrank: Unsupervised keyphrase extraction using self and cross attentions. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on* Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1919–1928. Corina Florescu and Cornelia Caragea. 2017a. A position-biased pagerank algorithm for keyphrase extraction. In *AAAI*, pages 4923–4924. AAAI Press. Corina Florescu and Cornelia Caragea. 2017b. Positionrank: An unsupervised approach to keyphrase extraction from scholarly documents. In *ACL (1)*, pages 1105–1115. Association for Computational Linguistics. Maria P. Grineva, Maxim N. Grinev, and Dmitry Lizorkin. 2009. Extracting key terms from noisy and multitheme documents. In WWW, pages 661–670. ACM. Kazi Saidul Hasan and Vincent Ng. 2014. Automatic keyphrase extraction: A survey of the state of the art. In *ACL (1)*, pages 1262–1273. The Association for Computer Linguistics. Anette Hulth. 2003. Improved automatic keyword extraction given more linguistic knowledge. In EMNLP. Karen Spärck Jones. 2004. A statistical interpretation of term specificity and its application in retrieval. J. Documentation, 60(5):493–502. Su Nam Kim, Olena Medelyan, Min-Yen Kan, and Timothy Baldwin. 2010. Semeval-2010 task 5 : Automatic keyphrase extraction from scientific articles. In *SemEval@ACL*, pages 21–26. The Association for Computer Linguistics. Xinnian Liang, Shuangzhi Wu, Mu Li, and Zhoujun Li. 2021. Unsupervised keyphrase extraction by jointly modeling local and global context. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 155–164, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Feifan Liu, Deana Pennell, Fei Liu, and Yang Liu. 2009. Unsupervised approaches for automatic keyword extraction using meeting transcripts. In *HLT-NAACL*, pages 620–628. 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. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. *CoRR*, abs/1907.11692. Zhiyuan Liu, Wenyi Huang, Yabin Zheng, and Maosong Sun. 2010. Automatic keyphrase extraction via topic decomposition. In *EMNLP*, pages 366–376. ACL. Rada Mihalcea and Paul Tarau. 2004. Textrank: Bringing order into text. In *EMNLP*, pages 404–411. ACL. Gerard Salton and Chris Buckley. 1988. Term weighting approaches in automatic text retrieval. *Information Processing and Management*, 24:513–523. Also available in Sparck Jones and Willett (1997). Arnav Saxena, Mudit Mangal, and Goonjan Jain. 2020. Keygames: A game theoretic approach to automatic keyphrase extraction. In *Proceedings of the 28th* International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 2037–2048. Mingyang Song, Yi Feng, and Liping Jing. 2022a. Hyperbolic relevance matching for neural keyphrase extraction. 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 5710–5720. Association for Computational Linguistics. Mingyang Song, Yi Feng, and Liping Jing. 2022b. Utilizing BERT intermediate layers for unsupervised keyphrase extraction. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Natural Language and Speech Processing (ICNLSP 2022), pages 277–281, Trento, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Mingyang Song, Yi Feng, and Liping Jing. 2023a. A survey on recent advances in keyphrase extraction from pre-trained language models. In *Findings of the* Association for Computational Linguistics: EACL 2023, pages 2153–2164, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Association for Computational Linguistics. Mingyang Song, Liping Jing, and Lin Xiao. 2021. Importance Estimation from Multiple Perspectives for Keyphrase Extraction. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Mingyang Song, Lin Xiao, and Liping Jing. 2023b. Learning to extract from multiple perspectives for neural keyphrase extraction. Computer Speech & Language, 81:101502. Yi Sun, Hangping Qiu, Yu Zheng, Zhongwei Wang, and Chaoran Zhang. 2020. Sifrank: A new baseline for unsupervised keyphrase extraction based on pre-trained language model. *IEEE Access*, 8:10896– 10906. Xiaojun Wan and Jianguo Xiao. 2008. Single document keyphrase extraction using neighborhood knowledge. In *AAAI*, pages 855–860. AAAI Press. Ian H. Witten, Gordon W. Paynter, Eibe Frank, Carl Gutwin, and Craig G. Nevill-Manning. 1999. Kea: Practical automatic keyphrase extraction. In ACM DL, pages 254–255. ACM. Linhan Zhang, Qian Chen, Wen Wang, Chong Deng, Shiliang Zhang, Bing Li, Wei Wang, and Xin Cao. 2022. Mderank: A masked document embedding rank approach for unsupervised keyphrase extraction. In *Findings of the Association for Computational* Linguistics: ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 396–409. Association for Computational Linguistics. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? 7 ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? 7 ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? 1 ✗ 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? 3 ✓ 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)? 3 ✓ 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? 3 ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? 3 ✓ 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 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? 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? 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.)? 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.

huang-chang-2023-towards

Towards Reasoning in Large Language Models: A Survey

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.67

Reasoning is a fundamental aspect of human intelligence that plays a crucial role in activities such as problem solving, decision making, and critical thinking. In recent years, large language models (LLMs) have made significant progress in natural language processing, and there is observation that these models may exhibit reasoning abilities when they are sufficiently large. However, it is not yet clear to what extent LLMs are capable of reasoning. This paper provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge on reasoning in LLMs, including techniques for improving and eliciting reasoning in these models, methods and benchmarks for evaluating reasoning abilities, findings and implications of previous research in this field, and suggestions on future directions. Our aim is to provide a detailed and up-to-date review of this topic and stimulate meaningful discussion and future work.

# Towards Reasoning In Large Language Models: A Survey Jie Huang Kevin Chen-Chuan Chang Department of Computer Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign {jeffhj, kcchang}@illinois.edu ## Abstract Reasoning is a fundamental aspect of human intelligence that plays a crucial role in activities such as problem solving, decision making, and critical thinking. In recent years, large language models (LLMs) have made significant progress in natural language processing, and there is observation that these models may exhibit reasoning abilities when they are sufficiently large. However, it is not yet clear to what extent LLMs are capable of reasoning. This paper provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge on reasoning in LLMs, including techniques for improving and eliciting reasoning in these models, methods and benchmarks for evaluating reasoning abilities, findings and implications of previous research in this field, and suggestions on future directions. Our aim is to provide a detailed and up-to-date review of this topic and stimulate meaningful discussion and future work.1 ## 1 Introduction Reasoning is a cognitive process that involves using evidence, arguments, and logic to arrive at conclusions or make judgments. It plays a central role in many intellectual activities, such as problem solving, decision making, and critical thinking. The study of reasoning is important in fields like psychology (Wason and Johnson-Laird, 1972), philosophy (Passmore, 1961), and computer science (Huth and Ryan, 2004), as it helps individuals make decisions, solve problems, and think critically. Recently, large language models (LLMs) (Brown et al., 2020; Chowdhery et al., 2022; Chung et al., 2022; OpenAI, 2022, *inter alia*) such as ChatGPT have made significant advancements in natural language processing and related fields. It has been shown that these models exhibit emergent behaviors, including the ability to "reason", when they are large enough (Wei et al., 2022a). For example, by providing the models with "chain of thoughts", i.e., reasoning exemplars, or a simple prompt "*Let's think step by step*", these models are able to answer questions with explicit reasoning steps (Wei et al., 2022b; Kojima et al., 2022), e.g., "all whales are mammals, all mammals have kidneys; therefore, all whales have kidneys." This has sparked considerable interest in the community since reasoning ability is a hallmark of human intelligence that is frequently considered missed in current artificial intelligence systems (Marcus, 2020; Russin et al., 2020; Mitchell, 2021; Bommasani et al., 2021). However, despite the strong performance of LLMs on certain reasoning tasks, it remains unclear whether LLMs are actually reasoning and to what extent they are capable of reasoning. For example, Kojima et al. (2022) claim that "LLMs are decent zero-shot reasoners (p. 1)", while Valmeekam et al. (2022) conclude that "LLMs are still far from achieving acceptable performance on common planning/reasoning tasks which pose no issues for humans to do (p. 2)." This limitation is also stated by Wei et al. (2022b): "we qualify that although chain of thought emulates the thought processes of human reasoners, this does not answer whether the neural network is actually *reasoning* (p. 9)." Therefore, in this paper, we aim to provide a comprehensive overview and engage in an insightful discussion on the current state of knowledge on this fast-evolving topic. We initiate our exploration with a clarification of the concept of reasoning (§2). Subsequently, we turn our attention to the techniques for enhancing/eliciting reasoning in LLMs (§3), the methods and benchmarks for evaluating reasoning in LLMs (§4), and the key findings and implications in this field (§5). Finally, we reflect on and discuss the current state of the field (§6). 1Paperlist can be found at https://github.com/ jeffhj/LM-reasoning.  ## 2 What Is Reasoning? Reasoning is the process of thinking about something in a logical and systematic way, using evidence and past experiences to reach a conclusion or make a decision (Wason and Johnson-Laird, 1972; Wason, 1968; Galotti, 1989; Fagin et al., 2004; McHugh and Way, 2018). Reasoning involves making inferences, evaluating arguments, and drawing logical conclusions based on available information. Although "reasoning" is a term that is commonly used in literature and daily life, it is also an abstract concept that can refer to many things. To help the reader better understand this concept, we summarize several main categories of reasoning that are commonly recognized: Deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is a type of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn based on the truth of the premises. In deductive reasoning, the conclusion must necessarily follow from the premises, meaning that if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. For example: - Premise: All mammals have kidneys. - Premise: All whales are mammals. - Conclusion: All whales have kidneys. Inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is a type of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn based on observations or evidence. The conclusion is likely to be true based on the available evidence, but it is not necessarily certain. For example: - Observation: Every time we see a creature with wings, it is a bird. - Observation: We see a creature with wings. - Conclusion: The creature is likely to be a bird. Abductive reasoning. Abductive reasoning is a type of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn based on the best explanation for a given set of observations. The conclusion is the most likely explanation based on the available evidence, but it is not necessarily certain. For example: - Observation: The car cannot start and there is a puddle of liquid under the engine. - Conclusion: The most likely explanation is that the car has a leak in the radiator. Other types of reasoning include *analogical reasoning*, which involves making comparisons between two or more things in order to make inferences or arrive at conclusions; *causal reasoning*, which involves identifying and understanding the causes and effects of events or phenomena; and *probabilistic reasoning*, which involves making decisions or arriving at conclusions based on the likelihood or probability of certain outcomes. Formal Reasoning vs Informal Reasoning. *Formal reasoning* is a systematic and logical process that follows a set of rules and principles, often used in mathematics and logic. *Informal reasoning* is a less structured approach that relies on intuition, experience, and common sense to draw conclusions and solve problems, and is often used in everyday life. Formal reasoning is more structured and reliable, while informal reasoning is more adaptable and open-ended, but may also be less reliable. We refer the reader to Galotti (1989); Bronkhorst et al. (2020) for a detailed distinction between them. Reasoning in Language Models. The concept of reasoning in language models has been around for some time, but there is not a clear definition of what it entails. In the literature, the term "reasoning" is often used to refer to informal reasoning, although it is not always explicitly stated that it is informal (Cobbe et al., 2021; Wei et al., 2022b, inter alia). Different forms of reasoning may be used depending on the task, benchmark, or method being used, e.g., deductive reasoning (Cobbe et al., 2021; Creswell et al., 2022; Han et al., 2022b, *inter alia*), inductive reasoning (Yang et al., 2022; Misra et al., 2022, *inter alia*) or abductive reasoning (Wiegreffe et al., 2022; Lampinen et al., 2022; Jung et al., 2022, *inter alia*). In this paper, we encompass various forms of reasoning, with a particular focus on "informal deductive reasoning" in large language models since it is a widely used form in which the conclusion is guaranteed to be true as long as the premises are true. ## 3 Towards Reasoning In Large Language Models Reasoning, particularly multi-step reasoning, is often seen as a weakness in language models and other NLP models (Bommasani et al., 2021; Rae et al., 2021; Valmeekam et al., 2022). Recent research has suggested that reasoning ability may emerge in language models at a certain scale, such as models with over 100 billion parameters (Wei et al., 2022a,b; Cobbe et al., 2021). In this paper, we follow Wei et al. (2022a) in considering reasoning as an ability that is rarely present in smallscale models like GPT-2 (Radford et al., 2019) and BERT (Devlin et al., 2019), and therefore focus on techniques applicable to improving or eliciting "reasoning"2in LLMs such as GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020) and PaLM (Chowdhery et al., 2022). ## 3.1 Fully Supervised Finetuning Before discussing reasoning in large language models, it is worth mentioning there is research working on eliciting/improving reasoning in small language models through *fully supervised finetuning* on specific datasets. For example, Rajani et al. (2019) finetune a pretrained GPT model (Radford et al., 2018) to generate rationales that explain model predictions with the built CoS-E dataset, and find that models trained with explanations perform better on commonsense question answering tasks (Talmor et al., 2019). Talmor et al. (2020) train RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) to perform reasoning/inference based on both implicit pre-trained knowledge and explicit free-text statements. Hendrycks et al. (2021) finetune pretrained language models to solve competition mathematics problems by generating full step-by-step solutions, though the accuracy is relatively low. Nye et al. (2022) train language models to do multi-step reasoning for program synthesis/execution by generating "scratchpads", i.e., intermediate computations, before producing the final answers. We refer the reader to Helwe et al. (2021); Bhargava and Ng (2022)'s survey for more studies in this line. There are two major limitations of fully supervised finetuning. First, it requires a dataset containing explicit reasoning, which can be difficult and time-consuming to create. Additionally, the model is only trained on a specific dataset, which limits its application to a specific domain and may result in the model relying on artifacts in the training data rather than actual reasoning to make predictions. ## 3.2 Prompting & In-Context Learning Large language models such as GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020) have demonstrated remarkable fewshot performance across a variety of tasks through in-context learning. These models can be prompted with a question and a few ⟨input, output⟩ exemplars to potentially solve a problem through "reasoning", either implicitly or explicitly. However, research has shown that these models still fall short when it comes to tasks that require multiple steps of reasoning to solve (Bommasani et al., 2021; Rae et al., 2021; Valmeekam et al., 2022). This may be due to a lack of exploration into the full capabilities of these models, as recent studies have suggested. ## 3.2.1 Chain Of Thought And Its Variants To encourage LLMs to engage in reasoning rather than simply providing answers directly, we may guide LLMs to generate "reasoning" explicitly. One approach for doing this is chain-of-thought prompting, proposed by Wei et al. (2022b). This approach involves providing a few examples of "chain of thought" (CoT), which are intermediate natural language reasoning steps, in the prompt to LLMs (Figure 2). Specifically, in CoT prompting, ⟨input, output⟩ demonstrations are replaced with ⟨input, *chain of thought*, output⟩ triples, e.g., "[input] Roger has 5 tennis balls. He buys 2 more cans of tennis balls. Each can has 3 tennis balls. How many tennis balls does he have now? [*chain of* thought] Roger started with 5 balls. 2 cans of 3 tennis balls each is 6 tennis balls. 5 + 6 = 11. [output] The answer is 11." In this way, given a target question, the model learns to generate explicit ratio-  nale before producing the final answer. Experimental results show that this simple idea can improve LLMs' few-shot performance on arithmetic, symbolic, and commonsense reasoning tasks, sometimes to a striking degree. There are several variants of chain-of-thought prompting that have been proposed in the literature, in a different form or to solve a specific problem. Different Form: Kojima et al. (2022) introduce *Zero-shot-CoT*, in which LLMs are simply prompted with the phrase "Let's think step by step" after the input, in order to elicit reasoning without the need for few-shot demonstrations. Madaan et al. (2022); Gao et al. (2022); Chen et al. (2022) find that LLMs trained with code, e.g., Codex (Chen et al., 2021), can achieve better performance on reasoning tasks by framing reasoning as code generation. Wang et al. (2022a) propose to iteratively prompt chain of thought. He et al. (2023) attempt to retrieve external knowledge in CoT to improve faithfulness of reasoning. Specific Problem/Setting: Before chain of thought, Nye et al. (2022) also try to use intermediate computations, named "scratchpads", to improve language models' reasoning performance in both finetuning and few-shot regimes, with a particular focus on programs. Shi et al. (2022) attempt to solve multilingual reasoning tasks with CoT in the native language, CoT in English (regardless of the problem language), and CoT in English (with the problem translated to English). Chen (2022) apply CoT to table-based reasoning, finding that LLMs can achieve strong performance on table tasks with only one exemplar. Prystawski et al. (2022) demonstrate that CoT can improve LLMs' performance on paraphrase selection for metaphors. Lu et al. (2022) apply chain of thought to solve multimodal science questions. ## 3.2.2 Rationale Engineering The original version of chain-of-thought prompting, proposed by Wei et al. (2022b), relies on manually crafted examples of intermediate reasoning steps and applies greedy decoding in the generation. *Rationale engineering* aims to more effectively elicit or utilize reasoning in LLMs. This can be achieved through *rationale refinement*, which involves creating more effective examples of reasoning steps, or through *rationale exploration* and *rationale verification*, which involve exploring and verifying the rationales produced by LLMs. A summary of raltionale engineering is illustrated in Figure 2. Rationale refinement. The choice of exemplars can significantly affect the few-shot performance of LLMs, as demonstrated in research such as Liu et al. (2022b), which also appears in chain-of-thought prompting. *Rationale refinement* aims to create and refine rationale examples that are better able to elicit reasoning in LLMs. Fu et al. (2022b) propose complexity-based prompting to create rationales with more reasoning steps. Their experiments show that the performance of LLMs improves with the increased rationale complexity. Similarly, Zhou et al. (2022c) propose *algorithmic prompting*, which suggests that providing more thorough examples of solutions can help improve reasoning performance on some simple math calculations. Zhang et al. (2022b) design *Auto-CoT* to automatically construct exemplars by partitioning questions from a given dataset into clusters and then using ZeroShot-CoT (Kojima et al., 2022) to generate the rationale for a representative question from each cluster. The analysis shows that making exemplars diverse is important in prompting LLMs to produce better rationales. Rationale exploration. In addition to providing better exemplars, we can allow LLMs to fully explore various ways of reasoning to improve their performance on reasoning tasks, named *rationale* exploration. Based on the idea that complex problems often admit multiple ways of thinking that can lead to their unique correct answer, Wang et al. (2022c) present a decoding strategy called *selfconsistency* to improve upon the traditional greedy decoding used in chain-of-thought prompting. This strategy involves sampling a diverse set of rationales, rather than just the greedy one, and selecting the most consistent answer by marginalizing out the sampled rationales. The idea is also used in Fu et al. (2022b) to vote over the top complex rationales. To further improve performance, Li et al. (2022b) suggest providing different demonstrations for each question by sampling exemplars from an exemplar base, in order to increase the diversity of the sampled rationales. Rationale verification. Ensuring that the rationales produced by LLMs are valid is critical, as incorrect rationales can lead to incorrect final predictions (Ye and Durrett, 2022). To address this issue, the process of *rationale verification* aims to verify whether the rationales produced by LLMs lead to the correct final answers. Cobbe et al. (2021) propose augmenting LLMs with a trained verifier that assigns a score to each rationale and solution generated by the LLM, selecting the highest-ranked solution as the final answer when solving math word problems. Li et al. (2022b) also use this technique to guide rationale selection, in conjunction with the process of rationale exploration. Different from the above methods that train an external verifier to verify the rationales, Weng et al. (2022) suggest using LLMs themselves as the verifiers. ## 3.2.3 Problem Decomposition Chain-of-thought prompting, while effective for eliciting reasoning in LLMs, can struggle with complex tasks, e.g., tasks that require compositional generalization (Lake and Baroni, 2018; Keysers et al., 2020). To solve a complex problem, it is helpful to first break it down into smaller, more manageable subproblems. By solving each of these subproblems, we can effectively solve the complex problem. This technique is called problem decomposition or *divide and conquer* (Talmor and Berant, 2018; Min et al., 2019; Perez et al., 2020). Based on this idea, Zhou et al. (2022a) propose *least-to-most prompting*, which consists of two steps: decomposing the complex problem into subproblems and solving these subproblems in a specific order, with each subproblem being facilitated by the answers obtained from previously solved subproblems. As follow-up work, Drozdov et al. (2022) introduce *dynamic least-to-most* prompting, which is designed to solve more realistic semantic parsing problems by decomposing the problems with prompting-based syntactic parsing and dynamically selecting exemplars based on the decomposition. In addition, Khot et al. (2022) design *decomposed prompting*, which breaks down a complex problem into subproblems that can be handled by a shared library of prompting-based LLMs, each specialized in a particular subproblem. Furthermore, Dua et al. (2022) develop *successive prompting*, which iteratively decomposes a complex problem into a simple problem, with the next subproblem prediction having access to the answers to the previous subproblems. While the above methods decompose or solve compositional questions with multiple forward passes, Press et al. (2022) suggest decomposing and solving the input question in one forward pass using CoT prompting. Overall, these techniques show promise for helping LLMs to solve complex tasks by decomposing the problem into more manageable subproblems. ## 3.2.4 Others There are other techniques that have been developed to facilitate reasoning in LLMs for specific tasks or settings. For instance, Creswell et al. (2022); Creswell and Shanahan (2022) introduce a selection-inference framework that uses LLMs as modules to select and infer reasoning steps from a set of facts that culminate in the final answer. Kazemi et al. (2022) suggest using backward chaining, i.e., from goal to the set of facts that support it, instead of forward chaining like Creswell et al. (2022); Creswell and Shanahan (2022). In addition, Jung et al. (2022) propose a method for solving binary questions by prompting LLMs abductively and recursively to rationalize each option. Zhou et al. (2022b) design a technique for performing numerical reasoning on complex numbers by replacing the complex numbers with simple numbers to produce simpler expressions, and then using these expressions to perform calculations on the complex numbers. There are also efforts to distill reasoning from LLMs into smaller models, such as the work by Li et al. (2022a); Shridhar et al. (2022); Magister et al. (2022). Finally, we refer the reader to Dohan et al. (2022)'s position paper on language model cascade, which presents a unifying framework for understanding chain-of-thought prompting and research in this line. ## 3.3 Hybrid Method While "prompting" techniques can help elicit or better utilize reasoning in large language models to solve reasoning tasks, they do not actually improve the reasoning capabilities of the LLMs themselves, as the parameters of the models remain unchanged. In contrast, the "hybrid approach" aims to simultaneously improve the reasoning capabilities of LLMs and make better use of these models in order to solve complex problems. This approach involves both enhancing the reasoning capabilities of the LLMs and using techniques such as prompting to effectively utilize these capabilities. ## 3.3.1 Reasoning-Enhanced Training And Prompting One approach to improving the reasoning capabilities of LLMs is to pretrain or finetune the models on datasets that include "reasoning". Lewkowycz et al. (2022); Taylor et al. (2022) find that LLMs trained on datasets containing scientific and mathematical data can achieve better performance on reasoning tasks like quantitative reasoning problems when using CoT prompting3. Pi et al. (2022) show that continually pretraining with SQL data can boost the performance of language models, e.g., T5 (Raffel et al., 2020), on natural language reasoning such as numerical reasoning and logical reasoning. Furthermore, Chung et al. (2022) develop Flan models by finetuning PaLM (Chowdhery et al., 2022) and T5 (Raffel et al., 2020) with 1.8k finetuning tasks, including CoT data, and find that CoT data are critical to keeping reasoning abilities. Similarly, Yu et al. (2022) finetune OPT (Zhang et al., 2022a) on 10 reasoning datasets and observe that it can improve some reasoning capabilities of LLMs. Anil et al. (2022) study the length generalization abilities of LLMs, i.e., whether LLMs learned with short problem instances can generalize to long ones. They discover that the combination of few-shot scratchpad (or chain of thought) 3This may also be true for models trained with code (Chen et al., 2021; Fu et al., 2022a). finetuning and scratchpad prompting results in a significant improvement in LLMs' ability to generalize to longer problems, while this phenomenon is not observed in the standard fully supervised finetuning paradigm. ## 3.3.2 Bootstrapping & Self-Improving Instead of finetuning LLMs on pre-built datasets that include reasoning, there are studies that have explored the idea of using LLMs to self-improve their reasoning abilities through a process known as bootstrapping. One example of this is the *SelfTaught Reasoner (STaR)* introduced by Zelikman et al. (2022), in which a LLM is trained and refined on its own output iteratively. Specifically, with CoT prompting, the model first generates initial rationales. And then, the model is finetuned on rationales that lead to correct answers. This process can be repeated, with each iteration resulting in an improved model that can generate better training data, which in turn leads to further improvements. As a follow-up to this work, Huang et al. (2022a) show that LLMs are able to self-improve their reasoning abilities without the need for supervised data by leveraging the self-consistency of reasoning (Wang et al., 2022c). ## 4 Measuring Reasoning In Large Language Models We summarize methods and benchmarks for evaluating reasoning abilities of LLMs in this section. ## 4.1 End Task Performance One way to measure reasoning abilities of LLMs is to report their performance, e.g., accuracy, on end tasks that require reasoning. We list some common benchmarks as follows. Arithmetic Reasoning. *Arithmetic reasoning* is the ability to understand and apply mathematical concepts and principles in order to solve problems involving arithmetic operations. This involves using logical thinking and mathematical principles to determine the correct course of action when solving mathematical problems. Representative benchmarks for arithmetic reasoning include GSM8K (Cobbe et al., 2021), Math (Hendrycks et al., 2021), MathQA (Amini et al., 2019), SVAMP (Patel et al., 2021), ASDiv (Miao et al., 2020), AQuA (Ling et al., 2017), and MAWPS (Roy and Roth, 2015). It is worth mentioning that Anil et al. (2022) generate the *Parity Datasets* and the *Boolean Variable Assignment* Dataset for analyzing the length generalization capabilities of LLMs (§3.3.1). Commonsense Reasoning. *Commonsense Reasoning* is the use of everyday knowledge and understanding to make judgments and predictions about new situations. It is a fundamental aspect of human intelligence that enables us to navigate our environment, understand others, and make decisions with incomplete information. Benchmarks that can be used for testing commonsense reasoning abilities of LLMs include CSQA (Talmor et al., 2019), StrategyQA (Geva et al., 2021), and ARC (Clark et al., 2018). We refer the reader to Bhargava and Ng (2022)'s survey for more work in this domain. Symbolic Reasoning. *Symbolic reasoning* is a form of reasoning that involves the manipulation of symbols according to formal rules. In symbolic reasoning, we use abstract symbols to represent concepts and relationships, and then manipulate those symbols according to precise rules in order to draw conclusions or solve problems. Two benchmarks of symbolic reasoning are presented in Wei et al. (2022b), including Last Letter Concatenation and Coin Flip. Others. In practice, there are many benchmarks that can be used to evaluate reasoning abilities of LLMs (indirectly), as long as the downstream task involves reasoning. BIG-bench (Srivastava et al., 2022), for example, includes over 200 tasks that test a range of reasoning skills, including tasks like Date Understanding, Word Sorting, and Causal Judgement. Other benchmarks, such as SCAN (Lake and Baroni, 2018) and the one proposed by Anil et al. (2022), focus on evaluating generalization ability. LLMs can also be tested on their table reasoning abilities using benchmarks such as WikiTableQA (Pasupat and Liang, 2015), FetaQA (Nan et al., 2022), as suggested by Chen (2022). In addition, there are benchmarks for evaluating LLMs' generative relational reasoning abilities, such as CommonGen (Lin et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2022a) and Open Relation Modeling (Huang et al., 2022b,d). ## 4.2 Analysis On Reasoning Although LLMs have demonstrated impressive performance on various reasoning tasks, the extent to which their predictions are based on true reasoning or simple heuristics is not always clear. This is because most existing evaluations focus on their accuracy on end tasks, rather than directly assessing their reasoning steps. While some error analysis has been conducted on the generated rationales of LLMs (Wei et al., 2022b; Kojima et al., 2022, *inter* alia), this analysis has often been limited in depth. There have been some efforts to develop metrics and benchmarks that enable a more formal/deep analysis of reasoning in LLMs. Golovneva et al. (2022) design ROSCOE, a set of interpretable, detailed step-by-step evaluation metrics covering various perspectives including semantic alignment, logical inference, semantic similarity, and language coherence. Saparov and He (2022) create a synthetic dataset called PrOntoQA that is generated from real or fictional ontologies. Each example in the dataset has a unique proof, which can be converted to simple sentences and back again, allowing for a formal analysis of each reasoning step. Han et al. (2022a) introduce a dataset called FOLIO to test the first-order logic reasoning capabilities of LLMs. FOLIO contains first-order logic reasoning problems that require models to determine the correctness of conclusions given a set of premises. In addition, Wang et al. (2022b) conduct ablation experiments on CoT and find that LLMs may also perform reasoning while prompting with invalid rationals. Their study also suggests that being relevant to the query and correctly ordering the reasoning steps are important for CoT prompting. In summary, most existing studies primarily report the performance of the models on downstream reasoning tasks, without a detailed examination of the quality of the rationales produced. This leaves open the question of whether the models are actually able to reason in a way that is similar to human reasoning, or whether they are simply able to achieve good performance on the tasks through other means. Further research is needed to more formally analyze the reasoning abilities of LLMs. ## 5 Findings And Implications In this section, we summarize the important findings and implications of studies on reasoning in large language models. Reasoning seems an emergent ability of LLMs. Wei et al. (2022a,b); Suzgun et al. (2022) show that reasoning ability appears to emerge only in large language models like GPT-3 175B, as evidenced by significant improvements in performance on reasoning tasks at a certain scale (e.g., 100 billion parameters). This suggests that it may be more effective to utilize large models for general reasoning problems rather than training small models for specific tasks. However, the reason for this emergent ability is not yet fully understood. We refer the reader to Wei et al. (2022a); Fu et al. (2022a) for some potential explanations. Chain of thought elicits "reasoning" of LLMs. The use of chain-of-thought (CoT) prompts (Wei et al., 2022b) has been shown to improve the performance of LLMs on various reasoning tasks, as demonstrated in the experiments of Wei et al. (2022a,b); Suzgun et al. (2022). Additionally, Saparov and He (2022) (§4.2) find that, when using CoT prompts, LLMs are able to produce valid individual proof steps, even when the synthetic ontology is fictional or counterfactual. However, they may sometimes choose the wrong steps when multiple options are available, leading to incomplete or incorrect proofs. Moreover, for many reasoning tasks where the performance of standard prompting grows smoothly with model scale, chain-of-thought prompting can lead to dramatic performance improvement. In addition to these benefits, the use of CoT prompts has been shown to improve the out-ofdistribution robustness of LLMs (Wei et al., 2022b; Zhou et al., 2022a; Anil et al., 2022, *inter alia*), an advantage that is not typically observed with standard prompting or fully supervised finetuning paradigms. LLMs show human-like content effects on reasoning. According to Dasgupta et al. (2022), LLMs exhibit reasoning patterns that are similar to those of humans as described in the cognitive literature. For example, the models' predictions are influenced by both prior knowledge and abstract reasoning, and their judgments of logical validity are impacted by the believability of the conclusions. These findings suggest that, although language models may not always perform well on reasoning tasks, their failures often occur in situations that are challenging for humans as well. This provides some evidence that language models may "reason" in a way that is similar to human reasoning. LLMs are still unskilled at complex reasoning. Although LLMs seem to possess impressive reasoning capabilities with the techniques described in §3, they still struggle with more complex reasoning tasks or those involving implicature, according to studies such as Valmeekam et al. (2022); Han et al. (2022a); Ruis et al. (2022). For instance, Valmeekam et al. (2022) find that even in relatively simple commonsense planning domains that humans would have no trouble navigating, LLMs such as GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020) and BLOOM (Scao et al., 2022) struggle to perform effectively. These findings suggest that existing benchmarks may be too simple to accurately gauge the true reasoning abilities of LLMs, and that more challenging tasks may be needed to fully evaluate their abilities in this regard. ## 6 Reflection, Discussion, And Future Directions Why reasoning? Reasoning is the process of thinking about something in a logical and systematic way, and it is a key aspect of human intelligence. By incorporating reasoning capabilities into language models, we can enable them to perform tasks that require more complex and nuanced thinking, such as problem solving, decision making, and planning (Huang et al., 2022e,f; Song et al., 2022). This can improve the performance of these models on downstream tasks and increase their out-ofdistribution robustness (Wei et al., 2022a,b; Suzgun et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022a; Anil et al., 2022). In addition, reasoning can make language models more explainable and interpretable, as it provides explicit rationales for their predictions. Right task/application? As Valmeekam et al. (2022) point out, current benchmarks may not adequately reflect the reasoning capabilities of LLMs. In addition, tasks such as solving simple math problems and concatenating letters in strings (§4.1) are artificial and do not accurately reflect real-world situations. To truly understand the reasoning ability of LLMs, it is important to consider more realistic and meaningful applications such as decision making (Edwards, 1954), legal reasoning (Levi, 2013), and scientific reasoning (Zimmerman, 2000). Our ultimate goal should not be to enable LLMs to solve simple math problems, which can be simply done with other programs. When conducting relevant research, it is essential to ask whether the specific task being tackled is meaningful and *whether the* proposed method can be generalized to more realistic tasks and applications. Are language models really able to reason? There are several indications that LLMs are able to reason, including 1) high performance on various tasks requiring reasoning (Suzgun et al., 2022); 2) the ability to reason step-by-step with chainof-thought prompting (Wei et al., 2022b); and 3) the reflection of human-like content effects on reasoning (Dasgupta et al., 2022). However, these findings are not sufficient to conclude that LLMs can truly reason. For 1), it is not clear whether the models are making predictions based on *reasoning* or *heuristics* (Patel et al., 2021). For many existing benchmarks on reasoning, actually, we can design a program with heuristic rules to achieve very high performance. We usually do not think a program relying on heuristic rules is capable of reasoning. For 2), although the models seem to reason stepby-step, the generated rationales may be incorrect and inconsistent. It is possible that the models are "generating reasoning-like response" rather than "reasoning step-by-step". For 3), while LLMs display some human-like reasoning patterns, this does not necessarily mean that they behave like humans. Additionally, there are several observations that suggest LLMs may not be capable of reasoning: 1) LLMs still struggle with tasks that require complex reasoning (Valmeekam et al., 2022; Han et al., 2022a; Ruis et al., 2022). If LLMs are really decent reasoners, they should handle tasks that can be simply solved by humans through reasoning; 2) LLMs make mistakes in their reasoning, as explained above; 3)\#4 The performance of LLMs on downstream tasks has been found to be sensitive to the frequency of certain terms, such as numbers, in the training data (Razeghi et al., 2022; Jung et al., 2022), which would not be expected if the models were solving mathematical problems through reasoning; 4)\# Language models have been found to struggle with associating relevant information that they have memorized (Huang et al., 2022c). Overall, it is still too early to draw a conclusion about the proposed question. In fact, there is also an ongoing debate about whether language models can actually *understand* language or capture *meaning* (Bender and Koller, 2020; Li et al., 2021; Manning, 2022; Piantasodi and Hill, 2022). Further in-depth analysis of factors such as training data, model architecture, and optimization objectives is needed, as well as the development of better benchmarks for measuring the reasoning capabilities of LLMs. However, it is clear that the current models are not yet capable of robust reasoning. ## Improving Reasoning Capabilities Of Llms. While techniques like chain-of-thought prompting (Wei et al., 2022b) may help to elicit reasoning abilities in large language models, they cannot enable the models to solve tasks beyond their current capabilities. To truly enhance reasoning in LLMs, we need to utilize training data, model architecture, and optimization objectives that are designed to encourage reasoning. For example, finetuning a model with a dataset including CoT data has been shown to improve reasoning (Chung et al., 2022), and models can also self-improve through the process of bootstrapping their reasoning (Zelikman et al., 2022; Huang et al., 2022a). There is still much research that needs to be done in this area, and we look forward to future progress in improving reasoning in large language models. ## 7 Conclusion In this paper, we have provided a detailed and upto-date review of the current state of knowledge on reasoning in large language models. We have discussed techniques for improving and eliciting reasoning in LLMs, methods and benchmarks for evaluating reasoning abilities, and the findings and implications of previous studies in this topic. While LLMs have made significant progress in natural language processing and related fields, it remains unclear to what extent they are capable of true reasoning or whether they are simply using memorized patterns and heuristics to solve problems. Further research is needed to fully understand the reasoning abilities of LLMs, improve LLMs' reasoning capabilities, and determine their potential for use in a variety of applications. We hope that this paper will serve as a useful overview of the current state of the field and stimulate further discussion and research on this interesting and important topic. ## Limitations In this paper, we provide an overview of the current state of knowledge on reasoning in large language models. Reasoning is a broad concept that encompasses various forms, making it impractical to summarize all related work in a single paper. Therefore, we focus on deductive reasoning, as it is the most commonly studied in the literature. Other forms of reasoning such as inductive reasoning (Yang et al., 2022; Misra et al., 2022, *inter alia*) and abductive reasoning (Wiegreffe et al., 2022; Lampinen et al., 2022; Jung et al., 2022, *inter alia*) may not be discussed in depth. Additionally, given the rapid evolution and significance of reasoning within large language models, it is crucial to note that new contributions may have emerged in the field concurrent with the writing of this paper. An additional resource to consider is a parallel survey by Qiao et al. (2022), which emphasizes reasoning via language model prompting. Our coverage may not extend to papers released during or after 2023 such as evaluation on ChatGPT (Bang et al., 2023; Zheng et al., 2023). As such, we recommend readers to check the papers that cite this survey for a more comprehensive and updated understanding of this field. ## Acknowledgements We would like to thank Jason Wei (OpenAI) and Denny Zhou (Google DeepMind) for their valuable advice and constructive feedback on this work. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation IIS 16-19302 and IIS 16-33755, Zhejiang University ZJU Research 083650, IBM-Illinois Center for Cognitive Computing Systems Research (C3SR) and IBM-Illinois Discovery Accelerator Institute (IIDAI), gift grants from eBay and Microsoft Azure, UIUC OVCR CCIL Planning Grant 434S34, UIUC CSBS Small Grant 434C8U, and UIUC New Frontiers Initiative. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding agencies. ## 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. Cem Anil, Yuhuai Wu, Anders Andreassen, Aitor Lewkowycz, Vedant Misra, Vinay Ramasesh, Ambrose Slone, Guy Gur-Ari, Ethan Dyer, and Behnam Neyshabur. 2022. Exploring length generalization in large language models. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2207.04901. Yejin Bang, Samuel Cahyawijaya, Nayeon Lee, Wenliang Dai, Dan Su, Bryan Wilie, Holy Lovenia, Ziwei Ji, Tiezheng Yu, Willy Chung, et al. 2023. A multitask, multilingual, multimodal evaluation of chatgpt on reasoning, hallucination, and interactivity. ArXiv preprint, abs/2302.04023. Emily M. Bender and Alexander Koller. 2020. Climbing towards NLU: On meaning, form, and understanding in the age of data. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual* Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5185–5198, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Prajjwal Bhargava and Vincent Ng. 2022. Commonsense knowledge reasoning and generation with pretrained language models: A survey. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Rishi Bommasani, Drew A Hudson, Ehsan Adeli, Russ Altman, Simran Arora, Sydney von Arx, Michael S Bernstein, Jeannette Bohg, Antoine Bosselut, Emma Brunskill, et al. 2021. On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2108.07258. Hugo Bronkhorst, Gerrit Roorda, Cor Suhre, and Martin Goedhart. 2020. Logical reasoning in formal and everyday reasoning tasks. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18(8):1673– 1694. Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared 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 M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher 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 Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 6-12, 2020, virtual. Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, et al. 2021. Evaluating large language models trained on code. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2107.03374. Wenhu Chen. 2022. Large language models are few (1)- shot table reasoners. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2210.06710. Wenhu Chen, Xueguang Ma, Xinyi Wang, and William W Cohen. 2022. Program of thoughts prompting: Disentangling computation from reasoning for numerical reasoning tasks. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2211.12588. Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, et al. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2204.02311. Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Eric Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, et al. 2022. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. ArXiv preprint, abs/2210.11416. Peter Clark, Isaac Cowhey, Oren Etzioni, Tushar Khot, Ashish Sabharwal, Carissa Schoenick, and Oyvind Tafjord. 2018. Think you have solved question answering? try arc, the ai2 reasoning challenge. ArXiv preprint, abs/1803.05457. Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, Christopher Hesse, and John Schulman. 2021. Training verifiers to solve math word problems. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2110.14168. Antonia Creswell and Murray Shanahan. 2022. Faithful reasoning using large language models. ArXiv preprint, abs/2208.14271. Antonia Creswell, Murray Shanahan, and Irina Higgins. 2022. Selection-inference: Exploiting large language models for interpretable logical reasoning. ArXiv preprint, abs/2205.09712. Ishita Dasgupta, Andrew K Lampinen, Stephanie CY Chan, Antonia Creswell, Dharshan Kumaran, James L McClelland, and Felix Hill. 2022. Language models show human-like content effects on reasoning. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2207.07051. 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. David Dohan, Winnie Xu, Aitor Lewkowycz, Jacob Austin, David Bieber, Raphael Gontijo Lopes, Yuhuai Wu, Henryk Michalewski, Rif A Saurous, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, et al. 2022. Language model cascades. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2207.10342. Andrew Drozdov, Nathanael Schärli, Ekin Akyürek, Nathan Scales, Xinying Song, Xinyun Chen, Olivier Bousquet, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Compositional semantic parsing with large language models. *ArXiv* preprint, abs/2209.15003. Dheeru Dua, Shivanshu Gupta, Sameer Singh, and Matt Gardner. 2022. Successive prompting for decomposing complex questions. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2212.04092. Ward Edwards. 1954. The theory of decision making. Psychological bulletin, 51(4):380. Ronald Fagin, Joseph Y Halpern, Yoram Moses, and Moshe Vardi. 2004. *Reasoning about knowledge*. MIT press. Yao Fu, Hao Peng, and Tushar Khot. 2022a. How does gpt obtain its ability? tracing emergent abilities of language models to their sources. Yao Fu, Hao Peng, Ashish Sabharwal, Peter Clark, and Tushar Khot. 2022b. Complexity-based prompting for multi-step reasoning. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2210.00720. Kathleen M Galotti. 1989. Approaches to studying formal and everyday reasoning. *Psychological bulletin*, 105(3):331. Luyu Gao, Aman Madaan, Shuyan Zhou, Uri Alon, Pengfei Liu, Yiming Yang, Jamie Callan, and Graham Neubig. 2022. Pal: Program-aided language models. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2211.10435. Mor Geva, Daniel Khashabi, Elad Segal, Tushar Khot, Dan Roth, and Jonathan Berant. 2021. Did aristotle use a laptop? a question answering benchmark with implicit reasoning strategies. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:346– 361. Olga Golovneva, Moya Chen, Spencer Poff, Martin Corredor, Luke Zettlemoyer, Maryam Fazel-Zarandi, and Asli Celikyilmaz. 2022. Roscoe: A suite of metrics for scoring step-by-step reasoning. ArXiv preprint, abs/2212.07919. Simeng Han, Hailey Schoelkopf, Yilun Zhao, Zhenting Qi, Martin Riddell, Luke Benson, Lucy Sun, Ekaterina Zubova, Yujie Qiao, Matthew Burtell, et al. 2022a. Folio: Natural language reasoning with firstorder logic. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2209.00840. Simon Jerome Han, Keith Ransom, Andrew Perfors, and Charles Kemp. 2022b. Human-like property induction is a challenge for large language models. Hangfeng He, Hongming Zhang, and Dan Roth. 2023. Rethinking with retrieval: Faithful large language model inference. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2301.00303. Chadi Helwe, Chloé Clavel, and Fabian M Suchanek. 2021. Reasoning with transformer-based models: Deep learning, but shallow reasoning. In *3rd Conference on Automated Knowledge Base Construction*. Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Saurav Kadavath, Akul Arora, Steven Basart, Eric Tang, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. 2021. Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset. In *Proceedings of the Neural Information Processing Systems* Track on Datasets and Benchmarks, volume 1. Jiaxin Huang, Shixiang Shane Gu, Le Hou, Yuexin Wu, Xuezhi Wang, Hongkun Yu, and Jiawei Han. 2022a. Large language models can self-improve. ArXiv preprint, abs/2210.11610. Jie Huang, Kevin Chang, Jinjun Xiong, and Wen-mei Hwu. 2022b. Open relation modeling: Learning to define relations between entities. In *Findings of* the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022, pages 297–308, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jie Huang, Hanyin Shao, and Kevin Chen-Chuan Chang. 2022c. Are large pre-trained language models leaking your personal information? In *Findings of the* Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pages 2038–2047, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jie Huang, Kerui Zhu, Kevin Chen-Chuan Chang, Jinjun Xiong, and Wen-mei Hwu. 2022d. DEER: Descriptive knowledge graph for explaining entity relationships. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6686–6698, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. Wenlong Huang, Pieter Abbeel, Deepak Pathak, and Igor Mordatch. 2022e. Language models as zeroshot planners: Extracting actionable knowledge for embodied agents. In *Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning*, volume 162 of *Proceedings of Machine Learning Research*, pages 9118–9147. PMLR. Wenlong Huang, Fei Xia, Ted Xiao, Harris Chan, Jacky Liang, Pete Florence, Andy Zeng, Jonathan Tompson, Igor Mordatch, Yevgen Chebotar, et al. 2022f. Inner monologue: Embodied reasoning through planning with language models. In *2022 Conference on Robot* Learning. Michael Huth and Mark Ryan. 2004. *Logic in Computer* Science: Modelling and reasoning about systems. Cambridge university press. Jaehun Jung, Lianhui Qin, Sean Welleck, Faeze Brahman, Chandra Bhagavatula, Ronan Le Bras, and Yejin Choi. 2022. Maieutic prompting: Logically consistent reasoning with recursive explanations. The 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods for Natural Language Processing. Seyed Mehran Kazemi, Najoung Kim, Deepti Bhatia, Xin Xu, and Deepak Ramachandran. 2022. Lambada: Backward chaining for automated reasoning in natural language. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2212.13894. Daniel Keysers, Nathanael Schärli, Nathan Scales, Hylke Buisman, Daniel Furrer, Sergii Kashubin, Nikola Momchev, Danila Sinopalnikov, Lukasz Stafiniak, Tibor Tihon, Dmitry Tsarkov, Xiao Wang, Marc van Zee, and Olivier Bousquet. 2020. Measuring compositional generalization: A comprehensive method on realistic data. In *8th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2020, Addis* Ababa, Ethiopia, April 26-30, 2020. OpenReview.net. Tushar Khot, Harsh Trivedi, Matthew Finlayson, Yao Fu, Kyle Richardson, Peter Clark, and Ashish Sabharwal. 2022. Decomposed prompting: A modular approach for solving complex tasks. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2210.02406. Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. 2022. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. Brenden M. Lake and Marco Baroni. 2018. Generalization without systematicity: On the compositional skills of sequence-to-sequence recurrent networks. In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2018, Stockholmsmässan, Stockholm, Sweden, July 10-15, 2018, volume 80 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 2879–2888. PMLR. Andrew K Lampinen, Ishita Dasgupta, Stephanie CY Chan, Kory Matthewson, Michael Henry Tessler, Antonia Creswell, James L McClelland, Jane X Wang, and Felix Hill. 2022. Can language models learn from explanations in context? In *Findings of the* Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022. Edward H Levi. 2013. *An introduction to legal reasoning*. University of Chicago Press. Aitor Lewkowycz, Anders Andreassen, David Dohan, Ethan Dyer, Henryk Michalewski, Vinay Ramasesh, Ambrose Slone, Cem Anil, Imanol Schlag, Theo Gutman-Solo, et al. 2022. Solving quantitative reasoning problems with language models. ArXiv preprint, abs/2206.14858. Belinda Z. Li, Maxwell Nye, and Jacob Andreas. 2021. Implicit representations of meaning in neural language 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 1813–1827, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Shiyang Li, Jianshu Chen, Yelong Shen, Zhiyu Chen, Xinlu Zhang, Zekun Li, Hong Wang, Jing Qian, Baolin Peng, Yi Mao, et al. 2022a. Explanations from large language models make small reasoners better. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2210.06726. Yifei Li, Zeqi Lin, Shizhuo Zhang, Qiang Fu, Bei Chen, Jian-Guang Lou, and Weizhu Chen. 2022b. On the advance of making language models better reasoners. ArXiv preprint, abs/2206.02336. Bill Yuchen Lin, Wangchunshu Zhou, Ming Shen, Pei Zhou, Chandra Bhagavatula, Yejin Choi, and Xiang Ren. 2020. CommonGen: A constrained text generation challenge for generative commonsense reasoning. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020*, pages 1823–1840, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Wang Ling, Dani Yogatama, Chris Dyer, and Phil Blunsom. 2017. Program induction by rationale generation: Learning to solve and explain algebraic word problems. In *Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics* (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 158–167, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. Chenzhengyi Liu, Jie Huang, Kerui Zhu, and Kevin Chen-Chuan Chang. 2022a. Dimongen: Diversified generative commonsense reasoning for explaining concept relationships. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2212.10545. Jiachang Liu, Dinghan Shen, Yizhe Zhang, Bill Dolan, Lawrence Carin, and Weizhu Chen. 2022b. What makes good in-context examples for GPT-3? In Proceedings of Deep Learning Inside Out (DeeLIO 2022): The 3rd Workshop on Knowledge Extraction and Integration for Deep Learning Architectures, pages 100–114, Dublin, Ireland and Online. 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. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/1907.11692. Pan Lu, Swaroop Mishra, Tony Xia, Liang Qiu, KaiWei Chang, Song-Chun Zhu, Oyvind Tafjord, Peter Clark, and Ashwin Kalyan. 2022. Learn to explain: Multimodal reasoning via thought chains for science question answering. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*. Aman Madaan, Shuyan Zhou, Uri Alon, Yiming Yang, and Graham Neubig. 2022. Language models of code are few-shot commonsense learners. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). Lucie Charlotte Magister, Jonathan Mallinson, Jakub Adamek, Eric Malmi, and Aliaksei Severyn. 2022. Teaching small language models to reason. ArXiv preprint, abs/2212.08410. Christopher D Manning. 2022. Human language understanding & reasoning. *Daedalus*, 151(2):127–138. Gary Marcus. 2020. The next decade in ai: four steps towards robust artificial intelligence. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2002.06177. Conor McHugh and Jonathan Way. 2018. What is reasoning? *Mind*, 127(505):167–196. 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, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Sewon Min, Victor Zhong, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2019. Multi-hop reading comprehension through question decomposition and rescoring. In *Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of* the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6097–6109, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Kanishka Misra, Julia Taylor Rayz, and Allyson Ettinger. 2022. A property induction framework for neural language models. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2205.06910. Melanie Mitchell. 2021. Abstraction and analogymaking in artificial intelligence. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1505(1):79–101. Linyong Nan, Chiachun Hsieh, Ziming Mao, Xi Victoria Lin, Neha Verma, Rui Zhang, Wojciech Krysci ´ nski, ´ Hailey Schoelkopf, Riley Kong, Xiangru Tang, Mutethia Mutuma, Ben Rosand, Isabel Trindade, Renusree Bandaru, Jacob Cunningham, Caiming Xiong, Dragomir Radev, and Dragomir Radev. 2022. FeTaQA: Free-form table question answering. *Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, 10:35–49. Maxwell Nye, Anders Johan Andreassen, Guy Gur-Ari, Henryk Michalewski, Jacob Austin, David Bieber, David Dohan, Aitor Lewkowycz, Maarten Bosma, David Luan, Charles Sutton, and Augustus Odena. 2022. Show your work: Scratchpads for intermediate computation with language models. In Deep Learning for Code Workshop. OpenAI. 2022. Chatgpt: Optimizing language models for dialogue. *OpenAI*. John Arthur Passmore. 1961. Philosophical reasoning. Panupong Pasupat and Percy Liang. 2015. Compositional semantic parsing on semi-structured tables. 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 1470– 1480, Beijing, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Arkil Patel, Satwik Bhattamishra, 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, pages 2080–2094, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ethan Perez, Patrick Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Kyunghyun Cho, and Douwe Kiela. 2020. Unsupervised question decomposition for question answering. In *Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods* in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 8864–8880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xinyu Pi, Qian Liu, Bei Chen, Morteza Ziyadi, Zeqi Lin, Yan Gao, Qiang Fu, Jian-Guang Lou, and Weizhu Chen. 2022. Reasoning like program executors. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). Steven T Piantasodi and Felix Hill. 2022. Meaning without reference in large language models. *ArXiv* preprint, abs/2208.02957. Ofir Press, Muru Zhang, Sewon Min, Ludwig Schmidt, Noah A Smith, and Mike Lewis. 2022. Measuring and narrowing the compositionality gap in language models. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2210.03350. Ben Prystawski, Paul Thibodeau, and Noah Goodman. 2022. Psychologically-informed chain-of-thought prompts for metaphor understanding in large language models. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2209.08141. Shuofei Qiao, Yixin Ou, Ningyu Zhang, Xiang Chen, Yunzhi Yao, Shumin Deng, Chuanqi Tan, Fei Huang, and Huajun Chen. 2022. Reasoning with language model prompting: A survey. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2212.09597. Alec Radford, Karthik Narasimhan, Tim Salimans, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2018. Improving language understanding by generative pre-training. 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. Jack W Rae, Sebastian Borgeaud, Trevor Cai, Katie Millican, Jordan Hoffmann, Francis Song, John Aslanides, Sarah Henderson, Roman Ring, Susannah Young, et al. 2021. Scaling language models: Methods, analysis & insights from training gopher. ArXiv preprint, abs/2112.11446. Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, Peter J Liu, et al. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. *J. Mach. Learn. Res.*, 21(140):1–67. Nazneen Fatema Rajani, Bryan McCann, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2019. Explain yourself! leveraging language models for commonsense reasoning. In *Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 4932–4942, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yasaman Razeghi, Robert L Logan IV, Matt Gardner, and Sameer Singh. 2022. Impact of pretraining term frequencies on few-shot reasoning. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2202.07206. Subhro Roy and Dan Roth. 2015. Solving general arithmetic word problems. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1743–1752, Lisbon, Portugal. Association for Computational Linguistics. Laura Ruis, Akbir Khan, Stella Biderman, Sara Hooker, Tim Rocktäschel, and Edward Grefenstette. 2022. Large language models are not zero-shot communicators. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2210.14986. Jacob Russin, Randall C O'Reilly, and Yoshua Bengio. 2020. Deep learning needs a prefrontal cortex. Work Bridging AI Cogn Sci, 107:603–616. Abulhair Saparov and He He. 2022. Language models are greedy reasoners: A systematic formal analysis of chain-of-thought. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2210.01240. Teven Le Scao, Angela Fan, Christopher Akiki, Ellie Pavlick, Suzana Ilic, Daniel Hesslow, Roman ´ Castagné, Alexandra Sasha Luccioni, François Yvon, Matthias Gallé, et al. 2022. Bloom: A 176bparameter open-access multilingual language model. ArXiv preprint, abs/2211.05100. Freda Shi, Mirac Suzgun, Markus Freitag, Xuezhi Wang, Suraj Srivats, Soroush Vosoughi, Hyung Won Chung, Yi Tay, Sebastian Ruder, Denny Zhou, et al. 2022. Language models are multilingual chain-of-thought reasoners. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2210.03057. Kumar Shridhar, Alessandro Stolfo, and Mrinmaya Sachan. 2022. Distilling multi-step reasoning capabilities of large language models into smaller models via semantic decompositions. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2212.00193. Chan Hee Song, Jiaman Wu, Clayton Washington, Brian M Sadler, Wei-Lun Chao, and Yu Su. 2022. Llm-planner: Few-shot grounded planning for embodied agents with large language models. *ArXiv* preprint, abs/2212.04088. 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 preprint*, abs/2206.04615. Mirac Suzgun, Nathan Scales, Nathanael Schärli, Sebastian Gehrmann, Yi Tay, Hyung Won Chung, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Quoc V Le, Ed H Chi, Denny Zhou, et al. 2022. Challenging big-bench tasks and whether chain-of-thought can solve them. *ArXiv* preprint, abs/2210.09261. Alon Talmor and Jonathan Berant. 2018. The web as a knowledge-base for answering complex questions. 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 641–651, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alon Talmor, Jonathan Herzig, Nicholas Lourie, and Jonathan Berant. 2019. CommonsenseQA: A question answering challenge targeting commonsense knowledge. 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 4149–4158, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alon Talmor, Oyvind Tafjord, Peter Clark, Yoav Goldberg, and Jonathan Berant. 2020. Leap-of-thought: Teaching pre-trained models to systematically reason over implicit knowledge. In *Advances in Neural* Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 6-12, 2020, virtual. Ross Taylor, Marcin Kardas, Guillem Cucurull, Thomas Scialom, Anthony Hartshorn, Elvis Saravia, Andrew Poulton, Viktor Kerkez, and Robert Stojnic. 2022. Galactica: A large language model for science. *ArXiv* preprint, abs/2211.09085. Karthik Valmeekam, Alberto Olmo, Sarath Sreedharan, and Subbarao Kambhampati. 2022. Large language models still can't plan (a benchmark for llms on planning and reasoning about change). In *NeurIPS 2022* Foundation Models for Decision Making Workshop. Boshi Wang, Xiang Deng, and Huan Sun. 2022a. Iteratively prompt pre-trained language models for chain of thought. In The 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods for Natural Language Processing. Boshi Wang, Sewon Min, Xiang Deng, Jiaming Shen, You Wu, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Huan Sun. 2022b. Towards understanding chain-of-thought prompting: An empirical study of what matters. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2212.10001. Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, and Denny Zhou. 2022c. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2203.11171. Peter C Wason. 1968. Reasoning about a rule. *Quarterly journal of experimental psychology*, 20(3):273– 281. Peter Cathcart Wason and Philip Nicholas JohnsonLaird. 1972. Psychology of reasoning: Structure and content, volume 86. Harvard University Press. Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Rishi Bommasani, Colin Raffel, Barret Zoph, Sebastian Borgeaud, Dani Yogatama, Maarten Bosma, Denny Zhou, Donald Metzler, et al. 2022a. Emergent abilities of large language models. Transactions on Machine Learning Research. Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, brian ichter, Fei Xia, Ed H. Chi, Quoc V Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022b. Chain of thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. Yixuan Weng, Minjun Zhu, Shizhu He, Kang Liu, and Jun Zhao. 2022. Large language models are reasoners with self-verification. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2212.09561. Sarah Wiegreffe, Jack Hessel, Swabha Swayamdipta, Mark Riedl, and Yejin Choi. 2022. Reframing human-AI collaboration for generating free-text explanations. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 632–658, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Zonglin Yang, Li Dong, Xinya Du, Hao Cheng, Erik Cambria, Xiaodong Liu, Jianfeng Gao, and Furu Wei. 2022. Language models as inductive reasoners. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2212.10923. Xi Ye and Greg Durrett. 2022. The unreliability of explanations in few-shot prompting for textual reasoning. Advances in neural information processing systems. Ping Yu, Tianlu Wang, Olga Golovneva, Badr Alkhamissy, Gargi Ghosh, Mona Diab, and Asli Celikyilmaz. 2022. Alert: Adapting language models to reasoning tasks. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2212.08286. Eric Zelikman, Yuhuai Wu, Jesse Mu, and Noah Goodman. 2022. STar: Bootstrapping reasoning with reasoning. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*. Susan Zhang, Stephen Roller, Naman Goyal, Mikel Artetxe, Moya Chen, Shuohui Chen, Christopher Dewan, Mona Diab, Xian Li, Xi Victoria Lin, et al. 2022a. Opt: Open pre-trained transformer language models. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2205.01068. Zhuosheng Zhang, Aston Zhang, Mu Li, and Alex Smola. 2022b. Automatic chain of thought prompting in large language models. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2210.03493. Shen Zheng, Jie Huang, and Kevin Chen-Chuan Chang. 2023. Why does chatgpt fall short in providing truthful answers? *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2304.10513. Denny Zhou, Nathanael Schärli, Le Hou, Jason Wei, Nathan Scales, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Olivier Bousquet, Quoc Le, and Ed Chi. 2022a. Least-to-most prompting enables complex reasoning in large language models. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2205.10625. Fan Zhou, Haoyu Dong, Qian Liu, Zhoujun Cheng, Shi Han, and Dongmei Zhang. 2022b. Reflection of thought: Inversely eliciting numerical reasoning in language models via solving linear systems. ArXiv preprint, abs/2210.05075. Hattie Zhou, Azade Nova, Hugo Larochelle, Aaron Courville, Behnam Neyshabur, and Hanie Sedghi. 2022c. Teaching algorithmic reasoning via incontext learning. *ArXiv preprint*, abs/2211.09066. Corinne Zimmerman. 2000. The development of scientific reasoning skills. *Developmental review*, 20(1):99–149. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? See the limitation section 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 section ✓ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? We wrote part of the appendix with ChatGPT assistance (e.g., to generate an initial description for commonsense reasoning). The generated text is carefully revised and examined by the authors. ## B **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Not applicable. Left blank. B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Not applicable. 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.? 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. Not applicable. Left blank. ## C ✗ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Left blank. C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? Not applicable. 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? Not applicable. 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.)? 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.? 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.

tahri-etal-2023-transitioning

Transitioning from benchmarks to a real-world case of information-seeking in Scientific Publications

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.68

Although recent years have been marked by incredible advances in the whole development process of NLP systems, there are still blind spots in characterizing what is still hampering real-world adoption of models in knowledge-intensive settings. In this paper, we illustrate through a real-world zero-shot text search case for information seeking in scientific papers, the masked phenomena that the current process of measuring performance might not reflect, even when benchmarks are, in appearance, faithfully representative of the task at hand. In addition to experimenting with TREC-COVID and NFCorpus, we provide an industrial, expert-carried/annotated, case of studying vitamin B{'}s impact on health. We thus discuss the misalignment between solely focusing on single-metric performance as a criterion for model choice and relevancy as a subjective measure for meeting a user{'}s need.

# Transitioning From Benchmarks To A Real-World Case Of Information-Seeking In Scientific Publications Chyrine Tahri ♣,♢ Aurore Bochnakian ♢ Patrick Haouat ♢ **Xavier Tannier** ♣ ♣ Sorbonne Université, Inserm, Université Sorbonne Paris-Nord, LIMICS, Paris, France ♢ ERDYN, Paris, France {chyrine.tahri, xavier.tannier}@sorbonne-universite.fr {aurore.bochnakian, patrick.haouat}@erdyn.fr ## Abstract Although recent years have been marked by incredible advances in the whole development process of NLP systems, there are still blind spots in characterizing what is still hampering real-world adoption of models in knowledgeintensive settings. In this paper, we illustrate through a real-world zero-shot text search case for information seeking in scientific papers, the masked phenomena that the current process of measuring performance might not reflect, even when benchmarks are, in appearance, faithfully representative of the task at hand. In addition to experimenting with TREC-COVID and NFCorpus, we provide an industrial, expertcarried/annotated, case of studying vitamin B's impact on health. We thus discuss the misalignment between solely focusing on single-metric performance as a criterion for model choice and relevancy as a subjective measure for meeting a user's need. ## 1 Introduction Scientific publications are one of the primary means by which researchers disseminate their findings and discoveries to the community, but the amount of information to go through can easily become daunting and challenging. Exploratory search, *i.e,* the process of conducting broad and open-ended searches to gain a better understanding of a research topic, is the type of search task that scientists typically spend the most time on. Unfortunately, specialized search engines designed for scientists only partially support this type of task, leaving researchers with limited options for efficiently accessing and extracting relevant information from the vast amount of available literature. We are however currently standing at an age of redefining the way we seek information as we make great advances in the whole development cycle of NLP technologies aiming to solve knowledgeintensive tasks. To this end, benchmarks constitute the backbone of this process and fundamentally influence the way we measure progress and identify where future research efforts should be focused. These datasets, almost solely, put the emphasis on performance-driven comparison and create an impression of reliable estimates of progress at a task scale, whereas, in reality, they might not be informative about the way the models would solve human problems or help solve them. In this paper, we illustrate an example of transitioning from two biomedical IR benchmarks, *i.e,* NFCorpus and TREC-COVID, to a practical case of seeking information about a specific topic in scientific publications: vitamin B's impact on human health. In this context, we provide an expertannotated collection of relevance judgements on 1811 publications related to vitamin B and health. Our goal is to assess how models' comparison on benchmarks is meaningful to solving/assisting the expert seeking such information. We thus show through a zero-shot setting that narrowing the comparison down to a single metric might not be relevant to users' needs, even when a real-world case presents similarities with widely-used benchmarks. Our contributions can be summarized as follows: 1. we provide a real-world case of informationseeking in scientific publications that does not drift away from prominent benchmarks' characteristics, 2. we test in a zero-shot setting a few SOTA models reflecting the current paradigm in NLP and IR and we give an interpretation of their behavior in our case compared to the benchmarks, and 3. we discuss based on our observations the masked phenomena that the current process of evaluation might not reflect. ## 2 Background 2.1 Information-Seeking And Relevance Information-seeking strategies described by Belkin et al. (1995) represent how a searcher might use 1066 different methods and resources and have different aims. The broad information-seeking behavior of scientists is usually regarded as an exploratory search problem (Meho and Tibbo, 2003; Athukorala et al., 2013; Nedumov and Kuznetsov, 2019). When searching for information in scientific publications, experts have specific information needs, and they seek information that is relevant to those needs. Effective search systems aim to retrieve highly relevant information and present it to the user in a way that is easy to understand and use. To this end, relevance refers to the degree to which a piece of information satisfies the information need of the seeker. There is however a certain degree of variability in the perception of relevance for a given task (Soufan et al., 2022). Previous work argues that there is a strong relationship between the task singularity, the task carrier, and the type of expected relevance, leading to significant variability of performance levels across tasks (Zhang, 2014; Tamine et al., 2015; Hoeber and Storie, 2022). Relevance can therefore be considered as a subjective measure that depends on both the informationseeker as well as the environment they seek in. ## 2.2 **Semantic Search On Scientific Publications** In the first steps of information seeking in scientific papers, the user may not have a clear understanding or ability to precisely articulate their information need (Vakkari, 2005) thus requiring a search system to understand the meaning behind the query and the content of the documents, rather than just matching the query terms with the terms in the papers. To this end, semantic search on scientific papers refers to the ability of a system to understand the meaning of the query and the content of the scientific papers and match them based on their semantic similarity. In practice, given a collection of scientific papers1 C, the goal is to rank the most relevant subset of candidate papers R ⊆ C by relatedness to q, i.e, R = {p ∈ C|*relevance*q(p)}. A common approach to measuring the similarity between the query q embeddings and candidate paper p embeddings. The papers with the highest similarity scores are considered the most similar to the query and are thus returned at the top of the search results. Among the recent research directions, there has been a focus on learning representations of sci-1In industrial contexts, the collection is usually searched/built beforehand, for instance by querying specialized databases like PubMed with keywords broadly expressing the information need. entific documents that can be used as rich input features for downstream tasks, thus alleviating the need for further fine-tuning (Cohan et al., 2020; Parisot and Zavrel, 2022; Singh et al., 2022). Zero-shot robustness directions continued to show promising results as well, with state-of-the-art being dominated by models optimized to resist to natural dataset shifts (Yu et al., 2022). ## 2.3 Evaluation Paradigm Benchmarks are designed to replicate tasks and are useful for providing a standard method of comparison, reproducibility, and a concise way of tracking progress. For search on scientific papers, a widely adopted paradigm is to provide relevance annotations and evaluate model performance with top-k metrics, notably the Normalised Cumulative Discount Gain @k (Wang et al., 2013) which provides a good balance suitable for tasks involving binary and graded relevance judgements. Nonetheless, there are some concerns with this evaluation methodology. It has long been argued that information seeking/retrieval is or should be considered as an interactive process with human involvement (Cool and Belkin, 2002; Järvelin, 2011; Shah and Bender, 2022) where a user is more likely to navigate through different information-seeking strategies during a search session (Hoeber et al., 2019). Current benchmarks are however non-interactive, whereas the information-seeking process is or should be considered an interactive process with human involvement. To this end, models that are deployed for interactive purposes should be evaluated as such (Lee et al., 2022). Further, top-k metrics assume that lower ranks are not of interest, with benchmarks usually2evaluating on k=10. This contributed to favoring speed and convenience, but in such knowledge-intensive settings like searching about a particular topic in scientific papers, the priority is to fill in the gaps of knowledge of the information-seeker (Hassan Awadallah et al., 2014). Such small values of k present a very strong assumption on the quantity of information an expert requires to study their subject. We argue in the rest of the paper that such a method may not be ideal for evaluating systems that involve users in expert search situations, as it may not fully account for factors such as the user's interests and expertise when assessing relevance. ## 3 Experimental Setup In this section, we provide a description of our experimental setting of transitioning from information-seeking benchmarks on scientific papers to an industrial exploratory search about vitamin B's impact on health. ## 3.1 Datasets TREC-COVID (Voorhees et al., 2021) is a test collection leveraging the TREC framework that aimed to address the search needs of clinicians and biomedical researchers during the COVID-19 pandemic, thus laying the groundwork for improved search systems in future public health emergencies. The document set is the one provided by CORD19 (Wang et al., 2020), which consists of new and historical publications on coronaviruses. TRECCOVID aims to rank papers in response to textual search queries and contains 50 queries with 69,318 candidate papers cumulatively judged by relevance. NFCorpus (Boteva et al., 2016) is a Medical Information Retrieval data set on nutrition facts where queries are harvested from NutritionFacts.org site and candidate documents are medical research papers mostly from PubMed. We use the dataset as it is contained in the BEIR benchmark (Thakur et al., 2021): 323 queries and 3633 candidate documents. Practical case: Vitamin B's impact on health We present a practical case study where an expert in immunology seeks to study the effects of vitamin B on human health. A corpus of candidate papers was retrieved from PubMed with the following query: ("vitamin B"[Title/Abstract]) AND (health[Title/Abstract] OR growth[Title/Abstract]), which resulted in 1811 papers3, out of which the expert identified 598 relevant documents (33%). Relevance judgement was carried out in two steps: 1. Search on title relevance: if a title is obviously out of scope, the expert does not investigate the abstract. Similarly, if the title is evidently in scope, the abstract is not judged. 2. Search on abstract relevance: the expert reads in detail and identifies the type of study that was carried out. On the models' side, the query used for ranking is: How do vitamins B impact health? Our vitamin B case has some similarities in nature 3Retrieved in December 2022. All papers are in English. with both NFCorpus and TREC-COVID (although not identical). While identifying and analyzing discrepancies between benchmarks and use-case results can provide valuable insights for improving the performance of models in practical real-world use, it can be difficult to know for certain whether a benchmark is representative of a real-world task, as this requires a careful investigation of the data, input format, expert input, and evaluation metrics. ## 3.2 Models & Frameworks Transformer-based models have gained widespread popularity as retrieval models, due to their capability of acquiring semantic representations. We use **BM25** as a generalizable baseline (Thakur et al., 2021) and test two sets of neural models that we port to sentence-transformers (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019) format known for its efficiency in semantic search tasks (Muennighoff, 2022): 1. LMs pre-trained for scientific text similarity: SPECTER (Cohan et al., 2020), **SciNCL** (Ostendorff et al., 2022), and **ASPIRE** (Mysore et al., 2022). All three have been trained with the intuition that learned scientific document representations can be substantially improved through contrastive learning objectives. 2. Robust models in zero-shot settings, **COCODR** (Yu et al., 2022) and **monoT5** (Nogueira et al., 2020), both transferred from MS-MARCO4. Finally, we use Haystack5as a framework and ElasticSearch to index embeddings along the papers. We did not alter the original trainings of models. ## 4 Results & Discussion We report in Table 1 the average nDCG@10 of the different models on both NFCorpus and TRECCOVID, as well as our use case. We experiment with three strategies of searching: based on title relevance, on abstract relevance, and titles and abstracts appended6. NFCorpus BM25 is leading on the three strategies, followed by scientific LMs mostly dominating the general robust models. The low scores (compared to the other datasets) can be *partially* explained with the fact that the percentage of relevant articles is smaller for most queries (≤1-2%). All models, with the exception of BM25 and 4https://microsoft.github.io/msmarco/ 5https://github.com/deepset-ai/haystack 6Separated with [SEP] token. | NFCorpus | TREC-COVID | Vitamin B & Health | | | | | | | | |----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------|----------------------|-------|-------|----------|-------|-------|----------|-------| | Search on | Title | Abstract | T+Abs | Title | Abstract | T+Abs | Title | Abstract | T+Abs | | Lexical BM25 | 0.335 | 0.375 | 0.380 | 0.579 | 0.646 | 0.659 | 0.496 | 0.06 | 0.066 | | Learned Representations on Scientific Text SPECTER 0.155 0.156 0.161 | 0.654 | 0.631 | 0.66 | 0.621 | 0.402 | 0.77 | | | | | SciNCL | 0.207 | 0.182 | 0.195 | 0.68 | 0.635 | 0.657 | 0.534 | 0.637 | 0.70 | | ASPIRE | 0.216 | 0.188 | 0.193 | 0.688 | 0.672 | 0.685 | 0.536 | 0.445 | 0.546 | | Transferred from MS MARCO COCO-DR 0.209 0.127 | 0.139 | 0.72 | 0.654 | 0.714 | 1.0 | 0.748 | 0.848 | | | | monoT5 | 0.114 | 0.044 | 0.046 | 0.468 | 0.512 | 0.513 | 0.538 | 0.863 | 0.87 | Table 1: Average NDCG@10, - denotes the best score while - denotes the worst performance. SPECTER, perform better on titles rather than assessing abstracts' relevance. TREC-COVID On titles and titles+abstracts, COCO-DR is the best-performing model, whereas ASPIRE slightly outperforms it on abstracts. Models' performances are quite consistent on this benchmark, with scientific LMs having close scores and mostly best performing on titles. TRECCOVID's queries are more detailed than the other two datasets. This might explain the coherence of results between models; there is more relevant information to judge on. Vitamin B & health Models' performance in our case seems to be divergent from what can be observed on the other two benchmarks. BM25's performance entirely drops with abstracts, which might be caused by the nomenclature of vitamin B (Appendix A) present in titles and abstracts. On the other hand, monoT5 outperforms all other models on strategies that include abstract relevance, whereas COCO-DR achieves perfect nDCG@10 on titles. Overall, our results show that models perform differently on datasets and suggest that there is an inconsistency in performance and difficulty in identifying the best model for seeking biomedical information in publications: if starting from NFCorpus, one would suggest using BM25 as a decent model for the vitamin B case, whereas if comparing on TREC-COVID, one would prefer COCODR and entirely leave out monoT5. In reality, the perfect nDCG@10 on titles of COCO-DR might suggest the best fit, but the model is not actually placing all the relevant documents at the smallest ranks: Figure 1 illustrates this and shows that the nDCG@10 metric is not reflecting how *"early"* relevant documents are suggested to the user (the tendency is the same on TREC-COVID (Appendix B) for SciNCL, COCO-DR, and monoT5). The differences of scores in Table 1 suggest a big gap in the performance of models, however, if we consider the entire set of relevant papers in the vitamin B case, SciNCL (ndcg@10=0.534) is cumulatively suggesting the relevant elements *"faster"* than COCO-DR (ndcg@10=1.0), making it a better assistance to the expert seeking information. ## 5 Discussion We further discuss in this section the misalignment between performance measures from the perspective of an expert seeking information in papers. Expert search strategy preferences Our expert expressed that they sort on titles for more speed, but abstract relevance remains the reference. The reason for this is that titles usually provide information on the study domain as a whole, and can be used to classify into big categories. The abstracts however are used when the title does not allow for immediate classification, since they contain the main question of the paper, the methodology, and the main results. Intuitively, models would find more relevance *"hints"* in abstracts, and thus have greater performance on search strategies that include them. This was rarely the case for all datasets, suggesting that many models might be better at matching shorter contexts (titles being closer to query length compared to abstracts). The success of information-seeking is a process As we previously mentioned, tasks that are complex, such as learning about a new topic, often require multiple search queries and may extend over multiple sessions. It has to be noted that our ex-  pert encountered 18 different themes out-of-scope  (Appendix A) when annotating the entire collection of papers. These themes are discovered during the exploration process, emphasizing the fact that information-seeking is an interactive process and that the reported metric (designed for speed and convenience of ranking systems) is neither informative about the presence of such themes nor about the corresponding response of the different models. As we mentioned in Section 2.1, relevance is a subjective measure. Our expert investigated the ranked lists returned by different models on the vitamin B use case and categorized the first 100 irrelevant documents for each. We observed that the models' sensitivity to different topics is not the same when measuring similarity. For instance, on titles, COCO-DR (best performance) struggled most with practice recommendations, while SciNCL misjudged the prevalence of B vitamin deficiencies the most. Further, this was also the case on abstracts (Appendix A) as monoT5 struggled most with the vitamin content of food/diet, while BM25 suggested irrelevant studies the most. We illustrate these differences in Figure 2: no agreement whatsoever between models about (ir)relevance of topics, which cannot be reflected by the NDCG@k measure. Such a disagreement further complicates the process of identifying the sources of differences, which are important to determine which model may be better suited for specific scenarios, given that such differences might have roots in the training data, model architectures, hyperparameters, or other factors. ## 6 Conclusion In this paper, we illustrated the misalignment between single-metric performance and relevancy in practical expert information seeking. Through a transition from two biomedical IR benchmarks to a case of an expert seeking information about vitamin B's impact on human health, we showed that the current process of measuring performance may not fully capture the challenges of the task at hand. Our observations emphasized the misalignment between relying on top-k ranking metrics and the true nature of the information-seeking process' success. To this end, we provide an extensive description of the use-case creation and relevance judgements to foster future reconciliation between corpus-based evaluations and users' search experience. ## Limitations We presented in this paper a real-world annotated example of seeking information in scientific publications. Even if the number of instances presented here is of the same order of magnitude as what is present in benchmarks, we presented only one query and its correspondent relevance judgements, provided by one expert, due to resource constraints. As we noted above, building a corpus dedicated to the exploration of a single information need does however correspond to a real industrial use case. Further, we favored the use of sentencetransformers format for all neural models for the sake of efficiency. We did not dive into providing the best-known performing models and did not consider optimizing them in our case, as overfitting to our data might induce errors in conclusions and low confidence in the generalizability of our observations. However, we do not guarantee that other models will not display more robustness to the transition presented in our paper. Finally, we did not conduct an extensive examination of the characteristics of the benchmarks as well as the real-world case that may be impacting performance such as the diversity of data. We believe that such investigations, in conjunction with the models' examination, might help better explain the models' behaviors and areas of weakness. ## Acknowledgements We would like to thank the reviewers for taking the time to provide such thoughtful and detailed feedback on our work. This work has been funded by the ANRT CIFRE convention N◦2019/1314 and ERDYN. ## References Kumaripaba Athukorala, Eve E. Hoggan, Anu Lehtiö, Tuukka Ruotsalo, and Giulio Jacucci. 2013. Information-seeking behaviors of computer scientists: Challenges for electronic literature search tools. In ASIS&T Annual Meeting. Nicholas J. Belkin, Colleen Cool, Adelheit Stein, and Ulrich Thiel. 1995. Cases, scripts, and informationseeking strategies: On the design of interactive information retrieval systems. Expert Systems With Applications, 9:379–395. Vera Boteva, Demian Gholipour, Artem Sokolov, and Stefan Riezler. 2016. A full-text learning to rank dataset for medical information retrieval. In *Advances in Information Retrieval*, pages 716–722, Cham. Springer International Publishing. Arman Cohan, Sergey Feldman, Iz Beltagy, Doug Downey, and Daniel Weld. 2020. SPECTER: Document-level representation learning using citation-informed transformers. In *Proceedings* of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2270–2282, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Colleen Cool and Nicholas Belkin. 2002. A classification of interactions with information. *Proceedings of* the Fourth International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science, pages 1–15. Ahmed Hassan Awadallah, Ryen W. White, Patrick Pantel, Susan T. Dumais, and Yi-Min Wang. 2014. Supporting complex search tasks. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM International Conference on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, CIKM '14, page 829–838, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. Orland Hoeber, Dolinkumar Patel, and Dale Storie. 2019. A study of academic search scenarios and information seeking behaviour. In *Proceedings of the* 2019 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval, CHIIR '19, page 231–235, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. Orland Hoeber and Dale Storie. 2022. Information seeking within academic digital libraries: A survey of graduate student search strategies. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, JCDL '22, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. Kalervo Järvelin. 2011. Ir research: Systems, interaction, evaluation and theories. *SIGIR Forum*, 45:17– 31. Mina Lee, Megha Srivastava, Amelia Hardy, John Thickstun, Esin Durmus, Ashwin Paranjape, Ines Gerard-Ursin, Xiang Lisa Li, Faisal Ladhak, Frieda Rong, Rose E. Wang, Minae Kwon, Joon Sung Park, Hancheng Cao, Tony Lee, Rishi Bommasani, Michael Bernstein, and Percy Liang. 2022. Evaluating human-language model interaction. Lokman I. Meho and Helen R. Tibbo. 2003. Modeling the information-seeking behavior of social scientists: Ellis's study revisited. *J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol.*, 54:570–587. Niklas Muennighoff. 2022. Sgpt: Gpt sentence embeddings for semantic search. Sheshera Mysore, Arman Cohan, and Tom Hope. 2022. Multi-vector models with textual guidance for finegrained scientific document similarity. In *Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational* Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4453–4470, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ya Nedumov and Sergey Kuznetsov. 2019. Exploratory search for scientific articles. *Programming and Computer Software*, 45:405–416. Rodrigo Nogueira, Zhiying Jiang, Ronak Pradeep, and Jimmy Lin. 2020. Document ranking with a pretrained sequence-to-sequence model. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 708–718, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Malte Ostendorff, Nils Rethmeier, Isabelle Augenstein, Bela Gipp, and Georg Rehm. 2022. Neighborhood contrastive learning for scientific document representations with citation embeddings. Mathias Parisot and Jakub Zavrel. 2022. Multiobjective representation learning for scientific document retrieval. In Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Scholarly Document Processing, pages 80–88, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. 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. Chirag Shah and Emily M. Bender. 2022. Situating search. In *ACM SIGIR Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval*, CHIIR '22, page 221–232, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. Amanpreet Singh, Mike D'Arcy, Arman Cohan, Doug Downey, and Sergey Feldman. 2022. Scirepeval: A multi-format benchmark for scientific document representations. Ayah Soufan, Ian Ruthven, and Leif Azzopardi. 2022. Searching the literature: an analysis of an exploratory search task. In *ACM SIGIR Conference on Human* Information Interaction and Retrieval, pages 146– 157. Lynda Tamine, Cécile Chouquet, and Thomas Palmer. 2015. Analysis of biomedical and health queries: Lessons learned from trec and clef evaluation benchmarks. *Journal of the Association for Information* Science and Technology, 66. Nandan Thakur, Nils Reimers, Andreas Rücklé, 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). Pertti Vakkari. 2005. Task-based information searching. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 37:413–464. Ellen Voorhees, Tasmeer Alam, Steven Bedrick, Dina Demner-Fushman, William R. Hersh, Kyle Lo, Kirk Roberts, Ian Soboroff, and Lucy Lu Wang. 2021. Trec-covid: Constructing a pandemic information retrieval test collection. *SIGIR Forum*, 54(1). Lucy Lu Wang, Kyle Lo, Yoganand Chandrasekhar, Russell Reas, Jiangjiang Yang, Doug Burdick, Darrin Eide, Kathryn Funk, Yannis Katsis, Rodney Michael Kinney, Yunyao Li, Ziyang Liu, William Merrill, Paul Mooney, Dewey A. Murdick, Devvret Rishi, Jerry Sheehan, Zhihong Shen, Brandon Stilson, Alex D. Wade, Kuansan Wang, Nancy Xin Ru Wang, Christopher Wilhelm, Boya Xie, Douglas M. Raymond, Daniel S. Weld, Oren Etzioni, and Sebastian Kohlmeier. 2020. CORD-19: The COVID-19 open research dataset. In *Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on NLP for COVID-19 at ACL 2020*, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yining Wang, Liwei Wang, Yuanzhi Li, Di He, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2013. A theoretical analysis of ndcg type ranking measures. In *Proceedings of the 26th* Annual Conference on Learning Theory, volume 30 of *Proceedings of Machine Learning Research*, pages 25–54, Princeton, NJ, USA. PMLR. Yue Yu, Chenyan Xiong, Si Sun, Chao Zhang, and Arnold Overwijk. 2022. Coco-dr: Combating distribution shifts in zero-shot dense retrieval with contrastive and distributionally robust learning. In *Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 1462– 1479. Yan Zhang. 2014. Searching for specific health-related information in medlineplus: Behavioral patterns and user experience. *Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology*, 65(1):53–68. Figure 3: Average count of relevant papers across queries in different ranges of k as ranked by titles relevance on   TREC-COVID. Black vertical lines show standard deviation through all queries for each range. ## A Vitamin B & Health We provide in this appendix further details about our real-world case that were partially discussed in the paper. Out-of-scope themes We list hereafter the outof-scope themes that were encountered during the annotation process: - Yeast, bacteria and plants - Measurement methods of vitamin B. - Prevalence of deficiencies. - Which foods bring which vitamin B and in which amounts. - Recommendations of public health policies. - Genetic polymorphism leading to different uses of B vitamins. - Cobalt (essential component of vitamin B12). - Farm animals (chicken, swine, cattle, fish). - Interaction of B vitamins with other drugs (such as oral contraceptives). - B vitamin derivatives (such as Pyridoxal 5'- phosphate, a derivative of B6). - Nutrient intake from different diets (vegan, vegetarian, omnivorus). - Effect of surgery on the levels of B vitamins. - Use of B vitamins to improve an in vitro process (such as in vitro growth of follicules). - Physicians targeted, about how to supplement patients. - Supplementing people and only looking at biomarkers in response. | Vitamin | Associated name | | | | |-----------|-----------------------|------|----|----| | B1 | Thiamin | | | | | B2 | Riboflavin | | | | | B3 | Niacin / Nicotinamide | | | | | B5 | Pantothenic | acid | / | Pan | | tothenate | | | | | | B6 | Pyridoxine | | | | | B7 | Biotin | | | | | B9 | Folic acid / Folate | | | | | B12 | Cobalamin | | | | Table 2: Nomenclatures for the different types of B vitamins. - Situations where B vitamins were given as placebo. - Microbial vitamin B metabolites; not related to human health. - Vitamin B17 (amygdalin). Nomenclatures The different names encountered in titles and abstracts associated with vitamin B are detailed in table 2. Irrelevant categories The out-of-scope themes are grouped into the categories described in table 3. The count per category discussed in section 5 is shown on figure 4. ## B Trec-Covid Figure 3 shows the count of relevant papers in different ranges of k as ranked by titles' relevance. In TREC-COVID, ranges of k differ for different queries, so we illustrate on the minimum range, *i.e,* 1842 documents. | Category | Definition | | | | |------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----|-----|----| | Vitamin B requirement | Studies on the requirement of B vitamins in populations, for instance pregnant women or elderly people. Evolution of the requirements depending on health situation or medication, for example contraceptive pill intake. | | | | | Practice recommendations | Papers on how to manage B vitamin intake or deficiencies, public policies of vitamin reinforcement in food, or specific food intake to cover vitamin requirements. | | | | | Vitamin content | of | | | | | food/diet | Papers measuring or estimating the vitamin content of different foods or diets, for instance the vegetarian or vegan diets. | | | | | Effect | of | an | | | | other vitamin | Studies on the effect of vitamins that are not B vitamins. | | | | | Effect in plants | Studies on B vitamins requirements, or effects, or supplementation in terrestrial plants, algae, or plankton. | | | | | Irrelevant | Effects of B vitamins on health | | | | | model | of animal models that are not relevant (all animals except preclinical in vivo studies on mice or rats). Studies on farm animals are excluded. | | | | | Prevalence | of | | | | | B vitamin deficiencies/ measurement of B vitamin in populations | Studies measuring B vitamins in populations. | | | | | Methodology for measurement | Papers describing B vitamin direct measurement tools, or extrapolation methods to infer B vitamin concentration from other parameters. | | | | | Methodology | Papers describing production | | | | | for production | tools, such as genetically modified yeast or bacteria, fermentation, chemical synthesis, and other methods. | | | | | Irrelevant | Irrelevant | but | not | categoriz | | able. | | | | | | study | | | | |  Table 3: Categories of wrong predictions encountered when analyzing the first 100 irrelevant papers ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Limitations section, after 6. conclusion. 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? 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 3. ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 3. 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)? We provide a datasheet for the data that we created as supplementary material. 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. Section 3.1 ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Sections 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? We did not alter any original trainings of the models that we use and cite. We did not run any experiments requiring a computational budget. 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? Not applicable. 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? Not applicable. 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.)? Section 3.2 D ✓ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Section 3.1 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. Annotators are among the authors of the paper and the annotation was carried as part of the research work itself. 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.

qin-etal-2023-cliptext

{CLIPT}ext: A New Paradigm for Zero-shot Text Classification

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.69

While CLIP models are useful for zero-shot vision-and-language (VL) tasks or computer vision tasks, little attention has been paid to the application of CLIP for language tasks. Intuitively, CLIP model have a rich representation pre-trained with natural language supervision, in which we argue that it is useful for language tasks. Hence, this work bridge this gap by investigating a CLIP model for zero-shot text classification. Specifically, we introduce CLIPText, a novel paradigm for zero-shot text classification, which reformulates zero-shot text classification into a text-image matching problem that CLIP can be applied to. In addition, we further incorporate prompt into CLIPText (Prompt-CLIPText) to better derive knowledge from CLIP. Experimental results on seven publicly available zero-shot text classification datasets show that both CLIPText and Prompt-CLIPText attain promising performance. Besides, extensive analysis further verifies that knowledge from CLIP can benefit zero-shot text classification task. We hope this work can attract more breakthroughs on applying VL pre-trained models for language tasks.

## Cliptext**: A New Paradigm For Zero-Shot Text Classification** Libo Qin1, Weiyun Wang2, Qiguang Chen3**, Wanxiang Che**3 1 School of Computer Science and Engineering 1 Central South University, China 2 OpenGVLab, Shanghai AI Laboratory, China 3Research Center for Social Computing and Information Retrieval 3Harbin Institute of Technology, China lbqin@csu.edu.cn, wangweiyun@pjlab.org.cn, {qgchen, car}@ir.hit.edu.cn ## Abstract While CLIP models are useful for zero-shot vision-and-language (VL) tasks or computer vision tasks, little attention has been paid to the application of CLIP for language tasks. Intuitively, CLIP model have a rich representation pre-trained with natural language supervision, in which we argue that it is useful for language tasks. Hence, this work bridge this gap by investigating a CLIP model for zero-shot text classification. Specifically, we introduce CLIPTEXT, a novel paradigm for zero-shot text classification, which reformulates zero-shot text classification into a text-image matching problem that CLIP can be applied to. In addition, we further incorporate prompt into CLIPTEXT (PROMPT-CLIPTEXT) to better derive knowledge from CLIP. Experimental results on seven publicly available zero-shot text classification datasets show that both CLIPTEXT and PROMPT-CLIPTEXT attain promising performance. Besides, extensive analysis further verifies that knowledge from CLIP can benefit zero-shot text classification task. We hope this work can attract more breakthroughs on applying VL pre-trained models for language tasks. ## 1 Introduction Understanding various modalities is one of the core goals of Artificial Intelligence. To achieve this, vision-and-language (VL) tasks such as visual question answering (Antol et al., 2015) and image caption (Chen et al., 2015) have emerged, aiming to test a system's ability to understand the semantics of both the visual world and natural language. Recently, CLIP (Radford et al., 2021), a cross-modality model pre-trained with 400M noisy image-text pairs collected from the Internet, has gained remarkable success on various VL tasks. In addition, CLIP shows strong *zero-shot* transfer capabilities on over 30 different existing computer vision (CV) datasets (e.g., image classification (Jia et al., 2021) and object detection (Gu et al.,  2021b)). In addition to success on CV tasks, various works begin to explore transferring knowledge of CLIP to other VL modality tasks. For example, Shen et al. (2021) demonstrate that serving CLIP as a strong visual encoder can benefit VL tasks in both pre-training and fine-tuning stage. Song et al. (2022) prove that CLIP can be considered as a strong few-shot learner for VL tasks by providing a comprehensive empirical study on visual question answering and visual entailment (Xie et al., 2019). Nevertheless, while significant recent progress has been made in applying CLIP to other VL and CV modality tasks, the same success has not yet been achieved in language tasks. In this work, we argue that CLIP was pre-trained with natural language supervision, which should be capable of helping 1077 language tasks. Motivated by this, this work aims to close this gap by studying this research question: can CLIP benefit language task? To this end, we provide a comprehensive investigation on zero-shot text classification task, aiming to studying how to transfer CLIP's zero-shot ability into the language task. Specifically, this work presents CLIPTEXT, a novel paradigm for zero-shot text classification. The key insight is that CLIPTEXT reformulates zero-shot text classification into a text-image matching problem, so that directly applying CLIP to zero-shot text classification can be achieved. As shown in Fig. 1, CLIPTEXT consists of procedure with two steps: (i) Label Mapping and (ii) Inference. Specifically, the Label Mapping step is used for mapping text classification label into a corresponding image, so that the text-image pairs can be constructed. Then, the inference step passes the generated textimage pairs into CLIP model, and the label with the highest alignment score is regarded as the prediction result. In addition, inspired by recent progress in prompt methods in natural language processing (Liu et al., 2021; Zhao and Schütze, 2021; Zhu et al., 2022; Hu et al., 2022; Qi et al., 2022), we further present PROMPT-CLIPTEXT by adding an additional semantic prompt word at the beginning of the text in CLIPTEXT, enabling model to better infer language knowledge from CLIP. Compared with previous methods, our method has the following advantages. First, some prior work (Yin et al., 2019) require additional NLI dataset to further train their zero-shot classification model. In contrast, our framework is capable of making full use of the powerful zero-shot capability of the CLIP without any extra pre-training. Second, we present a innovate perspective for zero-shot text classification, which can naturally leverage the additional vision information inferred from CLIP to benefit language tasks. Third, our framework is model-agnostic without any specific network design, thereby it can be easily extended to other VL pre-trained model. We first evaluate our approaches on the standard zero-shot text classification benchmark (Yin et al., 2019). Experimental results show that CLIPTEXT and PROMPT-CLIPTEXT achieves superior performance. In addition, we further evaluate CLIPTEXT on other four publicly available zero-shot text classification datasets to verify the generalization of CLIPTEXT and PROMPT-CLIPTEXT. In summary, contributions of this work are:  - To our knowledge, this is the first work to investigate how to transfer zero-shot capabilities of CLIP into language tasks. We hope this work will spur more researchers to rethink the role of VL model for language tasks; - We introduce CLIPTEXT, a novel paradigm for zero-shot text classification by reformulating it as a text-image matching problem. In addition, we further propose PROMPTCLIPTEXT to better infer knowledge from CLIP to zero-shot text classification; - Experiments on seven text classification datasets show the effectiveness of our framework. Extensive analysis further verify the generalization and superior of our approach. To promote the further research, codes are will be publicly available at https://github.com/ LightChen233/CLIPText. ## 2 Preliminaries 2.1 Clip CLIP (Contrastive Language-Image Pretraining) (Radford et al., 2021), an efficient and scalable approach to learn visual concepts from natural language supervision, has obtained surprisingly remarkable success on various of zero-shot computer vision tasks (Gu et al., 2021b). Instead of pre-training on traditional high-quality annotated data, CLIP is trained on 400 million noisy web-crawled image-text pairs, which is much easier to collect.  As shown in Fig. 2 (a), CLIP contains a visual encoder V and a text encoder T. Specifically, CLIP employs ResNet (He et al., 2016) or ViT (Dosovitskiy et al., 2020) as visual encoder backbone and uses transformer (Vaswani et al., 2017) as text encoder backbone. After text encoder and image encoder acquire text T(text) and image V(image) representation, a dot-product function (V(image) · T(text)) is further used for calculating similarity between the given text and image. Specifically, the normalized similarity score of matching image i with text j can be calculated by: $$\text{score}(i,j)=\frac{\exp(\beta\mathbb{V}(\text{image}_{i})\cdot\mathbb{T}(\text{text}_{j}))}{\sum_{k=1}^{N}\exp(\beta\mathbb{V}(\text{image}_{i})\cdot\mathbb{T}(\text{text}_{k}))},\tag{1}$$ where β is a hyperparameter; N denotes the number of batch samples. ## 2.2 Zero-Shot Text Classification To provide an intuitive understanding of zero-shot text classification, we first introduce the classic supervised text classification and then describe the key difference between the supervised paradigm and *zero-shot paradigm*. Supervised Text Classification Paradigm. In traditional *supervised text classification paradigm*, given training data Dtrain, validation data Ddev, test data Dtest, we first leverage Dtrain and Ddev to train a model in supervised manner, and then apply the trained model to Dtest, which can be denoted as: $$\begin{array}{r c l}{{{\mathcal M}}}&{{=}}&{{\mathrm{Train}({\mathcal D}_{\mathrm{train}},{\mathcal D}_{\mathrm{dev}}),}}\\ {{}}&{{Y}}&{{=}}&{{\mathrm{Test}({\mathcal M},{\mathcal D}_{\mathrm{test}}),}}\end{array}\qquad\qquad(2)$$ where M denotes the model trained on Dtrain and Ddev; Y represents the outputs of M . Zero-shot Text Classification Paradigm. In contrast to the supervised paradigm, following FitzGerald et al. (2022), zero-shot text classification model Mˆ does not require any training process (Dtrain), and can only access to the dev Ddev and test set Dtest. Model Mˆ can be directly applied to test set without any training process (Dtrain), which is formulated as: $$\hat{Y}=\mathrm{Test}(\hat{\mathcal{M}},\mathcal{D}_{\mathrm{test}}),\tag{4}$$ where Yˆ represents the outputs of zero-shot text classification. ## 3 Model This section illustrates how to solve the zero-shot text classification task with CLIP (see CLIPTEXT (§3.1) and PROMPT-CLIPTEXT (§3.2)). ## 3.1 Cliptext We convert the original text-label pairs in text classification into text-image pair to keep the CLIP original structure unchanged, To this end, CLIPTEXT consists of two step: (i) Step I Label mapping (§3.1.1) converts text label into image to build text-image pairs; (ii) Step II Inference (§3.1.2) passes the generated text-image pairs into CLIP to obtain the matching similarity score of each text-image pair and obtain the final zero-shot prediction results. ## 3.1.1 Step I: Label Mapping Given test set Dtest = (x (i), y (i)) N i=1 (N denotes the data number of test dataset), label mapping aims to convert the text label set V*Label* into the corresponding semantic alignment image label set V*Image* to build the text-image pairs. In our framework, for each text label y, we manually apply the google search engine directly to | Dataset | Type | Label Nums | Labels | |----------------|--------------------------|--------------|--------------------------------------------| | Yahoo! Answers | Topic classification | 10 | Health, Sports, ..., Politics & Government | | Emotion | Emotion classification | 10 | sad, joy, love,..., none | | Situation | Situation classification | 12 | search, evac, infra,..., crim., none | | AG's News | News categorization | 4 | World, Sports, Business, Sci/Tech. | | Snips | Intent detection | 7 | AddToPlaylist,..., SearchCreativeWork | | Trec | Question categorization | 6 | NUM, HUM,..., ENTY, DESC | | Subj | Opinion classification | 2 | objective, subjective | find the corresponding image according to the dev performance1: $$\mathbf{v}=\mathrm{LabelMapping}(\mathbf{y}).$$ Therefore, with the help of label mapping step, the text-label pairs Dtest = (x (i), y (i)) N i=1 can be mapped into text-image pairs Dtest = (x (i), v (i)) N i=1 where v ∈ V*Image*. ## 3.1.2 Step Ii: Inference Given the generated text-image pairs Dtest = (x (i), v (i)) N i=1, CLIP model can get a zero-shot prediction by: $$\text{Inference}(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{v})=\begin{cases}\max_{\mathbf{v}\in\mathcal{V}_{\text{Image}}}\{\mathbb{V}(\mathbf{x})\cdot\mathbb{T}(\mathbf{v})\}&\text{if}(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{v})\in\text{Single Label Task},\\ \{\mathbf{v}|\mathbb{V}\left(\mathbf{x}\right)\cdot\mathbb{T}\left(\mathbf{v}\right)>t,\,\mathbf{v}\in\mathcal{V}_{\text{Image}}\}&\text{otherwise}.\end{cases}\tag{6}$$ (6) where we select the label with the highest probability as the final prediction result in single label text classification task while we choose the labels greater than the threshold value t in multi-label classification. ## 3.2 Prompt-Cliptext Similar to CLIPTEXT, PROMPT-CLIPTEXT also contains Label Mapping and Inference step. ## 3.2.1 Step I: Label Mapping PROMPT-CLIPTEXT employ the same label mapping step to acquire the constructed text-image pairs Dtest = (x (i), v (i)) N i=1. ## 3.2.2 Step Ii: Inference Instead of directly passing the Dtest into CLIP, PROMPT-CLIPTEXT add an additional semantic prompt word at the beginning of input text x to generate a new prompt-guided text xˆ by: $${\hat{\mathbf{x}}}={\mathrm{concat}}({\mathrm{Prompt}},\mathbf{x}),$$ xˆ = concat(Prompt, x), (7) where Prompt denotes the task-specific hard prompt word for different zero-shot text classification datasets. Given the updated prompt-guided text-image pairs (xˆ (i), v (i)) N i=1, PROMPT-CLIPTEXT employ CLIP to obtain the final prediction by: $$\text{Inference}(\hat{\mathbf{x}},\mathbf{v})=\begin{cases}\max_{\mathbf{v}\in\mathcal{V}_{\text{Image}}}\{\mathbb{V}(\mathbf{\hat{x}})\cdot\mathbb{T}(\mathbf{v})\}&\text{if}(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{v})\in\text{Single Label Task},\\ \{\mathbf{v}\,|\mathbb{V}\,(\mathbf{\hat{x}})\cdot\mathbb{T}\,(\mathbf{v})>t,\,\mathbf{v}\in\mathcal{V}_{\text{Image}}\}&\text{otherwise}.\end{cases}\tag{8}$$ (8) Take the input text in Fig. 3 for example, the original input text in topic classification dataset x is {*What is an "imaginary number"...*} (Fig. 3 (a)), we insert an additional prompt word topic: to generate the prompt-guided text { topic*: What is an* "imaginary number"...}) (Fig. 3 (b)). The behind intuition is that prompt in PROMPT-CLIPTEXT can be regarded as a inductive prior knowledge to help the CLIP model to better understand the theme of text classification task and thus better transfer knowledge from CLIP to the language task. Specifically, the prompt word for topic classification, emotion classification, situation classification, intent detection, news categorization, opinion classification and question categorization are topic, interest, publication, type, clarify, caption and match, respectively. ## 4 Experiments 4.1 Experimental Datasets We first evaluate our approach on three standard zero-shot text classification benchmark, including: (1) **Topic classification**: Yin et al. (2019) choose Yahoo! Answers dataset (Zhang et al., 2015) to evaluate topic classification. It consists of 10 topic categories; (2) **Emotion classification**: The Unify Emotion dataset was released by Bostan and Klinger (2018). It includes 9 emotion types; (3) Situation classification: Situation Typing dataset released by Mayhew et al. (2019). It includes 11 situation types. To further demonstrate the generalization of our method, we take other four publicly available datasets, including: (1) **Intent detection**: We choose a wildly used intent detection benchmark Snips that is collected from the Snips personal voice assistant (Coucke et al., 2018), which contains seven intent labels; (2) **News categorization**: AG's news dataset (Conneau et al., 2017) is the most popular dataset for news categorization, which contains four news types; (3) **Opinion classification**: Subjectivity dataset (Subj) (Pang and Lee, 2005) from with two opinion categories; (4) **Question categorization**: Question dataset (TREC) (Li and Roth, 2002) contains six questions types. Detailed statistics of the datasets are summarized at Table 1. ## 4.2 Experimental Baselines We compare the performance of our approach with the following strong zero-shot text classification baselines: (1) Majority: This method directly adopts the most frequent label as output; (2) Word2Vec (Mikolov et al., 2013): This approach first uses the average embedding to represent input text and label, and then applies maximum cosine similarity to obtain the final output; (3) ESA (Chang et al., 2008): This method represents input text and label in the Wikipedia concept vector space, and then acquires final prediction output; (4) RTE (Yin et al., 2019): This method is the entailment-based approach that considers the input text and label as entailment problem. RTE employ train a entailment model based on bert-base-uncased with RTE dataset; (5) MNLI (Yin et al., 2019): Similar to RTE, this approach is a bert-base-uncased entailment model by pre-training on MNLI; (6) FEVER (Yin et al., 2019): Similar to RTE and MLNL, FEVER is the bert-base-uncased model pre-trained on FEVER dataset; (7) NSP (Ma et al., 2021): This method directly use next sentence prediction (NSP) pretraining task of BERT for zero-shot text classification. Specifically, it use the input text and text label as the sentence pair classification; (8) NSP (Reverse) (Ma et al., 2021): Since NSP is not predicting for a directional semantic entailment, Ma et al. (2021) also explore a variant with all pairs reversed and refer it to NSP (Reverse); (9) GPT-2 (Radford et al., 2019): We employ generative pre-trained model for zero-shot text classification tasks by directly generating each label output; For these datasets without reported results, we use the open-source released by Yin et al. (2019) and Ma et al. (2021) to obtain results. All experiments are conducted in GeForce GTX TITAN X, 2080Ti and 3080. ## 4.3 Experimental Results Following Yin et al. (2019) and Ma et al. (2021), we report label-wise weighted F1 for emotion and situtation datasets, and accuracy for other datasets. Experimental results are illustrated at Table 2, we have the following interesting observations: - Our framework obtains better performance against all baselines. Compared with the previous NSP-base (Reverse) model, CLIPTEXT obtains 4.6% improvements on AVG, which verifies our hypothesis that knowledge transferring from CLIP can benefit language task, even better than the knowledge from language itself pre-trained models. - We do not observe any improvement when we replace BERT-base model in NSP (Reverse) with BERT-large. Besides, CLIPTEXT beats NSP-large (Reverse) by 9.1% while using fewer parameters, indicating simply increasing parameters of pre-trained model cannot solve zero-shot text classification. - We observe that PROMPT-CLIPTEXT can outperform CLIPTEXT on six of seven datasets, which indicates the effectiveness of PROMPTCLIPTEXT and it can better infer knowledge | Model | Model Size | Yahoo! Answers | Emotion | Situation | AG's News | Snips | Trec | Subj | AVG | |--------------------------------------------|--------------|------------------|-----------|-------------|-------------|---------|--------|--------|-------| | Non pre-trained Language Models | | | | | | | | | | | Majority | - | 10.0 | 5.9 | 11.0 | 25.0 | 17.7 | - | - | - | | ESA (Chang et al., 2008) | - | 28.6 | 8.0 | 26.0 | 73.3 | 63.4 | - | - | - | | Word2Vec (Mikolov et al., 2013) | - | 35.7 | 6.9 | 15.6 | 44.1 | 63.6 | - | - | - | | Pre-trained Language Models | | | | | | | | | | | RTE (Yin et al., 2019) | 110M | 43.8 | 12.6 | 37.2 | 56.7 | 56.4 | 27.2† | 55.7† | 41.4 | | FEVER (Yin et al., 2019) | 110M | 40.1 | 24.7 | 21.0 | 78.3 | 69.4 | 31.8† | 56.8† | 46.0 | | MNLI (Yin et al., 2019) | 110M | 37.9 | 22.3 | 15.4 | 72.4 | 77.6 | 33.8† | 44.8† | 43.5 | | NSP-BERT-base (Ma et al., 2021) | 110M | 50.6 | 16.5 | 25.8 | 72.1 | 73.4 | 32.4† | 48.4† | 45.6 | | NSP-BERT-large (Ma et al., 2021) | 350M | 43.2† | 18.4† | 25.7† | 70.5† | 68.4† | 44.8† | 42.1† | 44.7 | | NSP-BERT-base (Reverse) (Ma et al., 2021) | 110M | 53.1 | 16.1 | 19.9 | 78.3 | 81.3 | 38.0† | 61.8† | 49.8 | | NSP-BERT-large (Reverse) (Ma et al., 2021) | 350M | 49.7† | 19.1† | 22.7† | 74.4† | 63.7† | 28.4† | 59.1† | 45.3 | | GPT-2 (Radford et al., 2019) | 124M | 18.7† | 12.5† | 11.8† | 62.3† | 18.9† | 15.2† | 51.4† | 27.3 | | CLIP Text Encoder (Radford et al., 2021) | 38M | 40.0† | 12.5† | 30.6† | 65.6† | 60.8† | 37.8† | 53.7† | 43.0 | | Pre-trained VL Models - Single Model | | | | | | | | | | | CLIPTEXT | 151M | 53.6 | 22.0 | 37.4 | 77.0 | 81.0 | 41.6 | 68.0 | 54.4 | | PROMPT-CLIPTEXT | 151M | 53.7 | 21.3 | 38.8 | 78.4 | 81.8 | 48.4 | 68.5 | 55.8 | | Pre-trained VL Models - Ensemble Model | | | | | | | | | | | CLIPTEXT (Ensemble Model) | 151M | 55.9 | 24.7 | 37.9 | 77.5 | 82.9 | 46.2 | 69.0 | 56.3 | | PROMPT-CLIPTEXT(Ensemble Model) | 151M | 56.1 | 23.4 | 39.6 | 79.4 | 84.7 | 51.6 | 74.1 | 58.4 | from CLIP to enhance zero-shot text classification. ## 4.4 Analysis To better understand our model, we provide comprehensive analysis to answer the following questions: (1) Whether the vision knowledge from CLIP benefits the language task? (2) Whether it be better to convert a label to multiple images and then ensemble them? (3) Why our approach can successfully perform zero-shot text classification? (4) What is the intuition behind of our approaches? (5) What is the impact of image selection? ## 4.4.1 Answer 1: Vision Knowledge Inferred From Clip Can Benefit Zero-Shot Text Classification In this section, we investigate whether the vision knowledge inferred from CLIP can benefit zeroshot text classification. To this end, we conduct experiments by directly encoding both text and label by CLIP Text Encoder and calculating the similarity score to predict the final results. We refer it to the CLIP Text Encoder. Table 2 (CLIP Text Encoder) illustrates the results. We observe that our framework surpasses CLIP Text Encoder by a large margin (54.4% vs. 43.0%), indicating that the image knowledge learned from CLIP text-image matching pretraining benefits zero-shot text classification tasks. ## 4.4.2 Answer 2: Ensemble Model Boosts Performance This section investigates the effectiveness of ensemble approach. Specifically, each text label x is converted into two corresponding images and we sum the two text-image alignment scores as the final prediction score. Table 2 (ensemble) shows the results. We observe that ensemble mode can consistently outperform the single model on the CLIPTEXT and PROMPT-CLIPTEXT, which suggests different images can provide different knowledge and views for text, thereby promoting the performance. ## 4.4.3 Answer 3: Why Cliptext**C Works** To analyze why our approaches work, we provide an intuitive visualization analysis on CLIPTEXT. We choose representations of each text from CLIP text encoder T and the corresponding image label from CLIP vision encoder V for visualization. Fig. 4 shows the t-SNE visualization output, where we observe that the image representation and the corresponding text representation are close    sadness ✘ Error … ✓ Correct C L I P to each other, which demonstrates that the powerful cross-alignment capabilities of CLIP, enabling the model to perform zero-shot text classification. ## 4.4.4 Answer 4: Qualitative Analysis To intuitively understand our approach, we conduct qualitative analysis by providing a case study in emotion classification task produced by CLIPTEXT and NSP (Reverse). Fig. 5 illustrates the vase study. Given the input text *"I felt frustrated , angry , utterly dejected."*, NSP Reverse model predicts the label angry incorrectly. We suspect that the spurious cues word angry in the text confuse the NSP Reverse model to predict angry. In contrast, our approach CLIPTEXT predicts the label sadness correctly. This further demonstrates that the rich information in the image can help our model to make a correct prediction compared with single text label in traditional zero-shot text classification model. ## 4.4.5 Answer 5: Impact Of Image Selection An interesting question arise is what is the impact of image selection in label mapping stage. To answer this question, for each text label, after obtaining M images returned from google search engine, we randomly choose one image from M images as the mapping image. Finally, we try 30 different experiments and obtain the standard deviation. Results are illustrated in Fig.6, which shows a slightly high standard deviation on each dataset. Therefore, future work can focus on how to automatically select label mapping, which is an interesting and important topic to investigate. ## 4.4.6 Potential Impact Recently, CLIP (a powerful vision-and-language (VL) model) has shown remarkable success on various zero-shot VL and compute vision tasks. Inspired by this, our work make the first attempt to investigate how to transfer knowledge of CLIP to language task. To achieve this, we introduce CLIP-  TEXT and PROMPT-CLIPTEXT, a novel paradigm for zero-shot text classification by reformulating it into a text-image matching problem. Our work demonstrates CLIP can be a good zero-shot learner in language task and we hope this work will attract more researchers to explore how to better leverage knowledge of VL model to help language tasks. ## 5 Related Work In this sectin, we discuss the related work of zeroshot text classification task and application of CLIP. ## 5.1 Zero-Shot Text Classification Task Zero-shot text classification allows model directly to make prediction without any training process, which gains increasing attention since it can greatly reduce human annotation efforts. Yin et al. (2019) introduce three zero-shot text classification benchmarks and propose some strong entailment-based baselines to facilitate this line of research. Puri and Catanzaro (2019) introduce a generative language model (e.g., GPT-2) for zero-shot text classification. Ma et al. (2021) explore the powerful zero-shot ability of BERT for zero-shot text classification, which achieves promising performance. Compared with their work, our approaches explore the zeroshot capacities of VL model (CLIP) for zero-shot text classification while their model focus on the natural language understanding models. ## 5.2 Application Of Clip CLIP (Radford et al., 2021), a powerful text-image cross-modality pre-trained model, has shown strong zero-shot capability on various downstream tasks. Gu et al. (2021a) apply CLIP to perform open-vocabulary object detection by detecting objects described by arbitrary text inputs rather than in the pre-defined categories. Portillo-Quintero et al. (2021) use CLIP for zero-shot video retrieval. Song et al. (2022) provide a comprehensive investigation on applying CLIP to zero-shot visual question answering and visual entailment. Subramanian et al. (2022) present a strong zero-shot baseline for referring expression comprehension. Su et al. (2022) combine CLIP and off-the-shelf language model for image-grounded text generation, which achieves promising performance. In contrast, our work investigate CLIP into zero-shot text classification and show knowledge from CLIP can benefit language task while their work mainly focusing on zero-shot computer vision or visionand-language tasks. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to explore CLIP for zero-shot text classification task. ## 6 Conclusion In this work, we studied how to transfer knowledge from CLIP into zero-shot text classification. To this end, we introduced a novel paradigm, CLIPTEXT and PROMPT-CLIPTEXT, for zero-shot text classification by reformulating it as a text-image matching problem. Experimental results demonstrated that CLIP can be a good zero-shot learner for text classification. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work to apply CLIP for zero-shot text classification task. We hope that our work will motivate further research on transferring knowledge from VL model (e.g., CLIP) to language tasks. ## Limitations We present some limitations of our approach, which can be investigated in the future: (1) Currently, our approaches need to manually choose image for each text label, which may cause the model to be sensitive to the images selected. Though the ensemble method can alleviate this problem to some extent, how to automatically map the text label into the corresponding image is an interesting research question to investigate. (2) Since CLIP was pre-trained on noisy web-crawled data on the Internet, our approaches are limited by pre-training data distribution of CLIP. Therefore, a potential future direction is to further pre-train CLIP on more general downstream task datasets. ## Acknowledgements This work was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China via grant 2020AAA0106501 and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) via grant 62236004 and 61976072. ## References Stanislaw Antol, Aishwarya Agrawal, Jiasen Lu, Margaret Mitchell, Dhruv Batra, C Lawrence Zitnick, and Devi Parikh. 2015. Vqa: Visual question answering. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 2425–2433. Laura-Ana-Maria Bostan and Roman Klinger. 2018. An analysis of annotated corpora for emotion classification in text. In *Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics*, pages 2104–2119, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ming-Wei Chang, Lev-Arie Ratinov, Dan Roth, and Vivek Srikumar. 2008. Importance of semantic representation: Dataless classification. In *Aaai*, volume 2, pages 830–835. Xinlei Chen, Hao Fang, Tsung-Yi Lin, Ramakrishna Vedantam, Saurabh Gupta, Piotr Dollár, and C Lawrence Zitnick. 2015. Microsoft coco captions: Data collection and evaluation server. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1504.00325. Alexis Conneau, Holger Schwenk, Loïc Barrault, and Yann Lecun. 2017. Very deep convolutional networks for text classification. In *Proceedings of the 15th* Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Volume 1, Long Papers, pages 1107–1116, Valencia, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alice Coucke, Alaa Saade, Adrien Ball, Théodore Bluche, Alexandre Caulier, David Leroy, Clément Doumouro, Thibault Gisselbrecht, Francesco Caltagirone, Thibaut Lavril, et al. 2018. Snips voice platform: an embedded spoken language understanding system for private-by-design voice interfaces. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.10190. Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, et al. 2020. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929. Jack FitzGerald, Christopher Hench, Charith Peris, Scott Mackie, Kay Rottmann, Ana Sanchez, Aaron Nash, Liam Urbach, Vishesh Kakarala, Richa Singh, et al. 2022. Massive: A 1m-example multilingual natural language understanding dataset with 51 typologically-diverse languages. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.08582. Xiuye Gu, Tsung-Yi Lin, Weicheng Kuo, and Yin Cui. 2021a. Open-vocabulary object detection via vision and language knowledge distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.13921. Xiuye Gu, Tsung-Yi Lin, Weicheng Kuo, and Yin Cui. 2021b. Zero-shot detection via vision and language knowledge distillation. *arXiv e-prints*, pages arXiv– 2104. Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2016. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In *Proceedings of the IEEE conference on* computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 770– 778. Shengding Hu, Ning Ding, Huadong Wang, Zhiyuan Liu, Jingang Wang, Juanzi Li, Wei Wu, and Maosong Sun. 2022. Knowledgeable prompt-tuning: Incorporating knowledge into prompt verbalizer for text classification. In *Proceedings of the 60th Annual* Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2225–2240, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Chao Jia, Yinfei Yang, Ye Xia, Yi-Ting Chen, Zarana Parekh, Hieu Pham, Quoc Le, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Zhen Li, and Tom Duerig. 2021. Scaling up visual and vision-language representation learning with noisy text supervision. In *International Conference on* Machine Learning, pages 4904–4916. PMLR. Xin Li and Dan Roth. 2002. Learning question classifiers. In COLING 2002: The 19th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Pengfei Liu, Weizhe Yuan, Jinlan Fu, Zhengbao Jiang, Hiroaki Hayashi, and Graham Neubig. 2021. Pretrain, prompt, and predict: A systematic survey of prompting methods in natural language processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.13586. Tingting Ma, Jin-Ge Yao, Chin-Yew Lin, and Tiejun Zhao. 2021. Issues with entailment-based zero-shot text classification. 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 786–796, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Stephen Mayhew, Tatiana Tsygankova, Francesca Marini, Zihan Wang, Jane Lee, Xiaodong Yu, Xingyu Fu, Weijia Shi, Zian Zhao, and Wenpeng Yin. 2019. Karthikeyan k, jamaal hay, michael shur, jennifer sheffield, and dan roth. University of pennsylvania lorehlt. Tomas Mikolov, Ilya Sutskever, Kai Chen, Greg S Corrado, and Jeff Dean. 2013. Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. Advances in neural information processing systems, 26. Bo Pang and Lillian Lee. 2005. Seeing stars: Exploiting class relationships for sentiment categorization with respect to rating scales. In *Proceedings of the* 43rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL'05), pages 115–124, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jesús Andrés Portillo-Quintero, José Carlos OrtizBayliss, and Hugo Terashima-Marín. 2021. A straightforward framework for video retrieval using clip. In *Mexican Conference on Pattern Recognition*, pages 3–12. Springer. Raul Puri and Bryan Catanzaro. 2019. Zero-shot text classification with generative language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.10165. Kunxun Qi, Hai Wan, Jianfeng Du, and Haolan Chen. 2022. Enhancing cross-lingual natural language inference by prompt-learning from cross-lingual templates. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1910–1923, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 8748–8763. PMLR. 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. Sheng Shen, Liunian Harold Li, Hao Tan, Mohit Bansal, Anna Rohrbach, Kai-Wei Chang, Zhewei Yao, and Kurt Keutzer. 2021. How much can clip benefit vision-and-language tasks? *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2107.06383. Haoyu Song, Li Dong, Wei-Nan Zhang, Ting Liu, and Furu Wei. 2022. Clip models are few-shot learners: Empirical studies on vqa and visual entailment. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2203.07190. Yixuan Su, Tian Lan, Yahui Liu, Fangyu Liu, Dani Yogatama, Yan Wang, Lingpeng Kong, and Nigel Collier. 2022. Language models can see: Plugging visual controls in text generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.02655. Sanjay Subramanian, Will Merrill, Trevor Darrell, Matt Gardner, Sameer Singh, and Anna Rohrbach. 2022. Reclip: A strong zero-shot baseline for referring expression comprehension. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2204.05991. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30. Ning Xie, Farley Lai, Derek Doran, and Asim Kadav. 2019. Visual entailment: A novel task for fine-grained image understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.06706. Wenpeng Yin, Jamaal Hay, and Dan Roth. 2019. Benchmarking zero-shot text classification: Datasets, evaluation and entailment approach. 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 3914–3923, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xiang Zhang, Junbo Zhao, and Yann LeCun. 2015. Character-level convolutional networks for text classification. Advances in neural information processing systems, 28. Mengjie Zhao and Hinrich Schütze. 2021. Discrete and soft prompting for multilingual models. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 8547–8555, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Qi Zhu, Bing Li, Fei Mi, Xiaoyan Zhu, and Minlie Huang. 2022. Continual prompt tuning for dialog state tracking. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1124–1137, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist 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? Section Limitation ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Section 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?** Section 4 Experiments ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 4 Experiments ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Section 4 Experiments ✓ 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 Experiments ✗ 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 the data we used are publicly and used safely by previous works. ✗ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? We will provide the documentation of our code and pre-trained models in our code repo. ✓ 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 Experiments ## 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 Experiments 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 3 Model and 4 Experiments ✓ 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 ✓ 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 Experiments 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.

wang-etal-2023-rethinking

Rethinking Dictionaries and Glyphs for {C}hinese Language Pre-training

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.70

We introduce CDBert, a new learning paradigm that enhances the semantics understanding ability of the Chinese PLMs with dictionary knowledge and structure of Chinese characters. We name the two core modules of CDBert as Shuowen and Jiezi, where Shuowen refers to the process of retrieving the most appropriate meaning from Chinese dictionaries and Jiezi refers to the process of enhancing characters{'} glyph representations with structure understanding. To facilitate dictionary understanding, we propose three pre-training tasks, i.e.„ Masked Entry Modeling, Contrastive Learning for Synonym and Antonym, and Example Learning. We evaluate our method on both modern Chinese understanding benchmark CLUE and ancient Chinese benchmark CCLUE. Moreover, we propose a new polysemy discrimination task PolyMRC based on the collected dictionary of ancient Chinese. Our paradigm demonstrates consistent improvements on previous Chinese PLMs across all tasks. Moreover, our approach yields significant boosting on few-shot setting of ancient Chinese understanding.

# Shuo Wén Ji ¯ **E Zì:** ˇ Rethinking Dictionaries and Glyphs for Chinese Language Pre-training Yuxuan Wang1,2,3, Jianghui Wang2, Dongyan Zhao1,2,3,4†**, Zilong Zheng**2,4† 1 Wangxuan Institute of Computer Technology, Peking University 2 Beijing Institute for General Artificial Intelligence (BIGAI) 3 Center for Data Science, AAIS, Peking University 4 National Key Laboratory of General Artificial Intelligence wyx@stu.pku.edu.cn, zhaody@pku.edu.cn, {wangjianghui,zlzheng}@bigai.ai https://github.com/patrick-tssn/CDBert ## Abstract We introduce CDBERT, a new learning paradigm that enhances the semantics understanding ability of the Chinese Pretrained Language Models (PLMs) with dictionary knowledge and structure of Chinese characters. We name the two core modules of CDBERT as Shuowen and Jiezi, where Shuowen refers to the process of retrieving the most appropriate meaning from Chinese dictionaries and Jiezi refers to the process of enhancing characters' glyph representations with structure understanding. To facilitate dictionary understanding, we propose three pre-training tasks, i.e., Masked Entry Modeling, Contrastive Learning for Synonym and Antonym, and Example Learning. We evaluate our method on both modern Chinese understanding benchmark CLUE and ancient Chinese benchmark CCLUE. Moreover, we propose a new polysemy discrimination task PolyMRC based on the collected dictionary of ancient Chinese. Our paradigm demonstrates consistent improvements on previous Chinese PLMs across all tasks. Moreover, our approach yields significant boosting on few-shot setting of ancient Chinese understanding. ## 1 Introduction Large-scale pre-trained language models (PLMs) such as BERT (Devlin et al., 2018) and GPT (Brown et al., 2020) have revolutionized various research fields in natural language processing (NLP) landscape, including language generation (Brown et al., 2020), text classification (Wang et al., 2018), language reasoning (Wei et al., 2022), etc. The *de facto* paradigm to build such LMs is to feed massive training corpus and datasets to a Transformer-based language model with billions of parameters. Apart from English PLMs, similar approaches have also been attempted in multilingual (Lample † Corresponding author: Dongyan Zhao, Zilong Zheng.  Wén and Conneau, 2019) and Chinese language understanding tasks (Sun et al., 2021b, 2019a). To enhance Chinese character representations, pioneer works have incorporated additional character information, including glyph (character's geometric shape), *pinyin* (character's pronunciation), and stroke (character's writing order) (Sun et al., 2021b; Meng et al., 2019). Nevertheless, there still exists a huge performance gap between concurrent stateof-the-art (SOTA) English PLMs and those on Chinese or other non-Latin languages (Cui et al., 2020), which leads us to rethink the central question: *What* are the unique aspects of Chinese that are essential to achieve human-level Chinese understanding? With an in-depth investigation of Chinese lan1089 guage understanding, this work aims to point out the following crucial challenges that have barely been addressed in previous Chinese PLMs. - Frequent vs**. Rare Characters.** Different from English that enjoys 26 characters to form frequently-used vocabularies (30,522 WordPieces in BERT), the number of frequentlyoccurred Chinese characters are much smaller (21,128 in Chinese BERT1), of which only 3,500 characters are frequently occurred. As of year 2023, over 17 thousand characters have been newly appended to the Chinese character set. Such phenomenon requires models to quickly adapt to rare or even unobserved characters. - One vs**. Many Meanings.** Compared with English expressions, polysemy is more common for Chinese characters, of which most meanings are semantically distinguished. Similar as character set, the meanings of characters keep changing. For example, the character "卷" has recently raised a new meaning: "the involution phenomena caused by peer-pressure". - Holistic vs**. Compositional Glyphs.** Considering the logographic nature of Chinese characters, the glyph information has been incorporated in previous works. However, most work treat glyph as an independent visual image while neglecting its compositional structure and relationship with character's semantic meanings. In this work, we propose CDBERT, a new Chinese pre-training paradigm that aims to go beyond feature aggregation and resort to mining information from Chinese dictionaries and glyphs' structures, two essential sources that interpret Chinese characters' meaning. We name the two core modules of CDBERT as **Shuowen** and **Jiezi**, in homage to one of the earliest Chinese dictionary in Han Dynasty. Figure 1 depicts the overall model. **Shuowen** refers to the process that finds the most appropriate definition of a character in a Chinese dictionary. Indeed, resorting to dictionaries for Chinese understanding is not unusual even for Chinese Linguistic experts, especially when it comes to ancient Chinese (*aka.* classical Chinese) understanding. Different from previous works that simply use dictionaries as additional text corpus (Yu et al., 2021; Chen et al., 2022), we propose a fine-grained definition retrieval framework from Chinese dictionaries. Specifically, we design three types of objectives for dictionary pre-training: Masked En1https://github.com/ymcui/Chinese-BERT-wwm try Modeling (MEM) to learn entry representation; Contrastive Learning objective with synonyms and antonyms; Example Leaning (EL) to distinguish polysemy by example in the dictionary. **Jiezi** refers to the process of decomposing and understanding the semantic information existing in the glyph information. Such a process grants native Chinese the capability of understanding new characters. In CDBERT, we leverage radical embeddings and previous success of CLIP (Yang et al., 2022; Radford et al., 2021) model to enhance model's glyph understanding capability. We evaluate CDBERT with extensive experiments and demonstrate consistent improvements of previous baselines on both modern Chinese and ancient Chinese understanding benchmarks. It is worth noting that our method gets significant improvement on CCLUE-MRC task in few-shot setting. Additionally, we construct a new dataset aiming to test models' ability to distinguish polysemy in Chinese. Based on the *BaiduHanyu*, we construct a polysemy machine reading comprehension task (PolyMRC). Given the example and entry, the model needs to choose a proper definition from multiple interpretations of the entry. We believe our benchmark will help the development of Chinese semantics understanding. In summary, the contributions of this work are four-fold: (i) We propose CDBERT, a new learning paradigm for improving PLMs with Chinese dictionary and characters' glyph representation; (ii) We derive three pre-training tasks, Masked Entry Modeling, Contrastive Learning for Synonym and Antonym, and Example Learning, for learning a dictionary knowledge base with a polysemy retriever (Sec. 3.1); (iii) We propose a new task PolyMRC, specially designed for benchmarking model's ability on distinguishing polysemy in ancient Chinese. This new task complements existing benchmarks for Chinese semantics understanding (Sec. 4); (iv) We systematically evaluate and analyze the CDBERT on both modern Chinese and ancient Chinese NLP tasks, and demonstrate improvements across all these tasks among different types of PLMs. In particular, we obtain significant performance boost for few-shot setting in ancient Chinese understanding. ## 2 Related Work Chinese Language Model Chinese characters, different from Latin letters, are generally logograms. At an early stage, Devlin et al. (2018); Liu et al. (2019b) propose BERT-like language models with character-level masking strategy on Chinese corpus. Sun et al. (2019b) take phraselevel and entity-level masking strategies to learn multi-granularity semantics for PLM. Cui et al. (2019) pre-trained transformers by masking all characters within a Chinese word. Lai et al. (2021) learn multi-granularity information with a constructed lattice graph. Recently, Zhang et al. (2020); Zeng et al. (2021); Su et al. (2022b) pretrained billion-scale parameters large language models for Chinese understanding and generation. In addition to improving masking strategies or model size, some researchers probe the semantics from the structure of Chinese characters to enhance the word embedding. Since Chinese characters are composed of radicals, components, and strokes hierarchically, various works (Sun et al., 2014; Shi et al., 2015; Li et al., 2015; Yin et al., 2016; Xu et al., 2016; Ma et al., 2020; Lu et al., 2022) learn the Chinese word embedding through combining indexed radical embedding or hierarchical graph. Benefiting from the strong representation capability of convolutional neural networks (CNNs), some researchers try to learn the morphological information directly from the glyph (Liu et al., 2017; Zhang and LeCun, 2017; Dai and Cai, 2017; Su and yi Lee, 2017; Tao et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2019). Sehanobish and Song (2020); Xuan et al. (2020) apply the glyph-embedding to improve the performance of BERT on named entity recognition (NER). Besides, polysemy is common among Chinese characters, where one character may correspond to different meanings with different pronunciations. Therefore, Zhang et al. (2019) use "pinyin" to assist modeling in distinguishing Chinese words. Sun et al. (2021c) first incorporate glyph and "pinyin" of Chinese characters into PLM, and achieve SOTA performances across a wide range of Chinese NLP tasks. Su et al. (2022a) pre-trained a robust Chinese BERT with synthesized adversarial contrastive learning examples including semantic, phonetic, and visual features. Knowledge Augmented pre-training Although PLMs have shown great success on many NLP tasks. There are many limitations on reasoning tasks and domain-specific tasks, where the data of downstream tasks vary from training corpus in distribution. Even for the strongest LLM ChatGPT, which achieves significant performance boost across a wide range of NLP tasks, it is not able to answer questions involving up-to-date knowledge. And it is impossible to train LLMs frequently due to the terrifying costs. As a result, researchers have been dedicated to injecting various types of knowledge into PLM/LLM. According to the types, knowledge in existing methods can be classified to text knowledge (Hu et al., 2022) and graph knowledge, where text knowledge can be further divided into linguistic knowledge and non-linguistic knowledge. Specifically, some works took lexical information (Lauscher et al., 2019; Zhou et al., 2020; Lyu et al., 2021) or syntax tree (Sachan et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020; Bai et al., 2021) to enhance the ability of PLMs in linguistic tasks. For the nonlinguistic knowledge, some researchers incorporate general knowledge such as Wikipedia with retrieval methods (Guu et al., 2020; Yao et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022) to improve the performance on downstream tasks, others use domain-specific corpora (Lee et al., 2019; Beltagy et al., 2019) to transfer the PLMs to corresponding downstream tasks. Compared with text knowledge, a knowledge graph contains more structured information and is better for reasoning. Thus a flourish of work (Liu et al., 2019a; Yu et al., 2020; He et al., 2021; Sun et al., 2021a; Zhang et al., 2022) designed fusion methods to combine the KG with PLMs. Dictionary Augmented pre-training Considering the heavy-tailed distribution of the pre-training corpus and difficult access to the knowledge graph, some works injected dictionary knowledge into PLMs to alleviate the above problems. (Yu et al., 2021) enhance PLM with rare word definitions from English dictionaries. Chen et al. (2022) pretrained BERT with English dictionary as a pretraining corpus and adopt an attention-based infusion mechanism for downstream tasks. ## 3 Cdbert 3.1 Shuowen: Dictionary As A Pre-Trained Knowledge We take three steps while looking up the dictionary as the pre-training tasks: 1) Masked Entry Modeling (MEM). The basic usage of a dictionary is to clarify the meaning of the entry. 2) Contrastive Learning for Synonym and Antonym (CL4SA). For ambiguous meanings, we always refer to the synonym and antonym for further understanding. 3) Example Learning (EL). We will figure out the accurate meaning through several classical examples. Masked Entry Modeling (MEM) Following existing transformer-based language pre-training models (Devlin et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2019b), we take the MEM as a pre-training task. Specifically, we concatenate the entry (<ent>) with its corresponding meaning or definition (<def>) as input, i.e., {[CLS] <ent> [SEP] <def> [SEP]}. Then the MEM task masks out the <ent> with a [MASK] token, and attempts to recover it. Considering the entry might be composed of multiple characters, we use whole word masking (WWM) (Cui et al., 2020) as the entry masking strategy. The objective of MEM Lmem is computed as the cross-entropy between the recovered entry and the ground truth. Contrastive Learning for Synonym and Antonym (CL4SA) Inspired by Yang et al. (2022), we adopt contrastive learning to better support the semantics of the pre-trained representation. We construct positive sample pair ⟨*ent, syno*⟩ with synonyms in the dictionary, and negative sample pair ⟨*ent, anto*⟩ with antonyms in the dictionary. The goal of the CL4SA is to make the positive sample pair closer while pushing the negative sample pair further. Thus we describe the contrastive objective as follows: $${\mathcal{L}}_{c l4s a}=-\log\frac{e^{h_{c n t}\cdot h_{s y n o}}}{e^{h_{c n t}\cdot h_{s y n o}}+e^{h_{c n t}\cdot h_{a n t o}}}$$ where · denotes the element-wise product, hent, hsyno, h*anto* is the representation of the original entry, the synonym, and the antonym respectively. In practice, we use the hidden states of [CLS] token as the representation of the input {[CLS]<ent>[SEP]<def>[SEP]}. Since the antonyms in the dictionary are much less than synonyms, we randomly sampled entries from the vocabulary for compensation. To distinguish the sampled entries with the strict antonyms, we set different weights for them. Example Learning (EL) Compared with other languages, the phenomenon of polysemy in Chinese is more serious, and most characters or words have more than one meanings or definitions. To better distinguish multiple definitions of an entry in a certain context, we introduce example learning, which attempts to learn the weight of different definitions for a certain example. Specifically, given an entry ent, K multiple definitions def 1*, . . . , def* K,  and an exemplar phrase exai of meaning defi , we use hexa, the hidden state of the [CLS] token in the example as query Q, and X = {h im} k i=1, the hidden states of the [CLS] token in the meanings as key K. Then the attention score can be computed as: $$A t t n_{d e f}=\mathrm{Softmax}\left(\frac{Q K^{T}}{\sqrt{d_{k}}}\right)\qquad\mathrm{(1)}$$ We use the cross-entropy loss to supervise the meaning of retriever training: $${\mathcal{L}}_{e l}=C r o.$$ Lel = *CrossEntropy*(one-hot(def), Attndef ) (2) where one-hot(·) is a one-hot vector transition of ground-truth indexes. We sum over all the above objectives to obtain the final loss function: $${\mathcal{L}}=\lambda_{1}{\mathcal{L}}_{m e m}+\lambda_{2}{\mathcal{L}}_{c l4s a}+\lambda_{3}{\mathcal{L}}_{e l}\qquad(3)$$ where λ1, λ2, λ3 are three hyper-parameters to balance three tasks. ## 3.2 Jiezi: Glyph-Enhanced Character Representation Chinese characters, different from Latin script, demonstrate strong semantic meanings. We conduct two structured learning strategies to capture the semantics of Chinese characters. Following Sun et al. (2021b), we extract the glyph feature by the CNN-based network. CLIP enhanced glyph representation To better capture the semantics of glyphs, we learn the glyph representation through a contrastive learning algorithm. Specifically, we concatenate character c with its definition def as text input and generate a picture of the character as visual input. We initialize our model with the pre-trained checkpoint of Chinese-CLIP (Yang et al., 2022) and keep the symmetric cross-entropy loss over the similarity scores between text input and visual input as objectives. To alleviate the influence of pixel-level noise, we follow Jaderberg et al. (2014, 2016) to generate a large number of images of characters by transformation, including font, size, direction, etc. Besides, we introduce some Chinese character images in wild (Yuan et al., 2019) in the training corpus to improve model robustness. Finally, we extract the glyph feature through the text encoder to mitigate the pixel bias. Radical-based character embedding Since the glyph feature requires extra processing and is constrained by the noise in images, we propose a radical-based embedding for end-to-end pretraining. We first construct a radical vocabulary, then add the radical embedding for each character with their radical token in the radical vocabulary. Thus, we can pre-train the CDBERT in the end-toend learning method. ## 3.3 Applying Cdbert **To Downstream Tasks** Following Chen et al. (2022), we use the CDBERT as a knowledge base for retrieving entry definitions. Specifically, given an input expression, we first look up all the entries in the dictionary. Then, we adopt the dictionary pre-training to get the representation of the entry. At last, we fuse the CDBERTaugmented representation to the output of the language model for further processing in downstream tasks. We take the attention block pre-trained by the EL task as a retriever to learn the weight of all the input entries with multiple meanings. After that, we use weighted sum as a pooling strategy to get the CDBERT-augmented representation of the input. We concatenate the original output of the language model with the CDBERT-augmented representation for final prediction. ## 4 The Polymrc Task Most existing Chinese language understanding evaluation benchmarks do not require the model to have strong semantics understanding ability. Hence, we propose a new dataset and a new machine reading comprehension task focusing on polysemy understanding. Specifically, we construct a  dataset through entries with multiple meanings and examples from dictionaries. As for the Polysemy Machine Reading Comprehension (PolyMRC) task, we set the example as context and explanations as choices, the goal of PolyMRC is to find the correct explanation of the entry in the example. Table 1 shows the statistics of the dataset. | Split | Sentences | Average length | |-----------------|-------------|------------------| | Training data | 46,119 | 38.55 | | Validation data | 5,765 | 38.31 | | Test data | 5,765 | 38.84 | Table 1: Statistics of PolyMRC Dataset ## 5 Experiments 5.1 Implementation Details We pre-train CDBert based on multiple official pretrained Chinese BERT models. All the models are pre-trained for 10 epochs with batch size 64 and maximum sequence length 256. We adopt AdamW as the optimizer and set the learning rate as 5e − 5 with a warmup ratio of 0.05. We set λ1 = 0.6, λ2 = 0.2, and λ3 = 0.2 in Eqn. (3) for all the experiments. We finetune CLUE (Xu et al., 2020) with the default setting reported in the CLUE GitHub repository2. ## 5.2 Baselines BERT We adopt the official BERT-base model pre-trained on the Chinese Wikipedia corpus as baseline models. RoBERTa Besides BERT, we use two stronger PLMs as baselines: RoBERTa-base-wwm-ext and RoBERTa-large-wwm-ext (we will use RoBERTa and RoBERTa-large for simplicity). In these models, wwm denotes the model continues pre-training on official RoBERTa models with the WWM strategy, and ext denotes the models are pre-trained on extended data besides Wikipedia corpus. MacBERT MacBERT improves on RoBERTa by taking the MLM-as-correlation (MAC) strategy and adding sentence ordering prediction (SOP) as a new pre-training task. We use MacBERT-large as a strong baseline method. ## 5.3 Clue We evaluate the general natural language understanding (NLU) capability of our method with CLUE benchmark (Xu et al., 2020), which includes text classification and machine reading comprehension (MRC) tasks. There are five datasets for text classification tasks: **CMNLI** for natural language inference, **IFLYTEK** for long text classification, TNEWS' for short text classification, **AFQMC** for semantic similarity, **CLUEWSC 2020** for coreference resolution, and CSL for keyword recognition. The text classification tasks can further be classified into single-sentence tasks and sentence pair tasks. The MRC tasks include span selectionbased **CMRC2018**, multiple choice questions C3, and idiom Cloze ChID. The results of text classification are shown in Table 2. In general, CDBERT performs better on single-sentence tasks than sentence pair tasks. Specifically, compared with baselines, CDBERT achieves an average improvement of 1.8% on single sentence classification: TNEWS', IFLYTEK, and WSC. Besides, CDBERT outperforms baselines on long text classification task IFLYTEK by improving 2.08% accuracy on average, which is 2https://github.com/CLUEbenchmark/CLUE more significant than the results (1.07%) on short text classification task TNEWS'. This is because TNEWS' consists of news titles in 15 categories, and most titles consist of common words which are easy to understand. But IFLYTEK is a long text 119 classification task that requires comprehensive understanding of the context. In comparison, the average improvement on sentence pair tasks brought by CDBERT is 0.76%, which is worse than the results on single sentence tasks. These results show dictionary is limited in helping PLM to improve the ability of advanced NLU tasks, such as sentiment entailment, keywords extraction, and natural language inference. We demonstrate the results on MRC tasks in Table 3. As we can see, CDBERT yields a performance boost on MRC tasks (0.79%) on average among all the baselines. It is worth noting that when the PLM gets larger in parameters and training corpus, the gain obtained by CDBERT becomes less. We believe this is caused by the limitation of CLUE benchmark for the reason that several large language models have passed the performance of humans (Xu et al., 2020). ## 5.4 Cclue Ancient Chinese (*aka.* Classical Chinese) is the essence of Chinese culture, but there are many differences between ancient Chinese and modern Chinese. CCLUE3is a general ancient NLU evaluation benchmark including NER task, short sentence classification task, long sentence classification task, and machine reading comprehension task. We use the CCLUE benchmark to evaluate the ability of CDBERT to adapt modern Chinese pre-trained models to ancient Chinese understanding tasks. In order to assess the ability of modern Chinese PLM to understand ancient Chinese by CDBERT, we test our model on CCLUE benchmark. We pretrain the CDBERT on the ancient Chinese dictionary for fairness. Results are presented in Table 4, which shows CDBERT is helpful in all three general NLU tasks: sequence labeling, text classification, and machine reading comprehension. We find in MRC task, CDBERT improves from 42.93 on average accuracy of all 4 models to 44.72 (4.15% relatively), which is significantly better than other tasks. In addition, we can see the gain obtained from the model scale is less than CDBERT on CLUE datasets. This is because the training corpus | Model | AFQMC | TNEWS' | IFLYTEK | CMNLI | WSC | CSL | SCORE | |--------------------------|---------|----------|-----------|---------|-------|-------|---------| | BERTBase | 73.70 | 56.58 | 60.29 | 79.69 | 70 | 80.36 | 70.10 | | BERTBase+ CDBERT | 73.48 | 57.19 | 62.12 | 80.19 | 71.38 | 81.4 | 70.96 | | RoBERTaext | 74.04 | 56.94 | 60.31 | 80.51 | 80.69 | 81 | 72.25 | | RoBERTaext+ CDBERT | 74.88 | 57.68 | 62.19 | 81.81 | 81.38 | 80.93 | 73.15 | | RoBERTaext-large | 76.55 | 58.61 | 62.98 | 82.12 | 82.07 | 82.13 | 74.08 | | RoBERTaext-large+ CDBERT | 76.82 | 59.09 | 63.04 | 82.89 | 84.83 | 83.07 | 74.95 | Table 2: Performance improvements of CDBERT on CLUE*classif ication*. Table 3: Performance of CDBERT on CLUEMRC&QA. * we can not reproduce the result reported in CLUE github repo. (<report in github repo>-<report in paper>) | Model | CMRC2018 | CHID | C3 | SCORE | |--------------------------|---------------------|---------------------|---------------------|---------| | BERTBase | 71.6 | 80.04 | 64.50 | 72.71 | | BERTBase+ CDBERT | 71.75 | 82.61 | 65.39 | 73.25 | | RoBERTaext | 75.20 | 83.62 | 66.50 | 75.11 | | RoBERTaext+ CDBERT | 75.85 | 84.7 | 67.09 | 75.88 | | RoBERTa*ext-large | 76.65 (77.95-76.58) | 85.32 (85.37-85.37) | 73.72 (73.82-72.32) | 78.56 | | RoBERTaext-large+ CDBERT | 77.75 | 85.38 | 73.95 | 79.03 | Model **NER CLS SENT MRC SCORE** BERTBase 71.62 82.31 59.95 42.76 64.16 BERTBase+ CDBERT 72.41 82.74 60.25 43.91 64.83 RoBERTaext 69.5 81.96 59.4 42.3 63.29 RoBERTaext+CDBERT 70.89 82.15 59.95 44.14 64.28 RoBERTaext-large 79.87 82.9 58.4 43.45 66.16 RoBERTaext-large+ CDBERT 79.93 83.03 59.75 45.52 67.06 MacBERText-large 81.89 83.06 58.9 43.22 66.77 MacBERText-large+ CDBERT 82.33 83.71 59.4 45.29 67.68 Table 4: Performance of CDBERT on CCLUE. Table 5: Performance on PolyMRC. of these PLMs do not contain ancient Chinese. In this scenario, CDBERT is more robust. PolyMRC Results We use BERT, RoBERTa, and MacBERT as baselines for the new task. Considering the context of PolyMRC is examples in dictionary, we carefully filter out the entries in test set from pre-training corpus, and only take the MEM and CL4SA as pre-training tasks. The results are shown in Table 5. Compared to baselines, CDBERT shows a 1.01% improvement for accuracy on average. We notice that the overall performance show weak relation with the scale of the training corpus of PLM, which is a good sign as it reveals that the new task can not be solved by models simply adding training data. | Model | Accuracy | |--------------------------|------------| | BERTBase | 65.33 | | BERTBase+ CDBERT | 65.93 | | RoBERTaext | 61.96 | | RoBERTaext+ CDBERT | 62.93 | | RoBERTaext-large | 64.18 | | RoBERTaext-large+ CDBERT | 64.77 | | MacBERText-large | 66.73 | | MacBERText-large+ CDBERT | 67.16 | ## 5.5 Fewshot Setting On Polymrc And Cclue-Mrc To further investigate the ability of CDBERT on few-shot setting, we construct two challenge datasets based on CCLUE MRC and PolyMRC. Table 6: Performance of CDBERT on 10-shot setting of two MRC benchmarks. Following Few CLUE benchmark [few CLUE], we collect 10 samples for these two MRC tasks. Additionally, we build three different training samples to alleviate the possible fluctuating results of models training on small datasets. We demonstrate the results on Table 6. Compared with BERT, CDBERT+BERT improves on accuracy from 30.98 to 36.65 (18.3% relatively) on PolyMRC, from 23.68 to 28.05 (18.45% relatively) on CCLUE-MRC. The performance gain on BERT is much more significant than larger baselines. This observation in- | Model | PolyMRC | CCLUE-MRC | |--------------------------|-----------|-------------| | BERTBase | 30.98 | 23.68 | | BERTBase+ CDBERT | 36.65 | 28.05 | | RoBERTaext | 28.85 | 26.67 | | RoBERTaext+ CDBERT | 29.47 | 28.51 | | RoBERTaext-large | 28.45 | 25.06 | | RoBERTaext-large+ CDBERT | 29.35 | 27.59 | | MacBERText-large | 37.35 | 25.29 | | MacBERText-large+ CDBERT | 39.22 | 27.81 | dicates that CDBERT is promising in semantics understanding with a handful of annotated training data. ## 5.6 Ablation Study Table 7: Ablation of CDBERT on CCLUE-MRC. | RoBERTa+CDBERT | 44.14 | |------------------------|---------| | RoBERTa | 42.30 | | - Radical | 43.68 | | Replace with Glyph | 42.53 | | Replace with Char Dict | 42.76 | | w/o. CL4SA | 43.68 | | w/o. EL | 42.99 | | Continuous-pre-train | 43.14 | We conduct ablation studies on different components of CDBERT. We use the CCLUE-MRC for analysis and take the Roberta*base* as the backbone. The overall results are shown in Table 7. Generally, CDBERT improves the Roberta from 42.30 to 44.14 (4.3% relatively). The Effect of Character Structure We first evaluate the effects of radical embeddings and glyph embeddings. For fair comparisons, we keep other settings unchanged, and focus on the following setups: "-Radical", where radical embedding is not considered; "Rep Glyph", where we replace the radical embedding with glyph embedding. Results are shown in row 3-4. As can be seen, when we replace the radical embedding with glyph embedding, the accuracy drops 1.61 points, where the performance degradation is more obvious than removing radical embedding. The reason we use here is the scale of training corpus is not large enough to fuse the pre-trained glyph feature to CDBERT. The Effect of Dictionary We then assess the effectiveness of the dictionary. We replace the original dictionary with character dictionary (row 5) and keep the model size and related hyper-parameters the same as CDBERT pre-training procedure for fair. Besides, during finetuning process, we identify all the characters that are included in the character dictionary for further injecting with dictionary knowledge. We observe the character CDBERT is helpful to some degree (1.1%) but is much worse than the original CDBERT. On the one hand, the number of characters in Chinese is limited, on the other hand, a word and its constituent characters may have totally different explanations. The Effect of Pre-training Tasks At last, we evaluate different pre-training tasks of CDBERT including CL4SA and EL (row 6-7). Specifically, both CL4SA and EL help improve the NLU ability of PLM, and EL demonstrated larger improvement than CL4SA. The average improvements on CCLUE-MRC brought by CL4SA and EL are 1.05% and 2.68%. In order to verify the impact of CDBERT instead of the additional corpus, we follow Cui et al. (2019) to continuously pre-train the Roberta on the dictionary, which is regarded as extended data. As shown in row 8, using additional pre-training data results in further improvement. However, such improvement is less than our proposed CDBERT, which is a drop of 1 point. ## 6 Limitations We collect the dictionary from the Internet, and although we make effort to reduce replicate explanations, there is noise in the dictionary. Besides, not all the words are included in the dictionary. In other words, the quality and amount of entries in the Chinese dictionary are to be improved. Additionally, our method is pre-trained on the Bert-like transformers to enhance the corresponding PLMs, and can not be applied to LLM directly whose frameworks are unavailable. In the future, we will use the retriever for disambiguation and dictionary knowledge infusion to LLM. ## 7 Conclusion In this work, we leverage Chinese dictionary and structure information of Chinese characters to enhance the semantics understanding ability of PLM. To make Chinese Dictionary knowledge better act on PLM, we propose 3 pre-training objectives simulating looking up dictionary in our study, and incorporate radical or glyph features to CDBERT. Experiment results on both modern Chinese tasks and ancient Chinese tasks show our method significantly improve the semantic understanding ability of various PLM. In the future, we will explore our method on more high-quality dictionaries (e.g. Bilingual dictionary), and adapt our method to LLM to lessen the semantic errors. Besides, we will probe more fine-grained structure information of logograms in both understanding and generation tasks. ## Acknowledgements This project is supported by National Key R&D Program of China (2021ZD0150200). ## References Jiangang Bai, Yujing Wang, Yiren Chen, Yaming Yang, Jing Bai, J. Yu, and Yunhai Tong. 2021. Syntaxbert: Improving pre-trained transformers with syntax trees. In Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Iz Beltagy, Kyle Lo, and Arman Cohan. 2019. Scibert: A pretrained language model for scientific text. In Annual Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). 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. Qianglong Chen, Feng-Lin Li, Guohai Xu, Ming Yan, Ji Zhang, and Yin Zhang. 2022. Dictbert: Dictionary description knowledge enhanced language model pre-training via contrastive learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.00635. Yiming Cui, Wanxiang Che, Ting Liu, Bing Qin, Shijin Wang, and Guoping Hu. 2020. Revisiting pre-trained models for Chinese natural language processing. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 657–668, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yiming Cui, Wanxiang Che, Ting Liu, Bing Qin, Ziqing Yang, Shijin Wang, and Guoping Hu. 2019. Pretraining with whole word masking for chinese bert. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 29:3504–3514. Falcon Z. Dai and Zheng Cai. 2017. Glyph-aware embedding of chinese characters. In *SWCN@EMNLP*. 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*. Kelvin Guu, Kenton Lee, Zora Tung, Panupong Pasupat, and Ming-Wei Chang. 2020. Retrieval augmented language model pre-training. In *International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML)*. Lei He, Suncong Zheng, Tao Yang, and Feng Zhang. 2021. Klmo: Knowledge graph enhanced pretrained language model with fine-grained relationships. In Annual Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). Linmei Hu, Zeyi Liu, Ziwang Zhao, Lei Hou, Liqiang Nie, and Juanzi Li. 2022. A survey of knowledgeenhanced pre-trained language models. *ArXiv*, abs/2212.13428. Max Jaderberg, Karen Simonyan, Andrea Vedaldi, and Andrew Zisserman. 2014. Synthetic data and artificial neural networks for natural scene text recognition. In *Workshop on Deep Learning, NIPS*. Max Jaderberg, Karen Simonyan, Andrea Vedaldi, and Andrew Zisserman. 2016. Reading text in the wild with convolutional neural networks. *International* Journal of Computer Vision (IJCV), 116(1):1–20. Yuxuan Lai, Yijia Liu, Yansong Feng, Songfang Huang, and Dongyan Zhao. 2021. Lattice-bert: Leveraging multi-granularity representations in chinese pretrained language models. *NAACL*. Guillaume Lample and Alexis Conneau. 2019. Crosslingual language model pretraining. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1901.07291. Anne Lauscher, Ivan Vulic, E. Ponti, Anna Korhonen, and Goran Glavavs. 2019. Specializing unsupervised pretraining models for word-level semantic similarity. In International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING). Jinhyuk Lee, Wonjin Yoon, Sungdong Kim, Donghyeon Kim, Sunkyu Kim, Chan Ho So, and Jaewoo Kang. 2019. Biobert: a pre-trained biomedical language representation model for biomedical text mining. Bioinformatics, 36:1234 - 1240. Yanran Li, Wenjie Li, Fei Sun, and Sujian Li. 2015. Component-enhanced chinese character embeddings. Annual Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). Zhongli Li, Qingyu Zhou, Chao Li, Ke Xu, and Yunbo Cao. 2020. Improving bert with syntax-aware local attention. In *Annual Meeting of the Association for* Computational Linguistics (ACL). Frederick Liu, Han Lu, Chieh Lo, and Graham Neubig. 2017. Learning character-level compositionality with visual features. In *Annual Meeting of the Association* for Computational Linguistics (ACL). Weijie Liu, Peng Zhou, Zhe Zhao, Zhiruo Wang, Qi Ju, Haotang Deng, and Ping Wang. 2019a. K-bert: Enabling language representation with knowledge graph. In *AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)*. 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*. Wei Lu, Zhaobo Zhang, Pingpeng Yuan, Hai rong Jin, and Qiangsheng Hua. 2022. Learning chinese word embeddings by discovering inherent semantic relevance in sub-characters. *Proceedings of the 31st* ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management. Bo Lyu, Lu Chen, Su Zhu, and Kai Yu. 2021. Let: Linguistic knowledge enhanced graph transformer for chinese short text matching. In *AAAI Conference* on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI). Bing Ma, Q. Qi, Jianxin Liao, Haifeng Sun, and Jingyu Wang. 2020. Learning chinese word embeddings from character structural information. *Comput.* Speech Lang., 60. Yuxian Meng, Wei Wu, Fei Wang, Xiaoya Li, Ping Nie, Fan Yin, Muyu Li, Qinghong Han, Xiaofei Sun, and Jiwei Li. 2019. Glyce: Glyph-vectors for chinese character representations. *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, 32. Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In *International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML)*, pages 8748– 8763. PMLR. Devendra Singh Sachan, Yuhao Zhang, Peng Qi, and William Hamilton. 2020. Do syntax trees help pretrained transformers extract information? In *Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for* Computational Linguistics. Arijit Sehanobish and Chan Hee Song. 2020. Using chinese glyphs for named entity recognition. *AAAI* Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI). Xinlei Shi, Junjie Zhai, Xudong Yang, Zehua Xie, and Chao Liu. 2015. Radical embedding: Delving deeper to chinese radicals. In *Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL)*. Hui Su, Weiwei Shi, Xiaoyu Shen, Zhou Xiao, Tuo Ji, Jiarui Fang, and Jie Zhou. 2022a. RoCBert: Robust Chinese bert with multimodal contrastive pretraining. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 921–931, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Hui Su, Xiao Zhou, Houjin Yu, Yuwen Chen, Zilin Zhu, Yang Yu, and Jie Zhou. 2022b. Welm: A well-read pre-trained language model for chinese. *ArXiv*. Tzu-Ray Su and Hung yi Lee. 2017. Learning chinese word representations from glyphs of characters. In Annual Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). Yaming Sun, Lei Lin, Nan Yang, Zhenzhou Ji, and Xiaolong Wang. 2014. Radical-enhanced chinese character embedding. In *Advances in Neural Information* Processing Systems (NeurIPS). Yu Sun, Shuohuan Wang, Yukun Li, Shikun Feng, Xuyi Chen, Han Zhang, Xin Tian, Danxiang Zhu, Hao Tian, and Hua Wu. 2019a. Ernie: Enhanced representation through knowledge integration. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1904.09223. Yu Sun, Shuohuan Wang, Yukun Li, Shikun Feng, Xuyi Chen, Han Zhang, Xin Tian, Danxiang Zhu, Hao Tian, and Hua Wu. 2019b. Ernie: Enhanced representation through knowledge integration. ACL. Yueqing Sun, Qi Shi, Le Qi, and Yu Zhang. 2021a. Jointlk: Joint reasoning with language models and knowledge graphs for commonsense question answering. In *North American Chapter of the Association* for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT). Zijun Sun, Xiaoya Li, Xiaofei Sun, Yuxian Meng, Xiang Ao, Qing He, Fei Wu, and Jiwei Li. 2021b. ChineseBERT: Chinese pretraining enhanced by glyph and Pinyin information. 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 2065–2075, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Zijun Sun, Xiaoya Li, Xiaofei Sun, Yuxian Meng, Xiang Ao, Qing He, Fei Wu, and Jiwei Li. 2021c. Chinesebert: Chinese pretraining enhanced by glyph and pinyin information. Hanqing Tao, Shiwei Tong, Tong Xu, Qi Liu, and Enhong Chen. 2019. Chinese embedding via stroke and glyph information: A dual-channel view. *ArXiv*, abs/1906.04287. 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. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.07461. Shuo Wang, Yichong Xu, Yuwei Fang, Yang Liu, S. Sun, Ruochen Xu, Chenguang Zhu, and Michael Zeng. 2022. Training data is more valuable than you think: A simple and effective method by retrieving from training data. In Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL). 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. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS). Wei Wu, Yuxian Meng, Fei Wang, Qinghong Han, Muyu Li, Xiaoya Li, Jie Mei, Ping Nie, Xiaofei Sun, and Jiwei Li. 2019. Glyce: Glyph-vectors for chinese character representations. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS)*. Jian Xu, Jiawei Liu, Liangang Zhang, Zhengyu Li, and Huanhuan Chen. 2016. Improve chinese word embeddings by exploiting internal structure. In *North* American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT). Liang Xu, Hai Hu, Xuanwei Zhang, Lu Li, Chenjie Cao, Yudong Li, Yechen Xu, Kai Sun, Dian Yu, Cong Yu, Yin Tian, Qianqian Dong, Weitang Liu, Bo Shi, Yiming Cui, Junyi Li, Jun Zeng, Rongzhao Wang, Weijian Xie, Yanting Li, Yina Patterson, Zuoyu Tian, Yiwen Zhang, He Zhou, Shaoweihua Liu, Zhe Zhao, Qipeng Zhao, Cong Yue, Xinrui Zhang, Zhengliang Yang, Kyle Richardson, and Zhenzhong Lan. 2020. CLUE: A Chinese language understanding evaluation benchmark. In *Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics*, pages 4762–4772, Barcelona, Spain (Online). International Committee on Computational Linguistics. Zhenyu Xuan, Rui Bao, Chuyu Ma, and Shengyi Jiang. 2020. Fgn: Fusion glyph network for chinese named entity recognition. In *China Conference on Knowledge Graph and Semantic Computing*. An Yang, Junshu Pan, Junyang Lin, Rui Men, Yichang Zhang, Jingren Zhou, and Chang Zhou. 2022. Chinese clip: Contrastive vision-language pretraining in chinese. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.01335*. Yunzhi Yao, Shaohan Huang, Ningyu Zhang, Li Dong, Furu Wei, and Huajun Chen. 2022. Kformer: Knowledge injection in transformer feed-forward layers. In Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing. Rongchao Yin, Quan Wang, Peng Li, Rui Li, and Bin Wang. 2016. Multi-granularity chinese word embedding. In *Annual Conference on Empirical Methods* in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). Donghan Yu, Chenguang Zhu, Yiming Yang, and Michael Zeng. 2020. Jaket: Joint pre-training of knowledge graph and language understanding. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI). W. Yu, Chenguang Zhu, Yuwei Fang, Donghan Yu, Shuohang Wang, Yichong Xu, Michael Zeng, and Meng Jiang. 2021. Dict-bert: Enhancing language model pre-training with dictionary. Tai-Ling Yuan, Zhe Zhu, Kun Xu, Cheng-Jun Li, TaiJiang Mu, and Shi-Min Hu. 2019. A large chinese text dataset in the wild. Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 34(3):509–521. Wei Zeng, Xiaozhe Ren, Teng Su, Hui Wang, Yi Liao, Zhiwei Wang, Xin Jiang, ZhenZhang Yang, Kaisheng Wang, Xiaoda Zhang, Chen Li, Ziyan Gong, Yifan Yao, Xinjing Huang, Jun Wang, Jia xin Yu, Qiwei Guo, Yue Yu, Yan Zhang, Jin Wang, Heng Tao, Dasen Yan, Zexuan Yi, Fang Peng, Fan Jiang, Han Zhang, Lingfeng Deng, Yehong Zhang, Zhengping Lin, Chao Zhang, Shaojie Zhang, Mingyue Guo, Shanzhi Gu, Gaojun Fan, Yaowei Wang, Xuefeng Jin, Qun Liu, and Yonghong Tian. 2021. Pangu-α: Large-scale autoregressive pretrained chinese language models with auto-parallel computation. *ArXiv*, abs/2104.12369. Xiang Zhang and Yann LeCun. 2017. Which encoding is the best for text classification in chinese, english, japanese and korean? *ArXiv*, abs/1708.02657. Xikun Zhang, Antoine Bosselut, Michihiro Yasunaga, Hongyu Ren, Percy Liang, Christopher D. Manning, and Jure Leskovec. 2022. Greaselm: Graph reasoning enhanced language models. In *International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)*. Yun Zhang, Yongguo Liu, Jiajing Zhu, Ziqiang Zheng, Xiaofeng Liu, Weiguang Wang, Zijie Chen, and Shuangqing Zhai. 2019. Learning chinese word embeddings from stroke, structure and pinyin of characters. Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. Zhengyan Zhang, Xu Han, Hao Zhou, Pei Ke, Yuxian Gu, Deming Ye, Yujia Qin, Yusheng Su, Haozhe Ji, Jian Guan, Fanchao Qi, Xiaozhi Wang, Yanan Zheng, Guoyang Zeng, Huanqi Cao, S. Chen, Daixuan Li, Zhenbo Sun, Zhiyuan Liu, Minlie Huang, Wentao Han, Jie Tang, Juan-Zi Li, Xiaoyan Zhu, and Maosong Sun. 2020. Cpm: A large-scale generative chinese pre-trained language model. *AI Open*. Junru Zhou, Zhuosheng Zhang, and Hai Zhao. 2020. Limit-bert : Linguistics informed multi-task bert. *Annual Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural* Language Processing (EMNLP). ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? limitation section ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? limitation section ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? abstract section and 1 ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** 3,4 ✓ 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? 4 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? 4 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. 4 ## 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? 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? 5 ✓ 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.)? 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.

su-etal-2023-one

One Embedder, Any Task: Instruction-Finetuned Text Embeddings

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.71

We introduce INSTRUCTOR, a new method for computing text embeddings given task instructions: every text input is embedded together with instructions explaining the use case (e.g., task and domain descriptions). Unlike encoders from prior work that are more specialized, INSTRUCTOR is a single embedder that can generate text embeddings tailored to different downstream tasks and domains, without any further training. We first annotate instructions for 330 diverse tasks and train INSTRUCTOR on this multitask mixture with a contrastive loss. We evaluate INSTRUCTOR on 70 embedding evaluation tasks (66 of which are unseen during training), ranging from classification and information retrieval to semantic textual similarity and text generation evaluation. INSTRUCTOR, while having an order of magnitude fewer parameters than the previous best model, achieves state-of-the-art performance, with an average improvement of 3.4{\%} compared to the previous best results on the 70 diverse datasets. Our analysis suggests that INSTRUCTOR is robust to changes in instructions, and that instruction finetuning mitigates the challenge of training a single model on diverse datasets. Our model, code, and data are available at \url{https://instructor-embedding.github.io}.

# One Embedder, Any Task: Instruction-Finetuned Text Embeddings Hongjin Su♠∗ Weijia Shi♣∗ Jungo Kasai♣ Yizhong Wang♣ **Yushi Hu**♣ Mari Ostendorf♣ Wen-tau Yih♢ Noah A. Smith♣♡ Luke Zettlemoyer♣♢ **Tao Yu**♠ ♠The University of Hong Kong ♣University of Washington ♢Meta AI ♡Allen Institute for AI {hjsu,tyu}@cs.hku.hk, {yushihu,ostendor}@uw.edu scottyih@meta.com {swj0419,jkasai,yizhongw,nasmith,lsz}@cs.washington.edu ## Abstract  We introduce INSTRUCTOR, a new method for computing text embeddings given task instructions: every text input is embedded together with instructions explaining the use case (e.g., task and domain descriptions). Unlike encoders from prior work that are more specialized, INSTRUCTOR is a single embedder that can generate text embeddings tailored to different downstream tasks and domains, *without* any further training. We first annotate instructions for 330 diverse tasks and train INSTRUCTOR on this multitask mixture with a contrastive loss. We evaluate INSTRUCTOR on 70 embedding evaluation tasks (66 of which are *unseen* during training), ranging from classification and information retrieval to semantic textual similarity and text generation evaluation. INSTRUCTOR, while having an order of magnitude fewer parameters than the previous best model, achieves state-of-the-art performance, with an average improvement of 3.4% compared to the previous best results on the 70 diverse datasets. Our analysis suggests that INSTRUCTOR is robust to changes in instructions, and that instruction finetuning mitigates the challenge of training a single model on diverse datasets. Our model, code, and data are available at https: //instructor-embedding.github.io. ## 1 Introduction Text embeddings represent discrete text inputs (e.g., sentences, documents, and code) as fixed-sized vectors that can be used in many downstream tasks. These tasks include semantic textual similarity (Agirre et al., 2012; Marelli et al., 2014; Cer et al., 2017; Lin et al., 2018), information retrieval (Mitra et al., 2017; Karpukhin et al., 2020; Izacard et al., 2022), automatic text evaluation (Zhang et al., 2020; Sellam et al., 2020; Hessel et al., 2021), prompt retrieval for in-context learning (Liu et al., 2022; Rubin et al., 2022; Su et al., 2022), and beyond. Recently, we have seen dramatic advances ∗Equal contribution. in learning text embeddings (Kiros et al., 2015; Conneau et al., 2017; Logeswaran and Lee, 2018; Reimers and Gurevych, 2019; Gao et al., 2021; Ni et al., 2021, 2022) that perform well on their intended tasks or datasets. However, most existing embeddings can have significantly degraded performance when applied to new tasks or domains (Thakur et al., 2021; Muennighoff et al., 2022). For example, DPR (Karpukhin et al., 2020) is stronger for retrieval than text similarity tasks, and vice versa for SimCSE (Gao et al., 2021). Moreover, existing embeddings usually perform poorly when applied to the same type of task but in different domains such as medicine and finance. A common method to address this issue is to further finetune the embeddings on datasets in downstream tasks and domains, which often requires a lot of annotated data (Guru-  rangan et al., 2020). In this paper, we hypothesize that text embeddings (even for the *same* text input) can be adjusted to different downstream applications using task and domain descriptions, *without* further task- or domain-specific finetuning. We introduce INSTRUCTOR (**Instruct**ion-based Omnifarious Representations), a single multitask model that generates task- and domain-aware embeddings given a text input and its task instructions. It achieves state-of-the-art performance on massively many downstream embedding tasks without any training. At the core of our approach is instruction-based finetuning (Zhong et al., 2021; Min et al., 2022; Sanh et al., 2022; Wei et al., 2022): we embed every input together with its end task and domain instruction, departing from prior approaches to embeddings that only take text input. INSTRUCTOR embeds the same input into different vectors for different end goals (e.g., Who sings the song "Love Story"? is embedded into three different vectors for different tasks in Fig. 1). As shown in Fig. 2, INSTRUCTOR is trained on MEDI, our new collection of 330 text embedding datasets newly annotated with human-written task instructions (§2.3). We train INSTRUCTOR with a contrastive loss over all datasets that maximizes the similarity between semantically related text pairs while minimizing unrelated pairs. We extensively evaluate INSTRUCTOR on diverse domains (e.g., finance, medicine, and news) and a variety of downstream applications (a total of 70 embedding evaluation datasets, including 66 not seen during training), spanning classification, semantic textual similarity, information retrieval, text generation evaluation, and prompt retrieval for incontext learning. INSTRUCTOR significantly outperforms prior state-of-the-art embedding models by an average of 3.4% over the 70 diverse datasets. INSTRUCTOR also outperforms a variant that is trained *without* task instructions (§4), demonstrating the importance of instructions to create taskaware embeddings. Our analysis shows that instruction finetuning addresses the challenge of training a *single* model on *diverse* datasets (§4.1). Further, we demonstrate that the task diversity of MEDI makes the performance of INSTRUCTOR particularly robust to paraphrases in instructions (§4.2). Overall, these results strongly suggest that instruction finetuning should be adopted broadly for text embeddings, which we support by sharing all of our models and code. ## 2 I**Nstruct**Or INSTRUCTOR encodes inputs together with task instructions, thereby providing task-specific representations that can be used for many downstream language tasks, *without* any additional training. Here we introduce the architecture of INSTRUC-TOR (§2.1), present how we perform multitask instruction-based finetuning (§2.2), and describe how we collect and annotate the MEDI training data (§2.3). By default, we refer "task" to a dataset, and use them interchangeably throughout the paper, while a "task category", such as Retrieval, includes many tasks. ## 2.1 Embedding Architecture We build INSTRUCTOR, based on the single encoder architecture (Izacard and Grave, 2021; Ni et al., 2021, 2022). Following prior work (Ni et al., 2021, 2022), we use GTR models as the backbone encoder (GTR-Base for INSTRUCTOR-Base, GTRLarge for INSTRUCTOR, GTR-XL for INSTRUC-TOR-XL). The GTR models are initialized from T5 models, pretrained on a web corpus, and finetuned on information search datasets. The availability of different sizes in the GTR model family allows us to explore the scaling behaviors of instructionfinetuned embedding models. Given an input text x and a task instruction Ix, INSTRUCTOR encodes their concatenation Ix ⊕ x. We then generate a fixed-sized, task-specific embedding EI (Ix, x) by applying mean pooling to the last hidden representations over the tokens in x. ## 2.2 Training Objective INSTRUCTOR is trained by formulating a wide variety of tasks as a text-to-text problem of distinguishing good/bad candidate outputs y ∈ {y +, y − i } given an input x, where a training sample corresponds to the tuple (x, Ix*, y, I*y), with Ix and Iy being instructions associated with x and y, respectively. For example, in a retrieval task, x is a query, and good/bad y is a relevant/irrelevant document from some document collection. For a textual similarity task, the input and output have a similar form and typically come from the same source collection. For a classification task, training samples can be formed by choosing y as text sequences associated with the same vs. different classes for good vs. bad examples (Details about pair construction are in §2.3). The input and output instructions depend on the task. For **symmetric** tasks such as textual similarity, where the input and output have the same form and encoding objective, the instructions are the same. For **asymmetric** tasks such as retrieval, where the input is a single sentence query and the output is a document, the instructions reflect that difference. The goodness of candidate y for input x is given by similarity s(*x, y*) that is the cosine between ## Their Instructor Embeddings: S(X, Y) = Cos(Ei (Ix ⊕ X), Ei (Iy ⊕ Y)) Following Ni et al. (2021), we maximize the similarity between positive pairs (*x, y* + ) and minimize negative pairs {(*x, y* − i )}k i=1, where k denotes the number of negative pairs per positive pair. Specifically, our training objective is: $${\mathcal{L}}={\frac{e^{s(x,y^{+})/\gamma}}{\sum_{y\in{\mathfrak{B}}}e^{s(x,y)/\gamma}}},$$ where γ is the softmax temperature and B is a union of (*x, y* + ) and {(*x, y* − i )}k i=1. Further following Ni et al. (2021), we compute the same loss with x and y swapped and add it to the previous loss (i.e., bidirectional in-batch sampled loss). ## 2.3 Medi: Multitask Embedding Data With Instructions There are no existing datasets that consist of a variety of tasks for embedding training with instructions. We thus construct a collection of 330 datasets with instructions across diverse task categories and domains: Multitask Embeddings Data with Instructions (MEDI). Data Construction We build MEDI by combining 300 datasets from SuperNaturalInstructions (super-NI; Wang et al., 2022) with 30 datasets from existing collections designed for embedding training. The super-NI datasets come with natural language instructions, but positive and negative pairs are not provided. We construct these pairs by using Sentence-T5 embeddings (Ni et al., 2022),1denoted with E(⋅). For the classification datasets, we calculate the pairwise cosine similarity between examples based on input text embeddings cos(E(xi), E(xj)). An example xi with a high similarity to xjis used to create a positive pair if both examples have the same class label (y + j = yi), and a negative pair if the labels differ (y − j ≠ yi). For the remaining tasks where the output labels are text sequences, the following scores are first computed: $$s_{p o s}=\cos(\mathbf{E}(x_{i}),\mathbf{E}(x_{j}))+\cos(\mathbf{E}(y_{i}),\mathbf{E}(y_{j}))$$ $$s_{n e g}=\cos(\mathbf{E}(x_{i}),\mathbf{E}(x_{j}))-\cos(\mathbf{E}(y_{i}),\mathbf{E}(y_{j}))$$ | Task type | # of Datasets | Task | Instruction Query instruction: Represent the Wikipedia question for retrieving supporting documents:, Doc instruction: Represent the | |------------------|-----------------|-------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------| | Retrieval | 15 | Natural Question (BEIR) | Wikipedia document for retrieval: | | Reranking | 4 | MindSmallReranking | Query instruction: Represent the News query for retrieving articles: Doc instruction: Represent the News article for retrieval: | | Clustering | 11 | MedrxivClusteringS2S | Represent the Medicine statement for retrieval: | | Pair Classification | 3 | TwitterSemEval2015 | Represent the Tweet post for retrieving duplicate comments: | | Classification | 12 | ImdbClassification | Represent the Review sentence for classifying emotion as positive or negative: | | STS | 10 | STS12 | Represent the statement: | | Summarization | 1 | SummEval | Represent the Biomedical summary for retrieving duplicate summaries: | | Text Evaluation | 3 | Mscoco | Represent the caption for retrieving duplicate captions: | | Prompt Retrieval | 11 | GeoQuery | Represent the Geography example for retrieving duplicate examples: | Table 1: Instruction examples for evaluation datasets. Our embedding evaluation includes 70 diverse datasets in 9 different downstream applications, ranging from classification and semantic textual similarity to information retrieval and text generation evaluation. The first two tasks are **asymmetric** and require two distinct instructions. Instructions for the MEDI training data can be found in Tables 7 and 8 in the appendix. We select example pairs with the highest spos as positive pairs and highest sneg as hard negative pairs. We use one hard negative together with inbatch sampled negatives in the training. Our later analysis shows that the training data from super-NI particularly improve the instruction robustness in evaluation due to the diverse task definitions (§4.2). The other 30 embedding training datasets come from the Sentence Transformers embedding data,2 KILT (Petroni et al., 2021), and MedMCQA (Pal et al., 2022). These 30 datasets already contain positive pairs; a few of them, such as MSMARCO (Bajaj et al., 2016) and Natural Questions (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019), also contain hard negative pairs. Following Ni et al. (2021), we use four negative pairs (hard or in-batch negatives) during the model finetuning process. Since all of these datasets do not have instructions, we develop a unified instruction template and manually write a specific prompt for each dataset, as described next.3 We release these instructions together with our MEDI data. ural language instructions Ix and Iy describe how the embeddings of x and y are used for the task. For example, in open-domain QA (e.g., Natural Questions in Table 1), Ix is "Represent the Wikipedia question for retrieving supporting documents; Input: ," and Iy is "Represent the Wikipedia document for retrieval; Input: ." To make instructions consistent across all datasets in MEDI, we design a unified instruction format that consists of the following parts (see Table 4 in the appendix for instances of each part): - **Text Type** specifies the type of input text that we encode using the embedding model. For example, for an open-domain QA task, the input type of the query is a question, while the input type of the target is a document. - **Task Objective (Optional)** describes the objective of how the input text is used in a task. For example, for a classification task, the task objective is to classify the sentence into some category, while the task objective of the retrieval is to retrieve a relevant document. Because not all sentences are associated with a specific task (e.g., STS targets general encoding), we make this part optional. - **Domain (Optional)** describes the task domain. For example, for NewsIR, the domain of the task is news. Because not all tasks spec- | Benchmark | MTEB | Billboard | Prompt | Avg. | | | | | | | | |-----------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------|----------|--------|--------|------|------|------|------------|--------|------| | Task category | Retri. | Rerank | Cluster | Pair. | Class. | STS | Sum. | Avg. | Text Eval. | Retri. | | | # datasets | 15 | 4 | 11 | 3 | 12 | 10 | 1 | 56 | 3 | 11 | 70 | | Small Models for reference (<500M) SimCSE (110M) 21.9 | 47.5 | 33.4 | 73.7 | 67.3 | 79.1 | 23.3 | 48.7 | 29.4 | 58.3 | 48.2 | | | coCondenser (110M) | 33.0 | 51.8 | 37.6 | 81.7 | 64.7 | 76.5 | 29.5 | 52.4 | 31.5 | 59.6 | 51.8 | | Contriever (110M) | 41.9 | 53.1 | 41.1 | 82.5 | 66.7 | 76.5 | 30.4 | 56.0 | 29.0 | 57.3 | 53.2 | | GTR-Large (335M) | 47.4 | 55.4 | 41.6 | 85.3 | 67.1 | 78.2 | 29.5 | 58.3 | 31.2 | 59.8 | 55.1 | | INSTRUCTOR (335M) | 47.6 | 57.5 | 45.3 | 85.9 | 73.9 | 83.2 | 31.8 | 61.6 | 36.9 | 63.2 | 58.4 | | Relative gain (%) | +0.4 | +4.5 | +8.9 | +0.7 | +10.1 | +6.4 | +7.8 | +5.7 | +18.3 | +5.7 | +5.9 | | Large Models for reference(≥500M) Sent-T5-XXL (4.8B) 42.2 | 56.4 | 43.7 | 85.1 | 73.4 | 82.6 | 30.1 | 59.5 | 33.9 | 61.5 | 56.5 | | | GTR-XXL (4.8B) | 48.1 | 56.7 | 42.4 | 86.1 | 67.4 | 78.4 | 30.6 | 58.9 | 32.0 | 60.8 | 55.8 | | SGPT-NLI (5.8B) | 32.3 | 52.3 | 37.0 | 77.0 | 70.1 | 80.5 | 30.4 | 53.7 | 29.6 | 57.9 | 51.9 | | GTR-XL (1.5B) | 48.0 | 56.0 | 41.5 | 86.1 | 67.1 | 77.8 | 30.2 | 58.4 | 32.0 | 60.4 | 55.5 | | INSTRUCTOR-XL (1.5B) | 49.3 | 57.3 | 44.7 | 86.6 | 73.2 | 83.1 | 32.0 | 61.8 | 34.1 | 68.6 | 58.8 | | Relative gain (%) | +2.7 | +2.3 | +7.7 | +0.6 | +9.1 | +6.9 | +6.0 | +5.8 | +6.6 | +13.6 | +5.9 | ify a domain (e.g., STS deals with general statements),this part is also optional. The final instruction takes the following format: "REPRESENT THE (DOMAIN) TEXT TYPE FOR TASK O**BJECTIVE**:." Appendix 8 shows instructions for each dataset in MEDI. ## 3 Experiments We train INSTRUCTOR on the MEDI data and evaluate it on a wide range of 70 downstream tasks. Specifically, we use the MTEB benchmark from recent work (Muennighoff et al., 2022), which consists of 56 datasets over 7 diverse task categories, such as classification, reranking, and information retrieval. We then further apply INSTRUCTOR to prompt retrieval for in-context learning and text generation evaluation. In all three settings, IN-STRUCTOR achieves the state-of-the-art performance. See Appendix §A and §B for our detailed settings. ## 3.1 Main Results Table 2 presents the results from INSTRUCTOR and the baselines over the three benchmarks: MTEB, Billboard, and prompt retrieval. We conduct headto-head comparison between INSTRUCTOR and GTR models with the same size. We also include the performance of other representative models for reference, while they are not meant for direct comparison. INSTRUCTOR achieves the best performance on all three benchmarks on average. Compared to GTR-Large (335M), from which INSTRUC-TOR is initialized, instruction finetuning enhances the performance by 5.7%, 18.3%, and 5.7% in MTEB, Billboard, and prompt retrieval respectively. Specifically, among all task categories, IN-STRUCTOR (335M) demonstrates large improvements over GTR-Large on the text evaluation (18.3%), classification (10.1%), and clustering tasks (8.9%). Particularly noteworthy is INSTRUC-TOR's performance compared to the previous stateof-the-art model, Sent-T5-XXL (58.4 vs. 56.5 on average), despite the fact that INSTRUCTOR has one order of magnitude fewer parameters (335M vs. 4.8B). As expected, the retrieval-based models (e.g., GTR-XXL) show strong performance on retrieval and reranking but significantly lag behind on STS and classification. Conversely, similarity-based models (e.g., Sent-T5-XXL) perform well on STS, classification, and text evaluation, but not on retrieval. It suggests that these baselines tend to generate specialized embeddings that only excel at certain tasks, while INSTRUCTOR provides universal embeddings that perform well on diverse task categories. ## 4 Analysis And Ablations We demonstrate INSTRUCTOR enables universal text embeddings for many diverse tasks. Here we analyze our results from various perspectives: the importance of instructions (§4.1), instruction robustness (§4.2) and complexity (§4.3), model sizes (§4.4), domain shifts (§4.5), and qualitative analysis (§4.6). By default, we report average performance across all categories.  ## 4.1 Instructions Enable Diverse Training Here we analyze the importance of instructions when training data are diverse. We first split MEDI into symmetric (e.g., text similarity) and asymmetric groups (e.g., open-domain QA), as defined in §2.3 (see Table §5 in the appendix for details about the symmetric and asymmetric groups). We then train INSTRUCTOR with or *without* instructions on each group separately. As shown in Fig. 3, INSTRUCTOR finetuned without instructions yields performance similar to or better than the original GTR model (dotted line), if the data are symmetric or asymmetric *only*. However, INSTRUCTOR suffers if finetuned without task instructions on the combination of both types of data (entire MEDI). In contrast, finetuning with instructions enables the model to benefit from the combination of symmetric and asymmetric data (see that the rightmost bar gets additive performance gains from the asymmetric and symmetric tasks). This result demonstrates the importance of instruction finetuning when diverse data are used for embedding training. Note that training on symmetric tasks only without instructions is similar to Sent-T5. Similarly, training on asymmetric tasks only without instructions is similar to GTR, which is also trained on asymmetric opendomain QA datasets. Departing from these prior methods, instruction-based finetuning enables diverse training on both types. ## 4.2 Instruction Robustness  Previous work (Sanh et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022) shows that instruction-finetuned language models are not robust to paraphrased instructions. Here we measure INSTRUCTOR's robustness to variation in human-written instructions. Specifically, we write five paraphrased instructions for all evaluation datasets (Table 6 in Appendix) and measure INSTRUCTOR's performance gap between the best-performing and the worstperforming instructions. Fig. 4 shows that inclusion of 300 super-NI datasets is critical to the robustness of INSTRUCTOR. Removing these datasets from training (w/o super-NI) substantially increases the performance gap between the best- and worstperforming instructions, suggesting that super-NI's diverse instructions help the model handle different formats and styles. ## 4.3 Complexity Of Instructions  Here we further analyze the role of instructions over varying degrees of their complexity. Specifically, we consider four levels of instruction complexity: N/A (no instructions), dataset tags, simple instructions, and detailed instructions (the original instruction format, §2.3). In the dataset tag setup, each example is prepended with its dataset name. For instance, on the Natural Questions dataset, the query is formatted as "Natural Questions; Input: who sings the song Love Story"). In the simple instruction setup, we use one or two words to describe the domain (e.g., for Natural Questions, the input query is *Wikipedia Questions; Input: who* sings the song Love Story). Fig. 5 shows their average performances across all task categories. Even with trivial dataset tags, INSTRUCTOR outperforms the original GTR model, illustrating the effectiveness of instructions for diverse training. As more information is provided in the instruction (from tag to simple and from simple to detail), we observe consistent improvements. ## 4.4 Model Sizes And Instruction Finetuning Fig. 6 studies the influence of model sizes. Specifically, we use GTR-Base (0.1B), GTR-Large (0.3B),  and GTR-XL (1.5B). They are pretrained on the same corpus and differ only in the encoder size (the embedding sizes are the same). We compare models of various sizes and report the average performance across all the categories. As the encoder transformer model scales up, the performance continues to increase for both GTR and INSTRUCTOR. Nonetheless, the improvement in INSTRUCTOR is more pronounced, perhaps because embeddings with instructions benefit from larger capacities. This implies that large models are more generalizable to compute texts in various domains and task types, providing embeddings for general purposes. Further scale-ups are left to future work. ## 4.5 Instructions Mitigate Domain Shifts One advantage of instruction-based finetuning is that it improves models' ability to generalize to unseen domains and tasks. To demonstrate this effectiveness, we found three unseen domains that INSTRUCTOR was not trained on: geography, biology, and civil comments. As shown in Table 3, INSTRUCTOR largely improves (above the average improvement) GTR-Large's performance on all three domains, indicating that instructions can help more when applying models to unseen or uncommon domains. ## 4.6 Qualititive Analysis In this qualitative analysis, we use T-SNE (van der Maaten and Hinton, 2008) to visualize two example of classification with and without instructions. The desired outcome is, for pairs with the same sentiment to be closer together, and pairs with different | Model | Geography | Biology | Civil | |-------------------|-------------|-----------|---------| | GTR-Large | 53.4 | 25.7 | 71.8 | | INSTRUCTOR | 64.2 | 31.3 | 77.2 | | Relative gain (%) | +20.2 | +21.8 | +7.5 |  sentiment to be farther apart. As shown in Fig. 7, without instructions, the green dot pairs (different sentiment) are closer together in the embedding space, while the red dot pairs (same sentiment) are farther apart. However, with instructions, our method (INSTRUCTOR) successfully encodes the red dot pairs into close embeddings and correctly classifies the pairs. The distance between the green dot pairs with different sentiment is also larger in the embedding space with instructions. ## 5 Related Work Text Embeddings Text embeddings are useful in many applications such as information retrieval (Thakur et al., 2021), text similarity (Gao et al., 2021), prompt retrieval for in-context learning (Su et al., 2022), classification (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019), and beyond. Much prior work develops different embedding models for different applications. For example, SBERT (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019) and SimCSE (Gao et al., 2021) are applied solely to text similarity and classification tasks, while DPR (Karpukhin et al., 2020) and Contriever (Izacard et al., 2022) focus on information retrieval. Different from Sentence-T5 trained only on symmetric data or GTR trained only on asymmetric data, we combine both groups of datasets and build MEDI, which is then used to train INSTRUCTOR with instructions. Muennighoff et al. (2022) introduced the massive text embedding benchmark, which can be used to evaluate embedding models on a variety of embedding tasks, spanning reranking, classification, information retrieval, bitext mining, pair classification, STS, and summarization. Their benchmark shows that models performing well on one task may not perform well on other tasks. The poor zero-shot transfer abilities of existing embedding models make it difficult to use them in applications where only few labeled data are available. This motivates us to develop a single embedding model that is applicable to a variety of tasks and has better generalization to unseen tasks. Instruction Finetuning Recent work demonstrated that instruction-finetuned language models could perform new tasks given a natural language instruction (Mishra et al., 2022; Zhong et al., 2021; Min et al., 2022; Sanh et al., 2022; Wei et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022; Ouyang et al., 2022). Nonetheless, instruction finetuning has yet to be studied in the context of broadly-applicable embeddings. In this work, we explore finetuning embedding models to follow human instructions where the instruction specifies eventual use cases. Concurrent work demonstrated that instructions could facilitate information retrieval (Asai et al., 2022), which is related to our INSTRUCTOR design. They used instructions to build a task-aware retrieval system and conducted evaluations on the retrieval task; we build a general-purpose embedding model with instructions that can be applied to 8 tasks categories (Fig. 2), including retrieval, text similarity, clustering, and text evaluation. ## 6 Conclusion We introduced INSTRUCTOR, a single model that creates broadly-applicable text embeddings using natural language instructions. We constructed MEDI, a collection of diverse datasets, to finetune INSTRUCTOR with instructions. Our extensive experiments showed that INSTRUCTOR achieves state-of-the-art performance on text embedding benchmarks, as well as prompt retrieval for fewshot in-context learning. We hope that researchers and practitioners will benefit from our embeddings or our datasets for tasks of their interest. ## 7 Limitations Although INSTRUCTOR significantly improves the baseline GTR performance, we were only able to use four negative examples during the model finetuning process due to computation constraints. However, negative examples have been shown to play an important role in contrastive learning (Robinson et al., 2021). We hope that future work will scale up the number of negatives used during finetuning and investigate various methods for mining hard negatives. Additionally, we do not have enough computation resources to apply multitask instruction finetuning to GTR-XXL (4.8B parameters), which is also an area for future exploration. At the core of INSTRUCTOR is the instruction design. While our current unified instruction format has demonstrated effectiveness, future research can explore other instructional elements to further improve performance. For example, previous work (Wang et al., 2022) have shown that incorporating demonstration examples and explanations can be beneficial for instruction-finetuned language models. ## Acknowledgements We thank Akari Asai, Jack Lin, Minghan Li, and the ARK group at UW for their helpful feedback on this work. ## References Eneko Agirre, Daniel Cer, Mona Diab, and Aitor Gonzalez-Agirre. 2012. SemEval-2012 task 6: A pilot on semantic textual similarity. In *Proc. of SemEval*. Akari Asai, Timo Schick, Patrick Lewis, Xilun Chen, Gautier Izacard, Sebastian Riedel, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Wen-tau Yih. 2022. Task-aware retrieval with instructions. Payal Bajaj, Daniel Campos, Nick Craswell, Li Deng, Jianfeng Gao, Xiaodong Liu, Rangan Majumder, Andrew McNamara, Bhaskar Mitra, Tri Nguyen, et al. 2016. MS MARCO: A human generated machine reading comprehension dataset. In *Proc. of CoCo*. Loïc Barrault, Magdalena Biesialska, Ondˇrej Bojar, Marta R. Costa-jussà, Christian Federmann, Yvette Graham, Roman Grundkiewicz, Barry Haddow, Matthias Huck, Eric Joanis, Tom Kocmi, Philipp Koehn, Chi-kiu Lo, Nikola Ljubešic, Christof ´ Monz, Makoto Morishita, Masaaki Nagata, Toshiaki bnghvtcf Nakazawa, Santanu Pal, Matt Post, and Marcos Zampieri. 2020. Findings of the 2020 conference on machine translation (WMT20). In Proc. of WMT. Samuel R Bowman, Gabor Angeli, Christopher Potts, and Christopher D Manning. 2015. A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference. In Proc. of EMNLP. Daniel Cer, Mona Diab, Eneko Agirre, Inigo LopezGazpio, and Lucia Specia. 2017. SemEval-2017 task 1: Semantic textual similarity-multilingual and crosslingual focused evaluation. In *Proc. of SemEval*. Arman Cohan, Sergey Feldman, Iz Beltagy, Doug Downey, and Daniel S. Weld. 2020. SPECTER: Document-level representation learning using citation-informed transformers. In *Proc. of ACL*. Alexis Conneau and Douwe Kiela. 2018. SentEval: An evaluation toolkit for universal sentence representations. In *Proc. of LREC*. Alexis Conneau, Douwe Kiela, Holger Schwenk, Loïc Barrault, and Antoine Bordes. 2017. Supervised learning of universal sentence representations from natural language inference data. In *Proc. of EMNLP*. William Coster and David Kauchak. 2011. Simple english Wikipedia: a new text simplification task. In Proc. of ACL. Emily Dinan, Stephen Roller, Kurt Shuster, Angela Fan, Michael Auli, and Jason Weston. 2019. Wizard of Wikipedia: Knowledge-powered conversational agents. In *Proc. of ICLR*. 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 *Proc. of LREC*. Alexander R Fabbri, Wojciech Krysci ´ nski, Bryan Mc- ´ Cann, Caiming Xiong, Richard Socher, and Dragomir Radev. 2021. SummEval: Re-evaluating summarization evaluation. *TACL*. Anthony Fader, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Oren Etzioni. 2014. Open question answering over curated and extracted knowledge bases. In *Proc. of KDD*. Angela Fan, Yacine Jernite, Ethan Perez, David Grangier, Jason Weston, and Michael Auli. 2019. ELI5: long form question answering. In *Proc. of ACL*. Markus Freitag, George Foster, David Grangier, Viresh Ratnakar, Qijun Tan, and Wolfgang Macherey. 2021. Experts, errors, and context: A large-scale study of human evaluation for machine translation. *TACL*. Luyu Gao and Jamie Callan. 2022. Unsupervised corpus aware language model pre-training for dense passage retrieval. In *Proc. of ACL*. Tianyu Gao, Xingcheng Yao, and Danqi Chen. 2021. SimCSE: Simple contrastive learning of sentence embeddings. In *Proc. of EMNLP*. Mansi Gupta, Nitish Kulkarni, Raghuveer Chanda, Anirudha Rayasam, and Zachary C Lipton. 2019. AmazonQA: A review-based question answering task. In *Proc. of IJCAI*. Suchin Gururangan, Ana Marasovic, Swabha ´ Swayamdipta, Kyle Lo, Iz Beltagy, Doug Downey, and Noah A. Smith. 2020. Don't stop pretraining: Adapt language models to domains and tasks. In Proc. of ACL. Felix Hamborg, Norman Meuschke, Corinna Breitinger, and Bela Gipp. 2017. news-please: A generic news crawler and extractor. In *Proc. of ISI*. Ruining He and Julian McAuley. 2016. Ups and downs: Modeling the visual evolution of fashion trends with one-class collaborative filtering. In *Proc. of WWW*. Jack Hessel, Ari Holtzman, Maxwell Forbes, Ronan Le Bras, and Yejin Choi. 2021. CLIPScore: A referencefree evaluation metric for image captioning. In *Proc.* of EMNLP. Doris Hoogeveen, Karin M Verspoor, and Timothy Baldwin. 2015. CQADupStack: A benchmark data set for community question-answering research. In Proc. of ADCS. Hamel Husain, Ho-Hsiang Wu, Tiferet Gazit, Miltiadis Allamanis, and Marc Brockschmidt. 2019. CodeSearchNet challenge: Evaluating the state of semantic code search. Gautier Izacard, Mathilde Caron, Lucas Hosseini, Sebastian Riedel, Piotr Bojanowski, Armand Joulin, and Edouard Grave. 2022. Unsupervised dense information retrieval with contrastive learning. *TMLR*. Gautier Izacard and Edouard Grave. 2021. Leveraging passage retrieval with generative models for open domain question answering. In *Proc. of EACL*. Mandar Joshi, Eunsol Choi, Daniel Weld, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2017. TriviaQA: A Large Scale Distantly Supervised Challenge Dataset for Reading Comprehension. In *Proc. of ACL*. Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas Oguz, Sewon Min, Patrick Lewis, Ledell Wu, Sergey Edunov, Danqi Chen, and Wen-tau Yih. 2020. Dense passage retrieval for opendomain question answering. In *Proc. of EMNLP*. Jungo Kasai, Keisuke Sakaguchi, Ronan Le Bras, Lavinia Dunagan, Jacob Morrison, Alexander R. Fabbri, Yejin Choi, and Noah A. Smith. 2022a. Bidimensional leaderboards: Generate and evaluate language hand in hand. In *Proc. of NAACL*. Jungo Kasai, Keisuke Sakaguchi, Lavinia Dunagan, Jacob Morrison, Ronan Le Bras, Yejin Choi, and Noah A. Smith. 2022b. Transparent human evaluation for image captioning. In *Proc. of NAACL*. Daniel Khashabi, Amos Ng, Tushar Khot, Ashish Sabharwal, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Chris CallisonBurch. 2021. GooAQ: Open question answering with diverse answer types. In Findings of the ACL: EMNLP 2021. Daniel Khashabi, Gabriel Stanovsky, Jonathan Bragg, Nicholas Lourie, Jungo Kasai, Yejin Choi, Noah A. Smith, and Daniel S. Weld. 2022. GENIE: Toward reproducible and standardized human evaluation for text generation. In *Proc. of EMNLP*. Ryan Kiros, Yukun Zhu, Russ R Salakhutdinov, Richard Zemel, Raquel Urtasun, Antonio Torralba, and Sanja Fidler. 2015. Skip-thought vectors. In Proc. of NeurIPS. Mahnaz Koupaee and William Yang Wang. 2018. WikiHow: A large scale text summarization dataset. 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*. Omer Levy, Minjoon Seo, Eunsol Choi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2017. Zero-shot relation extraction via reading comprehension. In *Proc. of CoNLL*. Patrick Lewis, Yuxiang Wu, Linqing Liu, Pasquale Minervini, Heinrich Küttler, Aleksandra Piktus, Pontus Stenetorp, and Sebastian Riedel. 2021. PAQ: 65 million probably-asked questions and what you can do with them. *TACL*. Shuyang Li. 2020. INTERVIEW: NPR media dialog transcripts. Lucy H. Lin, Scott B. Miles, and Noah A. Smith. 2018. Semantic matching against a corpus: New methods and applications. Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge J. Belongie, Lubomir D. Bourdev, Ross B. Girshick, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, Piotr Dollár, and C. Lawrence Zitnick. 2014. Microsoft COCO: common objects in context. In *Proc. of ECCV*. Jiachang Liu, Dinghan Shen, Yizhe Zhang, Bill Dolan, Lawrence Carin, and Weizhu Chen. 2022. What makes good in-context examples for GPT-3? In Proc. of DeeLIO 2022. Pengfei Liu, Weizhe Yuan, Jinlan Fu, Zhengbao Jiang, Hiroaki Hayashi, and Graham Neubig. 2021. Pretrain, prompt, and predict: A systematic survey of prompting methods in natural language processing. Kyle Lo, Lucy Lu Wang, Mark Neumann, Rodney Kinney, and Daniel Weld. 2020. S2ORC: The semantic scholar open research corpus. In *Proc. of ACL*. Lajanugen Logeswaran and Honglak Lee. 2018. An efficient framework for learning sentence representations. In *Proc. of ICLR*. Marco Marelli, Stefano Menini, Marco Baroni, Luisa Bentivogli, Raffaella Bernardi, and Roberto Zamparelli. 2014. A SICK cure for the evaluation of compositional distributional semantic models. In Proc. of LREC. Sewon Min, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2022. MetaICL: Learning to learn in context. In *Proc. of NAACL*. Swaroop Mishra, Daniel Khashabi, Chitta Baral, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2022. Cross-task generalization via natural language crowdsourcing instructions. In *Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the* Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3470–3487. Bhaskar Mitra, Fernando Diaz, and Nick Craswell. 2017. Learning to match using local and distributed representations of text for web search. In *Proc. of WWW*. Niklas Muennighoff. 2022. SGPT: GPT sentence embeddings for semantic search. Niklas Muennighoff, Nouamane Tazi, Loic Magne, and Nils Reimers. 2022. MTEB: Massive text embedding benchmark. 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 *Proc. of EMNLP*. Jianmo Ni, Gustavo Hernandez Abrego, Noah Constant, Ji Ma, Keith Hall, Daniel Cer, and Yinfei Yang. 2022. Sentence-T5: Scalable sentence encoders from pretrained text-to-text models. In Findings of the ACL: ACL 2022. Jianmo Ni, Chen Qu, Jing Lu, Zhuyun Dai, Gustavo Hernández Ábrego, Ji Ma, Vincent Y. Zhao, Yi Luan, Keith B. Hall, Ming-Wei Chang, and Yinfei Yang. 2021. Large dual encoders are generalizable retrievers. In *Proc. of EMNLP*. 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. In *Proc. of NeurIPS*. Ankit Pal, Logesh Kumar Umapathi, and Malaikannan Sankarasubbu. 2022. MedMCQA: A large-scale multi-subject multi-choice dataset for medical domain question answering. In *Proc. of CHIL*. Fabio Petroni, Aleksandra Piktus, Angela Fan, Patrick Lewis, Majid Yazdani, Nicola De Cao, James Thorne, Yacine Jernite, Vladimir Karpukhin, Jean Maillard, Vassilis Plachouras, Tim Rocktäschel, and Sebastian Riedel. 2021. KILT: a benchmark for knowledge intensive language tasks. In *Proc. of NAACL*. Pranav Rajpurkar, Jian Zhang, Konstantin Lopyrev, and Percy Liang. 2016. SQuAD: 100,000+ questions for machine comprehension of text. In *Proc. of EMNLP*. Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. SentenceBERT: Sentence embeddings using Siamese BERTnetworks. In *Proc. of EMNLP*. Joshua David Robinson, Ching-Yao Chuang, Suvrit Sra, and Stefanie Jegelka. 2021. Contrastive learning with hard negative samples. In *International Conference* on Learning Representations. Andrew Rosenberg and Julia Hirschberg. 2007. Vmeasure: A conditional entropy-based external cluster evaluation measure. In *Proc. of EMNLP*. Ohad Rubin, Jonathan Herzig, and Jonathan Berant. 2022. Learning to retrieve prompts for in-context learning. In *Proc. of NAACL*. Victor Sanh, Albert Webson, Colin Raffel, Stephen H. Bach, Lintang Sutawika, Zaid Alyafeai, Antoine Chaffin, Arnaud Stiegler, Teven Le Scao, Arun Raja, Manan Dey, M Saiful Bari, Canwen Xu, Urmish Thakker, Shanya Sharma, Eliza Szczechla, Taewoon Kim, Gunjan Chhablani, Nihal V. Nayak, Debajyoti Datta, Jonathan Chang, Mike Tian-Jian Jiang, Han Wang, Matteo Manica, Sheng Shen, Zheng Xin Yong, Harshit Pandey, Rachel Bawden, Thomas Wang, Trishala Neeraj, Jos Rozen, Abheesht Sharma, Andrea Santilli, Thibault Févry, Jason Alan Fries, Ryan Teehan, Stella Rose Biderman, Leo Gao, Tali Bers, Thomas Wolf, and Alexander M. Rush. 2022. Multitask prompted training enables zero-shot task generalization. In *Proc. of ICLR*. Thibault Sellam, Dipanjan Das, and Ankur P Parikh. 2020. BLEURT: Learning robust metrics for text generation. In *Proc. of ACL*. Prithviraj Sen, Galileo Namata, Mustafa Bilgic, Lise Getoor, Brian Galligher, and Tina Eliassi-Rad. 2008. Collective classification in network data. *AI magazine*. Rodrigo FG Silva, Klérisson Paixão, and Marcelo de Almeida Maia. 2018. Duplicate question detection in stack overflow: A reproducibility study. In Proc. of SANER. Hongjin Su, Jungo Kasai, Chen Henry Wu, Weijia Shi, Tianlu Wang, Jiayi Xin, Rui Zhang, Mari Ostendorf, Luke Zettlemoyer, Noah A. Smith, and Tao Yu. 2022. Selective annotation makes language models better few-shot learners. Nandan Thakur, Nils Reimers, Andreas Rücklé, Abhishek Srivastava, and Iryna Gurevych. 2021. BEIR: A heterogeneous benchmark for zero-shot evaluation of information retrieval models. In *Proc. of NeurIPS*. James Thorne, Andreas Vlachos, Christos Christodoulopoulos, and Arpit Mittal. 2018. Fever: a large-scale dataset for fact extraction and verification. In *Proc. of NAACL*. Laurens van der Maaten and Geoffrey Hinton. 2008. Visualizing data using t-SNE. *JMLR*. Ben Wang and Aran Komatsuzaki. 2021. GPT-J6B: A 6 Billion Parameter Autoregressive Language Model. https://github.com/kingoflolz/ mesh-transformer-jax. Yizhong Wang, Swaroop Mishra, Pegah Alipoormolabashi, Yeganeh Kordi, Amirreza Mirzaei, Anjana Arunkumar, Arjun Ashok, Arut Selvan Dhanasekaran, Atharva Naik, David Stap, Eshaan Pathak, Giannis Karamanolakis, Haizhi Gary Lai, Ishan Purohit, Ishani Mondal, Jacob Anderson, Kirby Kuznia, Krima Doshi, Maitreya Patel, Kuntal Kumar Pal, Mehrad Moradshahi, Mihir Parmar, Mirali Purohit, Neeraj Varshney, Phani Rohitha Kaza, Pulkit Verma, Ravsehaj Singh Puri, Rushang Karia, Shailaja Keyur Sampat, Savan Doshi, Siddhartha Mishra, Sujan Reddy, Sumanta Patro, Tanay Dixit, Xudong Shen, Chitta Baral, Yejin Choi, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Noah A. Smith, and Daniel Khashabi. 2022. Super-NaturalInstructions: Generalization via declarative instructions on 1600+ NLP tasks. In *Proc.* of EMNLP. Jason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Zhao, Kelvin Guu, Adams Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, Andrew M. Dai, and Quoc V. Le. 2022. Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners. In *Proc. of ICLR*. Adina Williams, Nikita Nangia, and Samuel Bowman. 2018. A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sentence understanding through inference. In *Proc. of* NAACL. Zhilin Yang, Peng Qi, Saizheng Zhang, Yoshua Bengio, William W. Cohen, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Christopher D. Manning. 2018. HotpotQA: A dataset for diverse, explainable multi-hop question answering. In *Proc. of EMNLP*. Peter Young, Alice Lai, Micah Hodosh, and Julia Hockenmaier. 2014. From image descriptions to visual denotations: New similarity metrics for semantic inference over event descriptions. *TACL*. Tianyi Zhang, Varsha Kishore, Felix Wu, Kilian Q. Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. 2020. BERTScore: Evaluating text generation with BERT. In *Proc. of* ICLR. Xiang Zhang, Junbo Zhao, and Yann LeCun. 2015. Character-level convolutional networks for text classification. In *Proc. of NeurIPS*. Ruiqi Zhong, Kristy Lee, Zheng Zhang, and Dan Klein. 2021. Adapting language models for zero-shot learning by meta-tuning on dataset and prompt collections. In *Findings of the ACL: EMNLP 2021*. Chunting Zhou, Junxian He, Xuezhe Ma, Taylor BergKirkpatrick, and Graham Neubig. 2022. Prompt consistency for zero-shot task generalization. ## Appendices A Training Setups Minibatch Sampling Training is performed on a combination of all training datasets in MEDI. Since the number of examples in each dataset is different in orders of magnitude, we downsample large ones. Details for the downsampled numbers of examples on each dataset are shown in Table 5 in the appendix. At each step, we first randomly select a dataset and then construct a minibatch *only* using the examples from that dataset. In this way, we ensure that in-batch negatives are sampled from the same dataset, thereby preventing the model from using task differences to predict the negative label. We use the maximum batch size that fits the machine memory and run all our experiments on 40GB A100 GPUs. Training We initialize INSTRUCTOR with the GTR-Large model (Ni et al., 2021, 335M parameters)4and finetune it on MEDI using the AdamW optimizer with learning rate 2 × 10−5and warmup ratio 0.1. We use a softmax temperature of 0.01 and finetune INSTRUCTOR for 20K steps. Baselines We use the official MTEB benchmark for comparisons, but here we highlight several strong baselines with the following two types. The first class of baselines is embedding models specializing in information retrieval: **ContrieverMS** (Izacard et al., 2022), GTR (Ni et al., 2021), and **coCondenser-MS** (Gao and Callan, 2022). They are all trained on open-domain QA datasets such as MS MARCO (Bajaj et al., 2016). The second class of baselines focuses on semantic textual similarity: **SimCSE** (Gao et al., 2021), **SentT5** (Ni et al., 2022), and **SGPT-NLI** (Muennighoff, 2022). They are mainly trained on symmetric paraphrase datasets such as NLI (Williams et al., 2018) and the Quora question pairs.5 All of these baselines are based on pretrained language models, achieving strong performance on the MTEB leaderboard. In particular, Sent-T5-XXL and GTR-XXL (both with 4.8B parameters) achieve the first and second best average performances. ## B Embedding Evaluations Here we provide a high-level summary of the evaluation tasks (Table 1). Following MTEB (Muennighoff et al., 2022), Billboard (Kasai et al., 2022a), and prompt retrieval (Su et al., 2022), we split 70 evaluation datasets into 9 categories by task objectives. Out of the 70 evaluation tasks, 66 are unseen during training (See Table 5 for datasets included during training), Table 1 for examples and instructions for the evaluation datasets. ## B.1 Massive Text Embedding Benchmark MTEB (Muennighoff et al., 2022) is a comprehensive embedding evaluation benchmark that aims to provide a holistic view of current embedding models' performance and to discover universal text embeddings applicable to a wide range of tasks. It combines several conventional benchmarks (e.g., BEIR, Thakur et al., 2021, and STS, Cer et al., 2017) and spans a wide range of domain-specific datasets, including science, biology, and medicine. Following Muennighoff et al. (2022), we also report the average performance over 56 datasets. For each task family, we briefly describe the task objective, evaluation metric, and how embeddings are used. Retrieval Given a query q and a corpus D = {p1, p2*...p*n}, retrieval aims to find the most relevant documents piin D for query q. The embedding model is used to embed q and p1*...p*n into fixed-sized vectors, and then the similarity between q and piis measured by their embedding cosine similarity. There are 14 diverse datasets (e.g., Natural Questions, Scifact, and NFCorpus) together with the community question-answering (CQA) benchmark (Hoogeveen et al., 2015). We use NDCG@10 (Normalized Discounted cumulative gain at rank position 10) to measure the performance. Reranking Reranking ranks a list of documents based on their relevance to a query. Given a query q and a list of documents D = {p1, p2*...p*n}, the embedding model computes embeddings of both the query and documents, which are then used to rank the documents based on their cosine similarities. We use MAP (mean average precision), a standard metric in reranking, to measure performance. Clustering The goal of clustering is to group similar documents into meaningful clusters. Given a set of documents, the encoder maps each document into an embedding. The k-means clustering algorithm is then used to partition the embedded documents into clusters. The clustering performance is measured by the v-measure that is independent of the permutations of clustering labels (Rosenberg and Hirschberg, 2007). Pair Classification Pair classification tasks aim to predict a binary label for a pair of texts. An example of this task is paraphrase identification, where the goal is to predict whether two sentences are paraphrases of each other. Given a sentence pair (t1, t2), the embedding model encodes t1 and t2 separately. The cosine similarity between the two embeddings is then used to predict the label. The average precision score is measured for evaluation. Classification Classification is a popular way to evaluate the quality of embeddings (Conneau and Kiela, 2018). For each example in the classification dataset, the embedding of the input text is used as features to a classifier. The classifier is trained on the training data while sentence embedings are kept frozen. We report the classification accuracy on the test set as the evaluation metric. STS Semantic textual similarity (STS) tasks evaluate the similarity between two sentences. Given a sentence pair (t1, t2), the embedding model maps t1 and t2 into embeddings separately, and then the similarity between t1 and t2 is measured by their embedding cosine similarity. The evaluation metric is Spearman's rank correlation, which measures the correlation between the similarity scores and human judgements. Summarization Automatic summarization evaluation aims to evaluate the quality of a machinegenerated summary given a reference summary. While human evaluations are considered more accurate, automatic evaluations allow for fast, inexpensive development cycles (Khashabi et al., 2022). Given a reference summary r and a machinegenerated summary t, the embedding model maps them into embeddings separately, and we compute the cosine similarity between r and t. Spearman's rank correlation is reported between human judgements and automatic scores. ## B.2 Prompt Retrieval Large language models have demonstrated the ability of in-context learning, where the model can | Examples | | |----------------|----| | question, query, answer, summary, sentence, review, post, comment, statement, | | | Text type | paragraph, passage, document classify the sentence as positive or negative, retrieve a duplicate sentence, retrieve the supporting document | | Text objective | wikipedia, news, medicine, biology, reddit, stackoverflow, science, quora, coronavirus, math, physics | | Domain | | perform downstream tasks by conditioning generation on a few task demonstrations (Liu et al., 2021). Su et al. (2022) introduce the prompt retrieval task, where the goal is to retrieve a few in-context learning (i.e., demonstration) examples from annotated examples given a test instance. The embedding model is used to encode all annotated examples and to find the few most similar examples to the test instance based on the cosine similarity. Following Su et al. (2022), we use the retrieved examples for in-context learning on GPT-J (Wang and Komatsuzaki, 2021) over 11 diverse downstream tasks (e.g., classification, multiple choice, and textto-SQL) that are not included in MEDI (thus zeroshot settings). We compare different embedding methods by measuring the average performance on these downstream tasks. ## B.3 Automatic Evaluation For Generation Similar to summarization evaluation in MTEB, we use the Billboard benchmark (Kasai et al., 2022a) to apply INSTRUCTOR to automatic evaluations for three additional text generation tasks: MSCOCO image captioning (Lin et al., 2014; Kasai et al., 2022b), CNN/DailyMail news summarization (Fabbri et al., 2021), and WMT21 Chinese-to-English translation (Barrault et al., 2020; Freitag et al., 2021). Following Kasai et al. (2022a), we measure the cosine similarity between the generated text and each reference text and take the maximum similarity score over all references available (Zhang et al., 2020). We evaluate all embedding models by the Pearson correlation with the human judgments, again following Kasai et al. (2022a). We then report the average correlation scores over the three datasets. Note that we do not use the English-toGerman dataset in Billboard because our models are trained only on English data. ## C Full Instructions We list all instructions for each dataset in MEDI in Table 7 and Table 8 ## D Full Results We provide the detailed evaluation scores in MTEB, Billboard and prompt retrieval benchmarks in Table 9 & 10. | Dataset | Symmetric/Asymmetric | Number | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------|----------| | gooaq_pairs (Khashabi et al., 2021) | Asymmetric | 25,000 | | yahoo_answers_title_answer (Zhang et al., 2015) | Asymmetric | 25,000 | | stackexchange (Silva et al., 2018) | Symmetric | 25,000 | | eli5_question_answer (Fan et al., 2019) | Asymmetric | 25,000 | | squad_pairs (Rajpurkar et al., 2016) | Asymmetric | 25,000 | | NQ∗ (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019) | Asymmetric | 50,000 | | amazon-qa (Gupta et al., 2019) | Asymmetric | 100,000 | | WikiAnswers (Fader et al., 2014) | Symmetric | 25,000 | | agnews (Zhang et al., 2015) | Asymmetric | 45,000 | | AllNLI (Bowman et al., 2015) | Symmetric | 50,000 | | npr (Li, 2020) | Asymmetric | 25,000 | | specter_train_triples (Cohan et al., 2020) | Symmetric | 50,000 | | ccnews_title_text (Hamborg et al., 2017) | Asymmetric | 25,000 | | triviaqa (Joshi et al., 2017) | Asymmetric | 50,000 | | zero_shot_re (Levy et al., 2017) | Asymmetric | 15,000 | | flickr30k_captions (Young et al., 2014) | Symmetric | 25,000 | | xsum (Narayan et al., 2018) | Asymmetric | 10,000 | | code_search (Husain et al., 2019) | Asymmetric | 15,000 | | ∗ (Bajaj et al., 2016) | Asymmetric | 175,000 | | msmarco hotpotqa∗ (Yang et al., 2018) | Asymmetric | 40,000 | | fever∗ (Thorne et al., 2018) | Asymmetric | 75,000 | | amazon_review_2018 (He and McAuley, 2016) | Asymmetric | 100,000 | | S2ORC_title_abstract (Lo et al., 2020) | Asymmetric | 100,000 | | PAQ_pairs (Lewis et al., 2021) | Asymmetric | 25,000 | | wow (Dinan et al., 2019) | Asymmetric | 30,000 | | trex (Elsahar et al., 2018) | Asymmetric | 30,000 | | pubmed (Sen et al., 2008) | Asymmetric | 30,000 | | medmcqa (Pal et al., 2022) | Asymmetric | 30,000 | | wikihow (Koupaee and Wang, 2018) | Asymmetric | 5,000 | | simple_wiki (Coster and Kauchak, 2011) | Asymmetric | 5,000 | | Super-NI (300 datasets) (Wang et al., 2022) | Symmetric | 180,000 | | Table 5: Number of training instances in each dataset. The dataset with * indicates that its test-split is included in | | | Table 5: Number of training instances in each dataset. The dataset with * indicates that its test-split is included in the evaluation. | Dataset | Instruction | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Instruction 1: Represent the Amazon comment for classifying the sentence as positive or negative: | | | Amazon | Instruction 2: Represent the Amazon review comment for classifying the emotion as positive or negative: | | Polarity | Instruction 3: Represent the Amazon sentence for classifying its sentiment as positive or negative: | | Classification | Instruction 4: Represent an Amazon post for classifying its sentiment as positive or negative: Instruction 5: Represent the Amazon review for classifying the review sentiment as negative or positive: Query instruction 1: Represent the finance query for retrieving supporting documents: Doc instruction 1: Represent the finance document for retrieval: Query instruction 2: Represent the financial question for retrieving supporting documents: Doc instruction 2: Represent the financial document for retrieval: | | FIQA2018 | Query instruction 3: Represent the finance query for retrieving related documents: Doc instruction 3: Represent the finance document for retrieval: Query instruction 4: Represent a finance query for retrieving relevant documents: Doc instruction 4: Represent the financial document for retrieval: Query instruction 5: Represent the finance query for retrieving supporting passages: Doc instruction 5: Represent the finance passage for retrieval: | Table 6: Example paraphrased instructions for AmazonPolarityClassification and FIQA2018. They follow the unified template (§2.3) with the same information and only differ in wording choices. | Dataset | Instruction | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | MSMARCO | Query instruction: Represent the [domain] question for retrieving evidence documents: Doc instruction: Represent the domain document for retrieval: | | gooaq_pairs | Query instruction: Represent the Google question for retrieving answers: Doc instruction: Represent the Google answer for retrieval: | | yahoo_answers_title_answer | Query instruction: Represent the Yahoo question for retrieving answers: Doc instruction: Represent the Yahoo answer for retrieval: | | eli5_question_answer | Query instruction: Represent the ELI5 question for retrieving answers: Doc instruction: Represent the ELI5 answer for retrieval: | | squad_pairs | Query instruction: Represent the Squad question for retrieving evidence documents: Doc instruction: Represent the Squad document for retrieval: | | Natural Question | Query instruction: Represent the Wikipedia question for retrieving supporting documents: Doc instruction: Represent the Wikipedia document for retrieval: | | amazon-qa | Query instruction: Represent the Amazon question for retrieving answers: Doc instruction: Represent the Amazon answer for retrieval: | | agnews | Query instruction: Represent the news title for retrieving relevant articles: Doc instruction: Represent the news article for retrieval: | | npr | Query instruction: Represent the news title for retrieving relevant articles: Doc instruction: Represent the news article for retrieval: | | ccnews_title_text | Query instruction: Represent the news title for retrieving relevant articles: Doc instruction: Represent the news article for retrieval: | | triviaqa | Query instruction: Represent the question for retrieving evidence documents: Doc instruction: Represent the evidence document for retrieval: | | zero_shot_re | Query instruction: Represent the Wikipedia question for retrieving evidence documents: Doc instruction: Represent the Wikipedia document for retrieval: | | xsum | Query instruction: Represent the news title for retrieving relevant articles: Doc instruction: Represent the news article for retrieval: | | code_search | Query instruction: Represent the comment for retrieving corresponding codes: Doc instruction: Represent the code for retrieval: | | hotpotqa | Query instruction: Represent the Wikipedia question for retrieving supporting documents: Doc instruction: Represent the Wikipedia document for retrieval: | | fever | Query instruction: Represent the fact for retrieving supporting evidence: Doc instruction: Represent the evidence for retrieval: | | amazon_review_2018 | Query instruction: Represent the Amazon title for retrieving relevant reviews: Doc instruction: Represent the Amazon review for retrieval: | | S2ORC_title_abstract | Query instruction: Represent the Scientific title for retrieving relevant abstracts:, Doc instruction: Represent the Scientific abstract for retrieval: | | PAQ_pairs | Query instruction: Represent the question for retrieving evidence documents:, Doc instruction: Represent the evidence document for retrieval: | | wow | Query instruction: Represent the Wikipedia question for retrieving supporting documents:, Doc instruction: Represent the Wikipedia document for retrieval: | | trex | Query instruction: Represent the Wikipedia question for retrieving supporting documents:, Doc instruction: Represent the Wikipedia document for retrieval: | | pubmed | Query instruction: Represent the Medicine sentence for retrieving relevant documents:, Doc instruction: Represent the Medicine document for retrieval: | | medmcqa | Query instruction: Represent the Medicine question for retrieving supporting answers:, Doc instruction: Represent the Medicine answer for retrieval: | | wikihow | Query instruction: Represent the Wikipedia summary for retrieving relevant passages:, Doc instruction: Represent the Wikipedia passage for retrieval: | | simple_wiki | Query instruction: Represent the Wikipedia sentence for retrieving simplified sentences:, Doc instruction: Represent the Wikipedia sentence for retrieval: | | Table 7: Instructions of asymmetric training dataset. We use Kmeans clustering to put MSMARCO examples into | | Table 7: Instructions of asymmetric training dataset. We use Kmeans clustering to put MSMARCO examples into 30 groups, and label the domain for each group. 1117 | Dataset | Instruction | |-----------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | stackexchange | Instruction: Represent the StackExchange question for retrieving duplicate questions: | | WikiAnswers | Instruction: Represent the Wikipedia question for retrieving duplicate questions: | | AllNLI | Instruction: Represent the sentence for retrieving duplicate sentences: | | specter_train_triples | Instruction: Represent the scientific title for retrieving duplicate titles: | | flickr30k_captions | Instruction: Represent the caption for retrieving duplicate captions: | | super-NI | Instruction: Represent the example for the following task: [dataset definition]: | Table 8: Instructions of symmetric training dataset. We use the task definitions of Super-NaturalInstructions as the task objective. | Category | Dataset | GTR | INSTRUCTOR | GTR | INSTRUCTOR | |---------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|-------|--------------|-------|--------------| | 335M | 335M | 1.5B | 1.5B | | | | SciFact | 63.8 | 64.3 | 64.2 | 64.6 | | | NFcorpus | 32.4 | 34.1 | 33.3 | 36.0 | | | ArguAna | 52.1 | 57.1 | 52.8 | 55.7 | | | CQADupstackWebmastersRetrieval | 35.7 | 46.4 | 36.5 | 45.1 | | | CQADupstackEnglishRetrieval | 46.8 | 50.8 | 46.5 | 49.3 | | | CQADupstackGamingRetrieval | 56.3 | 63.1 | 55.8 | 63.3 | | | CQADupstackGisRetrieval | 33.7 | 39.5 | 34.6 | 40.6 | | | CQADupstackAndroidRetrieval | 46.1 | 55.9 | 44.9 | 55.0 | | | CQADupstackTexRetrieval | 25.1 | 30.0 | 26.1 | 29.1 | | | CQADupstackUnixRetrieval | 35.3 | 44.7 | 36.6 | 42.5 | | | CQADupstackMathematicaRetrieval | 24.8 | 30.7 | 27.4 | 30.8 | | | CQADupstackStatsRetrieval | 30.4 | 34.6 | 30.1 | 35.7 | | | Retrieval | CQADupstackPhysicsRetrieval | 38.5 | 47.8 | 39.7 | 45.3 | | CQADupstackProgrammersRetrieval | 38.5 | 47.5 | 39.6 | 44.9 | | | CQADupstackWordpressRetrieval | 28.2 | 34.9 | 30.4 | 35.5 | | | ClimateFEVER | 26.9 | 27.8 | 27.0 | 26.5 | | | FEVER | 72.7 | 72.7 | 72.2 | 70.0 | | | FiQA2018 | 42.8 | 45.5 | 44.2 | 47.0 | | | HotpotQA | 57.9 | 55.2 | 58.9 | 55.9 | | | MSMARCO | 42.7 | 39.7 | 43.5 | 41.6 | | | NQ | 55.1 | 50.1 | 56.2 | 57.3 | | | QuoraRetrieval | 88.5 | 88.4 | 88.9 | 88.9 | | | SCIDOCS | 15.5 | 18.6 | 15.7 | 17.4 | | | DBPedia | 39.6 | 36.7 | 39.7 | 40.2 | | | TRECCOVID | 56.7 | 58.1 | 60.1 | 71.4 | | | Touche2020 | 28.3 | 21.6 | 25.3 | 23.4 | | | Table 9: All Retrieval results in MTEB benchmark. | | | | | | | Category | Dataset | GTR | INSTRUCTOR | GTR | INSTRUCTOR | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------|-------|--------------|-------|--------------| | 335M | 335M | 1.5B | 1.5B | | | | Summarization | SummEval | 29.5 | 31.8 | 30.2 | 32.0 | | AskUbuntuDupQuestions | 61.6 | 64.3 | 63.1 | 65.4 | | | Reranking | StackOverflowDupQuestions | 51.6 | 52.2 | 52.8 | 52.5 | | SciDocsRR | 76.4 | 82.0 | 76.5 | 79.5 | | | MindSmallReranking | 31.8 | 31.7 | 31.5 | 31.8 | | | BiorxivClusteringS2S | 25.7 | 31.3 | 26.1 | 30.6 | | | MedrxivClusteringS2S | 27.4 | 32.0 | 26.7 | 30.8 | | | TwentyNewsgroupsClustering | 51.6 | 54.1 | 51.2 | 53.3 | | | ArxivClusteringP2P | 37.5 | 43.2 | 37.9 | 42.5 | | | ArxivClusteringS2S | 30.6 | 32.6 | 30.5 | 32.2 | | | Clustering | BiorxivClusteringP2P | 29.6 | 37.6 | 30.5 | 37.5 | | MedrxivClusteringP2P | 28.7 | 34.2 | 28.7 | 33.2 | | | RedditClustering | 61.7 | 63.7 | 61.3 | 63.4 | | | RedditClusteringP2P | 61.7 | 64.6 | 61.1 | 65.1 | | | StackExchangeClustering | 69.9 | 68.8 | 70.0 | 68.4 | | | StackExchangeClusteringP2P | 33.2 | 36.1 | 32.7 | 35.1 | | | SprintDuplicateQuestions | 95.1 | 93.1 | 95.5 | 94.9 | | | Pair Classification | TwitterSemEval2015 | 76.0 | 77.4 | 77.8 | 78.0 | | TwitterURLCorpus | 84.9 | 87.2 | 85.1 | 86.9 | | | STS12 | 70.3 | 76.3 | 69.1 | 75.3 | | | STS13 | 82.2 | 88.2 | 81.8 | 87.4 | | | STS14 | 77.2 | 81.9 | 77.1 | 81.9 | | | STS15 | 86.3 | 89.0 | 86.0 | 88.9 | | | STS | STS16 | 81.9 | 85.5 | 82.2 | 85.4 | | STS17 | 83.9 | 90.3 | 84.9 | 90.5 | | | STS22 | 64.3 | 67.4 | 66.6 | 68.6 | | | BIOSSES | 84.9 | 84.4 | 78.9 | 84.2 | | | SICK-R | 73.4 | 81.3 | 73.6 | 81.7 | | | STSBenchmark | 77.6 | 86.9 | 77.7 | 86.6 | | | Banking77Classification | 81.2 | 78.5 | 82.2 | 82.7 | | | TweetSentimentExtractionClassification | 54.1 | 64.1 | 54.8 | 61.7 | | | AmazonReviewsClassification | 37.2 | 47.9 | 38.2 | 43.0 | | | EmotionClassification | 46.3 | 52.7 | 45.5 | 53.2 | | | AmazonCounterfactualClassification | 70.0 | 88.1 | 68.6 | 85.1 | | | Classification | ImdbClassification | 70.9 | 88.3 | 68.2 | 80.1 | | MassiveIntentClassification | 70.1 | 68.9 | 70.2 | 71.5 | | | MassiveScenarioClassification | 75.5 | 73.4 | 75.9 | 76.5 | | | MTOPIntentClassification | 63.9 | 68.0 | 65.9 | 72.3 | | | MTOPDomainClassification | 94.0 | 93.9 | 93.6 | 95.1 | | | AmazonPolarityClassification | 73.9 | 91.5 | 74.6 | 86.5 | | | ToxicConversationsClassification | 68.7 | 71.1 | 67.6 | 70.3 | | | RTE | 56.1 | 58.8 | 56.8 | 59.3 | | | SST-5 | 52.4 | 53.8 | 53.2 | 60.1 | | | coda19_title_generation | 21.2 | 23.6 | 21.4 | 27.8 | | | multirc_answerability | 62.5 | 63.6 | 63.7 | 72.6 | | | MRPC | 60.3 | 65.4 | 60.8 | 72.9 | | | Prompt Retrieval | HellaSwag | 61.6 | 62.8 | 63.4 | 72.4 | | Amazon | 36.0 | 38.0 | 36.0 | 48.0 | | | Dbpedia_14 | 91.7 | 93.0 | 91.7 | 94.0 | | | GeoQuery | 53.4 | 64.2 | 53.5 | 63.2 | | | Multi-Woz | 90.8 | 94.4 | 91.0 | 95.2 | | | CivilComments | 71.8 | 77.2 | 72.6 | 88.3 | | | mscoco | 32.3 | 41.6 | 33.2 | 39.7 | | | Billboard | cnn summary | 25.8 | 30.3 | 26.1 | 31.9 | | machine translation | 35.4 | 38.9 | 36.6 | 30.6 | | | Table 10: All Prompt retrieval, Billboard, and MTEB English results, cont. | | | | | | ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? section 7, after conclusion. ✗ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Models and datasets are all open-sourced and used consistently with their intended use. We do not see potential risks beyond these open-sourced artifacts. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? See the introduction and abstract ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Section 3. We open-source our code. All of our pipeline is based on open-sourced artifacts from prior work that is properly cited. ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? See section 3 and the rest of the paper. All papers are properly cited. ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? See section 3. All experiments are based on publicly available datasets and models. ✓ 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)? See section 3. All experiments are consistent. 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. We only use publicly available data that come with appropriate documentations. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Section 3 provides details. We also provide a codebase with full documentations. ✓ 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. We report experimental settings in Section 2,3 and the appendix. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Section 3. See The Appendix For More Details ✓ 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 3 and the appendix for more detail. 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 3 and the appendix for more detail ✓ 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 and the appendix for more detail ✓ 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 3 and the appendix for more detail ## D ✓ **Did You Use Human Annotators (E.G., Crowdworkers) Or Research With Human Participants?** See Section 2 For More Detail. ✓ 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.? See section 2 for more detail. 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. All the annotations are performed by authors without extra payment. ✓ 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? See section 2 for more detail. 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? All the annotations are performed by authors.

shimizu-etal-2023-towards

Towards Speech Dialogue Translation Mediating Speakers of Different Languages

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.72

We present a new task, speech dialogue translation mediating speakers of different languages. We construct the SpeechBSD dataset for the task and conduct baseline experiments. Furthermore, we consider context to be an important aspect that needs to be addressed in this task and propose two ways of utilizing context, namely monolingual context and bilingual context. We conduct cascaded speech translation experiments using Whisper and mBART, and show that bilingual context performs better in our settings.

# Towards Speech Dialogue Translation Mediating Speakers Of Different Languages Shuichiro Shimizu1 Chenhui Chu1 Sheng Li2 **Sadao Kurohashi**1,3 1Kyoto University, Japan 2National Institute of Information and Communications Technology, Japan 3National Institute of Informatics, Japan {sshimizu,chu,kuro}@nlp.ist.i.kyoto-u.ac.jp sheng.li@nict.go.jp ## Abstract We present a new task, speech dialogue translation mediating speakers of different languages. We construct the SpeechBSD dataset for the task and conduct baseline experiments. Furthermore, we consider context to be an important aspect that needs to be addressed in this task and propose two ways of utilizing context, namely monolingual context and bilingual context. We conduct cascaded speech translation experiments using Whisper and mBART, and show that bilingual context performs better in our settings. ## 1 Introduction In this global era, it is becoming increasingly important for people from different countries/regions to interact with each other and have a mutual understanding. Recent advancements in machine translation (MT) technologies have enabled us to communicate with people worldwide, especially in text. Chat translation or dialogue machine translation (Liu et al., 2021) supports such communications, which enables people who use different languages to have cross-language chats. Speech translation (ST) has also recently shown success (e.g., Chen et al., 2022), especially in monologue translation (e.g., Di Gangi et al., 2019). However, to the best of our knowledge, no study has focused on ST of dialogues, which is an important aspect of language usage. In this study, we propose a new task: speech dialogue translation (SDT) aiming to mediate speakers of different languages. We consider bilingual dialogues where several people who speak in different languages talk with each other mediated by an ST system. It is important to consider context in SDT because we need to consider context in different languages, which cannot be readily handled by current ST systems that mainly focus on one translation direction. Figure 1 shows an example of an STmediated dialogue between an English speaker and a Japanese speaker. They are discussing some ideas, and the English speaker says, "What do you think about it?" The Japanese speaker responds by saying the idea is naive, but without context it can be translated as "I think it's a bit sweet" because "甘い" has two meanings, sweet and naive. By utilizing dialogue context, the meaning of "甘い" becomes clear so that the utterance can be translated properly. For the proposed task, we construct the SpeechBSD dataset1 based on an existing text dialogue corpus, BSD (Bussiness Scene Dialogue) corpus (Rikters et al., 2019). We collect audio of the BSD corpus through crowdsourcing along with speaker attributes. We conduct speech-to-text cascaded ST experiments on the dataset. There are two mainstream methods for ST, the cascade method (Stentiford and Steer, 1988) where automatic speech recognition (ASR) and MT are chained together, and the end-to-end method (Duong et al., 2016; Berard et al., 2016), where translations are directly predicted from speech. Recent study (Bentivogli et al., 2021; Tran et al., 2022) suggests that the two methods are on par. We conduct cascade ST experiments using Whisper (Radford et al., 2022) for ASR and mBART (Liu et al., 2020) for MT. We consider three settings for translation: without context, with monolingual context, and with bilingual context. The monolingual context is composed in the language the utterance to be translated is spoken, whereas the bilingual context is composed in the original language of the spoken utterances (see examples in Figure 1). We show that translation with bilingual context performs better compared to the one without context by up to 1.9 BLEU points in MT and 1.7 BLEU points in 1The dataset is made public under the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license at https://github.com/ku-nlp/speechBSD.  cascade ST with our settings. We also conduct a manual evaluation focusing on zero anaphora, a grammatical phenomenon where arguments of verbs are omitted when they are apparent from the context in Japanese. We show that with bilingual context, the MT models can often predict zero pronouns correctly. ## 2 Related Work Although neural MT has greatly improved over the past few years, the translation of dialogues remains a challenging task because of its characteristics. Liu et al. (2021) summarizes the recent progress of dialogue MT and categorizes its issue into four categories, coherence, consistency, cohesion, and personality. The main approaches to address these problems include document MT (e.g., Liu et al., 2021), usage of pretrained models (e.g., Wang et al., 2020), and auxiliary task learning utilizing speaker information (e.g., Liang et al., 2021). Considering context in ST is recently studied for the end-to-end approach (Zhang et al., 2021). We point out that although not addressed in this work, considering context for ASR is also an active research area (e.g., Inaguma and Kawahara, 2021). In this work, we focus on the translation of speech dialogue. We use mBART, which performed best in a previous work of chat translation (Liu et al., 2021), and also consider utilizing context. ## 3 Speech Dialogue Translation (Sdt) In SDT, there are several speakers who speak different languages with the help of a translation system. In this work, we consider M speakers {S m | m = 1, 2, · · · , M} and 2 languages {L n| n = 1, 2}. We consider a dialogue with T utterances D = (U1, · · · , UT ), where an utterance is Ut = (S m t, Ln t, Xt). Here, S m tis the speaker, L n t is the language spoken, and Xtis the speech signal of t-th utterance. Let Y n t(n = 1, 2) be text that has the same meaning as Xtin language L n. The task of SDT is to generate translation Y 2 tfrom speech signal Xt when the source language is L 1(or translation Y 1 tfrom Xt when the source language is L 2) for every utterance Ut. ## 4 Speechbsd Dataset We construct the SpeechBSD dataset to study SDT. It is based on the existing dialogue dataset in text, BSD corpus (Rikters et al., 2019, 2021). We collect audio of all the sentences in the dataset along with speaker attributes (gender and homeplace) through crowdsourcing. ## 4.1 Bsd Corpus BSD corpus is a parallel corpus of English and Japanese composed of manually designed business scene dialogues. Each dialogue called scenario contains 30 sentences on average spoken by 2-5 speakers. The original language the scenarios were written in is half English and half Japanese so that the expressions are not biased toward one language. ## 4.2 Dataset Construction First, we divided each scenario by speaker. For example in Figure 1, the original BSD corpus contains text of Y 1 1 , Y 2 1 , Y 1 2 , Y 2 2 , Y 1 3 , and Y 2 3 . In this case, we divide the dialogue into four parts: the Japanese speaker part (Y 1 1and Y 1 3 ), the English speaker part (Y 2 2 ), another Japanese speaker part (Y 1 2 ), and another English speaker part (Y 2 1and Y 2 3 ). In this way, we can compose two crosslanguage dialogues (Y 1 1 → Y 2 2 → Y 1 3 and Y 2 1 → Y 1 2 → Y 2 3 ) from one scenario of the BSD corpus. We collected audio through crowdsourcing so that each part is spoken by a different worker.2 We designed a web application to record audio and collected English speech from the US using Amazon Mechanical Turk3and Japanese speech from Japan using Yahoo! crowdsourcing.4 We also collected the gender and homeplace (the US states or Japanese prefecture) of the speakers as they may affect translation performance. The instructions given to the workers are shown in Appendix A.1. ## 4.3 Statistics Of The Speechbsd Dataset The collected audio was 24.3 hours for English speech and 30.7 hours for Japanese speech in total. Details are provided in Appendix B Table 2. Regarding speaker gender, English speech was balanced, whereas there were more male speakers in Japanese. As for homeplace, in Japanese, the speakers were distributed roughly according to the population distribution. In English, it was less diverse (Appendix B Figure 3). ## 5 Considering Context For Sdt We propose two ways to consider context in SDT: monolingual context and bilingual context. First, for every utterance Ut, an ASR system is used to obtain transcripts Y n t . The monolingual context is composed in the source language of the utterance to be translated. For example, in Figure 1, when translating the third utterance U3 from Japanese to English, as the source language of the utterance is Japanese (L 1), the context (Y 1 1 and Y 1 2 ) is also composed in Japanese. Let the context composed in this way be Y n <t. For monolingual context experiments, we use two translation models for each translation direction. The training objective of the MT model that translates from L 1to L 2is to maximize the following log likelihood5: $${\mathcal{L}}^{1\to2}=\sum_{t}\log\mathrm{P}(Y_{t}^{2},Y_{<t}^{2}\,|\,Y_{t}^{1},Y_{<t}^{1}).\quad(1)$$ $\epsilon=\sigma_{\mu\nu}$ Similar objective L 2→1can be derived when L 2is the source language and L 1is the target language. Postprocessing is applied to extract Y 2 tfrom the output that contains both Y 2 <t and Y 2 t . The bilingual context is composed of the original language of the spoken utterances. For example, in Figure 1, when translating the third utterance U3 from Japanese to English, the bilingual context on the source side is Y 1 1 and Y 2 2 , which involves both languages. The bilingual context on the target side is Y 2 1and Y 1 2 . Because there is no concept of source or target language in this case, let the source side utterance be Yt, source side context be Y<t, target side utterance be Yt, and target side context be Y<t. The MT model is trained with the following objective: $${\mathcal{L}}=\sum_{t}\log\mathrm{P}({\overline{{Y_{t}}}},{\overline{{Y_{<t}}}}\,|\,Y_{t},{\mathbf{Y}}_{<t}).\qquad(2)$$ $=\;\pm\sqrt{15}$ . Postprocessing is applied to extract Yt from the output. We consider constrained context with context size c in practice, which shows the number of previous utterances used for translation in addition to the utterance to be translated. More formal definitions of monolingual, bilingual, and constrained context are provided in Appendix C. ## 6 Experiments 6.1 Automatic Speech Recognition In SDT, ASR has to handle bilingual inputs. We used a multilingual ASR model Whisper (Radford et al., 2022). The medium model with 12 encoder and decoder layers was used without finetuning. Further details are provided in Appendix D.1. We evaluated the performance of the SpeechBSD test set. For English the word error rate was 8.3 %, and for Japanese the character error rate was 13.2 %. ## 6.2 Machine Translation MT model also needs to handle bilingual inputs in SDT. We used mBART (Liu et al., 2020) and finetuned the model with SpeechBSD for MT. The large model with 12 encoder and decoder layers 5The utterances are generated token-wise. The notations in equations 1 and 2 are simplified for clarity. was used. Although the dialogues are regarded as bilingual ones in this study, the predictions were recomposed to the monolingual dialogue form for evaluation because usually performance of MT models is evaluated on a single language pair. SacreBLEU (Post, 2018) was used for calculating BLEU scores. Further details are provided in Appendix D.2. ## 6.2.1 Context Settings Three settings were considered: translation without context, with monolingual context, and with bilingual context. Without Context Each utterance in a scenario was treated as a separate sentence in this setting. Finetuning was performed separately for each translation direction. Monolingual Context For each utterance in a scenario, monolingual context with context width c = 5 was composed in the way described in section 5. The context utterances and the utterance to translate were concatenated with the end of sentence token </s>. Finetuning was performed separately for each translation direction. Bilingual Context For each utterance in a scenario, bilingual context with context width c = 5 was composed in the way described in section 5. The context utterances and the utterance to translate were concatenated with the end of sentence token </s>. As there is no concept of source language or target language in this setting, a single model was finetuned in this setting. 6.2.2 Results Table 1 (upper part) shows the results of the MT experiments. Comparing "Without" with "Monolingual," more than 0.9 points of improvement were observed using monolingual context. Comparing "Monolingual" with "Bilingual," the latter performed better, especially in Ja–En. 6.2.3 Manual Evaluation To verify how context can help improve translations, we conducted a manual evaluation focusing on a grammatical phenomenon called zero anaphora, as discussed in Rikters et al. (2019). Similarly to Rikters et al. (2019), we counted the number of sentences with pronouns *I, you, he, she, it*, and *they* in English6and observed that 63 % of the 6We tokenized sentences with the NLTK toolkit (Bird et al., 2009). | Context | En–Ja | Ja–En | | |------------|-------------|---------|-------| | Without | 15.9 | 18.2 | | | MT | Monolingual | 16.8† | 19.5† | | Bilingual | 17.0† | 20.1†‡ | | | Without | 15.2 | 15.4 | | | Cascade ST | Monolingual | 15.9† | 16.5† | | Bilingual | 16.4† | 17.1†‡ | | test sentences included them. We sampled 50 of those sentences from the test set. First, we checked if the subjects of the Japanese sentences were zero pronouns by comparing Japanese and English gold references. Then we checked if the zero pronouns were translated into English correctly for the predictions of each Ja–En system. Out of the 50 sentences, 29 were sentences with zero pronoun subjects. The number of sentences that the missing pronoun was translated correctly was 19, 20, and 24 for without context, monolingual context, and bilingual context settings, respectively. This shows that context can help disambiguate zero pronouns, and using bilingual context can help generate correct pronouns. Examples of the sentences are shown in Appendix E. ## 6.3 Cascade Speech Translation Cascade ST experiments were performed by using Whisper recognition results as input to the MT models described in section 6.2. Table 1 (lower part) shows the results. Similarly to MT, BLEU score improved by more than 0.7 points by using monolingual context. Further improvements by more than 0.5 points were observed using bilingual context. We also performed manual evaluation as in Section 6.2.3. The number of sentences that the missing pronoun was translated correctly was 16, 18, and 22 for without context, monolingual context, and bilingual context settings, respectively. It showed a similar trend to the results of section 6.2.3 with lower translation accuracy. Examples of the sentences are shown in Appendix E. ## 7 Conclusion We presented a new task, SDT aiming to mediate speakers of different languages. We constructed the SpeechBSD dataset via crowdsourcing. We performed MT experiments utilizing context and showed its effectiveness. In the future, we plan to perform experiments in end-to-end ST settings and SDT utilizing speaker attributes. ## Limitations The experiments were performed only on Japanese and English bilingual dialogue collected from a limited number of native speakers. Although the methods proposed in this work can work on any language pair, drawing conclusions for other language pairs should be avoided. The experiments were performed using existing pretrained models, Whisper and mBART, and the method used to pretrain those models would have affected the translation performances in this work. The dialogues in the SpeechBSD dataset are the read speech of pre-composed text dialogues, and further research is required for more realistic settings such as spontaneous dialogues. ## Ethics Statement Consent was obtained from the crowdsourcing workers when collecting audio, gender, and homeplace. The SpeechBSD dataset is made public under the Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercial-ShareAlike (CC BY-NC-SA) 4.0 license, which is the same as the license of the BSD corpus, and shall be used only for research purposes. Caution should be exercised when using gender or homeplace information included in the dataset so that the identities of the speakers are not revealed. ## Acknowledgegments This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers JP23H03454 and JP23KJ1356. ## References Luisa Bentivogli, Mauro Cettolo, Marco Gaido, Alina Karakanta, Alberto Martinelli, Matteo Negri, and Marco Turchi. 2021. Cascade versus direct speech translation: Do the differences still make a difference? 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 2873–2887, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alexandre Berard, Olivier Pietquin, Christophe Servan, and Laurent Besacier. 2016. Listen and Translate: A Proof of Concept for End-to-End Speech-to-Text Translation. In *NIPS Workshop on End-to-end Learning for Speech and Audio Processing*. Steven Bird, Edward Loper, and Ewan Klein. 2009. Natural Language Processing with Python. O'Reilly Media Inc. Zhehuai Chen, Yu Zhang, Andrew Rosenberg, Bhuvana Ramabhadran, Pedro J. Moreno, Ankur Bapna, and Heiga Zen. 2022. MAESTRO: Matched Speech Text Representations through Modality Matching. In *Proc.* Interspeech 2022, pages 4093–4097. Mattia A. Di Gangi, Roldano Cattoni, Luisa Bentivogli, Matteo Negri, and Marco Turchi. 2019. MuST-C: a Multilingual Speech Translation Corpus. 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 2012–2017, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. Long Duong, Antonios Anastasopoulos, David Chiang, Steven Bird, and Trevor Cohn. 2016. An Attentional Model for Speech Translation Without Transcription. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. Hirofumi Inaguma and Tatsuya Kawahara. 2021. VADFree Streaming Hybrid CTC/Attention ASR for Unsegmented Recording. In *Proc. Interspeech 2021*, pages 4049–4053. Taku Kudo and John Richardson. 2018. SentencePiece: A simple and language independent subword tokenizer and detokenizer for neural text processing. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 66–71, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yunlong Liang, Chulun Zhou, Fandong Meng, Jinan Xu, Yufeng Chen, Jinsong Su, and Jie Zhou. 2021. Towards making the most of dialogue characteristics for neural chat translation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 67–79, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Siyou Liu, Yuqi Sun, and Longyue Wang. 2021. Recent advances in dialogue machine translation. *Information*, 12(11). 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. Myle Ott, Sergey Edunov, Alexei Baevski, Angela Fan, Sam Gross, Nathan Ng, David Grangier, and Michael Auli. 2019. fairseq: A fast, extensible toolkit for sequence modeling. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Demonstrations)*, pages 48–53, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. Matt Post. 2018. A call for clarity in reporting BLEU scores. In Proceedings of the Third Conference on Machine Translation: Research Papers, pages 186– 191, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Tao Xu, Greg Brockman, Chiristine McLeavey, and Ilya Sutskever. 2022. Robust Speech Recognition via Large-Scale Weak Supervision. Stefan Riezler and John T. Maxwell. 2005. On some pitfalls in automatic evaluation and significance testing for MT. In Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evaluation Measures for Machine Translation and/or Summarization, pages 57–64, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Association for Computational Linguistics. Mat¯ıss Rikters, Ryokan Ri, Tong Li, and Toshiaki Nakazawa. 2019. Designing the business conversation corpus. In Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Asian Translation, pages 54–61, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Mat¯ıss Rikters, Ryokan Ri, Tong Li, and Toshiaki Nakazawa. 2021. Japanese–english conversation parallel corpus for promoting context-aware machine translation research. *Journal of Natural Language* Processing, 28(2):380–403. F. W. M. Stentiford and M. G. Steer. 1988. Machine translation of speech. British Telecom technology journal. Viet Anh Khoa Tran, David Thulke, Yingbo Gao, Christian Herold, and Hermann Ney. 2022. Does Joint Training Really Help Cascaded Speech Translation? Longyue Wang, Zhaopeng Tu, Xing Wang, Li Ding, Liang Ding, and Shuming Shi. 2020. Tencent AI lab machine translation systems for WMT20 chat translation task. In *Proceedings of the Fifth Conference* on Machine Translation, pages 483–491, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Biao Zhang, Ivan Titov, Barry Haddow, and Rico Sennrich. 2021. Beyond sentence-level end-to-end speech translation: Context helps. 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 2566–2578, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. ## A Crowdsourcing Details A.1 Crowdsourcing Instructions Given To The Workers Figure 2 shows the instructions given to the crowdsourcing workers and the interface used to record audio. We asked the workers to speak clearly and formally and to check that the audio was properly recorded. With the interface, we made sure that the workers agreed that their voices would be released and that the utterances were properly recorded. ## A.2 Crowdsourcing Payment The crowdsourcing tasks were divided according to the number of utterances to record. The authors performed preliminary crowdsourcing tasks and estimated how long the tasks would take for each case. We paid the workers according to the estimated time and predefined wage per hour determined for each country. ## B Statistics Of The Speechbsd Dataset Table 2 shows the statistics of the SpeechBSD dataset. Figure 3 shows the homeplace distribution of the speakers of the SpeechBSD dataset. The Japanese one (3(b)) roughly reflects Japan's demographics (concentrated around Tokyo, Osaka, and Nagoya), whereas the English one (3(a)) is more biased (concentrated too much on California and Virginia). We believe these biases are caused by the differences in the crowdsourcing platforms used. ## C Formal Definition Of Context Here, we formally formulate monolingual, bilingual, and constrained contexts introduced in Section 5. For simplicity, we consider the case where M = 2 and m = n (i.e., speaker S ispeaks in language L i(i = 1, 2)). In addition, we suppose the speakers speak interchangeably, and speaker S 1starts the conversation.7In other words, defining a map L : Ut7→ L i, $$\forall U\in\{U_{t}\mid t\equiv i\,(\mathrm{mod}2)\},\quad L(U)=L^{i}.$$ The monolingual context is composed of previous utterances in a single language. In other words, monolingual context text of utterance Utin language L iis $$Y_{<t}^{i}=\{Y_{\tau}^{i}\,|\,\tau<t\}.$$ For example in Figure 1, when translating the third utterance U3 from Japanese to English, the monolingual context of the source side is "彼は良い考 えだと言ってました。あなたはどう思います か?", and that of the target side is "He said it's a good idea. What do you think?" Using this formulation, we can formally define the training objective of Equation 1. During inference, for the source language of the current utterance, ASR transcripts are used, and for the target language of the current utterance, the translations of ASR transcripts are used to compose context. During training, the corresponding gold text is used. The Bilingual context is composed of transcripts of the two languages. ASR transcripts are used during inference, and gold transcripts are used for training. The bilingual context of utterance Utis Y<t = Y˜ 1 <t ∪ Y˜ 2 <t, where $$\tilde{Y}_{<t}^{i}=\{Y_{\tau}^{i}\mid\tau<t\,\land\,\tau\equiv i\,(\mathrm{mod}\,2)\}.$$ For example in Figure 1, when translating the third utterance U3 from Japanese to English, the bilingual context of the source side is "彼は良い考え だと言ってました。What do you think about it?", and that of the target side is "He said it's a good idea. あなたはどう思いますか?" For bilingual context experiments, the MT system has to be able to handle two translation directions. Let the translation of Y<t be Y<t = Y˜ 1 <t ∪ Y˜ 2 <t, where $$\begin{array}{c}{{\widetilde{Y}_{<t}^{i}=\{Y_{\tau}^{j}\ |\ \tau<t\ \land\ \tau\equiv i\,(\mathrm{mod}2)\},}}\\ {{(i,j)=(1,2),(2,1).}}\end{array}$$ a. Ytis Y 2 t when L(Ut) = L 1and Y 1 t when L(Ut) = L 2. By setting Y<t as source side context and target side context as Y<t, we can formally define the training objective of Equation 2. In practice, we consider context width c for context U<t = {Uτ | *τ < t*} because the maximum length the MT models can handle is limited. The constrained context of utterance Ut with context width c is $${\boldsymbol{U}}_{<t}=\{U_{\tau}\,|\,\tau=t-1,\cdots,t-c\,\land\,\tau>0\}.$$     | Train | Dev. | Test | | |---------------------------|-------------|-------------|-------------| | # of scenarios | 670 | 69 | 69 | | # of sentences | 20,000 | 2,051 | 2,120 | | English speech (h) | 20.1 | 2.1 | 2.1 | | Japanese speech (h) | 25.3 | 2.7 | 2.7 | | English gender (M / F %) | 47.2 / 52.8 | 50.1 / 49.9 | 44.4 / 55.6 | | Japanese gender (M / F %) | 68.0 / 32.0 | 62.3 / 37.7 | 69.0 / 31.0 | ## D Experimental Settings D.1 Asr Whisper is a Transformer-based model that uses 80-channel log-Mel spectrograms converted from audio sampled with 16, 000 Hz as input. As it is trained with 680, 000 hours of data in various domains the model is robust enough to be able to work without any finetuning. We used the byte-level BPE vocabulary (size 50, 257) of the pretrained model. We assumed the language of the utterances was given beforehand and fed the language tag to the model as a prefix token. We evaluated the development set of the SpeechBSD dataset using the base, small, medium, and large models with either greedy decoding or beam search decoding with beam size 5. We observed that the medium model with greedy decoding performed the best for both English and Japanese, which are the settings used for further experiments. ## D.2 Mt We used mBART trained with 25 languages for the experiments. BPE vocabulary of size 25, 001 was used. As a preprocessing step, BPE was applied to all utterances with the sentencepiece (Kudo and Richardson, 2018) toolkit. Fairseq (Ott et al., 2019) was used for training and inference. The same hyperparameters as in Liu et al. (2020) were used, except that the training epochs were determined according to early stopping with patience 10 on validation loss. We did not use different random seeds for the experiments because Liu et al. (2020) reported that the finetuning process was stable with different seeds. When evaluating the model, the averaged weights of the last 10 checkpoints were used. The SacreBLEU signatures were nrefs:1|case:mixed|eff:no|tok:ja-mecab0.996-IPA|smooth:exp|version:2.0.0 for En– Ja and nrefs:1|case:mixed|eff:no|tok:13a| smooth:exp|version:2.0.0 for Ja–En. We conducted significance tests with paired approximate randomization (Riezler and Maxwell, 2005) with 10, 000 approximate randomization trials and a p-value threshold of 0.05 to compare the BLEU scores of "without context" with the others, and "monolingual context" with "bilingual context." For bilingual context MT experiments, in order to match the finetuning style of mBART, language tags like ja_XX or en_XX have to be appended at the last of each translation unit. However, in bilingual context settings, both the source and the target side contain both languages, which does not comply with the finetuning style described in the original mBART paper (Liu et al., 2020). We conducted two kinds of experiments, appending ja_XX to the input and en_XX to the output and the other way around. The statistical significance test showed that they were not significantly different. We report the results of the systems where the language pair of the utterance to be translated matches the language pair specified by the appended language tags. As to the context size c, we changed it from 1 to 8 in the bilingual context setting and evaluated the models with BLEU score on the validation set. The results are shown in Figure 4. In the bilingual context setting, 5 was the best for both En–Ja and Ja–En. For the monolingual context setting, 5 and 6 were the best for En–Ja and 3 for Ja–En. The difference between setting 3 and 5 as context width did not show a statistically significant difference in the BLEU scores for Ja–En. Therefore, for a consistent comparison, we reported the results on the test set with c = 5 in Table 1. We used 4 Tesla V100 or Titan RTX GPUs for the experiments. The total computation hours, including hyperparameter searching, were 278 hours.  BR ## E Example Sentences From Manual Evaluation Table 3 shows examples from manual evaluation described in Section 6.2.3 . In the first example, it is observed that the zero pronoun ( She ) is predicted correctly when monolingual or bilingual context is used in both MT and cascade ST experiments. In the second example, the zero pronoun ( They ) could not be correctly predicted by any system. | Context | | | |--------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Ja reference | - | もう諦めて、仕事なら仕方ないわねって。 | | En reference | - | She's given up and just says it can't be helped if it's work. | | Without | I just gave up and said I can't do it if it's my job. | | | MT | Monolingual | She just gave up and said it's okay if it's the job. | | Bilingual | She's giving up on it and says if it's work then it's all right. | | | Without | If I just gave up and gave up my job, I can't do anything about it. | | | Cascade ST | Monolingual | She said if I just gave up and gave up on the job then it should be fine. | | Bilingual | She said if I just give up and give up on the job then it's all right. | | (a) An example where the "monolingual" and "bilingual" context predictions were better than the "without context" one. In this scenario, Patrick complains to Gary that he does not want to go to his company's drinking party. Gary asks what Patrick's wife thinks about it, and this is Patrick's response. The pronoun She is omitted in the Japanese utterance. Word-by-word translation of the Japanese utterance with omitted words is: "(彼女は)–she / もう–already / 諦めて–give up / それが–it's / 仕事–work / な ら–if / (それは)–it / 仕方ない–can't be helped / わね–I think / って(言ってる)–says ." | Context | | | |--------------|------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------| | Ja reference | - | いつ在庫が入るか、でしょう? | | En reference | - | They all want to know when it will be restocked, don't they? | | Without | When will the inventory start? | | | MT | Monolingual | So when will the inventory be available? | | Bilingual | I wonder when it will be in stock? | | | Without | When will the inventory arrive? | | | Cascade ST | Monolingual | I wonder when it will be in stock. | | Bilingual | I wonder when it will be in stock. | | (b) An example where all systems failed to predict the correct pronoun. In this scenario, Mr. Ogawa and Ms. Pace are talking about their company's stock of a product. The previous utterances by Mr. Ogawa are, "We have 28 backorders for this product. I have been receiving many inquiries from the customers lately." This is the subsequent Ms. Pace's response. The pronoun *They* is omitted in the Japanese utterance. Word-by-word translation of the Japanese utterance with omitted words is: "(彼らは)–they / いつ–when / 在庫–stock / が入るか–becomes avaiable / (を聞くの)–ask / でしょう–don't they." The translation is difficult because the word corresponding to "ask" is also omitted. Table 3: Examples from manual evaluation of Ja–En translations focusing on zero pronouns. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? The Limitations section is after Section 7. ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? The Ethics Statement before References. ✓ 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 4. ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 4. ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? The Ethics Statement before References. ✓ 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. ✓ 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 before References. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Section 4. ✓ 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 and Appendix B. ## 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? Appendix D.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 and Appendix D. ✓ 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 D. ✓ 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 and Appendix D. D ✓ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Section 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.? Appendix A. ✓ 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 4 and Appendix A. ✓ 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? Appendix A. ✗ 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? Appendix B.

bhardwaj-etal-2023-adaptation

Adaptation Approaches for Nearest Neighbor Language Models

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.73

Semi-parametric Nearest Neighbor Language Models (kNN-LMs) have produced impressive gains over purely parametric LMs, by leveraging large-scale neighborhood retrieval over external memory datastores. However, there has been little investigation into adapting such models for new domains. This work attempts to fill that gap and suggests the following approaches for adapting kNN-LMs {---} 1) adapting the underlying LM (using Adapters), 2) expanding neighborhood retrieval over an additional adaptation datastore, and 3) adapting the weights (scores) of retrieved neighbors using a learned Rescorer module. We study each adaptation strategy separately, as well as the combined performance improvement through ablation experiments and an extensive set of evaluations run over seven adaptation domains. Our combined adaptation approach consistently outperforms purely parametric adaptation and zero-shot (kNN-LM) baselines that construct datastores from the adaptation data. On average, we see perplexity improvements of 17.1{\%} and 16{\%} for these respective baselines, across domains.

# Adaptation Approaches For Nearest Neighbor Language Models Rishabh Bhardwaj1∗ **George Polovets**2 1Singapore University of Technology and Design, Singapore 2AWS AI Labs rishabhbhardwaj15@gmail.com {polovg, sunkaral}@amazon.com Monica Sunkara2 ## Abstract  Semi-parametric Nearest Neighbor Language Models (kNN-LMs) have produced impressive gains over purely parametric LMs, by leveraging large-scale neighborhood retrieval over external memory datastores. However, there has been little investigation into adapting such models for new domains. This work attempts to fill that gap and suggests the following approaches for adapting kNN-LMs - 1) adapting the underlying LM (using Adapters), 2) expanding neighborhood retrieval over an additional adaptation datastore, and 3) adapting the weights (scores) of retrieved neighbors using a learned Rescorer module. We study each adaptation strategy separately, as well as the combined performance improvement through ablation experiments and an extensive set of evaluations run over seven adaptation domains. Our combined adaptation approach consistently outperforms purely parametric adaptation and zero-shot (kNN-LM) baselines that construct datastores from the adaptation data. On average, we see perplexity improvements of 17.1% and 16% for these respective baselines, across domains. ## 1 Introduction Natural Language Processing (NLP) has observed large performance improvements with recent advancements in neural Language Models (LMs). These models have enabled learning rich, semantic text representations (Mikolov et al., 2010; Bengio et al., 2000) that have facilitated a wide range of downstream language tasks (Radford et al., 2018, 2019). For the task of next-word prediction, parametric LMs utilize the rich contextual text representations as input to a classifier (output layer), which produces a distribution over the possible next words. In contrast to parametric LMs, k-Nearest Neighbor LMs (kNN-LMs) are semi-parametric models Figure 1: An illustration of the proposed kNN-LM adaptation approach. The current context is used as a query (q) for nearest-neighbor retrieval. The context is passed through the LM to obtain the query vector representation ⃗cq, which is then used to retrieve nearest neighbors from a large pretraining datastore and a smaller adaptation datastore (displayed in pink and yellow, respectively). The function f(·) represents merging of datastores (Merge), followed by rescoring (Rank) of the retrieved neighbors to obtain pkNN. The probability distribution over the candidate next words is computed by the mixture of probabilities pkNN and pLM, where pLM denotes probabilities obtained from domainadapted LM. that maintain an external memory (i.e. **datastore**) (Khandelwal et al., 2019). This datastore is composed of key-value pairs, where the keys are contextual embeddings created from passing text data through an LM, and the values are the respective next-word labels. The datastore can be used to retrieve k-nearest neighbors for the current context. The retrieved values induce a probability distribution over the next word, which is combined with the LM probabilities. This mixture of probabilities has produced impressive gains over probabilities obtained from purely parametric LMs and has been shown to generate even larger improvements with the in- ∗Work done during an internship at AWS AI Labs. 1135 crease in the scale of the datastore (Khandelwal et al., 2019; Yogatama et al., 2021; He et al., 2021). While the dependency on a large-scale datastore is easy to satisfy when developing general-purpose pretrained models, it is challenging to develop effective kNN-LMs when it comes to specialized domains. This is due to the scarcity of domainspecific data, limiting the size of the corresponding datastore. We posit that large, general-purpose datastores, referred to as the **pretraining datastore**, contain a significant amount of relevant information which can still be applied to specialized domains. This information can be leveraged through nearestneighbor retrieval and should prove especially useful in situations where there is an insufficient amount of domain-specific data to generate an effective standalone datastore. Unlike parametric neural architectures which can employ gradient-based finetuning for domain adaptation, it is less obvious how to adapt kNN-LMs primarily because of the non-parametric nature of datastores. One simple approach would be to reconstruct the datastore, using domainadapted LM representations. However, this comes at the cost of incurring a large memory footprint for each adaptation domain. In this work, we instead choose to focus on adaptation strategies that are parameter and memory efficient. Given the complementary nature of the parametric and nonparametric components in a kNN-LM, we pursue adaptation strategies separately for each component and analyze their impact on the kNN-LM system's adaptation performance. 1. Adaptation of the parametric LM: Given that we constrain ourselves to parameter-efficient adaptation techniques, we utilize Adapters (Houlsby et al., 2019) for finetuning the parametric LM because of their competitive performance with full model finetuning (Hou et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2022). We also investigate the impact of adapting the parametric component on the quality of retrieved neighbors from the pretraining datastore. 2. Adaptation of the non-parametric kNN: As a memory-efficient alternative to reconstructing the pretraining datastore with domain-adapted representations, we formulate kNN adaptation as learning a domain-specific neighborhood scoring function (i.e. a **Rescorer**). This proposed Rescorer is trained to assign optimal weights to each retrieved neighbor for a given domain. We also consider expanding our neighborhood retrieval to include an additional datastore referred to as the **adaptation datastore**, created purely from the target domain. Relative to the pretraining datastore, the addition of the adaptation datastore further increases the memory footprint by an incremental amount. In line with previous works, we focus our experiments solely on the core Language Modeling task of next-word prediction (Khandelwal et al., 2019; Yogatama et al., 2021). Results on seven adaptation domains ranging from science and books, to conversational text, demonstrate that our componentlevel strategies consistently improve over respective parametric and semi-parametric baselines, and produce even better results when combined together. Specifically, we find that adaptation of the parametric component increases recall of groundtruth labels found in the retrieved neighbors. We also confirm that the large-scale pretraining datastore contains relevant information for adaptation domains, via its performance edge over models that exclude it. Finally, we observe that expanding the nearest neighbor search to include elements from the adaptation datastore contributes to the best overall performing strategy. Figure 1 demonstrates the overall approach using Wikipedia and US News as example pretraining and adaptation domains, respectively. ## 2 Knn-Lms For a context ct defined by the sequence of words (w1*, . . . , w*t−1), the causal language modeling task aims to model a probability distribution over the next word1 wt. Let pLM(wt|ct) and pkNN(wt|ct) be the probability masses computed by the LM and kNN components, respectively. Details on how pkNN(wt|ct) is computed and combined with pLM(wt|ct) to produce the final kNN-LM predictions, are outlined in the following sections. Datastore creation: Given a source domain training set Xs, let ci = (w1*, . . . , w*t−1) be a sequence in Xs. The datastore is defined as a set of Ds tuples {(⃗ci, wi)} Ds i=1, where the key ⃗ci ∈ R dh denotes the contextual representation of ci, produced by the 1We use "token" and "word" interchangeably. LM and value wi denotes the next word label in the sequence. k**-Nearest neighbor retrieval:** During inference, we obtain a query vector ⃗cq ∈ R dh for kNN retrieval by producing the contextual LM representation for the current sequence of tokens cq. The neighborhood of ⃗cq is constructed by retrieving its k nearest instances from the datastore. Let D(·) : R 2dh → R refer to the distance measure2. The k-nearest neighbors of ⃗cq can be obtained by: $${\mathcal{K}}:=\operatorname*{arg\,min}_{\mathbf{k}}\,\{{\mathcal{D}}({\vec{c_{q}}},{\vec{c_{i}}})\}_{i\in[D_{s}]}$$ where k in the subscript denotes indices in [Ds]={1*, . . . , D*s} which corresponds to k smallest distances. The score (weight) si of a neighbor key ⃗ciis defined as: $$s_{i}:=||{\vec{c_{q}}}-{\vec{c_{i}}}||^{2},i\in\mathcal{K}$$ Thus, the kNN probability of the next word can be obtained via: $$p_{k\mathrm{NN}}(w_{t}|c_{t})\propto\sum_{i\in\mathcal{K}}1[w_{i}{=}w_{t}]\exp(-s_{i}).$$ Unifying kNN **and LM:** The probability distribution of the kNN-LM system can be obtained by interpolating the component probabilities $$\begin{array}{l}p_{k\mathrm{NN}\mathrm{-}\mathrm{LM}}(w_{t}|c_{t})=\\ \lambda\ p_{k\mathrm{NN}}(w_{t}|c_{t})+(1-\lambda)\ p_{\mathrm{LM}}(w_{t}|c_{t})\end{array}\tag{4}$$ we $\lambda\in[0,1]$. where λ ∈ [0, 1]. Since each probability distribution lies on a simplex spanning the token vocabulary, performing a convex combination of the two maintains a valid probability distribution. ## 3 K**Nn-Lm Adaptation** 3.1 Retrieval Quality Metrics Beyond tracking LM perplexity improvement, we also introduce two simple metrics to measure the relevance and quality of retrieved neighborhoods. For neighborhood relevance, we define Recall as the fraction of times a ground-truth word is in the retrieved set of neighbors. For neighborhood quality, we denote Precision as the fraction of times the 2In practice large-scale datastores utilize approximate search methods for retrieval, detailed further in Section 4.1. kNN assigns more probability to the ground truth token than the LM. We define: $$\begin{aligned} \text{Precision} &= \sum_{t=1}^{N}\frac{1\left[p_{\text{LM}}(w_{t}^{*}|c_{t}) < p_{k\text{NN}}(w_{t}^{*}|c_{t})\right]}{N},\\ \text{Recall} &= \sum_{t=1}^{N}\frac{1\left[w_{t}^{*}\in\mathcal{K}_{t}\right]}{N}.\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{K}_{t}:=\{\vec{w_{i}}:i\in[\mathcal{K}]\}$, $w_{t}^{*}$ is the ground truth. next word for the context ⃗ct, and N is the total number of words in the dataset. $$(1)$$ ## 3.2 Parametric Lm Adaptation $$(2)$$ $$(3)$$ We follow a parameter-efficient adaptation approach by keeping the pretrained LM fixed and learning Adapter modules, attached to all the model layers (Houlsby et al., 2019). Henceforth, we use LMa to denote the domain-adapted LM. While Adapter-based models have shown performance on par with model fine-tuning on various adaptation tasks across domains (Pfeiffer et al., 2020), the impact of LM adaptation in a semiparametric setting remains unclear. Given our constraint to keep the pretraining datastore keys static, updates to the parametric LM could create a mismatch between contextual representations used for querying and result in meaningless retrieved neighborhoods. We posit that Adapter-based LMs do not suffer from this because they preserve the metric space induced by the LM contextual encodings3. Adapters tune representations in the original space such that they are more relevant to the adaptation domain. Hypothesis-1 : LM adaptation with Adapters not only assists the parametric models to perform better (↓ perplexity), but also improves the quality of neighborhoods retrieved from the pretraining datastore (↑ Recall). ## 3.3 K**Nn Adaptation** Given that we choose to keep the memory footprint of our adaptation approaches small (relative to the pretraining footprint), we fix the pretraining datastore representations (and thus the Recall of the retrieved neighborhoods) and instead focus on improving the Precision. This leads to our second hypothesis: 3This is due to Adapters keeping the pretrained LM weight matrices frozen, thus preserving the coordinate space that is projected onto, when extracting contextual representations. Hypothesis-2 : Using squared L2 distance between the query and neighbor key vectors is not the optimal neighbor scoring scheme. Instead, a more optimal scoring function can be learned for each domain. We propose learning a domain-optimized scoring function (a Rescorer) that learns to assign more weight to retrieved neighbors containing the ground-truth label. We discuss the setup and architecture for the Rescorer in more detail subsequently. Rescorer Formulation: Given a query vector ⃗cq obtained from LMa, we retrieve a large set of neighbors K. Each retrieved neighbor tuple (⃗ci, wi) ∈ K is passed through a neural module to obtain a domain-optimized score s r i . Let f r(·) : R dr → R denote the Rescorer function. Its input is a set of three vectors: query ⃗cq, neighbor key vector ⃗ci, token embedding of the neighbor value wi, as well as six features ⃗xi = {x1*, . . . , x*6} obtained from the pairwise dot products and pairwise euclidean distances between these three vectors4. The total input dimension is; dr = 3dh + 6 where dh is the dimension of the LM contextual representation. The final neighbor score s′i can be computed as5: $$s_{i}^{r}=f^{r}([\vec{c_{i}},\vec{c_{q}},\vec{w_{i}},\vec{x_{i}}])\tag{5}$$ $$s_{i}^{\prime}=s_{i}^{r}-s_{i}\tag{6}$$ Rescorer Architecture: We employ a threelayer fully-connected network for the Rescorer architecture. The input vectors are first layernormalized and concatenated. They are then passed through two ReLU-activated dense layers with a skip connection R dr → R 128 → R 128 and a final dense (regression) layer R 128 → R 1 to generate the neighbor's score. The overall Rescorer workflow is shown in Figure 2. Rescorer Training: We train the Rescorer to discriminate neighbors containing the ground truth as their values, by employing Contrastive Learning. We construct positive examples for retrieved neighbor tuples (⃗ci, wi) if wi corresponds to the correct ground-truth next word, otherwise they are treated as negatives. We collect contextual embeddings 4We find that using these extra features produces the best quality Rescorer. 5We empirically observed that combining the learned and distance-based scores produces the best results.  for one million tokens from the adaptation domain training split6 {w1*, . . . , w*1M} along with their nearest neighbors. Contrastive training examples are discarded if the ground-truth word is not found in the neighborhood values. From each neighborhood, the highest-scored (distance-based) positive neighbor is selected and 10 negative neighbors are randomly sampled. Contrastive Loss (Oord et al., 2018) is used to learn the Rescorer parameters and is defined as: $${\mathcal{L}}=-\log{\frac{\exp\left({\frac{s_{p}^{r}}{\tau}}\right)}{\exp\left({\frac{s_{p}^{r}}{\tau}}\right)+\sum_{n}\exp\left({\frac{s_{n}^{r}}{\tau}}\right)}}\qquad{\mathrm{(7)}}$$ where s rp and s rn denote the Rescorer scores assigned to the positive and negative examples, respectively, and τ is a temperature hyperparameter. ## 3.4 Merging Knns While regenerating the pretraining datastore using an adapted LM (Section 3.2) is generally a very memory-intensive procedure, creating a separate datastore purely from adaptation training data is expected to increase the memory footprint by a relatively small amount7. With the availability of both pretraining and adaptation datastores, a natural extension is to utilize both during neighborhood retrieval. We extract the nearest neighbors independently from the pretraining 6If the training set has less than one million tokens, we utilize all of its tokens. 7In our experimental setup, this amounts to 1-10% relative increase in memory footprint datastore Kw and adaptation datastore Ka and merge them to create Ka ∪ Kw.  ## 3.5 Adaptation Of K**Nn-Lms** We summarize the overall adaptation strategy outlined in prior sections as follows: 1. Updating the parametric LM using lightweight Adapter modules. 2. Merging the retrieved neighbors from the pretraining and adaptation datastores into a single neighborhood. 3. Training a Rescorer with Contrastive Loss, to learn domain-optimal scores for retrieved neighbors. In the following results sections, we confirm the validity of Hypothesis-1 and Hypothesis-2, as well as the efficacy of our simple neighborhood merging scheme through ablation studies. We also investigate the benefit of our collective adaptation strategy on modeling downstream domains. ## 4 Experiments 4.1 Experimental Setup For all of our experiments, we utilize the off-theshelf GPT-2 (Radford et al., 2019) model from Huggingface Transformers (Wolf et al., 2019), as the pretrained LM. This model contains 117 million parameters with a vocabulary size of 50,257 word units, and directly matches the decoder-only configuration used in Khandelwal et al. (2019). For the adaptation setting, Adapter modules are added to each layer of the pretrained GPT-2 resulting in 0.7% extra parameters during finetuning. Training the Rescorer also amounts to learning an incremental 320K parameters, or roughly 0.3% additional parameters relative to that of GPT-2. The Rescorer and Adapters are trained (separately) using AdamW optimizer with learning rates of 0.001 and 0.0001, respectively and a weight decay of 0.01. For sampling positive and negative examples during Rescorer training, we utilize a liberally sized neighborhood of size k=1000. Logging is performed every 200 iterations and early stopping is performed if there is no validation performance improvement for up to three logging steps. The pretraining datastore is constructed from running GPT-2 on 1 billion tokens sampled from Table 1: Adaptation datastore size (in millions of entries). Wikipedia8(i.e. Kw) and any adaptation datastores are constructed from up to 100 million tokens taken from the training split of adaptation domains (i.e. Ka). We select seven datasets across multiple domains to evaluate the performance of our adaptation strategies: XSum (Narayan et al., 2018) and XL-Sum (Hasan et al., 2021) covering the news domain; SciQ (Johannes Welbl, 2017) and arXiv (Cohan et al., 2018) for the science domain; BookSum (Kryscinski et al., 2021) for the literature domain, SAMSum (Gliwa et al., 2019) for the conversational domain, and GovReport (Huang et al., 2021) for the government domain. For any summary-related datasets, we only utilize the original document text for our purposes and exclude summary ground-truth text. Table 1 provides a breakdown of the resulting adaptation datastore sizes. For nearest neighbor retrieval, we use FAISS - a library designed for fast similarity search in high dimensional space (Johnson et al., 2019). Similar to Khandelwal et al. (2019), we observe that L2-based FAISS search obtains better results than the inner-product, so we adopt this setting for our work as well. For all experiments, we perform hyperparameter search over k where k∈{1, 2, 4*, . . . ,* 512, 1000} and the kNN interpolation parameter λ∈{0.01, 0.02, 0.04*, . . . ,* 0.98}. ## 4.2 Models Used For Evaluation Because our work is the first to explore the intersection of LM adaptation with semi-parametric LMs, we use relevant baselines from both individual methodologies to track our modeling improvements. We provide the pretraining (w)kNN and adaptation (a)kNN neighborhood retrieval perplexities for reference9, to illustrate relevance of the pretraining domain to target domains and relationship between retrieval quality and datastore size. For the LM adaptation baseline, we compare against the performance of parametric finetuning with Adapters LMa. For the semi-parametric LM base-8(Foundation)–https://huggingface.co/ datasets/wikipedia 9(w)kNN is obtained by putting λ = 0.9999 in Equation (4) to tackle cases where ground truth is not present in the retrieved neighborhood. lines, we use two types of zero-shot evaluations of the kNN-LM. One applies zero-shot evaluation using the pretrained datastore (w)k**NN-LM** and the other evaluates using a datastore constructed out of the adaptation domain training data (a)k**NN-LM**. The latter strategy, also presented in Khandelwal et al. (2019), to the best of our knowledge, is the only other work that utilizes adaptation data with kNN-LMs. Beyond these models, we perform extensive experimentation with different combinations of datastores to use for retrieval (Wikipedia - (w), Adaptation training split - (a), Both - **(w+a)**), types of parametric LMs (Pretrained LM - LM, Adapted LM - LMa), and usage of Rescorers (Rescorer used - kNNr, No Rescorer used - kNN). These combinations provide precise ablations of our adaptation component improvements and their interactions with one another. ## 5 Results And Discussions 5.1 Hypothesis Pilot Studies We first motivate our larger experimental effort with pilot studies that test out Hypothesis-1, Hypothesis-2, and the neighborhood merging strategy. These studies are run on a subset of 100K test tokens taken from each adaptation domain. In our initial pilot experiments, we find that using k=1000 neighbors produces the best results. Any adaptation strategy requiring gradient-based optimization is performed on the respective adaptation training splits. Evaluating Hypothesis-1: To test this hypothesis, we measure the impact of LM adaptation on retrieval quality from the pretraining , by observing changes to the kNN's Recall value. Table 2 demonstrates that adaptation of the parametric LM (LMa) improves not only perplexity, but also retrieval Recall (retrieved neighbors using LMa are denoted by kNN*, while neighbors retrieved with the pretrained LM are denoted by kNN). This appears to support our hypothesis that techniques like Adapters, which preserve the LM representation space, can also benefit the retrieval component. Evaluating Hypothesis-2: To test whether Rescorer-generated scores improve over purely distance-based scores, we contrast the resulting Precision of both types of scoring methods. Table 3 shows that the domain-adapted scores produced by the Rescorer yield significantly higher neighbor- | Domain | Perplexity (↓) | Recall (↑) | | | | | |-----------|------------------|--------------|--------|--------|-------|-------| | LM | LMa | kNN | kNN* | kNN | kNN* | | | XSum | 22.45 | 18.95 | 83.95 | 74.67 | 88.72 | 89.29 | | SciQ | 22.15 | 16.10 | 46.86 | 38.64 | 92.53 | 93.26 | | arXiv | 56.83 | 24.97 | 513.44 | 270.11 | 77.54 | 79.89 | | BookSum | 21.15 | 20.45 | 64.92 | 62.15 | 90.14 | 90.34 | | SAMSum | 46.86 | 32.25 | 298.08 | 228.99 | 96.36 | 96.64 | | XL-Sum | 24.87 | 21.84 | 100.92 | 89.65 | 87.98 | 88.60 | | GovReport | 19.31 | 14.72 | 83.62 | 66.91 | 88.55 | 89.47 | | Precision (↑) | | | | | |-----------------|--------|---------|--------|---------| | Domain | (w)kNN | (w)kNNr | (a)kNN | (a)kNNr | | XSum | 29.6 | 44.9 | 45.9 | 59.8 | | SciQ | 33.9 | 48.2 | 45.8 | 53.0 | | arXiv | 25.6 | 38.2 | 52.8 | 65.4 | | BookSum | 33.1 | 54.7 | 33.7 | 50.1 | | SAMSum | 25.9 | 27.7 | 37.0 | 38.6 | | XL-Sum | 29.9 | 46.7 | 43.9 | 58.5 | | GovReport | 25.7 | 42.6 | 43.7 | 55.9 | hood Precision on average than those using purely L2-based scoring. This applies for neighbors retrieved from the pretraining datastore (w)kNNr, as well as from datastores constructed from adaptation domain samples (a)kNNr. This suggests that the Rescorer can act as a general-purpose improvement over the standard kNN-LM setup, regardless of whether neighbors are retrieved from in-domain or out-of-domain datastores. The improvement in Precision also confirms the efficacy of Contrastive Learning in producing a Rescorer that can discriminate between neighbors containing the ground-truth token from those that don't. ## Effectiveness Of Neighborhood Merging To Test the effectiveness of the simple neighborhood merging strategy, we contrast the Recall of merged neighborhoods to those of standalone neighborhoods from each individual datastore. In this study, we keep the total number of retrieved neighbors fixed and empirically find that retrieving 500 nearest neighbors from each datastore in the merging strategy works best. The results of this study (Table 4) show that the combined set of neighbors Ka ∪ Kw has a better Recall value than either individual neighborhood. Due to this observed Recall improvement, we use this simple merging tech- | Recall (↑) | | | | |--------------|--------|--------|----------| | Domain | (w)kNN | (a)kNN | (w+a)kNN | | XSum | 89.3 | 92.7 | 93.1 | | SciQ | 92.5 | 91.5 | 94.7 | | arXiv | 79.9 | 91.9 | 92.1 | | BookSum | 90.3 | 86.8 | 91.5 | | SAMSum | 84.3 | 85.7 | 88.9 | | XL-Sum | 88.6 | 92.1 | 92.5 | | GovReport | 89.5 | 92.5 | 93.6 | nique in our overall adaptation strategy. When training a Rescorer on these merged neighborhoods, we pass an additional binary input feature to inform the model on which datastore a particular neighbor comes from. ## 5.2 Domain Adaptation Evaluations Table 5 compares the perplexities of the various models evaluated on the seven adaptation test sets. First we note that while the adapted LM yields the expected perplexity reductions over the pretrained LM (LMa < LM), we observe that zero-shot evaluation of the pretrained kNN-LM also performs better than the pretrained LM ((w)kNN-LM < LM). This continues to confirm the capacity of the pretraining datastore to retrieve relevant neighbors for downstream domains. We also find that in a majority of the cases, zero-shot evaluation of a kNN-LM constructed over the adaptation datastore, outperforms parametric adaptation ((a)kNN-LM < LMa). This corroborates the finding from Khandelwal et al. (2019), where utilizing data for neighborhood retrieval can outperform using it for LM training. The results further support our Hypothesis-1, namely that parametric LM adaptation improvement is compounded when used in the kNN-LM setting (e.g. (w)kNNr < LMa < (w)kNN-LMa). They also add support for Hypothesis-2 where the Rescorer acts as a general-purpose improvement to kNN-LM models (by noting that kNNrbased models outperform respective kNN-based models). We observe that merging neighborhoods from both datastores also provides some small perplexity gains. Overall, our combined adaptation approach (last row of Table 5) produces an average of 17.1% and 16% perplexity improvement over the parametric adaptation LMa and semi-parametric ## Baselines (A)K**Nn-Lm** Respectively. Pretraining-datastore under low-resource adaptation. We analyze the impact on Recall when combining neighbors from the pretraining and adaptation datastores in a low-resource adaptation setting (which is a common scenario). We utilize the Xsum dataset (containing nearly 100M training tokens), to analyze the impact of merging retrieved neighborhoods for different sizes of the adaptation datastore. In Figure 3-a), we observe that the Recall of retrieved neighbors significantly decreases as the adaptation datastore size decreases (green, Ka). However, the merged neighborhood Recall enjoys a relatively flat curve (blue, Ka∪ Kw). This suggests that the pretraining datastore acts as an important buffer in maintaining high-quality neighborhoods for low-resource adaptation scenarios. A complementary study to consider for the lowresource setting is the impact of the size of the pretraining datastore on the merged retrieval Recall. In this set of experiments, we fix the size of the adaptation datastore to be 100K. From Figure 3b), we observe that Recall monotonically increases with the size of the pretraining datastore and may continue to improve even after the pretraining datastore exceeds 1 billion tokens. Thus, scaling the pretraining datastore can lead to improved retrieval quality on downstream domains.  Which LM representations are better for datastore construction? An important question to consider, is which representations from GPT-2 are most useful in constructing the datastore. To investigate this, we experiment with using different layers from GPT-2 in constructing a Wikipedia-based datastore. To increase the throughput experimentation, we use a smaller-sized datastore of size 10 million. We consider the output of the penultimate Transformer block as well as the following layers from the last Transformer block in our analysis: Configuration Perplexity (↓) Setting LM LMa (w)KNN (a)KNN rescore **XSum SciQ arXiv BookSum SAMSum XL-Sum GovReport** Baseline LM (only) ✓ 22.45 22.15 56.83 21.15 46.86 24.87 19.32 LMa (only) ✓ 18.95 16.09 24.97 20.45 32.26 21.84 14.72 (w)kNN (only) ✓ 83.96 46.86 513.45 64.92 298.08 100.92 83.62 (a)kNN (only) ✓ 38.38 57.82 87.58 109.87 229.89 47.75 40.39 Baseline (2019) (w)kNN-LM ✓ ✓ 21.64 19.19 53.03 20.50 46.27 24.03 18.99 (a)kNN-LM ✓ ✓ 17.01 14.71 24.38 20.60 39.99 19.39 14.87 (w)kNN-LMa ✓ ✓ 18.42 14.62 24.42 19.72 31.94 21.22 14.47 (w)kNNr-LM ✓ ✓ ✓ 21.32 18.5 51.89 20.09 46.20 23.68 18.81 (w)kNNr-LMa ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 18.23 14.22 24.19 19.35 31.92 20.98 14.36 (a)kNN-LMa ✓ ✓ 15.30 12.88 17.81 20.22 31.48 18.12 13.08 (a)kNNr-LMa ✓ ✓ ✓ 14.85 12.72 17.49 20.09 31.47 17.72 12.87 (w+a)kNN-LMa ✓ ✓ ✓ 15.20 12.15 17.85 19.72 31.20 17.99 13.01 (w+a)kNNr-LMa ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ **14.71 11.95 17.47 19.42 31.18 17.53 12.79** | Baseline Baseline (2019) Ours | |---------------------------------| first layer norm (LN1), output of Multi-Headed Attention (MHA), second layer norm (LN2), output  of final feed-forward layer (FFN). Thus, each datastore differs only in its key vector representations ⃗cq for a given context cq. The kNN-LM probability is computed as per Equation (4) where k is set to 1000 and λ is a hyperparameter tuned via grid search in λ∈{0.01, 0.02, 0.04*, . . . ,* 0.98}. Evaluation is performed on 100K test tokens obtained from unseen Wikipedia documents. As shown in Figure 4, we observe that using the output of the LN2 layer creates the best representation space for the datastore keys and produces the best test perplexity of 23.61 and highest Recall of 0.86. We also observe that the best λ returned for an LN2-based kNN-LM is 0.1, which is the highest among context representation candidates considered. Computational cost. We compare our computational overhead with respect to the standard kNN-LM proposed by Khandelwal et al. (2019).  During inference, an Adapter increases the inference time of GPT-2 by about 1.2 milliseconds per token. The Rescorer takes about 60 milliseconds per token to score 1000 neighbors. We run the parametric model on a single GPU10 kNN and the Rescorer on CPU. ## 6 Related Work $$0.75$$ $$0.68$$  Our proposed work investigates the intersection of techniques used for parametric Language Model adaptation with semi-parametric systems (kNN-LMs). Therefore we discuss the related works in each of these areas and contrast our respective contributions. $$0.86$$ $$0.56$$ $$0.60$$ $$0.85$$ Parametric LM Adaptation Popularization of Large-Scale Pretrained Language Models (PLMs) has necessitated research into parameter-efficient adaptation methods, to avoid maintaining large models for each domain. Many parameter-efficient methods keep the pretrained LM parameters frozen and learn additional layers during adaptation (Houlsby et al., 2019; Ben-Zaken et al., 2022), or modify the parameters of existing layers (Hu et al., 2022; Hou et al., 2022). This work explores how applying such techniques (namely Adapters) can improve the semi-parametric LM adaptation performance. Semi-Parametric KNN-LMs Previous works have motivated that scaling the datastore for largescale retrieval acts as a complimentary path to scaling data used for LM training (Khandelwal et al., 2019; Borgeaud et al., 2022; Khandelwal et al., 2021). However, adaptation approaches of these 10Tesla V100-SXM2-16GB semi-parametric systems beyond zero-shot evaluation (Khandelwal et al., 2019; Khandelwal et al., 2021) have not been explored up until this work. To improve the quality of retrieval-enhanced methods, neighborhood Rescorer techniques have been employed for other domains such as Q&A (Glass et al., 2022) and information retrieval (Nogueira and Cho, 2019). In contrast, this work explores applications of Rescorer techniques for the Language Modeling task and considers them for lightweight adaptation of semi-parametric LMs. ## 7 Conclusion We proposed a multi-pronged strategy for adapting kNN-LM systems. Through our studies, we demonstrated that a general-purpose pretraining datastore contains relevant information, which can be utilized for downstream domains. We showed that parametric and non-parametric adaptation methods complement each other and that using the complete semi-parametric adaptation strategy outperforms adapting just one of the kNN-LM components. Our methods could further be extended by noting that the Recall of retrieved neighborhoods is often imperfect. Thus, a gate could be learned to predict whether kNN retrieval should be triggered. While our study focused on the Language Modeling task, our approach could be applied towards other NLP tasks such as text generation and translation. ## 8 Acknowledgement The authors express their gratitude to Kyu Han and Shiva Sundaram for their continuous support throughout this work. They are also appreciative of Omid Sadjadi, Sundararajan Srinivasan, and Zejiang Hou for providing valuable feedback on the preliminary draft. ## References Elad Ben-Zaken, Shauli Ravfogel, and Yoav Goldberg. 2022. Bitfit: Simple parameter-efficient fine-tuning for transformer-based masked languagemodels. *ArXiv*, abs/2106.10199. Yoshua Bengio, Réjean Ducharme, and Pascal Vincent. 2000. A neural probabilistic language model. *Advances in neural information processing systems*, 13. Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Jordan Hoffmann, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Katie Millican, George van den Driessche, Jean-Baptiste Lespiau, Bogdan Damoc, Aidan Clark, Diego de Las Casas, Aurelia Guy, Jacob Menick, Roman Ring, T. W. Hennigan, Saffron Huang, Lorenzo Maggiore, Chris Jones, Albin Cassirer, Andy Brock, Michela Paganini, Geoffrey Irving, Oriol Vinyals, Simon Osindero, Karen Simonyan, Jack W. Rae, Erich Elsen, and L. Sifre. 2022. Improving language models by retrieving from trillions of tokens. In *ICML*. Arman Cohan, Franck Dernoncourt, Doo Soon Kim, Trung Bui, Seokhwan Kim, Walter Chang, and Nazli Goharian. 2018. A discourse-aware attention model for abstractive summarization of long documents. 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 615–621, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. Wikimedia Foundation. Wikimedia downloads. Michael R. Glass, Gaetano Rossiello, Md. Faisal Mahbub Chowdhury, Ankita Rajaram Naik, Pengshan Cai, and A. Gliozzo. 2022. Re2g: Retrieve, rerank, generate. *ArXiv*, abs/2207.06300. Bogdan Gliwa, Iwona Mochol, Maciej Biesek, and Aleksander Wawer. 2019. SAMSum corpus: A humanannotated dialogue dataset for abstractive summarization. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on New Frontiers in Summarization, pages 70–79, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tahmid Hasan, Abhik Bhattacharjee, Md. Saiful Islam, Kazi Mubasshir, Yuan-Fang Li, Yong-Bin Kang, M. Sohel Rahman, and Rifat Shahriyar. 2021. XLsum: Large-scale multilingual abstractive summarization for 44 languages. In *Findings of the Association* for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 4693–4703, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Junxian He, Graham Neubig, and Taylor BergKirkpatrick. 2021. Efficient nearest neighbor language models. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.04212*. Zejiang Hou, Julian Salazar, and George Polovets. 2022. Meta-learning the difference: Preparing large language models for efficient adaptation. *ArXiv*, abs/2207.03509. 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, and Weizhu Chen. 2022. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. *ArXiv*, abs/2106.09685. Luyang Huang, Shuyang Cao, Nikolaus Parulian, Heng Ji, and Lu Wang. 2021. Efficient attentions for long document summarization. Matt Gardner Johannes Welbl, Nelson F. Liu. 2017. Crowdsourcing multiple choice science questions. Jeff Johnson, Matthijs Douze, and Hervé Jégou. 2019. Billion-scale similarity search with gpus. *IEEE* Transactions on Big Data, 7(3):535–547. Urvashi Khandelwal, Angela Fan, Dan Jurafsky, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Mike Lewis. 2021. Nearest neighbor machine translation. *ArXiv*, abs/2010.00710. Urvashi Khandelwal, Omer Levy, Dan Jurafsky, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Mike Lewis. 2019. Generalization through memorization: Nearest neighbor language models. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.00172*. Wojciech Kryscinski, Nazneen Fatema Rajani, Divyansh Agarwal, Caiming Xiong, and Dragomir R Radev. 2021. Booksum: A collection of datasets for long-form narrative summarization. Haokun Liu, Derek Tam, Mohammed Muqeeth, Jay Mohta, Tenghao Huang, Mohit Bansal, and Colin Raffel. 2022. Few-shot parameter-efficient fine-tuning is better and cheaper than in-context learning. *ArXiv*, abs/2205.05638. Tomas Mikolov, Martin Karafiát, Lukas Burget, Jan Cernocky, and Sanjeev Khudanpur. 2010. Recurrent neu- ` ral network based language model. In *Interspeech*, volume 2, pages 1045–1048. Makuhari. 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. *ArXiv*, abs/1808.08745. Rodrigo Nogueira and Kyunghyun Cho. 2019. Passage re-ranking with bert. *ArXiv*, abs/1901.04085. Aaron van den Oord, Yazhe Li, and Oriol Vinyals. 2018. Representation learning with contrastive predictive coding. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.03748*. Jonas Pfeiffer, Andreas Rücklé, Clifton Poth, Aishwarya Kamath, Ivan Vulic, Sebastian Ruder, Kyunghyun ´ Cho, and Iryna Gurevych. 2020. Adapterhub: A framework for adapting transformers. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2007.07779. Alec Radford, Karthik Narasimhan, Tim Salimans, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2018. Improving language understanding by generative pre-training. 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. Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, and Jamie Brew. 2019. Huggingface's transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. *ArXiv*, abs/1910.03771. Dani Yogatama, Cyprien de Masson d'Autume, and Lingpeng Kong. 2021. Adaptive semiparametric language models. *Transactions of the Association for* Computational Linguistics, 9:362–373. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist 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.

anschutz-etal-2023-language

Language Models for {G}erman Text Simplification: Overcoming Parallel Data Scarcity through Style-specific Pre-training

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.74

Automatic text simplification systems help to reduce textual information barriers on the internet. However, for languages other than English, only few parallel data to train these systems exists. We propose a two-step approach to overcome this data scarcity issue. First, we fine-tuned language models on a corpus of German Easy Language, a specific style of German. Then, we used these models as decoders in a sequence-to-sequence simplification task. We show that the language models adapt to the style characteristics of Easy Language and output more accessible texts. Moreover, with the style-specific pre-training, we reduced the number of trainable parameters in text simplification models. Hence, less parallel data is sufficient for training. Our results indicate that pre-training on unaligned data can reduce the required parallel data while improving the performance on downstream tasks.

# Language Models For German Text Simplification: Overcoming Parallel Data Scarcity Through Style-Specific Pre-Training Miriam Anschütz, Joshua Oehms, Thomas Wimmer, Bartłomiej Jezierski and **Georg Groh** School for Computation, Information and Technology Technical University of Munich, Germany {miriam.anschuetz, joshua.oehms, thomas.m.wimmer, b.jezierski}@tum.de grohg@in.tum.de ## Abstract Automatic text simplification systems help to reduce textual information barriers on the internet. However, for languages other than English, only few parallel data to train these systems exists. We propose a two-step approach to overcome this data scarcity issue. First, we fine-tuned language models on a corpus of German Easy Language, a specific style of German. Then, we used these models as decoders in a sequence-to-sequence simplification task. We show that the language models adapt to the style characteristics of Easy Language and output more accessible texts. Moreover, with the style-specific pre-training, we reduced the number of trainable parameters in text simplification models. Hence, less parallel data is sufficient for training. Our results indicate that pre-training on unaligned data can reduce the required parallel data while improving the performance on downstream tasks. ## 1 Introduction Automatic text simplification (ATS) is the task of simplifying a text's lexical and structural complexity while preserving its original meaning. Easyto-read texts can help people with learning deficiencies or non-native speakers gain access to texts that they could not understand otherwise. On the one hand, ATS can be used to create assisting tools for people with reading disabilities or professional translators (Suárez-Figueroa et al., 2022). On the other hand, ATS can be applied as a preprocessing step for other natural language processing tasks such as machine translation or information retrieval to improve their performances (Štajner and Popovic, 2016), making it an important field of study. In German, there exist multiple levels of simplified language. In contrast to the underspecified simple language, the so-called Leichte Sprache (Easy Language) enforces a very strong simplification level and follows predefined structural rules (Netzwerk Leichte Sprache, 2013). These rules include conveying only one message per sentence (structural simplification), restriction to common words (lexical simplification), and usage of simplified grammar (syntactical simplification). This simplified grammar breaks with standard German grammar, for example, by using dative instead of genitive to indicate possession. We consider Easy Language as a standalone language style. Therefore, we refer to Easy Language data as monolingual data in the further course of the paper, even though it is German as well. This work shows the benefits of fine-tuning language models for specific styles and characteristics. We publish and discuss a collection of causal language models fine-tuned for German Easy Language. As shown in previous work (Gururangan et al., 2020), pre-training language models for specific domains can benefit the performances of downstream tasks in the respective domain. We extend this analysis to the language style of Easy Language. In addition, the fine-tuned models can be used to generate text with the specificities of Easy Language, for example, in data augmentation applications. Finally, we present how these models can serve as plug-in-decoders in BARTlike architectures (Lewis et al., 2020) to speed up and improve the training on sequence-to-sequence (seq2seq) tasks. Therefore, our contributions are the following: - We publish five German Easy Language causal language models and extensively evaluate their language style adaptions. - We assess the models' performance on the two downstream tasks of text complexity prediction and text simplification. - We suggest an ATS training process that exploits our pre-trained language models. This process reduces the number of trained param- eters by over 90% while preserving state-ofthe-art performance. With the reduction of trainable parameters, less aligned data is needed to train an ATS system. Especially for languages other than English, where aligned data is sparse, pre-trained causal language models can improve ATS performance. We publish our code and results for further research and application1. ## 2 Related Work Causal language models can complete text based on a prompt. In contrast to masked language models, where the models know about the context before and after a specific token, these causal language models rely only on the input and the previously outputted tokens. Therefore, they are called autoregressive models. The Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT) (Radford et al., 2019) is a prominent example of such an autoregressive language model. It was trained on a collection of web data and, thus, outputs text for general purposes. Previous work has fine-tuned GPT for multiple domains and tasks, such as the task of quest generation in games (Värtinen et al., 2022) or the medical domain (Schneider et al., 2021). In addition to domain adaption, GPT was tailored to specific text styles and characteristics. These style transfer approaches include fine-tuning for poem generation (Liao et al., 2019) or the reduction of non-normative clauses (Peng et al., 2020). Li et al. (2022) trained a GPT model to mimic the language of people with dementia. By calculating the perplexities of texts with the finetuned and original version, they could distinguish samples from healthy and diseased people. Sun and Wan (2022) adapted a language model for simple language by only masking easy-tounderstand words in training. However, this model is a masked language model that can only fill in blanks and not generate text from scratch. Most similar to our work is the TransformerLM by Maruyama and Yamamoto (2019) trained for Japanese text simplification. The authors used a parallel corpus to directly fine-tune a GPT model for simplification. In contrast, our models are finetuned on monolingual Easy Language data. Therefore, they do not require alignments and can be used for a broader range of tasks. ## 2.1 German Text Simplification In contrast to the English language, automatic text simplification in German has seen little research. The first system for Easy Language was proposed by Suter et al. (2016) and consisted of a collection of hand-crafted rules, including sentence splitting and paraphrasing. Säuberli et al. (2020) published the first neural simplification approach based on the transformer architecture, together with an aligned corpus. They discussed multiple data augmentation strategies, but their results lacked fluency and content preservation. Based on an extended version of this dataset, Spring et al. (2021) built a controllable simplification system that can output different simplification levels based on the Common European Framework of References for Languages (CEFR), but not specifically Easy Language. Finally, Rios et al. (2021) proposed a modified mBART architecture for document-level simplification. In our paper, we adopted their architecture to evaluate our language models on the downstream task of ATS. ## 3 Datasets Several sources are available in Easy Language; however, they mostly encompass news websites, and only a few are aligned with articles in standard German. In the following sections, we detail the information on the data used in our training, including the Easy Language monolingual corpus utilized for fine-tuning German language models and the parallel corpus for the downstream task of text simplification. The dataset utilized for the downstream task of text complexity prediction is publicly available as a part of the GermEval 2022 shared task (Mohtaj et al., 2022) (refer to Subsection 5.4). We published scrapers to recreate our sources for the use of the academic community2. We also provide an overview of available monolingual and parallel data sources for simplified German beyond our training data in Appendix A. ## 3.1 Monolingual Corpus An overview of the available monolingual data can be found in Table 1. The publicly available Easy Language datasets are very limited: The Simple German corpus published by Toborek et al. (2022) contains texts on health and medication, public administration, politics, information texts for disabled people, and news articles. The second publicly available resource is a small corpus published by 2https://github.com/brjezierski/scrapers Siegel et al. (2019). It contains election programs, excerpts from the Bible, children's stories, and Red Cross documents. Kurier, InfoEasy, and NDR are public broadcasting services in Austria, Switzerland, and northern Germany, respectively, and have specific columns in Easy Language. In addition, Hurraki and Lebenshilfe offer online dictionaries in Easy Language, while Einfachstars contains news articles about celebrities. These three data sources diversify our covered domains and styles of writing. More details about the data sources can be found in Table 8 in Appendix A. Our fine-tuning data combines all sources included in Table 1. The combined data was shuffled and randomly split into a training set containing 90% of the data and a validation set with 10% of the total. | Dataset | Sentences | Domain | |-----------------------|-------------|----------| | Hurraki | 56,785 | lexicon | | Lebenshilfe | 7,144 | lexicon | | Einfachstars | 129,674 | news | | Nachrichtenleicht | 122,842 | news | | Kurier | 67,827 | news | | NDR | 60,749 | news | | InfoEasy | 10,310 | news | | Siegel et al. (2019) | 4,210 | misc. | | Toborek et al. (2022) | 28,356 | misc. | | Total | 544,467 | | Table 1: Overview of the monolingual data used for language model fine-tuning. ## 3.2 Parallel Corpus For training the text simplification model, we used the publicly available 20 Minuten dataset3. The dataset consists of full articles paired with shortened, simplified summaries from the Swiss news magazine 20 Minuten. It comprises 17,905 article pairs in the training dataset and 200 pairs in the validation and test set each (Rios et al., 2021). The dataset's compression ratio (the reduction in the word count of simplified summaries) was estimated at 11%. ## 3.3 Preprocessing Pipeline Analyzing the outputs of publicly available language models in standard German, we noticed that in many cases, especially for the news headline-like 3https://github.com/ZurichNLP/20Minuten input, the output contained noise, such as HTML tags or URLs. For this reason, coupled with the fact that we obtained data from multiple sources using various formats, we built a shared preprocessing pipeline to standardize the input for the fine-tuning of the language models as well as the simplified parts in the aligned dataset. Our pipeline removed redundant tags and characters. Some Easy Language texts use bullet points to break down sentences. Since most of the data did not follow this guideline, we converted the existing bullet points into comma-separated phrases. Another feature of Easy Language is the hyphenation of compound nouns. We compiled a list of hyphenated nouns in the monolingual dataset and used it to replace equivalent non-hyphenated compound nouns. ## 4 Methodology Our approach is divided into two parts. First, we fine-tuned generative language models for German Easy Language. Then, we used these models as plug-in decoders in a BART-based simplification task. ## 4.1 Fine-Tuning Language Models We selected five different pre-trained GPT-based models from Huggingface (Wolf et al., 2020) as the base for our language models, four German models, and one multilingual model. As shown in Table 2, the models differ in their original training data, initialization, and size. All German models use an embedding size of 1024, while mGPT has a size of 2048. To fine-tune the models, we used a NVIDIA A100 GPU. We trained for one epoch, with a learning rate of 1e−4, a weight decay of 0.01, and a batch size of eight together with a gradient accumulation of four. However, due to the large model size, we had to decrease the batch size to one for mGPT. The dropout parameters for the embedding, the attention mechanism, and the fully connected layers were set to 0.1 each. Su et al. (2022) proposed a new learning objective for generative language models, the contrastive loss. This loss adds a similarity regularization to the cross entropy loss to enforce discriminative token representations. We used this loss function together with an AdamW optimizer for our finetuning. | Model | Training data | Initialization | #Params | |---------------------------------|-----------------------------------|------------------|-----------| | GerPT2 (Minixhofer, 2020) | CC-100 Corpus | English GPT2 | 163M | | german-gpt2 (Schweter, 2020) | Wikipedia dump, | EU Bookshop | | | corpus, Open Subtitles, CommonCrawl, ParaCrawl and News Crawl | from scratch | 124M | | | GPT2 Wechsel | OSCAR corpus, MUSE | English GPT2 | 124M | | (Minixhofer et al., 2022) | | | | | Oscar fine-tune (ml6team, 2021) | OSCAR corpus | no info | 354M | | mGPT (Shliazhko et al., 2022) | Wikipedia, Colossal Clean Crawled | from scratch | 1417M | | (multilingual) | Corpus | | | Table 2: Training setup and number of parameters for different German GPT2 models. These models were used as base for our Easy Language fine-tuning. ## 4.2 Text Simplification The simplification task can be considered as a translation-like seq2seq problem. Thus, we used an encoder-decoder architecture based on mBART's architecture (Liu et al., 2020). It consists of a BERT-like encoder and a GPT-like decoder. Additionally, mBART was pre-trained on multilingual data (including German) on a denoising objective and forms the current baseline for transformerbased German ATS (Rios et al., 2021). The baseline's mBART-encoder was modified to use sliding attention to be applied to article inputs. Thus, it was possible to use long input sequences efficiently. We adapted this architecture and replaced the mBARTdecoder with our fine-tuned GPT models. For the target text, we used the same preprocessing used for fine-tuning the decoder models. As our language models already output text in the desired style, no further training of the decoder was necessary. Therefore, we only trained the encoderdecoder cross attention to align the encoding of the complex articles with our language models. This was proven successful for machine translation with pre-trained language models by Gheini et al. (2021). Training only the cross attention reduced the number of parameters to be updated, making the training of the simplification more efficient. In addition, the language models were not updated, and thus, we avoided catastrophic forgetting (Goodfellow et al., 2013) of their German language comprehension. We trained with the same hyperparameters as the baseline, except we set label smoothing to zero and added a contrastive part to the loss function (Su et al., 2022). We trained on a single NVIDIA TITAN X. Similar to the baseline, the training converged after 3 to 4 days according to validation loss, which means training for about 20 epochs. Due to hardware limitations, we trained with a batch size of one and a gradient accumulation of 32. ## 5 Evaluation This section describes four experiments to compare our fine-tuned (FT) models with their original (O) versions. First, we measured the models' perplexities on easy and normal texts and analyzed the readability of their outputs. In addition, the models were evaluated on two downstream tasks; text complexity prediction and automatic text simplification. ## 5.1 Perplexity Scores The perplexity describes how likely a specific model will produce a given text. A lower perplexity score indicates a better match between the model and text. We evaluated how well our models adapt to the style of Easy Language. Therefore, the finetuned and original models' perplexities on easy and normal texts were compared. The data was collected from the MDR, a public broadcasting service in Germany that publishes news articles in Easy Language. We manually aligned 100 paragraphs from the easy and original articles. To calculate the perplexity of the data, we used the tutorial code from Huggingface (transformers, 2022) that implements perplexity as a sliding window over the input data. We adapted the code for a samplewise calculation and averaged the perplexity over all samples. Perplexity is highly dependent on the tokenization and the length of the samples (Wang et al., 2022). Therefore, we cannot determine the best fine-tuned models by selecting the model with the | Easy text | Normal text | | | | |-------------|---------------|-------|--------|-------| | Model | FT | O | FT | O | | gerpt2 | 25.35 | 51.31 | 53.74 | 56.42 | | german_gpt | 31.81 | 47.19 | 77.76 | 31.49 | | wechsel | 25.99 | 38.98 | 69.29 | 34.80 | | oscar | 34.24 | 59.31 | 112.75 | 66.22 | | mGPT | 24.93 | 25.05 | 99.53 | 19.18 | lowest perplexity. However, the fine-tuned and original versions of the models use the same tokenizers. Thus, we can compare their perplexities and assess the effects of fine-tuning. Table 3 shows the average perplexity values for the easy and normal texts. No model has seen any of the data before in training. All fine-tuned models show a lower perplexity for the Easy Language samples. In contrast, except for one model, the original models perform better on the normal texts. This suggests that the fine-tuned models match the specificities and structure of Easy Language better and, thus, that they are more likely to produce similar texts. ## 5.2 Readability And Easy Language Characteristics To evaluate the readability of the models' outputs, we compared the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) scores (Amstad, 1978) of sample outputs. We prompted the models with six different inputs: "Das"(*This*), "Heute"(*Today*), "Wir"(We), "Die Türkei"(*Turkey*), "Dieses Haus"(*This house*), and "Mein Vater"(*My father*). The models had to output 100 new tokens, and we set a repetition penalty to enforce novel content in the output. Moreover, three different decoding strategies (contrastive search, sampling, and beam search) were used, resulting in 18 output texts per model. Finally, the FRE score was calculated for each of the model outputs. This score considers the average sentence length and the average number of syllables per word, which favors concise sentences with short words. Therefore, a higher score indicates a more accessible text. Table 4 shows each model's average FRE score. The fine-tuned models achieve a higher score, which implies that their output is more readable than their original's. In addition, we counted the number of suggested newline (\n) tokens. As presented in Table 4, the fine-tuned models output this token more often. This shows that they adapted to the Easy Language characteristic of only writing one thought per line. To further investigate this conformity with Easy Language, we gave the models the input sentence "Heute scheint die Sonne" (*Today sun is shining*) and let them predict the next token. As highlighted in Table 5, most of the fine-tuned models proposed to end the sentence, i.e., predicted a point or a modifier. In contrast, the original models added further information by continuing the sentence with a comma or an "and". | Average FRE | \n tokens | | | | |---------------|-------------|-------|-----|----| | Model | FT | O | FT | O | | gerpt2 | 65.17 | 51.09 | 67 | 34 | | german_gpt | 75.09 | 70.89 | 79 | 74 | | wechsel | 70.72 | 55.86 | 69 | 18 | | oscar | 68.21 | 49.32 | 61 | 0 | | mGPT | 72.16 | 55.30 | 106 | 29 | | Suggested next token | | | |------------------------|-------------|-----------| | Model | FT | O | | gerpt2 | . | , | | german_gpt | sehr (very) | , | | wechsel | . | und (and) | | oscar | . | , | | mGPT | auf (on) | bei (at) | ## 5.3 Human Grammar Evaluation Fine-tuning language models to a specific style can result in catastrophic forgetting (Goodfellow et al., 2013). To test if our fine-tuning for Leichte Sprache influences the output quality of the models, we asked human reviewers to rate the models' grammaticality. The reviewers were not paid for their  review but participated voluntarily. We selected the outputs of the prompt "Dieses Haus"(*This house*) with decoding strategy contrastive from Section 5.2. Then, we presented the output of each original and its respective fine-tuned model side by side and asked the participants to select the candidate with fewer grammatical errors. Participants could also state that both models were equal. Overall, seven native speakers and one non-native speaker participated in the survey. The distribution of answers is shown in Figure 1. While most participants preferred the fine-tuned version of gerpt2 and mGPT, the fine-tuning of oscar decreased its grammar score. When averaging over all responses and models, the worsening of the grammaticality by fine-tuning the models on Leichte Sprache is neglectable. ## 5.4 Text Complexity Prediction Fine-tuning models for a specific domain improves their performance on different tasks within this domain (Gururangan et al., 2020). To test if this applies to our models, we evaluated them on the downstream task of text complexity prediction. Therefore, we added a linear layer on top of the language model heads and fine-tuned the models for the respective task. The data for this task came from the GermEval 2022 shared task on text complexity assessment (Mohtaj et al., 2022). This shared task's goal was to predict a sentence's complexity on a continuous scale between 1 and 7. We split the shared task's training data into train, evaluation, and test subsets with a ratio of 80:10:10 and fine-tuned our models for ten steps with a batch size of eight, i.e., on 80 samples total. Table 6 reports the mean squared errors on the unseen test set after the few-shot fine-tuning. The first two models have a high error for both the fine-tuned and original models. As the model only performed ten training steps, the results highly depend on the initialization. For the other three models, however, the fine-tuned models clearly outperform the original models. This gives evidence that with the fine-tuning on Easy Language data, the models get a better understanding of text complexity and, thus, can better discriminate easy from normal texts. | Mean squared error | | | |----------------------|------|------| | Model | FT | O | | gerpt2 | 2.36 | 4.17 | | german_gpt | 6.22 | 4.25 | | wechsel | 0.81 | 1.79 | | oscar | 0.83 | 1.65 | | mGPT | 0.92 | 1.11 | ## 5.5 Text Simplification We used our pre-trained language models as plugin decoders in a mBART simplification model. As the decoders already know how to output Easy Language, we only trained the encoder-decoder cross attention. Due to computational limitations, we could not test all our language models on the text simplification downstream task. Therefore, we selected the two most promising ones, gerpt2 and german_gpt. Table 7 shows how our simplification models perform on the 20 Minuten test dataset compared to the baseline by Rios et al. (2021). To generate the simplifications, we used a beam size of four and calculated the metrics with Huggingface evaluate. Our models outperform the baseline on the SARI metric; however, they fall behind when comparing ROUGE-L and BLEU scores. All of these metrics assess how well the proposed output overlaps with a reference simplification and do not consider synonyms. SARI is a score explicitly tailored to the task of simplification, while BLEU and ROUGE-L are general translation/seq2seq metrics. Herefore, a better SARI score may be an indication that our models do more rephrasing than the baseline model and, thus, yield better simplifications. To achieve this result, our models needed training on only 7% of the trainable parameters of the baseline while preserving state-of-the-art performance. | gerpt2 | german_gpt | | | |-----------------|--------------|-------|-------| | Score | Baseline* | FT | FT | | ROUGE-L | 19.96 | 18.52 | 17.93 | | SARI | 33.29 | 42.25 | 42.74 | | BLEU | 6.29 | 4.95 | 4.80 | | #Params trained | 416M | 29M | 29M | ## 6 Conclusion With this paper, we have published a collection of causal language models for German Easy Language. These models mimic the style of Easy Language and favor short and precise sentences. In addition, they adapt to the conventions of only conveying one thought per sentence and putting a line break after every sentence. We exploited these pre-trained models in a sequence-to-sequence text simplification task. As the models were already fine-tuned to the desired output style, we only had to train the encoder-decoder cross attention and, thus, reduced the number of trainable parameters by 93%. With this, training a style-transfer system becomes feasible for settings with few aligned data or a lack of computational power. ## Limitations This paper focuses on the style transfer of Easy Language for German. Due to their word inflections and high average word length, languages like German are harder to learn for language models (Mielke et al., 2019). Therefore, the proposed approach may work even better on easier-to-model languages, but we did not test any other language. In addition, the style transfer of simplified language uses the same vocabulary as the original language and only reduces its diversity. Our approach has yet to be evaluated on other styles, for example, ones that introduce new words. When evaluating the influence of fine-tunung on the grammaticality of the model outputs, we found that even the original models were not perfect and produced grammatical errors. One possible reason is relying on GPT2-based models that are relatively small and, thus, perform worse than state-of-theart language models like PaLM (Chowdhery et al., 2022). In addition, the German base models are often already fine-tuned versions of English models, and thus, may already suffer from catastrophic forgetting due to fine-tuning. ## Ethics Statement ATS systems can provide more accessible versions of texts, however, a good text simplification is targeted to the knowledge and language level of its audience. Therefore, to utilize these systems for the target group directly, the systems need to be deployed in a controllable setting where the user can set the level of simplification or ask for additional explanations if necessary. Nevertheless, there are also applications where ATS systems can increase the amount of accessible information on the internt withput being used by the target group directly. For example, these systems can yield a draft simplification for professional translators or can be helpful for public state authorities that are forced by law to offer online information in Easy Language. Another problem is the possible stigmatization of users if they request a simplified version of the data (Hansen-Schirra, 2020). Finally, the availability of information in Easy Language is very sparse; thus, it is hard to fact-check material on the internet with other sources. This makes the target group of Easy Language highly vulnerable to misinformation and fake news. Hence, our generative models must be used with care as they do not provide hallucination control. Among the sources of our dataset, there is a significant bias towards news articles as well as some regional bias due to the large proportion of articles related to Austria, Switzerland, and northern Germany. As all sources are from official website articles, and the dataset does not include user comments, we expect the data to be unoffensive and of high quality. Nevertheless, we find topical biases such as the COVID-19 pandemic due to the years from which the articles were scraped. In respect of any intellectual property laws, we published the scrapers used to obtain the data but not the data itself. ## References Toni Amstad. 1978. *Wie verständlich sind unsere* Zeitungen? Ph.D. thesis, Universität Zürich. Dennis Aumiller and Michael Gertz. 2022. Klexikon: A german dataset for joint summarization and simplification. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.07198*. 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. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2204.02311. Mozhdeh Gheini, Xiang Ren, and Jonathan May. 2021. Cross-attention is all you need: Adapting pretrained Transformers for machine translation. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods* in Natural Language Processing, pages 1754–1765, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ian J. Goodfellow, Mehdi Mirza, Da Xiao, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. 2013. An empirical investigation of catastrophic forgetting in gradientbased neural networks. Suchin Gururangan, Ana Marasovic, Swabha ´ Swayamdipta, Kyle Lo, Iz Beltagy, Doug Downey, and Noah A. Smith. 2020. Don't stop pretraining: Adapt language models to domains and tasks. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 8342–8360, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Silvia Hansen-Schirra. 2020. Easy language, plain language, easy language plus: perspectives on comprehensibility and stigmatisation. *Easy language research: text and user perspectives*, 2:17. 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. Changye Li, David Knopman, Weizhe Xu, Trevor Cohen, and Serguei Pakhomov. 2022. GPT-D: Inducing dementia-related linguistic anomalies by deliberate degradation of artificial neural language models. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1866–1877, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yi Liao, Yasheng Wang, Qun Liu, and Xin Jiang. 2019. Gpt-based generation for classical chinese poetry. 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(0):726–742. Takumi Maruyama and Kazuhide Yamamoto. 2019. Extremely low resource text simplification with pretrained transformer language model. In *2019 International Conference on Asian Language Processing* (IALP), pages 53–58. Sabrina J. Mielke, Ryan Cotterell, Kyle Gorman, Brian Roark, and Jason Eisner. 2019. What kind of language is hard to language-model? In *Proceedings of* the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4975–4989, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Benjamin Minixhofer. 2020. GerPT2: German large and small versions of GPT2. Benjamin Minixhofer, Fabian Paischer, and Navid Rekabsaz. 2022. WECHSEL: Effective initialization of subword embeddings for cross-lingual transfer of monolingual language models. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 3992–4006, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. ml6team. 2021. German finetuned gpt2. https://huggingface.co/ml6team/ gpt2-medium-german-finetune-oscar. Salar Mohtaj, Babak Naderi, and Sebastian Möller. 2022. Overview of the GermEval 2022 shared task on text complexity assessment of German text. In Proceedings of the GermEval 2022 Workshop on Text Complexity Assessment of German Text, pages 1–9, Potsdam, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics. Das Netzwerk Leichte Sprache. 2013. Die regeln für leichte sprache. Xiangyu Peng, Siyan Li, Spencer Frazier, and Mark Riedl. 2020. Reducing non-normative text generation from language models. In *Proceedings of the* 13th International Conference on Natural Language Generation, pages 374–383, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9. Annette Rios, Nicolas Spring, Tannon Kew, Marek Kostrzewa, Andreas Säuberli, Mathias Müller, and Sarah Ebling. 2021. A new dataset and efficient baselines for document-level text simplification in German. In Proceedings of the Third Workshop on New Frontiers in Summarization, pages 152–161, Online and in Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Andreas Säuberli, Sarah Ebling, and Martin Volk. 2020. Benchmarking data-driven automatic text simplification for German. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Tools and Resources to Empower People with REAding DIfficulties (READI), pages 41–48, Marseille, France. European Language Resources Association. Elisa Terumi Rubel Schneider, João Vitor Andrioli de Souza, Yohan Bonescki Gumiel, Claudia Moro, and Emerson Cabrera Paraiso. 2021. A gpt-2 language model for biomedical texts in portuguese. In *2021 IEEE 34th International Symposium on* Computer-Based Medical Systems (CBMS), pages 474–479. Stefan Schweter. 2020. German gpt-2 model. Oleh Shliazhko, Alena Fenogenova, Maria Tikhonova, Vladislav Mikhailov, Anastasia Kozlova, and Tatiana Shavrina. 2022. mgpt: Few-shot learners go multilingual. Melanie Siegel, Dorothee Beermann, and Lars Hellan. 2019. Aspects of linguistic complexity: A german - norwegian approach to the creation of resources for easy-to-understand language. In *2019 Eleventh* International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX), pages 1–3. Nicolas Spring, Annette Rios, and Sarah Ebling. 2021. Exploring German multi-level text simplification. In *Proceedings of the International Conference on* Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing (RANLP 2021), pages 1339–1349, Held Online. INCOMA Ltd. Sanja Štajner, Marc Franco-Salvador, Paolo Rosso, and Simone Paolo Ponzetto. 2018. Cats: A tool for customized alignment of text simplification corpora. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018). Sanja Štajner and Maja Popovic. 2016. Can text simplification help machine translation? In *Proceedings of* the 19th Annual Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation, pages 230–242. Yixuan Su, Tian Lan, Yan Wang, Dani Yogatama, Lingpeng Kong, and Nigel Collier. 2022. A contrastive framework for neural text generation. In *Advances in* Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 21548–21561. Curran Associates, Inc. Mari Carmen Suárez-Figueroa, Isam Diab, Edna Ruckhaus, and Isabel Cano. 2022. First steps in the development of a support application for easy-to-read adaptation. *Universal Access in the Information Society*, pages 1–13. Renliang Sun and Xiaojun Wan. 2022. Simplebert: A pre-trained model that learns to generate simple words. Julia Suter, Sarah Ebling, and Martin Volk. 2016. Rulebased automatic text simplification for german. In 13th Conference on Natural Language Processing (KONVENS 2016). s.n. Vanessa Toborek, Moritz Busch, Malte Boßert, Christian Bauckhage, and Pascal Welke. 2022. A New Aligned Simple German Corpus. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.01106. Huggingface transformers. 2022. Perplexity of fixedlength models. Susanna Värtinen, Perttu Hämäläinen, and Christian Guckelsberger. 2022. Generating role-playing game quests with gpt language models. *IEEE Transactions* on Games, pages 1–12. Yequan Wang, Jiawen Deng, Aixin Sun, and Xuying Meng. 2022. Perplexity from plm is unreliable for evaluating text quality. Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, 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. | Dataset | Articles Sentences Description | | | |----------------------|----------------------------------|---------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Hurraki4 | 3,911 | 56,785 | Wikipedia-style dictionary | | Lebenshilfe5 | 396 | 7,144 | Dictionary for people with intellectual disabilities | | Einfachstars6 | 6,488 | 129,674 | News about celebrities | | Nachrichtenleicht7 | 7,709 | 122,842 | News published by Deutschlandfunk | | Kurier8 | 4,519 | 67,827 | News for Austria | | NDR9 | 1,817 | 60,749 | News for the states of Lower Saxony, MecklenburgVorpommern, and Schleswig-Holstein | | InfoEasy10 | 163 | 10,310 | News for Switzerland | | Siegel et al. (2019) | 44 | 4,210 | Compilation of election programs, excerpts from the Bible, children's stories, and Red Cross documents | ## A Overview Of Available Data For Easy Language | Dataset | Articles | Sentences | Description | | | | | | |--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|-----|-----------|--------| | Kurier8 | 3,476 | - | Article-aligned news data from Austria | | | | | | | BrandEins11 | 212 | - | Paragraph-aligned data from a business journal | | | | | | | Wahlprogramm: | - | 100 | Sentence-wise manually-aligned data from the election | | | | | | | Die Grünen12 | program of the Green party | | | | | | | | | MDR news13 | - | 100 | Sentence-wise manually-aligned data from the news for the states of Thuringia, Saxony, and Saxony-Anhalt | | | | | | | MDR dictionary14 | - | 100 | Manually-aligned data of dictionary entries between MDR Easy Language entries and German Wikipedia articles | | | | | | | Rios et al. (2021) | 18,305 | - | Full articles paired with simplified summaries from the Swiss news magazine 20 Minuten | | | | | | | Säuberli | et | al. | - | 19,724 | Sentence-aligned news data from Austria Press Agency | | | | | (2020) | aligned using CATS (Štajner et al., 2018) | | | | | | | | | Toborek | et | al. | 708 | 5,942 | Both article and sentence-aligned compilation of texts | | | | | (2022) | on health and medication, public administration, politics, information texts for disabled people, and news articles (has some overlap with some sources listed in Table 8) | | | | | | | | | Aumiller and Gertz | 2,898 | - | German | online | encyclopedia | for | children, | called | | (2022) | Klexikon (it contains simplified concepts rather than Easy Language) | | | | | | | | Table 8: Overview of the available monolingual data in Easy Language. Table 9: Overview of the parallel data in simplified German and Easy Language. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Unnumbered Section 7 after the conclusion ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Ethical considerations after conclusion ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? First page of paper ✓ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Only Grammarly for language and plagiarism checks on the full paper ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Sections 4 And 5 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? All sections ✗ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Code is available on Github: https://github.com/MiriUll/Language-Models-German-Simplification, https://github.com/brjezierski/scrapers ✓ 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)? Sections 3-5 ✓ 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 8 ethical considerations, no steps were taken as data comes from trustworthy public broadcasting services ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Section 3 ✓ 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 3-5 ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Sections 4,5 ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? Sections 4,5 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 4,5 but we only report the chosen parameters, no explicit search was performed ✓ 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.)? Sections 4,5 ## D ✓ **Did You Use Human Annotators (E.G., Crowdworkers) Or Research With Human Participants?** Section 5.3 ✓ 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.? We report the question asked in section 5.3 but do not report the questionaire in our paper as the text samples are to long. Nevertheless, all sample texts and results are published in our Github repository. ✓ 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 5.3 ✗ 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? Only used model outputs as data, and thus, no consent needed. ✗ D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? The review only focused on grammar, and hence no ethical issues arised ✓ D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Section 5.3 we reported if the annotators were native speakers. Other characteristics were not asked.

kim-etal-2023-client

Client-Customized Adaptation for Parameter-Efficient Federated Learning

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.75

Despite the versatility of pre-trained language models (PLMs) across domains, their large memory footprints pose significant challenges in federated learning (FL), where the training model has to be distributed between a server and clients. One potential solution to bypass such constraints might be the use of parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) in the context of FL. However, we have observed that typical PEFT tends to severely suffer from heterogeneity among clients in FL scenarios, resulting in unstable and slow convergence. In this paper, we propose Client-Customized Adaptation (C2A), a novel hypernetwork-based FL framework that generates client-specific adapters by conditioning the client information. With the effectiveness of the hypernetworks in generating customized weights through learning to adopt the different characteristics of inputs, C2A can maximize the utility of shared model parameters while minimizing the divergence caused by client heterogeneity. To verify the efficacy of C2A, we perform extensive evaluations on FL scenarios involving heterogeneity in label and language distributions. Comprehensive evaluation results clearly support the superiority of C2A in terms of both efficiency and effectiveness in FL scenarios.

# Client-Customized Adaptation For Parameter-Efficient Federated Learning Yeachan Kim1∗ , Junho Kim1∗ , Wing-Lam Mok1, Jun-Hyung Park2**, SangKeun Lee**1,3 1Department of Artificial Intelligence, Korea University, Seoul, South Korea 2BK21 FOUR R&E Center for Artificial Intelligence, Korea University, Seoul, South Korea 3Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Korea University, Seoul, South Korea {yeachan,monocrat,wlmokac,irish07,yalphy}@korea.ac.kr ## Abstract Despite the versatility of pre-trained language models (PLMs) across domains, their large memory footprints pose significant challenges in federated learning (FL), where the training model has to be distributed between a server and clients. One potential solution to bypass such constraints might be the use of parameterefficient fine-tuning (PEFT) in the context of FL. However, we have observed that typical PEFT tends to severely suffer from heterogeneity among clients in FL scenarios, resulting in unstable and slow convergence. In this paper, we propose Client-Customized Adaptation (C2A), a novel hypernetwork-based FL framework that generates client-specific adapters by conditioning the client information. With the effectiveness of the hypernetworks in generating customized weights through learning to adopt the different characteristics of inputs, C2A can maximize the utility of shared model parameters while minimizing the divergence caused by client heterogeneity. To verify the efficacy of C2A, we perform extensive evaluations on FL scenarios involving heterogeneity in label and language distributions. Comprehensive evaluation results clearly support the superiority of C2A in terms of both efficiency and effectiveness in FL scenarios1. ## 1 Introduction The advent of large-scale pre-trained language models (PLMs) for natural language processing (NLP) has led to exceptional performance across a broad spectrum of domains. However, the high memory requirements for PLMs impede their applicability to resource-constrained environments. These challenges are particularly evident in federated learning (FL), where model weights are transmitted between the server and clients to preserve data privacy (Konecný et al. ˇ , 2016; McMahan et al., ∗These authors contributed equally to this work. 1Our code is available at https://github.com/ yeachan-kr/c2a  Figure 1: Conceptual illustration of the existing PEFT modules (A) and the client-customized adaptation (H). The proposed method learns to generate the clientcustomized PEFT modules rather than fitting a single global module to all clients. 2017). While recent FL studies have expanded the application of PLMs in various tasks, such as text classification (Zhu et al., 2020; Qin et al., 2021; Weller et al., 2022), language modeling (Chen et al., 2019), and question answering (Chen et al., 2021), communicating the training model among clients requires huge computational resources and bandwidth, presenting a significant challenge in terms of practicality. Parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) approach is thereby a promising strategy for reducing communication costs in FL. Through tuning only a small fraction of parameters, such as adapter-based tuning (Houlsby et al., 2019; Hu et al., 2022; Mahabadi et al., 2021a), bias tuning (Zaken et al., 2022), and prompt-tuning (Lester et al., 2021), PEFT approaches significantly enhance the memory efficiency in centralized scenarios. However, the feasibility of PEFT in decentralized scenarios has not been well explored. Hence, we investigate the applicability of typical PEFT approaches in FL scenarios. Specifically, we measure the performance and *client drifts* (Karimireddy et al., 2020; Li et al., 2021) of PEFT approaches in FL. Our discoveries are as follows: (1) typical PEFT approaches show large performance degradation in FL scenarios as the degree of non- IID increases; (2) these approaches usually suffer from large client drifts in non-IID scenarios, resulting in slow convergence and detrimental model performance. The above observations reveal that adopting PEFT in FL is not trivial, and posing the necessity to address large client drift. To overcome the identified limitations, we propose a novel hypernetwork-based FL framework, Client-Customized Adaptation (C2A), that leverages the information of different data distributions on clients. Our key idea is to generate the adapter parameters tailored to each client via hypernetworks by taking the information of client data distribution, rather than naively fitting a single global adapter to all heterogeneous data distributions (Figure 1). By learning to adopt the different data distributions to generate adapters for each client, C2A enables robust training for various non-IID conditions while sharing knowledge among clients. Moreover, in order to manage the large number of parameters associated with hypernetworks, we introduce factorized hypernetworks, thereby significantly reducing the number of parameters without sacrificing the performance. We carefully design the experimental setting to verify the efficacy of C2A on realistic FL scenarios, considering on both label and language heterogeneous. The experimental results show clearly that C2A can be robust to the heterogeneity of clients, thereby leading to the state-of-the-art results on diverse non-IID setups. In addition, our framework shows a significant enhancement in training efficiency across a range of downstream tasks. Finally, we demonstrate that our C2A successfully mitigates the large client drifts among local clients in non-IID scenarios. A summary of our main contributions is as follows: - We investigate the effectiveness of PEFT among various FL scenarios. To the best of our knowledge, our work is one of the few researches for adapting PEFT in FL. - We propose Client-Customized Adaptation (C2A), a novel hypernetwork-based framework that strengthens the robustness of adapter concerning FL heterogeneity. - We demonstrate that C2A works quite well on various non-IID scenarios while preserving the benefits of efficiency in PEFT. ## 2 Peft In Fl Scenario 2.1 Background Of Fl The goal of federated learning is to collaboratively train a single global model without sharing any private data between clients. To this end, FL proceeds through the communication of training models between clients and the server in a round-by-round manner. For each round, the server first distributes a single global model θ to a set of sampled clients, participating clients then perform local optimization on their own data. Upon the completion of the optimization, the server again aggregates all locally-trained models to update the global model. Formally, let the dataset of the i-th client be Di, the above process for updating the global model can be formulated as follows: $${\widetilde{\theta}}=\sum_{i=1}^{K}\alpha_{i}\cdot{\mathcal{L}}({\mathcal{D}}_{i};\theta),\qquad\qquad(1)$$ where L(Di; θ) is the function that returns the trained model based on the given dataset and the initial model, K is the number of participating clients, and αiis the contributing factor of the client i to build a global model, which is typically determined by the dataset size of each client, i.e., αi = P|Di| i|Di| . While there are various aggregation methods, we focus on FedAvg due to its wide applicability in the FL community (Karimireddy et al., 2020; Li et al., 2021; Luo et al., 2021). However, utilizing cumbersome PLMs for the communication process of FL poses two challenges. Firstly, the function L(·) requires high computing resources due to the large number of trainable parameters associated with PLMs. Secondly, in the aggregation step (i.e., weighted summation), significant network bandwidth is required to transmit and receive the models. Therefore, it is crucial to find an optimal solution that can mitigate these constraints, providing a more efficient and less resource-intensive mechanism for FL with PLMs. ## 2.2 Impact Of Heterogeneity On Peft To verify the applicability of PEFT in federated context, we conduct a preliminary investigation in which only small components (e.g., adapters, prompt embeddings, biases) are fine-tuned on local data and subsequently shared between clients. The experimental configuration comprises 100 clients engaged in the task of multilingual news classifica-  ## Tion2(Liang Et Al., 2020). We first examine the robustness of PEFT on heterogeneous data distribution between clients, which is common in real-world scenarios. We report the test accuracy of the global model with respect to the increasing heterogeneity3. The overall results are depicted in Figure 2(a). In the nonfederated scenario (i.e., IID), the existing PEFT methods manage to achieve strong performances comparable to that of the full fine-tuning. However, as the level of heterogeneity increases, the performances of the PEFT methods significantly lag behind that of the full fine-tuning. This verifies that PEFT methods exhibit greater susceptibility to heterogeneity than full fine-tuning. To gain a deeper understanding of the susceptibility, we further analyze the local optimization of the PEFT methods. Specifically, we measure the CKA similarity (Kornblith et al., 2019) of the logits between the training model and the global model on the IID and non-IID setups. Figure 2(b) shows the results. Comparing between IID and non-IID setups, all PEFT methods noticeably deviate from the global model on non-IID. This indicates that the model gradually converges to the client optima 2Further details for the experiment in Section 4.3. 3The increasing heterogeneity implies the corresponding degree of skewness deterioration towards certain classes while drifting apart from the global model's optima, which are believed to be more generalized (Li et al., 2021). This observation aligns with prior results (Luo et al., 2021), and we suspect that such deviation attributes the slow and unstable convergence. ## 3 C2A: Client-Customized Adaptation In this section, we elaborate on the proposed framework in detail. The core strategy is to generate customized PEFT modules tailored to each client to mitigate the negative impact of heterogeneity among clients. To achieve this, we first derive latent vectors to represent the data distribution of each client (Section 3.2). The resulting embeddings are then conditioned on the hypernetworks so as to generate parameters of the PEFT modules tailored to each client (Section 3.3). Regarding on the large number of parameters induced from hypernetworks, we effectively factorize the weights of the hypernetworks (Section 3.4). ## 3.1 Adapter Architecture We start with defining the structure of the PEFT modules to be generated. While lots of different modules have been proposed, we focus on Adapter (Houlsby et al., 2019), given its versatility across domains, such as vision-and-image (Sung et al., 2022) and audio (Hou et al., 2021), as well as its demonstrated efficacy in performing given tasks. The adapter consists of down- and upprojection functions that are interleaved between self-attention layers and feed-forward layers within every block of the PLMs. The adapting process can be formulated as: $${\mathcal{A}}^{l}(x)=\mathbf{U}^{l}\mathbf{G}\mathbf{L}\mathbf{U}(\mathbf{D}^{l}x)+x\qquad\quad(2)$$ where D l ∈ Rr×dand U l ∈ Rd×rare the weights for the down- and up-projection in the l-th layer of PLMs, respectively, d is the hidden dimension of PLMs, and r is the bottleneck dimension. ## 3.2 Construction Of Client Embeddings To represent the characteristics of the clients, we consider two different types of information: 1) label embeddings and 2) context embeddings. Label Embeddings The label embedding plays a role in conveying the explicit information of class distribution on each client. Since mini-batches are generally sampled by uniform distribution, the label distributions on mini-batches can sufficiently  represent the data distributions of clients. Thus we construct label embeddings from the label distributions of the mini-batches. Let the mini-batches of the client i be *B ⊂ D*i, the label embeddings can be derived as follows: $$L({\mathcal{B}})={\mathbf{W}}_{L}\mathrm{avg}([y_{1};...;y_{|B|}])+b_{L},$$ where yiis a one-hot label vector for the instance xi, [ ; ] denotes the concatenating function, avg(·) denotes the average pooling within mini-batches, WL ∈ RC×tand bL ∈ Rtare the linear transformation weights and biases for the number of classes C and t is the dimensionality of input embeddings. It is important to note that, since the labels for test data are not accessible, we opt for a uniform distribution for the inference phase to generate adapters that are not biased toward dominant classes. Context Embeddings Considering the contextual information in data can also provide an enhanced understanding of each client by taking a more comprehensive viewpoint (e.g., languages, text styles). Specifically, the contextual information is extracted from every layer, so as to generate layer-specialized adapters. Inspired by the sentence embeddings (Li et al., 2020), context embeddings are extracted by averaging word vectors over the lengths with ℓ2 normalization. Let the resulting vectors of the sample xj from the l-th layer of PLMs be f l(xj ), the context embeddings of the l-th layer are derived as follows: $$F^{l}({\mathcal{B}})={\mathbf{W}}_{F}{\operatorname*{max}}([f^{l}(x_{1});...;f^{l}(x_{|{\mathcal{B}}|})])+b_{F},$$ (4) where max(·) denotes the max-pooling across the batch, and WF ∈ Rd×tand bF ∈ Rtare the linear transformation weights and biases, respectively. Client Embeddings The comprehensive client embeddings I l B are constructed by summing up two types of embeddings. Additionally, we add layer-index embeddings into the client embeddings of each layer, further encouraging the generator to encode more diverse layer-wise information (Van Aken et al., 2019; de Vries et al., 2020). ## 3.3 Client-Conditional Hypernetworks Based on the client embeddings, we tailor adapters to each heterogeneous client. Drawing inspiration from the concept of hypernetworks (Ha et al., 2017) that generates parameters based on given input embeddings, we introduce the *client*-conditional hypernetworks, which generate adapter parameters by taking the client embeddings I l B as inputs. Formally, the parameters of the adapters (i.e., U l, Dl) are generated by following the function of hypernetworks: $$(\mathbf{U}_{\mathcal{B}}^{l},\mathbf{D}_{\mathcal{B}}^{l}):=h({\mathcal{I}}_{\mathcal{B}})=(\mathbf{W}_{U},\mathbf{W}_{D}){\mathcal{I}}_{\mathcal{B}}^{l},$$ B, (5) where I is the input embeddings with dimensionality t, WlD ∈ R(r×d)×t, WlU ∈ R(d×r)×tare the weights for the hypernetworks. Note that the hypernetworks are shared between different layers with the layer-specific information that are encoded to the input embeddings. ## 3.4 Factorization Of Hypernetworks While customized adapters can be generated from the aforementioned hypernetworks, hypernetworks typically comprise a relatively large number of parameters. We thus factorize the proposed hypernetworks into two smaller weights. Moreover, the resultant matrices from the factorized components are ℓ2 normalized, such that the generated parameters are not biased towards any of the local majority classes in the client's data distribution (Zhong et al., 2021). Formally, the up-projection weights in Eq. (5) are reconstructed by two factorized components as follows: $$\mathbf{U}_{B}^{l}=\mathbf{W}_{U}{\mathcal{I}}_{B}=\sigma(\mathbf{F}_{U}\mathbf{S}_{U}){\mathcal{I}}_{B}$$ B = WU IB = σ(FU SU )IB (6) where FU ∈ Rd×sand SU ∈ Rs×(r×t)indicate the factorized components from WU with latent factor s, σ(·) denotes the Frobenius normalization. For factorization, the latent factor s plays a crucial role in determining the complexity and expressivity of the resulting adapters. To allow for a larger dimensionality of latent factors, the two projection weights are tied similarly as if the tied auto-encoder (Alain and Bengio, 2014), i.e., DlB = U l B ⊤. This strategy enables to halve the memory requirements without compromising the task accuracy. ## 3.5 Aggregation Phase For C2A Upon the completion of the training phase on each client data, the respective trained models are transmitted back to the centralized server to update the global model (Eq. (1)). Considering that the training models for C2A are hypernetworks, each client sends the parameters associated with the hypernetworks and the layer-index embeddings to the server in order to update the global hypernetworks. ## 4 Evaluation In this section, we evaluate the efficacy of our C2A on two realistic FL scenarios: 1) heterogeneity in label distributions, and 2) heterogeneity in both label and language distributions. ## 4.1 Datasets To simulate the two challenging scenarios, we mainly consider two text classification datasets, 20Newsgroup (Lang, 1995) and XGLUE-NC (Liang et al., 2020), which have recently served as benchmarks for evaluating FL for NLP (Lin et al., 2022; Weller et al., 2022). 20Newsgroup The dataset comprises 18,000 news posts that pertain to 20 distinct topics. Given its larger categorical space (i.e., 20 labels) than the typical sentiment analysis datasets, it is favored to the verification for the important factor of the label distribution heterogeneity scenarios. XGLUE-NC The dataset includes 10,000 posts written in multiple languages that pertain to 10 news categories. This diversity in languages adds an extra layer of complexity to the FL. The dataset comprises five languages: English, Spanish, French, German, and Russian. Furthermore, due to the varying categorical distribution between languages (e.g., the English dataset is skewed towards Sports, while the French dataset is skewed toward News), the distribution shifts among clients are naturally introduced to the dataset. ## 4.2 Non-Iid Client Partitioning Building upon the two datasets, we adopt two nonIID partitioning strategies to inject heterogeneity into the label and language distributions. Label Distribution. Following the benchmark setup (Lin et al., 2022), we apply Dirichlet distribution Dir(β) to the datasets in reorganizing the data into the non-IID label distribution circumstance. The value β controls the degree of non-IID, the smaller the β, the more likely the clients in holding examples from only one class. Thus, we eventually construct a FL dataset respecting the label heterogeneity scenarios. Language Distribution. Following the language setup in (Weller et al., 2022), we randomly divide clients into five distinct groups, with each group being exclusively dedicated to a specific language. Subsequently, we split the dataset of each language in the same manner with the strategy of non-IID label distribution, which is more challenging and not even being explored in previous works. ## 4.3 Federated Learning Setup Baselines and Implementations Following the previous work (Lin et al., 2022), we use the uncased version of DistilBERT 4(Sanh et al., 2019) with 66M parameters. We compare C2A with six strong baselines, which include Adapter (Houlsby et al., 2019), LoRA (Hu et al., 2022), Compacter (Mahabadi et al., 2021a), Prompt-tuning (Lester et al., 2021), BitFit (Zaken et al., 2022), and AdaMix (Yaqing Wang and Gao, 2022), to encompass a broad range of PEFT methods. These modules are optimized by AdamW (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2019) with the searched learning rate ranging from {2e-4, 3e-4, 4e-4, 5e-4}. Local Optimization and Aggregation We assign 100 clients for each dataset and randomly selected 25% of the clients to join the local optimization in each round. During the local optimization, 4In multi-lingual FL scenarios, we adopt the multi-lingual version of DistilBERT with 134M parameters Table 1: Evaluation results of test accuracy (%) on 20Newsgroup. The best and second best results are highlighted in **boldface** and underlined, respectively. | Methods | Params (%) | Non-Fed | Federated scenario | | | |------------------------------------------|--------------|-----------|----------------------|------|------| | β = 5.0 | β = 1.0 | β = 0.1 | | | | | Full Fine-tuning | 100% | 85.8 | 77.6 | 77.2 | 66.8 | | Adapter (Houlsby et al., 2019) | 0.455% | 84.0 | 69.1 | 65.5 | 56.1 | | LoRA (Hu et al., 2022) | 0.111% | 84.3 | 69.5 | 67.7 | 56.6 | | Compacter (Karimi Mahabadi et al., 2021) | 0.043% | 83.2 | 65.9 | 62.8 | 50.1 | | Prompt-tuning (Lester et al., 2021) | 0.024% | 74.2 | 51.6 | 46.4 | 28.2 | | BitFit (Zaken et al., 2022) | 0.078% | 82.8 | 67.1 | 66.5 | 55.1 | | AdaMix (Yaqing Wang and Gao, 2022) | 0.559% | 84.7 | 68.7 | 65.3 | 54.5 | | C2A (ours.) | 0.097% | 83.9 | 71.6 | 70.4 | 61.0 | Table 2: Evaluation results of test accuracy (%) on XGLUE-NC. The best and second best results are highlighted in boldface and underlined, respectively. | Methods | Params (%) | Non-Fed | Federated scenario | | | |------------------------------------------|--------------|-----------|----------------------|------|------| | β = 5.0 | β = 2.0 | β = 0.5 | | | | | Full Fine-tuning | 100% | 87.6 | 84.5 | 83.7 | 80.7 | | Adapter (Houlsby et al., 2019) | 0.225% | 87.5 | 78.6 | 75.0 | 74.3 | | LoRA (Hu et al., 2022) | 0.055% | 87.8 | 80.4 | 78.4 | 74.6 | | Compacter (Karimi Mahabadi et al., 2021) | 0.021% | 87.3 | 75.9 | 73.4 | 71.0 | | Prompt-tuning (Li and Liang, 2021) | 0.017% | 85.6 | 61.2 | 60.6 | 58.0 | | BitFit (Zaken et al., 2022) | 0.038% | 87.3 | 78.4 | 76.8 | 72.1 | | AdaMix (Yaqing Wang and Gao, 2022) | 0.277% | 87.6 | 79.6 | 79.1 | 76.6 | | C2A (ours.) | 0.049% | 87.4 | 82.8 | 82.2 | 80.2 | we use a batch size of 16 and 64 for 20Newsgroup and XGLUE-NC, respectively. Each client performs a single local epoch, and the server aggregates the locally-trained model based on FedAvg (McMahan et al., 2017). ## 4.4 Main Results To thoroughly evaluate each baseline on various FL setups, we start from a non-federated setup and progressively increase the level of heterogeneity by manipulating β. The results are shown in Table 1 (20Newsgroup) and Table 2 (XGLUE-NC). The proposed method, C2A, achieves the stateof-the-art performance for almost all setups. Specifically, despite that AdaMix uses multiple adapters for ensemble, our model improves the respective performance by 3% on both datasets. It is also noteworthy that while most PEFT approaches manage to achieve fair performance in non-FL scenarios, their performances significantly decrease as the degree of heterogeneity increases. In contrast, our C2A shows only marginal performance degradation even for high degree non-IID settings. Moreover, in the multilingual setting, C2A achieves a comparable performance to full fine-tuning. These results indicate that C2A is more resilient to heterogeneity in decentralized scenarios. ## 5 Further Analysis On C2A In order to gain a deeper understanding of the benefits of C2A, we perform a series of analytical experiments utilizing XGLUE-NC with a value of β = 0.5, which represents the most challenging setup within our experimentation. ## 5.1 Ablation Studies We conduct ablation studies to explore the contributions brought by each component of C2A. Specifically, we focus on the effect of client embeddings, which are composed of label embedding (LE), context embedding (CE), and factorization. Detailed 1164 | Methods | Params (%) | Accuracy (%) | |---------------------------------|--------------|----------------| | C2A(ours) | 0.049% | 80.2 | | Client embedding w/o LE | 0.049% | 78.4 | | w/o CE | 0.049% | 78.0 | | w/o LE,CE | 0.049% | 77.3 | | Factorization w/o Factorization | 0.106% | 79.8 | | w/o Normalization | 0.049% | 78.8 | ## Results Are Presented In Table 3. Client Embedding. We observe that omitting either of the embeddings does hurt the model performance. Notably, comparing "w/o LE" to "w/o CE", ablating context embedding leads to more significant performance degradation. We suspect this is because that context embedding can provide more discriminating information of each client through implicit representations, such as language types, and text styles. Moreover, removing all the embeddings shows the worst performance, which demonstrates that our C2A with the client embeddings can generate more suitable adapters for each client. Factorization. To examine the impact of factorization, we first compare it with the C2A results neglecting factorization. Despite using only half the parameters, our model achieves comparable performance as the model without factorization. In addition, we observe that omitting normalization significantly hurts performance. The results demonstrate that our normalization alleviates the performance drop by factorization. ## 5.2 **Local Epochs Vs. Communication Rounds** One of the crucial aspects in FL is communication efficiency. A simple way to achieve such efficiency is to reduce communication rounds while increasing local epochs. However, the increased local updates can result in greater susceptibility to client drifts (Li et al., 2021). Thus we examine the trade-off between local epochs and communication rounds, as shown in Figure 4. We compare C2A with three baselines under the same number of model updates (local epochs × communication rounds). We observe that increasing the local epochs leads to worse performance due to the detri-  mental effect of client drift. Nevertheless, C2A clearly outperforms the other baselines in all settings. This further verifies the potency of C2A in mitigating the negative effects of the drift caused by excessive local updates, and shows that C2A can be efficiently trained with only a few rounds of communication. ## 5.3 **Communication Cost For Target Accuracy** In FL scenarios, the communication between clients typically continues until the model attains a target accuracy or the allocated budgets are exhausted. As such, attaining the target accuracy with minimal communication rounds is crucial for reducing the total costs in practical FL. To analyze the baselines through the lens of such communication efficiency, we compare the number of required communications to reach the targeted performance for each baseline. The results are shown in Table 4. Our proposed C2A consistently performs the best over the baselines on all target accuracy. Specifically, C2A reaches the targeted performance approximately two times faster than the vanilla adapter. These results show that C2A engages fewer communication costs with less requirement on the parameters and communication rounds. ## 5.4 Scalability Of C2A We evaluate whether C2A can be scaled to larger PLMs. To this end, we adopt all PEFT baselines to XLM-RoBERTa with 278M parameters. The results are summarized in Table 5. We observe that our C2A still outperforms the baselines by a large margin. Specifically, our C2A achieves 3.1 points improvement compared with the adapter model. These results indicate that our approach can be well generalized to larger models. | Methods | Communication Rounds | SpeedUp | |-----------------------|------------------------|-----------| | Target accuracy = 70% | | | | Adapter | 13 | ×1.00 | | LoRA | 18 | ×0.72 | | Compacter | 19 | ×0.68 | | Prompt-tuning | 46 | ×0.28 | | BitFit | 18 | ×0.72 | | AdaMix | 12 | ×1.10 | | C2A (ours.) | 7 | ×1.86 | | Target accuracy = 80% | | | | Adapter | 33 | ×1.00 | | LoRA | 44 | ×0.75 | | Compacter | 71 | ×0.46 | | Prompt-tuning | 100↑ | ×0.33↓ | | BitFit | 55 | ×0.60 | | AdaMix | 50 | ×0.66 | | C2A (ours.) | 18 | ×1.83 | | Methods | Params (%) | Test Accuracy (%) | |------------------|--------------|---------------------| | Full Fine-tuning | 100% | 85.8 | | Adapter | 0.217% | 81.5 | | LoRA | 0.106% | 80.7 | | Prompt-tuning | 0.008% | 65.8 | | Compacter | 0.021% | 77.7 | | BitFit | 0.037% | 79.7 | | AdaMix | 0.165% | 79.1 | | C2A (ours.) | 0.028% | 84.6 | in FL remains under-explored. Yet, we discover that current PEFT approaches suffer from client drifts on non-IID setup, resulting in serious performance degradation in FL. Different from previous studies, we focus on improving the robustness of PEFT in decentralized scenarios by generating client-customized adapters. ## 5.5 Robustness To Client Drifts In order to showcase the robustness of C2A in nonIID scenarios, we employ CKA similarity to quantify the drift from the global model. Figure 2 shows that C2A is superior to other baselines in effectively reducing client drift. This justifies our hypothesis that creating tailored modules for each client is more effective in non-IID scenarios compared to a one-size-fits-all approach in training a single module for all clients. ## 6 Related Work 6.1 Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning Recent works on PEFT can be categorized into two lines of work: (1) tuning a subset of the existing parameters within the PLMs, including head fine-tuning (Lee et al., 2019), and bias tuning (Zaken et al., 2022), (2) tuning with a small amount of additional trainable parameters, such as adapters (Houlsby et al., 2019; Mahabadi et al., 2021a; Yaqing Wang and Gao, 2022), prefix-tuning (Li and Liang, 2021), prompt-tuning (Lester et al., 2021), and low-rank adaption (Hu et al., 2022). Previous studies showed that PEFT achieves comparable performance compared to fine-tuning using only a small set of parameters. Given the advances brought by previous studies focused on centralized datasets, attention towards decentralized scenarios ## 6.2 Federated Learning For Nlp While much attention for FL has been focused on the field of computer vision, recent efforts have been done in applying FL to NLP tasks. For example, FedNLP (Lin et al., 2022) introduced benchmarks for evaluating FL methods and performed systematic analysis in the context of PLMs. Weller et al. (2022) examined FL in multilingual scenarios, where each client uses different languages. Similarly, several works attempted to extend the setting toward diverse tasks. For example, Chen et al. (2021) adopted FL for question answering, and Qin et al. (2021) proposed an aspect-based sentiment analysis method to enhance the performance under the restriction of data isolation. However, to the best of our knowledge, none of the prior works has been done on tackling the training complexity of FL on PLMs, which is directly related to the practicality. ## 6.3 Hypernetworks In Peft Prior studies have demonstrated that utilizing hypernetwork (Ha et al., 2017) is conducive to more efficient fine-tuning for PLMs in centralized scenarios. For instance, Hyperformer (Mahabadi et al., 2021b) and HyperPrompt (He et al., 2022) generated task-specific parameters by incorporating taskspecific and layer-specific information on multitask learning. Moreover, for multi-lingual learning, Hyper-X (Üstün et al., 2022) learned about the task and language-specific embeddings for generating adapters. While most previous works have been conducted for improving the efficiency of PEFT by utilizing the hypernetwork, they only focused on multi-task or multi-lingual situations. Instead, our work mitigates the client drifts issue of PEFT in federated scenarios by incorporating the data distributions of each client. ## 7 Conclusion In this paper, we have observed significant performance degradation for typical PEFT approaches in decentralized scenarios. By carefully designed analysis, we have also shown that typical PEFT suffers from large client drifts, resulting in slow convergence and performance degradation. To address these issues, we have proposed C2A, a novel hypernetwork-based FL framework, which generates client-customized adapters by incorporating the data distribution of each client. Our experimental results show that C2A achieves state-of-the-art results in various decentralized scenarios. Moreover, we have verified that C2A successfully mitigates the large client drift problem among local clients in FL scenarios. ## 8 Limitations While we show that C2A successfully improves the effectiveness and efficiency of PEFT in FL, we have mainly focused on improving the effectiveness of the vanilla adapter. However, it is an open question whether our framework can improve other PEFT approaches, such as prompt tuning(Lester et al., 2021), and LoRA (Hu et al., 2022). Although we didn't analyze whether our framework can generate parameters for alternative PEFT, one recent approach reveals that hypernetworks can generate parameters for various types of PEFT in multi-task learning (He et al., 2022; Üstün et al., 2022). Likewise, as C2A generates parameters with hypernetwork, we believe that C2A is highly expected to improve the performance of any alternative PEFT modules. ## Ethics Statement This study covers work that utilizes PLMs, which have a wide variety of positive applications, such as the application to summarization, or language understanding. At the same time, there are a number of ethical concerns with PLMs in general, including concerns regarding the generation of biased or discriminative text (Bordia and Bowman, 2019), the leakage of private information from training data (Carlini et al., 2021), and the environmental impact of training or tuning them (Strubell et al., 2019). Our framework attempts to train PLMs with minimal changes made to their pre-existing parameters in FL scenarios. Our work is believed to bring some insights into the two ethical dimensions: privacy and environment. First, with respect to private information leakage, although our work has not addressed address the privacy issue in the pre-train process, our FL framework can mitigate the data privacy issues in the fine-tuning stages. In addition, with respect to environmental impact, our work may obviate the need for full fine-tuning, which may also significantly reduce the cost in terms of memory or deployed servers. ## Acknowledgment This work was supported by the Basic Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (2021R1A2C3010430) and Institute of Information & Communications Technology Planning & Evaluation (IITP) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (No. 2019-0-00079, Artificial Intelligence Graduate School Program (Korea University)). ## References Guillaume Alain and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. What regularized auto-encoders learn from the data-generating distribution. *The Journal of Machine Learning Research*, 15(1):3563–3593. Shikha Bordia and Samuel R. Bowman. 2019. Identifying and reducing gender bias in word-level language models. In *Proc. the North American Chapter of the* Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL), pages 7934–7949. Nicholas Carlini, Florian Tramèr, Eric Wallace, Matthew Jagielski, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Katherine Lee, Adam Roberts, Tom B. Brown, Dawn Song, Úlfar Erlingsson, Alina Oprea, and Colin Raffel. 2021. Extracting training data from large language models. In *USENIX Security Symposium*, pages 2633–2650. Jiangui Chen, Ruqing Zhang, Jiafeng Guo, Yixing Fan, and Xueqi Cheng. 2021. Fedmatch: Federated learning over heterogeneous question answering data. In Proc. the ACM Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM), pages 181–190. Mingqing Chen, Ananda Theertha Suresh, Rajiv Mathews, Adeline Wong, Cyril Allauzen, Françoise Beaufays, and Michael Riley. 2019. Federated learning of n-gram language models. In Proc. of the Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL), pages 121–130. Alexis Conneau, Kartikay Khandelwal, Naman Goyal, Vishrav Chaudhary, Guillaume Wenzek, Francisco Guzmán, Edouard Grave, Myle Ott, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Unsupervised cross-lingual representation learning at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.02116. Wietse de Vries, Andreas van Cranenburgh, and Malvina Nissim. 2020. What's so special about bert's layers? a closer look at the nlp pipeline in monolingual and multilingual models. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 1273–1282. David Ha, Andrew M. Dai, and Quoc V. Le. 2017. Hypernetworks. In Proc. the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR). Yun He, Huaixiu Steven Zheng, Yi Tay, Jai Prakash Gupta, Yu Du, Vamsi Aribandi, Zhe Zhao, YaGuang Li, Zhao Chen, Donald Metzler, Heng-Tze Cheng, and Ed H. Chi. 2022. Hyperprompt: Prompt-based task-conditioning of transformers. In *Proc. the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML)*, pages 7934–7949. Wenxin Hou, Han Zhu, Yidong Wang, Jindong Wang, Tao Qin, Renjun Xu, and Takahiro Shinozaki. 2021. Exploiting adapters for cross-lingual low-resource speech recognition. *IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing*, pages 317– 329. 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 *Proc. the International Conference on Machine* Learning (ICML), pages 2790–2799. Edward J. Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2022. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. In Proc. the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR). Rabeeh Karimi Mahabadi, James Henderson, and Sebastian Ruder. 2021. Compacter: Efficient low-rank hypercomplex adapter layers. In Proc. the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), pages 1022–1035. Sai Praneeth Karimireddy, Satyen Kale, Mehryar Mohri, Sashank Reddi, Sebastian Stich, and Ananda Theertha Suresh. 2020. Scaffold: Stochastic controlled averaging for federated learning. In *Proc.* the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), pages 5132–5143. Jakub Konecný, H. Brendan McMahan, Felix X. ˇ Yu, Peter Richtárik, Ananda Theertha Suresh, and Dave Bacon. 2016. Federated learning: Strategies for improving communication efficiency. *CoRR*, abs/1610.05492. Simon Kornblith, Mohammad Norouzi, Honglak Lee, and Geoffrey E. Hinton. 2019. Similarity of neural network representations revisited. In *Proc. the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML)*, pages 3519–3529. Ken Lang. 1995. Newsweeder: Learning to filter netnews. In *Proc. the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML)*, pages 331–339. Jaejun Lee, Raphael Tang, and Jimmy Lin. 2019. What would elsa do? freezing layers during transformer fine-tuning. *CoRR*, abs/1911.03090. Brian Lester, Rami Al-Rfou, and Noah Constant. 2021. The power of scale for parameter-efficient prompt tuning. In *Proc. the Conference on Empirical* Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 3045–3059. Bohan Li, Hao Zhou, Junxian He, Mingxuan Wang, Yiming Yang, and Lei Li. 2020. On the sentence embeddings from pre-trained language models. In Proc. the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 9119–9130. Qinbin Li, Bingsheng He, and Dawn Song. 2021. Model-contrastive federated learning. In *Proc. the* Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 10713–10722. Xiang Lisa Li and Percy Liang. 2021. Prefix-tuning: Optimizing continuous prompts for generation. In Proc. the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), pages 4582–4597. Yaobo Liang, Nan Duan, Yeyun Gong, Ning Wu, Fenfei Guo, Weizhen Qi, Ming Gong, Linjun Shou, Daxin Jiang, Guihong Cao, Xiaodong Fan, Ruofei Zhang, Rahul Agrawal, Edward Cui, Sining Wei, Taroon Bharti, Ying Qiao, Jiun-Hung Chen, Winnie Wu, Shuguang Liu, Fan Yang, Daniel Campos, Rangan Majumder, and Ming Zhou. 2020. XGLUE: A new benchmark datasetfor cross-lingual pre-training, understanding and generation. In Proc. the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6008–6018. Bill Yuchen Lin, Chaoyang He, Zihang Ze, Hulin Wang, Yufen Hua, Christophe Dupuy, Rahul Gupta, Mahdi Soltanolkotabi, Xiang Ren, and Salman Avestimehr. 2022. Fednlp: Benchmarking federated learning methods for natural language processing tasks. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022, pages 157–175. Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2019. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In Proc. the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR). Mi Luo, Fei Chen, Dapeng Hu, Yifan Zhang, Jian Liang, and Jiashi Feng. 2021. No fear of heterogeneity: Classifier calibration for federated learning with noniid data. pages 5972–5984. Rabeeh Karimi Mahabadi, James Henderson, and Sebastian Ruder. 2021a. Compacter: Efficient low-rank hypercomplex adapter layers. In *Proc. the Advances* in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), pages 1022–1035. Rabeeh Karimi Mahabadi, Sebastian Ruder, Mostafa Dehghani, and James Henderson. 2021b. Parameterefficient multi-task fine-tuning for transformers via shared hypernetworks. In Proc. the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), pages 565–576. Brendan McMahan, Eider Moore, Daniel Ramage, Seth Hampson, and Blaise Agüera y Arcas. 2017. Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data. In Proc. of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AISTAT), pages 1273–1282. Han Qin, Guimin Chen, Yuanhe Tian, and Yan Song. 2021. Improving federated learning for aspect-based sentiment analysis via topic memories. In *Proc. the* Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 3942–3954. Victor Sanh, Lysandre Debut, Julien Chaumond, and Thomas Wolf. 2019. Distilbert, a distilled version of BERT: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter. Emma Strubell, Ananya Ganesh, and Andrew McCallum. 2019. Energy and policy considerations for deep learning in NLP. In Proc. the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), pages 7934–7949. Yi-Lin Sung, Jaemin Cho, and Mohit Bansal. 2022. Vl-adapter: Parameter-efficient transfer learning for vision-and-language tasks. In *Proc. the Conference* on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 5217–5227. Ahmet Üstün, Arianna Bisazza, Gosse Bouma, Gertjan van Noord, and Sebastian Ruder. 2022. Hyperx: A unified hypernetwork for multi-task multilingual transfer. In Proc. the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 7934–7949. Betty Van Aken, Benjamin Winter, Alexander Löser, and Felix A Gers. 2019. How does bert answer questions? a layer-wise analysis of transformer representations. In *Proc. the ACM Conference on Information* and Knowledge Management (CIKM), pages 1823– 1832. Orion Weller, Marc Marone, Vladimir Braverman, Dawn J. Lawrie, and Benjamin Van Durme. 2022. Pretrained models for multilingual federated learning. In *Proc. the North American Chapter of the* Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL), pages 1413–1421. Subhabrata Mukherjee Xiaodong Liu Jing Gao Ahmed Hassan Awadallah Yaqing Wang, Sahaj Agarwal and Jianfeng Gao. 2022. Adamix: Mixture-ofadaptations for parameter-efficient model tuning. In Proc. the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 5744– 5760. Elad Ben Zaken, Yoav Goldberg, and Shauli Ravfogel. 2022. Bitfit: Simple parameter-efficient fine-tuning for transformer-based masked language-models. In Proc. the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), pages 1–9. Zhisheng Zhong, Jiequan Cui, Shu Liu, and Jiaya Jia. 2021. Improving calibration for long-tailed recognition. In *Proc. the Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)*, pages 16489– 16498. Xinghua Zhu, Jianzong Wang, Zhenhou Hong, and Jing Xiao. 2020. Empirical studies of institutional federated learning for natural language processing. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP, pages 625–634. ## Supplementary Appendix A Impact Of Structure We analyze the effect with varied dimensions of the client embeddings and factorization in C2A. The detailed results are presented in Figure 5. Effect of dimensions for client embeddings. To investigate the effect of dimensions for client embeddings, we investigate the number of dimensions in C2A ranging from 1,4,8, and 32, during training. The results are shown in Figure 5(a). We observe that using a larger dimension of embeddings for adapters improves the training efficiency. Specifically, the model using eight dimensions shows the best performance. Thereby, we adopt a client embedding size of 8 in all our models. Effect of dimensions for factorization. Figure 5(b) represents the impact of latent dimensions for adapters in C2A. The dimension of factorization size 64 appears to be the best. Based on these results, we use an embedding size of 64 in all our models.  ## B Implementation Details For C2A We implement C2A in Pytorch using four RTX 3090 GPUs for experiments with detailed hyperparameter configurations as follows. We set the dimensionality of latent factors to s = 64 and client embeddings size of eight in all our models. Besides, for the low-rank dimension, we use a dimension of 16. We report the average results for all models of four random fine-tunings. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? 8 ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? 9 ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? above 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?** Not applicable. Left blank. B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Not applicable. 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.? 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. Not applicable. Left blank. ## 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? 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? 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? 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.)? 4 ## 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.

yu-etal-2023-folkscope

{F}olk{S}cope: Intention Knowledge Graph Construction for {E}-commerce Commonsense Discovery

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.76

Understanding users{'} intentions in e-commerce platforms requires commonsense knowledge. In this paper, we present FolkScope, an intention knowledge graph construction framework, to reveal the structure of humans{'} minds about purchasing items. As commonsense knowledge is usually ineffable and not expressed explicitly, it is challenging to perform information extraction. Thus, we propose a new approach that leverages the generation power of large language models (LLMs) and human-in-the-loop annotation to semi-automatically construct the knowledge graph. LLMs first generate intention assertions via e-commerce specific prompts to explain shopping behaviors, where the intention can be an open reason or a predicate falling into one of 18 categories aligning with ConceptNet, e.g., IsA, MadeOf, UsedFor, etc. Then we annotate plausibility and typicality labels of sampled intentions as training data in order to populate human judgments to all automatic generations. Last, to structurize the assertions, we propose pattern mining and conceptualization to form more condensed and abstract knowledge. Extensive evaluations and study demonstrate that our constructed knowledge graph can well model e-commerce knowledge and have many potential applications.

# Folkscope**: Intention Knowledge Graph Construction For** E-Commerce Commonsense Discovery Changlong Yu1∗, Weiqi Wang1, Xin Liu1∗, Jiaxin Bai1∗**, Yangqiu Song**1† Zheng Li2, Yifan Gao2, Tianyu Cao2, **Bing Yin**2 1The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong SAR, China 2Amazon.com Inc, Palo Alto, USA {cyuaq, wwangbw, xliucr, jbai, yqsong}@cse.ust.hk {amzzhe, yifangao, caoty, alexbyin}@amazon.com ## Abstract Understanding users' intentions in e-commerce platforms requires commonsense knowledge. In this paper, we present FolkScope, an intention knowledge graph construction framework to reveal the structure of humans' minds about purchasing items. As commonsense knowledge is usually ineffable and not expressed explicitly, it is challenging to perform information extraction. Thus, we propose a new approach that leverages the generation power of large language models (LLMs) and humanin-the-loop annotation to semi-automatically construct the knowledge graph. LLMs first generate intention assertions via e-commercespecific prompts to explain shopping behaviors, where the intention can be an open reason or a predicate falling into one of 18 categories aligning with ConceptNet, e.g., IsA, *MadeOf*, UsedFor, etc. Then we annotate plausibility and typicality labels of sampled intentions as training data in order to populate human judgments to all automatic generations. Last, to structurize the assertions, we propose pattern mining and conceptualization to form more condensed and abstract knowledge. Extensive evaluations and studies demonstrate that our constructed knowledge graph can well model ecommerce knowledge and have many potential applications. Our codes and datasets are publicly available at https://github.com/HKUSTKnowComp/FolkScope. ## 1 Introduction In e-commerce platforms, understanding users' searching or purchasing intentions can benefit and motivate a lot of recommendation tasks (Dai et al., 2006; Zhang et al., 2016; Hao et al., 2022b). Intentions are mental states where agents or humans commit themselves to actions. Understanding others' behaviors and mental states requires rationalizing intentional actions (Hutto and Ravenscroft, 2021), where we need commonsense, or, in other words, good judgements (Liu and Singh, 2004). For example, "at a birthday party, we usually need a birthday cake." Meanwhile, commonsense knowledge can be *factoid* (Gordon et al., 2010), which is not invariably true, and is usually ineffable and not expressed explicitly. Existing intention-based studies on recommendation are either of limited numbers of intention categories (Dai et al., 2006; Zhang et al., 2016) or using models to implicitly model the intention memberships (Hao et al., 2022b). Thus, it is very challenging to acquire fine-grained intention knowledge in a scalable way. Existing related knowledge graphs (KGs) can be categorized into two folds. First, some general situational commonsense KGs deal with everyday social situations (Rashkin et al., 2018; Sap et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2020b), but they are not directly related to massive products on e-commerce platforms and thus not generalized well on users' behavior data even for generative models, e.g., COMET (Bosselut et al., 2019). Second, most e-commerce KGs leverage existing KGs, such as ConceptNet (Liu and Singh, 2004; Speer et al., 2017) and Freebase (Bollacker et al., 2008), to integrate them into the e-commerce catalog data (Li et al., 2020a; Luo et al., 2020; Zalmout et al., 2021; Luo et al., 2021; Deng et al., 2022). However, such integration is still based on factual knowledge, such as IsA and *DirectorOf* relations, and does not truly model the commonsense knowledge for purchase intentions. Although some of these KGs may include information related to space, crowd, time, function, and event, they still fall short of modeling true commonsense knowledge (Luo et al., 2021). Existing KGs constructed for e-commerce platforms can be evaluated for their factual knowledge in terms of *plausibility*. However, when it comes to purchasing intentions, a person's beliefs and desires (Kashima et al., 1998) are mediated by their intentions, which can be reflected by the *typicality* ∗ Work done during internship at Amazon. † Visiting academic scholar at Amazon.  of commonsense (Chalier et al., 2020; Wilhelm, 2022). For example, in Figure 1, a user bought an Apple watch because "Apple watches can be used for telling the time" where the reason is highly plausible (but other watches can also serve similar functions), whereas a more typical reason would be "apple watches are able to track running," or "the user is simply a fan of Apple products." Thus, no matter what kind of factual knowledge a KG contains, if it is not directly linked to rationalization, it cannot be regarded as typical commonsense. In addition, the task of explaining a user's rating of an item has been proposed as a means of providing recommendations. To achieve this, researchers have suggested using online reviews as a natural source of explanation (Ni et al., 2019; Li et al., 2020b). However, online reviews are often noisy and diverse and may not directly reflect the user's intention behind their purchase or rating. Instead, they may reflect the consequences of the purchase or the reasons behind the user's rating. Existing sources of information, such as question-answering pairs, reviews, or product descriptions, do not explicitly mention the user's intentions behind their purchases, making it a challenge to extract intentional commonsense knowledge for e-commerce. As a result, constructing an intention KG for ecommerce requires sophisticated information extraction techniques and thus remains challenging. In this paper, we propose a new framework, FolkScope, to acquire intention knowledge in ecommerce. Instead of performing information extraction, we start from enormous user behaviors that entail sustainable intentions, such as *co-buy* behaviors, and leverage the generation power of large language models (LLMs), e.g., GPT (Radford et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020; Ouyang et al., 2022), to generate possible intentions of the purchasing behaviors as candidates. LLMs have shown the capability of memorizing factual and commonsense knowledge (Petroni et al., 2019; West et al., 2022), and "sometimes infer approximate, partial representations of the beliefs, desires, and intentions possessed by the agent that produced the context" (Andreas, 2022). As open prompts in the above example can be arbitrary and loosely constrained, we also align our prompts with 18 ConceptNet relations, such as IsA, HasPropertyOf, CapableOf, UsedFor, etc. In addition, as the generated knowledge by LLMs can be noisy and may not be able to reflect human's rationalization of a purchasing action, we also perform human annotation for *plausibility* and *typicality*. Given generated candidates and annotations to construct the KG, we first perform pattern mining to remove irregular generations. Then we train classifiers to populate the prediction scores to all generated data. Finally, for each of the generated intentions, we perform conceptualization to map the key entities or concepts in the intention to more high-level concepts so that we can build a denser and more abstract KG for future generalization. An illustration of our KG is shown in Figure 1. To assess the overall quality of our KG, we randomly sample populated assertions and estimate their quality. Furthermore, we demonstrate the quality and usefulness of our KG by using it in a downstream task, CF-based (collaborative filtering) recommendation. The contributions of our work can be summarized as follows. - We propose a new framework, FolkScope, to construct large-scale intention KG for discovering e-commerce commonsense knowledge. - We leverage LLMs to generate candidates and perform two-step efficient annotation on Amazon data with two popular domains, and the process can be well generalized to other domains. - We define the schema of the intention KG aligning with famous commonsense KG, ConceptNet, and populate a large KG based on our generation and annotation with 184,146 items, 217,108 intentions, 857,972 abstract intentions, and 12,755,525 edges (assertions). - We perform a comprehensive study to verify the validity and usefulness of our KG.  ## 2 Methodology 2.1 Overview Of Folkscope **Framework** We call our framework FolkScope as we are the first attempt to reveal the structure of e-commerce intentional commonsense to rationalize purchasing behaviors. As shown in Figure 2, FolkScope is a human-in-the-loop approach for the semiautomatic construction of the KG. We first leverage the LLMs to generate candidate assertions of intentions for purchasing or co-purchasing behaviors based on *co-buy* data from the released Amazon dataset. Then we employ two-step annotations to annotate the plausibility and typicality of the generated intentions, where the corresponding definitions of scores are as follows. - *Plausibility*: how possible the assertion is valid regarding their properties, usages, functions, etc. - *Typicality*: how well the assertion reflects a specific feature that causes the user behavior. Typical intentional assertions should satisfy the following criteria. 1) Informativeness: contains key information about the shopping context rather than a general one, e.g., "they are used for Halloween parties ." v.s. "they are used for the same purpose." 2) Causality: captures the typical intention of user behaviors, e.g., "they have a property of water resistance." Some specific attributes or features might largely affect the users' purchase decisions. After the annotation, we design classifiers to populate prediction scores to all generated candidates. Then the high-quality ones will be further structured using pattern mining on their dependency parses to aggregate similar assertions. Then, we also perform conceptualization (Song et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2022a) to further aggregate assertions to form more abstract intentions.  ## 2.2 Knowledge Generation User Behavior Data Sampling. We extract the users' behavior datasets from open-sourced Amazon Review Data (2018)1(Ni et al., 2019) with 15.5M items from Amazon.com. In our work, we mainly consider *co-buy* pairs, which might indicate stronger shopping intent signals than *co-view* pairs. After the pre-processing and removing duplicated items, the resulting co-buy graph covers 3.5M nodes and 31.4M edges. The items are organized into 25 top-level categories from the Amazon website, and among them, we choose two frequent categories: "*Clothing, Shoes & Jewelry*" and "*Electronics*" to sample *co-buy* pairs because those items substantially appear in situations requiring commonsense knowledge to understand, while other categories such as "Movie" or "Music" are more relevant to factual knowledge between entities. We uniformly sample *co-buy* pairs from the two categories, and the statistics are shown in Table 1. Prompted Generation. As shown in Table 2, we verbalize the prompt templates using the titles of co-buy pairs. Besides the general prompt (i.e., "open"), we also align our prompts with 18 relations in ConceptNet highly related to commonsense. For example, for the relation *HasA*, we can design a prompt "A user bought 'item 1' and 'item 2' because they both have [GEN]" where [GEN] is a special token indicating generation. Since the long item titles might contain noise besides useful attributes, we use heuristic rules to filter out items whose titles potentially affect the conditional generation, like repeated words. We use the OPT model (Zhang et al., 2022b) of 30B parameters2 with two NVIDIA A100 GPUs based on the HuggingFace library (Wolf et al., 2020) to generate assertion candidates3. For each relation of the co-1https://nijianmo.github.io/amazon/ 2https://huggingface.co/facebook/opt-30b 3As we will further annotate the plausibility and typicality of candidates, larger models will reduce annotation cost. However, the generation is also constrained by API or compu-  buy pairs, we set the max generation length as 100 and generate 3 assertions using nucleus sampling (p = 0.9) (Holtzman et al., 2020). We post-process the candidates as follows. (1) We discard the generations without one complete sentence. (2) We use the sentence segmenter from Spacy library4 to extract the first sentence for longer generations. After removing duplicates, we obtain 16.64M candidate assertions for 293K item pairs and 4.06M unique tails among them. The statistics of the two categories are listed in Table 1. ## 2.3 Two-Step Annotation And Population As the generated candidates can be noisy or not rational, we apply the human annotation to obtain high-quality assertions and then populate the generated assertions. We use Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) to annotate our data. Annotators are provided with a pair of co-buy items with each item's title, category, shopping URL, and three images from our sampled metadata. Assertions with different relations are presented in the natural language form by using the prompts presented in Table 2. More details are listed in Appendix A. Annotation. To filter out incorrect candidates, we begin by annotating plausibility in the first step. This step serves as a preliminary filter and reduces the annotation cost for the subsequent steps. We randomly sample 66K generations and collect three plausibility votes per generated candidate. The final plausibility score is derived by majority voting. The overall IAA score is 75.48% in terms of pairwise agreement proportion, while Fleiss's Kappa (Fleiss, 1971) is 0.4872. Both metrics are tational cost. Thus, we choose the best model we can use. 4https://spacy.io/  Table 3: Statistics of annotated data.  Table 4: Classification results on validation sets (F1). satisfiable for such large-scale annotations. Different from the simple binary plausibility judgments, in the second step, we have more finegrained and precise typicality indicators concerning *informativeness* and *causality*. Here we choose the candidates automatically labeled as plausible based on our classifier trained on the first step's data. We ask the annotators to judge whether they are *strongly acceptable* (+1), *weakly acceptable* (0.5), *rejected* (0), or *implausible* (-1) that the assertion is informative and casual for a purchasing behavior. Considering the judgments might be subjective and biased with respect to different annotators, we collect five annotations for each assertion and take the average as the final typicality score.5 Similar to the first step, we collect around 60K assertions. Empirically, we find annotating more data does not bring significantly better filtering accuracy. The statistics are presented in Table 3. Population. For plausibility population, we train binary classifiers based on the majority voting results in the first step, which can produce binary labels of the plausibility of unverified generations. For the typicality score, as we take the average of five annotators as the score, we empirically use scores greater than 0.8 to denote positive examples and less than 0.2 as negative examples. We split the train/dev sets at the ratio of 80%/20% and train binary classifiers using both DeBERTa-large (He et al., 2021, 2023) and RoBERTa-large (Liu et al., 2019) as base models. The best models are selected to maximize the F1 scores on the validation sets, and results are shown in Table 4 (more results can be found in Appendix B). DeBERTa-large achieves better performance than RoBERTa-large on both  plausibility and typicality evaluation. We populate the inference over the whole generated corpus in Table 1 and only keep the assertions whose predicted plausibility scores are above 0.5 (discarding 32.5% generations and reducing from 16.64M to 11.24M). Note that only plausible assertions are kept in the final KG. Using different confidence cutting-off thresholds leads to trade-offs between the accuracy of generation and the size of the corpus. After the two-step populations, we obtain the plausibility score and typicality score for each assertion. Due to the measurement of different aspects of knowledge, we observe low correlations between the two types of scores (Spearman correlation ρ: 0.319 for clothing and 0.309 for *electronics*). ## 2.4 Knowledge Aggregation To acquire a KG with topology structures instead of sparse triplets, we aggregate semantically similar assertions. This is done by (1) pattern mining to align similar generated patterns and (2) conceptualization to produce more abstract knowledge. Assertions are typically expressed as free-form text phrases, some of which may have similar syntax and semantics. By extracting the skeleton and necessary modifiers, such as demonstrative pronouns, adjectives, and adverbs, we can reduce the noise generated by these phrases. For example, as shown in Figure 3, several generations can be simplified to "they could both be used for his daughter," despite the presence of punctuation and incomplete content. To achieve this, we employ frequent graph substructure mining over dependency parse trees  to discover linguistic patterns (More details in Appendix C). After pattern mining, we can formally construct our knowledge graph, where the head is a pair of items (p1, p2), the relation r is one of the relations shown in Table 2, and the tail is an aggregated assertion e that is originally generated and then mapped to a particular one among 256 patterns. Each of the knowledge triples is associated with two populated scores, i.e., plausibility and typicality. To produce abstract knowledge generalizable to new shopping contexts, we also consider the conceptualization with the large-scale concept KG, Probase (Wu et al., 2012; He et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2023b). The conceptualization process maps one extracted assertion e to multiple conceptualized assertions with concepts c. For example, in Figure 3, "they could be used for his daughter" can be conceptualized as "they could be used for his offspring," "they could be used for his relative," and "they could be used for his family-member," etc. The conceptualization weight P(c|e) can be determined by the likelihood for IsA(e, c) in Probase. This process has been employed and evaluated by ASER 2.0 (Zhang et al., 2022a). Finally, we obtain a KG with 184,146 items, 217,108 intentions, 857,972 abstract intentions, and 12,755,525 edges to explain 236,739 co-buy behaviors, where 2,298,011 edges from the view of original assertions and 9,297,500 edges from the angle of conceptualized ones, and 1,160,014 edges model the probabilities of the conceptualization. ## 3 Intrinsic Evaluations In this section, we present some examples of our constructed KG and conduct comprehensive intrinsic evaluations of KG. ## 3.1 Examples In Kg We show two examples of co-purchasing products and their corresponding knowledge (§ 2.2) as well as populated scores (§ 2.3) in Table 7. We measure the quality of assertions using both plausibility and  Table 6: Evaluation on plausible rate and size of the populated KG. The prompts in the generation are not included in the calculations of assertion lengths.  typicality scores, which are again shown they are not correlated. For example, "they are *SimilarTo* the product they bought" for the first pair and "they are *DistinctFrom* other similar products" for the second pair are plausible assertions but not typical explanations of why a user would buy them together. Moreover, some of the open relations are very good as well. Take the second pair as an example: the open relation shows "he was worried about his baby's skin" as both products are related to baby skin protection. We also append more typical knowledge examples in Table 14 of the Appendix. ## 3.2 Human Evaluation As we populate the whole generated assertions using classifiers based on DeBERTa-large model, we conducted human evaluations by sampling a small number of populated assertions from different scales of predicted scores to evaluate the effectiveness of the knowledge population. ## 3.2.1 Plausibility Evaluation We randomly sample 200 plausible assertions from each relation in each of the clothing and electronics domains to test the human *acceptance rate*. The annotation is conducted in the same way as the construction step. As we only annotate assertions predicted to be greater than the 0.5 plausibility score, the IAA is above 85%, even greater than the one in the construction step. As shown in Table 5, different cutting-off thresholds (based on the plausibility score by our model) lead to the trade-offs between the accuracy and the KG size. Overall, FolkScope can achieve an 83.4% acceptance rate with a default threshold (0.5). To understand what is filtered, we manually check the generations with low plausibility scores and find that OPT can generate awkward assertions, such as simply repeating the item titles or obviously logical errors regarding corresponding relations. Our classifier trained on annotated datasets helps resolve such cases. Using a larger threshold of 0.9, we attain a 95.35% acceptance rate, a nearly 11.96% improvement while still keeping above 8M plausible assertions. We also report the accuracy in terms of different relations in Table 6. We can observe that assertions concerning the relations of human beings' situations like Cause, *Result*, and *CauseDesire* have relatively lower plausibility scores and longer lengths than the relations of items' property, function, etc. This is because there exist some clues about items' knowledge in the item titles, while it is much harder to generate (or guess) implicit human beings' casual reasons using language generation. ## 3.2.2 Typicality Evaluation The goal of the typicality population is to precisely recognize high-quality knowledge, and we evaluate whether assertions with high typicality scores are truly good ones. We randomly sample 200 assertions from each relation whose predicted typicality scores are above 0.8 for human evaluation. Each of the assertions is again annotated by five AMT workers, and the average rating is used. The results are shown in Table 8. It shows that average annotated scores are lower than the predicted ones due to harder judgments for typicality. Similarly, predicted typicality scores are less accurate than plausibility. Especially the typicality score will be Item 1 Item 2 Relation Tail P. T.    Open they can be used for the same purpose 0.67 0.35 HasProperty "easy to install" and "easy to remove" 0.80 0.85 SimilarTo the product he bought 0.95 0.09 PartOf his camera gear 0.93 0.99 UsedFor protect the camera from scratches and dust 0.97 0.99 SymbolOf his love for his camera 0.99 0.88 DefinedAs "Camera Accessories" on Amazon.com 0.99 0.67 Open he was worried about his baby's skin 0.98 0.98 SimilarTo each other 0.74 0.01 DistinctFrom other similar products 0.97 0.10 UsedFor baby's outdoor activities 0.85 0.91 CapableOf blocking harmful UV rays 0.97 0.99 DefinedAs sun protection products 0.87 0.81 Result enjoy the sun sagely and comfortably 0.97 0.98 Cause want to use them for his/her baby 0.99 0.94 Table 7: Two examples from the constructed knowledge graph. "P." and "T." stand for the predicted plausibility and typicality scores. Generated tails with high typicality (in green) and low typicality (in red) scores are highlighted.  further decreased after conceptualization. This is because, first, the conceptualization model may introduce some noise, and second, the more abstract knowledge tends to be less typical when asking humans to annotate. We also show the typicality scores of each relation in Figure 4. Different from plausibility, SimilarTo, DistinctFrom, *DefinedAs*, and *HasPropertyOf* are less typical compared to other relations. They describe items' general features but can not well capture typical purchasing intentions though they have high plausibility scores, whereas *CapableOf* and *MadeOf* are the most typical features that can explain purchasing intentions for the two domains we are concerned about. More evaluation on the diversity of implicit generation and fine-grained subcategory knowledge aggregation can be found in Appendix D. ## 4 Extrinsic Evaluation 4.1 Experimental Setup Data Preparation. We conduct extrinsic evaluation via knowledge-augmented recommendation tasks. Specifically, we use the same categories' user-item interaction data from the Amazon Review dataset (Ni et al., 2019) shown in Table 9. We split datasets into train/dev/test sets at a ratio of 8:1:1 and report averaged RMSE (root mean square error) scores over five runs. To fairly evaluate the KG for recommendations, we sample the sub-graph from the original KG   where *co-buy* pairs are simultaneously purchased by at least one user in the recommendation training set. The detailed statistics of the matched KG are in Table 10. The item coverage computes the percentage of the items in the recommendation dataset that are covered by the matched KG. Moreover, we also filter the matched KG with the threshold of 0.5 or 0.9 on *plausibility* and *typicality* scores to evaluate the effectiveness of the knowledge population. From Table 10, we can observe the number of edges essentially reduces when the filters are applied, but the coverage of the items does not drastically drop. Knowledge Representation. As our constructed KG can be represented as the triplet ((p1, p2)*, r, e*), where the head (p1, p2) is the co-buy pair, the relation r is from relations in Table 2 and e refer to generated tails. To combine both structural and textual information from KG, we modify the original TransE model (Bordes et al., 2013) to the following objective: $${\mathcal{L}}=\gamma+d({\frac{p_{1}+p_{2}}{2}}+r,e)-d({\frac{p_{1}^{\prime}+p_{2}^{\prime}}{2}}+r,e)$$ where γ is a margin parameter, and p1, p2, p′1 , p′2 are item embeddings for positive head (p1, p2), and negative corrupted head (p′1 , p′2 ). Meanwhile, r is the relation embedding for the relation r, e is the embedding for the tail e, and the function d is Euclidean distance. Moreover, the node embeddings for e are initialized by Sentence-BERT (Reimers  Table 10: Details of matched KG subsets. "Plau." means plausibility and "Typi" means typicality. and Gurevych, 2019) representations. After training the modified TransE model, all the item embeddings p can be used as extra features to enhance recommendations. ## 4.2 Experimental Results Baselines. We adopt commonly-used NCF (He et al., 2017) and Wide&Deep model (Cheng et al., 2016) as our baselines. As our goal is to evaluate the effectiveness of features derived from KG, we leave advanced KG fusion methods, such as hyperedges or meta path-enhanced, to future work. Ablation Study. We conduct two ablation studies to evaluate the effect of structural information provided by the co-buy pairs and the semantic information provided by the tails' text only. For the former, we train a standard TransE model solely on co-buy pairs to learn the graph embeddings of items. For the latter, for each item in the matched KG, we conduct average pooling of its neighbor tails' Sentence-BERT embeddings as its semantic representations. The experimental results are shown in Table 11, and we have the following observations. First, the textual information contained in intentional assertions is useful for product recommendations. This can be testified as the W&D model can perform better even when only features of the assertions are provided. Second, our KG, even before annotations and filtering, can produce better item embeddings than solely using the cobuy item graphs. As we can see, the performance of our matched KG is better than that of the co-buy pair graphs. Third, the two-step annotation and population indeed help improve the item embeddings for recommendations. The higher the scores are, the larger improvement the recommendation system obtains. ## 5 Related Work Knowledge Graph Construction. An early approach of commonsense KG construction is proposed in ConceptNet (Liu and Singh, 2004; Speer  Table 11: Recommendation results in RMSE. et al., 2017) where both text mining and crowdsourcing are leveraged. In 2012, a web-scale KG, Probase, which focuses on IsA relations (Yu et al., 2020), is constructed based on pattern mining (Wu et al., 2012), which can model both plausibility and typicality of conceptualizations (Song et al., 2011). Recently, situational commonsense knowledge, such as Event2Mind (Rashkin et al., 2018) and ATOMIC (Sap et al., 2019), has attracted more attention in the field of AI and NLP. Then their extensions and neural generative models are developed (Bosselut et al., 2019; Hwang et al., 2021). Meanwhile, information extraction can be used to extract event-related knowledge from large-scale corpora, such as KnowllyWood (Tandon et al., 2015), WebChild (Tandon et al., 2017), and ASER (Zhang et al., 2020b, 2022a). The extracted knowledge can then be transferred to other human-annotated knowledge resources (Zhang et al., 2020a; Fang et al., 2021b,a). In e-commerce, Amazon Product Graph (Zalmout et al., 2021) is developed to align Amazon catalog data with external KGs such as Freebase and to automatically extract thousands of attributes in millions of product types (Karamanolakis et al., 2020; Dong et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2022c). Alibaba also develops a series of KGs including AliCG (Zhang et al., 2021), AliCoCo (Luo et al., 2020, 2021), AliMeKG (Li et al., 2020a), and OpenBG (Deng et al., 2022; Qu et al., 2022). As we have stated in the introduction, there is still a gap between collecting factual knowledge about products and modeling users' purchasing intentions. Language Models as Knowledge Bases. Researchers have shown LLMs trained on large corpus encode a significant amount of knowledge in their parameters (AlKhamissi et al., 2022; Ye et al., 2022). LLMs can memorize factual and commonsense knowledge, and one can use prompts (Liu et al., 2023) to probe knowledge from them (Petroni et al., 2019). It has been shown that we can derive factual KGs at scale based on LLMs for factual knowledge (Wang et al., 2020; Hao et al., 2022a) and distill human-level commonsense knowledge from GPT3 (West et al., 2022). None of the above KGs are related to products or purchasing intention. We are the first to propose a complete KG construction pipeline from LLMs and several KG refinement methods for e-commerce commonsense discovery. ## 6 Conclusion In this paper, we propose a new framework, FolkScope, to acquire intention commonsense knowledge for e-commerce behaviors. We develop a human-in-the-loop semi-automatic way to construct an intention KG, where the candidate assertions are automatically generated from large language models, with carefully designed prompts to align with ConceptNet commonsense relations. Then we annotate both plausibility and typicality scores of sampled assertions and develop models to populate them to all generated candidates. Then the high-quality assertions will be further structured using pattern mining and conceptualization to form more condensed and abstractive knowledge. We conduct extensive evaluations to demonstrate the quality and usefulness of our constructed KG. In the future, we plan extend our framework to multi-domain, multi-behavior type, multilingual (Huang et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2023a) and temporal (Wang et al., 2022b,a) scenarios for empowering more e-commerce applications. ## Limitations We outline two limitations of our work from *user* behavior sampling and *knowledge population* aspects. Due to huge-volume user behavior data produced every day in the e-commerce platform, it is crucial to efficiently sample significant behaviors that can indicate strong intentions and avoid random co-purchasing or clicking etc. Though in this work we adopt the criteria of selecting nodes whose degree are more than five in the *co-buy* graph, it is still coarse-grained and more advanced methods remain to be explored in order to sample representative co-buy pairs for intention generation. Some potential solutions are to aggregate frequent *co-buy* category pairs and then sample product pairs within selected category pairs. Moreover, our proposed framework can be generalized to other types of abundant user behaviors such as *search-click* and search-buy, which requires to design corresponding prompts. We leave these designs to future work. For open text generation from LLMs, it becomes common practices to label high-quality data for finetuning to improve the quality and controllability of generation such as LaMDA (Thoppilan et al., 2022), InstructGPT (Ouyang et al., 2022), and ChatGPT6. However, computation cost is the major bottleneck to use annotated data as human feedback for language model finetuning with billions of parameters, like OPT-30b in our work. Hence we adopt a trade-off strategy to populate human judgements by training effective classifiers and conducting inferences over all the generation candidates. With impressive generation performance of ChatGPT, we expect efficient methods to directly optimize LLMs with human feedback in more scalable way like reinforcement learning (RLHF), and enable LLMs to generate more typical intention knowledge with less annotation efforts. ## Ethics Statement As our proposed framework relied on large language models, text generation based on LLMs often contains biased or harmful contexts. We argue that our work largely mitigated the potential risks in the following ways. First, our carefuldesigned prompting leads to rather narrow generations constrained on small domains, i.e., products in e-commerce. Second, we also had a strict data audit process for annotated data from annotators and populated data from trained classifiers. On a small scale of inspections, we found none belongs to significant harmful contexts. The only related concern raised here is that some generated knowledge is irrelevant to the products themselves. The major reason is due to imprecise product titles written by sellers for search engine optimization, such as adding popular keywords to attract clicks or purchases. Our human-in-the-loop annotation identified such cases and the trained classifier further assisted machines in detecting bias, as we hope our intention generations can be safe and unbiased as much as possible. ## Acknowledgements The authors of this paper were supported by the NSFC Fund (U20B2053) from the NSFC of China, the RIF (R6020-19 and R6021-20) and the GRF (16211520 and 16205322) from RGC of Hong Kong, the MHKJFS (MHP/001/19) from 6https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt/ ITC of Hong Kong and the National Key R&D Program of China (2019YFE0198200) with special thanks to HKMAAC and CUSBLT. We also thank the support from the UGC Research Matching Grants (RMGS20EG01-D, RMGS20CR11, RMGS20CR12, RMGS20EG19, RMGS20EG21, RMGS23CR05, RMGS23EG08). ## References Badr AlKhamissi, Millicent Li, Asli Celikyilmaz, Mona T. Diab, and Marjan Ghazvininejad. 2022. A review on language models as knowledge bases. CoRR, abs/2204.06031. Jacob Andreas. 2022. Language models as agent models. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, December 7-11, 2022, pages 5769–5779. Association for Computational Linguistics. Kurt D. Bollacker, Colin Evans, Praveen K. 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 GarcíaDurán, Jason Weston, and Oksana Yakhnenko. 2013. Translating embeddings for modeling multirelational 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. Antoine Bosselut, Hannah Rashkin, Maarten Sap, Chaitanya Malaviya, Asli Celikyilmaz, and Yejin Choi. 2019. COMET: commonsense transformers for automatic knowledge graph construction. 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 4762–4779. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared 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 M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher 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 Neural Information Processing Systems 33:* Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 6-12, 2020, virtual. Yohan Chalier, Simon Razniewski, and Gerhard Weikum. 2020. Joint reasoning for multi-faceted commonsense knowledge. In Conference on Automated Knowledge Base Construction, AKBC 2020, Virtual, June 22-24, 2020. Heng-Tze Cheng, Levent Koc, Jeremiah Harmsen, Tal Shaked, Tushar Chandra, Hrishi Aradhye, Glen Anderson, Greg Corrado, Wei Chai, Mustafa Ispir, Rohan Anil, Zakaria Haque, Lichan Hong, Vihan Jain, Xiaobing Liu, and Hemal Shah. 2016. Wide & deep learning for recommender systems. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Deep Learning for Recommender Systems, DLRS@RecSys 2016, Boston, MA, USA, September 15, 2016, pages 7–10. ACM. Honghua (Kathy) Dai, Lingzhi Zhao, Zaiqing Nie, JiRong Wen, Lee Wang, and Ying Li. 2006. Detecting online commercial intention (OCI). In Proceedings of the 15th international conference on World Wide Web, WWW 2006, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, May 23-26, 2006, pages 829–837. ACM. Shumin Deng, Chengming Wang, Zhoubo Li, Ningyu Zhang, Zelin Dai, Hehong Chen, Feiyu Xiong, Ming Yan, Qiang Chen, Mosha Chen, Jiaoyan Chen, Jeff Z. Pan, Bryan Hooi, and Huajun Chen. 2022. Construction and applications of billion-scale pre-trained multimodal business knowledge graph. *CoRR*, abs/2209.15214. Xin Luna Dong, Xiang He, Andrey Kan, Xian Li, Yan Liang, Jun Ma, Yifan Ethan Xu, Chenwei Zhang, Tong Zhao, Gabriel Blanco Saldana, Saurabh Deshpande, Alexandre Michetti Manduca, Jay Ren, Surender Pal Singh, Fan Xiao, Haw-Shiuan Chang, Giannis Karamanolakis, Yuning Mao, Yaqing Wang, Christos Faloutsos, Andrew McCallum, and Jiawei Han. 2020. Autoknow: Self-driving knowledge collection for products of thousands of types. In *KDD '20: The* 26th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Virtual Event, CA, USA, August 23-27, 2020, pages 2724–2734. ACM. Tianqing Fang, Weiqi Wang, Sehyun Choi, Shibo Hao, Hongming Zhang, Yangqiu Song, and Bin He. 2021a. Benchmarking commonsense knowledge base population with an effective evaluation dataset. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 711 November, 2021, pages 8949–8964. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tianqing Fang, Hongming Zhang, Weiqi Wang, Yangqiu Song, and Bin He. 2021b. DISCOS: bridging the gap between discourse knowledge and commonsense knowledge. In WWW '21: The Web Conference 2021, Virtual Event / Ljubljana, Slovenia, April 19-23, 2021, pages 2648–2659. ACM / IW3C2. Joseph L Fleiss. 1971. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. *Psychological bulletin*, 76(5):378. Jonathan Gordon, Benjamin Van Durme, and Lenhart K. Schubert. 2010. Learning from the web: Extracting general world knowledge from noisy text. In Collaboratively-Built Knowledge Sources and Artificial Intelligence, Papers from the 2010 AAAI Workshop, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, July 11, 2010, volume WS-10-02 of *AAAI Technical Report*. AAAI. Shibo Hao, Bowen Tan, Kaiwen Tang, Hengzhe Zhang, Eric P. Xing, and Zhiting Hu. 2022a. Bertnet: Harvesting knowledge graphs from pretrained language models. *CoRR*, abs/2206.14268. Zhenyun Hao, Jianing Hao, Zhaohui Peng, Senzhang Wang, Philip S. Yu, Xue Wang, and Jian Wang. 2022b. Dy-hien: Dynamic evolution based deep hierarchical intention network for membership prediction. In *WSDM '22: The Fifteenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining,* Virtual Event / Tempe, AZ, USA, February 21 - 25, 2022, pages 363–371. ACM. Mutian He, Tianqing Fang, Weiqi Wang, and Yangqiu Song. 2022. Acquiring and modelling abstract commonsense knowledge via conceptualization. *CoRR*, abs/2206.01532. Pengcheng He, Jianfeng Gao, and Weizhu Chen. 2023. DeBERTav3: Improving deBERTa using ELECTRAstyle pre-training with gradient-disentangled embedding sharing. In *The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations*. 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. Xiangnan He, Lizi Liao, Hanwang Zhang, Liqiang Nie, Xia Hu, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2017. Neural collaborative filtering. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW 2017, Perth, Australia, April 3-7, 2017, pages 173–182. ACM. Ari Holtzman, Jan Buys, Li Du, Maxwell Forbes, and Yejin Choi. 2020. The curious case of neural text degeneration. In *8th International Conference on* Learning Representations, ICLR 2020, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 26-30, 2020. OpenReview.net. Zijie Huang, Zheng Li, Haoming Jiang, Tianyu Cao, Hanqing Lu, Bing Yin, Karthik Subbian, Yizhou Sun, and Wei Wang. 2022. Multilingual knowledge graph completion with self-supervised adaptive graph alignment. 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 474–485. Association for Computational Linguistics. Daniel Hutto and Ian Ravenscroft. 2021. Folk Psychology as a Theory. In Edward N. Zalta, editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall 2021 edition. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Jena D. Hwang, Chandra Bhagavatula, Ronan Le Bras, Jeff Da, Keisuke Sakaguchi, Antoine Bosselut, and Yejin Choi. 2021. (comet-) atomic 2020: On symbolic and neural commonsense 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 6384–6392. AAAI Press. Ziwei Ji, Nayeon Lee, Rita Frieske, Tiezheng Yu, Dan Su, Yan Xu, Etsuko Ishii, Yejin Bang, Andrea Madotto, and Pascale Fung. 2022. Survey of hallucination in natural language generation. *CoRR*, abs/2202.03629. Giannis Karamanolakis, Jun Ma, and Xin Luna Dong. 2020. Txtract: Taxonomy-aware knowledge extraction for thousands of product categories. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association* for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 8489–8502. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yoshihisa Kashima, Allison McKintyre, and Paul Clifford. 1998. The category of the mind: Folk psychology of belief, desire, and intention. *Asian Journal of* Social Psychology, 1(3):289–313. Feng-Lin Li, Hehong Chen, Guohai Xu, Tian Qiu, Feng Ji, Ji Zhang, and Haiqing Chen. 2020a. Alimekg: Domain knowledge graph construction and application in e-commerce. In *CIKM '20: The 29th ACM* International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, Virtual Event, Ireland, October 19-23, 2020, pages 2581–2588. ACM. Lei Li, Yongfeng Zhang, and Li Chen. 2020b. Generate neural template explanations for recommendation. In CIKM '20: The 29th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, Virtual Event, Ireland, October 19-23, 2020, pages 755–764. ACM. Hugo Liu and Push Singh. 2004. Conceptnet—a practical commonsense reasoning tool-kit. BT technology journal, 22(4):211–226. 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 Comput. Surv., 55(9):195:1–195:35. 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. Xusheng Luo, Le Bo, Jinhang Wu, Lin Li, Zhiy Luo, Yonghua Yang, and Keping Yang. 2021. Alicoco2: Commonsense knowledge extraction, representation and application in e-commerce. In *KDD '21: The* 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Virtual Event, Singapore, August 14-18, 2021, pages 3385–3393. ACM. Xusheng Luo, Luxin Liu, Yonghua Yang, Le Bo, Yuanpeng Cao, Jinghang Wu, Qiang Li, Keping Yang, and Kenny Q. Zhu. 2020. Alicoco: Alibaba e-commerce cognitive concept net. In Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Management of Data, SIGMOD Conference 2020, online conference [Portland, OR, USA], June 14-19, 2020, pages 313–327. ACM. Jianmo Ni, Jiacheng Li, and Julian J. McAuley. 2019. Justifying recommendations using distantly-labeled reviews and fine-grained aspects. 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 188–197. Association for Computational Linguistics. Long Ouyang, Jeffrey 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 F. Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. In *NeurIPS*. Fabio Petroni, Tim Rocktäschel, Sebastian Riedel, Patrick S. H. Lewis, Anton Bakhtin, Yuxiang Wu, and Alexander H. 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 2019, Hong Kong, China, November 3-7, 2019, pages 2463–2473. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yincen Qu, Ningyu Zhang, Hui Chen, Zelin Dai, Chengming Wang, Xiaoyu Wang, Qiang Chen, and Huajun Chen. 2022. Commonsense knowledge salience evaluation with a benchmark dataset in e-commerce. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, December 7-11, 2022, pages 14–27. Association for Computational Linguistics. 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. Hannah Rashkin, Maarten Sap, Emily Allaway, Noah A. Smith, and Yejin Choi. 2018. Event2mind: Commonsense inference on events, intents, and reactions. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2018, Melbourne, Australia, July 15-20, 2018, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 463–473. Association for Computational Linguistics. Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks. 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 3980–3990. Association for Computational Linguistics. Maarten Sap, Ronan Le Bras, Emily Allaway, Chandra Bhagavatula, Nicholas Lourie, Hannah Rashkin, Brendan Roof, Noah A. Smith, and Yejin Choi. 2019. ATOMIC: an atlas of machine commonsense for if-then reasoning. 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 3027–3035. AAAI Press. Yangqiu Song, Haixun Wang, Zhongyuan Wang, Hongsong Li, and Weizhu Chen. 2011. Short text conceptualization using a probabilistic knowledgebase. In IJCAI 2011, Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain, July 16-22, 2011, pages 2330– 2336. IJCAI/AAAI. Robyn Speer, Joshua Chin, and Catherine Havasi. 2017. Conceptnet 5.5: An open multilingual graph of general knowledge. In *Proceedings of the Thirty-First* AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, February 4-9, 2017, San Francisco, California, USA, pages 4444–4451. AAAI Press. Niket Tandon, Gerard de Melo, Abir De, and Gerhard Weikum. 2015. Knowlywood: Mining activity knowledge from hollywood narratives. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, CIKM 2015, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, October 19 - 23, 2015, pages 223–232. ACM. Niket Tandon, Gerard de Melo, and Gerhard Weikum. 2017. Webchild 2.0 : Fine-grained commonsense knowledge distillation. In *Proceedings of the 55th* Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2017, Vancouver, Canada, July 30 - August 4, System Demonstrations, pages 115–120. Association for Computational Linguistics. Romal Thoppilan, Daniel De Freitas, Jamie Hall, Noam Shazeer, Apoorv Kulshreshtha, Heng-Tze Cheng, Alicia Jin, Taylor Bos, Leslie Baker, Yu Du, YaGuang Li, Hongrae Lee, Huaixiu Steven Zheng, Amin Ghafouri, Marcelo Menegali, Yanping Huang, Maxim Krikun, Dmitry Lepikhin, James Qin, Dehao Chen, Yuanzhong Xu, Zhifeng Chen, Adam Roberts, Maarten Bosma, Yanqi Zhou, Chung-Ching Chang, Igor Krivokon, Will Rusch, Marc Pickett, Kathleen S. Meier-Hellstern, Meredith Ringel Morris, Tulsee Doshi, Renelito Delos Santos, Toju Duke, Johnny Soraker, Ben Zevenbergen, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Mark Diaz, Ben Hutchinson, Kristen Olson, Alejandra Molina, Erin Hoffman-John, Josh Lee, Lora Aroyo, Ravi Rajakumar, Alena Butryna, Matthew Lamm, Viktoriya Kuzmina, Joe Fenton, Aaron Cohen, Rachel Bernstein, Ray Kurzweil, Blaise AgueraArcas, Claire Cui, Marian Croak, Ed H. Chi, and Quoc Le. 2022. Lamda: Language models for dialog applications. *CoRR*, abs/2201.08239. Luke Vilnis, Zachary Fisher, Bhargav Kanagal, Patrick Murray, and Sumit Sanghai. 2022. Impakt: A dataset for open-schema knowledge base construction. *CoRR*, abs/2212.10770. Chenguang Wang, Xiao Liu, and Dawn Song. 2020. Language models are open knowledge graphs. *CoRR*, abs/2010.11967. Ruijie Wang, Zheng Li, Dachun Sun, Shengzhong Liu, Jinning Li, Bing Yin, and Tarek F. Abdelzaher. 2022a. Learning to sample and aggregate: Few-shot reasoning over temporal knowledge graphs. In *NeurIPS*. Ruijie Wang, Zheng Li, Jingfeng Yang, Tianyu Cao, Chao Zhang, Bing Yin, and Tarek F. Abdelzaher. 2023a. Mutually-paced knowledge distillation for cross-lingual temporal knowledge graph reasoning. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023, WWW 2023, Austin, TX, USA, 30 April 2023 - 4 May 2023, pages 2621–2632. ACM. Ruijie Wang, Zheng Li, Danqing Zhang, Qingyu Yin, Tong Zhao, Bing Yin, and Tarek F. Abdelzaher. 2022b. RETE: retrieval-enhanced temporal event forecasting on unified query product evolutionary graph. In WWW '22: The ACM Web Conference 2022, Virtual Event, Lyon, France, April 25 - 29, 2022, pages 462–472. ACM. Weiqi Wang, Tianqing Fang, Baixuan Xu, Chun Yi Louis Bo, Yangqiu Song, and Lei Chen. 2023b. CAT: A contextualized conceptualization and instantiation framework for commonsense reasoning. CoRR, abs/2305.04808. Peter West, Chandra Bhagavatula, Jack Hessel, Jena D. Hwang, Liwei Jiang, Ronan Le Bras, Ximing Lu, Sean Welleck, and Yejin Choi. 2022. Symbolic knowledge distillation: from general language models to commonsense models. 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 4602– 4625. Association for Computational Linguistics. Isaac Wilhelm. 2022. Typical: A theory of typicality and typicality explanation. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, 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, EMNLP 2020 - Demos, Online, November* 16-20, 2020, pages 38–45. Association for Computational Linguistics. Wentao Wu, Hongsong Li, Haixun Wang, and Kenny Qili Zhu. 2012. Probase: a probabilistic taxonomy for text understanding. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, SIGMOD 2012, Scottsdale, AZ, USA, May 20-24, 2012, pages 481–492. ACM. Xifeng Yan and Jiawei Han. 2002. gspan: Graph-based substructure pattern mining. In *Proceedings of the* 2002 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM 2002), 9-12 December 2002, Maebashi City, Japan, pages 721–724. IEEE Computer Society. Li Yang, Qifan Wang, Zac Yu, Anand Kulkarni, Sumit Sanghai, Bin Shu, Jon Elsas, and Bhargav Kanagal. 2022. MAVE: A product dataset for multi-source attribute value extraction. In *WSDM '22: The Fifteenth ACM International Conference on Web Search* and Data Mining, Virtual Event / Tempe, AZ, USA, February 21 - 25, 2022, pages 1256–1265. ACM. Hongbin Ye, Ningyu Zhang, Hui Chen, and Huajun Chen. 2022. Generative knowledge graph construction: A review. 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 1–17. Association for Computational Linguistics. Changlong Yu, Jialong Han, Peifeng Wang, Yangqiu Song, Hongming Zhang, Wilfred Ng, and Shuming Shi. 2020. When hearst is not enough: Improving hypernymy detection from corpus with distributional models. In *Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on* Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 6208–6217. Association for Computational Linguistics. Nasser Zalmout, Chenwei Zhang, Xian Li, Yan Liang, and Xin Luna Dong. 2021. All you need to know to build a product knowledge graph. In *KDD '21: The* 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Virtual Event, Singapore, August 14-18, 2021, pages 4090–4091. ACM. Chenwei Zhang, Wei Fan, Nan Du, and Philip S. Yu. 2016. Mining user intentions from medical queries: A neural network based heterogeneous jointly modeling approach. In *Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW 2016,* Montreal, Canada, April 11 - 15, 2016, pages 1373– 1384. ACM. Previewing Answers Submitted by Workers This message is only visible to you and will not be shown to Workers. You can test completing the task below and click "Submit" in order to preview the data and format of the submitted results. Survey **Instructions** (Click to Collapse) E-Commerce Behavior Assertion Validation Hi there! Welcome to our HITS! In this survey, you will be presented with two items from Amazon online shopping website. After the two items, there will be five **assertions**, describing a person's behavior when shopping these two items. These assertions are likely to be related to the attributes, functions, usages, and intentions of the two items. Your task is to determine the validity of each assertion given the scheme **below.** This is our main round annotation, which means that you have passed our qualification rounds! Congratulations! Please still be aware that there is a *correct* answer for each of the question below, and we'll inspect your submissions from time to time to avoid spamming and low-quality answers. If you have any question, feel free to email me at 1874240442@qq.com An assertion can be either valid or invalid. Here we provide you the detailed requirements of a valid assertion and some examples for both categories. Valid Assertion A valid assertion needs to satisfy the following requirements: Sentence completeness: The assertion is a complete sentence, it generally makes sense and ends naturally. There are no garbled words (words that have no meaning), and the sentence is not missing any grammar component. Content relatedness: The assertion is related with both items, they should be describing user's shopping behavior regarding the items' attributes, functions, usages, and intentions. Note that if the sentence is only describing one item (the other item doesn't fit into the assertion), or the assertion is completely unrelated with both items, the assertion is NOT VALID. Content correctness: As the assertion is describing BOTH items, the items' attributes, functions, usages, and intentions, mentioned or reflected in the assertion, should be correctly matched to both items or their categories. Meanwhile, the assertion should contain more information than simply the name of the items. If the assertion repeats the name of items without any other useful information, it is INVALID. Some VALID examples are presented for you to have a better understanding: PersonX bought a steak and a bacon because they are both used for cooking *dishes.* PersonX bought a basketball and a jersey because they are both similar to the *equipments used by Lebron James.* Invalid Assertion Here we provide some examples for you to understand what makes an invalid assertion: Incomplete assertion: PersonX bought a steak and a bacon because they are all Garbled assertion: PersonX bought a television and a phone because they are derived from 2 the early 1960's, 70's to the present, the '80s, '90s etc, of course.." Unrelated assertion: PersonX bought a Halloween costume and Halloween candies because they can be used to play soccer. **Assertion only related to one item**: PersonX bought a battery and a mask because they are symbols of energy. Incorrect contents: PersonX bought a pair of shoes and a pair of sneakers because they are made of plastic. Useless/Repeated information: PersonX bought a McDonald's Big Mac because it has the property of being a "McDonald's Big Mac". Additional Hints Please ignore grammar mistakes in all the assertions provided, just stick to the content of each assertion. Note that for the assertions that are correct but are too general, for example: PersonX bought item A and item B because he likes them very much, they are VALID. If the images are unclear or cannot reflect the items clearly, please tick the box below the item in the item card! For example, image with only a small part being the item, or the size chart image of clothes items, should all be ticked. You are advised to grab information from the amazon link page if there's assertion that you can't decide. By clicking the item's name, you can access the amazon website to grab more information. If the link doesn't work, please try to google for some additional information! Item Card Item A: Aroma Housewares AEW-305 Electric Wok, Black (Home & Kitchen - B00005KJWV) Is there any image that cannot clearly show this item A? Image 1 Image 2 **Image 3** Item B: Microsoft Wireless Mobile Mouse 4000 - Graphite (D5D-00001) (Electronics - B002DPUUL4) Is there any image that cannot clearly show this item B? Image 1 Image 2 **Image 3** Hongming Zhang, Daniel Khashabi, Yangqiu Song, and Dan Roth. 2020a. Transomcs: From linguistic graphs to commonsense knowledge. In *Proceedings of the* Twenty-Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2020, pages 4004–4010. ijcai.org. Question 2 Validity Hongming Zhang, Xin Liu, Haojie Pan, Haowen Ke, Jiefu Ou, Tianqing Fang, and Yangqiu Song. 2022a. ASER: towards large-scale commonsense knowledge acquisition via higher-order selectional preference over eventualities. *Artif. Intell.*, 309:103740. Hongming Zhang, Xin Liu, Haojie Pan, Yangqiu Song, and Cane Wing-Ki Leung. 2020b. ASER: A largescale eventuality knowledge graph. In WWW '20: The Web Conference 2020, Taipei, Taiwan, April 2024, 2020, pages 201–211. ACM / IW3C2. 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. Susan Zhang, Stephen Roller, Naman Goyal, Mikel Artetxe, Moya Chen, Shuohui Chen, Christopher Dewan, Mona T. Diab, Xian Li, Xi Victoria Lin, Todor Mihaylov, Myle Ott, Sam Shleifer, Kurt Shuster, Daniel Simig, Punit Singh Koura, Anjali Sridhar, Tianlu Wang, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2022b. OPT: open pre-trained transformer language models. *CoRR*, abs/2205.01068. Submit Xinyang Zhang, Chenwei Zhang, Xian Li, Xin Luna Dong, Jingbo Shang, Christos Faloutsos, and Jiawei Han. 2022c. Oa-mine: Open-world attribute mining for e-commerce products with weak supervision. In WWW '22: The ACM Web Conference 2022, Virtual Event, Lyon, France, April 25 - 29, 2022, pages 3153– 3161. ACM.  Assertion 2 (${assertion_2_relation}): Figure 5: The question card in our plausibility annotation round. ${assertion2} ## Is This A Valid Assertion? (Invalid If It Does Not Make Sense To You) Appendix Yes, This Sentence Satisfies All The Requirements Of A Valid Assertion. No, This Sentence Is Invalid As It Falls Into One Of The Reasons That Make An Invalid Assertion. Unfamiliar With Item A Or B, So I Can'T Decide. A Annotation Guideline Assertion 3 (${assertion_3_relation}): Workers satisfying the following three requirements are invited to participate: (1) at least 90% lifelong HITs approval rate, (2) at least 1,000 HITs approved, and (3) achieving 80% accuracy on at least 10 qualification questions, which are carefully selected by authors of this paper. Qualified workers will be further invited to annotate 16 tricky assertions. Based on workers' annotations, they will receive personalized feedback containing explanations of the errors they made along with advice to improve their annotation accuracy. Workers surpassing these two rounds are deemed qualified for main-round annotations. To avoid spamming, experts will provide feedback for all workers based on a sample of their main rounds' annotations from time to time. Finally, we recruited more than 100 workers in the us-east district. It takes $0.2 on average for each assertion, and the annotators are paid $7.7 per hour on average, which satisfies the local minimum wage under local laws. We conducted human annotations and evaluations on the Amazon Mechanical Turk as Figure 5 for the first-step plausibility annotation and as Figure 6 for the second-step typicality annotation. ${assertion3} Question 3 Validity Is this a valid assertion? (Invalid if it does not make sense to you) Yes, this sentence satisfies all the requirements of a valid assertion. No, this sentence is invalid as it falls into one of the reasons that make an invalid assertion. Unfamiliar with Item A or B, so I can't decide. Assertion 4 (${assertion_4_relation}): ${assertion4} Question 4 Validity Is this a valid assertion? (Invalid if it does not make sense to you) Yes, this sentence satisfies all the requirements of a valid assertion. No, this sentence is invalid as it falls into one of the reasons that make an invalid assertion. Unfamiliar with Item A or B, so I can't decide. ## B Knowledge Population Using different confidence cutting-off thresholds leads to trade-offs between the accuracy of generation and the size of the corpus. Higher values result in conservative selections that favor precision over recall, whereas lower ones tend to recall more plausible assertions. We plotted four cutoff points in Figure 7. ## C Pattern Mining Details We apply the frequent graph substructure mining algorithm over dependency parse trees to discover  Question 2  assertions defined in the instruction) Question 4 the linguistic patterns. We sample 90,000 candidates for each relation to analyze patterns and then parse each candidate into a dependency tree. In addition, the lemmatized tokens, pos-tags, and named entities are acquired for further use. To reduce the time complexity of pattern mining, we mine high-frequency patterns for each relation. To meet the two requirements of the knowledge with high precision but non-trivial, patterns are required to perfectly match more than 500 times. One perfect match means that this pattern is the longest pattern, and no other candidate patterns can match. Therefore, the pattern mining pipeline consists of three passes: (1) a graph pattern mining algorithm, Java implementation of gSpan (Yan and Han, 2002),7to mine all candidate patterns with the frequency more than 500, (2) a subgraph isomorphism algorithm, C++ implementation of VF2 algorithm in igraph,8 with a longest-first greedy strategy to check the perfect match frequency, and (3) human evaluation and revision. Finally, we obtain 256 patterns that cover 80.77% generated candidates. Details can be found in Table 12. 7https://github.com/timtadh/parsemis 8https://igraph.org/ How acceptable is the quality of this sentence? (Invalid if it matches with the INVALID assertions defined in the instruction) Strongly Acceptable! This sentence is very detailed and is a strong reason for shopping these two items. Weakly Acceptable. Though this sentence is correct, the information is not detailed enough. Reject. The information related to both items is too few or too general, or the reason for shopping is not related to items at all.  ## D More Evaluations D.1 Implicit Generation Evaluation As we know, language model based generation capture spurious correlation given the condition of the generation (Ji et al., 2022). Hence we simply quantify the diversity as the novelty ratio of generated tails not appearing in the item titles, i.e., novel generations. Different from explicit attribute extraction (Vilnis et al., 2022; Yang et al., 2022), our generative method is able to extract implicit knowledge behind item titles or descriptions. For example, the title "Diesel Analog Three-Hand - Black and Gold Women's watch" contains specific attributes like "Black and Gold" or type information "women's watch." Such knowledge can be easily extracted by off-the-shelf tools. Traditional information extraction based approaches mostly cover our knowledge if the generation simply copies titles to reflect the attributes. Otherwise, it means that we provide much novel and diverse information compared with traditional approaches. The novelty ratio increases from 96.85% to 97.38% after we use the trained classifiers for filtering. Intuitively, filtering can improve the novelty ratio. For the assertions whose typicality scores are above 0.9, we also observe that the novelty ratio reaches 98.01%. These findings suggest that FolkScope is indeed an effective framework for mining high-quality implicit knowledge. file:///F:/NLP/AmazonCSKG/annotation/Turker_template/demo/quality_demo.html 1/2  ## D.2 Fine-Grained Subcategory Knowledge Since the items are organized in multilevel finegrained subcategories in the catalog of shopping websites, we are interested in whether our constructed KG contains high-quality common intentions among items belonging to subcategories. The common knowledge can be useful to have intentionlevel organizations besides category-level and further help downstream tasks. The co-buy item-pairs in our sampled *clothing* category fall into 15,708 subcategory pairs, such as (necklaces, *earning*) or (sweater, *home & kitchen*), where most of them are different subcategories in one pair. We select frequent common assertions with high typicality scores to demonstrate the abstract knowledge. Two examples are shown in Table 13. Though costumes and toys belong to two different types, they are complementary because of the same usage, such as "Halloween," "Easter holiday," and "Christmas," or sharing the same key feature like "star war character," "pirate." On the other hand, if two items fall in the same subcategory, like "dresses" in Table 13, the generated assertions share some common characteristics, such as being suitable for certain events and complementing each other when worn together. ## D.3 **Use Different Llms As Knowledge Source** We are interested in whether different sizes of language models have large impact on the generation. Hence we empirically analyze the plausible rate of generation using four language models: GPT-J (6b), OPT-30b, OPT-66b and text-davinci-003. We can observe that: 1) OPT-30b outperformed GPT-J over 10% (51% vs. 41%) while OPT-66b did not improve OPT-30b. 2) text-davinci-003 achieved nearly perfect results and make little mistakes when recognizing products given title information. Though impressive results, we have to balance between knowledge size and cost hence the takeaway from our work is | Relation | Clothing | Electronics | |-----------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------| | a fan of Harry Potter / Star Wars | make a robot, make a remote control, build a PC | | | Open | give gifts for his girlfriends / his son | know how to play guitar / take better photos | | go to a costume party / wedding / be a father | learn code / microcontroller programming | | | outdoor activities, hiking, camping, travel | outdoor use, navigation, education, networking | | | daily use, formal occasions, winter sports | personal use, office work, home theater, 3D movies | | | babies, maternity wear, sleepwear | baby photography, underwater photography | | | Halloween costumes, Christmas cosplay | Arduino projects, Raspberry Pi, Samsung headphone | | | jewelry making, leather care, weight loss | water cooling, cable management, screen protection | | | nursing, working out, polishing shoes | framing, storing data, mounting camera, prototyping | | | UsedFor | keeping cool, keeping dry, keeping warm | taking pictures, printing labels, boosting signals | | being worn with jeans / dress / shorts | being used in car / boat / computer / water / emergency | | | holding up pants, holding a lot of stuff | holding radio / CDs / GoPro camera / phones / devices | | | protecting from rain / sun / harmful UV rays | tracking location / heart beat rate / cycling activities | | | making him look like wizard / price / Batman | controlling light / TV / home automation / device | | | CapableOf | his love for daughter / wife / mother / family | his passion for gaming / aviation /cycling / sports | | SymbolOf | luxury, friendship, childhood, the 80s | security, reliability, durability, high performance | | modern life, American culture, graduation | latest technology, hacker culture, music industry | | ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Limitation section. ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Ethics section ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Introduction section ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Sec. 2 And Sec 4 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Sec. 2, Sec. 4 and Sec. 5 ✗ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? open access ✓ 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)? Sec.2 and Sec. 3 ✓ 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? Ethics 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. Sec. 2, Sec. 3 and Sec. 4 ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Sec.2, Sec.3 And Sec4 ✓ 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. 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? Sec. 2, Sec. 3 and Sec. 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? Sec 4 (multiple run averaged) ✓ 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.)? Sec2 and Sec 4. D ✓ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Sec. 2 and Sec.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.? Appendix A ✓ 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)? Appendix A ✓ 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? Sec 2 and Sec 3 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? Appendix A

liu-jaidka-2023-psyam

{I} am {P}sy{AM}: Modeling Happiness with Cognitive Appraisal Dimensions

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.77

This paper proposes and evaluates PsyAM (\url{https://anonymous.4open.science/r/BERT-PsyAM-10B9}), a framework that incorporates adaptor modules in a sequential multi-task learning setup to generate high-dimensional feature representations of hedonic well-being (momentary happiness) in terms of its psychological underpinnings. PsyAM models emotion in text through its cognitive antecedents through auxiliary models that achieve multi-task learning through novel feature fusion methods. We show that BERT-PsyAM has cross-task validity and cross-domain generalizability through experiments with emotion-related tasks {--} on new emotion tasks and new datasets, as well as against traditional methods and BERT baselines. We further probe the robustness of BERT-PsyAM through feature ablation studies, as well as discuss the qualitative inferences we can draw regarding the effectiveness of the framework for representing emotional states. We close with a discussion of a future agenda of psychology-inspired neural network architectures.

# I Am Psyam: Modeling Happiness With Cognitive Appraisal Dimensions Xuan Liu Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences University of California Berkeley USA lxstephenlaw@gmail.com Kokil Jaidka Communications and New Media National University of Singapore Singapore jaidka@nus.edu.sg ## Abstract This paper proposes and evaluates PsyAM1, a framework that incorporates adaptor modules in a sequential multi-task learning setup to generate high-dimensional feature representations of hedonic well-being (momentary happiness) in terms of its psychological underpinnings. PsyAM models emotion in text through its cognitive antecedents, through auxiliary models that achieve multi-task learning through novel feature fusion methods. We show that BERT-PsyAM has cross-task validity and crossdomain generalizability through experiments with emotion-related tasks - on new emotion tasks and new datasets, as well as against traditional methods and BERT baselines. We further probe the robustness of BERT-PsyAM through feature ablation studies, as well as discuss the qualitative inferences we can draw regarding the effectiveness of the framework for representing emotional states. We close with a discussion of a future agenda of psychologyinspired neural network architectures. ## 1 Introduction Governments are increasingly investing money into surveying and reporting nationwide psychological well-being as an indicator of success and wellness (Biswas-Diener et al., 2004), and some scholars have recommended monitoring social media for the unobtrusive measurement of regional trends in well-being and mental health. People are increasingly willing to post messages on social media to express their feelings. Words relate to emotions because they reflect how humans perceive their surroundings and ongoing events (Pennebaker et al., 2003); therefore, it is not surprising that language models trained on social media posts offer predictive insights into emotions. Emotions are an indicator of psychological states, such as *happiness* - the feelings of well-being related to momentary 1https://github.com/stephenlaw30/BERT-PsyAM happiness or pleasure (Huta, 2016; Ryan and Deci, 2001). Cognitive appraisal theory (CAT) posits that emotions result from how individuals appraise their situation and its impact on their wellbeing (Lazarus et al., 1980). CAT can model individual differences in emotional expressions; for instance, individuals may express happiness both, during a solitary walk as well as when they spend time with close friends if their core needs, drives, or motivations are suitably fulfilled. Therefore, we propose that relying on the stable cognitive antecedents of emotions could help us to train models that improve the state-of-the-art predictive accuracy for emotions detection tasks, and generalize more readily to other problems that infer psychological states from language, such as hedonic well-being. In this work, we test a broad proposition that pretraining on cognitive auxiliary tasks improves emotion detection from text. This approach can bridge prior research in emotions classification with the increasing understanding of the link between selfexpression and psychology. We offer the following contributions: - New framework: We introduce **PsyAM** - a framework of Psychological Adapter Modules2for emotion modeling that learns cognitive appraisal dimensions as auxiliary tasks that inform learning for a primary task. - New tasks: We show that PsyAM (with BERT) improves over standard approaches in **crossvalidation and replication** on new messagelevel data for predicting the duration of experienced happiness, and on user-level data for predicting the in-person emotional variance associated with their subjective well-being. - Standard evaluation: We show that PsyAM (with BERT) outperforms the state-of-the-art in **cross-domain validation** on standard tasks for detecting emotion in binary- and multiclass settings. - Real-world application: We demonstrate how PsyAM can offer real-world applications in predicting social media users' well-being through their Twitter posts. - New annotated datasets: We have collected and annotated new happiness datasets from two nationally representative online surveys to validate our on new data and a real-world application. Our work also offers a reality check to consider how leaderboard scores in emotion analysis translate to the real-world application of psycholinguistic models for unobtrusive mental health aggregates of communities. Recent studies have raised concerns about pre-trained psycholinguistic models' cross-domain and cross-task validity beyond simple emotion detection. Many word-trait relationships, such as that of self-referential language use and depression (Tackman et al., 2019), or the of social words and extraversion (Chen et al., 2020), inexplicably break down in different communicative contexts. We believe this is because of overfitting models to training corpora and the lack of psychologically motivated machine learning architectures. Prior work also often does not theorize why words relate to emotions or traits in the first place. Consequently, it has been challenging to build research depth in the representational modeling of the psychology of emotions and develop sophisticated neural network models. Herein lies an opportunity for social impact, as appropriately modeling and spatially aggregating emotions in social media make it possible to monitor mental health on a large scale (Dodds et al., 2015). ## 2 Background Previous studies exploring the psycholinguistics of text have evaluated text classification approaches that can best correspond to the psychological measurements of different psychological traits and states (Turc et al., 2019; Guda et al., 2021; Guntuku et al., 2019). For instance, Buechel et al. (2018) elaborates on the psychological complexity of human reactions such as empathy and distress by annotating text data with the empathy assessments of their authors via multi-item scales and considering psychological tenets to be co-existent rather than correlated (Buechel et al., 2018). In this study, we additionally offer two new tasks: predicting the *duration* of happiness and its *fluctuation* from linguistic expression. Both these concepts are grounded in psychology literature, where they are known to provide into emotional stability and well-being. Unlike a simple emotion detection task, the duration of happiness relates to distinguishing transient moods from persisting states of emotional well-being (Biswas-Diener et al., 2004). Therefore, it may require a more sophisticated representation of text semantics than one driven by affective words alone. Given that our primary datasets comprise textual descriptions of happy moments, the focus on hedonia is only appropriate. Secondly, emotional fluctuation has garnered a lot of recent interest as a more stable and tractable predictor of mental health as compared to mean-based emotion-based predictors, which are less sensitive to deviations and therefore to indicators of mental health issues. Emotional fluctuations expressed in verbal or written expressions has been evaluated for its relationship with within-person fluctuations in other personality states, including affective states (Sun et al., 2020; Golder and Macy, 2011), emotional experience (Back et al., 2010) and wellbeing (Pennebaker et al., 2003). In more recent work, emotional variance in social media posts has been also found to predict emotionally straining situations (Seraj et al., 2021), and daily emotional well-being (Lades et al., 2020). We suggest that reorienting the understanding of emotions in text in its cognitive antecedents may offer a fruitful approach to its modeling, detection, and real-world application. We choose two cognitive constructs which, according to prior research, are often key to emotional appraisal (Ellsworth and Scherer, 2003; Karasawa, 1995; Moors, 2010). First, **Agency** reflects the role and accountability of an individual in a situation. Second, **Social Interaction** reflects the relationship of an individual with others in the situation (family, friends, or peers). Among many other appraisal dimensions, we find that agency and social interaction have also been explored in other perspectives on understanding how humans appraise happiness (Paulhus and Trapnell, 2008). These concepts were also applied to enrich the CLAff-HappyDB happiness dataset in Jaidka et al. (2020), but our work offers the first instance of applying them for the computational modeling of happiness. Furthermore, we extend the central premise of the authors to explore and model the  ## Duration Of Happiness. Our choice of modeling the cognitive antecedents of emotions found no match in prior work.3 Firstly, representing emotion at different semantic levels of abstraction, such as word embeddings (Bengio et al., 2000; Mikolov et al., 2013; Htait and Azzopardi, 2021), phrase- and sentencelevel representations (Socher et al., 2013), or even paragraph-(Le and Mikolov, 2014) and documentlevel (Tang et al., 2015) representations involve evoked emotion rather than grounded emotion (Picard, 2000; Liu et al., 2017). Secondly, while finetuned LLMs like BERT offer state-of-the-art performance in emotion prediction, they are harder to adapt to multi-task learning problems. A finetuned BERT is also not ideal for knowledge transfer between multiple tasks. For instance, if we finetune BERT for n emotions, then we will need n times parameters inside BERT(n*110M), which would incur a huge memory overhead. Furthermore, our goal is to let different psychological tasks interact with the emotion task in the latent semantic space, which would necessitate re-engineering the end-toend finetuning pipeline. These considerations made us opt for interactive adaptor modules with fewer parameters. ## 3 Methods PsyAM is a broad proposition which can generalize to other frameworks. We chose to design our experiments centered on PsyAM coupled with BERT (BERT-PsyAM), which offers the best and most 3We offer a more exhaustive discussion of related work in the Appendix. challenging opportunity to evaluate our claim in the high-dimensional space. This section defines and discusses our multi-task learning architecture (Figure 1), learning strategy, and the latent representations of appraisal dimensions.4In the rest of the paper, we have referred to the appraisal dimensions more generally as *psychological constructs*, and the adapter modules as *psychological adaptor modules* to suggest that the framework could generalize to include other kinds of cognitive and psychological antecedents of emotions. ## 3.1 Bert-Psyam Architecture In the BERT-PsyAM architecture for multi-task sequential learning of psychological constructs and emotion labels, we extended each BERT layer by attaching a Psychological Adaptor Module (PsyAM) in parallel, as seen in Figure 1. 5 A PsyAM consists of trainable encoder-decoder weights along with multi-head attention and is instantiated uniquely for each psychological or emotional label. A PsyAM considers the activation state of the previous layer of BERT as its input. Further, the output of a PsyAM decoder is subject to recombination with the BERT layer as the residual connection and then serves as the input for the next BERT layer. The stack of PsyAMs is trained on the task of Psychological or Emotional Label Classification by attaching a unique classification head to the last layer of BERT-PsyAM. PsyAM offers two innovations. First, for a 4https://github.com/stephenlaw30/BERT-PsyAM 5A detailed description of all of the PsyAM components is reported in the Appendix. deeper semantic understanding of the data, we designed **auxiliary tasks** to aid the predictive performance of the primary classification task in a sequential learning approach. Prior work offers a simplistic implementation of auxiliary pre-training (Mahmoud and Torki, 2020) through auxiliary contexts in a similarity detection task. Instead, we extend the auxiliary pre-training architecture with **multitask learning** (Fifty, 2021), which aims to learn multiple different tasks simultaneously. Therefore, we are able to pre-train on auxiliary tasks that are not mutually exclusive, such as the cognitive appraisal dimensions underlying an emotional expression. Incorporating auxiliary pretraining has shown a performance improvement over the BERT models finetuned on individual tasks in prior work (Yu et al., 2019; Mahmoud and Torki, 2020), and we cororoborate these reports with similar findings in our paper. We use **adaptor modules** for extracting latent semantic features from the text. The original idea of adaptor modules (Rebuffi et al., 2018) comes from the ResNet concept of residual connection in computer vision and it is a type of ensemble learning approach that can help overcome degradation problems in machine learning. The idea was adopted for natural language processing by Houlsby et al. (2019), who used an unfrozen encoder-decoder structure between the feedforward network and the Layer Norm operation while freezing the parameters of the original BERT layers, which has the effect of reducing the number of parameters to be finetuned but with a performance trade-off. Building on their idea,Stickland and Murray (2019) also incorporated attention mechanisms in adaptor modules. Herein lies our second innovation, as what we do is that in **fusing latent features**, we did not directly combine the encodings of text and numerical features as is typical in multimodal transformers, which could result in performance degradation due to dimensionality reduction. Instead, we generate a higher-dimensional feature representation with a layer-by-layer propagation rather than simply completing the splicing at the output and evaluate the effect of different fusion methods on the final predictive performance. In summary, while the common way to use BERT for multiclass classification is to freeze the parameters of the original BERT and add several classification heads at the same level to fine-tune the parameters of the last layer to achieve multiclassification; however, because BERT's overall model parameters are fixed, finetuning in this manner often cannot achieve the best results, which would imply its inability to achieve optimal performance in every single classification task. Therefore, in the present architecture we assume that the internal parameters of BERT are not frozen. Furthermore, in BERT-PsyAM, we have replaced the original BERT Layer for fine-tuning with a small number of other parameters, so this is a great way for us to optimize processing with reduced overload. ## 4 Experiments Our experiments address the question, *How well do* the psychological constructs of agency and social interaction aid an understanding of emotions and well-being? We evaluate the BERT-PsyAM framework on 5 different settings based on happiness, emotions, and well-being datasets. Through extensive experiments, we show how different variants of the BERT-PsyAM framework compares favorably to other approaches. With an ablation study and qualitative exploration, we reiterate the critical role of cognitive appraisal in well-being and emotion prediction tasks. ## 4.1 Task Settings And Datasets 4.1.1 Duration Of Happiness Task Departing from typical emotion prediction tasks, we considered whether psychology labels could provide a deeper view into predicting the *duration* of happiness, a measure with immediate implications for understanding and modeling hedonic wellbeing (Biswas-Diener et al., 2004). The duration task was formulated as a binary classification problem that distinguished transient from more longlasting feelings of happiness, on three datasets, with label distributions reported in Table 1: 6. - CLAff-HappyDB: For training, testing, and internal validation, we relied on its 27,697 observations annotated with agency and social interaction labels (Jaidka et al., 2019). - HappyDB-expand: The analysis was replicated on 59,664 further descriptions of happy moments (Asai et al., 2018) which constituted the superset of CLAff-HappyDB labeled through a semi-supervised approach.7 61 = "All day, I'm still feeling it" and 0 = "A few moments," "A few minutes, " "At least one hour," and "Half a day" 7Labeling for Agency and Social Interactions was done - HappyDB-2021: A second replication was conducted on a freshly collected dataset of happy moments, sourced from a panel of internet users recruited through Qualtrics and then annotated through Amazon Mechanical Turk. The new dataset (N = 984) had a micro-level inter-annotator agreement of at least 80%. Dataset details are reported in the Appendix. | CLAffHappyDB | HappyDBexpand | HappyDB2021 | | |---------------------|--------|-------|-----| | N | 27,697 | 59664 | 984 | | Positive labels | 10,807 | 20807 | 187 | | Agency | 19,906 | 41233 | 796 | | Social interactions | 15,369 | 34289 | 517 | Table 1: Label distribution in the HappyDB datasets. We collected and annotated HappyDB-2021 for this study. ## 4.1.2 Emotion Detection Tasks We evaluated the generalizability of PsyAM for binary emotion classification and *multi-category* classification task, on two popular industry benchmarks. Recent studies suggest that many affordances of Reddit make it imminently suitable for understanding and modeling individuals' physical and mental health (Wanchoo et al., 2023; Liu et al., 2023), including but not limited to self-disclosure and social interaction (Yang et al., 2017; Jaidka et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2019), both of which offer signals of agency and social interaction respectively. - Kaggle SA-Emotions: We used the Kaggle SA-Emotions dataset8comprising 20,266 observations. We generated agency and social labels and subsequently predicted the Joy labels in a cross-validation setup. - GoEmotions dataset: The GoEmotions dataset (Demszky et al., 2020) has finegrained emotion labels on 58k datapoints from Reddit, from which we sampled a balanced dataset of 14,589 datapoints with 7907 having a positive label of 'Joy'. We followed the same semi-supervised labeling and binary classification setup as the SA-Emotions task. The label distributions for the two emotion datasets are reported in Table 2 and Figure 2. Table 2: Binary label distribution in the Kaggle SAEmotions and the GoEmotions datasets  | SA-Emotions | GoEmotions | | |--------------------|-----------------|---------------| | Number of entries | 20,266 | 14,589 | | Positive labels | 5,209 (25.70%) | 7,907 (54.2%) | | Agency | 10,907 (53.82%) | 5311 (36.40%) | | Social interaction | 5,872 (28.97%) | 4353 (29.84%) | ## 4.1.3 Well-Being Prediction Task We also introduce the **TwitterUsers-2021** dataset to evaluate the real-world application of PsyAM to predict *user-level subjective-wellbeing*. The dataset comprises 217,910 tweets posted by 296 internet users recruited through Qualtrics, who took part in an online survey experiment and shared the link to their Twitter profiles.9 We used the Twitter API to collect the social media posts of the 337 legitimate Twitter users who had participated in the survey and shared their Twitter handles. Of these, 296 participants had legitimate accounts and had posted at least one tweet of 50 characters or more that was not a retweet. As before, we used weakly supervised methods to generate Agency and Social Interaction labels for each post. Subsequently, we used BERT-PsyAM to generate labels for the duration of happy moments, which we used to derive an Emotional Fluctuation variable corresponding to the within-person variance in the happiness scores. ## 4.2 Experiments We performed the following experiments to test and validate the BERT-PsyAM framework: - **Cross-validation:** The CLAff-HappyDB dataset with an 80-10-10 split is used for internal validation for the duration task. - **Replication analysis:** Experiments are replicated on the HappyDB-expand dataset and the HappyDB-2021 datasets, which constitute held-out data and data from a different cultural context. 9Participant demographics are reported in the Appendix. Table 3: Predictive performance on the duration task, sorted by accuracy on the CLAff-HappyDB dataset. The color gradient identifies the best performing models for each metric (darker is better). * shows that the best result is significantly better than the best BERT baseline (p < 0.05). Table 4: Predictive performance on emotion detection, sorted by accuracy on the binary task. The color gradient identifies the best performing models for each metric (darker is better). * p < 0.05. Kaggle SA-Emotion Approach Binary Multi-class ACC ROC F-1 ACC Traditional Method GaussianNB 75.09 68.35 55.11 18.58 MLPclassifier 78.29 71.73 56.35 26.93 MLPclassifier+A+S 79.13 73.01 60.72 27.72 BERT-based Method BERT-FT 84.16 87.28 67.21 35.32 BERT-PALS 84.51 89.32 68.91 36.72 Proposed Method BERT-PsyAM *post-linear* 85.15 89.64 71.63 39.84 BERT-PsyAM *post-add* 85.29 90.23 71.29 39.48 BERT-PsyAM pre 85.35* 89.90* 71.90* 39.39* Table 5: Predictive performance on GoEmotions. The color gradient identifies the best performing models for each metric (darker is better). * p < 0.05. GoEmotions Approach ACC ROC F-1 Traditional Method GaussianNB 73.00 74.57 71.41 MLPclassifier 88.76 88.67 89.45 MLPclassifier+A+S 89.10 89.10 89.97 BERT-based Method BERT-FT 91.30 96.98 91.77 BERT-PALS 91.09 96.64 91.76 Proposed Method BERT-PsyAM *post-linear* 93.69* 98.08* 94.12* BERT-PsyAM *post-add* 93.56 97.86 94.03 BERT-PsyAM pre 92.39 97.84 92.90 - **External validation:** We used the Kaggle SA-Emotions and the GoEmotions datasets to benchmark the external validity of BERTPsyAM with an 80-10-10 data split for binary and multi-class emotion prediction. - **Ablation analysis:** We conducted an ablation experiment to evaluate the role of different combinations of agency and social interaction labels in predictive performance. We also Dataset CLAff-HappyDB HappyDB-expand HappyDB-2021 ACC ROC F-1 ACC ROC F-1 ACC ROC F-1 Traditional Method GaussianNB 56.06 59.97 56.95 56.76 60.01 54.20 54.90 59.31 55.90 MLPclassifier 63.72 61.39 51.38 65.76 62.20 50.42 63.96 61.12 49.51 MLPclassifier+A+S 63.75 61.61 52.42 64.54 61.42 50.82 64.13 62.32 54.45 BERT-based Method BERT-FT 70.22 75.46 59.74 71.63 76.08 57.71 71.07 75.69 59.94 BERT-PALS 70.87 75.64 60.34 71.54 76.19 57.66 71.31 76.83 58.95 Proposed Method BERT-PsyAM *post-add* 71.44 77.10 61.92 72.71 77.30 59.75 71.87 77.27 61.70 BERT-PsyAM pre 71.59 77.03 62.68 72.61 77.51 60.75 71.98 76.78 62.11 BERT-PsyAM *post-linear* 72.13* 77.41* 62.52* 72.75* 77.47* 60.17* 72.08* 77.27* 62.52* included other contextual information (e.g. the reflection period) and respondent demographics (their marital status, which would affect their psychological outlook (Diener et al., 2000)).10 - **Model visualization:** We applied the Captum toolkit (Kokhlikyan et al., 2020) to visualize the impact of individual words on the classification confidence score for the duration task. Captum calculates the layer integrated gradient on the test cases input through BERTPsyAM with *post-linear* feature fusion. We then compared word attributions from token embeddings by a BERT-finetuned vs. a BERTPsyAM model. - **Real-world application:** We evaluated the predictive performance of Bert-PsyAM on user-level subjective well-being prediction based on duration of happiness scores generated on their Twitter posts. ## 4.3 Model Setup We adapted the PyTorch *BERT-base-uncased* as our backbone, initialized with pre-trained weights. Our implementation comprises 12 layers, 12 attention heads and 768 as the hidden unit size. We modeled psychological constructs (agency, social) prediction as a binary classification task. We set the augmentation size a to be 204. We trained for each task with the AdamW optimizer (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2019) for 3 epochs, with a batch size of 32, a learning rate of 3e-5, and a maximum sequence length of 128 tokens. We have compared the BERT-PsyAM framework against traditional and BERT-based methods. 10These experiments were conducted on the primary task and dataset with *post-linear* feature fusion. Traditional methods adopt the pre-trained word embeddings (Mikolov et al., 2018) and the bagof-words model to generate the sequence representation which is passed to classifiers: Gaussian Naive Bayes (Gaussian-NB) and Multi-layer Perceptron classifier (MLP-classifier). In order to compare role of different representation of psychological features, we made a baseline called MLPclassifier+A+S which embeds agency and social information into the input of MLP-classifier with numerical features. Since BERT-PsyAM is constructed with a BERT backbone, BERT-Finetune and BERT-NPALS (Stickland and Murray, 2019) offer the ideal baselines to illustrate performance improvements. ## 5 Results & Analysis As seen in Table 3, first, in the **internal crossvalidation**, BERT-PsyAM with the linear posttraining fusion strategy is the best performed model in the internal validation by surpassing baselines 1.5% in accuracy and nearly 2% in both ROC and F-1 in repeated iterations (Accuracy = 72.13 vs. 70.87; ROC = 77.41 vs. 75.64, p < 0.05). Next, in the **replication analysis** reported for HappyDBexpand, we see similar improvements as above (Accuracy = 72.75 vs. 71.54; ROC = 77.47 vs 76.19, p < 0.05), illustrating its robustness and general ability that leverages pre-trained models. Finally, the performance on HappyDB-2021 (Accuracy = 72.08 vs. 71.31; ROC = 77.27 vs 76.83, p < 0.05) suggests that the model also generalizes well to new cultural contexts. ## 5.1 External Validation Tables 4 and 5 and Table shows PsyAM's performance at emotion classification. For SA-Emotions, in the binary classification task, BERT-PsyAM with pre-training feature fusion has the highest Accuracy and ROC that are statistically significantly higher than BERT-PALS by about 1% each in repeated runs (Accuracy = 85.35 vs 84.51; ROC = 89.90 vs. 89.32, p < 0.05), while for GoEmotions the postlinear feature fusion has the better performance. BERT-PsyAM also outperforms BERT-PALS in multi-task prediction by about 3% (Accuracy = 71.90 vs 68.91; ROC = 39.39 vs. 36.72, p < 0.05), suggesting that our framework has generalized well to new tasks, datasets, and emotions. As seen in Table 6, adding both psychological constructs considerably improves over BERT- finetune (ROC = 77.41 vs. 75.64). We also found that the performance increased further with the addition of a **third adapter module** related to emotional transience (Asai et al., 2018) - the reflection period (ROC = 77.67 vs 75.64). ## 5.2 Model Visualization Figure 3 reports a confusion matrix of classifications by BERT-FT reported in Table 3 vs. BERTPsyAM on CLAff-HappyDB data. Across the four quadrants, BERT-FT does attribute importance to emotion words such as *'anniversary'* and *'special,'* but also to irrelevant words such as *'to,'* and *'it's'*, confirming recent findings regarding BERT (Hayati et al., 2021). In contrast, BERT-PsyAM generates higher confidence scores and appears to pay attention to first person and possessive pronouns that denote agency (Rouhizadeh et al., 2018) (*'me'* and *'my'*), and social relationships and interactions (Jaidka et al., 2020) (*'husband'* and 'daughter'; *'we'* and *'our'*). ## 5.3 Real-World Application In Figure 4 (a), we demonstrate whether labels generated using PsyAM offer any psychological insights for real-world applications. In a regression analysis that predicts subjective wellbeing, after controlling for demographic covariates, higher emotional fluctuation scores based on BERT-PsyAM predictions predict lower wellbeing, a relationship which corroborates prior work in psychology (Seraj et al., 2021). The value of the coefficients suggests that a 1% decrease in emotional fluctuation predicts a 0.04% increase in the subjective well-being of an individual, or a magnitude of 0.4 points on a 10-point scale. Although the predicted R2 values are low, this is typical of models that use linguistic covariates to predict psychological traits (Boyd and Pennebaker, 2017). In Figure 4(b), We examined the interactive effect of age on this relationship and find that the interactive effect of age and emotional fluctuation is significant (and negative) among 18-34 year olds. ## 6 Discussion Our findings offer the following insights towards a future agenda of neural networks inspired by human psychology: - Feature-rich representation: PsyAM appears to help BERT pay more attention to words reflecting cognitive constructs, such as words   Coefficient Estimate (b) Std. Error p (* if < 0.05) (Intercept) 0.559 0.084 *** Emotional fluctuation -0.038 0.011 *** Age -0.048 0.022 * Emotional fluctuation x Age 0.009 0.003 **  Table 6: Ablation study on the duration task with CLAffHappyDB. The color gradient identifies the best performing models for each metric (darker is better).  referencing the self, family members, and social activities, as seen in Figure 3. - Operational flexibility: Within PsyAM, different feature fusion methods had the best performance, suggesting that contextual and dataset differences can be accounted for through minor adjustments of the PsyAM framework. - Robust predictions: PsyAM works well with a variety of datasets, cultural contexts, and even tasks. Even when the label distribution differs from the original, the superior performance of PsyAM models signals that our architecture is robust to new data. - Semi-supervised extensions: Labeling existing datasets with models finetuned on small annotated datasets offers a low-cost alternative to obtaining high-quality annotations. This is the approach we used, as reported in Table 8 of the Appendix, and the predictions have face-validity, as reported in Figure 3. - Cognitive construct extensions: Other cognitive constructs, such as reflection period, can offer additional measures of cognitive complexity to further improve the modeling of emotional expression. ## 7 Conclusion The main advantage of the BERT-PsyAM framework is a modeling paradigm that transfers to new domains and tasks for detecting emotions and, by extension, well-being. Psychologists can use PsyAM to build and test new hypotheses about selfexpression, cognitive appraisal, and behavior. It could also be helpful in interventionist scenarios requiring live monitoring and reporting problematic social media posts. PsyAM achieved substantive improvements over the state-of-the-art BERT alternatives, and we show that this is because of the contribution of the high-dimensional feature representation inside the Adaptor Modules. Different feature fusion methods achieved different degrees of improvement in different settings, and different latent variables may add value in different problem contexts. Future directions: We have released the labeled datasets developed as part of the study for researchers to explore further how psychological traits and states can inspire better neural architectures for text classification. We plan to explore other appraisal dimensions, such as goal conduciveness and certainty, as well as individual differences through demographic and personality traits. Limitations: The duration task focused only on data with a positive happiness label, but it would be interesting to see whether the framework generalizes to a complete dataset and more sophisticated problem definitions. The need for annotations limits the generalizability of our approach, but the BERT-PsyAM framework is effective even with labels generated through semi-supervised methods and other metadata. Ethical considerations: The models are intended for aggregate- and group-level inferences, and not individual or message-level inferences. Despite our cross-domain validation efforts, we caution that relying exclusively on AI-inferred relationships between emotion, self-efficacy, and selfdetermination may lead to inaccurate measurements. Finally, models trained in a specific sociocultural setting may nevertheless violate the social conventions in specific settings, such as in the workplace, and cultural conventions of individualism and collectivism in social life (Diener et al., 2009). Acknowledgments: We thank Niyati Chhaya, Chaitanya Aggarwal, and Gerard Yeo for feedback on early versions of this work. This work was supported by an NUS CTIC grant and a Nanyang Presidential Postdoctoral fellowship. ## References Akari Asai, Sara Evensen, Behzad Golshan, Alon Halevy, Vivian Li, Andrei Lopatenko, Daniela Stepanov, Yoshihiko Suhara, Wang-Chiew Tan, and Yinzhan Xu. 2018. Happydb: A corpus of 100,000 crowdsourced happy moments. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.07746. Mitja D Back, Albrecht CP Küfner, and Boris Egloff. 2010. The emotional timeline of september 11, 2001. Psychological Science, 21(10):1417–1419. Yoshua Bengio, Réjean Ducharme, and Pascal Vincent. 2000. A neural probabilistic language model. *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, 13. Robert Biswas-Diener, Ed Diener, and Maya Tamir. 2004. The psychology of subjective well-being. Daedalus, 133(2):18–25. Ryan L Boyd and James W Pennebaker. 2017. Language-based personality: a new approach to personality in a digital world. *Current opinion in behavioral sciences*, 18:63–68. Sven Buechel, Anneke Buffone, Barry Slaff, Lyle Ungar, and João Sedoc. 2018. Modeling empathy and distress in reaction to news stories. In *Proceedings* of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4758–4765. Jiayu Chen, Lin Qiu, and Moon-Ho Ringo Ho. 2020. A meta-analysis of linguistic markers of extraversion: Positive emotion and social process words. *Journal* of Research in Personality, 89:104035. Edward L Deci and Richard M Ryan. 2000. The" what" and" why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the selfdetermination of behavior. *Psychological inquiry*, 11(4):227–268. Dorottya Demszky, Dana Movshovitz-Attias, Jeongwoo Ko, Alan Cowen, Gaurav Nemade, and Sujith Ravi. 2020. Goemotions: A dataset of fine-grained emotions. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4040–4054. 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*. Cynthia A Hoffner and Sangmi Lee. 2015. Mobile phone use, emotion regulation, and well-being. *Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking*, 18(7):411–416. Ed Diener, Marissa Diener, and Carol Diener. 2009. Factors predicting the subjective well-being of nations. In *Culture and well-being*, pages 43–70. Springer. 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 Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 97 of *Proceedings of Machine Learning Research*, pages 2790–2799. PMLR. Ed Diener, Carol L Gohm, Eunkook Suh, and Shigehiro Oishi. 2000. Similarity of the relations between marital status and subjective well-being across cultures. Journal of cross-cultural psychology, 31(4):419–436. Amal Htait and Leif Azzopardi. 2021. Awessome: An unsupervised sentiment intensity scoring framework using neural word embeddings. In *European Conference on Information Retrieval*, pages 509–513. Springer. Peter Sheridan Dodds, Eric M Clark, Suma Desu, Morgan R Frank, Andrew J Reagan, Jake Ryland Williams, Lewis Mitchell, Kameron Decker Harris, Isabel M Kloumann, James P Bagrow, et al. 2015. Human language reveals a universal positivity bias. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 112(8):2389–2394. Phoebe C Ellsworth and Klaus R Scherer. 2003. *Appraisal processes in emotion.* Oxford University Press. Kokil Jaidka, Niyati Chhaya, Saran Mumick, Matthew Killingsworth, Alon Halevy, and Lyle Ungar. 2020. Beyond positive emotion: Deconstructing happy moments based on writing prompts. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, volume 14, pages 294–302. Nicholas Epley and Juliana Schroeder. 2014. Mistakenly seeking solitude. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: General*, 143(5):1980. Christopher Fifty. 2021. Deciding which tasks should train together in multi-task neural networks. Kokil Jaidka, Saran Mumick, Niyati Chhaya, and Lyle Ungar. 2019. The cl-aff happiness shared task: Results and key insights. In *AffCon@ AAAI*. Scott A Golder and Michael W Macy. 2011. Diurnal and seasonal mood vary with work, sleep, and daylength across diverse cultures. *Science*, 333(6051):1878– 1881. Kaori Karasawa. 1995. Cognitive antecedents of emotions findings and future directions. *Japanese Psychological Research*, 37(1):40–55. Bhanu Prakash Reddy Guda, Aparna Garimella, and Niyati Chhaya. 2021. EmpathBERT: A BERT-based framework for demographic-aware empathy prediction. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 3072–3079, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Narine Kokhlikyan, Vivek Miglani, Miguel Martin, Edward Wang, Bilal Alsallakh, Jonathan Reynolds, Alexander Melnikov, Natalia Kliushkina, Carlos Araya, Siqi Yan, and Orion Reblitz-Richardson. 2020. Captum: A unified and generic model interpretability library for pytorch. Sharath Chandra Guntuku, Anneke Buffone, Kokil Jaidka, Johannes C Eichstaedt, and Lyle H Ungar. 2019. Understanding and measuring psychological stress using social media. In *Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media*, volume 13, pages 214–225. Margie E Lachman and Suzanne L Weaver. 1998. The sense of control as a moderator of social class differences in health and well-being. *Journal of personality and social psychology*, 74(3):763. Leonhard K Lades, Kate Laffan, Michael Daly, and Liam Delaney. 2020. Daily emotional well-being during the covid-19 pandemic. *British journal of* health psychology, 25(4):902–911. Shirley Hayati, Dongyeop Kang, and Lyle Ungar. 2021. Does bert learn as humans perceive? understanding linguistic styles through lexica. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6323–6331. Richard S Lazarus, Allen D Kanner, and Susan Folkman. 1980. Emotions: A cognitive–phenomenological analysis. In *Theories of emotion*, pages 189–217. Elsevier. John F Helliwell and Robert D Putnam. 2004. The social context of well-being. *Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences*, 359(1449):1435. Quoc Le and Tomas Mikolov. 2014. Distributed representations of sentences and documents. In *International conference on machine learning*, pages 1188– 1196. PMLR. Dan Hendrycks and Kevin Gimpel. 2016. Bridging nonlinearities and stochastic regularizers with gaussian error linear units. *CoRR*, abs/1606.08415. Veronika Huta. 2016. An overview of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being concepts. *The Routledge handbook of media use and well-being*, pages 14–33. Tingting Liu, Devansh Jain, Shivani Reddy Rapole, Brenda Curtis, Johannes C Eichstaedt, Lyle H Ungar, and Sharath Chandra. 2023. Detecting symptoms of depression on reddit. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM Web Science Conference 2023, pages 174–183. Vicki Liu, Carmen Banea, and Rada Mihalcea. 2017. Grounded emotions. In *2017 Seventh International* Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction (ACII), pages 477–483. IEEE. Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2019. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In *ICLR*. Mufan Luo and Jeffrey T Hancock. 2020. Selfdisclosure and social media: motivations, mechanisms and psychological well-being. *Current Opinion in Psychology*, 31:110–115. Somaia Mahmoud and Marwan Torki. 2020. Alexu-auxbert at semeval-2020 task 3: Improving bert contextual similarity using multiple auxiliary contexts. In Proceedings of the 14th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation. Tomas Mikolov, Edouard Grave, Piotr Bojanowski, Christian Puhrsch, and Armand Joulin. 2018. Advances in pre-training distributed word representations. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018). Tomáš Mikolov, Wen-tau Yih, and Geoffrey Zweig. 2013. Linguistic regularities in continuous space word representations. In *Proceedings of the 2013* conference of the north american chapter of the association for computational linguistics: Human language technologies, pages 746–751. Agnes Moors. 2010. *Theories of emotion causation: A* review. Psychology Press. Becky Lynn Omdahl. 2014. *Cognitive appraisal, emotion, and empathy*. Psychology Press. Delroy L Paulhus and Paul D Trapnell. 2008. Selfpresentation of personality: An agency-communion framework. James W Pennebaker, Matthias R Mehl, and Kate G Niederhoffer. 2003. Psychological aspects of natural language use: Our words, our selves. *Annual review* of psychology, 54(1):547–577. Rosalind W Picard. 2000. *Affective computing*. MIT press. Soujanya Poria, Navonil Majumder, Devamanyu Hazarika, Deepanway Ghosal, Rishabh Bhardwaj, Samson Yu Bai Jian, Pengfei Hong, Romila Ghosh, Abhinaba Roy, Niyati Chhaya, et al. 2021. Recognizing emotion cause in conversations. *Cognitive Computation*, 13(5):1317–1332. Sylvestre-Alvise Rebuffi, Andrea Vedaldi, and Hakan Bilen. 2018. Efficient parametrization of multidomain deep neural networks. pages 8119–8127. Masoud Rouhizadeh, Kokil Jaidka, Laura Smith, H. Andrew Schwartz, Anneke Buffone, and Lyle Ungar. 2018. Identifying locus of control in social media language. In *Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on* Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Richard M Ryan and Edward L Deci. 2001. On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual review of psychology, 52:141. Gillian M Sandstrom and Elizabeth W Dunn. 2014. Social interactions and well-being: The surprising power of weak ties. *Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin*, 40(7):910–922. Sarah Seraj, Kate G Blackburn, and James W Pennebaker. 2021. Language left behind on social media exposes the emotional and cognitive costs of a romantic breakup. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(7):e2017154118. 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. Asa Cooper Stickland and Iain Murray. 2019. BERT and PALs: Projected attention layers for efficient adaptation in multi-task learning. *CoRR*, abs/1902.02671. Jessie Sun, H Andrew Schwartz, Youngseo Son, Margaret L Kern, and Simine Vazire. 2020. The language of well-being: Tracking fluctuations in emotion experience through everyday speech. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology*, 118(2):364. Allison M Tackman, David A Sbarra, Angela L Carey, M Brent Donnellan, Andrea B Horn, Nicholas S Holtzman, To'Meisha S Edwards, James W Pennebaker, and Matthias R Mehl. 2019. Depression, negative emotionality, and self-referential language: A multi-lab, multi-measure, and multi-language-task research synthesis. *Journal of personality and social* psychology, 116(5):817. Duyu Tang, Bing Qin, and Ting Liu. 2015. Document modeling with gated recurrent neural network for sentiment classification. In *Proceedings of the 2015* conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 1422–1432. Louis Tay and Ed Diener. 2011. Needs and subjective well-being around the world. Journal of personality and social psychology, 101(2):354. Iulia Turc, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. Well-read students learn better: On the importance of pre-training compact models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.08962v2. Karan Wanchoo, Matthew Abrams, Raina M Merchant, Lyle Ungar, and Sharath Chandra Guntuku. 2023. Reddit language indicates changes associated with diet, physical activity, substance use, and smoking during covid-19. *Plos one*, 18(2):e0280337. Diyi Yang, Zheng Yao, and Robert Kraut. 2017. Selfdisclosure and channel difference in online health support groups. In *Proceedings of the international* AAAI conference on web and social media, volume 11, pages 704–707. Diyi Yang, Zheng Yao, Joseph Seering, and Robert Kraut. 2019. The channel matters: Self-disclosure, reciprocity and social support in online cancer support groups. In *Proceedings of the 2019 chi conference on human factors in computing systems*, pages 1–15. Lele Yu, Shaowu Zhang, Yijia Zhang, Hongfei Lin, et al. 2021. Improving human happiness analysis based on transfer learning: Algorithm development and validation. *JMIR Medical Informatics*, 9(8):e28292. Shanshan Yu, Jindian Su, and Da Luo. 2019. Improving bert-based text classification with auxiliary sentence and domain knowledge. *IEEE Access*, 7:176600– 176612. ## A.2 State Of The Art In Emotion Prediction A Appendix A.1 Background the literature on multitask learning and language modeling that is relevant to our context. Emotion in text has been modeled in different studies at different levels of abstraction and meaning, such as sentiment-specific word embeddings (Bengio et al., 2000; Mikolov et al., 2013; Htait and Azzopardi, 2021), phrase- and sentence-level representations (Socher et al., 2013), and even at the paragraph-(Le and Mikolov, 2014) and documentlevel (Tang et al., 2015). Note that these approaches appear to conflate the detection of expressed versus evoked emotion (Picard, 2000), as they tend further and further away from the root of emotion (Liu et al., 2017). We suggest that grounding the emotion prediction task in its cognitive antecedents, similar to prior work focusing on its causes (Poria et al., 2021), may offer a fruitful approach to its modeling and detection. In studies with a temporal component, LongShort Term Memory (LSTM) architectures and Gated Neural Networks have been used successfully; however, they often fall short of transformerbased models in tasks involving language understanding, such as emotion prediction. Therefore, given the stability and universality of transformerbased models, and the ability to benchmark against previous work and datasets, we opted to use the BERT model as the backbone for our experiments. BERT (Devlin et al., 2018) is a pre-training language model with two self- supervised pretraining objectives: masked language modeling (MLM) and next sentence prediction (NSP). The NSP task in pre-training is used to fine-tune the model using labeled data in order to obtain the prediction result. Although a finetuned BERT model is known to achieve good results in emotion prediction, it is not suitable for our purpose for two reasons. Firstly, a finetuned BERT is not ideal for knowledge transfer between multiple tasks. For instance, if we finetune BERT for n emotions, then we will need n*110M parameters, which would incur a huge memory overhead. Secondly, our goal is to let different psychological tasks interact with the emotion task at the semantic latent space, which implied that finetuned models would not meet our requirements. These considerations made us opt for an interactive module with fewer parameters. Psychological constructs including but not limited to empathy, distress, agency, social affinity have been widely studied by computational linguists (Turc et al., 2019; Guda et al., 2021; Rouhizadeh et al., 2018; Guntuku et al., 2019). Such studies, primarily, evaluate representational learning approaches for downstream tasks to predict the appropriate psychological constructs associated with the given text. For instance, Buechel et al. (2018) elaborates on the psychological complexity of human reactions such as empathy and distress, by annotating text data with the empathy assessments of their authors via multi-item scales. Even this study considered empathy and distress to be co-existent rather than correlated, offering little insight into the role of cognitive appraisals as the wellspring of emotional expression (Omdahl, 2014; Hoffner and Lee, 2015). We formulate our problem as the multi-task learning of psychological states in tandem with human emotions, which offers insight into the role of psychological self-appraisals as the wellspring of emotional expression (Luo and Hancock, 2020; Omdahl, 2014; Hoffner and Lee, 2015). In the following paragraphs, we first motivate the problem of modeling emotion in terms of its psychological underpinnings, followed by a review of ## A.3 Multi-Task Learning A multi-task learning setup aims to learn multiple different tasks simultaneously. This can be thought of as predicting attributes of text that are not mutually exclusive, such as the psychological and emotional facets of the memory of a happy moment. In multi-task learning, more than one loss function is trained, or a part of the loss function comes from a different task, with the expectation that the model will apply the information it learns during training on one task to decrease the loss on other tasks included in training the network (Fifty, 2021). The initial proposal of adaptor modules for natural language processing by Houlsby (Houlsby et al., 2019) offered an end-to-end structure which offers finetuning parameters while employing fewer parameters than the entire BERT, but with a degraded final performance. However, their final performance was slightly worse than the whole BERT finetune model while reducing the number of parameters that must be fine-tuned. The BERT-PsyAM architecture proposed in this study adapts the BERT and PALS architecture (Stickland and Murray, 2019) which included projected attention layers, as parts within the adaptor module. This constitutes an ensemble approach which is then used for the sequential training of psychological states and emotions. Our approach is novel in three ways: firstly, instead of using adaptors for parameter minimization, we use them to extract latent semantic features with the multi-head attention mechanism and feedforward layers. Secondly, instead of adding attention outputs, we use residual connections to combine the latent semantic features between tasks. This allows different tasks to interact and support each other with highdimensional (context-psychology) feature representations. In this paper, we have evaluated three different methods for feature fusion, all of which perform well. Thirdly, in the process of fusing latent features, we did not directly combine the encodings of text and numerical features as is typical in multimodal transformers, which could result in signal losses due to dimensionality reduction. Instead, we generate a higher-dimensional (context & psychology) feature representation with a layer-bylayer propagation rather than simply completing the splicing at output. ## A.4 Context Now that we have motivated our architecture, we will explain the theoretical concepts it realizes. This study focuses on the psychological concepts that are meaningful in the understanding of emotion – specifically, in understanding happiness. Psychologists define *agency* as the feeling of being in control of one's life. It is related to the ideas of autonomy (Tay and Diener, 2011), and self efficacy (Deci and Ryan, 2000), which are known to have a strong relationship with personal health and well-being (Lachman and Weaver, 1998). Moreover, its linguistic correlates have been examined in prior work (Rouhizadeh et al., 2018). On the other hand, *social interaction* and feeling connected to others are also central to well-being (Helliwell and Putnam, 2004), the feeling of belongingness (Sandstrom and Dunn, 2014), and happiness (Epley and Schroeder, 2014). The association of agency and social interaction in textual descriptions of happy moments was explored in the The CLAff-HappyDB Shared Task models happy moments in terms of their agency and social interaction (Jaidka et al., 2019). The Task proposes that a happy moment may involve either agency and social interaction, both, or neither of these; however, their interplay could be helpful for an enriched understanding of happiness. However, the labeled dataset was small in size, limiting the possibilities for technical and conceptual follow-up work. In this study, we have used semisupervised approaches to expand on the training data, collected new data, and tested our approach on standard emotion detection tasks on a well-known emotion dataset. ## B Bert-Psyam Architecture B.0.1 Bert Layer Figure 1 illustrates how a BERT layer receives the activation state of the previous BERT layer as input, and generates dh dimensional hidden states for each token in the sequence, which are forwarded to the BERT attention and the feedforward network. Multi-Head Attention: N different attention heads11 are applied to extract the attention score on tokens as the aggregate of previous hidden states. Rescale: This sub-module splices and re-scales the feature space to make it more suitable for the task in context. It does so by calculating the mean 11We have used N = 12 µ and variance σ of each unit in the input vector x, and then re-scaling them by learning a gain g and bias b parameter sequentially. Feed-forward Networks (FFN) Next, an FFN framework containing two linear transformations with a GELU activation function (Hendrycks and Gimpel, 2016) is applied to each position of hidden states by transforming them to a high-dimensional space and then transforming them back. Here we add BAN , the residual part we got from the multihead attention setup, which gives us the final BERTPsyAM layer output as: $$Layer\_output=Rescale(FFN(BA_{N}(x))+\tag{1}$$ $$BA_{N}(x)+PsyAM(x))$$ The PsyAM(x) component of Equation 1 is explained in the following paragraphs. ## B.0.2 Adaptor Modules There are two types of Adaptor Modules: psychological constructs adaptor modules (PCAM) and emotion adaptor modules (EAM), connected through a hierarchical bottom-up structure to ensure the dependency of emotion on psychological constructs. PCAM. PCAMs consider the activation weights of the previous layer of BERT as the input. The activation weights are Xd i where, (a) d represents the dimensionality of the hidden states transmitted between each layer of BERT, and (b) i represents the layer number. The encoder inside, essentially, augments the dimensionality of the input to a which helps retrieve latent features specific to the psychological context: $$E n c(X_{i}^{d})=X_{i}^{d}A^{d*a}+b^{a}$$ a(2) We use a BERT Multi-Head Attention mechanism once again as the feature extractor, but reduce the number of heads to N/2 as it was achieving competitive performance with fewer parameters. We therefore obtain BAN/2(*Enc(X* d i )). Next, we apply a Decoder to resize the augmented data to the original hidden size d of BERT. $ Dec(BA_{N/2}(Enc(X_i^d)))=BA_{N/2}(X_i^d)A^{a*d}+b^d\;\;\;(3)$ So, the output of PCAM is: . So, the output of $\mathsf{PCAM}$ is: . $$P C A M(X_{i}^{d})=D e c(B A_{N/2}(E n c(X_{i}^{d})))$$ i ))) (4) EAM EAM is the adaptor module for classification on emotion, which generates outputs for PsyAM through one of three ways of feature fusion. First, pre-training fusion (pre) receives the last BERT layer's output and all the features from PCAMs. It defines them as a list of features: [Xd i , P CAM1(Xd i ), P CAM2(Xd i )...]). Next, it concatenates all the features, then passes it into Encoder inside EAM. So the feature propagation through EAM with fusion occurring *pre-training* looks like: $$({\mathfrak{S}})$$ $$\begin{array}{c}{{p e(X_{i}^{d},P C A M_{1}(X_{i}^{d}),P C A M_{2}(X_{i}^{d})...)=}}\\ {{\qquad[X_{i}^{d},P C A M_{1}(X_{i}^{d}),P C A M_{2}(X_{i}^{d})...]}}\end{array}$$ The output of residual from PyAM is: . $$\begin{array}{c}{{E A M(p r e)=D e c(B A_{N/2}(E n c(p r e(X_{i}^{d},}}\\ {{P C A M_{1}(X_{i}^{d}),P C A M_{2}(X_{i}^{d})...))))}}\end{array}$$ $$(6)$$ Alternatively, when pre-training feature fusion is disabled, the post-training feature fusion methods (*post-linear* and *post-add*) receive the EAM's output and all the features from PCAMs, and then perform either an addition or a latent transformation of the concatenated features. The pooled output acts as the residual connection passed to the next BERT layer. In this case, the feature propagation through EAM looks like: $$\begin{array}{c}{{E A M(p o s t-a d d)=D e c(B A_{N/2}(E n c(X_{i}^{d})))+}}\\ {{\sum_{j}P C A M_{j}(X_{i}^{d})}}\end{array}\tag{7}$$ $$E A M(p o s t-l i n e a r)=L i n e a r T r a n s f o r m(D)$$ D = post(Dec(BAN/2(Enc(X d i ))), P CAM1(X d i ), P CAM2(X d i )...)) $$u n s f o r m(D)\quad(8)$$ $${}^{(9)}$$ ## B.1 Training Approach After initializing the parameters for both BERT layers (pretrained BERT) and PsyAMs (Random), we train all of the psychological constructs tasks at the same time. Under the setting that (a) BERT layer parameters are frozen and (b) The EAM with feature fusion modules is disabled, these psychological constructs tasks contain their unique PCAM along with the BERT layer and classifier on the top, so they can be trained simultaneously without affecting the gradients of each other. Since feature fusion modules are disabled, inputs are directly propagated without transformation. Then the output of PCAM is passed to the output of BERT layer as residual: $$(10)$$ Layer_output = Rescale(F F N(BAN (x)) +BAN (x) + P CAM(X d i )) $$(4)$$ After finishing training on psychological constructs and to realize a hierarchical bottom-up structure, we adjust the following settings: (a) Start the emotion training through the PCAMs to ensure the dependency of EAM on PCAM, (b) Choose a feature fusion strategy for the EAM, and (c) Freeze the parameters in all PCAMs. The output of EAM is passed to the output of BERT-PsyAM layer as the residual: $$Layer\_output=Rescale(FFN(BA_{N}(x))\tag{11}$$ $$+BA_{N}(x)+EAM(X_{i}^{d})))$$ For each task, the hidden states of the sequence input are transformed at each layer of BERT-PsyAM, but only the final hidden state of the *[CLS]* token is used for classification with the cross-entropy loss inside their unique classification head: $$-\sum_{c=1}^{M}y_{o,c}\log(p_{o,c})\qquad\qquad(12)$$ where M is the number of classes, y is binary indicator (0 or 1), p is predicted probability observation o is of class c. ## C New Datasets' Curation And Annotation HappyDB-2021 was collected through a Qualtrics Singapore panel sampled to obtain a gender- and age-representative split in terms of age and gender. Following the original data collection procedure, first we collected happy moments from survey respondents12, together with their self reported duration of experiencing happiness. Participants were asked about three happy moments they experienced recently. Besides the happy moment, participants were also asked about the duration (i.e., the length) of happiness they experienced. The detailed instructions are sourced from (Asai et al., 2018) and are reported in Figure 5(a). Participants came from a representative distribution of gender (51.1% Female), age (M = 39.13; SD = 13.18), educational (Median = undergraduate degree), economic (Median = $7000 to $8999 monthly income), and racial backgrounds (83% majority). 984 happy moments thus collected were annotated through Amazon Mechanical Turk annotators, as reported in the next subsection. TwitterUsers-2021 was collected from a Qualtrics USA panel sampled to obtain a nationally 12The survey protocol for both surveys was approved by our university's Institutional Review Board. representative split in terms of age and gender. As a part of a larger survey, they were asked to share their Twitter handles and answer the Cantril Ladder question: "Think of a ladder, with the best possible life for you being a 10 and the worst possible life being a 0. Rate your own current life on that 0 to 10 scale." They also shared basic demographic information, such as their age, sex, level of education, and income. The detailed participant demographics are reported in Table 7. | TwitterUsers2021 | | |-------------------------|--------------| | N | 296 | | Gender | 41.2% Female | | Age group | | | 18-24 years | 26 | | 25-34 years | 96 | | 35-44 years | 106 | | 45-54 years | 40 | | 55-64 years | 28 | | Highest education level | | | No formal education | 1 | | High school diploma | 39 | | Some college | 42 | | Technical Degree | 32 | | Bachelor Degree | 98 | | Graduate degree | 68 | | PhD or equivalent | 16 | | Annual household income | | | less than $20,000 | 34 | | $20,000-$44,999 | 42 | | $45,000-$139,999 | 133 | | $140,000-$149,999 | 35 | | $150,000-$199,999 | 31 | | More than $200,000 | 21 | Table 7: Demographic statistics of the TwitterUsers2021 dataset. ## C.1 Annotation A sample of 1000 happy moments from HappyDB2021 was published as an Amazon Mechanical Task to get five annotations per moment, to obtain annotations for agency and social interaction, following the same instructions as the original CLAffHappyDB task. Annotators looked for evidence of: - Personal agency: Describing whether or not the author was directly responsible for the happy moment that occurred. Example: "I made a nice birthday cake today." - Social Interaction: Indicating whether or not other the happy moment involved other people. Example: "I had a good lunch with my mom." The detailed annotator instructions are sourced from (Jaidka et al., 2019) and are reported in Figure 5(b). ## C.2 Semi-Supervised Labeling We used a semi-supervised approach to annotate HappyDB-expand and the Kaggle Emotion datasets with Agency and Social Interaction labels with the help of the best-performing BERT-PsyAM classifiers trained on CLAff-HappyDB. By loading the pretrained parameters of Agency and Social taskspecified psychological constructs adaptor modules(PCAMS), the BERT-PsyAM can easily predict psychological constructs labels. Furthermore, they can be applied to the main task of fine-tuning emotion classification in HappyDB-expand and the Kaggle Emotion datasets settings. Classification accuracies are reported in Table 8. Table 8: Classification accuracies for models trained independently on agency and social interaction labels from CLAff-HappyDB. We used the BERTPsyAM models to generate further labels on HappyDBextended, SA-Emotions, and GoEmotions. | Approach | Agency | Social | |-------------------|----------|----------| | Mlpclassifier | 79.82 | 88.98 | | Bert base | 84.89 | 91.54 | | Bert finetune | 85.43 | 92.49 | | (Yu et al., 2021) | 85.51 | 92.68 | | BERT-PsyAM | 85.70 | 92.40 |   (b) ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Yes, in the Conclusion ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Yes, in the Conclusion ✓ 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?** Yes, Section 4 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Yes, Section 4 ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? We have included the link to the data repository where no PII is included. ✓ 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)? Yes, in the Conclusion 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.? Yes, in the 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. Yes, in Section 4 and in the Appendix ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Yes, In Section 4 And 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? Yes, in Section 4 and 5 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? Yes, in Section 4 and 5 ✓ 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? Yes, in 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.)? Yes, in Section 4 and 5 D ✓ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Yes in Section 4 and in the Appendix ✓ 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.? Yes in the Appendix ✓ 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)? Yes in Section 4 and in the Appendix ✓ 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? Yes in the Appendix ✓ D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Yes in Section 4 and in the Appendix ✓ D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Yes in Section 4 and in the Appendix

qixiang-etal-2023-value

Value type: the bridge to a better {DST} model

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.78

Value type of the slots can provide lots of useful information for DST tasks. However, it has been ignored in most previous works. In this paper, we propose a new framework for DST task based on these value types. Firstly, we extract the type of token from each turn. Specifically, we divide the slots in the dataset into 9 categories according to the type of slot value, and then train a Ner model to extract the corresponding type-entity from each turn of conversation according to the token. Secondly, we improve the attention mode which is integrated into value type information between the slot and the conversation history to help each slot pay more attention to the turns that contain the same value type. Meanwhile, we introduce a sampling strategy to integrate these types into the attention formula, which decrease the error of Ner model. Finally, we conduct a comprehensive experiment on two multi-domain task-oriented conversation datasets, MultiWOZ 2.1 and MultiWOZ 2.4. The ablation experimental results show that our method is effective on both datasets, which verify the necessity of considering the type of slot value.

# Value Type: The Bridge To A Better Dst Model Qixiang Gao1⇤**, Mingyang Sun**1⇤ Yutao Mou1, Chen Zeng1**, Weiran Xu**1⇤ 1Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing, China {gqx,mysun}@bupt.edu.cn {myt,chenzeng,xuweiran}@bupt.edu.cn ## Abstract Value type of the slots can provide lots of useful information for DST tasks. However, it has been ignored in most previous works. In this paper, we propose a new framework for DST task based on these value types. Firstly, we extract the type of token from each turn. Specifically, we divide the slots in the dataset into 9 categories according to the type of slot value, and then train a Ner model to extract the corresponding type-entity from each turn of conversation according to the token. Secondly, we improve the attention mode which is integrated into value type information between the slot and the conversation history to help each slot pay more attention to the turns that contain the same value type. Meanwhile, we introduce a sampling strategy to integrate these types into the attention formula, which decrease the error of Ner model. Finally, we conduct a comprehensive experiment on two multi-domain taskoriented conversation datasets, MultiWOZ 2.1 and MultiWOZ 2.4. The ablation experimental results show that our method is effective on both datasets, which verify the necessity of considering the type of slot value. ## 1 Introduction Task-oriented dialogue systems have become more and more important as people's demand for life increases(booking flights or restaurants), which have become increasingly important in the field of NLP(Nature Language Process). (Henderson et al., 2019; Hung et al., 2021; Zheng et al., 2022) Traditionally, the task-oriented dialogue system consists of four modules (Zhang et al., 2020): Natural language understanding(NLU), Dialogue state tracking(DST), Dialogue manager(DM) and Natural language generation(NLG). This module directly affects the decision-making behavior of the dialogue system, and plays an extremely important ⇤The first two authors contribute equally. Weiran Xu is the corresponding author. Sys: yes, the autumn house is on the east part of time, the prices are cheap and it is 4 stars. is there anything else you would like to know? Usr: no, i just want to book it for 2 people for 5 nights starting wednesday. Turn_label: hotel-area=east, hotel-book day=wednesday, hotel-people=2, hotel-book stay=5, hotel-princerange=cheap, hotel-stars=4 Sys: your friend has good taste. It is located at 02:00 rose crescent city centre, postcode cb23ll. Usr: i would like to book a table for 7 people on Monday at 15:15 please. Turn_label: restaurant-book day=monday, restaurant-book people=7, restaurant-book time=15:15 Sys: Usr: i would like a taxi from saint johns college to pizza hut fenditton. Turn_label: taxi-departure=saint johns college, taxi-destination=pizza hut fenditton Figure 1: Common slot-value types in conversation, such as location, adjective, number and time. role in the task-based dialogue system. (Lee et al., 2019) The recent methods in DST work are mainly divided into two categories. The first category is based on ontology which means the candidate slot value is assumed to be known eg (Zhou et al., 2022; Ye et al., 2021b; Guo et al., 2021). The second is the way without ontology. These studies have completely abandoned ontology, and they assume that the slot value is unknown. eg(Wu et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2019; Kumar et al., 2020; Lin et al., 2021). However, most of their work is based on dialog state, dialog and slot modeling, ignoring that the value type of each slot may be different. If these slots are modeled uniformly, then there is a lack of a specific feature of each slot. In this work, we propose a new DST framework named SVT-DST, which uses the Slot-Value Type as the bridge to increrase the model performance. With this method, each slot has specificity for the attention of the conversation history to better identify the slot value. Specifically, we first classify all the slots in the dataset according to their slot value types. As shown in Figure 1, adjectives, time and numbers correspond to pricerange, arrive-time and book-people respectively. We train a sequence annotation model with dialogue training which is used to extarct entities and corresponding entitytypes in each on the turn. We hope that the attention between the dialogue and slots can be higher when the turn is near to current turn with the same slotvalue type. In order to achieve the goal, we use monotonically decreasing functions to integrate the attention weights, which will be described in detail in the method. we use monotonically decreasing functions to integrate these types into the attention operation. Our main contributions are as follows: 1) We classify the slot according to the slot-value type, then train the Ner model to extract these types to improve the attention formula. 2)We design a sampling strategy to integrate these types into the attention formula, which decrease the error of Ner model. 3)We have achieved competitive results on MultiWOZ 2.1 and 2.4. We analyze the results and point out the future work. 2 Method Figure 2 shows the structure of our DST model, including encoder, attention module and slot value processing module. In this section, we will introduce each module of this method in detail. A T-turn conversation can be expressed as Ct = {(U1, R1), ...,(Rt1, Ut)}, where Rt represents system discourse and Ut represents user discourse. We define the dialogue state of the t-th turn as Bt = {(Sj , V tj )| 1 <= j <= J}, where V tj represents the value of the j-th slot Sj in the t-th turn. J represents the number of predefined slots. Follow (Ren et al., 2018), we express the slot as a "domain slot" pair, such as 'restaurant-price range'. ## 2.1 Encoder Follow(Ye et al., 2021b) , we use two bert (Devlin et al., 2018) models to encode context and slot respectively. ## 2.1.1 Context Encoder We express the dialogue at turn t as Dt = Rt Ut, where represents sentence connection. Then the history of the dialogue including t-th turn as Mt = D1 D2 ... Dt.The input of the context encoder is Xt = [CLS]Mt[SEP]. The output of the encoder is: $$C_{t}=b e r t_{f i n e t u n e d}(X_{t})\qquad\qquad(1)$$ Where Ct 2 R|Xt|⇥d, |Xt| is the length of Mt and d is the hidden size of bert. bert*f inetuned* indicates that the bert model updates a part of parameters during training. ## 2.1.2 Slot-Value Related Encoder We employ the first token to represent the aggregate representation of the entire input sequence. Therefore, for any slot Sj 2 S(1 j J) and any value vtj 2 Vj we have: $$\begin{array}{l}{{h^{S_{j}}=b e r t_{f i x e d}(S_{j})\in R^{1\times d}}}\\ {{h^{v_{j}^{t}}=b e r t_{f i x e d}(v_{j}^{t})\in R^{1\times d}}}\end{array}$$ (2) (3) $\frac{1}{2}$ For the last turn of dialogue state Bt1, we have $$h^{B_{t-1}}=bert_{fixed}(B_{t-1})\tag{4}$$ Where $h^{B_{t-1}}\in R^{|B_{t-1}|\times d}$, $B_{-1}=Null$. $$(4)$$ bert*f ixed* indicates that the bert model has fixed parameters during training. ## 2.2 Cross-Attention We use the multi-head-attention module(Vaswani et al., 2017) as the basis of our attention module. ## 2.2.1 Slot-Context Attention We first calculate the bias term of the attention formula. For each dialogue history Mt, we first use the monotonically decreasing distribution function ⌘(n) to initialize the weight of each turn of dialogue Dt in the dialogue history: $$\psi(n)=\int_{n}^{n+1}\eta(n)d n\qquad\qquad(5)$$ Where n = Tt, n represents the distance between the last turn and the current turn. The closer the distance is, the greater the weight will be obtained. Note that (T) represents the weight of distance T for this turn (turn 0) and the latest turn t. We record the turns of the value type *type*j with slot Sj in the history: $$\omega=[m,...,n]$$ $$(6)$$ $$\quad(7)$$ Where n>m, which represents the turn indexs. Then we calculate the weight of these turns: $$\Omega_{j,t}^{i}=\left\{\begin{array}{c}{{\psi(T-i),i\in\omega}}\\ {{0,e l s e}}\end{array}\right.$$ 0*, else* (7) Finally, we add these two weights according to the turn indexs to get bias: $$b i a s_{j,t}=\Omega_{j,t}=[\Omega_{j,t}^{0},...,\Omega_{j,t}^{t}]$$ $$(8)$$  The attention between Sj and Ct can be calculated as: $$A_{j,t}^{C}=Softmax(\frac{Q_{j}K_{t}^{T}}{\sqrt{d_{k}}}+\varphi(bias_{j,t})W_{bias})V_{t}\tag{9}$$ $$A_{j,t}^{C,FFN}=W_{2}^{r}ReLU(W_{1}^{r}[(h^{S_{j}},A_{j,t}^{C}]+b_{1}^{r})+b_{2}^{r}\tag{10}$$ Where '() indicates a learnable mapping built by embedding. W*bias*, Wr1 and Wr2 indicates a linear layer, respectively. ## 2.2.2 Slot-State Attention For Sj and Bt1, their attention can be expressed as: $$A^{B}_{j,t-1}=MultiHead(h^{S_{j}},h_{B_{t-1}},h_{B_{t-1}})\tag{11}$$ $$A^{B,FFN}_{j,t-1}=W^{r}_{4}ReLU(W^{r}_{3}[(h^{S_{j}},A^{B}_{j,t-1}]+b^{r}_{1})\tag{12}$$ $$+b^{r}_{2}\tag{13}$$ inspired by (Zhou et al., 2022), we employ a gate module to combine the attention between Slotcontext and Slot-state: $$\begin{array}{l}{{g_{j}^{t}=\sigma(W_{j}^{s}\otimes[A_{j,t}^{C,F F N};A_{j,t-1}^{B,F F N}])}}\\ {{m_{j}^{t}=g_{j}^{t}\cdot A_{j,t}^{C}+(1-g_{j}^{t})\cdot A_{j,t-1}^{B}}}\end{array}$$ j,t1 ]) (13) Where ⌦ indicates vector product, indicates the sigmoid function and · indicates element-wise product operation. ## 2.3 Self-Attention And Value Matching In this part, we have followed the relevant part of (Ye et al., 2021b). ## 2.4 Ner Model And Sampling Strategy We employ the W2NER model(Li et al., 2022) as our tagging model. The strategy of our labelmaking is that: for each value in the ontology, if the value is in current turn, we will tagging this value. For sampling strategy, only when the target entities are different from entities extracted from previous turns, this turn will be marked with the entities' type. This strategy helps to reduce the interference of duplicate entities. For the specific classification of each slot, please refer to the appendix. In particular, for bool type, we train the annotation model to extract keywords, such as internet, parking, etc. ## 2.5 Optimization We use the sum of the negative log-likelihood as the loss function at each turn t: $$L_{t}=-\sum_{j=1}^{J}l o g(P(V_{j}^{t}\mid X_{t},S_{t}))\qquad(15)$$ $$(13)$$ Where $$P(V_{j}^{t}\mid X_{t},S_{t})=\frac{exp(-||\gamma_{S_{j}^{t}}^{t}-h^{V_{j}^{t}}||_{2})}{\sum\limits_{V_{j}^{t}\in V_{j}}exp(-||\gamma_{S_{j}^{t}}^{t}-h^{V_{j}^{t}}||_{2})}\tag{16}$$ $\gamma_{S_{j}^{t}}^{t}$ indicates the output of self-attention module corresponding to Sj at the t-th turn. | Model | Joint Goal Acc 2.1 2.4 | | |-----------------|--------------------------|--------| | Trade | 45.60% | 55.05% | | Tripy | 55.18% | 64.75% | | MinTL-BART | 53.62% | - | | STAR | 56.36% | 73.62% | | MSP-B | 56.20% | - | | Tripy-R | 55.99% | 69.87% | | SST | 55.23% | - | | LUNA | 57.62% | - | | Frame-Base | 53.28% | 66.15% | | Ours(NER) | 55.37% | 68.93% | | Ours(NER wo:SP) | 53.68% | 66.46% | | Ours(GD) | 59.27% | 75.01% | ## 3 Experiments 3.1 Dataset, Metric And Evaluation We evaluate our method on these datasets: MultiWOZ 2.1 (Eric et al., 2019) and MultiWOZ 2.4 (Ye et al., 2021a) which provide turn-level annotations of dialogue states in 7 different domains. We evaluate our method on this dataset and follow the pre-processing and evaluation setup from (Wu et al., 2019), where restaurant, train, attraction, hotel, and taxi domains are used for training and testing. We use Joint Goal Accuracy that is the average accuracy of predicting all slot assignments for a given service in a turn correctly to evaluate the main results of models. ## 3.2 Baselines (1) Trade: Transferable dialogue state generator (Wu et al., 2019) which utilizes copy mechanism to facilitate domain knowledge transfer. (2) Tripy: It applies three copying mechanisms to extract all values (Heck et al., 2020) (3) MinTL: An effective transfer learning framework for task-oriented dialogue systems(Lin et al., 2020),which uses T5 (Raffel et al., 2020) and Bart (Lewis et al., 2019). (4) Star: Framework with self-attention modules to learn the relationship between slots better (Ye et al., 2021b) from the dialogue context. (5) SST: a multi-domain dialogue state tracker which employs graph methods to fuse utterance and schema graph.(Chen et al., 2020) (6) TripyR: The model with a new training strategy based on Tripy (Heck et al., 2022). (7) MSP-B: An extraction model with mentioned slot pool(MSP) (Sun et al., 2022) (8) | Function | Joint Goal Acc 2.1 2.4 | | |------------------|--------------------------|--------| | y = 1/2*(x+1) | 53.79% | 68.06% | | y = 1/(x+1) | 53.80% | 68.06% | | y = (x-30)^2/900 | 54.79% | 67.47% | | y = 1/2*(x+1)+1 | 55.08% | 69.75% | | y = 1-x/30 | 55.37% | 68.93% | LUNA: It applies a slot-turn alignment strategy to accurately locate slot values and their associated context. (Wang et al., 2022) ## 3.3 Main Results And Analysis Experiments Table 1 shows the results of our main test and ablation study. Our base model achieved 53.28% for the joint-acc, while our Ner-based model achieved 55.37% , a significant improvement of 2.09% compared with the base model. In 2.4 dataset, our model achieved 68.28%, a significant improvement of 2.93% compared with the base model. And When we use the correct type labels for training, the model performance reaches 59.27%, which has exceeded all baseline models. Ground truth is extracted according to the slot-type in the turn label, similar to our sampling strategy. In order to model the attention of state and dialog history separately, we changed the attention in Star(Ye et al., 2021b) to the fusion of slot attention and dialog history attention. Such changes reduced the performance of the model. However, the ablation experiment shows that the method we proposed can really benefit the model indicators. Table 2 shows the results of our analysis experiments, which use different distribution functions to model attention. For both 2.1 and 2.4 datasets, the experimental results show that under different distribution function modeling, the distribution with constant term bias may produce higher results such as 0.5 ⇤ (1 + x)+1 and 1 x/30. And it often has a positive impact on the experiment when the power of the independent variable is 1. ## 3.4 Case Study We conducted a series of analytical experiments on attention weights. As shown in the Table 3, we randomly selected a slot, "attraction-name," and then chose an example PMUL4648 from the test set to observe the attention distribution of this slot | Attention Score | | | | | | | |-------------------|------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | Function | param\turn | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | | score | 2.6213 | 1.9166 | 2.9988 | 2.9706 | 0.3718 | | | y = 1/2*(x+1) | b | -0.2587 | -0.1632 | -0.2587 | -0.2587 | -0.2521 | | score+b | 2.3626 | 1.7534 | 2.7401 | 2.7120 | 0.1196 | | | score | 5.5183 | 2.5206 | 2.6990 | 2.0383 | -0.1586 | | | y = (x-30)^2/900 | b | 0.1107 | -0.1631 | 0.1107 | 0.1107 | 0.0921 | | score+b | 5.6291 | 2.3576 | 2.8097 | 2.1490 | -0.0666 | | | score | 4.3446 | 2.7369 | 3.2936 | 3.4940 | 0.3512 | | | y = 1/2*(x+1)+1 | b | -0.2793 | -0.1633 | -0.2793 | -0.2793 | -0.2714 | | socre+b | 4.0653 | 2.5737 | 3.0143 | 3.2146 | 0.0798 | | for each turn in the test samples. In the example, the attraction-name slot is activated in the turn 2. It can be seen that function 3 noticed this turn with a large weight, followed by function 1. As a comparison, function 2 assigned larger weights to the first turn, which is sufficient to indicate that the fitting effect of function 2 is weaker compared to the other two functions. Our analysis is as follows: If there is no constant term in the distribution function, the difference between score+bias and score is not significant, resulting in limited performance improvement of the model. On the other hand, the power of the independent variable is greater than 1 such as function 2, the magnitude changes too obviously after Softmax. This leads to not smooth transitions between turns, resulting in limited performance improvement. The result of using the ground truth labels training model shows that there is still huge space for improvement in Ner model annotation. One of the biggest challenges is that the annotation model often assigns certain entities to labels based on some fragmented tokens, without considering the impact of context, which leads to the proliferation of labels. We will solve this problem in future work. ## 4 Conclusion In this paper, we propose an effective method to integrate slot-types into the DST model. Specifically, we propose the SVT-DST. This framework incorporates the slot-types information into the attention operation to help model pay more attention to these turns that include the type of one slot. Further, We design a sampling strategy to integrate these types into the attention formula to decrease the error of Ner model. Results on MultiWOZ dataset show that our method has significant improvement on this task. ## Limitation This work has two main limitations: (1) The performance of the model largely depends on the performance of the annotation model. If the annotation model is too simple, it may cause the performance of the DST model to decline. On the contrary, it will increase the complexity of the overall model and prolong the reasoning time. (2) Even for the labeling model with good performance, the tagging values may also interfere with the DST model. For details, please refer to the analysis experiment. ## References Lu Chen, Boer Lv, Chi Wang, Su Zhu, Bowen Tan, and Kai Yu. 2020. Schema-guided multi-domain dialogue state tracking with graph attention neural networks. In *Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on* Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 7521–7528. 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*. Mihail Eric, Rahul Goel, Shachi Paul, Abhishek Sethi, Sanchit Agarwal, Shuyang Gao, and Dilek HakkaniTür. 2019. Multiwoz 2.1: Multi-domain dialogue state corrections and state tracking baselines. Jinyu Guo, Kai Shuang, Jijie Li, and Zihan Wang. 2021. Dual slot selector via local reliability verification for dialogue state tracking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.12578. Michael Heck, Nurul Lubis, Carel van Niekerk, Shutong Feng, Christian Geishauser, Hsien-Chin Lin, and Milica Gašic. 2022. Robust dialogue state tracking with ´ weak supervision and sparse data. *Transactions of the* Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:1175– 1192. Michael Heck, Carel van Niekerk, Nurul Lubis, Christian Geishauser, Hsien-Chin Lin, Marco Moresi, and Milica Gašic. 2020. Trippy: A triple copy strategy ´ for value independent neural dialog state tracking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.02877. Matthew Henderson, Ivan Vulic, Daniela Gerz, Iñigo ´ Casanueva, Paweł Budzianowski, Sam Coope, Georgios Spithourakis, Tsung-Hsien Wen, Nikola Mrkšic,´ and Pei-Hao Su. 2019. Training neural response selection for task-oriented dialogue systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.01543. Chia-Chien Hung, Anne Lauscher, Simone Paolo Ponzetto, and Goran Glavaš. 2021. Ds-tod: Efficient domain specialization for task oriented dialog. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.08395. Sungdong Kim, Sohee Yang, Gyuwan Kim, and SangWoo Lee. 2019. Efficient dialogue state tracking by selectively overwriting memory. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1911.03906. Adarsh Kumar, Peter Ku, Anuj Goyal, Angeliki Metallinou, and Dilek Hakkani-Tur. 2020. Ma-dst: Multiattention-based scalable dialog state tracking. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 8107–8114. Hwaran Lee, Jinsik Lee, and Tae-Yoon Kim. 2019. Sumbt: Slot-utterance matching for universal and scalable belief tracking. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.07421. Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Ves Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2019. Bart: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.13461. Jingye Li, Hao Fei, Jiang Liu, Shengqiong Wu, Meishan Zhang, Chong Teng, Donghong Ji, and Fei Li. 2022. Unified named entity recognition as word-word relation classification. In *Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence*, volume 36, pages 10965–10973. Zhaojiang Lin, Bing Liu, Seungwhan Moon, Paul Crook, Zhenpeng Zhou, Zhiguang Wang, Zhou Yu, Andrea Madotto, Eunjoon Cho, and Rajen Subba. 2021. Leveraging slot descriptions for zero-shot cross-domain dialogue state tracking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.04222. Zhaojiang Lin, Andrea Madotto, Genta Indra Winata, and Pascale Fung. 2020. Mintl: Minimalist transfer learning for task-oriented dialogue systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.12005. Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, Peter J Liu, et al. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. *J. Mach. Learn. Res.*, 21(140):1–67. Liliang Ren, Kaige Xie, Lu Chen, and Kai Yu. 2018. Towards universal dialogue state tracking. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.09587. Zhoujian Sun, Zhengxing Huang, and Nai Ding. 2022. On tracking dialogue state by inheriting slot values in mentioned slot pools. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2202.07156. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. *Advances in neural information processing* systems, 30. Yifan Wang, Jing Zhao, Junwei Bao, Chaoqun Duan, Youzheng Wu, and Xiaodong He. 2022. Luna: Learning slot-turn alignment for dialogue state tracking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.02550. Chien-Sheng Wu, Andrea Madotto, Ehsan HosseiniAsl, Caiming Xiong, Richard Socher, and Pascale Fung. 2019. Transferable multi-domain state generator for task-oriented dialogue systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.08743. Fanghua Ye, Jarana Manotumruksa, and Emine Yilmaz. 2021a. Multiwoz 2.4: A multi-domain task-oriented dialogue dataset with essential annotation corrections to improve state tracking evaluation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.00773. Fanghua Ye, Jarana Manotumruksa, Qiang Zhang, Shenghui Li, and Emine Yilmaz. 2021b. Slot selfattentive dialogue state tracking. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021, pages 1598–1608. Zheng Zhang, Ryuichi Takanobu, Qi Zhu, MinLie Huang, and XiaoYan Zhu. 2020. Recent advances and challenges in task-oriented dialog systems. *Science China Technological Sciences*, 63(10):2011– 2027. Xuanzhi Zheng, Guoshuai Zhao, Li Zhu, Jihua Zhu, and Xueming Qian. 2022. What you like, what i am: Online dating recommendation via matching individual preferences with features. *IEEE Transactions on* Knowledge and Data Engineering. Yihao Zhou, Guoshuai Zhao, and Xueming Qian. 2022. Dialogue state tracking based on hierarchical slot attention and contrastive learning. In *Proceedings of* the 31st ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management, pages 4737–4741. ## A Appendix A.1 Slot-Value Type A.2 Implementation we implement SVT-DST model based on the bertbase-uncased (110M parameters) model which has | slot | type | |-----------------|-----------| | xxx-name | location | | xxx-departure | location | | xxx-destination | location | | xxx-area | area | | xxx-day | day | | xxx-type | type | | xxx-stay | number | | xxx-book people | number | | xxx-stars | number | | xxx-arriveby | time | | xxx-leaveat | time | | restaurant-food | food | | xxx-pricerange | adjective | | hotel-parking | bool | | hotel-internet | bool | 12 layers and the hidden size is 768. The quantity of trainable parameters of the whole model is 24.85M. Our model is trained with a base learning rate of 0.0001 for 12 epochs about 4 hours. We use 1 NVIDIA 3090 GPU for all of our experiments.Joint goal accuracy is used to evaluate the performance of the models. Predicted dialogue states are correct only when all of the predicted values exactly match the correct values.The result of the model comes from the result of two averages. The annotation model is based on w2ner, which uses bert-largecased (330M parameters) as encoder. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? 5.Limitation ✗ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Our work is devoted to improving the quality of the dialogue state tracking model, and there is basically no potential risk in theory. ✓ 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?** 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?** 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 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 3.3 ✓ 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? Appendix ✓ 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 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.

li-etal-2023-hypothetical

Hypothetical Training for Robust Machine Reading Comprehension of Tabular Context

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.79

Machine Reading Comprehension (MRC) models easily learn spurious correlations from complex contexts such as tabular data. Counterfactual training{---}using the factual and counterfactual data by augmentation{---}has become a promising solution. However, it is costly to construct faithful counterfactual examples because it is tricky to maintain the consistency and dependency of the tabular data. In this paper, we take a more efficient fashion to ask \textbf{hypothetical questions} like \textit{{``}in which year would the net profit be larger if the revenue in 2019 were {\$}38,298?{''}}, whose effects on the answers are equivalent to those expensive counterfactual tables. We propose a hypothetical training framework that uses paired examples with different hypothetical questions to supervise the direction of model gradient towards the counterfactual answer change. The superior generalization results on tabular MRC datasets, including a newly constructed stress test and MultiHiertt, validate our effectiveness.

# Hypothetical Training For Robust Machine Reading Comprehension Of Tabular Context Moxin Li1**, Wenjie Wang**1∗ , Fuli Feng2, 3**, Hanwang Zhang**4, Qifan Wang5**, Tat-Seng Chua**1 1National University of Singapore, 2University of Science and Technology of China 3Institute of Dataspace, Hefei, Anhui, China, 4Nanyang Technological University 5Meta AI limoxin@u.nus.edu, wangwenjie@u.nus.edu, fulifeng93@gmail.com, cdzhangjizhi@mail.ustc.edu.cn, wqfcr@meta.com, dcscts@nus.edu.sg ## Abstract Machine Reading Comprehension (MRC) models easily learn spurious correlations from complex contexts such as tabular data. Counterfactual training—using the factual and counterfactual data by augmentation—has become a promising solution. However, it is costly to construct faithful counterfactual examples because it is tricky to maintain the consistency and dependency of the tabular data. In this paper, we take a more efficient fashion to ask hypothetical questions like *"in which year* would the net profit be larger if the revenue in 2019 were $38,298?", whose effects on the answers are equivalent to those expensive counterfactual tables. We propose a hypothetical training framework that uses paired examples with different hypothetical questions to supervise the direction of model gradient towards the counterfactual answer change. The superior generalization results on tabular MRC datasets, including a newly constructed stress test and MultiHiertt, validate our effectiveness. ## 1 Introduction Machine Reading Comprehension (Dua et al., 2019; Rajpurkar et al., 2016) trains deep models to understand the natural language context by answering questions. However, these deep models easily learn spurious correlations (*a.k.a.* shortcuts) (Ko et al., 2020; McCoy et al., 2019; Yu et al., 2020) between the context and answer, *e.g.,* entries at the first column have higher chance to be chosen as answers in complex financial tables. Consequently, the context understanding is incomplete or even biased, leading to significant performance drop on testing examples without such shortcut (*e.g.,* F1score drops from 74.9 to 40.0, cf. Table 1) Therefore, it is crucial to resolve the spurious correlation issue in the MRC task with tabular context. Counterfactual training (Abbasnejad et al., 2020; Teney et al., 2020; Feng et al., 2021; Zhu et al., ∗Corresponding author. 2020) is effective for blocking the spurious correlations in various text understanding and reasoning tasks such as visual question answering (Chen et al., 2020a; Niu et al., 2021) and natural language inference (Kaushik et al., 2020). Counterfactual training augments the original *factual* training example with a counterfactual example which minimally modifies the original example's semantic meaning that changes the label, and encourages the model to learn the subtle semantic difference that makes the label change—the true causation (Figure 1a). The underlying rationale is that if the model only captures the spurious correlation, it cannot comprehend the subtle change from factual to counterfactual, and thus still predicts the original label. For MRC with tabular context, the annotation of counterfactual example is extremely expensive since extra effort is required to maintain the consistency and dependency across table entries when editing the context. As shown in Figure 7, annotators need to edit 4 extra numbers for an assumption to change one number. Although ignoring the table entry dependency may save annotation efforts, the unfaithful counterfactual tables will hurt the model robustness (cf. Section 3.3). In this work, we utilize an economic alternative: asking hypothetical questions (HQs) (Li et al., 2022a) by imposing the factual example with a counterfactual assumption, without the cost of maintaining the table consistency and dependency. The construction cost of a hypothetical example is undoubtedly lower than the counterfactual example1. A hypothetical example consists of a hypothetical question and factual context, which has the equivalent effect on the answer to the corresponding "ideal" counterfactual example. As a concrete case in Figure 1a, the counterfactual example is derived from the factual example according to the assumption *"if the revenue in 2019 were $38,298"*, which changes the answer to *"in which year was* 1Please refer to Appendix C for detailed comparison.  the net profit larger" from 2018 to *2019*. The answer of the hypothetical question—*"in which year* would the net profit be larger if the revenue in 2019 were $38,298?"—is also *2019*. Recall that the key to blocking the spurious correlation lies in encouraging the model to focus on the effect of semantic intervention on the answer change. As shown in Figure 1b, in conventional counterfactual training, given a factual "context, question, answer" example (c, q, a), we utilize a counterfactual example to regularize the learning of the mapping from c, q to a to avoid fitting spurious correlations (Teney et al., 2020). In the absence of counterfactual examples, we do the regularization in training by considering the alternative target a∗. We intend to teach the model on the semantic intervention required for the factual example to change the answer a → a∗. To obtain the information of such semantic intervention, we use a pair of hypothetical examples with different assumptions and answers (c, q∗, a∗) and (c, q¯, a), where the difference in HQ assumptions indicates the semantic intervention to change a to a∗(cf. Figure 1a). Therefore, our goal becomes how to effectively convey the information of semantic intervention from the hypothetical example pair to the factual example through training. To incorporate the information of semantic intervention from the hypothetical example pair to model training, we calculate the model gradient2 w.r.t. the input representation of the factual example towards the changed answer a∗. The gradient reflects the model's understanding on the translation direction of the input representation towards the changed answer, *i.e.,* the cause of answer change from a to a∗. Therefore, we can guide the model's understanding with the semantic intervention from the hypothetical example pair. We utilize the representation difference between the two hypothetical examples as the reference of semantic intervention, and supervise the model to align the gradient with the representation difference (cf. Figure 1b). To this end, we propose a Hypothetical Training Framework (HTF) that incorporates gradient regulation terms according to hypothetical examples to learn robust MRC models. We apply the HTF framework on a representative tabular MRC model TAGOP (Zhu et al., 2021) and conduct experiments on tabular MRC datasets TAT-QA (Zhu et al., 2021) and TAT-HQA (Li et al., 2022a) with factual examples and hypothetical examples, respectively. Experimental results validate the superior performance of HTF on a stress test and the generalization to another tabular MRC dataset MultiHiertt (Zhao et al., 2022a). Further studies show that HTF also has better understanding to various semantic interventions. Code and data will be made public upon acceptance. Our contributions are summarized as follows: - We reveal the spurious correlation issue in MRC of tabular context and propose to use hypothetical examples to economically block spurious correlations and learn robust MRC models. - We propose the hypothetical training framework, which uses hypothetical example pairs to teach the MRC model the effect of semantic intervention on the answer. - We apply HTF to the MRC model and conduct experiments on factual and hypothetical MRC datasets, validating the rationality and effectiveness of HTF in blocking spurious correlations. ## 2 Method 2The gradient can be seen as representation changes. It is different from the gradient *w.r.t.* model parameters. Machine Reading Comprehension. The MRC task aims to answer a question based on the context, where the context might be hybrid in complex scenarios, including paragraphs and tables. Formally, given a question q, the MRC model is required to reason over the context c and learn a function g(c, q) to predict the labeled answer a. Technically speaking, the function g(·) is optimized by fitting the correlation from c and q to a. However, there widely exist spurious correlations (Geirhos et al., 2020) in the complex context. Learning from such spurious correlations will ignore the semantic of c and q that causally decide the answers, leading to poor generalization ability. Counterfactual Training. A representative approach to remove spurious correlations is counterfactual training (Abbasnejad et al., 2020), which utilizes counterfactual examples to identify the semantics that causally decide the answers. As shown in Figure 1a, the counterfactual example changes the answer of the factual example by minimally perturbing the context according to an assumption with semantic intervention, *e.g., "if the revenue* in 2019 were $38,298?", highlighting the causal relationship between the semantic of the factual question and context and the answer. By training over the factual and counterfactual examples, the MRC model is able to rely on the highlighted semantic-answer relationship and thus exclude the spurious correlations (Teney et al., 2020). Nevertheless, counterfactual examples are costly to annotate, especially in complex scenarios with hybrid contexts (*e.g.,* tables and paragraphs). As shown in Figure 1a, revising the table needs to ensure the consistency and dependency across table entries. The counterfactual table is related to the assumption *"if the revenue in 2019 were $38,298* instead". Without consistency checking, *i.e.,* modifying the net profit of 2019 by "net profit = revenue - cost", the unfaithful counterfactual table is likely to confuse some questions such as the comparison of net profit. The requirement for consistency checking cannot be easily satisfied by automatic approaches. First, the tables cannot always be processed by relational databases since recent MRC datasets often utilize web-crawled semi-structured tables without clearly defined relations (Zhu et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2022b; Chen et al., 2021). Second, some conventional counterfactual generation methods such as (Yue et al., 2021; Pasupat and Liang, 2016) also cannot guarantee the fidelity of counterfactual examples. Hypothetical Example. To alleviate the burden of consistency checking, we utilize hypothetical examples as the alternative of counterfactual examples. Hypothetical example appends an assumption to the question of factual example, where the assumption describes the semantic intervention over the factual context, causing the same answer change as the counterfactual example. For instance, in Figure 1a, the assumption "*if the revenue in 2019 were* $38,298 instead?" summarizes the changes in the table of the counterfactual example. Compared to editing the complex table with dependency requirements, it is cost-friendly to construct hypothetical examples by appending assumptions to the questions in natural language (refer to Appendix C for more comparison). ## 2.1 Hypothetical Training To remove the spurious correlations, the key lies in capturing the semantic intervention leading to answer changes. To this end, HTF calculates the semantic differences between a pair of hypothetical examples with distinct answers, and then pushes the MRC models to learn the effect of such semantic differences on answer change. Specifically, given a pair of hypothetical examples (c, q¯, a) and (c, q∗, a∗), we first calculate their representation differences, and then utilize the differences to regulate the gradients of factual example towards the changed answer. Intuitively, the representation differences reflect the semantic intervention, and the gradients indicate how the representation change can lead to changed answers. The alignment between representation differences and gradients reflects whether the MRC models properly capture semantic intervention. Given a pair of hypothetical examples (c, q¯, a) and (c, q∗, a∗), we pursue the alignment by minimizing a regularization term as follows: $${\mathcal{L}}_{f}=1-\cos\left(\nabla^{\intercal}f_{a^{*}}(X_{f}),X_{h}^{*}-{\bar{X}}_{h}\right),\quad(1)$$ where X¯h and X∗ h denote the representations of (c, q¯) and (c, q∗) encoded by the MRC model via feature extractors (*e.g.,* Pre-trained Language Model (PrLM) (Liu et al., 2019)). We calculate X∗ h − X¯h as the semantic differences of the hypothetical example pair, which cause answer changing from a to a∗. For the normal training of a factual example (c, q, a), the MRC model encodes the context-question pair (c, q) into the representation Xf , and then leverages a function f(Xf ) to predict the answers a. To inspect whether the MRC model captures the semantic differences, we calculate the gradients *w.r.t.* the factual representation Xf towards the changed answer a∗, *i.e.,* ∇⊺fa∗ (Xf ). Such gradients represent the translation direction of the representation Xf that can change the answer from a to a∗. As such, we can teach the model to learn the semantic differences by encouraging these gradients to align with X∗ h − X¯h, which is achieved by minimizing their cosine distance. Similarly, we have the representation X∗ h of the hypothetical example (c, q∗, a∗). We also regulate the gradients of the hypothetical example towards the changed answer a 3, *i.e.,* ∇⊺fa(X∗ h ), which describes how X∗ h changes can vary the answer from a∗to a. As compared to the gradients of the factual example, the gradients of this hypothetical example conversely change the answer from a∗to a. Therefore, ∇⊺fa(X∗ h ) should be regulated in the opposite direction of ∇⊺fa∗ (Xf ): $${\mathcal{L}}_{h}=1-\cos\left(\nabla^{\intercal}f_{a}(X_{h}^{*}),{\bar{X}}_{h}-X_{h}^{*}\right).\tag{2}$$ ## 2.2 Instantiation We adopt TAGOP (Zhu et al., 2021) as our backbone MRC model in HTF, which is designed to reason on the tabular and textual context. Powered by PrLM (Liu et al., 2019), TAGOP first flattens the tables in c by row, and then transforms the concatenated c and q into the representation, denoted as X ∈ R L×D, where L is the number of the tokens in c and q, and D is the representation dimension. Thereafter, TAGOP utilizes sequence tagging to select the answer span(s) from the context, which transforms X through a 2-layer Feed-Forward Network (FFN) followed by softmax to predict the positive or negative label for each token in the context. Formally, $$\begin{array}{l}\left\{\begin{array}{l}\mathbf{p_{i}}=\mbox{softmax}\left(\mbox{FFN}(\mathbf{X_{i}})\right),i=1,\ldots,N\\ \mathbf{t_{i}}=\mbox{arg}\max(\mathbf{p_{i}}),\end{array}\right.\end{array}\tag{3}$$ where N is the context length since the answer is from the the context region of the input. pi ∈ R 2 represents the positive and negative probabilities of the i-th token in the context, and ti ∈ {0, 1} denotes the final predicted label. TAGOP adopts an answer-type predictor to decide selecting one or multiple entries and words from the context, or counting the number of positive entries and words (Zhu et al., 2021). The loss function Lt of TAGOP is the sum of 1) the negative log-likelihood loss for tagging; and 2) the crossentropy loss of the answer-type predictor. In this work, we additionally consider two regularization terms for hypothetical training, and the overall loss function is as follows: $${\mathcal{L}}_{t}+\alpha{\mathcal{L}}_{f}+\beta{\mathcal{L}}_{h},$$ $$(4)$$ Lt + αLf + βLh, (4) where α and β control the influence of the two regularization terms on the optimization. ## 2.3 Theoretical Justification In this section, we explain the rationality of regularizing the model gradients by the representation differences between a pair of hypothetical examples (c, q¯, a) and (c, q∗, a∗). Given their representations X¯h and X∗ h , the MRC model adopts the function f(·) : R L×D → R N to output their logits over N context tokens. We then consider the Taylor Expansion of f(X∗ h ) regarding X¯h: $$\begin{split}\left\{f(\mathbf{X}_{h}^{*})=f(\bar{\mathbf{X}}_{h})+\mathbf{J}\cdot(\mathbf{X}_{h}^{*}-\bar{\mathbf{X}}_{h})+o(\mathbf{X}_{h}^{*}-\bar{\mathbf{X}}_{h}),\right.\\ \left.\mathbf{J}=\begin{bmatrix}\nabla^{\intercal}f_{1}(\bar{\mathbf{X}}_{h})\\ \cdots\\ \nabla^{\intercal}f_{N}(\bar{\mathbf{X}}_{h})\end{bmatrix},\right.\end{split}\tag{5}$$ where o(·) denotes the Taylor Remainder and J ∈ R N×M is the Jacobian Matrix. M = L × D is the dimension of the representation X¯h. The i-th row in J represents the gradients from the positive logits of the i-th token fi(X¯h) to the input representation X¯h. Besides, since the assumptions minimally do intervention to the factual example, we assume that the representations of X¯h and X∗ h are close to each other. Therefore, the representation differences between X∗ h and X¯h are small, and (X∗ h −X¯h) K will be close to zero when K > 1 (Teney et al., 2020). In this light, we ignore higher order terms in o(X∗ h −X¯h) and mainly focus on the first order term J(X∗ h − X¯h). To remove spurious correlations, f(·) is expected to learn the effect of the slight representation differences on the answer changes. Given different input representations X∗ h and X¯h, f(·) should be able to maximize the answer prediction difference, i.e., , the logit difference f(X∗ h ) − f(X¯h) over the ground-truth tokens in the answer a∗. From Equation (5), we have $$f_{\mathbf{a}^{*}}(\mathbf{X}_{h}^{*})-f_{\mathbf{a}^{*}}(\bar{\mathbf{X}}_{h})\approx\nabla^{\intercal}f_{\mathbf{a}^{*}}(\bar{\mathbf{X}}_{h})\cdot(\mathbf{X}_{h}^{*}-\bar{\mathbf{X}}_{h})\tag{6}$$ where fa∗ (X∗ h ) and fa∗ (X¯h) are the predicted logits for the tokens in the answer a∗, and ∇⊺fa∗ (X¯h) in J refers to the gradients for a∗. From Equation (6), we can maximize the logit difference by increasing the dot product ∇⊺fa∗ (X¯h)·(X∗ h − X¯h). However, optimizing via dot product is normsensitive so that the function f(·) is easy to increase the norm of gradients but ignore the directions. As such, we choose to minimize the cosine distance in the implementation. Note that the cosine distance is calculated after flattening the matrices into vectors. The empirical results in Section 3.3 also validate the superiority of using cosine distance. Based on the above analysis, we explain the rationality of Equation (1) and Equation (2), respectively. Because the factual example (c, q, a) and the hypothetical example (c, q¯, a) have the same answer under the same context and question semantics, ∇⊺fa∗ (Xf ) and ∇⊺fa∗ (X¯ ) refer to the same translation direction of changing the representations of the same semantics towards the changed answer a∗, and thus we can again adopt X∗ h − X¯h to regulate the direction of ∇⊺fa∗ (Xf ) as shown in Equation (1). Besides, we can perform similar Taylor Expansion for f(X¯h) regarding f(X∗ h ), and constrain the gradients of another hypothetical example (c, q∗, a∗), *i.e.,* ∇⊺fa(X∗ h ) by X¯h − X∗ h symmetrically, as shown in Equation (2). ## 3 Experiments In this section, we conduct experiments to answer the following research questions: **RQ1:** How does the proposed HTF perform on removing spurious correlations? **RQ2:** How do the regularization terms of HTF influence its effectiveness? **RQ3:** How does HTF improve the MRC model regarding different spurious correlations? ## 3.1 Experimental Setup Datasets. We conduct experiments on TAT-QA (Zhu et al., 2021), a MRC dataset in the financial domain with a hybrid of text and tabular context, and TAT-HQA (Li et al., 2022a), which contains hypothetical questions for TAT-QA. To reduce the complexity of answer derivation and focus on studying spurious correlations, we filter out the questions that explicitly execute numerical operations, and only keep the types of questions that extract text spans which still perform numerical rea-  soning4. Note that TAT-HQA only contains one hypothetical example with a different answer from the corresponding factual example in TAT-QA. We thus expand the TAT-HQA dataset by adding another hypothetical example with the same answer as the factual example. For evaluation, we first present the validation result of a mix of TAT-QA and TATHQA. Besides, we create two tests with different distributions to examine the ability to block spurious correlations. One is a stress test built from TAT-QA by manually making subtle but critical edits on the factual example to change its label (an example in Figure 2). Another test is based on MultiHiertt (Zhao et al., 2022b), a numerical MRC dataset with table and textual context, to examine the generalization ability to other datasets, where a better generalization performance indicates less reliance on spurious correlation. Because MultiHiertt contains long tables and text context and requires a retrieval stage, we directly use the top K retrieval results to construct TAT-QA-like context. We find that the value of K would affect the performance, and thus we create three variations with different values of K and report the averaged results. For details of dataset construction, please refer to Appendix A. We adopt the two common metrics for MRC tasks (Dua et al., 2019), exact-match (EM) and F1, both in the range of [0, 100]. Compared Methods. We compare HTF with the following methods. 1) *Vanilla baselines*: mOQ trains the MRC model with the factual examples in TAT-QA, *i.e.,* the model learns to answer the original question (OQ); **m-OQ&HQ** trains the model with a mixture of OQs in TAT-QA and HQs in TAT-HQA, which is a simple data augmentation without consideration of the relation between question pairs; and similarly **m-OQ&2HQ** trains the model with a mixture of OQs and two kinds of HQs. | TAT-QA&HQA | Stress Test | MultiHiertt | | | | | |--------------|---------------|---------------|------|------|------|------| | EM | F1 | EM | F1 | EM | F1 | | | m-OQ | 62.6 | 74.9 | 32.2 | 40.0 | 9.7 | 12.8 | | m-OQ&HQ | 66.5 | 78.9 | 35.4 | 42.0 | 11.5 | 13.7 | | m-OQ&2HQ | 67.5 | 79.1 | 37.2 | 43.4 | 12.8 | 15.7 | | CF-VQA | 66.4 | 77.8 | 36.4 | 42.9 | 10.1 | 13.3 | | xERM | 67.1 | 78.1 | 35.8 | 43.0 | 11.8 | 13.6 | | CLO | 67.0 | 78.1 | 37.8 | 43.7 | 12.5 | 15.4 | | GS | 66.9 | 78.0 | 36.5 | 43.7 | 11.6 | 14.2 | | BAI | 67.8 | 78.8 | 36.2 | 43.5 | 12.0 | 14.8 | | HTF | 67.9 | 79.2 | 39.7 | 46.0 | 15.3 | 18.5 | 2) *Debiasing methods* to mitigate the bias from the context branch: **CF-VQA** (Niu et al., 2021) utilizes a counterfactual inference framework to mitigate the bias; **xERM** (Zhu et al., 2022) improves CFVQA by adjusting the factual and counterfactual models with the weights of their empirical risks. 3) *Counterfactual training methods*: CLO (Liang et al., 2020) adopts a contrastive learning objective to supervise the relationship between the factual and two hypothetical examples; GS (Teney et al., 2020) applies gradient supervision between factual and hypothetical example pairs to shape the decision boundary. 4) *Interventional training method*: BAI (Yu et al., 2022) performs interventions to discover unknown and complex confounders and adopt invariant learning objectives to avoid confounders. For all compared methods, we adopt TAGOP (Zhu et al., 2021) as the backend model, which is a representative MRC model on tabular context; and we select hyperparameters according to the EM score on the validation set. More implementation details can be found in Appendix B. ## 3.2 Performance Comparison (Rq1) Table 1 shows the performance of all compared methods. We can observe that: 1) In all cases, the performance on TAT-QA & HQA is much higher than that on the stress test and MultiHiertt, showing that it is challenging to generalize to the stress test and other datasets. 2) The proposed HTF outperforms all compared methods on the stress test and MultiHierrt indicating its least reliance on spurious correlations, while maintaining comparably top performance on TAT-QA & HQA. Especially, the superior performance of HTF than m-OQ&2HQ validates the rationality of considering the relationships between factual and hypothetical examples w/o Lf 39.0 45.5 12.5 16.1 w/o Lh 38.3 44.9 13.7 16.6 L dot f & L dot h 37.7 43.6 12.3 15.0 L GS f & L GS h 39.2 45.7 13.2 16.2 L q∗ f & L q∗ h38.2 44.7 13.5 16.6 HTF **39.7 46.0 15.3 18.5** EM F1 EM F1 Stress Test MultiHiertt via hypothetical training. 3) Comparing the top three vanilla baselines, we observe that adding two kinds of hypothetical examples can clearly bring performance gain over all tests, verifying the rationality of using hypothetical examples to mitigate spurious correlations. 4) Debiasing methods cannot achieve more performance gains than m-OQ&2HQ, no matter whether the bias is from the context branch (CF-VQA, xERM) or discovered by interventions (BAI). 5) Counterfactual training methods (CLO, GS) also underperform HTF, showing the effectiveness of HTF in leveraging the relationship between factual and hypothetical examples. ## 3.3 Ablation Studies (Rq2) Ablation Study of HTF Regularization. We reveal the contribution of each gradient regularization term Lf and Lh by the ablation experiments w/o Lf and w/o Lh. As shown in Table 2, we observe that the performance decreases on the two tests if we remove either Lf or Lh. This validates that both gradient regularization terms are critical to remove spurious correlations and enhance the generalization performance. Rationality of Cosine Regularization. As illustrated in Section 2.3, we compare the regularization terms implemented by dot product or cosine distance. From the results in Table 2, we find that the dot product L dot f & L dot hlargely underperforms HTF with cosine regularization. We attribute the significant difference to that the dot product is norm-sensitive, for which the gradient norm is easily increased while the direction is undermined. Validation of Calculating the Gradient towards the Changed Label. In our justification, we reach a different conclusion from GS (Teney et al., 2020) that the gradient loss should be calculated towards the changed label instead of the factual label. We run a variant of HTF by calculating the gradient towards the factual label instead of the changed label to examine our justification, denoted as L GS f & L GS h. In Table 2, we can find that 1225 Figure 3: Example of the unfaithful counterfactual table.   the variant performs worse than HTF, thus empirically validating the superiority of our justification. Moreover, we replace the factual example with the hypothetical example of the same answer in calculating the gradient in Lf , denoted as L q∗ f & L q∗ h , which clearly has inferior results than HTF but still outperforms the baselines in Table 1. Effect of unfaithful counterfactual tables. To validate our claim that counterfactual tables without consistency checking potentially hinder the answer prediction, we conduct the experiments with unfaithful counterfactual tables. We create unfaithful counterfactual tables by revising the factual tables while ignoring the dependency between table entries. For example, in Figure 3, the counterfactual table is edited from the factual table under the assumption "*if the cost for 2018 increased* to $16,240 instead". Due to "revenue=cost+net profit", only editing the cost will cause inconsistency between the table entries, leading to unfaithful counterfactual tables. If such unfaithful examples in Figure 3 are used for training with factual examples, the MRC model will wrongly attribute the answer change to the changed cost value, causing confusion in training and hurting the performance. To validate that, we annotate 220 unfaithful counterfactual examples, then train a variant of mOQ by adding the unfaithful counterfactual tables into the training data, and test it on the stress test. From the results in Figure 4, we discover that for   both the summation comparison questions (about 10%) and the other questions, the performance has a clear drop, showing that the noisy unfaithful counterfactual tables may confuse the model and it is necessary to guarantee the table consistency. ## 3.4 In-Depth Analysis (Rq3) We study the generalization ability of HTF to new semantic interventions on the table. We look into how HTF generalizes to new tables with **numbers** of unusual scale. We identify a type of questions from the stress test asking about numerical conditions, *e.g., "which values is larger (or smaller)* than a threshold A?", and generate new test cases by scaling the target numbers that are larger (or smaller) than A in the table. We increase the target number by five or six times if it is larger than A and otherwise decrease it by five or six times, denoted as slightly-scaled examples. We also try with 10 and 12 times, denoted as largely-scaled examples5. We test HTF, CLO, m-OQ and m-OQ&2HQ on the scaled examples. As shown in Figure 5, we find that all methods are affected by the scaling operation because they do not fully understand actual reasoning logic and rely on some spurious correlations. Among the methods, HTF encounters the smallest performance drop between the original examples and the scaled examples for both settings, showing that HTF achieves the best understanding on the reasoning logic of numerical condition questions by hypothetical training. We then study the spurious correlations regarding **the frequent answers** in the dataset. We conjecture that the MRC model might be inclined to predict 2019, 2018 and 2017 for questions asking about "which year" in TAT-QA as they are the most frequently appeared answers. We perform interventions from two aspects for these questions 5Note that the edited examples maintain the same answers as the original examples.  with frequent answers. Firstly, we break the word correlation between the questions and the frequent answers by replacing 2019, 2018, and 2017 in the contexts with their corresponding English words (*e.g.,* two thousand and nineteen), where the MRC model is expected to identify the span of the correct English words. This intervention is denoted as *replace*. Besides, we try changing the year order by replacing 2019, 2018, and 2017 with the English word of 2017, 2019, and 2018, respectively (denoted as *replace&shuffle*) to examine the bias toward predicting the earliest or the latest year. As shown in Figure 6, we can observe that the replacement with English words decreases the performance for all compared methods, and shuffling the year order can further damage the performance, revealing the existence of the two spurious correlations. Nevertheless, HTF has the smallest drop and thus captures the fewest spurious correlations. ## 4 Related Work Counterfactual Training. Stemming from the causal theory (Pearl et al., 2000), counterfactual training has become a popular approach recently to avoid learning spurious correlation by doing interventions on the observed data. Counterfactual examples have been applied to a wide range of task such as natural language inference (Kaushik et al., 2020), named entity recognition (Zeng et al., 2020), visual question answering (Chen et al., 2020a; Gokhale et al., 2020; Teney et al., 2020; Liang et al., 2020), Story Generation (Qin et al., 2019), MRC (Gardner et al., 2020), text classification (Choi et al., 2022), language representation (Feder et al., 2021) and information extraction (Nan et al., 2021). Researchers also apply the idea of counterfactual into designing training or inference frameworks (Niu et al., 2021; Niu and Zhang, 2021; Chen et al., 2020a; Wang et al., 2021b; Feng et al., 2021; Abbasnejad et al., 2020; Paranjape et al., 2022; Yu et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022). Apart from obtaining counterfactual examples via human-annotation, researcher also study automatically generating counterfactual examples (Paranjape et al., 2022; Geva et al., 2022; Ye et al., 2021; Longpre et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2021; Sauer and Geiger, 2021). In tabular MRC task, automatically creating counterfactual examples is infeasible and sufficient human knowledge is still essential. We are inspired by the hypothetical questions proposed in (Li et al., 2022a) which we think can be an economic alternative for counterfactual tables, and we are the first to study removing spurious correlations with hypothetical examples. Spurious Correlation. The problem of spurious correlation has been studied by a wide range of machine learning tasks, such as the unimodal bias in VQA (Cadene et al., 2019), the position bias of MRC (Ko et al., 2020), the hypothesis-only bias of NLI (Poliak et al., 2018), the word alignment of passage and options in QA (Yu et al., 2020), the simplicity bias (Teney et al., 2022), all of which hinder the generalization ability of deep models to out-of-distribution test sets (*e.g.,* (Agrawal et al., 2018; Kaushik et al., 2020)). Solutions have been propose to solve the spurious correlation problems apart from the counterfactual training approaches mentioned above, such as capturing and then mitigating the bias (He et al., 2019; Cadene et al., 2019; Ghaddar et al., 2021; Mahabadi et al., 2020), training multiple models (Teney et al., 2022; Clark et al., 2019; Pagliardini et al., 2022), invariant learning (Arjovsky et al., 2019; Li et al., 2022b), instance mixup (Hwang et al., 2022), and using causal inference techniques (Wang et al., 2021c,a). Tabular MRC. Enabling machines to understand and reason over complex contexts such as tables has become a popular research goal in recent years, due to the overwhelming tabular data in the real work. Many tabular QA datasets are proposed, such as WikiTQ (Pasupat and Liang, 2015), SQA (Iyyer et al., 2017), Spider (Yu et al., 2018). Many tabular MRC datasets require numerical reasoning ability, such as FinQA (Chen et al., 2021), TAT-QA (Zhu et al., 2021), HybridQA (Chen et al., 2020b), MultiHierrt (Zhao et al., 2022b). The solutions often include numerical calculation steps (Chen et al., 2021; Zhu et al., 2021) and table understanding techniques (Herzig et al., 2020). In this work, we adopt the standard method of TAGOP on TAT-QA. ## 5 Conclusion In this work, we investigated the spurious correlations in MRC with tabular context. We proposed to use hypothetical examples for hypothetical training, which teaches the MRC model the effect of the semantic intervention on causing answer changes. By learning such effect, MRC models could effectively remove the spurious correlations and achieve superior generalization performance on a stress test and another tabular MRC dataset. This work leaves many promising directions for future exploration: 1) adopting HTF to other language understanding and reasoning tasks that are costly to construct counterfactual examples; 2) expanding HTF to model the semantic relationships between multiple hypothetical examples; and 3) applying hypothetical training to various domains apart from the financial domain. ## Limitations Although HTF has achieved promising performance on removing spurious correlations, we identify the following limitations. Firstly, although HTF encounters the smallest performance decrease among compared methods under multiple semantic interventions, the interventions still cause a performance drop. Therefore, more approaches can be explored to further improve the generalization ability of HTF, such as increasing the scale of the backbone model or applying more informative hypothetical examples. Secondly, the experiments are only conducted in the financial domain due to limited datasets with sufficient annotation of hypothetical examples. Since hypothetical examples are more economic to obtain than counterfactual examples, we believe that more datasets with hypothetical examples will be proposed in the future and thus HTF can be applied in more domains. Thirdly, we are unable to compare the effectiveness of hypothetical and counterfactual examples because TAT-QA does not contain both types, and constructing all counterfactual examples is impractical for us due to cost constraints. Note that we do not conclude any effectiveness relationship between hypothetical and counterfactual examples in the paper. ## Acknowledgement This research is supported by Sea-NExT Joint Lab, Singapore MOE AcRF T2, the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2022YFB3104701), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (62272437). ## References Ehsan Abbasnejad, Damien Teney, Amin Parvaneh, Javen Shi, and Anton van den Hengel. 2020. Counterfactual vision and language learning. In *Proceedings* of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10044–10054. 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/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition*, pages 4971–4980. Martin Arjovsky, Léon Bottou, Ishaan Gulrajani, and David Lopez-Paz. 2019. Invariant risk minimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.02893. Remi Cadene, Corentin Dancette, Matthieu Cord, Devi Parikh, et al. 2019. Rubi: Reducing unimodal biases for visual question answering. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32. Long Chen, Xin Yan, Jun Xiao, Hanwang Zhang, Shiliang Pu, and Yueting Zhuang. 2020a. Counterfactual samples synthesizing for robust visual question answering. In *Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition*, pages 10800–10809. Wenhu Chen, Hanwen Zha, Zhiyu Chen, Wenhan Xiong, Hong Wang, and William Yang Wang. 2020b. Hybridqa: A dataset of multi-hop question answering over tabular and textual data. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020*, pages 1026–1036. Zhiyu Chen, Wenhu Chen, Charese Smiley, Sameena Shah, Iana Borova, Dylan Langdon, Reema Moussa, Matt Beane, Ting-Hao Huang, Bryan R Routledge, et al. 2021. Finqa: A dataset of numerical reasoning over financial data. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 3697–3711. Seungtaek Choi, Myeongho Jeong, Hojae Han, and Seung-won Hwang. 2022. C2l: Causally contrastive learning for robust text classification. *Proceedings* of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 36(10):10526–10534. Christopher Clark, Mark Yatskar, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2019. Don't take the easy way out: Ensemble based methods for avoiding known dataset biases. 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 4069–4082. Dheeru Dua, Yizhong Wang, Pradeep Dasigi, Gabriel Stanovsky, Sameer Singh, and Matt Gardner. 2019. Drop: A reading comprehension benchmark requiring discrete reasoning over paragraphs. 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 2368–2378. Amir Feder, Nadav Oved, Uri Shalit, and Roi Reichart. 2021. Causalm: Causal model explanation through counterfactual language models. *Computational Linguistics*, 47(2):333–386. Fuli Feng, Jizhi Zhang, Xiangnan He, Hanwang Zhang, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2021. Empowering language understanding with counterfactual reasoning. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 2226–2236. Matt Gardner, Yoav Artzi, Victoria Basmov, Jonathan Berant, Ben Bogin, Sihao Chen, Pradeep Dasigi, Dheeru Dua, Yanai Elazar, Ananth Gottumukkala, et al. 2020. Evaluating models' local decision boundaries via contrast sets. In *Findings of the Association* for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 1307–1323. Robert Geirhos, Jörn-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. Mor Geva, Tomer Wolfson, and Jonathan Berant. 2022. Break, perturb, build: Automatic perturbation of reasoning paths through question decomposition. *Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, 10:111–126. Abbas Ghaddar, Phillippe Langlais, Mehdi Rezagholizadeh, and Ahmad Rashid. 2021. End-to-end self-debiasing framework for robust NLU training. In *Findings of the Association for Computational* Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 1923–1929, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tejas Gokhale, Pratyay Banerjee, Chitta Baral, and Yezhou Yang. 2020. Mutant: A training paradigm for out-of-distribution generalization in visual question answering. In *Proceedings of the 2020 Conference* on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 878–892. He He, Sheng Zha, and Haohan Wang. 2019. Unlearn dataset bias in natural language inference by fitting the residual. In *Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on* Deep Learning Approaches for Low-Resource NLP (DeepLo 2019), pages 132–142. Jonathan Herzig, Pawel Krzysztof Nowak, Thomas Mueller, Francesco Piccinno, and Julian Eisenschlos. 2020. Tapas: Weakly supervised table parsing via pre-training. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual* Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4320–4333. Inwoo Hwang, Sangjun Lee, Yunhyeok Kwak, Seong Joon Oh, Damien Teney, Jin-Hwa Kim, and Byoung-Tak Zhang. 2022. Selecmix: Debiased learning by contradicting-pair sampling. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. Mohit Iyyer, Wen-tau Yih, and Ming-Wei Chang. 2017. Search-based neural structured learning for sequential question answering. In *Proceedings of the 55th* Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1821– 1831. 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*. Miyoung Ko, Jinhyuk Lee, Hyunjae Kim, Gangwoo Kim, and Jaewoo Kang. 2020. Look at the first sentence: Position bias in question answering. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1109–1121. Moxin Li, Fuli Feng, Hanwang Zhang, Xiangnan He, Fengbin Zhu, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2022a. Learning to imagine: Integrating counterfactual thinking in neural discrete reasoning. In *Proceedings of the 60th* Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 57–69. Yicong Li, Xiang Wang, Junbin Xiao, Wei Ji, and TatSeng Chua. 2022b. Invariant grounding for video question answering. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 2928–2937. Zujie Liang, Weitao Jiang, Haifeng Hu, and Jiaying Zhu. 2020. Learning to contrast the counterfactual samples for robust visual question answering. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 3285–3292. 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*. 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 (EMNLP), pages 7052–7063. Rabeeh Karimi Mahabadi, Yonatan Belinkov, and James Henderson. 2020. End-to-end bias mitigation by modelling biases in corpora. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 8706–8716. 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. Guoshun Nan, Jiaqi Zeng, Rui Qiao, Zhijiang Guo, and Wei Lu. 2021. Uncovering main causalities for longtailed information extraction. In *Proceedings of the* 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 9683–9695. Yulei Niu, Kaihua Tang, Hanwang Zhang, Zhiwu Lu, Xian-Sheng Hua, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2021. Counterfactual vqa: A cause-effect look at language bias. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 12700– 12710. Yulei Niu and Hanwang Zhang. 2021. Introspective distillation for robust question answering. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:16292– 16304. Matteo Pagliardini, Martin Jaggi, François Fleuret, and Sai Praneeth Karimireddy. 2022. Diversity through disagreement for better transferability. In *NeurIPS* 2022 Workshop on Distribution Shifts: Connecting Methods and Applications. Bhargavi Paranjape, Matthew Lamm, and Ian Tenney. 2022. Retrieval-guided counterfactual generation for qa. In *Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the* Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1670–1686. Panupong Pasupat and Percy Liang. 2015. Compositional semantic parsing on semi-structured tables. 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 1470– 1480. Panupong Pasupat and Percy Liang. 2016. Inferring logical forms from denotations. In *Proceedings of the* 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 23–32, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics. Judea Pearl et al. 2000. Models, reasoning and inference. *Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversityPress*, 19(2). Adam Poliak, Jason Naradowsky, Aparajita Haldar, Rachel Rudinger, and Benjamin Van Durme. 2018. Hypothesis only baselines in natural language inference. In *Proceedings of the Seventh Joint Conference* on Lexical and Computational Semantics, pages 180– 191. Lianhui Qin, Antoine Bosselut, Ari Holtzman, Chandra Bhagavatula, Elizabeth Clark, and Yejin Choi. 2019. Counterfactual story reasoning and generation. 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 5043–5053. 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 (EMNLP), pages 2383– 2392. Axel Sauer and Andreas Geiger. 2021. Counterfactual generative networks. In International Conference on Learning Representations. Damien Teney, Ehsan Abbasnedjad, and Anton van den Hengel. 2020. Learning what makes a difference from counterfactual examples and gradient supervision. In *European Conference on Computer Vision*, pages 580–599. Damien Teney, Ehsan Abbasnejad, Simon Lucey, and Anton van den Hengel. 2022. Evading the simplicity bias: Training a diverse set of models discovers solutions with superior ood generalization. In *Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer* Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 16761–16772. Victor Veitch, Alexander D'Amour, Steve Yadlowsky, and Jacob Eisenstein. 2021. Counterfactual invariance to spurious correlations in text classification. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. Tan Wang, Chang Zhou, Qianru Sun, and Hanwang Zhang. 2021a. Causal attention for unbiased visual recognition. In *Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision*, pages 3091–3100. Wei Wang, Boxin Wang, Ning Shi, Jinfeng Li, Bingyu Zhu, Xiangyu Liu, and Rong Zhang. 2021b. Counterfactual adversarial learning with representation interpolation. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021*, pages 4809–4820. Wenjie Wang, Fuli Feng, Xiangnan He, Xiang Wang, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2021c. Deconfounded recommendation for alleviating bias amplification. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, pages 1717– 1725. Wenjie Wang, Xinyu Lin, Fuli Feng, Xiangnan He, Min Lin, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2022. Causal representation learning for out-of-distribution recommendation. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022, pages 3562–3571. Tongshuang Wu, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Jeffrey Heer, and Daniel Weld. 2021. Polyjuice: Generating counterfactuals for explaining, evaluating, and improving 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 6707–6723, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xi Ye, Rohan Nair, and Greg Durrett. 2021. Connecting attributions and qa model behavior on realistic counterfactuals. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language* Processing (EMNLP), pages 5496–5512. Sicheng Yu, Jing Jiang, Hao Zhang, and Qianru Sun. 2022. Interventional training for out-of-distribution natural language understanding. In *Proceedings of* the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, page 11627–11638. Sicheng Yu, Yulei Niu, Shuohang Wang, Jing Jiang, and Qianru Sun. 2020. Counterfactual variable control for robust and interpretable question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.05581. Tao Yu, Rui Zhang, Kai Yang, Michihiro Yasunaga, Dongxu Wang, Zifan Li, James Ma, Irene Li, Qingning Yao, Shanelle Roman, et al. 2018. Spider: A large-scale human-labeled dataset for complex and cross-domain semantic parsing and text-to-sql task. In *Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 3911–3921. Zhongqi Yue, Tan Wang, Qianru Sun, Xian-Sheng Hua, and Hanwang Zhang. 2021. Counterfactual zero-shot and open-set visual recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 15404–15414. Xiangji Zeng, Yunliang Li, Yuchen Zhai, and Yin Zhang. 2020. Counterfactual generator: A weaklysupervised method for named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 7270–7280. Yilun Zhao, Yunxiang Li, Chenying Li, and Rui Zhang. 2022a. MultiHiertt: Numerical reasoning over multi hierarchical tabular and textual data. In *Proceedings* of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6588–6600, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yilun Zhao, Yunxiang Li, Chenying Li, and Rui Zhang. 2022b. Multihiertt: Numerical reasoning over multi hierarchical tabular and textual data. In *Proceedings* of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6588–6600. Beier Zhu, Yulei Niu, Xian-Sheng Hua, and Hanwang Zhang. 2022. Cross-domain empirical risk minimization for unbiased long-tailed classification. In *AAAI* Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Fengbin Zhu, Wenqiang Lei, Youcheng Huang, Chao Wang, Shuo Zhang, Jiancheng Lv, Fuli Feng, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2021. Tat-qa: A question answering benchmark on a hybrid of tabular and textual content in finance. In *Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics* ## A Dataset Detail A.1 Dataset Statistics A.2 The Creation Of Stress Test Set and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3277–3287. Qingfu Zhu, Weinan Zhang, Ting Liu, and William Yang Wang. 2020. Counterfactual off-policy training for neural dialogue generation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 3438–3448. About the filtering of TAT-QA and TAT-HQA, we discard the "arithmetic" type of questions and keep the "counting", "span" and "multi-span" questions. After filtering, we maintain 8772 TAT-QA and TATHQA questions for the training split, and 1055 for the validation split which all compared methods are evaluated on. The reason for the filtering is that the filtered factual examples do not have the corresponding hypothetical examples with changed labels, and thus cannot be applied to hypothetical training for removing spurious correlation. For MultiHiertt, we utilize the validation set and we run the released code6to generate the retrieval results. We try three setting to create TAT-QAlike data with the top K1 table retrieval results and top K2 text retrieval results, K1 = 5, K2 = 5, K1 = 5, K2 = 10, and K1 = 6, K2 = 10. Similarly, we keep only the questions that extract text spans from the context, and we remove the questions that do not contain the answers in the TAT-QA like contexts. In total we obtain 418 questions. The detailed results for the compared methods on different MultiHiertt variations can be found in Table 3, where HTF outperforms compared methods on all settings. For the test sets used in in Section 3.4, we use 606 questions from the stress test for number scaling, and each scaling test set contain 1212 questions. We use 179 "which year" questions from the validation set of TAT-QA to intervene on the frequent answers. To evaluate the dependency on spurious correlation of tabular MRC models, we create a stress test set by editing the factual tables in TAT-QA. Note that we define the stress test data as examples that change the semantic of the factual context and lead to changed answers, which is different from the 6https://github.com/psunlpgroup/MultiHiertt. | m-OQ | m-OQ&HQ | m-OQ&2HQ | CF-VQA | xERM | CLO | GS | BAI | HTF | | | | | | | | | | |----------------------|-----------|------------|----------|--------|-------|------|-------|-------|------|------|------|------|------|------|-----------|-----------|------| | EM | F1 | EM | F1 | EM | F1 | EM | F1 | EM | F1 | EM | F1 | EM | F1 | EM | F1 | EM | F1 | | EM | F1 | EM | F1 | EM | F1 | EM | F1 | EM | F1 | EM | F1 | EM | F1 | EM | F1 | EM | F1 | | K1 = 5, K2 = 5 | 10.0 | 13.0 | 10.0 | 12.2 | 13.6 | 16.9 | 11.4 | 14.2 | 12.1 | 14.1 | 11.4 | 14.5 | 13.6 | 15.6 | 12.1 | 15.3 15.7 | 19.3 | | K1 = 5, K2 = 10 8.5 | 11.7 | 10.6 | 13.1 | 12.1 | 14.8 | 9.2 | 12.5 | 9.9 | 11.9 | 11.3 | 14.0 | 11.3 | 14.1 | 11.3 | 14.2 14.9 | 18.4 | | | K1 = 6, K2 = 10 10.5 | 13.7 | 14.0 | 15.7 | 12.6 | 15.4 | 9.8 | 13.2 | 13.3 | 14.8 | 14.7 | 17.6 | 9.8 | 12.9 | 12.6 | 14.8 15.4 | 17.9 | | Table 3: Results of different settings of MultiHiertt. definition of previous works (Veitch et al., 2021). We believe the stress test set can be used to test the model's genuine understanding of the question and the context, which cannot be accomplished if the model learns shortcuts. We edit the table of a factual example according to the assumption of the corresponding hypothetical question. First, we extract the new number in the assumption to put in the table by identifying numbers from text strings, *e.g.,* extracting *38,298* from *if the revenue in 2019 were $38,298*. Next, we locate the position in the table, *e.g.,* locating the table cell representing"revenue in 2019". Finally, the stress test data is created by putting the new number into the location identified in the table, which has the same answer as the hypothetical example. In total we obtain 921 stress test examples. We conduct a human evaluation to verify the quality of the stress test. We sample 70 instances randomly from the stress test, and recruit two college students to examine the fidelity of instances based on three questions: (1) whether the table follows the table-entry consistency (1 if agreed else 0); (2) whether the answer can be correctly derived from the context (1 if agreed else 0); and (3) the complexity of answering the first two questions (0: easy;1:medium;2:hard). The average scores for (1) and (2) are 0.91 and 0.97, showing that the annotators agree that most of the tables are consistent and most of the answers can be correctly deducted. The standard deviation for the complexity score is 0.59 and 0.63 respectively, showing that the stress test has diverse question difficulty. The Cohen's Kappa between the two annotators is 0.32, showing fair agreement between them. ## A.3 **The Expansion Of Hypothetical Examples** With The Same Answer As The Factual Example In most cases, the assumption in the hypothetical question intervenes on an entity in the table, denoted as E, by assigning a new value N to it, e.g., if the revenue in 2019 were $38,298 assigns N = *$38,298* to the table cell E = *the revenue in* 2019. Usually, E is correlated with the answer change between the hypothetical and factual examples, *e.g.,* E replaces the factual answer or E is removed from the factual answer. Therefore, by simply manipulating the value N in the hypothetical assumption, we can nullify the effect of the hypothetical assumption on E and keep the factual answer unchanged. We identify the questions that involves numerical comparison via the following keywords: larger, higher, highest, largest, exceed, less than, and extract the entity E and the value N from the assumption. We pair up the hypothetical examples with the factual examples, compare their answers and change the N in the hypothetical assumption via some simple rules. For example, the factual question asks about which entity has a higher value, and E within the hypothetical assumption is the answer of the hypothetical question which replaces the factual answer. We can largely decrease the value of N to create a hypothetical example with the factual answer. We randomly select the scale to decrease N from 5 to 10 times to make sure that the decrease of N can obtain the factual answer. On the contrary, if E is within the factual answer, we can process conversely by increasing N 5 to 10 times. In total, we create 709 additional hypothetical examples for training (in total 9481 training instances). We do not create additional hypothetical examples for validation data, and use the released TAT-QA and TAT-HQA validation data. ## B Implementation Details Of Compared Methods We implement the methods based on the released code of TAGOP7. All methods are run on one 24GB RTX3090, with Pytorch=1.7 CUDA=11.0. We tune the batch size in [4, 8, 16], and the maximum training epoch in [60, 80, 100], and the loss weights in [0.01, 0.02, 0.05, 0.1] for all compared methods, and select the checkpoint with best validation EM. The other parameter setting follows the released TAGOP as we discover that changing them 7https://github.com/NExTplusplus/TAT-QA. is unlikely to make further improvement. We apply a two-staged training for HTF by first training on all factual and hypothetical examples with TAGOP loss Lt, and then fine-tuning on the triplets of a factual and two hypothetical examples with additional regularization terms Lf and Lh. The reason for two-staged training is that the gradients at the initial training stage cannot stably reflect the model's perception of how the representations change causing the answer change, thus we apply the gradient regularization terms in the fine-tuning stage. We set α and β as 0.01, the batch size as 16, learning rate as 1e-4 for first-stage training and 1e5 for second-stage fine-tuning. We train 80 epoch for the first stage and 60 epoch for the second stage. For the fine-tuning, we wait for 10 epochs before the validation begin. The total number of GPU hours is approximately 15. - CF-VQA: apart from the original question and context input, we adopt an additional contextonly branch to capture the language bias by masking the question and keeping only the context as input. We use the RuBi function as the fusion strategy to fuse the original representation and the context-only representation. During inference, the learned contextonly bias is subtracted from the total effect. We set the KL weight as 0.01. - xERM: it is an extension of the above CFVQA by applying learned weights for the two branches. The weights are transformed from the empirical risks of the two branches, which is used for fusing the two representations before prediction. - CLO: we apply contrastive loss between the factual example and two hypothetical examples with different answers to encode their semantic similarity. The contrastive loss draws close of the factual example and the hypothetical example with the same answer, and differentiate the hypothetical examples with different answers. Formally, the contrastive loss is defined as $$L_{c l o}=\frac{e^{d i s t(\mathbf{X}_{f},\mathbf{X}_{h}^{*})}}{e^{d i s t(\mathbf{X}_{f},\mathbf{X}_{h}^{*})}+e^{d i s t(\mathbf{X}_{h}^{*},\mathbf{X}_{h})}}\quad(7)$$ where *dist* denotes cosine similarity after doing max pooling on the representations. The contrastive loss is added to the total MRC learning objective and weighted as 0.1. - GS: we calculate the gradient loss via a pair of factual and hypothetical examples with different answers and add the gradient loss to the total MRC learning objective. We set the weight for the gradient loss as 0.01. - BAI: For the automatic stratification stage, we use m-OQ&2HQ as the reference model and train 40 epoch with learning rate 1e-2. We set the number of fine-grained partition as 5 and coarse-grained partition as 2. For the bottomup intervention stage, we train 80 epochs.  Writing HQ Answer: 2017 ## C Annotation Effort Comparison Of Hypothetical Questions And Faithful Counterfactual Tables We give an example to illustrate the difference in annotation effort between creating faithful counterfactual tables and hypothetical questions as shown in Figure 7. After reading the factual example and deciding the intervention of changing the revenue in 2017 to $ 38533, the cost for creating hypothetical question is simply writing the assumption in | (a) In which years did the net sales from America exceed $200,000? | (b) In which year was the Deferred tax asset larger? | | | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Factual Table | | | | | Year | 2018 | 2017 | | | Net Sale in America ($) | 259,105 224,05 6 | Stress Test Table | | | Year | 2018 | 2017 | Factual Table | | Year | 2019 | 2018 | | | Deferred tax asset | 1.2 | 0.8 | Stress Test Table | | Year | 2019 | 2018 | | | Deferred tax asset | 0.2 | 0.8 | | | Net Sale in America ($) 259,105 | 150,000 | | | | Gold Answer: 2018, 2017 Predicted Answer: 2018, 2017 Prediction Score: 2018: 99.94, 2017: 99.90 | Gold Answer: 2018 Predicted Answer: 2018 Prediction Score: 2018: 99.93, 2017: 3.81 | Gold Answer: 2019 Predicted Answer: 2019 Prediction Score : 2019: 99.90 | Gold Answer: 2018 Predicted Answer: 2019 Prediction Score: 2019: 99.92, 2018: 0.00 |   natural language and appending it to the question. However, to create faithful counterfactual table, at least 5 numbers need to be calculated and edited as highlighted in the counterfactual table which is time consuming. As the table gets larger and more complex, the annotation cost keeps increasing. This example illustrates that the effort for creating faithful counterfactual table is likely to be much larger than writing hypothetical question, thus hypothetical question is an economical choice. For the cost comparison, we conduct a human study with 4 college students to annotate 144 hypothetical and counterfactual examples on randomly sampled TAT-QA tables. We find that that the construction time for a hypothetical example is on average 45.6% of that for a counterfactual example, and the number of modifications required is 40.6% of that for a counterfactual example. Even for a pair of hypothetical examples, the construction cost is still lower than that of a counterfactual example, 91.2% in time and 81.2% in the number of modifications. These results suggest that hypothetical examples are a more cost-effective approach. ## D **A Simple Low-Cost Comparison On The** Effectiveness Of Hypothetical And Counterfactual Examples Since the full comparison on the effectiveness of counterfactual and hypothetical examples is not available for us as explained in Section 5, we provide a simple low-cost comparison here. We handannotate 16 shots of counterfactual examples and fine-tune m-OQ with CLO. We compare HTF with the same setting over the corresponding 16 hypothetical example pairs. The results show that HTF performs slightly worse than CLO in terms of EM and F1 scores (33.9 and 41.3 for HTF vs. 34.6 and 42.0 for CLO, respectively).Given the lower construction cost, we believe hypothetical examples are a promising option. ## E Case Study. We present two examples to demonstrate the effect of HTF on model prediction in Figure 8. In example (a), HTF gives correct predictions to both the factual and the stress test examples. This indicates that HTF recognizes the semantic change, *i.e.,* the lowered net sale value in 2017, and in turn largely reduces the model prediction score *w.r.t.* 2017. It maintains high prediction scores for the remaining answer and precisely reduces the score for the changed answer, showing the capability of HTF in linking the semantic intervention to the answer change. We also present a failure case in example (b), where HTF gives correct prediction to the factual example, but fails on the stress test example due to failure to link the feature change *i.e.,* the decreased value in 2019, with the answer change. Since the stress test example only has a very tiny change of one digit (1.2 → 0.2), it poses a larger challenge to the sensitivity of HTF. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? At page 9 ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? At page 9 ✓ 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 3, Appendix A ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 3 ✗ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? We were unable to find the license for the dataset we used. 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. Section 3, Appendix A. ## 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 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? Section 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? Section 3, 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.)? Section 3, Appendix A, B. D ✓ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Appendix 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.

kabir-etal-2023-banglabook

{B}angla{B}ook: A Large-scale {B}angla Dataset for Sentiment Analysis from Book Reviews

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.80

The analysis of consumer sentiment, as expressed through reviews, can provide a wealth of insight regarding the quality of a product. While the study of sentiment analysis has been widely explored in many popular languages, relatively less attention has been given to the Bangla language, mostly due to a lack of relevant data and cross-domain adaptability. To address this limitation, we present BanglaBook, a large-scale dataset of Bangla book reviews consisting of 158,065 samples classified into three broad categories: positive, negative, and neutral. We provide a detailed statistical analysis of the dataset and employ a range of machine learning models to establish baselines including SVM, LSTM, and Bangla-BERT. Our findings demonstrate a substantial performance advantage of pre-trained models over models that rely on manually crafted features, emphasizing the necessity for additional training resources in this domain. Additionally, we conduct an in-depth error analysis by examining sentiment unigrams, which may provide insight into common classification errors in under-resourced languages like Bangla. Our codes and data are publicly available at \url{https://github.com/mohsinulkabir14/BanglaBook}.

# Banglabook**: A Large-Scale Bangla Dataset For Sentiment Analysis** From Book Reviews Mohsinul Kabir∗, Obayed Bin Mahfuz∗**, Syed Rifat Raiyan**∗, Hasan Mahmud, Md Kamrul Hasan Systems and Software Lab (SSL) Department of Computer Science and Engineering Islamic University of Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh {mohsinulkabir, siam, rifatraiyan, hasan, hasank}@iut-dhaka.edu ## Abstract The analysis of consumer sentiment, as expressed through reviews, can provide a wealth of insight regarding the quality of a product. While the study of sentiment analysis has been widely explored in many popular languages, relatively less attention has been given to the Bangla language, mostly due to a lack of relevant data and cross-domain adaptability. To address this limitation, we present BANGLABOOK, a large-scale dataset of Bangla book reviews consisting of 158,065 samples classified into three broad categories: positive, negative, and neutral. We provide a detailed statistical analysis of the dataset and employ a range of machine learning models to establish baselines including SVM, LSTM, and Bangla-BERT. Our findings demonstrate a substantial performance advantage of pretrained models over models that rely on manually crafted features, emphasizing the necessity for additional training resources in this domain. Additionally, we conduct an in-depth error analysis by examining sentiment unigrams, which may provide insight into common classification errors in under-resourced languages like Bangla. Our codes and data are publicly available at https://github.com/ mohsinulkabir14/BanglaBook. ## 1 Introduction The resources publicly available for scholarly investigation in the realm of Sentiment Analysis (SA) for the Bangla language are scarce and limited in quantity (Khatun and Rabeya, 2022; Sazzed, 2021; Rahman et al., 2019) despite its literary gravitas as the 6th most spoken language1in the world with approximately 200 million speakers. In the existing literature on Bangla Text SA, as shown in Table 5, the largest dataset consists *These authors contributed equally to this work. Author names are in alphabetic order. 1https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ languages_by_total_number_of_speakers of 20,468 samples (Islam et al., 2022) while the smallest has a mere 1,050 samples (Tabassum and Khan, 2019). Besides these, Islam et al. (2020) created a dataset consisting of 17,852 samples and Islam et al. (2021) utilized a dataset of 15,728 samples. All other datasets apart from these either have <15,000 samples or are publicly unavailable. Another limitation of the existing research works in Bangla Text SA is the deficiency of datasets having product-specific review samples. Most of the available Bangla SA datasets are focused on usergenerated textual content from cyberspace. The insights derived from these may not accurately represent sentiment in the context of product reviews, thus hindering their usefulness for businesses. The tonal and linguistic analysis of reviews from product-specific datasets can aid businesses to gain valuable insights into customer attitudes, preferences, and experiences which can then be leveraged to improve products and services, design targeted marketing campaigns, and make more informed business decisions. In this paper, we introduce a large-scale dataset, BANGLABOOK, consisting of 158,065 samples of book reviews collected from online bookshops written in the Bangla language. This is the largest dataset for Bangla sentiment analysis to the best of our knowledge. We perform an analysis of the dataset's statistical characteristics, employ various ML techniques to establish a performance benchmark for validating the dataset, and also conduct a thorough evaluation of the classification errors. ## 2 Dataset Construction In order to create this dataset, we collect a total of 204,659 book reviews from two online bookshops (Rokomari2and Wafilife3) using a web scraper developed with several Python libraries, including BeautifulSoup, Selenium, Pandas, Openpyxl, 2https://www.rokomari.com/ 3https://www.wafilife.com/ 1237  Table 1: Summary statistics of our dataset. Bangla† denotes Romanized Bangla text. and Webdriver, to collect and process the raw data. For the data collection and preparation process of the BANGLABOOK dataset, we first compile a list of URLs for authors from online bookstores. From there, we procure URLs for the books. We meticulously scrape information such as book titles, author names, book categories, review texts, reviewer names, review dates, and ratings by utilizing these book URLs.  Table 2: General overview of BANGLABOOK. ## 2.1 Labeling & Translation If a review does not have a rating, we deem it unannotated. Reviews with a rating of 1 or 2 are classified as negative, a rating of 3 is considered neutral, and a rating of 4 or 5 is classified as positive. Two manual experiments are carried out to validate the use of ratings as a measure of sentiment in product reviews. In the first experiment, around 10% of the reviews are randomly selected and annotated manually. The annotated labels are cross-checked with the original labels, resulting in a 96.7% accuracy in the corresponding labels. In addition, we consult the work of Wang et al. (2020) that explored the issue of incongruous sentiment expressions with regard to ratings. Specifically, the study scrutinized two categories of reviews: *high ratings* lacking a positive sentiment, and *low ratings lacking a negative sentiment*. We perform an analysis to identify such inconsistencies within our dataset and discovered that only a minuscule 3.41% of the samples exhibited this pattern. This figure is rela-  After discarding the unannotated reviews, we curate a final dataset of 158,065 annotated reviews. Of these, 89,371 are written entirely in Bangla. The remaining 68,694 reviews were written in Romanized Bangla, English, or a mix of languages. They are translated into Bangla with Google Translator and a custom Python program using the googletrans library. The translations are subsequently subjected to manual review and scrutiny to confirm their accuracy. The majority of inaccurate translations primarily comprise spelling errors and instances where English words remain untranslated within samples containing a combination of Bangla and English text. The meticulous evaluation process of untranslated samples involves a thorough assessment by post-graduate native Bangla speakers, who critically compare the translated text against the original untranslated text to ascertain the correctness of the translation. ## 3 Statistical Analysis Tables 1 and 2 provide an overview of the statistical properties of the BANGLABOOK dataset. The sentiment doughnut chart in Figure-1a illustrates the proportion of positive, neutral, and negative reviews, while the rating doughnut chart in Figure1b displays the percentage of reviews that corre- Method Negative Neutral Positive **Weighted Avg.**     Random Forest(word 2-gram + word 3-gram) 0.56 0.34 0.96 0.9106 SVM(word 2-gram + word 3-gram) 0.40 0.15 **1.00** 0.9053 Random Forest(word 1-gram) 0.48 0.35 0.96 0.9043 Logistic Regression(char 2-gram + char 3-gram) 0.55 0.13 0.96 0.8978 Bangla-BERT(base-uncased) 0.60 0.22 0.96 0.9064 Logistic Regression(word 2-gram + word 3-gram) 0.53 0.13 0.96 0.8964 Bangla-BERT(large) 0.72 **0.40** 0.97 **0.9331** XGBoost(char 2-gram + char 3-gram) 0.31 0.02 0.95 0.8723 Multinomial NB(word 2-gram + word 3-gram) 0.23 0.03 0.95 0.8663 LSTM(GloVe) 0.11 0.00 0.10 0.0991 XGBoost(word 2-gram + word 3-gram) 0.23 0.01 0.95 0.8651 Multinomial NB(BoW) 0.18 0.05 0.94 0.8564 SVM(word 1-gram) 0.08 0.04 0.94 0.8519 Table 3: Catergory-wise Binary Task F1-score and Weighted Average F1-score of each method on BANGLABOOK. spond to each rating on a scale of 1 to 5. Upon analyzing the sentiment chart, it appears that the majority of the reviews (124,084 + 17,503 = 141,587 samples) are positive, with a significant portion also being negative (2,728 + 6,946 = 9,674 samples). A relatively small fraction of the reviews are neutral (6,804 samples). This suggests that overall, the books have been well received by the readers, with the majority expressing favorable opinions. The distribution of the dataset is representative of real-world scenarios and it tessellates well with previous content analysis works on book reviews (Lin et al., 2005; Sorensen and Rasmussen, 2004). In Figure-2, we can visualize an illustration of the sentiment distribution among the 5 most frequently reviewed categories of books. We can gain some salient insights from the popularity of these genres. Contemporary novels are bestsellers as they reflect current events, social issues, and trends, making them relatable and thought-provoking for the readers while self-help and religious books provide guidance, inspiration, and a sense of purpose, catering to individuals' quest for personal growth and spiritual fulfillment. ## 4 Developing Benchmark For Banglabook A series of baseline models with combinations of different lexical and semantic features are chosen to evaluate the BANGLABOOK dataset. An overview of the models, evaluation metrics, results, and analysis of the experimental results are provided in this section. ## 4.1 Baseline Models & Features For the lexical features, we extract bag-of-words (BoW), char n-grams (1-3), and word n-grams (13) from the reviews as these representations have performed well in different classification tasks (Islam et al., 2022). After extracting the features, they are vectorized using TF-IDF and count vec-  torizer and trained on a series of ML models such as Random Forest (Breiman, 2001), XGBoost (Chen and Guestrin, 2016), linear SVM (Cortes and Vapnik, 1995), Logistic Regression (le Cessie and van Houwelingen, 1992) and Multinomial Naive Bayes (John and Langley, 1995). We choose LSTM (Hochreiter and Schmidhuber, 1997) with GloVe (Pennington et al., 2014) embedding for its ability to understand context along with recent dependency. We also fine-tuned two available transformer-based models in Bangla: Bangla-BERT(base-uncased) (110M parameters) (Sarker, 2020) and Bangla-BERT(large) (2.5B parameters) (Bhattacharjee et al., 2022), due to the recent success of BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) in various downstream NLP tasks. We select F1-score and weighted average F1-score to evaluate the models because the dataset has an un-   even class distribution. F1-score is the harmonic mean of precision and recall and it helps balance the metric across the imbalanced positive/negative samples (Sokolova et al., 2006). All our experiments are done using scikit-learn, pytorch, and transformers (Vaswani et al., 2017) and run on Google Colaboratory. The training, testing, and validation split of the entire dataset was 70-20-10 with previously unseen samples in the test and validation set. ## 4.2 Results & Findings Table 3 summarizes the experimental results for BANGLABOOK. Results show that BanglaBERT(large) outperforms all other models by a clear margin. Also, the combination of word/char 2-gram and word/char 3-gram perform exceptionally well with respective classifiers. Our hypothesis is that these two features result in a large number of unique word and character combinations, aiding the models' ability to generalize effectively across categories. Islam et al. (2022, 2021); Taher et al. (2018) concur on the same verdict by implying that the task predominantly relies on word units, with minimal dependence on subword level information and the nature of the Bangla language itself. Furthermore, Majumder et al. (2002) outlined the suitability of n-gram approaches in generating language profiles for Indo- European languages in their work. The bag-ofwords (BoW) feature is inept at classifying the corresponding categories because of its inability to capture critical contextual information and nuance (Zheng and Casari, 2018). Although word 1-gram does not outperform word 2-gram and word 3-gram, it does predict the 'Neutral' class well. Both the pre-trained Bangla-BERT models perform fairly consistently across all categories on the BANGLABOOK dataset, demonstrating the usefulness of contextual understanding and transfer learning in classification tasks even in lowresource languages like Bangla. The LSTM model with GloVe embedding recognizes the 'Negative' and 'Positive' classes very marginally and fails completely to identify the 'Neutral' category. It is also notable that, SVM with bigram and trigram achieves perfect scores in the 'Positive' class. To summarize, the utilization of pre-trained models (i.e. Bangla-BERT) that undergo training on extensive corpora, leading to exposure to extensive general language knowledge, has significantly contributed to their superior classification performance compared to other models and word embeddings. Additionally, models trained on handcrafted features also perform significantly well. It should be noted that Bangla pre-trained models are currently undergoing development, and further training on expansive corpora has the potential to enhance their ability to generalize and achieve even more impressive results. ## 4.3 Error Analysis In the 'Positive' class, all the models produce excellent classification results. While some models perform reasonably well on the 'Negative' class, nearly all of the models perform poorly on the 'Neutral' class. The class imbalance of the dataset, as shown in Figure 1, is one obvious cause of this fluctuation in results. The confusion matrix for Bangla-BERT on our dataset, presented in Figure3, reveals that most of the 'Negative' and 'Neutral' samples are misclassified as 'Positive' samples by our classifiers. To further analyze the misclassifications, we examine the W1 (word unigrams) of these three classes. We find 124,796 unique W1 for the 'Positive' class, 20,714 unique W1 for the 'Negative' class, and 19,096 unique W1 for the 'Neutral' class. 77.57% of the W1 from the 'Neutral' class and 79.83% of the W1 from the 'Negative' class are found in the 'Positive' class. Table 4 depicts the most frequent W1 conveying the strongest sentiments for each class. With only one distinct 'Neutral' W1 and even the 'Negative' class having multiple positive W1, the dominance of 'Positive' sentiment W1 over the other two classes is evident. This may have contributed to the lack of distinctive words in the 'Negative' and 'Neutral' classes, which inevitably prevented the feature-based models from generalizing. ## 5 Morphology And Negation Patterns Of Bangla Understanding the morphology and negation patterns of a language holds paramount importance in the realm of sentiment analysis because negation can alter the meaning of words and phrases, thereby affecting the overall sentiment conveyed by a text. We provide a concise yet insightful recapitulation of the topic in the case of Bangla accompanied by review samples from our dataset BANGLABOOK as the respective examples. From the linguistic typological standpoint, Bangla is categorized as a *subject-object-verb* (SOV) language because the subject, object, and verb generally adhere to said order in its sentential structure (Ramchand, 2004). The most common juxtaposition of polarity from positive to negative is the use of ni (িন) as a tensed negative. For example, আিম তাঁর অনুরাগী হওয়ায় আিম এই বইিট েকনা েথেক িনেজেক পৰ্িতেরাধ করেত পািরিন !!!! Translation: As I am a fan of his I couldn't resist myself from buying this book!!!! Another negational feature is expressed by placing na (না) prior to the non-finite verb and after the finite verb in a sentence (although there are some exceptions). For example, অবশয্ হুমায়ুন আহেমদ িলেখেছন এই বইটার উপের িতিন িনেজও সন্তুষ্ট না । Translation: Of course, Humayun Ahmed wrote that he himself is not satisfied with this book. The Bangla language consists of no negative adverbs or pronouns (Thompson, 2006). This is why the negative element responsible for the reversal of polarity transcends from the word-level to the sentence-level rendering the occurrences of almost all negations in Bangla manifest on the syntactic level (Thompson, 2006). In the cases of double negatives, we see the involvement of lexical negation, a morphological feature that works with negative affixes (prefixes and suffixes) attached to a root word. The prefixes in Bangla have two different phonetic variations or allophones depending on whether the prefix precedes a vowel or a consonant. The same is true for prefixes that imbue a negative connotation to a root word, e.g. o (অ) and on (অন্ ). For example, িকন্তু এই বইিট এই অপূণর্তা েঢেক েফেলেছ। Translation: But this book has covered up this incompleteness . **Translation:** In the words of Omar Khayyam, some books are books of never-ending youth, which have no decay. which have no decay. Another negative prefix that precedes a root word to invert its polarity is nir (িনর্ ). For example, েলখেকর িনরলস শৰ্ম েলখায় ফুেট উেঠেছ। Translation: The relentless effort of the author is reflected in the writing. On the contrary, the suffix hin (হীন) succeeds a root word to convert it to the corresponding negative form. For example, $\mathbf{a}\cdot\mathbf{a}\cdot\mathbf{b}\cdot\mathbf{c}$ ... It is better for $\color{blue}{\text{beachallone}}$ 6. এরকম িভিত্তহীন কাল্পিনক গল্প িশশুেদর না পড়াই ভােলা। Translation: It is better for children not to read such baseless fictional stories. The expression of negative sentiment is, therefore, very nuanced in the Bangla language as every occurrence of negative is intertwined with features like the tense, hierarchy of syntax, verb status, case-specific issues, and sequential arrangement of words (Thompson, 2006). ## 6 Conclusion This paper introduces BANGLABOOK, the largest Bangla book review dataset with 158,065 samples, each labeled with 1 of 3 user sentiments. We provide extensive statistical analysis and strong baselines facilitating the utility of the dataset. Given its massive size and fine-grained sentiment distribution, BANGLABOOK has the potential to alleviate the resource scarcity in Bangla language research. ## 7 Limitations Many of the reviews that were gathered for constructing BANGLABOOK are discarded because they lack a corresponding rating. A manual annotation process would have yielded a much larger dataset, which was not feasible due to resource constraints. Moreover, one of the challenges for validating the dataset is the lack of statistical models and word-embeddings pre-trained on the Bangla language. Some pre-trained Bangla-BERT models, yet to be trained on extensive corpora, have only recently been proposed. Improving transformer-based models for Bangla can enhance sub-word level contextual understanding which will consequently help in more accurate identification of the sentiments in BANGLABOOK (Islam et al., 2022). ## References Mst Tuhin Akter, Manoara Begum, and Rashed Mustafa. 2021. Bengali sentiment analysis of ecommerce product reviews using k-nearest neighbors. In 2021 International Conference on Information and Communication Technology for Sustainable Development (ICICT4SD), pages 40–44. IEEE. Sanjida Akter and Muhammad Tareq Aziz. 2016. Sentiment analysis on facebook group using lexicon based approach. In 2016 3rd International Conference on Electrical Engineering and Information Communication Technology (ICEEICT), pages 1–4. IEEE. Shad Al Kaiser, Sudipta Mandal, Ashraful Kalam Abid, Ekhfa Hossain, Ferdous Bin Ali, and Intisar Tahmid Naheen. 2021. Social media opinion mining based on bangla public post of facebook. In *2021 24th International Conference on Computer and Information Technology (ICCIT)*, pages 1–6. IEEE. Abhik Bhattacharjee, Tahmid Hasan, Wasi Ahmad, Kazi Samin Mubasshir, Md Saiful Islam, Anindya Iqbal, M. Sohel Rahman, and Rifat Shahriyar. 2022. BanglaBERT: Language model pretraining and benchmarks for low-resource language understanding evaluation in Bangla. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022, pages 1318–1327, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. L. Breiman. 2001. Random forests. *Machine Learning*, 45:5–32. Tianqi Chen and Carlos Guestrin. 2016. Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. Shaika Chowdhury and Wasifa Chowdhury. 2014. Performing sentiment analysis in bangla microblog posts. In *2014 International Conference on Informatics, Electronics & Vision (ICIEV)*, pages 1–6. IEEE. Corinna Cortes and Vladimir Naumovich Vapnik. 1995. Support-vector networks. *Machine Learning*, 20:273–297. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. *ArXiv*, abs/1810.04805. Rajib Chandra Dey and Orvila Sarker. 2019. Sentiment analysis on bengali text using lexicon based approach. In *2019 22nd International Conference* on Computer and Information Technology (ICCIT), pages 1–5. IEEE. Asif Hassan, Mohammad Rashedul Amin, Abul Kalam Al Azad, and Nabeel Mohammed. 2016. Sentiment analysis on bangla and romanized bangla text using deep recurrent models. In *2016 International Workshop on Computational Intelligence (IWCI)*, pages 51–56. IEEE. Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 1997. Long short-term memory. *Neural Computation*, 9:1735– 1780. MD Iqbal, Avishek Das, Omar Sharif, Mohammed Moshiul Hoque, and Iqbal H Sarker. 2022. Bemoc: A corpus for identifying emotion in bengali texts. *SN Computer Science*, 3(2):1–17. Khondoker Ittehadul Islam, Md Saiful Islam, and Md Ruhul Amin. 2020. Sentiment analysis in bengali via transfer learning using multi-lingual bert. In 2020 23rd International Conference on Computer and Information Technology (ICCIT), pages 1–5. IEEE. Khondoker Ittehadul Islam, Sudipta Kar, Md Saiful Islam, and Mohammad Ruhul Amin. 2021. Sentnob: A dataset for analysing sentiment on noisy bangla texts. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021*, pages 3265–3271. Khondoker Ittehadul Islam, Tanvir Yuvraz, Md Saiful Islam, and Enamul Hassan. 2022. Emonoba: A dataset for analyzing fine-grained emotions on noisy bangla texts. In *Proceedings of the 2nd Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association* for Computational Linguistics and the 12th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pages 128–134. George H. John and Pat Langley. 1995. Estimating continuous distributions in bayesian classifiers. In *Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence*. Mst Eshita Khatun and Tapasy Rabeya. 2022. A machine learning approach for sentiment analysis of book reviews in bangla language. In *2022 6th International Conference on Trends in Electronics and* Informatics (ICOEI), pages 1178–1182. IEEE. Saskia le Cessie and J. C. van Houwelingen. 1992. Ridge estimators in logistic regression. Applied statistics, 41:191–201. Tom MY Lin, Pin Luarn, and Yun Kuei Huang. 2005. Effect of internet book reviews on purchase intention: A focus group study. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 31(5):461–468. Shamsul Arafin Mahtab, Nazmul Islam, and Md Mahfuzur Rahaman. 2018. Sentiment analysis on bangladesh cricket with support vector machine. In 2018 international conference on Bangla speech and language processing (ICBSLP), pages 1–4. IEEE. P Majumder, M Mitra, and BB Chaudhuri. 2002. Ngram: a language independent approach to ir and nlp. In International conference on universal knowledge and language, volume 2. Muhammad Mahmudun Nabi, Md Tanzir Altaf, and Sabir Ismail. 2016. Detecting sentiment from bangla text using machine learning technique and feature analysis. International Journal of Computer Applications, 153(11):28–34. Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher D. Manning. 2014. Glove: Global vectors for word representation. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Md Rahib, Rumman Hussain Khan, Amzad Hussain Tamim, Mohammad Zawad Tahmeed, and Mohammad Jaber Hossain. 2022. Emotion detection based on bangladeshi peoples social media response on covid-19. *SN Computer Science*, 3(2):1–6. Fuad Rahman, Habibur Khan, Zakir Hossain, Mahfuza Begum, Sadia Mahanaz, Ashraful Islam, and Aminul Islam. 2019. An annotated bangla sentiment analysis corpus. In *2019 International Conference* on Bangla Speech and Language Processing (ICBSLP), pages 1–5. IEEE. Md Atikur Rahman and Emon Kumar Dey. 2018. Datasets for aspect-based sentiment analysis in bangla and its baseline evaluation. *Data*, 3(2):15. Gillian Catriona Ramchand. 2004. Two types of negation in bengali. *Clause structure in South Asian languages*, pages 39–66. Sagor Sarker. 2020. Banglabert: Bengali mask language model for bengali language understanding. Salim Sazzed. 2020a. Cross-lingual sentiment classification in low-resource bengali language. In Proceedings of the sixth workshop on noisy usergenerated text (W-NUT 2020), pages 50–60. Salim Sazzed. 2020b. Development of sentiment lexicon in bengali utilizing corpus and cross-lingual resources. In 2020 IEEE 21st International conference on information reuse and integration for data science (IRI), pages 237–244. IEEE. Salim Sazzed. 2021. Bengsentilex and bengswearlex: creating lexicons for sentiment analysis and profanity detection in low-resource bengali language. PeerJ Computer Science, 7:e681. Marina Sokolova, Nathalie Japkowicz, and S. Szpakowicz. 2006. Beyond accuracy, f-score and roc: A family of discriminant measures for performance evaluation. In *Australian Conference on Artificial Intelligence*. Alan T Sorensen and Scott J Rasmussen. 2004. Is any publicity good publicity? a note on the impact of book reviews. *NBER Working paper, Stanford University*. Nusrath Tabassum and Muhammad Ibrahim Khan. 2019. Design an empirical framework for sentiment analysis from bangla text using machine learning. In 2019 International Conference on Electrical, Computer and Communication Engineering (ECCE), pages 1–5. IEEE. SM Abu Taher, Kazi Afsana Akhter, and KM Azharul Hasan. 2018. N-gram based sentiment mining for bangla text using support vector machine. In *2018* international conference on Bangla speech and language processing (ICBSLP), pages 1–5. IEEE. Hanne-Ruth Thompson. 2006. Negation patterns in bengali. *Bulletin of the School of Oriental and* African Studies, 69(2):243–265. Rashedul Amin Tuhin, Bechitra Kumar Paul, Faria Nawrine, Mahbuba Akter, and Amit Kumar Das. 2019. An automated system of sentiment analysis from bangla text using supervised learning techniques. In *2019 IEEE 4th International Conference* on Computer and Communication Systems (ICCCS), pages 360–364. IEEE. 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. Anning Wang, Qiang Zhang, Shuangyao Zhao, Xiaonong Lu, and Zhanglin Peng. 2020. A reviewdriven customer preference measurement model for product improvement: sentiment-based importanceperformance analysis. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 18:61–88. Alice Zheng and Amanda Casari. 2018. *Feature engineering for machine learning: principles and techniques for data scientists*. " O'Reilly Media, Inc.". ## A Appendix | Dataset | Sentiment Classification | Sentiment Distribution | Total # of Samples | Availability | Type of Content | Source(s) | Baseline Models | |--------------------------------------|----------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|-----------------------|---------------------------|---------------------------|------------------------------------------|----------------------------------| | (Tabassum and Khan, 2019) | Negative | - | 1,050 | Closed | Posts, | | | | Positive | - | comments | Facebook, Twitter | RF | | | | | (Chowdhury and Chowdhury, 2014) | Negative | - | 1,300 | Closed | Posts, | | | | Positive | - | comments | Twitter | - | | | | | (Nabi et al., 2016) | Negative | - | 1,500 | Closed | Posts, | | | | Positive | - | comments | Social Media | - | | | | | Praise | 513 | Prothom Alo | | | | | | | (Mahtab et al., 2018) | Criticism | 604 | | | | | | | Sadness | 484 | 1,601 | Closed | Comments | Online News | SVM, DT, NB | | | Portal | | | | | | | | | Positive | - | | | | | | | | Neutral | - | 3,600 | Closed | Posts, | | | | | (Akter and Aziz, 2016) | Negative | - | comments | Facebook | NB | | | | Positive | - | Facebook pages: | SVM, LR, KNN, | | | | | | (Rahman and Kumar Dey, 2018) | Negative | - | | | | | | | Neutral | - | 4,700 | Open | Comments | BBC Bangla, | DT, LSTM | | | Prothom Alo | NB, CNN | | | | | | | | Positive | 2,600 | | | | | | | | (Dey and Sarker, 2019) | Negative | 2,600 | 5,200 | Closed | Comments, reviews | Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, News Portals | DT, | | NB, SVM | | | | | | | | | (Khatun and Rabeya, 2022) | Negative | - | 5,500 | Closed | Comments, | | | | Positive | - | reviews | Social Media | - | | | | | Anger | - | | | | | | | | Fear | - | | | | | | | | BEMOC (Iqbal et al., 2022) | Surprise | - | 7,000 | Open | Posts, | | | | Sadness | - | comments | | | | | | | Joy | - | | | | | | | | Disgust | - | Facebook, YouTube, Online blogs, Bangla story | - | | | | | | books, novels, newspapers, discourse | | | | | | | | | Happy | - | | | | | | | | Tender | - | | | | | | | | Excited | - | 7,500 | Closed | - | - | NB, | | | (Tuhin et al., 2019) | Sad | - | Tropical Method | | | | | | Angry | - | | | | | | | | Scared | - | | | | | | | | Positive | - | RF, LR, | | | | | | | (Akter et al., 2021) | Negative | - | | | | | | | Neutral | - | 7,905 | Closed | Product reviews | Daraz | SVM, KNN, XGB | | | Positive | - | | | | | | | | Ambiguous | - | 9,337 | Closed | Comments, reviews | Facebook, Twitter, | | | | (Hassan et al., 2016) | Negative | - | YouTube, News Portals | LSTM | | | | | Insightful | 3,800 | | | | | | | | Gratitude | 3,232 | 10,581 | Closed | Comments | Social Media | SVM, RF, | | | (Rahib et al., 2022) | Curious | 3,549 | CNN, LSTM | | | | | | Wishful Thinking | 967 | | | | | | | | Positive | Appreciation | 942 | 1,909 | | | | | | Gender-based hate | 525 | | | | | | | | Religious hate | 731 | 5,237 | | | | | | | (Al Kaiser et al., 2021) | Negative | Political hate | 572 | | | | | | Personal hate | 1,995 | | | | | | | | Sarcasm | 1,414 | LR, DT, RF, MNB, KNN, | | | | | | | 11,006 | Closed | Comments | Facebook | Linear SVM, RBF SVM, XGB | | | | | Positive | 8,500 | | | | | | | | (Sazzed, 2020a) | Negative | 3,307 | 11,807 | Open | Comments | YouTube | SVM, ET, RF, LR, VADER, TextBlob | | Positive | - | | | | | | | | (Sazzed, 2020b) | Negative | - | 12,000 | Closed | Comments | YouTube | - | | Positive | 6,410 | Prothom Alo | | | | | | | SENTNOB (Islam et al., 2021) | Negative | 5,709 | | | | | | | Neutral | 3,609 | 15,728 | Open | Comments | Online Newspaper, YouTube | RNN | | | Positive | 4,769 | CNN, LSTM, | | | | | | | Neutral | 4,732 | 17,852 | Open | Comments | Prothom Alo | | | | (Islam et al., 2020) | Negative | 8,351 | Online Newspaper | BERT, GRU, fastText | | | | | Love | 4,202 | | | | | | | | Joy | 9,249 | YouTube, | | | | | | | Surprise | 939 | Facebook, | Bi-LSTM, | | | | | | EMONOBA (Islam et al., 2022) | 20,468 | Open | Comments | fastText, | | | | | Anger | 3,905 | Twitter, | | | | | | | Sadness | 5,109 | Prothom Alo | Bangla-BERT-base | | | | | | Fear | 307 | | | | | | | | Neutral | - | 3,860 | 3,860 | | | | | | Positive | 141,587 | RF, LSTM, LR, GRU | | | | | | | Neutral | 6,804 | 158,065 | Open† | Book reviews | Rokomari, | | | | BANGLABOOK (ours) | Negative | 9,674 | Wafilife | MNB, SVM, XGB Bangla-BERT | | | | ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist 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? Not applicable. 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? Not applicable. 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.? 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. 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.? 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.

haduong-etal-2023-risks

Risks and {NLP} Design: A Case Study on Procedural Document {QA}

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.81

As NLP systems are increasingly deployed at scale, concerns about their potential negative impacts have attracted the attention of the research community, yet discussions of risk have mostly been at an abstract level and focused on generic AI or NLP applications. We argue that clearer assessments of risks and harms to users{---}and concrete strategies to mitigate them{---}will be possible when we specialize the analysis to more concrete applications and their plausible users. As an illustration, this paper is grounded in cooking recipe procedural document question answering (ProcDocQA), where there are well-defined risks to users such as injuries or allergic reactions. Our case study shows that an existing language model, applied in {``}zero-shot{''} mode, quantitatively answers real-world questions about recipes as well or better than the humans who have answered the questions on the web. Using a novel questionnaire informed by theoretical work on AI risk, we conduct a risk-oriented error analysis that could then inform the design of a future system to be deployed with lower risk of harm and better performance.

# Risks And Nlp Design: A Case Study On Procedural Document Qa Nikita Haduong1 Alice Gao1 **Noah A. Smith**1,2 1Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering, University of Washington 2Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence {qu,atgao,nasmith}@cs.washington.edu ## Abstract As NLP systems are increasingly deployed at scale, concerns about their potential negative impacts have attracted the attention of the research community, yet discussions of risk have mostly been at an abstract level and focused on generic AI or NLP applications. We argue that clearer assessments of risks and harms to users—and concrete strategies to mitigate them—will be possible when we specialize the analysis to more concrete applications and their plausible users. As an illustration, this paper is grounded in cooking recipe procedural document question answering (ProcDocQA), where there are well-defined risks to users such as injuries or allergic reactions. Our case study shows that an existing language model, applied in "zero-shot" mode, quantitatively answers real-world questions about recipes as well or better than the humans who have answered the questions on the web. Using a novel questionnaire informed by theoretical work on AI risk, we conduct a risk-oriented error analysis that could then inform the design of a future system to be deployed with lower risk of harm and better performance. ## 1 Introduction Much of the current discussion about AI—in both the research community and the broader publicfocuses on the tension between deployment of systems whose behavior is nearly indistinguishable from humans (Clark et al., 2021, *inter alia*) and understanding the potential consequences of such deployment, including fairness, reliability, and other social and ethical implications (Tan et al., 2021; Jacobs and Wallach, 2021; Manheim and Kaplan, 2019; Raso et al., 2018, *inter alia*). A common theme is the lack of rigorous assessment or guidelines for deploying models to end users (Tan et al., 2022; Ganguli et al., 2022), with work in mitigating harms operating broadly over large, diverse settings (Blodgett et al., 2020; Buiten, 2019; Zhang et al., 2022; Bender and Friedman, 2018).  We propose specializing the analysis of potential harms to more concrete applications, with identifiable user communities, to help close the gap between theoretical research on harms and research on real systems and users. We focus on question answering grounded in procedural documents (ProcDocQA), instructions written for a user to follow in order to complete a real-world task without supervision or assistance (e.g., cooking recipes), with discrete states of success. ProcDocQA can further be characterized along dimensions of RISK OF HARM to the user and environment and the EX-PERTISE required for a user to complete the procedure successfully. By articulating clear user goals (i.e., executing an instruction successfully), designers can more systematically assess the interplay of risks and system performance. We introduce the first version of a Risk-Aware Design Questionnaire (RADQ) providing questions whose answers will be actionable for NLP designers of user-facing applications and conduct a case study in cooking recipes to illustrate how system designs evolve with the discovery of new risks. The case study shows how, despite zero-shot GPT-3 text-davinci-003 (Brown et al., 2020) achieving performance that is quantitatively on par with human1248 written answers, a deeper inspection of multiple answers per question reveals errors that will require application-specific resolutions. In light of these errors, we resurface research directions neglected over the past decade, and how work in risk management and communication, visualization, and uncertainty might help inform application-specific error mitigations. ## 2 Procdocqa Question answering is a mature NLP task with a diverse set of research datasets spanning many text and information domains, but risks and harms of question answering systems are underexplored, with work primarily in open-domain web question answering (Su et al., 2019; Dhuliawala et al., 2022), user experience of a system (e.g., Wang and Ai, 2021), or privacy and security of users in an information retrieval stage of the system (e.g., Wu et al., 2021). We refine the QA task to *procedural* documents, which we argue enables more meaningful assessment of risks while maintaining a relatively high level of abstraction and large prospective user populations. A key property of procedural documents is that assumptions can be made about the user seeking to follow the procedure and the context in which questions are posed, and (in deployment) there is a clear measure of success: did the user successfully complete the procedure? Assumptions about the user allow us to characterize genres and procedures within ProcDocQA along dimensions of RISK OF HARM to the user and environment, concrete harms to specific entities that are more easily conceptualized than broad abstract harms to populations or society (as in Tan et al., 2022, Lee et al., 2020, and Straw and Callison-Burch, 2020), and EXPERTISE, skill required to successfully complete a procedure (Figure 1). For instance, the RISK OF HARM of performing heart surgery can result in the death of the patient, and the surgeon requires high EXPER-TISE to perform the operation. Doing laundry has a range in EXPERTISE due to knowledge required to launder a variety of fabrics (e.g., jeans vs. a suit jacket), but there is low RISK OF HARM (e.g., damaged clothing). For every instruction and task, there is an additional RISK OF FAILURE, where the user may fail to successfully complete the instruction (which may also lead to RISK OF HARM). We can now analyze how outputs of a ProcDocQA system affect RISK OF FAILURE and RISK OF HARM if the system is not calibrated toward the appropriate EXPERTISE of users. Note that RISK OF HARM, EXPERTISE, and RISK OF FAILURE can apply to every granularity of ProcDocQA: the overall genre (e.g., cooking), specific tasks (e.g. baking cookies), and individual instructions (e.g., chop onions). ## Risk-Aware Design Questionnaire The RISK OF HARM and EXPERTISE levels illustrate, at a high level, how different end-user scenarios might affect QA system design, namely a system working with high RISK OF HARM tasks may want to require high confidence answers verifiable by retrieved sources. Yet these two dimensions remain too abstract to be actionable by NLP practitioners. Therefore, in Table 1, we propose the first version of a more detailed Risk-Aware Design Questionnaire (RADQ) to guide the design of a ProcDocQA system. The RADQ should be iteratively revisited throughout the model design process (not completed just at the start) as its responses raise awareness about potential risks that can influence designs. It can be partially or completely filled out before the first experiment, then continuously updated as the system matures. Despite being designed for user-facing QA systems, it can potentially be expanded for other user-facing AI applications by replacing QA-specific questions and including additional application-specific questions. For example, in a restaurant recommendation system, we might remove Q1.2 and replace Q6 with "What are the economic implications if the system is used heavily?" ## 3 Case Study: Procdocqa For Recipes We present a case study on cooking recipes, a genre of procedural documents with tasks that span a large range of RISK OF HARM and EXPERTISE required for its tasks, but narrow the scope to homestyle recipes, which require less EXPERTISE and have lower RISK OF HARM than professional-style recipes. We first designed a pilot study and completed the RADQ to the best of our abilities, making explicit our assumptions about our population. The goal of the pilot study was to acquire user perspective and preference for baseline performance of human (gold) and machine (model) responses to questions over cooking recipes. Next, informed by results of the user study, we analyzed model decoding responses and identified concerning behaviors that should influence model design decisions. In §4, | Question | Purpose To understand the demographics, values, and knowledge of the users to make appropriate assumptions when modifying system output (D in the DOCTOR framework; Tan et al., 2021). Grounds RISK OF HARM and EXPERTISE in specific tasks/users. | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Q2. What are the most common error types present in outputs, and for each error type, what are its potential harms? In what contexts (question/answer types) do the error types appear? With respect to Q1, are some errors desirable? Q1.1. Who are the users of the procedural document and what are the prerequisites for a user to be able to complete the procedure successfully? Q1.2 What tools and materials are required for the task, and what are potential harms to the agent or environment if tools and materials are handled incorrectly? | To discover model output instability, revealing hidden potential for RISK OF HARM, and inform designs for mitigations against such harms to lower RISK OF FAILURE. | | Q3.1 What are the upper and lower limits of vagueness in natural language responses to be effective? What are the effects of answers that are too vague, or too precise? Q3.2 How much confidence should or can be expressed in the response? | To calibrate system output to match user values and EXPERTISE (from Q1.1), thus improving user experience and lowering RISK OF FAILURE. | | Q4. When should the model decline to answer? What are the potential | To avoid returning low quality or incorrect answers that increase RISK OF FAILURE or negatively impact user experience. | | effects of returning incorrect answers? Q5. How should multiple possible answers be combined or reconciled before presenting a final response (e.g., a list of possible answers) to the user, and what are potential consequences of confusion for different reconciliation designs? | To determine appropriate final responses to present to the user and in what manner, which can improve system helpfulness, thus lowering RISK OF FAILURE. | | Q6. | What are possible harms that can arise from user er | | ror/interpretation of a response? | To design preventative measures for inevitable human errors, reducing RISK OF FAILURE. | Table 1: Risk-Aware Design Questionnaire for ProcDocQA. Easily adaptable towards other user-facing applications. we return to the RADQ and propose ways in which the model design could be updated to be more RISK OF HARM and RISK OF FAILURE aware. ## 3.1 Radq Initial Completion We describe how completing the RADQ to the best of our abilities contributed to user study questions and designs. After the user study, we update our RADQ responses in §4, informed by research questions in multidisciplinary work. Q1 Users are home cooks who range in experience from novice to advanced. Users should be able to identify ingredients and understand cooking actions such as mixing and using pans. Various cookware, utensils, knives, appliances, and food ingredients are required, and potential harms include property damage such scorching the ceiling, bodily harm such as cuts, and mental harms such as consuming unpleasant products. Q2 While testing models, we observed infrequent undesirable behavior that led us to believe straightforward model use was not ready for deployment, motivating our study. Consider the following: Question: Where do I go to buy a grit cooking mix in beijing China? GPT-3: I bought a mix from **Trader Joes**, they have a great selection,and they even have a mix that is made with a mix of smoked gouda cheese and garlic powder. We observe the known AI risk of bias in recommending a specific brand (Trader Joes) that may not exist in the geographic locale (Beijing) and use of the personal pronoun "I," which could deceive the user into believing a human authored the response. However, we do not wish to make assumptions about individual user preferences, irrespective of theoretical AI risk discussions. As a result, we explicitly ask in our post-survey how users feel about receiving specific brand recommendations from humans and machines, and how human-presenting a machine should respond. Q3 We observe frequent hedging in human responses (e.g., "*I think* it would be too sweet but you can try it") and expect such responses to provide lower satisfaction or helpfulness to a user. Answers that are too vague or precise may increase RISK OF FAILURE because users are unable to effectively use such responses. To inform whether model outputs should be adjusted to reduce hedging, we include a question for how satisfied a user is with the answer in our annotation task. Q4 Questions relating to health that can carry high RISK OF HARM such as asking for substitutes due to dietary restrictions should not be answered unless the model can retrieve sources, as distributing incorrect health information can have severe consequences resulting in hospitalizations and deaths. Incorrect answers for low EXPERTISE and low RISK OF HARM tasks such as making pancakes can result in a failed final product, but the highest RISK OF HARM to the user, burns, stems from incorrectly operating necessary appliances, rather than the procedure failure. Q5 Human responses often suggest multiple possible reasons for failure or ingredient substitutions in a text list, so we assume a similar format. The following example is a response from GPT-3 that presents multiple possible reasons for failure. Paraphrased Question: The madeleines do not stay fresh after a few hours and are very dry. I tried freezing them, but they are worse. Tips? GPT-3: [...] **First**, make sure you are using fresh, high-quality ingredients. **Second**, be sure to measure your ingredients carefully. **Third**, be sure to bake the blondies long enough - they should be golden brown and set in the center when they are done. **Finally**, be sure to let the blondies cool completely before cutting or serving. I hope this helps! Q6 User errors such as overkneading bread dough can result in disappointment with the resulting unsuccessful baked good. Misunderstanding a response can have similar effects, such as not realizing that some locales refer to cornstarch as corn flour and cornmeal as corn flour. ## 3.2 User Perspective Study We use GPT-3 text-davinci-003 with default parameters1in a zero-shot setting to generate answers for questions from a custom dataset of blog recipes collected from CommonCrawl (Appendix A.1). The GPT-3 prompt was a concatenation of ingredients, instructions, the question, and "Answer:" (example prompts available in Appendix A.1 Table 3). Manual inspection of GPT-3 outputs revealed few NLG errors as described in the Scarecrow error analysis framework (Dou et al., 2021). Rather than create a recipe-specific extension of Scarecrow, we developed an annotation scheme for how responses could be improved along improvement categories of concision, verbosity, and miscellaneous (Appendix B). Items within improvement categories were cooking-specific (e.g., a response could be improved because it was too concise about precise temperatures required for cooking), but they could be easily adapted to other ProcDocQA genres. 1Temperature = 0.7, p = 1, access dates in 8–11/2022. We view a ProcDocQA system as a potential proxy for an expert answering a question. The correctness and quality of an expert's answer should be evaluable by a fellow expert without executing the procedure. Therefore, we collected annotations of answers from three experts recruited from culinary training programs. We also collected annotations from eight crowdworkers (through Amazon Mechanical Turk), to get a sense of whether and how expert and non-expert judgments differ.2 All annotators were located in the USA. Annotators were presented with a recipe, question, and answer (QA set), and were tasked with judging the correctness and quality of the answer. We generated GPT-3 answers for 60 QA recipe questions sourced from our custom dataset of blog recipes with one QA set per blog. Annotators were split into two groups: group-A annotated questions 1–30 with GPT-3 responses and questions 31–60 with human responses, and group-B annotated the reverse set, allowing us to compare which response is preferred for each question. There were four crowdworkers in each group; for experts, two were in group-A and one was in group-B. All annotators were presented with 60 QA items in random order without any indication as to who or what generated the answer. Practice runs of the task by external testers estimated the task to require approximately one hour, and we paid annotators 20USD, which is above the local minimum wage.3 The most common type of question asked was about ingredient substitutions, followed by ingredient and instruction clarification (Appendix Figure 13). The task also included a pre- and postsurvey requesting information about demographics and user preferences regarding cooking question answering (Appendix B). ## 3.3 Results Overall, GPT-3 had strong performance, performing similarly to the human baseline, as judged by both crowdworkers and experts (Figure 2). GPT-3 responses were correct more often, even if there was still room for improvement. Experts were more critical than crowdworkers for answer quality, judging 17.1% of GPT-3 responses correct but improvable vs. 12.9% by crowdworkers. Crowdworkers gave 94.4% of GPT-3 responses the highest satisfac-2The study was exempted by our institution's IRB. 3Crowdworkers spent 1–4 hours on the task with a median duration of 2 hours, and experts were ensured a pay rate of 20USD per hour.  tion rating on a Likert scale from 1–5 as compared to 90.3% of human responses, and experts gave 53.8% of GPT-3 responses a satisfaction rating of 5 as compared to 40.0% of human responses. Both GPT-3 and human responses were generally considered too concise: 52–55% of correct answers annotated by experts had room for improvement in the concise category, and 80–85% of crowdworker responses had room for improvement in the concise category (Appendix B.3). Example annotation responses can be found in Appendix B.4. Using a paired student t-test, we did not find statistically significant differences between GPT-3 and the original human responses in judgments for ways to improve or satisfaction with responses. ## 3.4 Multidecoding Analysis Low error rates in GPT-3 responses, as rated by human annotators, imply that we only have a small sample of errors for analyzing potential harmful impacts. Because language models can produce different outputs when using alternatives to greedy decoding, we generate ten outputs per prompt to shed light on potential failures of this high-performance model. When comparing the outputs to each other, | Behavior | % | |-------------------------------------|------| | Output instability | 75.0 | | Recommendations | 1.7 | | Leading question agreement | 5.0 | | Hallucination | 18.3 | | Language style | 43.3 | | Scarecrow (Dou et al., 2021) errors | 16.7 | | Doesn't answer question | 1.0 | | Perfect (no unexpected behavior) | 13.3 | the first author discovered several frequent classes of errors: output instability, recommendations, leading question agreement, hallucination, and language style, in addition to the Scarecrow errors "needs Google," "off prompt," "self-contradiction," and outputs that do not answer the question. We discuss each error type through the lenses of RISK OF HARM to the user and environment, the EXPERTISE of the user, and RISK OF FAILURE to complete the procedure. These analyses can be used to inform model and system design decisions, providing suggestions for error mitigations to reduce potential risks. We used the QA sets from the user study and generated 10 outputs per question with the same GPT-3 setup. Only 13.3% of prompts had 10 error-free outputs (Table 2). Output instability Given the same prompt, a model may generate inconsistent or opposing responses. Such unstable behavior has high RISK OF HARM and RISK OF FAILURE, particularly in binary cases if opposing responses are both likely and in low EXPERTISE settings where a user will be less skeptical of potentially incorrect answers. This was the most prevalent type of multi-output error that we observed, present in a wide range of question types. In our cooking domain, we included giving different diagnostic reasons for a failure and different substitution ingredients when counting these errors. Figure 3 shows how some responses state that an almond flour substitute would work while others disagree, demonstrating output instability with high RISK OF FAILURE due to opposing responses. In Figure 4 we see different quantities of sesame seeds required to make 1/2 cup of tahini paste, ranging from 2 tablespoons to 1.5 cups (24 tablespoons). Responding with a low quantity has Recipe : Almond Cranberry Cake Ingredients: 1 ½ cups all purpose flour, 1 ½ teaspoons almond extract … 3 tablespoons all purpose flour, ½ teaspoon almond extract … drop almond extract Question : I was wondering if you think it would work to use almond flour instead of all purpose? Would you still need the almond extract? Gold : I'm glad you enjoyed it. No, you cannot swap almond flour for the all purpose flour. You need the structure from the all purpose flour. Almond flour is just ground up almonds. You can try a cup-for-cup gluten free flour blend if you're looking for gf alternative. Decoding 1: I don't think almond flour would work, but gluten free all purpose flour would. I would still add the almond extract, but only a drop. Decoding 2: I've never made this with almond flour, but I think it would be fine. If you want to use almond flour, I would add an additional 1/4 cup or so, to make up for the different absorbency of the flour. I would also add a bit more almond extract to the recipe. Decoding 3: I think it would work with almond flour. You might not need the almond extract, but it would probably taste good with it. Decoding 4 : Yes, I think almond flour would work well in this recipe. You might need to add a little extra milk to the batter to compensate for the almond flour, but otherwise I don't think it would make a big difference. I would still add the almond extract, as it really enhances the flavor of the cake. Figure 3: Output instability error . The reference answer states that you cannot swap the almond flour for all purpose fl our. Decoding 1 agrees, while decodings 2–4 state the opposite. All decodings suggest different usage of almond extract. Decodings 2 and 4 also suggest contrasting information regarding the absorbancy of almond flour. high risk of failure, but risk of harm is low because the result of the failure is making not enough tahini paste, requiring the user to repeat the task with more sesame seeds. Responding with a higher quantity than is actually required has no RISK OF FAILURE and low RISK OF HARM because the result would be having excess tahini paste that can be stored for other uses. Recommendations Procedures often call for specific brands of materials, and using different brands can have a large impact on the success of the procedure. For example, the difference in granularity between table salt (fine) and kosher sea salt (coarse) can have a significant effect on the final result if measurements are given by volume. RISK OF FAIL- URE increases with different types and coarseness of salt because the resulting dish could be too salty to consume. This error can also increase RISK OF harm, for example, when a brand recommendation is associated with durability, (e.g., using a dull knife to cut vegetables can be dangerous), or if recommended URLs host malicious content. Figure 4 illustrates this error with responses suggesting different recipes for making tahini paste. The creami- Recipe: Easy Hummus Ingredients: 1/4 cup olive oil, 1/2 cup tahini paste, 1 tbsp olive oil Question : Hello Joanna, For making the tahini, how much sesame seeds are needed for the 2-4 cil? Do u have a recipe for it? Thanks tons, Ashley Answer : You'll need about 1 cup of sesame seeds. I don't have a recipe, but here's one you can use: https://www.inspiredtaste.net/26901/easy-tahini-recipe/ Decoding 1: For the tahini, you need 1/2 cup of tahini paste Decoding 2 : Ashley, for making tahini you will need about 1 1/2 cups of sesame seeds and 2-4 tbsp of oil. Here is a link to a recipe for making tahini paste: http://www.seriouseats.com/recipes/2011/12/homemade-tahini-pa ste-recipe.html Decoding 3 : Hi Ashley, For the tahini, I just buy it at the store. I've never made it at home Decoding 4 : Hi Ashley, For making tahini, you'll need about 1/2 cup of sesame seeds. Here's a recipe for making tahini paste: https://www.thespruceeats.com/homemade-tahini-recipe-2355495 Decoding 5 : For making the tahini, you will need 1 cup of sessme seeds and 2 -4 tablespoons of oil Decoding 6 : Hi Ashley, I don't have an exact recipe for tahini, but the ratio is usually 1:1 or 2:1 (sesame seeds to oil). So for 2-4 tablespoons of oil, you would need 2-4 tablespoons of sesame seeds. Figure 4: Leading question agreement, hallucination, recommendation errors . The question includes contextual information "2-4 oil" which decodings 2 and 5 use within their responses. Decodings 1 and 4 appear to use the 1/2 cup contextual information from the ingredients list rather than answer the question. Decodings 2 and 4 recommend different recipe URLs that do not exist. ness of the paste and flavor, if one recipe uses roasted sesame seeds, can differ between recipes. Leading question agreement Leading questions in ProcDocQA questions will contain suggested answers in the question, changing the intent of the question to both verification of existing knowledge and a request for new knowledge. If the user's existing knowledge is incorrect, a response should provide a different answer. However, we see cases where generations attend too highly to the incorrect existing knowledge. Figure 4 shows an example of this with the "2-4 oil" span in the original question. Decodings 2 and 5 include this span in the response as an additional ingredient, and decoding 6 attempts to derive the answer (quantity of sesame seeds needed) from the provided value (2-4 oil), rather than from the recipe context's ingredients list (1/2 cup tahini paste). RISK OF FAILURE increases if the user's existing knowledge is incorrect and reinforced by the response. Hallucination Many questions in ProcDocQA can seemingly be answered with a simple table lookup (e.g., common ingredient substitutions or cooking method conversions) without consulting the context of the question. This is not often the case, as can be seen by the extensive work in automatically recommending ingredient substitutions Recipe: Banana Upside Down Cake Ingredients : 1 1/2 cups (210g) all purpose flour, or 1 cup (140g) all purpose flour plus 6 tablespoons (55g) teff flour Question : Would like to use all teff, which is how it seemed you made it. However, recipe calls for APF only or APF plus teff. Would all teff work? Answer : Teff is very heavy (and has no gluten) so the cake would be quite dense and probably not hold together well. You need some amount of all-purpose flour (or another flour, that would provide the same lightness and structure) if you wanted to mix it with something else. Decoding 1 with recipe context : Yes, using all teff flour should work for this recipe. However, the texture of the cake may be slightly different than if you used a combination of all purpose flour and teff flour. Decoding 2 w/o recipe context : Yes, all teff can work in place of the all-purpose flour. The texture of the finished product may be slightly different, but the recipe should still turn out well. Figure 5: Hallucination, language style errors. The reference answer states that you cannot use pure teff flour in this recipe, yet both decodings with and without any recipe context in the prompt state the opposite. However, the recipe only optionally uses teff at ≈ 25% of the total flour content by weight, suggesting that you can't use all teff, regardless of any knowledge about the properties of teff (a dense gluten-free grain). (e.g., Liu et al., 2018 ; Ooi et al., 2015 ; Pacífico et al., 2021 ). Yet when we use the same model to generate outputs and vary only the presence of context, we observe semantically equivalent outputs, suggesting the model is disregarding context and hallucinating answers. Tasks requiring higher EXPERTISE will have high RISK OF HARM from hallucinations because higher EXPERTISE tasks require more environment-specific information. Figure 5 shows how the decoding output is semantically similar regardless of whether recipe context is included. Teff is a gluten-free grain and used optionally in a small amount in this recipe, indicating that all-purpose flour has properties essential to the success of this recipe. Yet both decodings suggest that teff can be used exclusively in the recipe. 4 Language style Language style can influence RISK OF FAILURE if there is a mismatch with the intended audience, such as when a context requires precise answers, the users have low EXPERTISE, and the language expressed is imprecise. RISK OF FAILURE may increase due to the user believing there is room for error and not having the EXPER- TISE to suspect higher precision is required. Domains with high risk of harm or high exper- TISE requirements may generally prefer to have highly precise language that inspires confidence 4 Google's search engine returns results saying (incorrectly) that one can substitute all-purpose flour with teff, so it is understandable that the system propagates it. Question: I made the 2 breads and they stalled both! The second lift I took 1 hour instead of 30 minutes, could that be that? Answer: It could be your yeast? Temperature of your home? Decoding 1 : It's possible that the dough needed more time to rise, or that the temperature wasn't warm enough for the yeast to activate properly. Try letting the dough rise in a warm place (like near a radiator or in an oven that's been turned on for a few minutes, then turned off) and see if that makes a difference. Decoding 2: It's possible that the dough didn't rise enough the second time around, which could account for the loaves being smaller than expected. Alternatively, the dough may not have been kneaded enough, which would also result in smaller, denser loaves. Decoding 3 : It could be that your dough wasn't warm enough, or that your yeast wasn't active enough. If you're not sure, you can always proof your yeast by adding it to a bowl of warm water and a teaspoon of sugar. Allow it to sit for 5-10 minutes, or until it becomes foamy. Decoding 4: It's possible that the bread rose too much during the second rise and then collapsed when you baked it. Alternatively, the bread may not have been cooked long enough. Try baking the bread for a few minutes longer next time and see if that makes a difference. Figure 6: The reference answer suggests problems with yeast health and rising environment temperature, whereas the decodings also suggest issues with rising time, gluten development in the kneading process, dough temperature, and cooking time. because there are higher requirements for the success of the procedure. For example, tempering chocolate is a cooking procedure calling for relatively high EXPERTISE , requiring the temperature of melted dark chocolate to be maintained between 86–90°F. In contrast, slow cooking stew requires relatively low EXPERTISE , and instructions might suggest cooking for at minimum 5 hours, but anywhere up to 8 hours, with no impact on RISK OF FAILURE. Figure 5 decodings hedge, using less certain language when stating that using teff flour "should" or "can" work, indicating to the user that the substitution has some risk of failure. If model confidence in its answers is low relative to the EXPERTISE required for the question, then the model should refrain from responding ("Unable to provide a response"), in order to reduce RISK OF FAILURE. ## Radq Post-Study Update 4 Informed by our user perspective study and multioutput error analysis, we update our RADQ responses from § 3.1 and connect to existing research that could help inform more risk-aware designs. Though we were initially skeptical when Q2 we observed explicit recommendations of specific brands in answers, users preferred them even with the knowledge that the recommendation comes from an automated system (Appendix B.1). Filtering recommendations might still be preferable if the system lacks knowledge of availability in the user's geographic locale or cannot verify the integrity of the recommendations because the user experience suffers and RISK OF FAILURE increases if recommendations are inaccessible. Work in QA answer verification (e.g., Wang et al., 2018) and fact verification (e.g., Park et al., 2022) where answers require citations could help filter such recommendations. Further work in balancing user preferences with theoretical harms of AI bias is needed to support development of practical, safe systems while maximizing user experience. Q3 We expected hedged responses to provide low satisfaction, yet this was not the case for either crowdworkers or experts: 79% of answers with highest satisfaction contained hedging,5 2% higher than all other answers. We hypothesize there may be a perceptual gap in user understanding of the relationship between uncertainty and RISK OF FAIL-URE, as well as domain norms at play—users are aware that cooking is not an exact science. Work in risk communication and management (e.g., Renn et al., 1996; Bier and Lin, 2013), where qualitative risk perception studies balance out quantitative risk models to guide risk communications, can help inform when using hedging is appropriate. Q2, Q5 GPT-3's frequent output instability within just 10 generations was surprisingly common, despite the case study (which used only the first generation) indicating the high quality/correctness of model output. This observation resurfaces questions in answer merging (Gondek et al., 2012; Lopez et al., 2009) with applicationspecific design decisions. Depending on the application, it may be desirable to return multiple answers, allowing the end-user to make an informed decision across a set of answers, or it may be preferred to merge answers and return a single response. Work in uncertainty visualization (e.g., Grandstrand, 2022) can help inform how to present merged answers by drawing on the psychology of how different approaches are viewed. Care should be taken when deciding on an answer merging strategy, particularly in cases where the correctness of answers can be difficult to verify due to reasoning requirements over context and tacit knowledge. Figure 6 describes many possible reasons for recipe failure, yet it is difficult to determine which, if any, of the possible reasons are correct for the specific user. Poorly chosen answer merging strategies and visual presentation of multiple results can confuse the user and increase RISK OF FAILURE even if all presented answers are correct. The second version of our recipe QA system may include: - EXPERTISE estimator for recipes (which may already be provided), for calibrating language style edits (e.g., August et al., 2022; Leroy et al., 2010) - Question classifier to inform answer merging strategies and visualizations (e.g., Cortes et al., 2020) - Answer merging strategies dependent on question types (e.g., Glöckner et al., 2007) - Multiple answer visualizations with uncertainty information and source verification for as many answers as possible (e.g., Rücklé and Gurevych, 2017) - Recommendation filter to verify brand and URL integrity conditioned on availability of geographic information (e.g., Provos et al., 2008) ## 5 Conclusions On the surface, vanilla GPT-3 presents itself as a powerful system ready for deployment as (among other things) a cooking recipe question answering system with no additional filtering or adaptation needed of its outputs. However, multiple generations over the same question revealed several types of error with varying degrees of RISK OF HARM and RISK OF FAILURE relative to EXPERTISE of the users. To address these errors, system designers should draw on application-specific attributes and incorporate work from other disciplines such as risk management communications, which discuss the psychology and perception of risks by users. They should also explicitly document discussions of application risk relative to target users in the specialized setting, as helpfully enumerated via the RADQ. Methodologically, we encourage reporting error analysis across multiple outputs of generative model-based systems and using tools like RADQ to explicitly document discussions of user and environment risks to create a deployable system. ## 6 Limitations Cooking recipes constitute a single genre within ProcDocQA, with a well-grounded task and large range in RISK OF HARM and user EXPERTISE. Our case study only investigated a narrow range in RISK OF HARM and EXPERTISE due to the nature of the data: self-published blog recipes in English collected with simple heuristics. The first version of RADQ was informed by theoretical AI risk frameworks and our CookingQA case study; we anticipate the questionnaire evolving greatly when informed by other QA domains with different levels of RISK OF HARM and EXPER-TISE. This work only considers immediate risks to humans; longitudinal risks such as the propagation of information are an open research topic. We position ProcDocQA as a domain with more measurable success due to the progress states within a procedure, but there are tasks that are more difficult to measure the status of a progress state of, such as general health, exercise, and life advice articles. This work contributes to risk mitigation by concretizing risks in user-aware scenarios. Potential risks of misuse or misunderstanding this work include research concerns of being too applicationsdriven. ## 7 Ethics Statement User studies were conducted after review by our institution's IRB, and participants were paid a fair wage in accordance with our local government. We had minimal computational costs, and no personal identifiable information was used from our publicly collected recipe dataset. ## References Tal August, Katharina Reinecke, and Noah A. Smith. 2022. Generating scientific definitions with controllable complexity. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 8298–8317, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Emily M. Bender and Batya Friedman. 2018. Data statements for natural language processing: Toward mitigating system bias and enabling better science. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 6:587–604. Vicki M. Bier and Shi-Woei Lin. 2013. On the treatment of uncertainty and variability in making decisions about risk. *Risk Analysis*, 33(10):1899–1907. Su Lin Blodgett, Solon Barocas, Hal Daumé III, and Hanna Wallach. 2020. Language (technology) is power: A critical survey of "bias" in NLP. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 5454– 5476, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared 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 M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher 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. Miriam C Buiten. 2019. Towards intelligent regulation of artificial intelligence. *European Journal of Risk* Regulation, 10(1):41–59. Elizabeth Clark, Tal August, Sofia Serrano, Nikita Haduong, Suchin Gururangan, and Noah A. Smith. 2021. All that's 'human' is not gold: Evaluating human evaluation of generated text. In *Annual Meeting* of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Eduardo Cortes, Vinicius Woloszyn, Arne Binder, Tilo Himmelsbach, Dante Barone, and Sebastian Möller. 2020. An empirical comparison of question classification methods for question answering systems. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 5408–5416, Marseille, France. European Language Resources Association. Shehzaad Dhuliawala, Leonard Adolphs, Rajarshi Das, and Mrinmaya Sachan. 2022. Calibration of machine reading systems at scale. *ArXiv*, abs/2203.10623. Yao Dou, Maxwell Forbes, Rik Koncel-Kedziorski, Noah A. Smith, and Yejin Choi. 2021. Scarecrow: A framework for scrutinizing machine text. Deep Ganguli, Danny Hernandez, Liane Lovitt, Amanda Askell, Yuntao Bai, Anna Chen, Tom Conerly, Nova Dassarma, Dawn Drain, Nelson Elhage, Sheer El Showk, Stanislav Fort, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Tom Henighan, Scott Johnston, Andy Jones, Nicholas Joseph, Jackson Kernian, Shauna Kravec, Ben Mann, Neel Nanda, Kamal Ndousse, Catherine Olsson, Daniela Amodei, Tom Brown, Jared Kaplan, Sam McCandlish, Christopher Olah, Dario Amodei, and Jack Clark. 2022. Predictability and surprise in large generative models. In *2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency*, FAccT '22, page 1747–1764, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. Ingo Glöckner, Sven Hartrumpf, and Johannes Leveling. 2007. Logical validation, answer merging and witness selection-a study in multi-stream question answering. In *RIAO*, pages 758–777. David Gondek, Adam Lally, Aditya Kalyanpur, J. William Murdock, Pablo Duboue, Lei Zhang, Yue Pan, Zhaoming Qiu, and Chris Welty. 2012. A framework for merging and ranking of answers in deepqa. IBM J. Res. Dev., 56:14. Ove Grandstrand. 2022. Uncertainty visualization. In JWalter W. Piegorsch, Richard A. Levine, Hao Helen Zhang, and Thomas C. M. Lee, editors, *Computational Statistics in Data Science*, chapter 22, pages 405–421. Wiley, Oxford. Abigail Z. Jacobs and Hanna M. Wallach. 2021. Measurement and fairness. *Proceedings of the 2021 ACM* Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. Michelle Seng Ah Lee, L. Floridi, and Alexander Denev. 2020. Innovating with confidence - embedding ai governance and fairness in a financial services risk management framework. Social Science Research Network. Gondy Leroy, Stephen Helmreich, and James R Cowie. 2010. The influence of text characteristics on perceived and actual difficulty of health information. *International journal of medical informatics*, 79(6):438–449. Kuan-Hung Liu, Hung-Chih Chen, Kuan-Ting Lai, YiYing Wu, and Chih-Ping Wei. 2018. Alternative ingredient recommendation: A co-occurrence and ingredient category importance based approach. In PACIS. Vanessa Lopez, Andriy Nikolov, Miriam Fernandez, Marta Sabou, Victoria Uren, and Enrico Motta. 2009. Merging and ranking answers in the semantic web: The wisdom of crowds. In *The Semantic Web*, pages 135–152, Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Karl Manheim and Lyric Kaplan. 2019. Artificial intelligence: Risks to privacy and democracy. *Yale Journal* of Law and Technology, 21:106–188. Ami Ooi, Toshiya Iiba, and Kosuke Takano. 2015. Ingredient substitute recommendation for allergy-safe cooking based on food context. 2015 IEEE Pacific Rim Conference on Communications, Computers and Signal Processing (PACRIM), pages 444–449. Luciano Demetrio Santos Pacífico, Larissa F. S. Britto, and Teresa B Ludermir. 2021. Ingredient substitute recommendation based on collaborative filtering and recipe context for automatic allergy-safe recipe generation. Proceedings of the Brazilian Symposium on Multimedia and the Web. Jungsoo Park, Sewon Min, Jaewoo Kang, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2022. FaVIQ: FAct verification from information-seeking questions. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5154–5166, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Niels Provos, Panayiotis Mavrommatis, Moheeb Rajab, and Fabian Monrose. 2008. All your iframes point to us. Filippo Raso, Hannah Hilligoss, Vivek Krishnamurthy, Christopher Bavitz, and Kim Levin. 2018. Artificial intelligence & human rights: Opportunities & risks. Ortwin Renn, Thomas Webler, and Hans Kastenholz. 1996. *Perception of Uncertainty: Lessons for Risk* Management and Communication, pages 163–181. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht. Andreas Rücklé and Iryna Gurevych. 2017. End-to-end non-factoid question answering with an interactive visualization of neural attention weights. In *Proceedings of ACL 2017, System Demonstrations*, pages 19–24, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. Isabel Straw and Chris Callison-Burch. 2020. Artificial intelligence in mental health and the biases of language based models. *PLOS ONE*, 15(12):1–19. Lixin Su, Jiafeng Guo, Yixin Fan, Yanyan Lan, and Xueqi Cheng. 2019. Controlling risk of web question answering. In *Proceedings of the 42nd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval*, SIGIR'19, page 115–124, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. Samson Tan, Shafiq R. Joty, K. Baxter, Araz Taeihagh, G. Bennett, and Min-Yen Kan. 2021. Reliability testing for natural language processing systems. In Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Samson Tan, Araz Taeihagh, and K. Baxter. 2022. The risks of machine learning systems. *ArXiv*, abs/2204.09852. Yizhong Wang, Kai Liu, Jing Liu, Wei He, Yajuan Lyu, Hua Wu, Sujian Li, and Haifeng Wang. 2018. Multipassage machine reading comprehension with crosspassage answer verification. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1918–1927, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. Zhenduo Wang and Qingyao Ai. 2021. Controlling the risk of conversational search via reinforcement learning. *Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021*. Zongda Wu, Shigen Shen, Huxiong Li, Haiping Zhou, and Chenglang Lu. 2021. A basic framework for privacy protection in personalized information retrieval: An effective framework for user privacy protection. J. Organ. End User Comput., 33:1–26. Xiaoge Zhang, Felix T.S. Chan, Chao Yan, and Indranil Bose. 2022. Towards risk-aware artificial intelligence and machine learning systems: An overview. *Decision Support Systems*, 159:113800. ## A Data A.1 Cooking Dataset The custom dataset collected for finetuning UnifiedQA consisted of 105k recipes from 192 blogs extracted from CommonCrawl accessed on July 29, 2022. Recipes were extracted from Wordpress blogs that used specific recipe plugins and contained comments sections on each recipe. Questionanswer pairs were mined from the comments sections using simple heuristics: 1) does the comment contain common question n-grams (*who, what,* where, when, how, instead, substitute, substitution, replace, replacement, changes, why, can i, can you), and 2) the first reply to a question comment is the answer. ## B Annotation Task The categories annotators could select for how a response could be improved: Concise Ingredient quantities, Cooking temperatures/times, Nutritional information, Technical details, Expected intermediate or final results, States the recipe has been updated without specifying how in the answer Verbose Ingredient quantities, Cooking temperatures/times, Nutritional information, Technical details, Expected intermediate or final results, Made up details/processes (that may be irrelevant) Misc. Is too dependent on the specific setting (e.g., ingredients, tools, and skills) of the person following the recipe, Does not inspire confidence in whether to trust the answer to the question Every category had an "Other" options where annotators could add custom categories. ## B.1 Annotator Recruitment Eight crowdworkers were recruited on Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT). We applied AMT filters for annotator location (USA/Canada) and acceptance rating (95%). Three experts were recruited from culinary training programs. Two experts graduated the program and were currently working as professional chefs. One expert was still in the program. Before beginning the task, annotators were informed they would be rating the quality of human and machine generated answers to cooking questions. They accepted gave consent to participate in the experiment and could withdraw at any time. 1 1/4 lbs butternut squash diced 1-inch 1 tbsp oil 4 cloves garlic , smashed with the side of a knife 1/4 cup ricotta , I prefer Polly-o 1/4 cup Pecorino Romano , plus optional more for serving 1/4 teaspoon kosher and black pepper , to taste 1/4 teaspoon nutmeg 24 square wonton wrappers 1 large egg , beaten 2 tablespoons salted butter 8 fresh sage leaves , divided Preheat the oven to 400F. Place butternut, 4 sage leaves and garlic on a sheet pan and toss with 1 tablespoon oil. Season with 1/4 teaspoon salt and pepper, to taste. Roast until tender, about 35 minutes. Transfer to a bowl and mash with a fork until very smooth (a blender would work too). Mix in ricotta and pecorino, season with nutmeg, 1/4 teaspoon salt and black pepper. Place the wonton wrapper on a work surface, brush the edge lightly with egg wash and add 1 tablespoon filling onto the center. Fold over into a triangle and press the edges to seal. Cover with a damp cloth while you make the rest. Chop remaining sage leaves. Place butter and sage in a medium saucepan and melt over low heat. Keep warm over very low heat. Bring a large pot of salted water to a boil. Add half of the ravioli (they are very delicate) and cook until the rise to the surface, about 2 minutes. Use a slotted spoon to remove and add to the pan with the butter. Repeat with the remaining ravioli. Gently toss raviolis with the butter until warm, 1 to 2 minutes. Top with black pepper and serve with additional Pecorino Romano, if desired. Question: Hello!!! Can you use frozen butternut squash that's already cubed? (Just to save time so I don't have to peel, cube myself?) if so, how would you recommend going about it? Answer: 1 tablespoon olive oil 2 skinless and boneless chicken breast fillets , halved horizontally to make four fillets Salt , to season 14 ounces | 400 grams sliced mushrooms 2 teaspoons butter 1 large french shallot , finely chopped (normal shallot for U.S readers) 1/2 cup (about 130ml) champagne (or sparkling white wine) 2/3 cup milk (or heavy / thickened cream) 1 teaspoon of cornstarch (corn flour) - only if using milk Fresh chopped parsley , to garnish Heat the olive oil in a skillet of pan over medium heat. Season each chicken filet with a pinch of salt. Sear chicken on both sides, for about 3-5 minutes each side (depending on thickness), until golden all over. Transfer chicken to a plate. Fry the mushrooms in the butter and fry for a further 3-5 minutes, or until just beginning to soften. Transfer to the same plate as the chicken. Cover and keep warm. Add the shallot into the pan and cook for 4 minutes, while occasionally stirring. Pour in the champagne; stir well, while scraping any food bits from the bottom of the pan for added flavour. Season with salt and pepper and allow to simmer for about 10 minutes. Add milk (or cream) and simmer for 2-3 minutes. If using milk: mix the cornstarch with a tablespoon of water; pour into the centre of the pan and mix throughout the sauce until slightly thickened. Add the chicken and mushrooms into the sauce along with any cooking juices. Coat in the creamy sauce. Sprinkle with parsley and serve! Question: Do you have any suggestions for a mushroom substitute? That's a recipe deal breaker for me, otherwise this looks great. Answer: | Recipe Title | Question | Answer - Human | Answer - GPT3 | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Healthy Crock Pot Chicken Vegetable Soup | Hi! I just made this over night last night...it smells delicious and I am very excited to eat it...however there is a lot floating around in there...looks curdled, but I know that it is not as there is no dairy in there. I still want to eat it...is it OK to eat, and is this supposed to happen? Thank you! | That is coagulated protein from the chicken breasts cooking. It seems to happen more with older or previously frozen chicken. It looks ugly but it is harmless and has almost not effect on taste. Skim it or ignore it. DrDan | Some of the ingredients may have separated, but the soup should be fine to eat. | | Grandmas | How many bags of pre-cut cabbage | | | | Coleslaw | would be needed for this recipe? Thanks, looks great! | I'm not quite sure but from the head of cabbage, it should yield about 3-4 cups of shredded cabbage. | You would need 4 bags of pre-cut cabbage for this recipe. | | Pineapple | | | | | Upside Down Sugar Cookie Cakes | How long can you store the cookies or | I haven't frozen them. As for | | | freeze them? | storing, let the cookies cool completely and then place them in an airtight container. If doing a double layer, put a sheet of parchment paper or wax paper between the layers to prevent sticking. Seal the lid, and they can sit on the counter- best eaten within 2-3 days. | The cookies can be stored in an airtight container at room temperature for up to 1 week. | | | Triple Berry | I bought this from SLJ for my | | | | Cake | daughters biryhday ans everybody loved it! I will try to make this with your recipe. Do you know how many calories in the whole cake and what is its weight? Many thanks! | Hi Ray, unfortunately, I don't have that information. Hope you give this a try anyway! Thank you so much for stopping by. | The whole cake has approximately 3,600 calories and weighs approximately 12 pounds. | | Crock Pot | | | | | Maple Dijon Chicken Drumsticks | To convert this recipe to work in an electric pressure cooker, you will need to reduce the amount of liquid in the recipe. Maple syrup, balsamic vinegar, and Dijon mustard are all quite thick, so you may need to reduce the amount of each by half. You will also need to reduce the cooking time. Chicken legs usually cook through in about 30 minutes in an electric pressure cooker, so you will need to adjust the cooking time accordingly. | | | | Keto Tomato Tart - Low Carb | Does anyone know how I could convert this recipe to work in an electric pressure cooker (Instant Pot)? | I would just brown the chicken and set the manual pressure to 15 mins or use the poultry function if you have the 7 in 1 instant pot. | | | First, Happy anniversary, glad you were able to escape and recharge a bit! Second, I'd love to try this base as a dessert; do you think I could do some subs and top it with thinly sliced apple? any specific suggestions? Last, almond flour is sooo expensive, I don't have a Vitamix, I guess I could try my food processor or bkender Have you found a source where it's less than $12/lb? | Thanks Karen! Yes, you can definitely use this crust for a dessert, I used it for my blueberry crostada in the Fall Recipes Ezine and it works perfectly! Any fruit that you'd use in a pie would work well, including thinly sliced apples. I'm working on a slab pie recipe this week so stay tuned for that. Almond flour IS expensive but for the best results in baking low carb desserts you really have to buy the blanched and finely ground good stuff. I get it on Amazon and buy it in 3 or 5 lb bags to get the best price - around $10 per pound. Totally worth it! http://amzn.to/1KRiebQ | Yes, I think you could definitely use this base as a dessert crust! I would suggest using a sweeter cheese like mascarpone or cream cheese in the filling, and topping with thinly sliced apples and a drizzle of honey. As for the almond flour, I have found that Trader Joe's carries it for a pretty reasonable price. Hope this helps! | | | Table 4: Sample questions and answers from the recipes dataset. | | | | ## Presurvey How many years of expl ne do you have cooking in a home setting? - 0 years 0-0-1 years 0 1-3 years 0 3-7 years ❍ 7+ years How many years of exp ce do you have baking in a home setting? - years - 0-1 years 0 1-3 years ❍ 3-7 years 0 7+ years How many years of experience do you have cooking in a professional kitchen? ❍ Ø years O 0-1 years 0 1-3 years O 3-7 years - 7+ years How many years of experience do you have baking in a professional kitchen? - years - 0-1 years O 1-3 years ❍ 3-7 years 0 7+ years Are you in a culinary arts de ship? O Yes O No How you completed a culinary arts degree/certificate program or professional apprenticeship? O Yes O No Describe your level of expertise in cooking - Beginner © Beginner-Inte statististic O Intermediate - Intermediate-Advanced - Advanced O Expert Describe your level of expertise in baking O Beginner - Beginner-Intermediate ❍ Intermediate - Intermediate-Advanced ❍ Advanced ❍ Expert How otten do you cook? O Rarely (O-1 times a neek) - Sometimes (1-3 times a week) - Often (3+ times a week) How often do you bake? - Rarely [0-1 times a week] - Sometimes (1-3 times a wook) ❍ Often (3+ times a week) On average, how often do you use recipes published online? Select your most frequent usege. ❍ 1+ times per week. 0 1+ times per year O Never For what reasons do you read the comments section of a recipe? □ I don't read the comments section □ When I have a question - No specific reason or purpose when reading the comments section. □ Other Why do you post to the com nts section of a recipe? - I don't make posts. □ When I have a question □ To answer another commenter's question - To respond to other commenters (but not as an answer to a question) □ To generally publish some writing, such as to show appreciation or excitement about a recipe □ Other Indicate your age range 0 18-24 - 25-34 - 35-49 - 50+ What is your highest level of education (or equivalent) completed? ❍ Some high school ❍ High school graduate - Some college, no degree ❍ Associates degree ❍ Certificate program ❍ Apprenticeship ❍ Bachelors degree ❍ Graduate degree (Optional) Anything else you would like to add? Continue to experiment Figure 7: Presurvey questions. Question/Answer Checklist   ## Question/Answer Checklist   ## Postsurvey    ❍ Prefer human response ❍ ²º ° ❍ Prefer AI response - Strongly prefer AI response  □ Make it obvious a machine is answering ❏ Write like the recipe author is answering ❏ Other    Figure 12: Postsurvey. ## B.2 Survey Results We summarize survey results of annotators where conclusions were drawn. Crowdworkers Six annotators had 7+ years of home baking and cooking experience, and all but one rated their cooking expertise as intermediate.  Baking expertise had a larger range from beginner (3) to intermediate (5). Two annotators requested generic brands when a known machine is responding. Three annotators want a machine to make it obvious that a machine is responding regardless of whether it is known that a machine is responding. There was an even split in trusting human and machine responses equally or trusting a human more. Two experts had 1–3 years of profes- Experts sional baking and cooking experience, and one expert had 3–7 years of professional cooking experience. Baking experience was rated intermediate by all three, two experts stated they had intermediateadvanced cooking expertise, and one considered themself an expert. One expert wanted generic brands from a known machine, and one expert did not mind having specific or generic brands. Only one expert wanted a machine to make it obvious that a machine is responding when the respondent is unknown, and and another expert wanted similarly when it is known that a machine is responding. Two experts state they trust human responses over an AI response, and one trusts both human and AI responses equally. ## B.3 Improvement Results Experts were more critical than crowdworkers for how responses could be improved and provided many custom suggestions for how to improve responses (Table 5). ## Example Annotation Responses B.4 Sample responses to a question in the annotation task (Figure 14) are as follows: Area AMT-GPT-3 % AMT-Human % Expert-GPT-3 % Expert-Human % Concise Ingr. quantity 4.6 Cook temp/time 2.4 Cook temp/time 7.3 Ingr. quantity 6.9 Tech. Detail 1.8 Tech. Detail 2.8 Tech. Detail 18.3 Tech. Detail 13.8 Expected results 8.5 Expected results 2.9 Expected results 15.6 Expected results 8.6 Other 6.8 Other 10.9 Other 19.2 Other 17.2 Verbose Expected results 1.9 Expected results 1.5 Hallucination 4.2 Hallucination 4.3 Other 3.2 Other 4.9 Other 5.3 Other — Misc Hedging 2.8 Hedging 5.4 Hedging 15.2 Hedging 2.1 Other - Other - Other 10.1 Other 6.4 Table 5: Annotations for how responses could be improved. - Yes, the response answers the question correctly. The question type was for ingredient alteration and clarification. Recipe context was not required to judge the correctness of the answer. The answer could be improved in the "concise" dimension by including more Tech. Detail and information on why the technique is safe. The satisfaction with the answer is 4 out of 5. - No, the response does not answer the question correctly. The question type is cooking technique alteration and preparation/serving. Recipe context was not required to judge the correctness of the answer. The answer was incorrect because it described incorrect or unsafe processes.  ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? 6 ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? 6 ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? 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?** 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? No response. 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? No response. 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? No response. 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.)? No response. D ✓ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** 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.? appendix b ✓ 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)? appendix b.1, section 3.2 ✓ 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? appendix b.1 ✓ D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? 3 ✓ D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? appendix b.1

hong-etal-2023-diminishing

The Diminishing Returns of Masked Language Models to Science

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.82

Transformer-based masked language models such as BERT, trained on general corpora, have shown impressive performance on downstream tasks. It has also been demonstrated that the downstream task performance of such models can be improved by pretraining larger models for longer on more data. In this work, we empirically evaluate the extent to which these results extend to tasks in science. We use 14 domain-specific transformer-based models (including ScholarBERT, a new 770Mparameter science-focused masked language model pretrained on up to 225B tokens) to evaluate the impact of training data, model size, pretraining and finetuning time on 12 downstream scientific tasks. Interestingly, we find that increasing model size, training data, or compute time does not always lead to significant improvements (i.e., {\textgreater}1{\%} F1), if any, in scientific information extraction tasks. We offer possible explanations for this surprising result.

# The Diminishing Returns Of Masked Language Models To Science ## Zhi Hong∗, Aswathy Ajith∗, J. Gregory Pauloski∗**, Eamon Duede**†, Kyle Chard∗‡**, Ian Foster**∗‡ ∗Department of Computer Science, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA †Department of Philosophy and Committee on Conceptual and Historical Studies of Science, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA ‡Data Science and Learning Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, IL 60615, USA ## Abstract Transformer-based masked language models such as BERT, trained on general corpora, have shown impressive performance on downstream tasks. It has also been demonstrated that the downstream task performance of such models can be improved by pretraining larger models for longer on more data. In this work, we empirically evaluate the extent to which these results extend to tasks in science. We use 14 domain-specific transformer-based models (including SCHOLARBERT, a new 770Mparameter science-focused masked language model pretrained on up to 225B tokens) to evaluate the impact of training data, model size, pretraining and finetuning time on 12 downstream scientific tasks. Interestingly, we find that increasing model size, training data, or compute time does not always lead to significant improvements (i.e., > 1% F1), if any, in scientific information extraction tasks. We offer possible explanations for this surprising result. ## 1 Introduction Massive growth in the number of scientific publications places considerable cognitive burden on researchers (Teplitskiy et al., 2022). Language models can potentially alleviate this burden by automating the scientific knowledge extraction process. BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) was pretrained on a general corpus (BooksCorpus and Wikipedia) which differs from scientific literature in terms of the context, terminology, and writing style (Ahmad, 2012). Other masked language models have since been pretrained on domain-specific scientific corpora (Huang and Cole, 2022; Gu et al., 2021; Gururangan et al., 2020; Beltagy et al., 2019) with the goal of improving downstream task performance. (We use the term *domain* to indicate a specific scientific discipline, such as biomedical science or computer science.) Other studies (Liu et al., 2019; Kaplan et al., 2020) explored the impact of varying model size, training corpus size, and compute time on downstream task performance. However, no previous work has investigated how these parameters affect science-focused models. In this study, we train a set of scientific language models of different sizes, collectively called SCHOLARBERT, on a large, multidisciplinary scientific corpus of 225B tokens to understand the effects of model size, data size, and compute time (specifically, pretraining and finetuning epochs) on downstream task performance. We find that for information extraction tasks, an important application for scientific language models, the performance gains by training a larger model for longer with more data are not robust—they are highly taskdependent. We make the SCHOLARBERT models and a sample of the training corpus publicly available to encourage further studies. ## 2 Related Work Prior research has explored the effects of varying model size, dataset size, and amount of compute on language model performance. Kaplan et al. (2020) demonstrated that crossentropy training loss scales as a power law with model size, dataset size, and compute time for unidirectional decoder-only architectures. Brown et al. (2020) showed that language model few-shot learning abilities can be improved by using larger models. However, both studies explored only the Generative Pretrained Transformer (GPT), an autoregressive generative model (Brown et al., 2020). Comparing BERT-Base (110M parameters) and BERT-Large (340M parameters), Devlin et al. (2019) showed that masked language models can also benefit from more parameters. Likewise, Liu et al. (2019) demonstrate how BERT models can benefit from training for longer periods, with bigger batches, and with more data. Models such as BERT and RoBERTa were pretrained on general corpora. To boost performance on scientific downstream tasks, SciBERT (Beltagy et al., 2019), PubMedBERT (Gu et al., 2021), BioBERT (Lee et al., 2020), and MatBERT (Trewartha et al., 2022) were trained on domainspecific text with the goal of enhancing performance on tasks requiring domain knowledge. Yet there is no work on how that task performance varies with pretraining parameters. ## 3 Data And Methodology We outline the pretraining dataset, related models to which we compare performance, and the architecture and pretraining process used for creating the SCHOLARBERT models. ## 3.1 The Public Resource Dataset We pretrain the SCHOLARBERT models on a dataset provided by Public.Resource.Org, Inc. ("Public Resource"), a nonprofit organization based in California. This dataset was constructed from a corpus of 85M journal article PDF files, from which the Grobid tool, version 0.5.5, was used to extract text (GROBID). Not all extractions were successful, because of corrupted or badly encoded PDF files. We work here with text from ∼75M articles in this dataset, categorized as 45.3% biomedicine, 23.1% technology, 20.0% physical sciences, 8.4% social sciences, and 3.1% arts & humanities. (A sample of the extracted texts and corresponding original PDFs is available in the Data attachment for review purposes.) ## 3.2 Models We consider 14 BERT models: seven from existing literature (BERT-Base, BERT-Large, SciBERT, PubMedBERT, BioBERT v1.2, MatBERT, and BatteryBERT: Appendix A); and seven SCHOLARBERT variants pretrained on different subsets of the Public Resource dataset (and, in some cases, also the WikiBooks corpus). We distinguish these models along the four dimensions listed in Table 1: architecture, pretraining method, pretraining corpus, and casing. SCHOLARBERT and SCHOLARBERT-XL, with 340M and 770M parameters, respectively, are the largest sciencespecific BERT models reported to date. Prior literature demonstrates the efficacy of pretraining BERT models on domain-specific corpora (Sun et al., 2019; Fabien et al., 2020). However, the ever-larger scientific literature makes pretraining domain-specific language models prohibitively expensive. A promising alternative is to create larger, multi-disciplinary BERT models, such as SCHOLARBERT, that harness the increased availability of diverse pretraining text; researchers can then adapt (i.e., finetune) these general-purpose science models to meet their specific needs. ## 3.3 Scholar**Bert Pretraining** We randomly sample 1%, 10%, and 100% of the Public Resource dataset to create PRD_1, PRD_10, and PRD_100. We pretrain SCHOLARBERT models on these PRD subsets by using the RoBERTa pretraining procedure, which has been shown to produce better downstream task performance in a variety of domains (Liu et al., 2019). See Appendix B.2 for details. ## 4 Experimental Results We first perform sensitivity analysis across ScholarBERT pretraining dimensions to determine the trade-off between time spent in pretraining versus finetuning. We also compare the downstream task performance of SCHOLARBERT to that achieved with other BERT models. Details of each evaluation task are in Appendix C. ## 4.1 Sensitivity Analysis We save checkpoints periodically while pretraining each SCHOLARBERT(-XL) model. In this analysis, we checkpoint at ∼0.9k, 5k, 10k, 23k, and 33k iterations based on the decrease of training loss between iterations. We observe that pretraining loss decreases rapidly until around 10 000 iterations, and that further training to convergence (roughly 33 000 iterations) yields only small decreases of training loss: see Figure 1 in Appendix. To measure how downstream task performance is impacted by pretraining and finetuning time, we finetune each of the checkpointed models for 5 and 75 epochs. We observe that: (1) The undertrained 0.9k-iteration model sees the biggest boost in the F1 scores of downstream tasks (+8%) with more finetuning, but even with 75 epochs of finetuning the 0.9k-iteration models' average F1 score is still 19.9 percentage points less than that of the 33k-iteration model with 5 epochs of finetuning. (2) For subsequent checkpoints, the performance gains from more finetuning decreases as the number of pretraining iterations increases. The average downstream task performance of the 33k-iteration model is only 0.39 percentage points higher with 75 epochs of finetuning than with 5 epochs. There- Model Architecture Pretraining Method Casing Pretraining Corpus Domain **Tokens** BERT_Base BERT-Base BERT Cased Wiki + Books Gen 3.3B SciBERT BERT-Base BERT Cased SemSchol Bio, CS 3.1B PubMedBERT BERT-Base BERT Uncased PubMedA + PMC Bio 16.8B BioBERT_1.2 BERT-Base BERT Cased PubMedB + Wiki + Books Bio, Gen 7.8B MatBERT BERT-Base BERT Cased MatSci Mat 8.8B BatteryBERT BERT-Base BERT Cased Battery Mat 5.2B BERT_Large BERT-Large BERT Cased Wiki + Books Gen 3.3B ScholarBERT_1 BERT-Large RoBERTa-like Cased PRD_1 Sci 2.2B ScholarBERT_10 BERT-Large RoBERTa-like Cased PRD_10 Sci 22B ScholarBERT_100 BERT-Large RoBERTa-like Cased PRD_100 Sci 221B ScholarBERT_10_WB BERT-Large RoBERTa-like Cased PRD_10 + Wiki + Books Sci, Gen 25.3B ScholarBERT_100_WB BERT-Large RoBERTa-like Cased PRD_100 + Wiki + Books Sci, Gen 224.3B ScholarBERT-XL_1 BERT-XL RoBERTa-like Cased PRD_1 Sci 2.2B ScholarBERT-XL_100 BERT-XL RoBERTa-like Cased PRD_100 Sci 221B fore, in the remaining experiments, we use the SCHOLARBERT(-XL) model that was pretrained for 33k iterations and finetuned for 5 epochs. ## 4.2 Finetuning We finetuned the SCHOLARBERT models and the state-of-the-art scientific models listed in Table 1 on NER, relation extraction, and sentence classification tasks. F1 scores for each model-task pair, averaged over five runs, are shown in Tables 2 and 3. For NER tasks, we use the CoNLL NER evaluation Perl script (Sang and De Meulder, 2003) to compute F1 scores for each test. Tables 2 and 3 show the results, from which we observe: (1) With the same training data, a larger model does not always achieve significant performance improvements. BERT-Base achieved F1 scores within 1 percentage point of BERT-Large on 6/12 tasks; SB_1 achieved F1 scores within 1 percentage point of SB-XL_1 on 7/12 tasks; SB_100 achieved F1 scores within 1 percentage point of SB-XL_100 on 6/12 tasks. (2) With the same model size, a model pretrained on more data cannot guarantee significant performance improvements. SB_1 achieved F1 scores within 1 percentage point of SB_100 on 8/12 tasks; SB_10_WB achieved F1 scores within 1 percentage point of SB_100_WB on 7/12 tasks; SB-XL_1 achieved F1 scores within 1 percentage point of SB-XL_100 on 10/12 tasks. (3) Domain-specific pretraining cannot guarantee significant performance improvements. The Biomedical domain is the only domain where we see the on-domain model (i.e., pretrained for the associated domain; marked with underlines; in this case, PubMedBERT) consistently outperformed models pretrained on off-domain or more general corpora by more than 1 percentage point F1. The same cannot be said for CS, Materials, or Multi-Domain tasks. ## 4.3 Discussion Here we offer possible explanations for the three observations above. (1) The nature of the task is more indicative of task performance than the size of the model. In particular, with the same training data, a larger model size impacts performance only for relation extraction tasks, which consistently saw F1 scores increase by more than 1 percentage point when going from smaller models to larger models (i.e., BERT-Base to BERT-Large, SB_1 to SB-XL_1, SB_100 to SB-XL_100). In contrast, the NER and sentence classification tasks did not see such consistent significant improvements. (2) Our biggest model, SCHOLARBERT-XL, is only twice as large as the original BERT-Large, but its pretraining corpus is 100X larger. The training loss of the SCHOLARBERT-XL_100 model dropped rapidly only in the first ∼10k iterations (Fig. 1 in Appendix), which covered the first 1/3 of the PRD corpus, thus it is possible that the PRD corpus can saturate even our biggest model. (Kaplan et al., 2020; Hoffmann et al., 2022). (3) Finetuning can compensate for missing domain-specific knowledge in pretraining data. While pretraining language models on a specific domain can help learn domain-specific concepts, finetuning can also fill holes in the pretraining corpora's domain knowledge, as long as the pretraining corpus incorporates | Domain | Biomedical | CS | Materials | Multi-Domain | Sociology | | | | | |-------------|--------------|--------|--------------|----------------|-------------|-----------|-------------|-----------|-------| | Dataset | BC5CDR | JNLPBA | NCBI-Disease | ChemDNER | SciERC | MatSciNER | ScienceExam | Coleridge | Mean | | BERT-Base | 85.36 | 72.15 | 84.28 | 84.84 | 56.73 | 78.51 | 78.37 | 57.75 | 74.75 | | BERT-Large | 86.86 | 72.80 | 84.91 | 85.83 | 59.20 | 82.16 | 82.32 | 57.46 | 76.44 | | SciBERT | 88.43 | 73.24 | 86.95 | 85.76 | 59.36 | 82.64 | 78.83 | 54.07 | 76.16 | | PubMedBERT | 89.34 | 74.53 | 87.91 | 87.96 | 59.03 | 82.63 | 69.73 | 57.71 | 76.11 | | BioBERT | 88.01 | 73.09 | 87.84 | 85.53 | 58.24 | 81.76 | 78.60 | 57.04 | 76.26 | | MatBERT | 86.44 | 72.56 | 84.94 | 86.09 | 58.52 | 83.35 | 80.01 | 56.91 | 76.10 | | BatteryBERT | 87.42 | 72.78 | 87.04 | 86.49 | 59.00 | 82.94 | 78.14 | 59.87 | 76.71 | | SB_1 | 87.27 | 73.06 | 85.49 | 85.25 | 58.62 | 80.87 | 82.75 | 55.34 | 76.08 | | SB_10 | 87.69 | 73.03 | 85.65 | 85.80 | 58.39 | 80.61 | 83.24 | 53.41 | 75.98 | | SB_100 | 87.84 | 73.47 | 85.92 | 85.90 | 58.37 | 82.09 | 83.12 | 54.93 | 76.46 | | SB_10_WB | 86.68 | 72.67 | 84.51 | 83.94 | 57.34 | 78.98 | 83.00 | 54.29 | 75.18 | | SB_100_WB | 86.89 | 73.16 | 84.88 | 84.31 | 58.43 | 80.84 | 82.43 | 54.00 | 75.62 | | SB-XL_1 | 87.09 | 73.14 | 84.61 | 85.81 | 58.45 | 82.84 | 81.09 | 55.94 | 76.12 | | SB-XL_100 | 87.46 | 73.25 | 84.73 | 85.73 | 57.26 | 81.75 | 80.72 | 54.54 | 75.68 | | Domain | CS | Biomedical | Multi-Domain | Materials | | |-------------|--------|--------------|----------------|-------------|-------| | Dataset | SciERC | ChemProt | PaperField | Battery | Mean | | BERT-Base | 74.95 | 83.70 | 72.83 | 96.31 | 81.95 | | BERT-Large | 80.14 | 88.06 | 73.12 | 96.90 | 84.56 | | SciBERT | 79.26 | 89.80 | 73.19 | 96.38 | 84.66 | | PubMedBERT | 77.45 | 91.78 | 73.93 | 96.58 | 84.94 | | BioBERT | 80.12 | 89.27 | 73.07 | 96.06 | 84.63 | | MatBERT | 79.85 | 88.15 | 71.50 | 96.33 | 83.96 | | BatteryBERT | 78.14 | 88.33 | 73.28 | 96.06 | 83.95 | | SB_1 | 73.01 | 83.04 | 72.77 | 94.67 | 80.87 | | SB_10 | 75.95 | 82.92 | 72.94 | 92.83 | 81.16 | | SB_100 | 76.19 | 87.60 | 73.14 | 92.38 | 82.33 | | SB_10_WB | 73.17 | 81.48 | 72.37 | 93.15 | 80.04 | | SB_100_WB | 76.71 | 83.98 | 72.29 | 95.55 | 82.13 | | SB-XL_1 | 74.85 | 90.60 | 73.22 | 88.75 | 81.86 | | SB-XL_100 | 80.99 | 89.18 | 73.66 | 95.44 | 84.82 | ## 5 Conclusions We have reported experiments that compare and evaluate the impact of various parameters (model size, pretraining dataset size and breadth, and pretraining and finetuning lengths) on the performance of different language models pretrained on scientific literature. Our results encompass 14 existing and newly-developed BERT-based language models across 12 scientific downstream tasks. We find that model performance on downstream scientific information extraction tasks is not improved significantly or consistently by increasing any of the four parameters considered (model size, amount of pretraining data, pretraining time, finetuning time). We attribute these results to both the power of finetuning and limitations in the evaluation datasets, as well as (for the SCHOLARBERT models) small model sizes relative to the large pretraining corpus. We make the ScholarBERT models available on HuggingFace (https://huggingface.co/ globuslabs). While we cannot share the full Public Resource dataset, we have provided a sample of open-access articles from the dataset (https://github.com/tuhz/ PublicResourceDatasetSample) in both the original PDF and extracted txt formats to illustrate the quality of the PDF-to-text preprocessing. ## Limitations Our 12 labeled test datasets are from just five domains (plus two multi-disciplinary); five of the 12 are from biomedicine. This imbalance, which reflects the varied adoption of NLP methods across domains, means that our evaluation dataset is necessarily limited. Our largest model, with 770M parameters, may not be sufficiently large to demonstrate scaling laws for language models. We also aim to extend our experiments to tasks other than NER, relation extraction, and text classification, such as question-answering and textual entailment in scientific domains. ## References Jameel Ahmad. 2012. Stylistic features of scientific English: A study of scientific research articles. *English* Language and Literature Studies, 2(1). Iz Beltagy, Kyle Lo, and Arman Cohan. 2019. SciBERT: A pretrained language model for scientific text. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3615–3620. Association for Computational Linguistics. 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 Neural Information Processing Systems*, volume 33, pages 1877–1901. Curran Associates, Inc. Arman Cohan, Waleed Ammar, Madeleine Van Zuylen, and Field Cady. 2019. Structural scaffolds for citation intent classification in scientific publications. In Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3586–3596. Association for Computational Linguistics. Coleridge Initiative. 2020. https: //www.kaggle.com/c/ coleridgeinitiative-show-us-the-data. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In *Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 4171–4186. Association for Computational Linguistics. Rezarta Islamaj Dogan, Robert Leaman, and Zhiyong ˘ Lu. 2014. NCBI disease corpus: A resource for disease name recognition and concept normalization. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 47:1–10. Maël Fabien, Esaú Villatoro-Tello, Petr Motlicek, and Shantipriya Parida. 2020. Bertaa: Bert fine-tuning for authorship attribution. In *17th International Conference on Natural Language Processing*, pages 127– 137. Association for Computational Linguistics. GROBID. 2008–2022. GROBID. https:// github.com/kermitt2/grobid. Yu Gu, Robert Tinn, Hao Cheng, Michael Lucas, Naoto Usuyama, Xiaodong Liu, Tristan Naumann, Jianfeng Gao, and Hoifung Poon. 2021. Domain-specific language model pretraining for biomedical natural language processing. *ACM Transactions on Computing* for Healthcare, 3(1):1–23. Suchin Gururangan, Ana Marasovic, Swabha ´ Swayamdipta, Kyle Lo, Iz Beltagy, Doug Downey, and Noah A Smith. 2020. Don't stop pretraining: Adapt language models to domains and tasks. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2004.10964. Jordan Hoffmann, Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Elena Buchatskaya, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Diego de Las Casas, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Johannes Welbl, Aidan Clark, Tom Hennigan, Eric Noland, Katie Millican, George van den Driessche, Bogdan Damoc, Aurelia Guy, Simon Osindero, Karen Simonyan, Erich Elsen, Oriol Vinyals Jack W. Rae, and Laurent Sifre. 2022. Training compute-optimal large language models. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.15556*. Shu Huang and Jacqueline M Cole. 2022. BatteryBERT: A pretrained language model for battery database enhancement. *Journal of Chemical Information and* Modeling. HuggingFace. 2020. English wikipedia corpus. https://huggingface.co/datasets/ wikipedia. [Online; accessed 08-January-2022]. Jared Kaplan, Sam McCandlish, Tom Henighan, Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Chess, Rewon Child, Scott Gray, Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Scaling laws for neural language models. *CoRR*, abs/2001.08361. Jin-Dong Kim, Tomoko Ohta, Yoshimasa Tsuruoka, Yuka Tateisi, and Nigel Collier. 2004. Introduction to the bio-entity recognition task at JNLPBA. In *International Joint Workshop on Natural Language Processing in Biomedicine and its Applications*, pages 70–75. Martin Krallinger, Obdulia Rabal, Florian Leitner, Miguel Vazquez, David Salgado, Zhiyong Lu, Robert Leaman, Yanan Lu, Donghong Ji, Daniel M Lowe, Roger A Sayle, Riza Theresa Batista-Navarro, Rafal Rak, Torsten Huber, Tim Rocktäschel, Sérgio Matos, David Campos, Buzhou Tang, Hua Xu, Tsendsuren Munkhdalai, Keun Ho Ryu, SV Ramanan, Senthil Nathan, Slavko Žitnik, Marko Bajec, Lutz Weber, Matthias Irmer, Saber A Akhondi, Jan A Kors, Shuo Xu, Xin An, Utpal Kumar Sikdar, Asif Ekbal, Masaharu Yoshioka, Thaer M Dieb, Miji Choi, Karin Verspoor, Madian Khabsa, C Lee Giles, Hongfang Liu, Komandur Elayavilli Ravikumar, Andre Lamurias, Francisco M Couto, Hong-Jie Dai, Richard TzongHan Tsai, Caglar Ata, Tolga Can, Anabel Usié, Rui Alves, Isabel Segura-Bedmar, Paloma Martínez, Julen Oyarzabal, and Alfonso Valencia. 2015. The CHEMDNER corpus of chemicals and drugs and its annotation principles. *Journal of Cheminformatics*, 7(1):1–17. Jinhyuk Lee, Wonjin Yoon, Sungdong Kim, Donghyeon Kim, Sunkyu Kim, Chan Ho So, and Jaewoo Kang. 2020. BioBERT: A pre-trained biomedical language representation model for biomedical text mining. Bioinformatics, 36(4):1234–1240. Jiao Li, Yueping Sun, Robin J Johnson, Daniela Sciaky, Chih-Hsuan Wei, Robert Leaman, Allan Peter Davis, Carolyn J Mattingly, Thomas C Wiegers, and Zhiyong Lu. 2016. BioCreative V CDR task corpus: A resource for chemical disease relation extraction. Database, 2016. 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*. Yi Luan, Luheng He, Mari Ostendorf, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2018. Multi-task identification of entities, relations, and coreference for scientific knowledge graph construction. In *Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 3219–3232. Association for Computational Linguistics. NVIDIA. 2017. NVIDIA Apex (a PyTorch extension). https://github.com/NVIDIA/apex. Yifan Peng, Shankai Yan, and Zhiyong Lu. 2019. Transfer learning in biomedical natural language processing: An evaluation of BERT and ELMo on ten benchmarking datasets. In *18th BioNLP Workshop and* Shared Task, pages 58–65. Association for Computational Linguistics. Erik F Sang and Fien De Meulder. 2003. CoNLL eval script. https://www.clips.uantwerpen. be/conll2000/chunking/output.html. Arnab Sinha, Zhihong Shen, Yang Song, Hao Ma, Darrin Eide, Bo-June Hsu, and Kuansan Wang. 2015. An overview of Microsoft Academic Service (MAS) and applications. In *24th International Conference* on World Wide Web, pages 243–246. Hannah Smith, Zeyu Zhang, John Culnan, and Peter Jansen. 2019. ScienceExamCER: A high-density fine-grained science-domain corpus for common entity recognition. In 12th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 4529–4546. European Language Resources Association. Chi Sun, Xipeng Qiu, Yige Xu, and Xuanjing Huang. 2019. How to fine-tune BERT for text classification? In *China national conference on Chinese computational linguistics*, pages 194–206. Springer. Misha Teplitskiy, Eamon Duede, Michael Menietti, and Karim R Lakhani. 2022. How status of research papers affects the way they are read and cited. Research Policy, 51(4):104484. Amalie Trewartha, Nicholas Walker, Haoyan Huo, Sanghoon Lee, Kevin Cruse, John Dagdelen, Alexander Dunn, Kristin A. Persson, Gerbrand Ceder, and Anubhav Jain. 2022. Quantifying the advantage of domain-specific pre-training on named entity recognition tasks in materials science. *Patterns*, 3(4):100488. Yukun Zhu, Ryan Kiros, Rich Zemel, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Raquel Urtasun, Antonio Torralba, and Sanja Fidler. 2015. Aligning books and movies: Towards story-like visual explanations by watching movies and reading books. In *IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision*, pages 19–27. ## A Extant Bert-Based Models Devlin et al. (2019) introduced BERT-Base and BERT-Large, with ∼110M and ∼340M parameters, as transformer-based masked language models conditioned on both the left and right contexts. Both are pretrained on the English Wikipedia + BooksCorpus datasets. SciBERT (Beltagy et al., 2019) follows the BERT-Base architecture and is pretrained on data from two domains, namely, biomedical science and computer science. SciBERT outperforms BERTBase on finetuning tasks by an average of 1.66% and 3.55% on biomedical tasks and computer science tasks, respectively. BioBERT (Lee et al., 2020) is a BERT-Base model with a pretraining corpus from PubMed abstracts and full-text PubMedCentral articles. Compared to BERT-Base, BioBERT achieves improvements of 0.62%, 2.80%, and 12.24% on biomedical NER, biomedical relation extraction, and biomedical question answering, respectively. PubMedBERT (Gu et al., 2021), another BERTBase model targeting the biomedical domain, is also pretrained on PubMed and PubMedCentral text. However, unlike BioBERT, PubMedBERT is trained as a new BERT-Base model, using text drawn exclusively from PubMed and PubMedCentral. As a result, the vocabulary used in PubMedBERT varies significantly from that used in BERT and BioBERT. Its pretraining corpus contains 3.1B words from PubMed abstracts and 13.7B words from PubMedCentral articles. PubMedBERT achieves state-of-the-art performance on the Biomedical Language Understanding and Reasoning Benchmark, outperforming BERT-Base by 1.16% (Gu et al., 2021). MatBERT (Trewartha et al., 2022) is a materials science-specific model pretrained on 2M journal articles (8.8B tokens). It consistently outperforms BERT-Base and SciBERT in recognizing materials science entities related to solid states, doped materials, and gold nanoparticles, with ∼10% increase in F1 score compared to BERT-Base, and a 1% to 2% improvement compared to SciBERT. BatteryBERT (Huang and Cole, 2022) is a model pretrained on 400 366 battery-related publications (5.2B tokens). BatteryBERT has been shown to outperform BERT-Base by less than 1% on the SQuAD question answering task. For batteryspecific question-answering tasks, its F1 score is around 5% higher than that of BERT-base. ## B Scholarbert Pretraining Details B.1 Tokenization The vocabularies generated for PRD_1 and PRD_10 differed only in 1–2% of the tokens; however, in an initial study, the PRD_100 vocabulary differed from that of PRD_10 by 15%. A manual inspection of the PRD_100 vocabulary revealed that many common English words such as "is," "for," and "the" were missing. We determined that these omissions were an artifact of PRD_100 being sufficiently large to cause integer overflows in the unsigned 32-bit-integer token frequency counts used by HuggingFace's tokenizers library. For example, "the" was not in the final vocabulary because the token "th" overflowed. Because WordPiece iteratively merges smaller tokens to create larger ones, the absence of tokens like "th" or "\#\#he" means that "the" could not appear in the final vocabulary. We modified the tokenizers library to use unsigned 64-bit integers for all frequency counts, and recreated a correct vocabulary for PRD_100. Interestingly, models trained on the PRD_100 subset with the incorrect and correct vocabularies exhibited comparable performance on downstream tasks. ## B.2 Roberta Optimizations RoBERTa introduces many optimizations for improving BERT pretraining performance (Liu et al., 2019). 1) It uses a single phase training approach whereby all training is performed with a maximum sequence length of 512. 2) Unlike BERT which randomly introduces a small percentage of shortened sequence lengths into the training data, RoBERTa does not randomly use shortened sequences. 3) RoBERTa uses dynamic masking, meaning that each time a batch of training samples is selected at runtime, a new random set of masked tokens is selected; in contrast, BERT uses static masking, pre-masking the training samples prior to training. BERT duplicates the training data 10 times each with a different random, static masking. 4) RoBERTa does not perform Next Sentence Prediction during training. 5) RoBERTa takes sentences contiguously from one or more documents until the maximum sequence length is met. 6) RoBERTa uses a larger batch size of 8192. 7) RoBERTa uses byte-pair encoding (BPE) rather than WordPiece. 8) RoBERTa uses an increased vocabulary size of 50 000, 67% larger than BERT. 9) RoBERTa trains for more iterations (up to 500 000) than does BERTBase (31 000).  | Name | Description | Domain | Tokens | |----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------|----------| | Wiki | English-language Wikipedia articles (HuggingFace, 2020) | Gen | 2.5B | | Books | BookCorpus (Zhu et al., 2015; HuggingFace, 2020): Full text of 11038 books | Gen | 0.8B | | SemSchol | 1.14M papers from Semantic Scholar (Cohan et al., 2019), 18% in CS, 82% in Bio | Bio, CS | 3.1B | | PubMedA | Biomedical abstracts sampled from PubMed (Gu et al., 2021) | Bio | 3.1B | | PubMedB | Biomedical abstracts sampled from PubMed (Lee et al., 2020) | Bio | 4.5B | | PMC | Full-text biomedical articles sampled from PubMedCentral (Gu et al., 2021) | Bio | 13.7B | | MatSci | 2M peer-reviewed materials science journal articles (Trewartha et al., 2022) | Materials | 8.8B | | Battery | 0.4M battery-related publications (Huang and Cole, 2022) | Materials | 5.2B | | PRD_1 | 1% of the English-language research articles from the Public Resource dataset | Sci | 2.2B | | PRD_10 | 10% of the English-language research articles from the Public Resource dataset | Sci | 22B | | PRD_100 | 100% of the English-language research articles from the Public Resource dataset | Sci | 221B | We adopt RoBERTa training methods, with three key exceptions. 1) Unlike RoBERTa, we randomly introduce smaller length samples because many of our downstream tasks use sequence lengths much smaller than the maximum sequence length of 512 that we pretrain with. 2) We pack training samples with sentences drawn from a single document, as the RoBERTa authors note that this results in slightly better performance. 3) We use WordPiece encoding rather than BPE, as the RoBERTa authors note that BPE can result in slightly worse downstream performance. ## B.3 Hardware And Software Stack We perform data-parallel pretraining on a cluster with 24 nodes, each containing eight 40 GB NVIDIA A100 GPUs. In data-parallel distributed training, a copy of the model is replicated on each GPU, and, in each iteration, each GPU computes on a unique local mini-batch. At the end of the iter-   Steps 33 000 Optimizer LAMB LR 0.0004 LR Decay Linear Batch Size 32 768 ation, the local gradients of each model replica are averaged to keep each model replica in sync. We perform data-parallel training of SCHOLARBERT models using PyTorch's distributed data-parallel model wrapper and 16 A100 GPUs. For the larger SCHOLARBERT-XL models, we use the Deep- Speed data-parallel model wrapper and 32 A100 GPUs. The DeepSpeed library incorporates a number of optimizations that improve training time and reduced memory usage, enabling us to train the larger model in roughly the same amount of time as the smaller model. We train in FP16 with a batch size of 32 768 for ∼33 000 iterations (Table 5). To achieve training with larger batch sizes, we employ NVIDIA Apex's FusedLAMB (NVIDIA, 2017) optimizer, with an initial learning rate of 0.0004. The learning rate is warmed up for the first 6% of iterations and then linearly decayed for the remaining iterations. We use the same masked token percentages as are used for BERT. Training each model requires roughly 1000 node-hours, or 8000 GPU-hours. Figure 1 depicts the pretraining loss for each SCHOLARBERT model. We train each model past the point of convergence and take checkpoints throughout training to evaluate model performance as a function of training time. ## C Evaluation Tasks We evaluate the models on eight NER tasks and four sentence-level tasks. For the NER tasks, we use eight annotated scientific NER datasets: 1. BC5CDR (Li et al., 2016): An NER dataset identifying diseases, chemicals, and their interactions, generated from the abstracts of 1500 PubMed articles containing 4409 annotated chemicals, 5818 diseases, and 3116 chemical-disease interactions, totaling 6283 unique entities. 2. JNLPBA (Kim et al., 2004): A bio-entity recognition dataset of molecular biology concepts from 2404 MEDLINE abstracts, consisting of 21 800 unique entities. 3. SciERC (Luan et al., 2018): A dataset annotating entities, relations, and coreference clusters in 500 abstracts from 12 AI conference/workshop proceedings. It contains 5714 distinct named entities. 4. NCBI-Disease (Dogan et al. ˘ , 2014): Annotations for 793 PubMed abstracts: 6893 disease mentions, of which 2134 are unique. 5. ChemDNER (Krallinger et al., 2015): A chemical entity recognition dataset derived from 10 000 abstracts containing 19 980 unique chemical entity mentions. 6. MatSciNER (Trewartha et al., 2022): 800 annotated abstracts from solid state materials publications sourced via Elsevier's Scopus/- ScienceDirect, Springer-Nature, Royal Society of Chemistry, and Electrochemical Society. Seven types of entities are labeled: inorganic materials (MAT), symmetry/phase labels (SPL), sample descriptors (DSC), material properties (PRO), material applications (APL), synthesis methods (SMT), and characterization methods (CMT). 7. ScienceExam (Smith et al., 2019): 133K entities from the Aristo Reasoning Challenge Corpus of 3rd to 9th grade science exam questions. 8. Coleridge (Coleridge Initiative, 2020): 13 588 entities from sociology articles indexed by the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR). The sentence-level downstream tasks are relation extraction on the ChemProt (biology) and SciERC (computer science) datasets, and sentence classification on the Paper Field (multidisciplinary) and Battery (materials) dataset: 1. ChemProt consists of 1820 PubMed abstracts with chemical-protein interactions annotated by domain experts (Peng et al., 2019). 2. SciERC, introduced above, provides 4716 relations (Luan et al., 2018). 3. The Paper Field dataset (Beltagy et al., 2019), built from the Microsoft Academic Graph (Sinha et al., 2015), maps paper titles to one of seven fields of study (geography, politics, economics, business, sociology, medicine, and psychology), with each field of study having around 12K training examples. 4. The Battery Document Classification dataset (Huang and Cole, 2022) includes 46 663 paper abstracts, of which 29 472 are labeled as battery and the other 17 191 as non-battery. The labeling is performed in a semi-automated manner. Abstracts are selected from 14 battery journals and 1044 non-battery journals, with the former labeled "battery" and the latter "non-battery." ## D Extended Results Table 6 shows average F1 scores with standard deviations for the NER tasks, each computed over five runs; Figure 2 presents the same data, with standard deviations represented by error bars. Table 7 and Figure 3 show the same for sentence classification tasks. The significant overlaps of error bars for NCBI-Disease, SciERC NER, Coleridge, SciERC Sentence Classification, and ChemProt corroborate our observation in Section 4 that on-domain pretraining provides only marginal advantage for downstream prediction over pretraining on a different domain or a general corpus. | BC5CDR | JNLPBA | NCBI-Disease | SciERC | | |-------------|---------------|----------------|---------------|---------------| | BERT-Base | 85.36 ± 0.189 | 72.15 ± 0.118 | 84.28 ± 0.388 | 56.73 ± 0.716 | | BERT-Large | 86.86 ± 0.321 | 72.80 ± 0.299 | 84.91 ± 0.229 | 59.20 ± 1.260 | | SciBERT | 88.43 ± 0.112 | 73.24 ± 0.184 | 86.95 ± 0.714 | 59.36 ± 0.390 | | PubMedBERT | 89.34 ± 0.185 | 74.53 ± 0.220 | 87.91 ± 0.267 | 59.03 ± 0.688 | | BioBERT | 88.01 ± 0.133 | 73.09 ± 0.230 | 87.84 ± 0.513 | 58.24 ± 0.631 | | MatBERT | 86.44 ± 0.156 | 72.56 ± 0.162 | 84.94 ± 0.504 | 58.52 ± 0.933 | | BatteryBERT | 87.42 ± 0.308 | 72.78 ± 0.190 | 87.04 ± 0.553 | 59.00 ± 1.174 | | SB_1 | 87.27 ± 0.189 | 73.06 ± 0.265 | 85.49 ± 0.998 | 58.62 ± 0.602 | | SB_10 | 87.69 ± 0.433 | 73.03 ± 0.187 | 85.65 ± 0.544 | 58.39 ± 1.643 | | SB_100 | 87.84 ± 0.329 | 73.47 ± 0.210 | 85.92 ± 1.040 | 58.37 ± 1.845 | | SB_10_WB | 86.68 ± 0.397 | 72.67 ± 0.329 | 84.51 ± 0.838 | 57.34 ± 1.199 | | SB_100_WB | 86.89 ± 0.543 | 73.16 ± 0.211 | 84.88 ± 0.729 | 58.43 ± 0.881 | | SB-XL_1 | 87.09 ± 0.179 | 73.14 ± 0.352 | 84.61 ± 0.730 | 58.45 ± 1.614 | | SB-XL_100 | 87.46 ± 0.142 | 73.25 ± 0.300 | 84.73 ± 0.817 | 57.26 ± 2.146 | | ChemDNER | MatSciNER | ScienceExam | Coleridge | | | BERT-Base | 84.84 ± 0.004 | 78.51 ± 0.300 | 78.37 ± 0.004 | 57.75 ± 1.230 | | BERT-Large | 85.83 ± 0.022 | 82.16 ± 0.040 | 82.32 ± 0.072 | 57.46 ± 0.818 | | SciBERT | 85.76 ± 0.089 | 82.64 ± 0.054 | 78.83 ± 0.004 | 54.07 ± 0.930 | | PubMedBERT | 87.96 ± 0.094 | 82.63 ± 0.045 | 69.73 ± 0.872 | 57.71 ± 0.107 | | BioBERT | 85.53 ± 0.130 | 81.76 ± 0.094 | 78.60 ± 0.072 | 57.04 ± 0.868 | | MatBERT | 86.09 ± 0.170 | 83.35 ± 0.085 | 80.01 ± 0.027 | 56.91 ± 0.434 | | BatteryBERT | 86.49 ± 0.085 | 82.94 ± 0.309 | 78.14 ± 0.103 | 59.87 ± 0.398 | | SB_1 | 85.25 ± 0.063 | 80.87 ± 0.282 | 82.75 ± 0.049 | 55.34 ± 0.742 | | SB_10 | 85.80 ± 0.094 | 80.61 ± 0.747 | 83.24 ± 0.063 | 53.41 ± 0.380 | | SB_100 | 85.90 ± 0.063 | 82.09 ± 0.022 | 83.12 ± 0.085 | 54.93 ± 0.063 | | SB_10_WB | 83.94 ± 0.058 | 78.98 ± 1.190 | 83.00 ± 0.250 | 54.29 ± 0.080 | | SB_100_WB | 84.31 ± 0.080 | 80.84 ± 0.161 | 82.43 ± 0.031 | 54.00 ± 0.425 | | SB-XL_1 | 85.81 ± 0.054 | 82.84 ± 0.228 | 81.09 ± 0.170 | 55.94 ± 0.899 | | SB-XL_100 | 85.73 ± 0.058 | 81.75 ± 0.367 | 80.72 ± 0.174 | 54.54 ± 0.389 |       ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist 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? Our article reports findings on evaluating language models on scientific information extraction tasks, which we do not believe could pose any risk. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Section Abstract and Introduction ✗ 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 ✓ 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.3 Hardware and Software Stack 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 3 Table 1 and Appendix B Table 5 ✓ 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 and Appendix D ✓ 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.3 Hardware and Software Stack 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.

zhang-etal-2023-causal-matching

Causal Matching with Text Embeddings: A Case Study in Estimating the Causal Effects of Peer Review Policies

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.83

A promising approach to estimate the causal effects of peer review policies is to analyze data from publication venues that shift policies from single-blind to double-blind from one year to the next. However, in these settings the content of the manuscript is a confounding variable{---}each year has a different distribution of scientific content which may naturally affect the distribution of reviewer scores. To address this textual confounding, we extend variable ratio nearest neighbor matching to incorporate text embeddings. We compare this matching method to a widely-used causal method of stratified propensity score matching and a baseline of randomly selected matches. For our case study of the ICLR conference shifting from single- to double-blind review from 2017 to 2018, we find human judges prefer manuscript matches from our method in 70{\%} of cases. While the unadjusted estimate of the average causal effect of reviewers{'} scores is -0.25, our method shifts the estimate to -0.17, a slightly smaller difference between the outcomes of single- and double-blind policies. We hope this case study enables exploration of additional text-based causal estimation methods and domains in the future.

# Causal Matching With Text Embeddings: A Case Study In Estimating The Causal Effects Of Peer Review Policies Raymond Z. Zhang1 Neha Nayak Kennard2 **Daniel Scott Smith**1 Daniel A. McFarland1 Andrew McCallum2 **Katherine A. Keith**3 1Stanford Graduate School of Education 2University of Massachusetts Amherst 3Williams College ray.zhang@alumni.stanford.edu {kennard, mccallum}@cs.umass.edu {danielscottsmith,mcfarland}@stanford.edu kak5@williams.edu ## Abstract A promising approach to estimate the causal effects of peer review policies is to analyze data from publication venues that shift policies from single-blind to double-blind from one year to the next. However, in these settings the content of the manuscript is a confounding variableeach year has a different distribution of scientific content which may naturally affect the distribution of reviewer scores. To address this textual confounding, we extend variable ratio nearest neighbor matching to incorporate text embeddings. We compare this matching method to a widely-used causal method of stratified propensity score matching and a baseline of randomly selected matches. For our case study of the ICLR conference shifting from singleto double-blind review from 2017 to 2018, we find human judges prefer manuscript matches from our method in 70% of cases. While the unadjusted estimate of the average causal effect of reviewers' scores is -0.25, our method shifts the estimate to -0.17, a slightly smaller difference between the outcomes of single- and doubleblind policies. We hope this case study enables exploration of additional text-based causal estimation methods and domains in the future. ## 1 Introduction For over two hundred years, peer review has been the key means of evaluating scholarly work and establishing scientific legitimacy (Birukou et al., 2011). Although many claim double-blind peer review reduces evaluation biases due to known author identities (Tvina et al., 2019; Sun et al., 2022; Kern-Goldberger et al., 2022), others claim there is little statistical evidence for a preference over single-blind (Haffar et al., 2019). In this work, we argue that studying the impact of peer review anonymization policies is inherently a *causal* question. If we intervene and assign a manuscript to double-blind review, what is resulting effect on the manuscript's review score compared to what the score would have been under  single-blind review? The gold standard for these types of causal estimation questions is randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which produce unbiased effect estimates (Holland, 1986; Pearl, 2009). However, in the case of peer review, an RCT is unethical because applying different review policies to different manuscripts could potentially harm the dissemination of scientific findings and researchers' careers. In the absence of an RCT, one can use observational (non-randomized) data from publication venues before and after a policy change to estimate causal effects. However, a major obstacle to unbiased effect estimation for observational data is accounting for confounding variables that affect both treatment and outcome. In the case of peer review, we represent our domain assumptions via the causal diagram in Figure 1. The content of a manuscript affects peer review scores—popular scientific content might naturally have higher reviewer scoresand is correlated with review policy—the distribution of content in submitted manuscripts might be different in years with single- versus doubleblind review.1 Many methods have been proposed 1The diagram in Figure 1 is an Acyclic Directed Mixed Graph (ADMG) (Richardson, 2003) which contains both directed edges—denoting direct causal dependence—and bidirected edges. Manuscript content and review policy have a to statistically adjust for confounding variables in general (Rosenbaum and Rubin, 1983; Pearl, 2009; Morgan and Winship, 2015). We follow the framework presented by Keith et al. (2020) who review settings for which text data is a proxy for confounding variables. From this prior work, we distill **three important criteria** for choosing text-based confounding adjustment method for case studies like ours: the method should (1) allow for empirical checks of causal overlap, (2) incorporate modern text representations, and (3) enable human validation of intermediate steps. Causal *overlap*—a necessary condition for an estimate to be causal—requires any unit to have a non-zero probability of assignment to each treatment condition for all possible values of confounders (Morgan and Winship, 2015). If causal overlap is not satisfied, one has to either abandon the project or shift the target causal estimand2. Second, text data contains many layers of linguistic granularity and there are challenges to operationalizing a variable like "manuscript content". General-purpose language representations have greatly improved performance of predictive natural language processing (NLP) tasks, e.g. Peters et al. (2018); Devlin et al. (2019); Cohan et al. (2020), and we hypothesize we could use them to help find semantically similar treated and untreated documents. Finally, human validation is important because unlike prediction settings, causal settings have no ground-truth (Holland, 1986). In our case study, we do not have access to counterfactual outcomes for the same manuscript under both treatment settings. Thus, we are essentially combining the "black box" of causal estimation with another "black box" of NLP techniques, so it is crucial that we are able to evaluate intermediate steps of the causal estimation pipeline in order to lend validity to our results. In summary, we contribute the following: - We combine causal matching approaches with the NLP embedding literature and implement variable ratio nearest neighbor matching with replacement and a caliper on cosine distance of bi-directed edge because manuscript content does not *directly* cause the review policy but unmeasured common causes affect both variables. Conditioning on manuscript content still blocks the "backdoor path" between treatment and outcome, so we call it a confounding variable in the remainder of this work. 2Typically, one has to shift to only the subset of the population with "common support" in the sample; see Morgan and Winship (2015) Section 4.6.1. document embeddings, *Variable Ratio Matching with Embeddings (VRM-E)*3. We demonstrate that this method satisfies our three criteria above. - We apply VRM-E to a case study of peer review data, consisting of ratings from 1400 manuscripts from the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) in 2017 (single-blind peer review) and 2018 (double-blind). - For our case study, we find human domainexperts prefer matches between treated and untreated manuscripts from VRM-E over 70% of the time compared to a baseline of stratified propensity score matching (Rosenbaum and Rubin, 1983) and randomly selected matches. - While the baseline unadjusted estimate of the average treatment effect on the control (ATC) of aggregated reviewers' scores (on a 10-point scale) is -0.25 with 95% confidence interval of [-0.39, -0.11], VRM-E shifts the ATC to -0.17 [-0.29, -0.05], a slightly smaller difference between the outcomes of single- and double-blind policies. ## 2 Related Work Methods for text-based confounding adjustment. We describe gaps in existing work based on our three criteria of overlap (O), incorporating modern NLP representations (R), and human validation (V). The text adjustment method proposed by Roberts et al. (2020) uses human judgements experiments for validation (V+) but relies on topic modeling (R-). While Veitch et al. (2020) make use of stateof-the-art NLP in the form of BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) to jointly estimate treatment and counterfactual outcomes (R+), one cannot validate intermediate representations (I-) or empirically check for overlap (O-). Wood-Doughty et al. (2018) use classifiers to adjust for textual confounding variables; however, many settings, including ours, do not have gold-standard labels of low-dimensional confounders necessary for these classifiers. Mozer et al. (2020) propose a framework for human judgement of text matches (V+), but their empirical results are domain-dependent and do not generalize to our case study. Many other applications of text in causal inference use stratified propensity score matching (SPSM) (Rosenbaum and Rubin, 1983), e.g. De Choudhury et al. (2016); De Choudhury 3Code for VRM-E and other experiments from this paper can be found at https://github.com/raymondEDS/VRM-E/ and Kiciman (2017); Olteanu et al. (2017); Kiciman et al. (2018); Saha et al. (2019). Because SPSM is widely-used and satisfies our three criteria, we empirically compare to this method in Section 3.4. Peer review studies. Some argue double-blind review reduces bias associated with reputation, race, gender, and institution (Tvina et al., 2019). Experiments show that single-blind reviewers bid (Tomkins et al., 2017) and recommend acceptance (Okike et al., 2016) at higher rates for famous authors from top institutions. In a non-causal study using the same ICLR dataset, Sun et al. (2022) show changing from single- to double-blind review results in decreased scores for prestigious authors. Manzoor and Shah (2021) also use the ICLR dataset but focus on text as a causal outcome rather than as a confounding variable. ## 3 Methods And Empirical Pipeline 3.1 Case Study Data We use titles, abstracts, and review ratings for ICLR 2017 and 2018 submissions, scraped from OpenReview by Zhang et al. (2022). In both years, each submission was rated by multiple reviewers on a 10-point scale; we use the mean rating as the causal outcome. ICLR 2017 used single-blind reviewing, and had 490 submissions; ICLR 2018 used double-blind reviewing and received 910 submissions. ## 3.2 Set-Up For Causal Estimation To estimate causal effects, ideally we would have counterfactual outcomes for each unit i—in our case study, a unit is a single manuscript—for both treatment settings, T = 0 and T = 1. Using the potential outcomes framework (Rubin, 1974, 2005), we denote these counterfactual outcomes as Yi(Ti = 0) and Yi(Ti = 1). The average treatment effect (ATE) for population of n units is $$\tau={\frac{1}{n}}\sum_{i}\left(Y_{i}(T_{i}=1)-Y_{i}(T_{i}=0)\right)\quad\quad(1)$$ However, the fundamental problem of causal inference is that we do not have access to both counterfactual outcomes for a single unit (Holland, 1986). Instead, a naive approach estimates the ATE as a difference in means between the treated and untreated groups $$\hat{\tau}_{\mathrm{naive}}=\frac{1}{n_{1}}\sum_{i:T_{i}=1}Y_{i}-\frac{1}{n_{0}}\sum_{i:T_{i}=0}Y_{i}\qquad\mathrm{(2)}\qquad\mathrm{(3)}$$ with n1 and n0 being the number of units in the treated and untreated groups respectively. This naive estimate can be biased in the presence of confounding variables, C. To address this confounding, one can use the backdoor adjustment formula (Pearl, 2009) to statistically adjust for C $${\hat{\tau}}_{\mathrm{BDA}}=\sum_{c}{\bigg(}E[Y|T=1,C=c]\qquad\qquad\qquad(3)$$ $$-E[Y|T=0,C=c]{\bigg)}P(C=c)$$ Eq. 3 is an unbiased estimate of the ATE under certain necessary causal identification assumptions such as no unmeasured confounding and causal overlap: ∀c, 0 < P(T = 1|C = c) < 1. Intuitively, if causal overlap is satisfied, then the terms in Eq. 3 can be estimated from data because then there are at least one treated and untreated unit for each c. However, D'Amour et al. (2021) show that overlap becomes increasingly difficult to satisfy as the dimensionality of C grows. Thus, for text-based confounding settings, practitioners face tradeoffs between the linguistic granularity for which they operationalize C and satisfying causal overlap.4 ## 3.3 Vrm-E To satisfy the three criteria described in Section 1, we combine previous work from the NLP representation learning literature (Le and Mikolov, 2014; Wu et al., 2018; Zamani et al., 2018) with the causal literature on variable ratio matching (Ming and Rosenbaum, 2001; Stuart, 2010). As Stuart (2010) notes, causal matching has the advantage that one can empirically check regions for overlap, whereas alternatives, like regression, would rely on extrapolation for those same regions. Our method, *Variable Ratio Matching with Embeddings* (VRM-E), operationalizes C as many clusters of semantically similar documents where each cluster has at least one treated and non-treated manuscript, thus explicitly satisfying overlap. Note, like all causal estimation approaches, the validity of our 4To illustrate this tradeoff, consider the following hypothetical scenario: the size of the vocabulary is 10 and C is operationalized as vector of word indicators for each document. This gives 2 10 = 1024 possibilities for c and there must be least one T = 0 and T = 1 document for each c to satisfy overlap (2048 total documents). This minimum number of documents needed is more than the total documents we have in this case study and grows exponentially with the size of the vocabulary. Thus, practitioners must choose a different operationalization of text or abandon the project. method is contingent on the assumptions we stated previously; see Limitations section for more discussion. We subsequently describe the five steps of VRM-E and provide suggestions to navigate biasvariance trade-offs and trade-offs between causal overlap and the granularity of textual semantic similarity between treated and untreated groups. Step 1: Obtain embeddings for each unit of text. Step 2: Set the "anchor" group as the treated or untreated group with the fewest number of units. This will ensure each unit in the smaller group is matched with at least one unit in larger group, satisfying causal overlap.5 Step 3: Run agglomerative clustering on the cosine distance6 of the embeddings for all anchor units, with a maximum distance threshold a. This step ensures extremely similar units in the anchor group are matched with the same non-anchor units and reduces the runtime of Step 4. Step 4: For each cluster centroid from Step 3, find the k-nearest neighbors in the non-anchor group by embedding cosine distance, limiting to a maximum distance of b. Our b variable is analogous to a *caliper* in other causal matching literature; see Rosenbaum and Rubin (1985a,b); Stuart (2010). Step 5: Use a matching estimator (see Appendix A) to estimate the causal effect. Setting hyperparameters. An advantage of our method is that it is agnostic to the choice of text embedding and domain experts should choose the embedding that is best-suited for their domain. Additionally, our method only has three free hyperparameters: k, a, and b. As Gelman and Loken (2013) discuss, limiting the number of free parameters can help mitigate "garden of forking paths" issues in data analysis. We make several recommendations on navigating the tradeoffs for these hyperparameters. Choices of k correspond to bias-variance trade-offs; a higher k may result in increased bias while decreasing variance (Stuart, 2010). The a threshold is meant to be arbitrarily small to create tight clusters in the anchor group. Setting b to a small value increases the chance of textual seman-5While this satisfies overlap, it can change the estimand to the average treatment effect on the control (ATC) or average treatment effect on the treated (ATT). This is still preferred to shifting the estimate to only the subsample of the population with "common support" (Morgan and Winship, 2015). 6This is equivalent to one minus the cosine similarity. This metric has become standard for embedding similarity in NLP (Chandrasekaran and Mago, 2021; Mohammad and Hirst, 2012) tic similarity between units, but could result in a violation of causal overlap for anchor units that have no matches; thus, we recommend selecting the minimum value of b that still satisfies overlap. Case study hyperparameters. For our case study, we use SPECTER (Cohan et al., 2020), a pre-trained language model which generates embeddings for scientific manuscripts using their titles and abstracts, and outperforms alternative models on benchmark scientific tasks. After qualitative inspection of initial results, we set k = 10 and a = 0.1; see Appendix D.3 for robustness to these choices. We set b = 0.23 since this is the lowest value such that all manuscripts in our anchor group (T = 0; 2017 manuscripts) have at least one match in the non-anchor group; see Appendix B.2. In Step 4, we allow for matching with replacement and further investigate this decision in Appendix C.1.1. ## 3.4 Spsm We compare VRM-E to stratified propensity score matching (SPSM). To do so, we train a logistic regression model for the propensity scores, P(T = 1|X). For our case study, we operationalize X as the same SPECTER embeddings used in VRM-E to compare the two methods fairly. We use cross-fitting (Hansen, 2000; Newey and Robins, 2018) with cross validation within the training folds to ensure the models are not overfitting. Using the trained models, we infer propensity scores for each unit in the corresponding inference folds and then we stratify the scores into the standard five buckets (Neuhäuser et al., 2018). See Appendix D.1 for more details. Empirically, we find SPSM is limited when incorporating text embeddings. First, although SPSM satisfies overlap, approximately 95% of the data is distributed in stratum 3 (between scores 0.4 and 0.6); see Figure 4 and Table 7. Additionally, the model only has 62% accuracy on the training folds. This shows propensity score modeling's limitation—it collapses rich text data into a single score whereas VRM-E maintains more fine-grained matches. ## 4 Results For Peer Review Case Study Because there is no ground-truth in causal inference, we first manually evaluate matches to assess validity, and then estimate the causal effects. In our Limitations section, we discuss potential threats to validity. | Method | Raw prefs. | Pref. % | |----------------|--------------|-----------| | VRM-E | 212 | 70% | | Random matches | 38 | 13% | | SPSM | 53 | 17% | ## 4.1 Human Judgements On Matches Causal matching aims to find units that "look similar" but receive different treatments, allowing researchers to approximate counterfactuals. Both VRM-E and SPSM allow for human evaluation of matches, satisfying one of our three criteria in Section 1. 7 To empirically analyze the differences between these matching methods, three authors compared 100 randomly sampled manuscript titles from ICLR 2017 to their matched titles from ICLR 2018.8 For the same ICLR 2017 manuscript, three 2018 manuscript matches were judged: one randomly sampled match, one match from VRM-E, and one match from SPSM. These matches were permuted (and method names masked) and the judges were instructed to select the most similar of the three matches; ties were allowed. See Appendix B.1 for additional details. To obtain each method's preference percentage, we add together the preferences across all three judges and then divided by the total number of preferences. Table 1 shows judges prefer our method 70% of the time. The agreement rate between judges is 0.56 for Fleiss' Kappa (Davies and Fleiss, 1982), a low value but not unreasonable given the difficultly of the task. The high preference for VRM-E lends validity to our final causal estimates from this approach. ## 4.2 Causal Effect Estimates In Table 2, we compare the average treatment on the control (ATC) from VRM-E to the ATC from | Method | ATC | 95% CI | |--------------------|-------|----------------| | VRM-E | -0.17 | [-0.29, -0.05] | | Naive (unadjusted) | -0.25 | [-0.39, -0.11] | | SPSM | -0.26 | [-0.38, -0.14] | the unadjusted estimate and estimate from SPSM. We calculate the 95% confidence interval (CI) given the percentile bootstrap method (Hahn, 1995) resampling the 2017 papers; see Appendix D.2. All three methods estimate an ATC with a negative sign. This result suggests that for the same manuscript, shifting from single-blind to doubleblind would decrease the average reviewer score. However, while the unadjusted estimate of the ATC is -0.25 with 95% CI [-0.39, -0.11], our method shifts the ATC to -0.17 [-0.29, -0.05], a slightly smaller difference between the outcomes of singleand double-blind policies. ## 5 Conclusion And Future Work In this work, we implement VRM-E, a method for text-based causal confounding adjustment that satisfies our three criteria of empirically checking causal overlap, incorporating modern NLP embeddings, and human validation of intermediate steps. For our case study, we find domain-experts prefer VRM-E matches 70% of the time compared to random matches and stratified propensity score matches. While the sign of the causal effectnegative—of switching from single blind to double blind reviewing on average reviewer scores is consistent across all methods, VRM-E estimates a slightly less negative effect. Future work could investigate the causal mechanisms behind the negative causal effect and explore heterogeneous treatment effects due to author identity. Additional directions could examine different causal outcomes on the text of peer reviews such as discourse-level sentence labels (Kennard et al., 2022) or politeness (Danescu-NiculescuMizil et al., 2013). We hope this case study enables exploration of additional text-based causal estimation methods and domains in the future. ## Limitations Our work is limited in several ways. We use human judgements on our case study data to demonstrate a preference of VRM-E versus SPSM. However, additional case studies in other domains such as education, healthcare, legal studies etc. are necessary in order to gather empirical evidence that preference for VRM-E generalizes. Threats to validity. There are several threats to interpreting our case study estimates as causal. Like any causal study with observational data, our case study relies on untestable causal identification assumptions such as no unmeasured confounding. Other unmeasured confounding likely does exist. For example, our document embeddings do not necessarily measure the "quality" of the manuscripts or the "novelty" of the ideas, both of which could affect reviewers' scores. Regarding estimation, by allowing for matching with replacement, Appendix C.1.1 shows that several manuscripts are reused with high frequency. This will introduce bias within our model as noted in Stuart (2010). Additionally, our choice of b satisfies overlap but at the expense of very similar semantic matches between manuscripts. This could explain why there was only a moderate amount of agreement between the human judges as many matches are less semantically similar than we would prefer. ## Ethics Statement Data. Our case study data comes from Zhang et al. (2022) who aggregated data from OpenReview and other venues. Our work falls in line with the intention of Zhang et al. (2022): to investigate peer review. While individuals and research groups may not have intended for their work to be studied in the manner of our case study, we believe that the risk is minimal because researchers have agreed to publish their work via the OpenReview platform. The original intent of OpenReview was to create more transparency within the peer review process and allow for the analysis of various policies (Soergel et al., 2013). Risks are further minimized since we do not analyze individual manuscripts but rather focus on aggregate policy implications. Peer review. A second ethical implication of our work concerns acting on our substantive findings about peer review. Our work primarily focuses on comparing text-based causal matching methods, so we do not focus on a sophisticated quasiexperimental design for the case study, and we do not analyze additional confounders other than the title and abstract of manuscripts. As mentioned in Sections 1 and 2, peer review is a complicated topic with conflicting analyses based on context. There are many different perspectives on what makes a peer review process "good". We hope our work is a step towards an improved peer review process, but we caution against using the results of this study in isolation as a basis for setting or changing any peer review policies. ## Acknowledgments This material is based upon work supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant Number 2022435, and in part by the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative under the project Scientific Knowledge Base Construction. KK is grateful for support from a Young Investigator Grant from the Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the sponsors. ## References Taylor Berg-Kirkpatrick, David Burkett, and Dan Klein. 2012. An empirical investigation of statistical significance in NLP. In *Proceedings of the 2012 Joint* Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 995–1005, Jeju Island, Korea. Association for Computational Linguistics. Aliaksandr Birukou, Joseph Wakeling, Claudio Bartolini, Fabio Casati, Maurizio Marchese, Katsiaryna Mirylenka, Nardine Osman, Azzurra Ragone, Carles Sierra, and Aalam Wassef. 2011. Alternatives to peer review: Novel approaches for research evaluation. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 5. Dhivya Chandrasekaran and Vijay Mago. 2021. Evolution of semantic similarity—a survey. ACM Comput. Surv., 54(2). Arman Cohan, Sergey Feldman, Iz Beltagy, Doug Downey, and Daniel Weld. 2020. SPECTER: Document-level representation learning using citation-informed transformers. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2270–2282, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, Moritz Sudhof, Dan Jurafsky, Jure Leskovec, and Christopher Potts. 2013. A computational approach to politeness with application to social factors. Mark Davies and Joseph L. Fleiss. 1982. Measuring agreement for multinomial data. *Biometrics*, 38(4):1047–1051. Munmun De Choudhury and Emre Kiciman. 2017. The language of social support in social media and its effect on suicidal ideation risk. In International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM). Munmun De Choudhury, Emre Kiciman, Mark Dredze, Glen Coppersmith, and Mrinal Kumar. 2016. Discovering shifts to suicidal ideation from mental health content in social media. In *Proceedings of the 2016* CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pages 2098–2110. ACM. 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. Alexander D'Amour, Peng Ding, Avi Feller, Lihua Lei, and Jasjeet Sekhon. 2021. Overlap in observational studies with high-dimensional covariates. Journal of Econometrics, 221(2):644–654. Andrew Gelman and Eric Loken. 2013. The garden of forking paths: Why multiple comparisons can be a problem, even when there is no "fishing expedition" or "p-hacking" and the research hypothesis was posited ahead of time. *Department of Statistics,* Columbia University, 348:1–17. Samir Haffar, Fateh Bazerbachi, and M. Hassan Murad. 2019. Peer review bias: A critical review. *Mayo* Clinic Proceedings, 94(4):670–676. Jinyong Hahn. 1995. Bootstrapping quantile regression estimators. *Econometric Theory*, 11(1):105–121. Bruce E Hansen. 2000. Sample splitting and threshold estimation. *Econometrica*, 68(3):575–603. Paul W Holland. 1986. Statistics and causal inference. *Journal of the American statistical Association*, 81(396):945–960. Katherine Keith, David Jensen, and Brendan O'Connor. 2020. Text and causal inference: A review of using text to remove confounding from causal estimates. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 5332– 5344, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Neha Kennard, Tim O'Gorman, Rajarshi Das, Akshay Sharma, Chhandak Bagchi, Matthew Clinton, Pranay Kumar Yelugam, Hamed Zamani, and Andrew McCallum. 2022. DISAPERE: A dataset for discourse structure in peer review discussions. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1234–1249, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Adina R. Kern-Goldberger, Richard James, Vincenzo Berghella, and Emily S. Miller. 2022. The impact of double-blind peer review on gender bias in scientific publishing: a systematic review. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 227(1):43–50.e4. Emre Kiciman, Scott Counts, and Melissa Gasser. 2018. Using longitudinal social media analysis to understand the effects of early college alcohol use. In Twelfth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media. Quoc Le and Tomas Mikolov. 2014. Distributed representations of sentences and documents. In *Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Machine Learning*, volume 32 of *Proceedings of Machine Learning Research*, pages 1188–1196, Bejing, China. PMLR. Emaad Manzoor and Nihar B Shah. 2021. Uncovering latent biases in text: Method and application to peer review. In *Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on* Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 4767–4775. Kewei Ming and Paul R Rosenbaum. 2001. A note on optimal matching with variable controls using the assignment algorithm. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 10(3):455–463. Saif M. Mohammad and Graeme Hirst. 2012. Distributional measures of semantic distance: A survey. CoRR, abs/1203.1858. Stephen L Morgan and Christopher Winship. 2015. Counterfactuals and causal inference. Cambridge University Press. Reagan Mozer, Luke Miratrix, Aaron Russell Kaufman, and L Jason Anastasopoulos. 2020. Matching with text data: An experimental evaluation of methods for matching documents and of measuring match quality. Political Analysis. Markus Neuhäuser, Matthias Thielmann, and Graeme D. Ruxton. 2018. The number of strata in propensity score stratification for a binary outcome. Archives of Medical Science, 14(3):695–700. Whitney K Newey and James R Robins. 2018. Crossfitting and fast remainder rates for semiparametric estimation. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.09138*. Kanu Okike, Kevin T. Hug, Mininder S. Kocher, and Seth S. Leopold. 2016. Single-blind vs Double-blind Peer Review in the Setting of Author Prestige. *JAMA*, 316(12):1315–1316. Alexandra Olteanu, Onur Varol, and Emre Kiciman. 2017. Distilling the outcomes of personal experiences: A propensity-scored analysis of social media. In *Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on* Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, pages 370–386. ACM. Judea Pearl. 2009. *Causality: Models, Reasoning and* Inference, Second edition. Cambridge University Press. F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V. Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P. Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, V. Dubourg, J. Vanderplas, A. Passos, D. Cournapeau, M. Brucher, M. Perrot, and E. Duchesnay. 2011. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. *Journal of Machine Learning Research*, 12:2825–2830. Matthew E. Peters, Mark Neumann, Mohit Iyyer, Matt Gardner, Christopher Clark, Kenton Lee, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. Deep contextualized word representations. In *NAACL*. Thomas Richardson. 2003. Markov properties for acyclic directed mixed graphs. *Scandinavian Journal* of Statistics, 30(1):145–157. Margaret E. Roberts, Brandon M. Stewart, and Richard A. Nielsen. 2020. Adjusting for confounding with text matching. *American Journal of Political* Science, 64(4):887–903. Paul R Rosenbaum and Donald B Rubin. 1983. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. *Biometrika*, 70(1):41–55. Paul R Rosenbaum and Donald B Rubin. 1985a. The bias due to incomplete matching. *Biometrics*, pages 103–116. Paul R Rosenbaum and Donald B Rubin. 1985b. Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. *The American Statistician*, 39(1):33–38. Donald B Rubin. 1974. Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. volume 66, page 688. American Psychological Association. Donald B Rubin. 2005. Causal inference using potential outcomes: Design, modeling, decisions. *Journal of* the American Statistical Association, 100(469):322– 331. Koustuv Saha, Benjamin Sugar, John Torous, Bruno Abrahao, Emre Kıcıman, and Munmun De Choudhury. 2019. A social media study on the effects of psychiatric medication use. In *Proceedings of the* International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, volume 13, pages 440–451. David Soergel, Adam Saunders, and Andrew McCallum. 2013. Open scholarship and peer review: a time for experimentation. In ICML 2013 Workshop on Peer Reviewing and Publishing Models. ICML. Dhanya Sridhar, Aaron Springer, Victoria Hollis, Steve Whittaker, and Lise Getoor. 2018. Estimating causal effects of exercise from mood logging data. In *IJCAI/ICML Workshop on CausalML*. Elizabeth A. Stuart. 2010. Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. Statistical Science, 25(1). Mengyi Sun, Jainabou Barry Danfa, and Misha Teplitskiy. 2022. Does double-blind peer review reduce bias? evidence from a top computer science conference. *Journal of the Association for Information* Science and Technology, 73(6):811–819. Robert J Tibshirani and Bradley Efron. 1993. An introduction to the bootstrap. Monographs on statistics and applied probability, 57(1). Andrew Tomkins, Min Zhang, and William D. Heavlin. 2017. Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(48):12708–12713. Alina Tvina, Ryan Spellecy, and Anna Palatnik. 2019. Bias in the peer review process: Can we do better? Obstetrics & Gynecology, 133(6). Victor Veitch, Dhanya Sridhar, and David M Blei. 2020. Adapting text embeddings for causal inference. In UAI. Zach Wood-Doughty, Ilya Shpitser, and Mark Dredze. 2018. Challenges of using text classifiers for causal inference. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4586–4598. Lingfei Wu, Ian En-Hsu Yen, Kun Xu, Fangli Xu, Avinash Balakrishnan, Pin-Yu Chen, Pradeep Ravikumar, and Michael J Witbrock. 2018. Word mover's embedding: From word2vec to document embedding. In *Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 4524–4534. Hamed Zamani, Mostafa Dehghani, W. Bruce Croft, Erik Learned-Miller, and Jaap Kamps. 2018. From neural re-ranking to neural ranking: Learning a sparse representation for inverted indexing. In *Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference* on Information and Knowledge Management, CIKM '18, page 497–506, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. Jiayao Zhang, Hongming Zhang, Zhun Deng, and Dan Roth. 2022. Investigating fairness disparities in peer review: A language model enhanced approach. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2211.06398. ## Causal Estimators For Atc A In this section, we describe the estimator for average treatment effect on the control (ATC). Let T 0 be the set of units for which we observe T = 0 and T 1 be the set of units that we observe T = 1; let N T 0 and NT , be the number of units in those two sets respectively. Then the theoretical ATC (with counterfactual terms) is $$\tau^{A T C}=\frac{1}{N_{T_{0}}}\sum_{i\in T_{0}}\left(Y_{i}(T_{i}=1)-Y_{i}(T_{i}=0)\right)$$ $$(4)$$ The naive estimator assumes that the mean outcome over all units in T 1 suffices as the approximate counterfactual for every unit in T 0 $$\hat{\tau}_{\mathrm{naive}}^{A T C}=\frac{1}{N_{T_{0}}}\sum_{i\in T_{0}}\left((\frac{1}{N_{T_{1}}}\sum_{j\in T_{1}}Y_{j})-Y_{i}\right)$$ $$(5)$$ Following Stuart (2010); Morgan and Winship (2015), we use the following ATC matching estimator for VRM-E and SPSM. For each control unit, i ∈ T 0 and its corresponding matches M i —matches are treated units in the same cluster for VRM-E and treated units in the same strata for SPSM—the estimator creates a "counterfactual" outcome from the mean of the matches $${\hat{Y}}_{i}(1)={\frac{1}{|M_{i}|}}\sum_{j\in M_{i}}Y_{j}$$ $$\hat{\tau}_{\mathrm{match}}^{A T C}=\frac{1}{N_{T_{0}}}\sum_{i\in T_{0}}\left(\hat{Y}_{i}(1)-Y_{i}\right)$$ $$(6)$$ which is substituted into $$\mathbf{\Pi}(7)$$ Intuitively, this estimator weights the P ( C = c ) term Eq. 3 as the number of T 0 manuscripts in each cluster in VRM-E and each strata in SPSM. ## B Hyperparameter Choice And Robustness B.1 Human Judgements On Matches | title_2017 | title_2018 | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | #Exploration: A Study of Count-Based Exploration for Deep Reinforcement Learning | A Framework for the Quantitative Evaluation of Disentangled Representat | | # | Learning Dynamic State Abstractions for Model-Based Reinforcement Learn | | arning to Mix n-Step Returns: Generalizing Lambda-Returns for De | | | WExploration: A Study of Count-Based Exploration for Deep Reinforcement Le | Reinforcement Learning | | A Context-aware Attention Network for Interactive Question Answering | Unsupervised Representation Learning by Predicting Image Rotati | | A Context-aware Attention Network for Interactive Question Answering | Incremental Learning through Deep Adaptation | | A Context-aware Attention Network for Interactive Question Answ | Topic-Based Question Generati | | A Learned Representation For Artistic Style | XGAN: Unsupervised Image-to-Image Translation for many-to-many Map | | A Learned Representation For Artistic Style | Reinforcement Learning on Web Interfaces using Workflow-Guided Exp | | A Learned Representation For Artistic Style | Wasserstein Auto-Encode | | Learning Sparse Latent Representations with the Deep Copy | | | Bottleneck | | | Representing Entropy : A short proof of the equivalence between soft Q-learni | | | A Neural Stochastic Volatility Model | policy gradients | | A Neural Stochastic Volatility Model | Initialization matters: Orthogonal Predictive State Recurrent Neural Network | | 1 . | |-------| Figure 2: Spreadsheet used for human judging of similarity of matches. Each judge was given a sheet with 300 rows of titles to rate based on our procedure described in Section 4.1. The same 2017 title is compared to three 2018 titles from three different methods and method names are masked in this spreadsheet. On average the three judges took 48 minutes (50, 44, and 50 minutes dis-aggregated) for the task. ## B.2 Choosing B Hyperparameter For Vrm-E In Figure 3, we show a visualization of our choice of δ in VRM-E for our case study data. We select b such that it is the minimal value (minimizing bias in the estimates) while satisfying overlap (a necessary condition for causal estimation).  ## C Qualitative Evaluation And Examples C.1 Vrm-E Example | 2017 title: Machine Comprehension Using Match-LSTM and Answer Pointer | Cosine Distance | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------| | 2018 title: QANet: Combining Local Convolution with Global Self-Attention for Reading Comprehension | 0.104 | | 2018 title: Multi-Mention Learning for Reading Comprehension with Neural Cascades | 0.11 | | 2018 title: LEARNING TO ORGANIZE KNOWLEDGE WITH N-GRAM MACHINES | 0.129 | | 2018 title: FAST READING COMPREHENSION WITH CONVNETS | 0.131 | | 2018 title: ElimiNet: A Model for Eliminating Options for Reading Comprehension with Multiple Choice Questions | 0.133 | | 2018 title: FusionNet: Fusing via Fully-aware Attention with Application to Machine Comprehension | 0.133 | | 2018 title: Dynamic Integration of Background Knowledge in Neural NLU Systems | 0.139 | | 2018 title: Neural Compositional Denotational Semantics for Question Answering | 0.142 | | 2018 title: Phase Conductor on Multi-layered Attentions for Machine Comprehension | 0.144 | | 2018 title: Adaptive Memory Networks | 0.149 | Table 3: Example of 2017 manuscript matched with ten 2018 manuscripts. The right-most column is the cosine distances between embeddings of the respective manuscripts. ## C.1.1 Repeated Matches Example | Title of 2018 Manuscript | Repeat Count | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------| | Neumann Optimizer: A Practical Optimization Algorithm for Deep Neural Networks | 55 | | LSH Softmax: Sub-Linear Learning and Inference of the Softmax Layer in Deep Architectures | 34 | | Revisiting Bayes by Backprop | 32 | | Latent Space Oddity: on the Curvature of Deep Generative Models | 32 | | A Bayesian Perspective on Generalization and Stochastic Gradient Descent | 31 | Table 4: Examples of the top 5 repeated manuscripts in VRM-E for our case study data. The right-most column is the number of times the 2018 manuscript has been matched to a different 2017 manuscript. ## C.2 Structured Keywords In both 2017 and 2018, submissions to ICLR were accompanied by a list of keywords selected by the authors. Initially, we attempted to use these keywords as ground-truth by which we could evaluate VRM-E by comparing the Standard Difference in Means (SDM) (Stuart, 2010) for each keyword. However, we found that this was not a valid approach for this ICLR dataset as the semantic function of keywords changed between 2017 and 2018. In 2017, all submissions selected from a set of 15 general keywords, e.g., deep_learning or natural_language_processing. In contrast, submissions in 2018 used a more varied set of keywords with finer granularity. The 1748 keywords used in 2018 included specific topics such as attention or word_embeddings. ## D Additional Empirical Settings And Results D.1 Training Logistic Regression Model For Spsm In Section 3.4, we train a logistic regression model using the scikit-learn Python package (Pedregosa et al., 2011). We conduct a grid search, resulting in the best parameters listed in Table 5. This model was used to estimate the propensity scores of the manuscripts. The performance metrics from training are listed in Table 6. Figure 4 and Table 7 give the distribution of the propensity scores at inference time. | Parameter | Input | Metric | Score | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------|----------|---------| | Model | LogisticRegression | | | | l1_ratio | 0.1 | | | | solver | saga | | | | max_iter | 20000 | | | | tol | 0.001 | | | | penalty | elasticnet | | | | dual | False | | | | class_weight | balanced | | | | random_state | 42 | | | | model__C | 0.01 | | | | run time | 19.3 seconds | Accuracy | 0.62 | | Average Precision Score | 0.54 | | | | Calibration RSME | 0.19 | | | | F1 | 0.54 | | | | Mean Prediction Binary | 0.47 | | | | Mean Prediction Decimal | 0.49 | | | | Mean Prediction | 0.35 | | | | ROC AUC | 0.68 | | | | Table 6: Logistic regression performance metrics for the training folds. | | | | Table 5: Best Parameters for logistic regression  | Strata | P(T = 1) range | NT0 (2017 manuscripts) | NT1 (2018 manuscripts) | |----------|------------------|--------------------------|--------------------------| | 1 | [0.0, 0.2] | 0 | 0 | | 2 | [0.2, 0.4] | 9 | 45 | | 3 | [0.4, 0.6] | 472 | 851 | | 4 | [0.6, 0.8] | 9 | 14 | | 5 | [0.8, 1.0] | 0 | 0 | Table 7: Distribution of manuscripts within each strata for SPSM. ## D.2 Statistical Significance Table 1. For the human judgement results presented in Table 1, we conduct a two-sided T-test on the distributions of preferences for pairs of methods. Comparing VRM-E to random matches and SPSM, we obtain T-statistic of 10.8 and 8.7 respectively. Both have a p-value of less than 0.01 (far below the threshold of rejection). Table 2. To obtain confidence intervals and test for statistical significance in Table 2, we use bootstrapping. Since we evaluate the average treatment effect on the control, we sample with replacement the 2017 manuscripts 5000 times. For each bootstrap sample, we then calculate the ATC estimates for VRM-E, SPSM, and the naive (unadjusted) approaches. We calculate the 95% confidence interval (CI) given the percentile bootstrap method (Hahn, 1995). We use the 97.5 percentile and 2.5 percentile of the bootstrap samples to determine the confidence interval. To determine if there is a statistically significant difference between pairs of method, we use a paired bootstrap approach (Tibshirani and Efron, 1993). Specifically, we follow the algorithm from Berg- Kirkpatrick et al. (2012)'s Figure 1. When comparing the difference between the ATC for VRM-E and Naive and VRM-E and SPSM, both obtain a p-value of less than 0.01 (far below the threshold of reject).  D.3 Robustness to hyperparameter selection In Figure 5, we compare the ATC and number of agglomerative clusters given different hyperparameter choices. We do not use these plots to select hyperparameters (since there is no ground-truth in causal estimation) but rather to inspect our results' robustness to these choices post-hoc. As expected, increasing a —the hyperparameter which specifies the cosine distance threshold for which we count anchor units to be similar—decreases the number of agglomerative clusters (Step 3 in VRM-E) but also changes the ATC to be slightly more negative. As shown in the left plot of Figure 5, the estimates of the ATC for all our choices of hyperparameters are still less negative than the baseline unadjusted ATC. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Limitation section ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? The ethics statement ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Abstract and 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?** Openreview Data See Section 3.1 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? section 3.1 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)? Ethics Statement ✗ 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? Ethics statement 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. section 3.1 ## 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 F.1 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 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? 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.)? Appendix F 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.

niu-etal-2023-learning

Learning to Generalize for Cross-domain {QA}

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.84

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 with 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.

# Learning To Generalize For Cross-Domain Qa Yingjie Niu∗ 1,2, **Linyi Yang**∗ 3,4, **Ruihai Dong**1,2, **Yue Zhang** 3,4 1 School of Computer Science, University College Dublin 2 SFI Centre for Research Training in Machine Learning 3Institute 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 underexplored 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 outof-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). *These authors contributed equally to this work. *https://github.com/FreddieNIU/Prompt-QA  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 (LPFT) 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). Prompting-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 promptbased 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 Promptbased 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 opendomain 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 fixedformat 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 stateof-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  ## Prompting Methods In Nlp. 3 Method Figure 2 illustrates the workflow of the Promptbased 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 promptbased 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 effective 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 questiontype 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  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 cn being the start position or end position of the correct answer for discriminative models as follows: $$p(c_{n}|Q,C,P)=S o f i m a x(W_{h e a d}h_{c_{n}}+b_{h e a d})\quad.$$ $\mathbb{R}^{rd}\quad C\;\in\;\mathbb{R}^{s_c\times d}$ where Q ∈ R sq×d*word* , C ∈ R sc×d*word* , and P ∈ R sp×d*word* denote the question, context and prompt, respectively. sq/sc/sp and d*word* denote the *question/context/prompt sentence length* and the *word embedding dimension*, respectively. hcn denotes the feature representation of (*Q, C, P*) concatenated on the first dimension produced by a pretrained model, W*head* ∈ R ν×dh and b*head* ∈ R ν. dh denotes the dimension of hcn and ν denotes the length of answer sentence. The loss function is the sum of the cross entropy for start and end positions. $$\mathcal{L}_{dis}=-\sum_{n=1}^{m}\log p(c_{n}|Q,C,P)$$ 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, $${\mathcal{L}}_{g e n}=-\sum_{n}\log p(c_{n}|c_{<n},Q,C,P)$$ ## 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 L, the predictor in-domain performance Lid and out-of-domain performance Lood are: $$\begin{array}{c}{{L_{i d}(f)=\mathop{\mathbb{E}}_{(X,{\bf y})\sim p_{i d}}[{\mathcal{L}}(f(X)),{\bf y}]}}\\ {{L_{o o d}(f)=\mathop{\mathbb{E}}_{(X,{\bf y})\sim p_{o o d}}[{\mathcal{L}}(f(X)),{\bf y}]}}\end{array}\tag{4}$$ where the predictor is evaluated on test samples (X, y) drawn from in-domain distribution Pid, and also evaluated on test samples (X, y) drawn from out-of-domain distribution Pood. To simplify the formula representation, in this paper, X represents the question, and context (Q and C); y indicates the answer sentence. The final predictor f is parameterized as a feature extractor and a linear "head". Hence, the training loss is: $${\hat{\cal L}}({\bf v},B)=||X B^{\top}{\bf v}-{\bf y}||_{2}^{2}\qquad\qquad(5)$$ where v denotes the linear head and B denotes the feature extractor. We assume that the initial feature extractor B0 is obtained from the pre-trained model, considering two methods to learn a predictor fv,B: 1) linear probing where B = B0 and the linear head is obtained by minimizing some loss on the training data (Liu et al., 2019a), and 2) fine-tuning where both v and B are updated on the training data with B initialized as B0 (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: $$\nabla_{B}{\hat{\mathcal{L}}}(\mathbf{v},B)=2\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{y}-X B^{\top}\mathbf{v})^{\top}X$$ $$(6)$$ ⊤X (6) $${\mathrm{(2)}}$$ For Eq 6, if U is a sample extracted from a direction orthogonal subspace to the training subspace, ∇BLˆ(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. $$(3)$$ 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: $$\nabla_{B}\hat{\cal L}_{p}({\bf v},B)=2{\bf v}(Y-(X+P)B^{\top}{\bf v})^{\top}(X+P)\tag{7}$$ (7) where assume that P is not orthogonal to the X or its orthogonal subspace. Consequently, we have ∇BLˆp(v, B)(U +P) ̸= 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 $$\sqrt{L_{o o d}(\mathbf{v}_{f t},B_{f t}(t))}\geq\sigma{\frac{m i n(\varphi,\varphi^{2}/||w_{*}||_{2})}{(1+||w_{*}||_{2})^{2}}}$$ (8) where vf t and Bf t are the linear head and feature extractor after fine-tuning. σ is a fixed parameter (Kumar et al., 2022) related to B0. w∗ = v∗B∗, v∗ and B∗ are the optimal parameters. φ is the initial head alignment error φ = |(v⊤ 0 v∗) 2 − (v⊤ ∗ v∗) 2|. In order to decrease the OOD error, the head v0 has to be as close to the v∗ as possible. It is proved that initializing the head with vlp (LP-FT) can decrease the OOD error (Kumar et al., 2022) more than random initializing head with v0 (FT) since v0 is far away from v∗. Converting input X to X + P does not affect min(φ,φ2/||w∗||2) (1+||w∗||2) 2 , implying the LPFT 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 questionanswering tasks. For the in-domain test, we experiment on the whole CausalQA dataset before splitting into domains(domain-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 + P + 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 | BART | RoBERTa | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |------------|-----------|------------|------------|------------|----------|------------|------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|-------|-------| | Train/Test | Consumer | Industrial | Technology | Train/Test | Consumer | Industrial | Technology | | | | | | | | | | F1 | EM | F1 | EM | F1 | EM | F1 | EM | F1 | EM | F1 | EM | | | | | | Con | Ori | 70.29 | 24.53 | 68.44 | 24.07 | 68.61 | 23.61 | Con | Ori | 78.20 | 51.38 | 72.49 | 47.68 | 74.63 | 49.07 | | Ours | (+0.36) | (+0.47) | (+1.7) | (+2.78) | (+3.39) | (+4.63) | Ours | (+0.19) | (+1.86) | (+2.58) | (+0.93) | (+2.83) | (+0.47) | | | | Ind | Ori | 70.11 | 31.31 | 72.53 | 32.41 | 69.63 | 27.27 | Ind | Ori | 77.81 | 49.45 | 80.05 | 58.46 | 77.91 | 48.35 | | Ours | (+3.95) | (+4.75) | (+4.05) | (+7.48) | (+3.84) | (+9.93) | Ours | (+2.74) | (+9.57) | (+0.65) | (+2.20) | (+1.09) | (+9.02) | | | | Tech | Ori | 69.89 | 30.30 | 69.53 | 27.77 | 71.79 | 33.83 | Tech | Ori | 75.54 | 55.05 | 73.99 | 48.98 | 76.49 | 54.04 | | Ours | (+2.78) | (+3.03) | (+2.98) | (+3.45) | (+2.23) | (+0.51) | Ours | (+2.39) | (+0.00) | (+2.71) | (+7.08) | (+0.27) | (-0.50) | | | Dev Test Methods F1 EM F1 EM BART 74.16 36.50 73.26 34.49 BART + LP-FT 74.06 35.03 73.83 34/00 BART + P 75.60 37.47 75.33 37.66 BART + P + LP-FT **77.60 41.22 76.90 39.44** RoBERTa 83.97 61.82 83.45 61.28 RoBERTa + LP-FT 84.80 62.15 83.49 61.18 RoBERTa + P 84.55 **62.20** 83.61 61.34 RoBERTa + P + LP-FT **84.56** 62.15 **83.87 61.42** answer for each question-answer pair, EM =1. Otherwise, EM = 0. The Macro F1 score is defined as the mean of token-level F1 scores: $$M a c r o\;F1-s c o r e={\frac{1}{N}}\sum_{i=0}^{N}F1-s c o r e_{i}\;\;\;(9)$$ 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 LPFT 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 × 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 RoBERTa 37.60 66.58 49.87 44.22 19.44 7.45 RoBERTa+DA (Yue et al., 2022) 38.26 66.14 50.31 43.05 22.74 7.15 RoBERTa+P 38.17* 66.84 50.97* 48.37* 21.41* **8.64*** RoBERTa+LPFT 37.95* 66.60 50.28* 45.86* 20.92* 7.5 RoBERTa+P+LPFT **38.76* 66.86* 52.41* 51.64* 23.02*** 7.73* BART 33.71 46.97 43.49 31.78 26.14 8.69 BART+DA (Yue et al., 2022) 35.09 55.65 44.05 33.47 26.98 9.02 BART+P **36.81* 56.22*** 43.61* 31.91 25.96 9.26* BART+LPFT 33.29 53.29* 44.05* 31.95 26.87* 9.49* BART+P+LPFT 35.23* 55.86* **44.36* 33.79* 27.61* 9.54*** S - >N S - >C N - >S N - >C C - >S C –> N ## 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 crossdomain 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 & Prompt | Question | Gold Answer | Baseline Output | Our 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" | it 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" Why Terex has expanded its MP product line is useful? | gain greater | it has captured | | | | insight into | a larger global market share of | | | | | customer | | | | | | What will be prevented if suppliers get access to a broad range of customers? | using Avnet without | | | | | investment | having to make | | | | | in sales and | using Avnet | | | | | engineering | 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. | the store base had grown about 29% over the prior five-year period | | | | | Why sales and EPS compound annual growth rates increase? | 14% 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 brand | we view the likelihood of | | | | over the medium sustained economic value to long term creation as quite high for the restaurant brand | | | | |  swers 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 addressing 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 opensourced 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 opendomain 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. Templatefree 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 lowresource 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 Chaumond, 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 1: 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 domainrelated 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.    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). | Template | F1 | | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------|-------| | Baseline | None | 70.29 | | "There is no important phrase in this query. But also pay attention to these words: __" | | | | Experiment1 | 69.57 | | | "There is no important phrase in this query. And also pay attention to these words: __" | | | | Experiment2 | 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 6: Domain-independent QA results of SpanBERTbase and SpanBERT-large model. | Domain | Con | Ind | Tech | | | | |----------|-------|-------|--------|-------|-------|-------| | F1 | EM | F1 | EM | F1 | EM | | | Con | 85.84 | 60.64 | 84.80 | 56.01 | 85.54 | 55.09 | | Ind | 85.76 | 66.66 | 85.84 | 67.21 | 85.34 | 65.57 | | Tech | 80.24 | 58.08 | 81.51 | 58.58 | 81.98 | 58.08 | 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 crossdomain 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 crossdomain 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    specification, e.g. "BART+P" indicates the BARTbase 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 crossdomain 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. Consumer Industrial Technology Methods F1 EM F1 EM F1 EM Baseline: RoBERTa Con 78.20 51.38 72.49 47.68 74.63 49.07 Ind 77.81 49.45 80.05 58.46 77.91 48.35 Tec 75.54 55.05 73.99 48.98 76.49 54.04 RoBERTa + LP-FT Con 75.09 47.68 73.82 46.75 75.72 50.00 Ind 78.81 48.90 **81.01*** 51.10 76.71 50.00 Tec 79.23 **56.06*** 77.50 55.05 78.22 53.53 RoBERTa + Prompt Con 78.97* 53.24 **77.09* 50.00* 77.93* 51.85*** Ind 78.45 56.28 80.05 **61.74* 80.05* 57.92*** Tec 77.46 54.54 **78.50* 57.58* 80.62* 58.08*** RoBERTa + LP-FT + Prompt Con 78.39 **53.24*** 75.07 48.61 77.46 49.54 Ind 80.55* 59.02* 80.70 60.66 79.00 57.37 Tec 77.93* 55.05 76.70 56.06 76.76 53.54 | Consumer | Industrial | Technology | | | | | | |-----------------------|--------------|--------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------| | Methods | F1 | EM | F1 | EM | F1 | EM | | | Con | 70.29 | 24.53 | 68.44 | 24.07 | 68.61 | 23.61 | | | Baseline: | Ind | 70.11 | 31.31 | 72.53 | 32.41 | 69.53 | 27.77 | | BART | Tec | 69.89 | 30.30 | 69.53 | 27.77 | 71.79 | 33.83 | | Con | 70.81* | 24.07 | 70.22* | 24.53 | 68.26 | 23.61 | | | BART + LP-FT | Ind | 70.61 | 30.77 | 73.39 | 31.87 | 70.91 | 28.57 | | Tec | 71.08 | 35.35 | 72.31 | 30.30 | 72.37 | 33.33 | | | Con | 70.41 | 27.31* | 69.10 | 23.15 | 69.20 | 23.61 | | | BART + Prompt | Ind | 74.42* | 42.07* | 76.27 | 37.16 | 73.00 | 34.43 | | Tec | 72.20 | 32.32 | 72.51 | 30.3 | 73.32 | 35.35* | | | Con | 70.65 | 25.01 | 70.14 | 26.85* | 72.00* | 28.24* | | | BART + LP-FT + Prompt | Ind | 74.06 | 36.06 | 76.58* | 39.89* | 73.37* | 37.70* | | Tec | 72.67* | 33.33 | 72.96* | 31.31* | 74.02* | 34.34 | | ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist 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. 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?** 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.

zhou-etal-2023-enhanced

Enhanced Chart Understanding via Visual Language Pre-training on Plot Table Pairs

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.85

Building cross-model intelligence that can understand charts and communicate the salient information hidden behind them is an appealing challenge in the vision and language (V+L) community. The capability to uncover the underlined table data of chart figures is a critical key to automatic chart understanding. We introduce ChartT5, a V+L model that learns how to interpret table information from chart images via cross-modal pre-training on plot table pairs. Specifically, we propose two novel pre-training objectives: Masked Header Prediction (MHP) and Masked Value Prediction (MVP) to facilitate the model with different skills to interpret the table information. We have conducted extensive experiments on chart question answering and chart summarization to verify the effectiveness of the proposed pre-training strategies. In particular, on the ChartQA benchmark, our ChartT5 outperforms the state-of-the-art non-pretraining methods by over 8{\%} performance gains.

# Enhanced Chart Understanding In Vision And Language Task Via Cross-Modal Pre-Training On Plot Table Pairs Mingyang Zhou1, Yi R. Fung2, Long Chen1**, Christopher Thomas**3, Heng Ji2**, Shih-Fu Chang**1 1Columbia University 2University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 3Virginia Tech {mz2974, cl3695, sc250}@columbia.edu, {yifung2,hengji}@illinois.edu, chris@cs.vt.edu ## Abstract Building cross-model intelligence that can understand charts and communicate the salient information hidden behind them is an appealing challenge in the vision and language (V+L) community. The capability to uncover the underlined table data of chart figures is a critical key to automatic chart understanding. We introduce ChartT5, a V+L model that learns how to interpret table information from chart images via cross-modal pre-training on plot table pairs. Specifically, we propose two novel pre-training objectives: Masked Header Prediction (MHP) and Masked Value Prediction (MVP) to facilitate the model with different skills to interpret the table information. We have conducted extensive experiments on chart question answering and chart summarization to verify the effectiveness of the proposed pre-training strategies. In particular, on the ChartQA benchmark, our ChartT5 outperforms the state-of-the-art nonpretraining methods by over 8% performance gains. ## 1 Introduction Chart figures serve as the visual summary of tabular data, which helps to convey rich context in various documents, such as scientific papers, textbooks, and technical news. An intelligent agent that can understand and communicate chart plots can lead to many useful applications. For example, a virtual doctor who knows how to answer the patient's question on a complex medical report or a reading assistant who can summarize the key findings from scientific papers in brief language. In the past few years, there has been a growing interest in our community to explore chart understanding in vision and language (V+L) tasks and many related benchmarks like Chart Question Answering (CQA) (Masry et al., 2022; Kafle et al., 2018; Methani et al., 2020) and Chart Summarization (CS) (Kantharaj et al., 2022) are introduced.  While prevalent in the research community, automatic chart understanding remains a challenging problem due to its complex compositions of various shapes, lines, colors, and scene text. Although tremendous success is achieved in the V+L research, applying these existing methods to handle chart-related tasks is hard. Recent research ChartQA (Masry et al., 2022) and Chart-toText (Kantharaj et al., 2022) attempt to first convert chart images to their underlined tables and use the extracted tables to perform chart-related V+L task. As the extracted tables always have clean and organized structures, it makes extracting relevant information to solve downstream reasoning tasks much more accessible. Empirically, using tables yields promising results on both CQA and CS. Despite valuing table as a significant ingredient for chart understanding, we have two main concerns about this approach: (1) Automatic table extraction is unreliable. Existing methods (Luo et al., 2021; Kato et al., 2022) are often limited to work on a few particular types of chart images and do not generalize well. Moreover, the extracted table is likely to contain incorrect noisy predictions that potentially harm the performance of the following task. (2) In most cases, the whole table is optional for resolving the chart-related V+L task. As illustrated in Fig 1, to answer the question *"What is the* value of India Bar", the model just needs access to the second row to give the correct answer. In contrast, having redundant table information makes finding the relevant information challenging. To better leverage the table data, we argue that it is important to equip the V+L model with the capability to dynamically interpret the table value from the chart information. Therefore, in this paper, we propose **ChartT5**, an OCR-based image-to-text generation model pretrained on a self-collected chart table pairs corpus. More specifically, ChartT5 learns how to uncover a masked table with two proposed pre-training objectives: Masked Header Prediction (MHP), and Masked Value Prediction (MVP). MHP helps improve the model's capability of linking scene text to the corresponding table headers. MVP requires the model to perform mathematical reasoning over chart structure units and the scene text to predict the correct data value. We evaluate our ChartT5 on two tasks and benchmarks: ChartQA and Chart-to-Text. In ChartQA, ChartT5 outperforms all the non-pretraining methods that use extracted tables by at least 8% performance gains. ChartT5 also beats the pre-training table-based methods, which demonstrates the effectiveness of the proposed pre-training strategies. On Chart-to-Text, ChartT5 consistly outperforms the existing SOTA on the content selection metrics (Barzilay and Lapata, 2005) which values the model's capability to extract the critical information from the chart. In summary, our contributions are summarized below: - We propose chart-to-table pre-training for V+L model to learn the capability of interpreting table data from the chart. - We demonstrate that the pre-trained model consistently outperforms table-based methods on two chart understanding tasks. - We conduct comprehensive ablation studies to validate the effectiveness of chart-to-table pre-training and the proposed pre-training objectives. ## 2 Related Work 2.1 Vision And Language Research On Charts Researching chart understanding in V+L tasks is a popular field nowadays. The most prevalent problem is chart question answering (CQA) (Kafle et al., 2018; Kahou et al., 2018; Methani et al., 2020; Masry et al., 2022; Chaudhry et al., 2020), where researchers build models to answer complex questions on chart images. Another popular one is chart summarization (CS) (Kantharaj et al., 2022; Obeid and Hoque, 2020), which requires machine learning models to create a summary of key insights conveyed by a chart. Hsu et al. (2021) collected a large-scale scientific figures captioning dataset from research papers where many images are chart plots. There are two main approaches for chart vision and language tasks. The first approach adapts existing visual question answering (VQA) and image captioning models to CQA and CS tasks with some specialized designs for chart images (Kafle et al., 2020; Singh and Shekhar, 2020; Chaudhry et al., 2020; Kafle et al., 2018; Hsu et al., 2021; Spreafico and Carenini, 2020). The other approach assumes the table data of charts is accessible from the dataset (Kim et al., 2020; Masry, 2021) or can be extracted from the chart images using vision to table techniques (Methani et al., 2020; Masry et al., 2022; Kantharaj et al., 2022). Then, the researchers will either use a table-to-text generation model (Kim et al., 2020; Masry, 2021; Methani et al., 2020) or combine the embedding of tables and charts via a multi-modal fusion method to generate the text output (Masry et al., 2022; Kantharaj et al., 2022). It is clear from these efforts that adding tables as the additional representation of charts will dramatically improve the model's capability to understand and interpret chart information. Following the table-based approach, we also value the information provided by the underlined table data of chart images. However, instead of directly concatenating the extracted table into the chart understanding model, we facilitate our model with the capability to interpret the table data from chart images via pre-training on chart-table pairs. ## 2.2 Vision And Language Pre-Training Vision and language pre-training has received growing interest over the past few years. Researchers build transformer-based multi-modal fusion models and perform self-supervised learning on a largescale corpus of image-text pairs to learn robust cross-modal representations that can benefit the performance of various downstream tasks (Chen et al., 2020; Lu et al., 2019; Tan and Bansal, 2019;  Su et al., 2019; Li et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2021). While the pre-trained models achieve great success on tasks like VQA (Antol et al., 2015) and Image Captioning (Chen et al., 2015), they have only focused on the domain of natural images. However, chart understanding is still challenging for the existing vision and language methods due to their lack of knowledge of scene text and structured visual units such as "bars" and "lines". To address the limitation of conventional vision and language pre-training, TAP (Yang et al., 2021) and PreSTU (Kil et al., 2022) propose OCR-based vision and language pre-training frameworks that focus on scene text understanding in natural images where they design various pre-training objectives around the extracted OCR texts. Most recently, Donut (Kim et al., 2022) and Pix2Struct (Lee et al., 2022) propose OCR-free pre-training frameworks, where the pre-trained model directly generates a text output from a raw image input. Donut focuses on document image (*e.g.*, receipt) understanding, and Pix2Struct aims to handle broader types of synthetic images that contain visually-situated texts such as infographics and user interfaces via parsing web-page screenshots into their HTML Code. Different from these works, we take the first step to explore vision and language pre-training that focuses on chart image understanding. Specifically, we propose novel pre-training objectives to parse charts to their underlined tables. ## 3 Method In this section, we first introduce the dataset for pre-training. We then go over our ChartT5 model architecture and pre-training objectives to predict masked tables from the chart and OCR information. | Type | PlotQA | DVQA | FigureQA | Total | |--------|----------|---------|------------|---------| | Bar | 142,587 | 204,514 | 40,000 | 387,101 | | Line | 48,133 | 0 | 40,000 | 88,133 | | Pie | 0 | 0 | 20,001 | 20,001 | ## 3.1 Pre-Training Dataset Collection To collect large-scale pairs of chart-table data, we collect synthetic data from existing chart questionanswering corpora, including PlotQA (Methani et al., 2020), DVQA (Kafle et al., 2018), and FigureQA (Kahou et al., 2018). Specifically, DVQA and FigureQA render chart images from synthetic tables that are randomly generated from limited vocabularies. PlotQA first scrapes tables from online resources like World Bank Open Data and then synthesizes the charts from the scraped data, where the tables and charts contain more diverse language information. Our pre-training corpus consists of 495K chart-table pairs, which cover a diverse range of chart types. Our pre-training corpus contains three chart types: bar, line, and pie. The distribution of different chart types from the three chart question-answering benchmarks is summarized in table 1. ## 3.2 Model Overview ChartT5 is an extension of the existing V+L Pretraining framework, VLT5 (Cho et al., 2021), an encoder-decoder architecture that unifies the visionlanguage tasks as text generation conditioned on multi-modal inputs. Given a chart image, we first extract the scene texts. For the synthetic chart images that are collected from DVQA (Kafle et al., 2018), FigureQA (Kahou et al., 2018), and PlotQA (Methani et al., 2020), the ground-truth scene texts are available. The visual context is then represented as combining visual features extracted from the chart image and the language features obtained on the detected scene text. We then flat the paired table of the chart image into a string and extract the text features via the language encoder. The multi-modal features are then concatenated and fused via the multi-layer encoder, and the output hidden vectors can then be used for various pre-training tasks. ## 3.2.1 Chart Image Encoder Given an input chart image, to recognize the critical marks (*e.g.*, bars and lines) of chart images, we first utilize a pre-trained Mask R-CNN object detector from (Masry et al., 2022) to extract the visual region features v = {v1, v2, · · · , vl v }. Next, the chart object detector is trained on the synthetic chart images from the previous CQA datasets (Kahou et al., 2018; Kafle et al., 2018; Masry et al., 2022; Methani et al., 2020) which is defined to identify 15 chart-related objects1. For each detected object region, we also extract location features as a 5-d vector: [ x1 W , y1 H , x2 W , y2 H , (y2−y1)(x2−x1) W.H ], which denotes the normalized top left coordinates, bottom right coordinates, and the normalized area of the detected region box. The position feature is then fed through fully-connected layers to be projected to the visual region feature embedding space. The final representation of the visual feature is obtained by summing up the projected region feature and corresponding location feature. ## 3.2.2 Ocr Encoder After extracting the list of the OCR words from the chart image, we obtain a set of OCR text embeddings o = {o1, o2, · · · , ol o } via a learned word embedding layer. We also get each OCR token's 5-d position vector similar to the visual position vector from the OCR token's detected bounding box. We then obtain the position embedding vector using the shared projecting layer from the Chart Image Encoder. The shared position encoding mechanism between OCR tokens and chart object regions would help the model to capture their relative positional relations, which is a critical clue to predict the table data from the chart image. For example, the bar associated with an x-axis label should share a similar x-coordinate position in a vertical bar chart. The final OCR embedding vector is gained by summing up the OCR text token embeddings and the OCR position embedding. ## 3.2.3 Language Encoder Following the setting of the original VLT5 (Cho et al., 2021), we add a prefix to the flattened underlying table to indicate different pre-training tasks. We then get the table token embeddings t = {t1, t2, · · · , tl t} with a shared word embedding layer. We apply the original T5's (Raffel et al., 2020) relative position bias to obtain the position information of each token in the caption and the flattened table. We know that the tables have very different structures compared to natural language captions, and several efforts are exploring specialized position embeddings for tables (Yin et al., 2020; Herzig et al., 2020). We leave the exploration of the specialized table position embedding for chart table pre-training in the future. Scene Text Copy Mechanism. A critical ingredient to the success of chart-to-table translation is the ability to predict the table headers from the corresponding OCR texts. For example, in the horizontal bar chart, the table column header is usually obtained from the x-axis labels, and the row header is often copied from the legend labels. Although presenting OCR text and the table to the model helps link the shared OCR tokens and table values, generating the correct table prediction from the corresponding OCR source is still challenging due to the large candidate token vocabulary. To encourage direct copy from the OCR text to the associated table cell value, we introduce OCR sentinel tokens {< ocr_1 *>, <* ocr_2 >, · · · , < ocr_l o >}, which corresponds to the detected OCR texts. As illustrated in Figure 2, we replace each OCR token with a unique corresponding OCR sentinel token. Then, for every OCR token, we find if there is a matched existing table cell value. If a matched pair is found, we replace the table cell value with its paired OCR sentinel token. During pre-training, as all the plot images are synthesized from a paired table, the one-to-one scene text to table value mapping is already provided. With this prepossessing procedure, we successfully distinguish the table values that are copied from OCR tokens and those that need to be generated from the general token vocabularies, encouraging more accurate table pre- ## 3.3 Pre-Training Objectives Given the chart-table pairs, we propose Masked Header Prediction (MHP) and Masked Value Prediction (MHP) to teach the model to recover incomplete tables with the chart information. Specifically, this objective aims to predict a masked table token tm with the remaining table info t\m as well as the chart image region v and the scene text o. Compared to the traditional masked language modeling applied to the natural language text, we adjust the table masking strategy based on two hypotheses: (1) We alternatively mask just the table headers or numerical table values, as we think interpreting these two types of information requires different skills. Predicting table headers requires retrieving the correct scene text, while predicting numerical table values depends more on the capability to conduct mathematic reasoning over both the visual elements and the scene text. Therefore, it is better to format them as two separate pre-training objectives. (2) We increase the masking rate from 15% to 45%, as the masked table token has less dependence on the surrounding table values. ## 4 Experiment In this section, We detailed our experiment setups to evaluate the proposed ChartT5 on two tasks: chart question answering and chart summarization. We then introduce the main results of the two evaluation tasks. Finally, we present the ablation study on chart-table pre-training and the two pre-training objectives. Chart Question Answering. Given a chart image and a query question, the goal for the model is to provide an accurate answer string by interpreting the provided chart image. For this task, we consider the ChartQA dataset (Masry et al., 2022), which collects question-answer pairs on realistic chart images scraped from the internet. Their annotations are collected in two fashions: (1) Human-written question-answer pairs; and (2) machine-generated question-answer pairs derived from the human-written chart summaries. In total 32.7K question-answer pairs are collected on 21.9K scraped chart images, where about 9.6K questionand-answer pairs are human-written. Compared to the previously collected CQA datasets, ChartQA is more challenging to handle due to the diverse visual style from the realistic chart images and the complex language from human annotations. Following previous work (Masry et al., 2022; Methani et al., 2020), we also apply the relaxed accuracy to measure the performance on the CQA task, which allows a minor inaccuracy on numerical value prediction (within 5% of the gold answer). For nonnumerical answers, the prediction needs to be exactly matched to the gold-standard answer. Chart Summarization. Given a chart image, the target is to summarize the key insights of the chart in natural language. For this task, we evaluate our model on the most recently proposed Chart-to-Text benchmark (Kantharaj et al., 2022), which collects roughly 36.5K chart images with one summary for each image. They split the collected charts into two sets: Statista and Pew, representing the two separate websites from which the chart plots come. The summaries in Statista are human-written which is well grounded on the chart image. Meanwhile, the summaries from Pew are automatically extracted from the news paragraphs surrounding the chart images. Pew is noisier and more challenging to handle. We follow (Kantharaj et al., 2022) to split the two sets for training and testing. We adopt BLEU4, Content Selection, and CIDER as the evaluation metrics to measure the quality of the generated summary following (Kantharaj et al., 2022). Implementation details. We initialized our ChartT5 from T5base and pre-trained on our selfcollected corpus for 30 epochs with a batch size of 60. We used Adam optimizer (Kingma and Ba, 2015) with a linear warm-up for the first 5% training steps, and the peak learning rate is set as 1e-4. After warming up, a linear decayed learning-rate scheduler gradually drops the learning rate for the rest of the training steps. The pre-training experiments are conducted on 2 Nvidia TITAN RTX GPUs, and it roughly takes two days to accomplish the experiment. We kept the last checkpoint of each pre-training run as our final checkpoint for fine-tuning. We also applied warming-up for downstream fine-tuning to gradually increase the learning rate to the pick value during the first 5% of training epochs. After that, a linear decayed learning-rate scheduler gradually drops the learning rate for the remaining training. For CQA task, we set batch size as 24 and fine-tune ChartT5 for 60 epochs with a peak learning rate 2e-4 on 2 Nvidia TITAN RTX GPUs. The best checkpoint was saved as the one that achieves the highest accuracy on the validation | Model | ChartQA | | | |----------------|-----------|---------|-------| | Human | Augment | Overall | | | T5 | 25.12 | 56.96 | 41.56 | | Tapas | 28.72 | 53.84 | 41.28 | | VLT5 | 26.24 | 56.88 | 41.56 | | VisionTapas | 29.60 | 61.44 | 45.52 | | VLT5pre | 40.08 | 63.60 | 51.84 | | VisionTapaspre | 32.56 | 61.60 | 47.08 | | Pix2Struct | - | - | 56.00 | | ChartT5 | 31.8 | 74.4 | 53.16 | split. On the CS task, we use batch size 20 and a peak learning rate 5e-5. On the Pew split, we finetune ChartT5for 20 epochs, and on Statista, we finetune ChartT5for 25 epochs. The best checkpoint is also saved as achieving the best BLEU score on the validation split. All the reported numbers are one-time runs. ## 4.1 Main Results We first compare ChartT5 to various state-of-theart methods with or without pre-training on the two downstream tasks. ## 4.1.1 Evaluation On Cqa We compare ChartT5 with SOTA non-pretraining and pre-training methods on CQA tasks. The bestperformed non-pretraining baselines are introduced in (Masry et al., 2022). The authors first predict the table data from the chart image via an automatic data extraction tool (Luo et al., 2021). Then they extend various language-only models (T5, Tapas) and multi-modal models (VLT5, VisionTapas) to predict the answer conditioned on the extracted table. On the line of pre-training baselines, we compare to VLT5pre and VisionTapaspre which pre-trains VLT5 and Vision Tapas on PlotQA with the visual question answering tasks. We also compare chartT5 to the current SOTA method Pix2Struct which is pre-trained on 80 million webpage screenshots to HTML code parsing objectives. The result is summarized in Table 2. Comparison to Non-Pretraining Method Even without access to the predicted tables, ChartT5 has outperformed all non-pretraining methods by a large margin (a minimum 7.3% gain on the overall performance). ChartT5 also outperforms all nonpretraining baselines on the human-written questions and machine-generated questions. Although the predicted table covers 54% of the answers in the test data of ChartQA, simply feeding it as an input does not make the existing models fully leverage the valuable information. The significant improvement achieved by ChartT5 indicates the effectiveness of the proposed pre-training to help the model to obtain the relevant table information for chart understanding. Comparison to Pre-training Method Although the performance of VLT5 and VisionTapas is improved significantly by pre-training on additional CQA data, ChartT5 still outperform them by at least 1.3%. Specifically, on machine-augmented questions, ChartT5 outperforms VLT5pre by 8%. However, both visionTapaspre and VLT5pre achieve better accuracy on the human split, which means that the in-domain question answering objectives helps the model to improve the numerical reasoning capability. ChartT5 underperforms Pix2Struct by 2.3% on the overall test split. However, pix2struct is pre-trained on a more than 100 times larger pre-training corpus than the rest of the pre-training methods. Given the same scale of the pre-training dataset, we expect to gain additional performance improvement, and we leave this for future exploration. ## 4.1.2 Evaluation On Chart Summarization For the chart summarization task, we compare ChartT5 to the best non-pretraining approaches introduced in (Kantharaj et al., 2022). Given a chart image, The authors build the chart summarization models by extending the pre-trained language generation model T5 (Raffel et al., 2020) and BART(Lewis et al., 2019) whose generation processes are conditioned on: (1) a set of scene texts extracted by a trained OCR detector. (2) the ground truth table that is paired with the chart. The evaluation result is summarized in Table 3. From Table 3, we can see that on Statista, ChartT5 outperforms all baseline methods on BLUE score, but only a slight improvement is achieved over the best baseline. On Pew, ChartT5 underperforms T5-OCR by almost 1.5 percent. The proposed ChartT5 also slightly underperforms against the baseline methods in CIDER on both datasets. However, ChartT5 consistently outperforms all baselines on content selection scores | Model | Statista | Pew | | | | | |----------|------------|-------|------|-------|-------|------| | BLEU | CS | CIDER | BLEU | CS | CIDER | | | T5-OCR | 35.29 | 73.77 | 4.43 | 10.49 | 40.87 | 2.20 | | BART-OCR | - | - | - | 9.09 | 39.99 | 1.97 | | T5-TAB | 37.01 | 75.72 | 4.68 | - | - | - | | BART-TAB | 36.36 | 77.14 | 4.40 | - | - | - | | ChartT5 | 37.51 | 82.16 | 3.45 | 9.05 | 55.1 | 1.23 | | Pretraining? | Question Types | | | |----------------|------------------|---------|------| | Table | Human | Augment | | | No | 60.7 | 30.8 | 66.7 | | Yes | 64.7 | 31.8 | 74.4 | across both Statista and Pew sets. The underperformance on BLEU and CIDER indicates that Chart-table pre-training is limited to benefit highquality natural language generation. However, the strong performance on content selection, which values the key information appearance in the generation, suggests the advantage of chart-table pretraining on extracting relevant chart information. Therefore, a potential direction to explore is combining different types of pre-training objectives, such as chart-to-text pre-training and chart-table pre-training goals, to facilitate the model with diverse strengths. ## 4.2 Ablation Study We conduct ablation experiments to validate the effectiveness of chart-table pre-training and the pretraining objectives. We also evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed scene text copy mechanism. ## 4.2.1 Chart-Table Pre-Training We conduct detailed analyses on the effectiveness of chart-table pre-training. First, we measure the performance gain from the chart-table pre-training on the full test set of ChartQA data. We then study what type of questions benefit most from the chart-table pre-training by picking three subsets of questions that measure different capabilities of the model: (1) Human-written questions, (2) Machine-generated questions, and (3) Table covered questions, where the answers can be directly found in the ground truth tables. The results are summarized in Table 4. From Table 4, we find that after chart-table pre-training the model's performance on these three sets of questions is all improved. The most significant gain is obtained on machine-generated questions, which mainly focus on extractive-type questions. This indicates that chart-table pre-training benefits the model to localize and retrieve the requested information presented on Chart Image. The second biggest gain is achieved on table-cover questions, where the model demonstrates significant improvement in the capability of chart-to-table interpretation. | Question Types | | | | |------------------|---------|---------|------| | Human | Augment | Overall | | | Full | 31.8 | 74.4 | 53.1 | | - MVP | 30.9 | 73.7 | 52.3 | | - MHP | 31.2 | 68.3 | 49.7 | | - STC | 30.8 | 72.4 | 51.6 | ## 4.2.2 Pre-Training Objectives We validate the effectiveness of the two pre-training objectives, Masked Header Prediction and Masked Value Prediction. We remove one pre-training objective at a time and pre-train the ChartT5with only one table prediction task. The pre-trained model    is then fine-tuned and evaluated on the human and augmented split for comparison. The result is displayed in table 5. As can be seen from the table, removing Masked Value Prediction Loss has a negligible impact on the performance of ChartT5 on ChartQA dataset. There is a slightly more drop in human written questions which suggests that predicting table numerical values still has a miner positive impact on helping the model's mathematical reasoning. Remove Masked Header Prediction have a significant impact on the machinegenerated question-answering accuracy. As expected, Masked header modeling mainly helps the model learn how to link the scene text to the table headers, which is a critical ability to extract relevant information given a specific query. ## 4.2.3 Scene Text Copy We also validate the effectiveness of the scene-textcopy mechanism, where we train a ChartT5model by simply representing OCR tokens in their original text format. The model is fine-tuned and evaluated on the human and augmented split of the chartQA dataset to compare against the full ChartT5. The result is displayed in Table 5. Disabling the scenetext-copy mechanism leads to a 1.5% overall performance drop on ChartQA tasks. Specifically, it leads to more degradation on the augmented split than the human split, as scene-text-copy helps enhance the alignment between OCR and table values to benefit accurate information extraction from the chart. ## 4.3 Qualitative Error Analysis We have manually analyzed model predictions to understand its limitation. We found that our model suffers most from noisy OCR detection and complex question that requires multi-hop reasoning. Noisy OCR Prediction. As an OCR-based model, ChartT5 often suffers from a wrong OCR detection. An example is shown in Figure 3; the model localizes the right scene text "1.18" to answer the question, but the OCR text is mistakenly detected as "1:18". To further understand the limitation of OCR detection, we randomly sample 20K PlotQA test split and compare the performance of our model using detected OCRs against Ground Truth OCRs. We observe a 5% performance drop when using detected OCRs. We can improve the OCR detector for future work by training on a large Plot scene-text detection benchmark. Another promising direction is to attempt OCR-free end-to-end plot recognition method like Pix2Struct (Lee et al., 2022). Multi-Hop Reasoning. Our model is also quite vulnerable to handling complex questions requiring multi-hop reasoning. An example is shown in Figure 4; the model cannot perform the complex logic reasoning to add the stats of the two smallest bars and compare that to the large bar. We will consider exploring pre-training on the mathematic reasoning datasets to address this limitation. ## 5 Conclusion We propose ChartT5 to enhance the vision language model's ability to understand chart images via chart-table pre-training. The model learns to interpret the masked tables via our proposed masked header prediction and masked value prediction objectives. ChartT5 achieves significant improvement over table-based non-pretraining SOTA methods on the ChartQA dataset, especially on the extractive question sets. We also achieve a new SOTA Content Selection Score on the Chart-to-text summarization dataset. We conduct comprehensive ablation studies to identify the impact of chart-table pre-training, and we find that the proposed pretraining is extremely helpful to extract accurate information from the Chart. For future research directions, we believe it may also be meaningful to explore chart understanding under data-efficient settings (Hsu et al., 2022; Zeng et al., 2023) and for evidence retrieval tasks (Lu et al., 2022; Ji et al., 2023). ## 6 Limitations Although introducing chart value prediction objective, it only provides minor improvement to the model's performance on doing complex reasoning. There is still a large room to improve the model's capability in math calculation. Our model also suffers from the noisy OCR prediction of off-the-shelf object detector, whose performance will depend highly on the extracted OCR text qualities. Another possible limitation of our approach is the quality of the pre-training data, which only contains synthetic images. Although the proposed model works fairly well on the ChartQA dataset, it is unclear if the improved performance can be generalized to other realistic chart images. ## 7 Ethics Statement When we collect the pre-training dataset, we ensure we respect the intellectual property of dataset sources. All the ChartQA dataset we used for the collection of chart-table pairs allows public access for research. To ensure the reproducibility of our experiment results, we provide details of the hyperparameter setting in our paper, and we will also publish our code later. Our models can mislead the public's understanding of chart content due to the potential bias from our training corpus. Therefore, we don't recommend using our model for any real-world decision on chart images. ## Acknowledgement This research work is supported by U.S DARPA SemaFor Program No. HR001120C0123. The views and conclusions contained in this work only belong to the authors and should not represent the official policies implied by DARPA or the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for governmental purposes notwithstanding any copyright annotation therein. We also thank Ahmed Masry and Shankar Kantharaj for providing us with ChartQA and Chart Summary-related data and baseline model outputs. ## References Stanislaw Antol, Aishwarya Agrawal, Jiasen Lu, Margaret Mitchell, Dhruv Batra, C Lawrence Zitnick, and Devi Parikh. 2015. Vqa: Visual question answering. In *ICCV*. Regina Barzilay and Mirella Lapata. 2005. Collective content selection for concept-to-text generation. In Proceedings of Human Language Technology Conference and Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 331–338, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ritwick Chaudhry, Sumit Shekhar, Utkarsh Gupta, Pranav Maneriker, Prann Bansal, and Ajay Joshi. 2020. LEAF-QA: locate, encode & attend for figure question answering. In *IEEE Winter Conference* on Applications of Computer Vision, WACV 2020, Snowmass Village, CO, USA, March 1-5, 2020, pages 3501–3510. IEEE. Xinlei Chen, Hao Fang, Tsung-Yi Lin, Ramakrishna Vedantam, Saurabh Gupta, Piotr Dollár, and C Lawrence Zitnick. 2015. Microsoft coco captions: Data collection and evaluation server. arXiv preprint arXiv:1504.00325. Yen-Chun Chen, Linjie Li, Licheng Yu, Ahmed El Kholy, Faisal Ahmed, Zhe Gan, Yu Cheng, and Jingjing Liu. 2020. Uniter: Universal image-text representation learning. In *ECCV*. Jaemin Cho, Jie Lei, Hao Tan, and Mohit Bansal. 2021. Unifying vision-and-language tasks via text generation. In *ICML*. Jonathan Herzig, Pawel Krzysztof Nowak, Thomas Müller, Francesco Piccinno, and Julian Eisenschlos. 2020. TaPas: Weakly supervised table parsing via pre-training. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 4320–4333, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. 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, pages 1890–1908, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ting-Yao Hsu, C Lee Giles, and Ting-Hao Huang. 2021. SciCap: Generating captions for scientific figures. In *Findings of the Association for Computational* Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, pages 3258–3264, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Wei Ji, Yinwei Wei, Zhedong Zheng, Hao Fei, and Tat-seng Chua. 2023. Deep multimodal learning for information retrieval. In *ACM International Conference on Multimedia*. Kushal Kafle, Brian Price, Scott Cohen, and Christopher Kanan. 2018. Dvqa: Understanding data visualizations via question answering. In *CVPR*. Kushal Kafle, Robik Shrestha, Scott Cohen, Brian Price, and Christopher Kanan. 2020. Answering questions about data visualizations using efficient bimodal fusion. In *The IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision*, pages 1498–1507. Samira Ebrahimi Kahou, Adam Atkinson, Vincent Michalski, Ákos Kádár, Adam Trischler, and Yoshua Bengio. 2018. FigureQA: An annotated figure dataset for visual reasoning. Shankar Kantharaj, Rixie Tiffany Leong, Xiang Lin, Ahmed Masry, Megh Thakkar, Enamul Hoque, and Shafiq Joty. 2022. Chart-to-text: A large-scale benchmark for chart summarization. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4005–4023, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Hajime Kato, Mitsuru Nakazawa, Hsuan-Kung Yang, Mark Chen, and Björn Stenger. 2022. Parsing line chart images using linear programming. In *2022* IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV), pages 2553–2562. Jihyung Kil, Soravit Changpinyo, Xi Chen, Hexiang Hu, Sebastian Goodman, Wei-Lun Chao, and Radu Soricut. 2022. Prestu: Pre-training for scene-text understanding. Dae Hyun Kim, Enamul Hoque, and Maneesh Agrawala. 2020. Answering questions about charts and generating visual explanations. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Geewook Kim, Teakgyu Hong, Moonbin Yim, JeongYeon Nam, Jinyoung Park, Jinyeong Yim, Wonseok Hwang, Sangdoo Yun, Dongyoon Han, and Seunghyun Park. 2022. Ocr-free document understanding transformer. In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV). 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. Kenton Lee, Mandar Joshi, Iulia Turc, Hexiang Hu, Fangyu Liu, Julian Eisenschlos, Urvashi Khandelwal, Peter Shaw, Ming-Wei Chang, and Kristina Toutanova. 2022. Pix2struct: Screenshot parsing as pretraining for visual language understanding. Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2019. Bart: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Xiujun Li, Xi Yin, Chunyuan Li, Pengchuan Zhang, Xiaowei Hu, Lei Zhang, Lijuan Wang, Houdong Hu, Li Dong, Furu Wei, et al. 2020. Oscar: Objectsemantics aligned pre-training for vision-language tasks. In *ECCV*. Jiasen Lu, Dhruv Batra, Devi Parikh, and Stefan Lee. 2019. Vilbert: Pretraining task-agnostic visiolinguistic representations for vision-and-language tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.02265. Keming Lu, I-Hung Hsu, Wenxuan Zhou, Mingyu Derek Ma, and Muhao Chen. 2022. Multi-hop evidence retrieval for cross-document relation extraction. Junyu Luo, Zekun Li, Jinpeng Wang, and Chin-Yew Lin. 2021. Chartocr: Data extraction from charts images via a deep hybrid framework. In 2021 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV). The Computer Vision Foundation. Ahmed Masry. 2021. Integrating image data extraction and table parsing methods for chart question answering. Ahmed Masry, Do Long, Jia Qing Tan, Shafiq Joty, and Enamul Hoque. 2022. ChartQA: A benchmark for question answering about charts with visual and logical reasoning. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022, pages 2263– 2279, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Nitesh Methani, Pritha Ganguly, Mitesh M. Khapra, and Pratyush Kumar. 2020. Plotqa: Reasoning over scientific plots. In The IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV). Jason Obeid and Enamul Hoque. 2020. Chart-to-text: Generating natural language descriptions for charts by adapting the transformer model. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Natural Language Generation, pages 138–147, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. 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(140):1–67. Hrituraj Singh and Sumit Shekhar. 2020. STL-CQA: Structure-based transformers with localization and encoding for chart question answering. In *Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods* in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 3275–3284, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Andrea Spreafico and Giuseppe Carenini. 2020. Neural data-driven captioning of time-series line charts. Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces. Weijie Su, Xizhou Zhu, Yue Cao, Bin Li, Lewei Lu, Furu Wei, and Jifeng Dai. 2019. Vl-bert: Pre-training of generic visual-linguistic representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.08530. Hao Tan and Mohit Bansal. 2019. Lxmert: Learning cross-modality encoder representations from transformers. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on* Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Zhengyuan Yang, Yijuan Lu, Jianfeng Wang, Xi Yin, Dinei Florencio, Lijuan Wang, Cha Zhang, Lei Zhang, and Jiebo Luo. 2021. Tap: Text-aware pretraining for text-vqa and text-caption. In *CVPR*. Pengcheng Yin, Graham Neubig, Wen tau Yih, and Sebastian Riedel. 2020. TaBERT: Pretraining for joint understanding of textual and tabular data. In *Annual* Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL). Andy Zeng, Maria Attarian, brian ichter, Krzysztof Marcin Choromanski, Adrian Wong, Stefan Welker, Federico Tombari, Aveek Purohit, Michael S Ryoo, Vikas Sindhwani, Johnny Lee, Vincent Vanhoucke, and Pete Florence. 2023. Socratic models: Composing zero-shot multimodal reasoning with language. In *The Eleventh International* Conference on Learning Representations. Pengchuan Zhang, Xiujun Li, Xiaowei Hu, Jianwei Yang, Lei Zhang, Lijuan Wang, Yejin Choi, and Jianfeng Gao. 2021. Vinvl: Revisiting visual representations in vision-language models. In *Proceedings of* the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 5579–5588. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist 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? 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?** Not applicable. Left blank. B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Not applicable. 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.? 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. 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? Sec 4: Experiment 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? Sec 4: Experiment ✓ 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? Sec 4: Experiment ✓ 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.)? Sec 4: Experiment 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.

hu-etal-2023-importance

Importance of Synthesizing High-quality Data for Text-to-{SQL} Parsing

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.86

There has been increasing interest in synthesizing data to improve downstream text-to-SQL tasks. In this paper, we examined the existing synthesized datasets and discovered that state-of-the-art text-to-SQL algorithms did not further improve on popular benchmarks when trained with augmented synthetic data. We observed three shortcomings: illogical synthetic SQL queries from independent column sampling, arbitrary table joins, and language gaps between the synthesized SQL and natural language question (NLQ) pair. To address these issues, we propose a novel synthesis framework that imposes strong typing constraints, incorporates key relationships from schema, and conducts schema-distance-weighted column sampling. We also adopt an intermediate representation (IR) for the SQL-to-text task to further improve the quality of the generated NLQ. When existing powerful text-to-SQL parsers are pretrained on our high-quality synthesized data, these models have significant accuracy boosts and achieve new state-of-the-art performance on Spider. We also demonstrate the effectiveness of our techniques with ablation studies

Importance of Synthesizing High-quality Data for Text-to-SQL Parsing Yiqun Hu, Yiyun Zhao∗ , Jiarong Jiang, Wuwei Lan, Henry Zhu, Anuj Chauhan, Alexander Li, Lin Pan, Jun Wang, Chung-Wei Hang, Sheng Zhang, Jiang Guo, Marvin Dong, Joe Lilien, Patrick Ng, Zhiguo Wang, Vittorio Castelli, Bing Xiang AWS AI Labs ∗yiyunzhao@arizona.edu {yiqunhu, jiarongj, lanwuwei, henghui, chaanj, hanboli, linpan, juwanga, cwhang, zshe, gujiang, mingwd, lilienj, patricng, zhiguow, vittorca, bxiang} @amazon.com ## Abstract There has been increasing interest in synthesizing data to improve downstream text-to-SQL tasks. In this paper, we examined the existing synthesized datasets and discovered that state-of-the-art text-to-SQL algorithms did not further improve on popular benchmarks when trained with augmented synthetic data. We observed three shortcomings: illogical synthetic SQL queries from independent column sampling, arbitrary table joins, and language gaps between the synthesized SQL and natural language question (NLQ) pair. To address these issues, we propose a novel synthesis framework that imposes strong typing constraints, incorporates key relationships from schema, and conducts schema-distance-weighted column sampling. We also adopt an intermediate representation (IR) for the SQL-to-text task to further improve the quality of the generated NLQ. When existing powerful text-to-SQL parsers are pretrained on our high-quality synthesized data, these models have significant accuracy boosts and achieve new state-of-the-art performance on Spider. We also demonstrate the effectiveness of our techniques with ablation studies. ## 1 Introduction Text-to-SQL parsing refers to the semantic parsing task that translates a natural language question (NLQ) to a corresponding SQL query. In recent decades, many industries have adopted high-level digitalization in their workflow and possessed largescale datasets—many of which are stored as relational databases. Extracting insights from these relational databases to further drive business decisions is an important task. However, due to the complexity of these relational databases, query language experts are often needed to extract valuable insights. Thus a high-performing text-to-SQL system with a natural language interface would greatly lower the barrier for business users to query their databases. In order to obtain high-quality training data for the text-to-SQL parser, human annotators with SQL expertise are needed to construct NLQ-SQL parallel data, which are difficult and expensive to scale. Thus data scarcity is a well-known bottleneck in the text-to-SQL task (Yu et al., 2018b). To address the data scarcity issue, there is an increasing interest in leveraging synthetic data to improve the downstream performance. Yu et al. (2021) handcrafted high-quality rules to synthesize SQL and NLQ simultaneously, but these grammar rules need to be carefully designed through expensive manual work. To automate the synthesis process, recent attempts (Wang et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2021; Shi et al., 2021; Zhong et al., 2020) utilize a two-stage approach that synthesizes SQL first and then composes NLQ with a SQL-to-text generator. Alternatively, Yang et al. (2021) proposed a reversed pipeline that uses an entity-to-question model to generate natural language queries and then a text-to-SQL parser to generate SQL queries. In this paper, we delve into the two-stage synthesizing method that first synthesizes SQL queries and then generates NLQs. We first provide a comprehensive literature review and evaluate the contribution of existing synthetic datasets for the text-toSQL task on popular benchmarks, such as Spider (Yu et al., 2018b). Results show that they only have negligible impact on boosting recent parsing models accuracy (e.g. T5 + PICARD proposed by Scholak et al. (2021)) when being augmented to the original training set. We analyze the quality of these synthetic datasets and find they suffer from three major issues, including illogical synthetic SQL queries from independent column sampling, arbitrary table joins, and language gaps between the synthesized SQL and NLQ pairs. We then propose a novel framework1aiming to reduce 1Source code will be made publicly available. ∗Work done during an internship at AWS AI Labs. these problems present in existing methods. During the stage of SQL synthesis, we employ template synthesis with strong typing constraints, template key relationship preservation, and schema-distanceweighted column sampling. As for the SQL-to-text generation step, we adopt an intermediate representation (IR) to reduce the gap between SQL and target NLQ. We show that the top-performing text-toSQL parsers can have significant accuracy improvements when being pretrained using our high-quality synthesized data and achieve new state-of-the-art performance on Spider. In summary, our main contributions are: - We systematically compare the existing textto-SQL synthesis methods and identify three shortcomings that lead to the low quality; - we propose three novel techniques for generating synthetic data and demonstrate its augmentation benefits for various text-to-SQL parers, underscoring the importance of high synthesis quality; - we adopt an intermediate representation (IR) for the SQL-to-text task, which further improves the quality of the NLQ generation. ## 2 Existing Synthesis Methods And Limitations We first conduct a detailed investigation towards the existing text-to-SQL synthesis frameworks to understand each of their advantages and shortcomings, the details of which can be found in Appendix A. In particular, Figure 5 summarizes and compares the key characteristics from different dimensions. In this section, we experiment with two recent synthetic datasets (Wang et al., 2021) and (Wu et al., 2021), and leverage the latest state-of-the-art text-to-SQL model T5 + PICARD (Scholak et al., 2021) to assess their effectiveness. We find that they only bring negligible impact on the performance when being used to train the parsing model. We then discuss three main shortcomings in these synthetic datasets based our manual inspection and analysis. ## 2.1 Synthetic Data Effectiveness Assessment As a pilot study, we use T5-Large + PICARD as the text-to-SQL parser to examine the synthetic data quality. The baseline model is trained on Spider training set only. To add synthetic data during training, we setup a two-stage process. In Stage 1, the model is (pre-)trained using only the syn-  thetic data. In *Stage 2*, we finetune the model with the original Spider training set (also see *Training* Configurations in Section 4.1). As shown in Figure 1, the exact match (EM) accuracy of the models trained on both synthetic datasets (blue and light blue curves) are less than 20% during Stage 1, in contrast to 60% (green curve) when trained with real Spider data. This gap indicates the limited transferability from existing synthetic data to real data. Further finetuning on Spider training data in Stage 2 does not outperform the baseline model which is only trained using Spider data, indicating the ineffectiveness of these synthetic datasets. However, our synthetic data (red and gray curves for IR2NLQ and SQL2NLQ2) can still yield better performance for both two stages. We will discuss in detail our methodologies in Section 3. ## 2.2 Synthetic Data Quality Analysis We now provide an analysis towards the previous synthesis methodologies and identify three probable causes for obsolescence. ## 2.2.1 Illogical Synthetic Sqls From Invalid Grammars Or Templates Both Wang et al. (2021) and Wu et al. (2021) adopted context-free grammars (CFG) to generate SQL queries. The CFG designed by Wu et al. (2021) is constrained and they limited SQL generation to one table. While Wang et al. (2021) designed flexible grammars, they neglected 2SQL2NLQ and IR2NLQ referring to two different SQLto-text models we use during NLQ synthesis, more discussion in Section 4.1 and 4.2 the constraints between operators and column types. This negligence leads to mistakes such as SUM(student.name), where an aggregation operator is applied to a text column. Furthermore, CFG or probabilistic CFG (PCFG) generated SQL queries often fail to capture foreignkey and key relations between columns. This leads to invalid SQLs such as SELECT name, age FROM student INTERSECT SELECT address FROM teacher, where it intersects two sub-queries with different number of columns. In fact, designing a grammar to produce high coverage and logical SQLs is a difficult task due to the implicit dependencies of SQL elements. Alternatively, SQL templates extracted from training data better preserves column typing information (Zhong et al., 2020). This approach drastically reduces the invalid SQLs caused by a misalignment between operators and column types. However, existing work still misses the critical key relations in the templates. ## 2.2.2 Over-Complex Sqls From Arbitrary Multi-Table Joins When SQLs are materialized, the column/table selection from existing work is independent and results in SQL queries with unnecessary complexity. Those queries often have unclear intents and thus are difficult to be correctly translated to natural language questions. An example is presented in Table 2, where a simple template that requires only two columns can be turned into a complicated and nonsensical SQL query with three table joins. ## 2.2.3 Language Gap Between Sql And Nlq Recent work typically trains a sequence-tosequence model to obtain corresponding NLQs from synthetic SQLs (Wang et al., 2021; Shi et al., 2021). The gap between SQL-NLQ pairs are well recognized in text-to-SQL task and intermediate representation (IR) is commonly used to reduce such mismatch (Gan et al., 2021b; Guo et al., 2019a; Yu et al., 2018a; Shi et al., 2021). However, the reverse of the source and target in SQL-to-text brings in its own challenge, such as incorrect references for SELECT *, missing conditions within long and complex SQL queries, and misinterpretation of ORDER phrases. ## 3 Proposed Method Our synthesis framework builds on top of the template-based SQL synthesis approach similar to  Zhong et al. (2020); Zhang et al. (2019) and generates SQL-NLQ pairs with a sequence-to-sequence model. Figure 2 provides a general overview of our pipeline. We develop the following techniques to address the issues in existing synthesis methods discussed in the previous sections: - for SQL synthesis: - introducing strong typing for columns w.r.t. semantic types and key properties, - encoding the key relation with the extracted templates for more logical SQLs, - proposing a schema-distance-weighted column sampling strategy to avoid overcomplex joins, - for NLQ synthesis: - designing an improved IR to bridge the gap between SQL and NLQ specifically for the SQL-to-text task. ## 3.1 Sql Synthesis To create new SQLs on training data schemas, we utilize a template-based approach following Zhong et al. (2020): First, a pool of SQL templates are created by normalizing the schema-related mentions (column and value) and removing JOIN phrases. During SQL generation, a template is sampled based on the training distribution, and columns are sampled with constraints to fill in the normalized slots of the template. We highlight several improvements made to the existing approaches. ## 3.1.1 Strong Typing When normalizing columns, we enforce strong typing of a template by enriching and preserving the data type (e.g., text, number, date, etc) as well as key identity (key or not) for each column. For example, in Table 1, we use textkey instead of key to normalize artist_name because operators such as MAX can be applied to number key but usually not to other text key. | SQL | SELECT artist_name FROM song INTERSECT SELECT artist_name FROM artist | |----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Previous | SELECT col1_key INTERSECT col2_key | | Ours | SELECT col1_textkey INTERSECT col2_textkey_fk1 |  Table 1: Our modifications for template extraction: strong typing is highlighted in blue and key relation preservation is highlighted in pink. ## 3.1.2 Template Key Relationship Preservation A foreign key is a column in a table referring to the primary key (unique identifier) of another table. In multiple table join scenarios, key and foreign key are the most common columns to be joined on. Restricting a column to be a foreign key to another key column is critical for a SQL to be valid especially in the following two cases: 1) queries including INTERSECT, EXCEPT, UNION, and 2) queries containing nested queries in WHERE conditions. For instance, the query in Table 1 implies the constraint that song.artist_name should be a subset of artist.artist_name. In our template, FK1 captures the constraint of the key relationship between the two artist_name columns, which prevents the template from generating nonsensical queries such as SELECT **gender** FROM artist INTERSECT SELECT **country** FROM artist. ## 3.1.3 Schema-Distance-Weighted Column Sampling To mitigate the issue of arbitrary multi-table joins, we implement a weighted sampling function biased toward columns that are close, in terms of table distance (defined below), to the columns already selected in a SQL template. For a given database d, we first establish an undirected graph for all the tables in d. Each table represents a node in the graph. The distance between any two tables, e(·, ·), is the least number of joins necessary to join the two tables (i.e. shortest path distance) under the restriction that table join can only take place with qualified primary key and foreign key pairs. See Appendix B for a detailed example demonstrating how table distances are computed. Define a template t as (q, c, v), where q is the flat template string, c = [c1*, . . . , c*m] is the set of column placeholders, and v = [v1*, . . . , v*n] is the set of value placeholders in q. Denote Tc to represent the table that contains column c and Sd(τ ) as the set of columns in d with the *strong type* τ . Given a template t and a qualified database Algorithm 1: Single SQL Synthesis with  Schema-Weighted Column Sampling Input :template t = (q, c, v), database d, decay rate γ Output: SQL query y 1 Let y = q 2 Random sample z1 from Sd(τc1 ) and replace c1 with z1 in y 3 Compute sampling weights $$w(z)=\begin{cases}1,&\text{if}T_{z}=T_{c_{1}}\\ \frac{1}{\gamma^{\delta_{c_{1}(z)}}},&\text{o.w.}\end{cases},\quad\forall z$$ where $\delta_{c}(z)=e(T_{c},T_{z})$ **4 for**$c\gets c_{2}:c_{m}$**do** 5 Compute sampling distribution $$p(z)=\left\{\begin{aligned}\frac{w(z)}{\sum\limits_{z^{\prime}:\tau_{z^{\prime}}=\tau_{c}}w(z^{\prime})},&\text{if}\\ 0,&\text{if}\end{aligned}\right.$$ Sample $z$ from $S_{d}(\tau_{c})$ with $p$ Replace $c$ with $z$ in $y$ Update sampling weights, $\forall z$ $\text{if}\tau_z=\tau_c\\ \\ \\$ 0.W. $\rho$ $\mathcal{Z}_z$ $$w(z)\gets w(z)+\left\{\begin{array}{l l}{{1,}}&{{\mathrm{if}\;T_{z}=T_{c}}}\\ {{\frac{1}{\gamma^{\delta_{c}(z)}},}}&{{\mathrm{o.w.}}}\end{array}\right.,$$ 9 end 10 for v ← v1 : vn do 11 Identify relevant columns w.r.t. v and retrieve a set of possible values for v from the d 12 Random sample one value from the set and replace v with the value in y 13 end d, the fundamental algorithm of SQL synthesis is described in Algorithm 1. The intuition behind the schema-weighted column sampling algorithm is as follows: after we select the first column for the given template (Line 2), we want to choose other columns in the database that are more relevant to the first column, so as to boost the chance of synthesizing more realistic SQL queries. We do so by sampling columns, for the remaining column placeholders in the template, according to a particular sampling probability (Line 5-6), which is a monotonically decreas- Random SELECT T1.Club_ID FROM club AS T1 JOIN coach as T2 ON T1.Club_ID = T2.Club_ID JOIN player_coach AS T3 ON T2.Coach_ID = T3.Coach_ID JOIN player AS T4 on T3.Player_ID = T4.Player_ID where T4.Rank = "3rd" Ours SELECT Club_ID FROM club WHERE Club_Name="AIK" ing function of the edge value in the table graph for type-qualified *column candidates* (Line 3, 8), and 0 for non-qualified *column candidate*. Such implementation is motivated from the observation that over-lengthy SQLs resulted from multiple tables joins are rare in real world scenarios under the only-join-on-primary-key-foreign-key assumption. Table 2 shows an example of how adopting the schema-weighted sampling can help reduce the unrealistic SQLs in the random case. Value of γ **in Algorithm** 1. γ is a hyperparameter that controls the decay rate in the sampling probability for columns that are farther away from the columns that have already been selected. Under the restricted join condition, we look at the number of tables in a query as a proxy to the table distance. To determine the value of γ, we randomly sample 7000 synthetic SQL queries with replacement and calculate the average number of tables from the samples. We repeat this process for 1000 times and plot the distribution. Then we perform the same steps for the real Spider training data. We choose γ so that the distribution of the average number of tables in the synthetic data is close to the real data. This helps prevent generating over-simplified or over-complicated SQL queries. Based on this experiment, we chose γ to be 5 for the Spider benchmark. Figure 3 displays the distri-  bution for three types of datasets: Spider training, synthetic dataset with schema-distance-weighted column sampling, and synthetic dataset with random column sampling. The figure demonstrates that the weighted sampling process, which provides an interface to tune the value of γ, can generate synthetic SQL queries that better match the real training data. ## 3.2 Nlq Synthesis Intermediate representation (IR) has been employed to simplify the SQL query with minimum information loss (Gan et al., 2021a; Guo et al., 2019b; Gan et al., 2021b; Guo et al., 2019a; Yu et al., 2018a; Shi et al., 2021). Common operations include removing FROM/JOIN clauses and GROUP BY clauses, and merging WHERE clauses and HAVING clauses. Previous work found the use of IR often improves text-to-SQL performance. In this section, we explore whether the SQL-totext generation could also benefit from an IR. According to a prior research by Wu et al. (2021), altering the query's linearization order could already affect the synthetic text quality. The objective of an IR here is to convert SQL to a representation that more closely resembles the NLQ. This conversion involves both simplifications (such as removal of redundant information) and specification (such as introducing information using heuristics). We outline the main new rules to transform SQLs into IRs and explain the rationale (examples in Table 3): EX1  EX2  EX3 EX6 - Only drop tables in the FROM/JOIN phrase if they appear in other SQL elements (**EX2-** EX4). Removal of tables can simplify queries but tables in JOIN can also behave as filters and need to be preserved to avoid information loss (EX1). - Replace * in count(*) with the table whose columns in JOIN act as foreign key to provide explicit context for counting. This is because, in multi-table join queries, foreign key represents the many of the one-to-many relations and thus the rows from the table is more meaningful to be aggregated (see EX2 replaces * with concert rather than stadium). - When SQL contains ORDER BY COUNT (...) LIMIT ... , rewrite the query to explicitly express the most or least intent for better intent alignment (EX3). - Drop GROUP BY phrase if the column grouped by appears in SELECT and attach EACH to the specific column if the query does not express the most/least intent (see GROUP dropped in EX3 - EX4 but not EX2). This aims to distinguish SQLs with GROUP BY and SELECT on the same column from those without SELECT. Similar to previous IR designs, we also removed repeated text in EXCEPT/INTERSECT/UNION queries and made lexical adjustments. ## 4 Experiments We conduct experiments on the Spider benchmark and demonstrate the effectiveness of our synthesis framework for the text-to-SQL task. ## 4.1 Experiment Setup Spider Benchmark Spider (Yu et al., 2018b) is a large-scale text-to-SQL dataset. It has 10,181 annotated questions, 5693 unique complex SQLs, and 200 databases with multiple tables. The train/train-others/dev/**test** sets contain 7000/1659/1034/2147 examples and 140/6/20/40 databases, respectively. Spider has a challenging and realistic evaluation setting, where SQL queries and databases do not appear across different splits, posing a generalization challenge for text-to-SQL semantic parser. Since Spider test set is not publicly available, we use dev set for evaluation and train-others for checkpoint selection. SQL-to-text Generator We finetune T5-large models on Spider training set for NLQ synthesis using both SQL and IR as input, named SQL2NLQ and IR2NLQ respectively. The best checkpoints are selected with the highest BLEU score on **trainothers**. Text-to-SQL Parser We test our synthetic data with several top-performing text-to-SQL parsers, including T5-3B, RASAT, and T5-3B + PICARD. We use T5-3B (Raffel et al., 2020) as our base parser, since previous work (Shaw et al., 2021) has shown that T5-3B can achieve competitive performance for Text-to-SQL semantic parsing. RASAT leverages the advantage of T5 and integrates relational structures into the pretrained model. Recently, PICARD (Scholak et al., 2021) demonstrates that constraint decoding on top of T5-3B can produce state-of-the-art performance on Spider. Training Configurations We adopt a two-stage text-to-SQL training mechanism (Wang et al., 2021) in our experiment. In *Stage 1*, we use synthetic data only for model pre-finetuning. In Stage 2, we initialize the model weights with the first stage checkpoint, and then finetune it on the real data only. Both stages share the same hyperparameters. We train T5 with Adafactor and learning rate of 1e-4, and use gradient accumulation batch size 2050 for T5-3B model. ## 4.2 Spider Results And Analysis The overall results3are shown in Table 4. We can see our synthetic data can further improve all three text-to-SQL parsing model, and achieve the best results with T5-3B + PICARD on Spider development set. Specifically, we have 4.4 points of EM score improvement on top of T5-3B model, while previous work (Wu et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021) has marginal gain or even hurts the performance, demonstrating the effectiveness of our proposed method. More importantly, T5-3B has shown SOTA or near SOTA performance on 21 knowledge grounding tasks (Xie et al., 2022), our success of improving T5-3B with synthetic data for text-toSQL can potentially generalize to other semantic parsing tasks with different logical forms. PICARD is an incremental parsing method for constraint decoding, which can reduce the syntax errors of language models for SQL generation. From Table 4, 3Some models do not predict cell values or access to database content, we leave '-' for EX. we see that T5-3B combined with PICARD and our synthetic data performs the best, implying the orthogonality of synthetic data augmentation and constraint decoding. | Model | EM | EX | |-----------------------------------------|------|------| | DT-Fixup SQL-SP (Xu et al., 2021) | 75.0 | - | | LGESQL + ELECTRA (Cao et al., 2021) | 75.1 | - | | S2SQL + ELECTRA (Hui et al., 2022) | 76.4 | - | | DT-Fixup + Syn (Yang et al., 2021) | 76.4 | - | | T5-3B (Shaw et al., 2021) | 70.0 | - | | T5-3B + Syn data (Wu et al., 2021) | 69.1 | - | | T5-3B + Syn data (Wang et al., 2021) | 70.3 | - | | T5-3B + Syn data (ours) | 74.4 | - | | T5-3B + PICARD (Scholak et al., 2021) | 74.1 | - | | T5-3B + PICARD + Syn data (ours) | 76.9 | - | | SmBoP + GraPPa (Rubin and Berant, 2021) | 69.5 | 71.1 | | GAP + NatSQL (Gan et al., 2021a) | 73.7 | 75.0 | | RASAT (Qi et al., 2022) | 72.6 | 76.6 | | RASAT + Syn data (ours) | 74.4 | 78.8 | | T5-3B† (Scholak et al., 2021) | 71.5 | 74.4 | | T5-3B† + Syn data (ours) | 74.5 | 78.6 | | T5-3B† + PICARD (Scholak et al., 2021) | 75.5 | 79.3 | | T5-3B† + PICARD + Syn data (ours) | 76.1 | 81.4 | We also submitted our model to the official Spider website for evaluation on the hidden test set and received 76.6 for EX and 73.1 for EM. Without developing new model architectures for the text-toSQL task, we achieved best performance by only augmenting synthetic data on top of the training set, compared to all other non-anonymous evaluation submission. Since our approach is generic for the text-to-SQL task and model-independent, we can easily apply our framework to other model submissions for additional improvements. In Figure 1, we plot the training curves with different synthetic datasets. Compared with previous work (Wu et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021), our synthetic data demonstrates significant improvement in Stage 1, with NLQ synthesized from both SQL2NLQ and IR2NLQ generator models, proving the high-quality of our synthesized SQLs. We also compare the generated NLQs with different automatic measurements in Table 5, where we can see IR benefits the NLQ generation process and produces the text closer to groundtruth NLQs. Table 5: Generated NLQ quality evaluations on the Spider dev set between SQL→ NLQ and SQL→ IR→ NLQ. The BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002), ROUGE (Lin, 2004), and P-BERT/R-BERT (Zhang et al., 2020) scores show that IR helps generate NLQs that are closer to the groundtruth. ## 4.3 Ablation Study | Settings | BLEU | R-1 | R-2 | P-BERT | R-BERT | |--------------|--------|-------|-------|----------|----------| | SQL→ NLQ | 27.7 | 59.6 | 35.3 | 93.6 | 93.2 | | SQL→ IR→ NLQ | 29.3 | 60.5 | 36.8 | 93.9 | 93.3 | We conduct ablation study to understand the efficacy from each of the techniques we propose. In particular, we remove each technique and regenerate the synthetic data during Stage 1 training (using T5-3B) and evaluate on the Spider dev set. Results are summarized in Table 6. Table 6: Ablation study on the three proposed synthesis techniques. We generate the same amount of synthetic data with each of the proposed technique removed and repeat the same training and evaluation process. Both EX and EM are worse on the dev set. We can see that removing any technique will result in a decrease in the final evaluation for the Spider dev set, indicating that each of the proposed three synthesis strategies contributes to a good quality synthetic data. In addition, Figure 1 shows that IR generated NLQ in general yields better results compared to SQL generated NLQ, which demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed IR technique during NLQ synthesis. | Setting | EM | EX | |-------------------------------------|-------------|-------------| | All techniques included | 74.5 | 78.6 | | w/o strong typing | 72.3 (-2.2) | 76.7 (-1.9) | | w/o template key relation preserv | 71.5 (-3.0) | 77.2 (-1.4) | | w/o schema-dist-weighted col sample | 73.7 (-0.8) | 76.6 (-2.0) | ## 4.4 Discussions Few-Shot Setting: How Much Real Data Do We Need Before Achieving Acceptable Performance? Annotating text-to-SQL dataset takes extremely high human effort. In practice, it is hard to create a large-scale corpus with a limited annotation budget. Table 7 presents the text-to-SQL semantic parsing results with a limited number of training examples. We also generate our synthetic data on top of the corresponding subset. Interestingly, as training size decreases from 7K to 128, our synthetic data becomes more essential, and the performance gain increases from 4.4 points to 27.2 points. Even with only 512 training examples, our synthetic data can assist the T5-3B model to achieve ∼60% accuracy 1333   f**-shot: 128 256 512 1024 full (7k)** # tmpl 68 116 205 318 746 # syn 7839 10775 14457 17002 21851 T5-3B real only 19.1 32.3 43.6 53.2 70.0 real + syn 46.3 54.4 59.9 62.2 74.4 level. These few-shot setting results are encouraging, as we can annotate a small-scale training set and still achieve acceptable performance with the help of synthetic data. Generator size: How big of the generator model do we need to produce high-quality NLQs? Since our proposed IR is to reduce the gap between NLQs and SQLs, we hypothesize that the NLQ generation process should have less reliance on model size. As shown in Figure 4, our synthetic data (with IR2NLQ) still presents comparable performance even with a small size T5-base generator, implying the effectiveness and robustness of our proposed IR. As comparison, SQL2NLQ has larger divergence between T5-Large and T5-Base, indicating some difficulty of translating SQL to NLQ.  Figure 4: Comparison of different T5 model sizes for NLQ generations. On top of T5-Base (220M parameters) and T5-Large (770M parameters), we finetune generators for both SQL-to-text and IR-to-text, then evaluate the effectiveness with text-to-SQL semantic parsing in Spider. ## Seen Schema: How Good Of The Synthetic Data if we consider a broader coverage of database schema? Since the cross-database evaluation setting presents generalization challenge for text-toSQL parsers, our synthetic framework can potentially overcome this by utilizing more public database schemas, or even ones that can implicitly cover the evaluation set. In addition to using schema from training set, we can take advantage of more public schemas for data synthesis, for example, WikiTables (Bhagavatula et al., 2015), GitTables (Hulsebos et al., 2021), WikiSQL (Zhong  et al., 2017) and SQL tutorial websites. Some of them are even schema source for Spider benchmark. We simply added 20 databases from dev set into our synthetic data generation, then trained text-toSQL parser on top of T5-Large. With this setting, we observed ∼2 points of performance improvement compared to that with training schema only. This pilot study implies the potential helpfulness of synthesizing data with targeting database schemas to further improve the downstream performance. While this setting breaks the cross-schema setting, we believe it still has practical values. Single-table: How effective is our method on the single-table text-to-SQL parsing? Although our SQL synthesis is mainly designed for multitable operations, it should also be compatible with the single table, but with foreign key preservation ineffective. WikiSQL (Zhong et al., 2017) and SQUALL (Shi et al., 2020) are two popular datasets for single-table text-to-SQL parsing. Compared to multi-table case, the single-table is much easier, for example, most text-to-SQL parsers are above 90% accuracy level in WikiSQL4. We took a relatively challenging SQUALL dataset for experiment. From 9K training examples, we created 30K synthetic NLQ-SQL pairs. We observe a smaller performance gain and hypothesize several reasons: 1) foreign key relationship is not applicable in single table, but critical to our data synthesis framework (as shown in the ablation study); 2) 9k examples are sufficient for model training, especially for SQLs without JOIN clause. Therefore, the effect of synthetic data is further diluted. ## 5 Conclusion In this work, we proposed a data synthesis framework for text-to-SQL semantic parsing. After incorporating key relationships from schema, imposing strong typing, conducting schemadistance-weighted column sampling, and bridging SQL → NLQ generation with an intermediate representation, we synthesized high-quality dataset that can further improve the state-of-the-art parser on Spider benchmark. We also revealed the efficiency of the synthetic data and pointed out the potential usefulness of reducing human annotations for text-to-SQL parsing. 4https://github.com/salesforce/WikiSQL ## Limitations The proposed synthesis framework has been targeted at text-to-SQL task, which may not generalize to other tasks that require large amount of synthetic data without major modification. For instance, other popular tasks involving converting natural language questions to some sort of logic forms are in natural very similar to text-to-SQL, yet all techniques relying on the "key" property in the database might no longer be applicable. On the other hand, the template based synthesis method currently relies on templates extracted from the real data. By incorporating some carefully designed grammar (e.g. PCFG), we may be able to further enrich the template set. ## Ethics Statement The training and evaluation of our experiments rely on many compute resources, which may not be environment-friendly. For example, each parsing model requires training using NVIDIA A100- SXM4-40GB GPUs for many hours, which can inevitably cause more CO2 emission. ## References Chandra Bhagavatula, Thanapon Noraset, and Doug Downey. 2015. Tabel: Entity linking in web tables. In *SEMWEB*. Ruisheng Cao, Lu Chen, Zhi Chen, Yanbin Zhao, Su Zhu, and Kai Yu. 2021. LGESQL: Line graph enhanced text-to-SQL model with mixed local and nonlocal relations. 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 2541–2555, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yujian Gan, Xinyun Chen, Jinxia Xie, Matthew Purver, John R. Woodward, John Drake, and Qiaofu Zhang. 2021a. Natural SQL: Making SQL easier to infer from natural language specifications. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, pages 2030–2042, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yujian Gan, Xinyun Chen, Jinxia Xie, Matthew Purver, John R. Woodward, John H. Drake, and Qiaofu Zhang. 2021b. Natural SQL: making SQL easier to infer from natural language specifications. *CoRR*, abs/2109.05153. Daya Guo, Yibo Sun, Duyu Tang, Nan Duan, Jian Yin, Hong Chi, James Cao, Peng Chen, and Ming Zhou. 2018. Question generation from SQL queries improves neural semantic parsing. In *Proceedings of* the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1597–1607, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jiaqi Guo, Zecheng Zhan, Yan Gao, Yan Xiao, Jian-Guang Lou, Ting Liu, and Dongmei Zhang. 2019a. Towards complex text-to-sql in crossdomain database with intermediate representation. 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 4524–4535. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jiaqi Guo, Zecheng Zhan, Yan Gao, Yan Xiao, Jian-Guang Lou, Ting Liu, and Dongmei Zhang. 2019b. Towards complex text-to-SQL in crossdomain database with intermediate representation. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4524–4535, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Binyuan Hui, Ruiying Geng, Lihan Wang, Bowen Qin, Yanyang Li, Bowen Li, Jian Sun, and Yongbin Li. 2022. S 2SQL: Injecting syntax to question-schema interaction graph encoder for text-to-SQL parsers. In *Findings of the Association for Computational* Linguistics: ACL 2022, pages 1254–1262, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Madelon Hulsebos, Çagatay Demiralp, and Paul Groth. ˘ 2021. Gittables: A large-scale corpus of relational tables. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.07258*. Robin Jia and Percy Liang. 2016. Data recombination for neural semantic parsing. In *Proceedings of the* 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 12–22, Berlin, Germany. 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. Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and WeiJing 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, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jiexing Qi, Jingyao Tang, Ziwei He, Xiangpeng Wan, Chenghu Zhou, Xinbing Wang, Quanshi Zhang, and Zhouhan Lin. 2022. Rasat: Integrating relational structures into pretrained seq2seq model for text-tosql. 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-totext transformer. *Journal of Machine Learning Research*, 21(140):1–67. Ohad Rubin and Jonathan Berant. 2021. SmBoP: Semi-autoregressive bottom-up semantic parsing. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 311–324, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Torsten Scholak, Nathan Schucher, and Dzmitry Bahdanau. 2021. PICARD: Parsing incrementally for constrained auto-regressive decoding from language models. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on* Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Peter Shaw, Ming-Wei Chang, Panupong Pasupat, and Kristina Toutanova. 2021. Compositional generalization and natural language variation: Can a semantic parsing approach handle both? 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 922–938, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Peng Shi, Patrick Ng, Zhiguo Wang, Henghui Zhu, Alexander Hanbo Li, Jun Wang, Cicero Nogueira dos Santos, and Bing Xiang. 2021. Learning contextual representations for semantic parsing with generation-augmented pre-training. In *Proceedings* of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 13806–13814. Tianze Shi, Chen Zhao, Jordan Boyd-Graber, Hal Daumé III, and Lillian Lee. 2020. On the potential of lexico-logical alignments for semantic parsing to SQL queries. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 1849–1864, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Bailin Wang, Wenpeng Yin, Xi Victoria Lin, and Caiming Xiong. 2021. Learning to synthesize data for semantic parsing. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies*, pages 2760–2766, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Kun Wu, Lijie Wang, Zhenghua Li, Ao Zhang, Xinyan Xiao, Hua Wu, Min Zhang, and Haifeng Wang. 2021. Data augmentation with hierarchical SQLto-question generation for cross-domain text-to-SQL parsing. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 8974–8983, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tianbao Xie, Chen Henry Wu, Peng Shi, Ruiqi Zhong, Torsten Scholak, Michihiro Yasunaga, Chien-Sheng Wu, Ming Zhong, Pengcheng Yin, Sida I. Wang, Victor Zhong, Bailin Wang, Chengzu Li, Connor Boyle, Ansong Ni, Ziyu Yao, Dragomir Radev, Caiming Xiong, Lingpeng Kong, Rui Zhang, Noah A. Smith, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Tao Yu. 2022. Unifiedskg: Unifying and multi-tasking structured knowledge grounding with text-to-text language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.05966. Peng Xu, Dhruv Kumar, Wei Yang, Wenjie Zi, Keyi Tang, Chenyang Huang, Jackie Chi Kit Cheung, Simon J.D. Prince, and Yanshuai Cao. 2021. Optimizing deeper transformers on small datasets. 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 2089– 2102, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Wei Yang, Peng Xu, and Yanshuai Cao. 2021. Hierarchical neural data synthesis for semantic parsing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.02212. Tao Yu, Chien-Sheng Wu, Xi Victoria Lin, Bailin Wang, Yi Chern Tan, Xinyi Yang, Dragomir Radev, Richard Socher, and Caiming Xiong. 2021. Grappa: Grammar-augmented pre-training for table semantic parsing. In International Conference on Learning Representations. Tao Yu, Michihiro Yasunaga, Kai Yang, Rui Zhang, Dongxu Wang, Zifan Li, and Dragomir R. Radev. 2018a. Syntaxsqlnet: Syntax tree networks for complex and cross-domain text-to-sql task. In *Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods* in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium, October 31 - November 4, 2018, pages 1653–1663. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tao Yu, Rui Zhang, Kai Yang, Michihiro Yasunaga, Dongxu Wang, Zifan Li, James Ma, Irene Li, Qingning Yao, Shanelle Roman, Zilin Zhang, and Dragomir Radev. 2018b. Spider: A largescale human-labeled dataset for complex and crossdomain semantic parsing and text-to-SQL task. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3911–3921, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Rui Zhang, Tao Yu, Heyang Er, Sungrok Shim, Eric Xue, Xi Victoria Lin, Tianze Shi, Caiming Xiong, Richard Socher, and Dragomir Radev. 2019. Editing-based SQL query generation for cross-domain context-dependent questions. 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 5338–5349, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tianyi Zhang, Varsha Kishore, Felix Wu, Kilian Q. Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. 2020. Bertscore: Evaluating text generation with bert. In *International* Conference on Learning Representations. Victor Zhong, Mike Lewis, Sida I. Wang, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. Grounded adaptation for zeroshot executable semantic parsing. In *Proceedings of* the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6869– 6882, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Victor Zhong, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2017. Seq2sql: Generating structured queries from natural language using reinforcement learning. CoRR, abs/1709.00103. ## A Existing Synthesis Frameworks Inspired by prior work by Jia and Liang (2016) in semantic parsing, Yu et al. (2021) extended a synchronous context-free grammar (SCFG) approach to the text-to-SQL task where they manually crafted about 90 high-quality SQL-NLQ aligned patterns to generate new SQL-NLQ pairs. They found pretraining on the synthetic dataset leads to a significant improvement even tested with a very strong text-to-SQL parser RAT-SQL on the Spider benchmark. While SCFG usually creates high-quality data because patterns are carefully designed and aligned, the coverage of the patterns is limited, and expert knowledge is required to design such patterns. Thus, more efforts are devoted to automating the procedure. Guo et al. (2018) utilized a two-stage approach by first sampling SQL queries from a simple pattern and then generating questions using a copy-based RNN encoder-decoder structure find the synthetic data that can improve the existing state-of-the-art model on the WikiSQL benchmark. Zhong et al. (2020) followed the same two-stage approach but used templates extracted from training to generate SQL and augmented the NLQ generator with pretrained transformer BERT and iteratively updated the parser and generator. Only the synthetic dataset that was created using target schemas filtered with cycle consistency can facilitate the downstream performance. Along the same approach, Wang et al. (2021) identified problems with fixed SQL synthesis rules and employed a full-fledged probabilistic context-free grammar (PCFG) that enabled generating SQLs with varying structures. They synthesized natural language queries with a BART SQL-NLQ generator. Their synthesis method has been shown to boost the RAT-SQL parser performance on the Spider benchmark, though the improvement is not as significant as pretraining using SCFG generated synthetic data (Yu et al., 2021). The gap might be due to the quality of the synthetic dataset as the independent selection of generation step in PCFG introduces substantial noise such as illogical SQL queries. To improve the quality of synthetic data, Wu et al. (2021) introduced a clause-level synthesis framework: first decomposing a query into sub-clauses and translating sub-SQL clauses into sub-questions, and finally assembling sub-questions into a whole question. They found clause-based synthesis method is better than flat synthesis. Alternatively, Yang et al. (2021) proposed to improve the quality of synthetic data by incorporating domain information in question generation. Specifically, they learned an entity sampler and synthesized questions using an entity-to-question generator with entities sampled from the sampler, followed by generating pairing SQL queries through a baseline parser. For this approach, they also attractively updated the parser and generator, in a similar fashion as in Zhong et al. (2020). Their synthetic dataset can significantly improve a DT-Fixup parser on the Spider benchmark. This work seeks to investigate value of synthetic dataset with current state-of-the-art PICARD model and refine a synthetic method in an automate and non-iterative manner. Thus, we examine two synthetic datasets from recent work (Wang et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2021) that demonstrate improvement of downstream performance with previous state-of-the-art text-to-SQL parser (RAT-SQL) over Spider benchmark without iterative training. | Figure 5: Comparison of different data synthesis methods for text-to-SQL task. Synchronous refers to generating SQL and NLQ together, Two-stage first synthesizes SQL then generates NLQ, reversed two-stage first generates NLQ then synthesizes SQL. SQL-NLQ Bridging refers to intermediate operations or representations for matching SQL and NLQ. | | | | | | | | | | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|------------------------------------|-----------|----------|-----------|-----------| | combination | rules | | | | | | | | | | SQL clause / NLQ fragment | | | | | | | | | | | Manual | Effort | alignment SQL-NLQ template | | | | | | | | | Aligned | | | | | | | | | | | minimal | minimal | minimal | minimal | minimal | | | | | | | NLQ Synthesis SQL-NLQ Bridging | IR | | | | | | | | | | - | - | SQL à NLQ BART - | T5 - | | | | | | | | Generator | copy-based RNN | copy-based RNN | simultaneous instantiation of | SQL-NLQ template | | | | | | | BERT + | point decoder | SQLà IRà NLQ T5 | | | | | | | | | SQL à Sub-SQL à NLQ fragment àNLQ | schema à entity à NLQ | | | | | | | | | | Procedure | SQL à NLQ | SQL à NLQ | Template Limit to training templates | Template Limit to training templates | | | | | | | Template Single template, no JOIN | Violating foreign key | relations, limit to training templates Template | Dependent on base parser | | | | | | | | OP/COLincompatibility, invalid SQL structure | No support for IEU, | no JOIN | | | | | | | | | Limitation | | | | | | | | | | | SQL Synthesis | Abstraction | PCFG | CFG | - | Grappa (Yu et al 2021) Synchronous | | | | | | Method | Two stage | Iterative | two stage | Two stage | Two stage | Iterative | reversed | two stage | Two stage | | GAZP | (Zhong et al 2020) | | | | | | | | | | Paper | Wang et al (2021) | Yang et al (2021) | | | | | | | | | Guo et al | (2018) | Wu et al | (2021) | Ours | | | | | | | 1339 | | | | | | | | | |  ## B Details On Schema-Distance-Weighted Column Sampling B.1 Table Distance. For a given database d, we first establish an undirected graph for all the tables in d. We can then compute the distance between any two tables, e(·, ·), defined as the least number of joins necessary to join the two tables under the restriction that table join can only take place with qualified primary key and foreign key information. In other words, we disable arbitrary join of two tables if they lack key and foreign key relationship. We give some examples using one of the databases (id: college_1) in the Spider benchmark, as shown in Table 8. - e(T1, T2) = 1 because the column class code in table *class* (T1) is a foreign key in table *course* (T2). We can also observe from the table graph in Figure 6: there is a direct path between table node class and table node *course*. - e(T2, T7) = 2 since we first need to join table *course* (T2) with table *department* (T3), followed by joining table *department* with table *student* (T7). Note that even though we can also join using the path T2 → T1 → T5 → T7, this is not the *least* number of joins between the two tables. | Alias | Table Name | Primary Key | Foreign Key | | |-----------|---------------------------|-----------------|---------------|-----------------| | Table | Column | | | | | T1 | class | class code | enroll | class code | | T2 | course | course code | class | class code | | course | department code | | | | | T3 | department | department code | professor | department code | | student | department code | | | | | class | professor employee number | | | | | T4 | employee | employee number | department | employee number | | professor | employee number | | | | | T5 | enroll | - | - | - | | T6 | professor | - | - | - | | T7 | student | student num | enroll | student number | Table 8: Example database (id: college_1)  ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? See the Limitations section. ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? See the Ethics Statement section. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? See Abstract and 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?** We Used The Spider Data (Section 2 And Section 4) ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 2, 4 and References. ✗ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Spider is one of the top used datasets for text-to-sql tasks and have been accepted by the community for scientific research. 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.? 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. See Section 4.1. ## 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? Ethics Statement and Section 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? 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? Not applicable. 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.)? Section 4. 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.

li-etal-2023-exploring

Exploring Schema Generalizability of Text-to-{SQL}

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.87

Exploring the generalizability of a text-to-SQL parser is essential for a system to automatically adapt the real-world databases. Previous investigation works mostly focus on lexical diversity, including the influence of the synonym and perturbations in both natural language questions and databases. However, the structural variability of database schema (DS), as a widely seen real-world scenario, is yet underexplored. Specifically, confronted with the same input question, the target SQL may be represented in different ways when the DS comes to a different structure. In this work, we provide in-depth discussions about the schema generalizability challenge of text-to-SQL tasks. We observe that current datasets are too templated to study schema generalization. To collect suitable test data, we propose a framework to generate novel text-to-SQL data via automatic and synchronous (DS, SQL) pair altering. When evaluating state-of-the-art text-to-SQL models on the synthetic samples, performance is significantly degraded, which demonstrates the limitation of current research regarding schema generalization.

# Exploring Schema Generalizability Of Text-To-Sql Jieyu Li1, Lu Chen1∗, Ruisheng Cao1, Su Zhu2, Hongshen Xu1**, Zhi Chen**1 Hanchong Zhang1 **and Kai Yu**1∗ 1X-LANCE Lab, Department of Computer Science and Engineering MoE Key Lab of Artificial Intelligence, AI Institute Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China 2AISpeech Co., Ltd., Suzhou, China {oracion,chenlusz,211314,xuhongshen,zhenchi713}@sjtu.edu.cn {zhanghanchong,kai.yu}@sjtu.edu.cn ## Abstract Exploring the generalizability of a text-to-SQL parser is essential for a system to automatically adapt the real-world databases. Previous investigation works mostly focus on lexical diversity, including the influence of the synonym and perturbations in both natural language questions and databases. However, the structural variability of database schema (DS), as a widely seen real-world scenario, is yet underexplored. Specifically, confronted with the same input question, the target SQL may be represented in different ways when the DS comes to a different structure. In this work, we provide indepth discussions about the schema generalizability challenge of text-to-SQL tasks. We observe that current datasets are too templated to study schema generalization. To collect suitable test data, we propose a framework to generate novel text-to-SQL data via automatic and synchronous (DS, SQL) pair altering. When evaluating state-of-the-art text-to-SQL models on the synthetic samples, performance is significantly degraded, which demonstrates the limitation of current research regarding schema generalization. ## 1 Introduction Given the corresponding database, text-to-SQL (Yu et al., 2018) aims to convert a natural language (NL) utterance into a structured SQL program. Recently, many advanced text-to-SQL models, such as RATSQL (Wang et al., 2019) and LGESQL (Cao et al., 2021), have been proposed to tackle this task. Although significant progress has been achieved considering the ultimate accuracy, many researchers point out that actual performances of current text-to-SQL systems are over-estimated. Suhr et al. (2020) observed a dramatic performance decline when evaluating a state-of-the-art model on unseen datasets. Gan et al. (2021a) discovered that current parsers are vulnerable to the adversarial ∗The corresponding authors are Lu Chen and Kai Yu.  attack from synonyms of words in user questions. To explore the generalizablity, previous literature mainly focused on the semantically diversity of natural language. However, the topological feature of database schema is also important but is less investigated while studying the generalizablity in text-to-SQL tasks. We named the ability to automatically adapt different schema the **schema generalizablity**. Different databases will lead to completely divergent SQL queries even given the same user question. For example, in Figure 1, the SQL queries become different when the query entity "*singer*" functions as a column, a table, or a specific cell value, depending on the ontology of the corresponding DS. Furthermore, although the current cross-domain text-to-SQL datasets use different databases during training and evaluation, they are insufficient for evaluating the schema generalizablity of textto-SQL systems. In Section 3.1, we observe that models can predict the structure of SQL queries even without the corresponding database, which may result from the limited database structures of current datasets. In this work, we focus on studying the schema generalizablity of current STOA text-to-SQL systems and provide in-deep analysis. To avoid the aforementioned problems in existing datasets, we propose a data- and structure-driven framework to automatically synthesize new (DS, SQL) pairs given the same input question. The framework modifies the DS with a modest annotation cost and updates the SQL synchronously by altering the abstract syntax tree (AST). Inspired by the entityrelationships diagram (E-R Diagram) (Ling, 1985; Li and Chen, 2009), all the transformations follow the entity relationships of the database to guarantee that the modifications are reasonable. We also compared the execution results between new and original (DS, SQL) pairs to ensure the correctness of SQL updating. Our experiments demonstrate that all four strong text-to-SQL models (RATSQL (Wang et al., 2019), LGESQL (Cao et al., 2021), T5 (Raffel et al., 2020), and T5-PICARD (Scholak et al., 2021)) suffer from poor schema generalizability. After generating the adversarial set from the Spider (Yu et al., 2018) dev set, adding perturbations to the database schema reduces the EM accuracy from an average of 67% to 35%. Even the performance on the adversarial set from the Spider training set drops dramatically (-46 points on EM). Furthermore, we observe that the adversarial examples that both DS and SQL changed are much more challenging for text-toSQL models than those examples that only DS changed. Finally, we discuss the efficiency of additional training on adversarial examples (Jia and Liang, 2017). Experiment results show that the performance improvement mostly stems from the additional question-DS patterns by more training examples. The main contributions are as follows: - We propose a data- and structure-driven framework which can automatically synthesize samples containing unseen (DS, SQL) patterns with minimal human labor. This framework and corresponding synthesis data will be publicly available at https://github.com/Auracion/ schema_generation_framework. - By utilizing the plug-and-play framework, we synthesize a test suite and demonstrate the poor performance of existing text-to-SQL models regarding schema generalization. - We analyze the reasons leading to modest generalization towards perturbations of synchronous changes in (DS, SQL) pairs and demonstrate that adversarial training is a possible way to inhibit the overfitting problem. ## 2 Background And Related Work Structural Features in Text-to-SQL Tasks Modeling the structural information in a database and designing an efficient algorithm to decode structured output sequences are crucial in text-toSQL. Several studies achieved remarkable progress using GNN (Scarselli et al., 2008) to encode the schema linking, which enhanced the graph structure of DS and the relationships between DS and question tokens (Bogin et al., 2019; Lin et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2021; Hui et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2019; Cao et al., 2021). Another line of research focuses on the grammar structure of SQL. Corresponding works proposed novel algorithms to precisely decode according to the syntax (Guo et al., 2019; Rubin and Berant, 2021; Gan et al., 2021b). Recent works attempted to utilize the developed generative pre-trained language models (Raffel et al., 2020; Lewis et al., 2020) to generate SQL. Based on T5 (Raffel et al., 2020), Scholak et al. (2021) proposed a rule-based post-processor to prune syntax-illegal SQL subsequence in beam search, and they achieved stable improvement in the end-to-end text-to-SQL system. | Synthetic Data | Lexical | Structure | | | |-------------------------------|-----------|-------------|-----|----| | Question | Schema | Schema | SQL | | | Spider-Syn(Gan et al., 2021a) | ✓ | % | % | % | | MR-UT(Ma and Wang, 2021) | ✓ | % | % | % | | MR-ST(Ma and Wang, 2021) | % | % | ✓ | % | | ADVETA-RPL (Pi et al., 2022) | % | ✓ | % | % | | ADVETA-ADD (Pi et al., 2022) | % | ✓ | ✓ | % | | Unaffected | % | % | ✓ | % | | Affected | % | % | ✓ | ✓ | Robustness of text-to-SQL models Early datasets (Dahl et al., 1994; Hemphill et al., 1990; Zelle and Mooney, 1996; Tang and Mooney, 2000; Li and Jagadish, 2014; Yaghmazadeh et al., 2017; Iyer et al., 2017; Finegan-Dollak et al., 2018) only considered the text-to-SQL tasks on | Dataset | RATSQL | LGESQL | |------------------------------------|----------|----------| | Spider (Yu et al., 2018) | 69.57 | 70.11 | | SParC (Yu et al., 2019b) | 42.20 | 43.59 | | Spider-Syn (Gan et al., 2021a) | 49.81 | 50.93 | | Academic (Li and Jagadish, 2014) | 6.26 | 7.36 | | GeoQuery (Zelle and Mooney, 1996) | 7.51 | 7.86 | | IMDB (Yaghmazadeh et al., 2017) | 18.96 | 18.74 | | Restaurant (Tang and Mooney, 2000) | 0.00 | 0.53 | | Scholar (Iyer et al., 2017) | 0.18 | 0.24 | | Yelp (Yaghmazadeh et al., 2017) | 6.01 | 7.51 | a single database. To build a robust text-to-SQL model that can automatically adapt unseen domain data, Recent works (Yu et al., 2018; Zhong et al., 2017) collected cross-domain text-to-SQL datasets. Based on the cross-domain setup, researchers further considered some different real-world scenes and proposed corresponding datasets (Yu et al., 2019b,a; Wang et al., 2020). However, Suhr et al. (2020) observed that the execution (EX.) accuracy of a well-trained model on Spider (Yu et al., 2018) always decreases remarkably on the unseen domain data from other datasets1. Although Suhr et al. (2020) depicted the reasons leading to performance decline, in-deep discussions are necessary. To this end, recent studies generated synthetic data under different setups to further assess the practical model generalization in different environments. We summarize the characteristic of the synthetic evaluation set in Table 1. In respect of text, Gan et al. (2021a) generated evaluation samples by replacing the schema-related words in NL questions with synonyms. Ma and Wang (2021) substituted the aggregation-related words and prefix phrases with synonym representations. Pi et al. (2022) modified the column names in DS. In respect of structure, Ma and Wang (2021) created different DS structures by imposing perturbations. Pi et al. (2022) added adversarial columns in DS. However, the golden SQLs in both of their synthetic datasets remain unchanged when applying perturbations. In this work, we consider both changed and unchanged golden SQLs to provide a comprehensive appraisal regarding schema generalization. Table 2: Models are trained on Spider, while evaluated on other datasets. The databases of SParC and SpiderSyn are similar to Spider. ## 3 Suitable Evaluation Data To evaluate the schema generalizability of text-toSQL models, a test dataset with novel databases is crucial. However, current text-to-SQL datasets are not suitable because of the over-templated features (Section 3.1). Therefore, we propose a dataand structure-driven generation framework to synthesize relevant data to assess the generalization capability (Section 3.2). Table 3: The structure of SQL can be represented with the syntax roles. | Question | How many dogs have not gone through any treatment? | | | |-------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|--------|------| | SQL | SELECT count(*) | FROM | Dogs | | WHERE | Dogs.dog_id | NOT IN | | | (SELECT | Treatments.dog_id | FROM | | | Treatment) Select Aggregation | | | | | Syntax Roles | WHERE Condition Nested SQL in Condition | | | ## 3.1 Current Datasets Are Undesirable To verify that current text-to-SQL datasets are overtemplated, we conduct a syntax role prediction experiment. As the example shown in Table 3, the structure feature of SQL can be represented using the syntax roles. We show the details of all used syntax role labels in Appendix D Syntax Role Prediction aims to predict which SQL syntax roles are mentioned in the query, including the SQL keywords, nested structure, and aggregation clause. For the user question Q = (q0, q1*, ..., q*|Q|), the given database schema D, and the corresponding SQL S = (s0, s1*, ..., s*|S|). Set R = {r0, r1, ..., r|R|} contains all the predefined syntax roles involved in S. We formulate the syntax role prediction task as $${\mathcal{R}}={\mathcal{F}}(\mathbf{X})$$ $\left(1\right)$. R = F(X) (1) , where X = Q if using database schema information otherwise X = (Q, D). The metric used in this experiment is joint accuracy, which means the case is treated as correct if and only if all the syntax roles are correctly predicted. In this experiment, we compare the performances of whether it contains database schema in the inputs. For the model only uses user questions, we encode the inputs as $$\mathbf{h}=\operatorname{Ber}(\mathbf{Q}).$$ h = Bert(Q). (2) | Train. | Test. | Test. Setup | w/o. DB Schema | w. DB Schema | |------------------------|-----------------|--------------------------|------------------|----------------| | Spider Train. | Spider Dev. | Spider-like Cross-Domain | 86.08 | 87.34 ↑1.26 | | Spider Train. | Spider-Syn Dev. | Spider-like Cross-Domain | 85.59 | 84.72 ↓0.87 | | Spider-Syn Train. | Spider-Syn Dev. | 85.69 | 85.40 ↓0.29 | | | Spider Train. | SParC Dev. | Spider-like Cross-Domain | 74.31 | 74.48 ↑0.17 | | SParC Train. | SParC Dev. | 66.92 | 66.50 ↓0.42 | | | 92.27 | 89.50 ↓2.77 | | | | | GeoQuery | 51.42 | 45.57 ↓5.85 | | | | IMDB | 90.83 | 93.58 ↑2.75 | | | | Restaurants | 75.20 | 89.60 ↑12.40 | | | | Scholar | 67.66 | 71.00 ↑3.34 | | | | Yelp | 96.40 | 93.69 ↓2.71 | | | | Average Joint Accuracy | 79.31 | 80.13 ↑0.82 | | | | Academic | | | | | | Spider Train. | Single-Domain | | | | Table 4: Experiment results of syntax role prediction. **w/o. DB Schema** represents a vanila model using BERT-base to encode user questions. **W. DB Schema** represents the model using RAT encoder to process the user questions and database schema. For the model uses both user questions and database schema information, we encode the input as h = RAT-Encoder(Q, D), (3) $$\mathbf{h}=\operatorname{RAT-Encoder}(\mathbf{Q},{\mathcal{D}}),$$ where RAT-Encoder is the encoder of RATSQL (Wang et al., 2019). We calculate the probability of using the role ri as $$P({\hat{y}}_{i}|\mathbf{X})=\mathrm{Sigmoid}(\mathbf{v}_{i}^{\top}\mathbf{h}),$$ i h), (4) where viis learnable parameters corresponding to syntax role ri. As the results in Table 4 shown, the performances of the models without using DS information (column 4) achieve 79.31 on average. The model can directly predict the approximate structure of the target SQL only with the user question most of the time, even though the databases for training and for testing are not overlapping. Meanwhile, the performances of the models using database schema information (column 5) achieve 80.13 on average. The experiment results illustrate that using DS information can only improve 0.82 on average. The performance differences between using and without using DS demonstrate that the DS information is helpless for predicting the SQL structure. Additionally, we find that the phenomena not only happen when evaluating on Spider-like datasets but also exist in other text-toSQL datasets. Therefore, we suspect that current datasets are too templated to evaluate the generalizability using them. To this end, we need to synthesize suitable evaluation data. ## 3.2 Evaluation Data Generation To assess the structural generation capability, we propose a data- and structure-driven generation framework to synthesize relevant data. The synthetic data in this paper are modified from Spider (Yu et al., 2018) 2 which is the most popular cross-domain text-to-SQL dataset. It contains 8659 training examples and 1034 validation examples across 146 databases. The test dataset is unseen and contains 2147 samples with 40 databases. For a given sample, we synthesize a new sample by altering the DS while keeping the question constant. In order to obtain a reasonable DS, we construct the entity-relationship graph of the given DS and apply graph-based transformations. Moreover, we synchronously update the SQL by modifying the abstract syntax tree. We show more details in Appendix A In this work, we use four different transformations in DS. Figure 2 illustrates the examples of each transformation, and we show a brief introduction below: - **Entity to Attribute (E2A)** merges two tables into one. - **Concept to Attribute (C2A)** converts the concept3 of an entity, which represents via table name in DS, to its attribute. - **Named to Unnamed (N2U)** replaces the table corresponding to a relationship with foreign 2https://yale-lily.github.io//spider. 3It refers to the definition of concept node in the knowledge graph.  ## Keys. - **Unnamed to Named (U2N)** replaces a foreign key with a relationship table. Table 5 shows the total number of each kind of synthetic data synthesized via different E-R transformations. We evaluate the synthetic quality by comparing the execution results of the original and synthetic (DS, SQL) pairs. Over 90.43% generated samples kept consistent execution results on average. In this work, we only consider 1-step transformation regard of the problem of textual noise accumulation in automatic multi-step transformation. | Trans. | Train. | Dev. | | | |----------|------------|----------|------------|------| | Affected | Unaffected | Affected | Unaffected | | | E2A | 3035 | 9466 | 493 | 1477 | | C2A | 2659 | 4271 | 379 | 445 | | U2N | 2969 | 12910 | 114 | 376 | | N2U | 2605 | 48507 | 303 | 4484 | ## 4 Generalization Evaluation In this section, we conduct experiments to evaluate the practical generalization of current text-to-SQL models: ## 4.1 Experiment Setup In this work, we experiment with two grammarbased SOTA text-to-SQL parsers, RATSQL (Wang et al., 2019) and LGESQL (Cao et al., 2021). Besides, we also experiment with the T5-based end-toend text-to-SQL parser, including the methods of decoding with and without PICARD(Scholak et al., 2021). The evaluation metric we use to report the results is exact set match accuracy (EM). Results are averaged over three trials to reduce variance. Equivalent Test Set (ETS) To precisely evaluate the model robustness, we construct an equivalent test set for the given dataset, which contains the same number of samples. We restrict that each sample in the original dataset matches exactly one synthetic variant in the ETS. If a sample can not generate a variant, we will add the duplication in the ETS. In this work, the percentages of these samples in ETS are 34.3% and 14.7% for affected and unaffected respectively. Furthermore, to reduce the influence of hardness4, we utilize a heuristic algorithm to modulate the ETS so that its distribution is close to the original dataset. We show more details of the algorithm in Appendix E ## 4.2 Practical Schema Generalization We construct the equivalent test set (ETS) for both of the training set and the development set of Spider. The training data in this experiment is the Spider training set. We compare the performances on the Spider training set, Spider development set, and their corresponding ETSs. Experiment results (Spider Train. vs Spider Train. ETS) illustrated in Table 6 indicate that the perturbation applied to the database schema will disturb the parsing process. The models can not precisely infer the representation of the SQL 4The hardness rate is used to represent the complexity of a SQL. In this work, we follow the calculation method proposed in Spider(Yu et al., 2018) | Model | Spider Train. | Spider Train. ETS | Spider Dev. | Spider Dev. ETS | |-----------|-----------------|---------------------|---------------|-------------------| | RATSQL | 98.19 | 60.81↓37.82 | 69.83 | 44.68↓25.15 | | LGESQL | 98.94 | 62.73↓36.21 | 70.57 | 45.10↓25.47 | | T5 | 81.20 | 26.62↓54.58 | 59.09 | 49.23↓34.33 | | T5-Picard | 81.28 | 26.75↓54.53 | 67.60 | 26.98↓40.62 | query when confronting novel DS structures despite the questions and the other parts of the DS being the same as they appeared in the training phrase. When it comes to the development set, as well as the corresponding ETS, databases are completely novel because they do not overlap with the databases in the training set. However, experiment results (Spider Dev. vs Spider Dev. ETS) in Table 6 illustrate a dramatical performance decline. These phenomena demonstrate that the practical schema generalization capability is also modest, which is similar to the structural robustness. Therefore, we suspect that current text-to-SQL parsers can not automatically infer the SQL pattern according to the DS. We will discuss the true reason that caused this issue in the next section. ## 5 Discussion About Schema Generalizability In this section, we discuss the schema generalizability of text-to-SQL by answering the following questions: - Q1: What is the actual function of database schema input? (Section 5.1) - Q2: What is the actual reason causing the modest generalizability? (Section 5.2) ## 5.1 Function Of Database Schema Input To answer Q1, we first verify that the database schema (DS) information is independent of the process of constructing SQL patterns. Reviewing the experiments in Section 4, models always make mistakes when facing out-of-dataset (OOD) DS. To estimate whether the OOD structure confuses the parsers, we consider the evaluation data containing OOD DS while keeping the SQL query unchanged. Setup: Different from the evaluation data used in Section 4, we generate the data with different DS but the same SQL. For each piece of data, the DS transformations are applied to untapped parts so that the SQL will not be influenced. Similarly, we | Model | Test Data | EM. Acc. | |-----------------|--------------|------------| | RATSQL | Spider Dev. | 69.83 | | Spider Dev. ETS | 67.67↓2.16 | | | LGESQL | Spider Dev. | 70.57 | | Spider Dev. ETS | 67.41↓3.16 | | | T5 | Spider Dev. | 59.09 | | Spider Dev. ETS | 49.23 ↓9.86 | | | T5+Picard | Spider Dev. | 67.60 | | Spider Dev. ETS | 56.38 ↓11.22 | | also construct the equivalent test set (ETS) for the Spider development set with this kind of synthetic data. The training data in this experiment is the training set of Spider. Results of using a grammar-based decoder (line 1-4) shown in Table 7 demonstrate that the OOD structure does not influence the inference process. Reviewing the syntax role prediction experiments discussed in Section 3.1, we suggest that current text-to-SQL models construct SQL query via sentence pattern of the user question rather than the actual structure of DS. We suspect that the function of DS input is providing the correct presentation of the SQL non-keywords (table name, column name, and value). The efficiency of using schema linking provides a strong signal on the target database item. Once the explicit relationships between these SQL non-keywords and the presentations in question are destroyed, models will make mistakes in selecting the correct schema item. However, the SQL structure is always predicted in the correct ways(Gan et al., 2021a). Results of using a tokenbased decoder (line 5-8) in Table 7 illustrate the remarkable performance decline, which seems in contrast to the previous conclusion. We analyze the error cases and suggest that this issue is caused by the unnatural schema item names, which we report in Limitations.   ## 5.2 (Nl, Ds) Pattern To answer Q2, we first introduce the concept of (NL, DS) pattern. The (NL, DS) pattern represents the combination of a natural language (NL) role and a database schema (DS) role. Then we will illustrate how the (NL, DS) pattern influences the generalizability. NL Role: As the examples in Figure 3 shown, we assume that some words (except stop words) in the NL question describe the key information of the query. In this section, we simply split these keywords into two categories5, *target* and *condition*, which we call them the NL role of these words. *target* represents the querying entity we focus on. For instance, in the first example, we attempt to obtain the number of "*people*", and "*people*" is a *target* in this case. *condition* represents the constraint of the *target*. For example, the specific "*people*" we querying is restricted with the condition "whose identity is singer". Therefore, the *condition* keywords are "*identity*" and "*people*". The NL roles are DS-independent, in other words, they only depend on the semantics of the NL question. DS Role: For a DS, some elements link the keywords in the given question, such as the word "*singer*" in the first case, and all of them play a unique role in the given DS. We define the DS role as table, column, *cell value* and a padding role to link the non-schema-related keywords, for instance, the word "*people*" in the second case. (NL, DS) Pattern: For each of these elements, we named the combination of an NL role and a DS role as an (NL, DS) pattern, which determines the syntax role in SQL. For example, the element "*singer*" in the first case functions the NL role *condition* 5Notice that we only introduce a kind of simple splitting way in this section. It is more complicated in the real world. | DS Role | Train. | C2A. | | | |------------|-----------|--------|-----------|--------| | Target | Condition | Target | Condition | | | Table | 9.09% | 42.62% | 5.00% | 15.18% | | Column | 81.82% | 24.04% | 83.33% | 21.43% | | Cell Value | 0.00% | 25.68% | 11.67% | 58.04% | | Padding | 9.09% | 7.65% | 0.00% | 5.36% | and the DS role *cell value*, in this case, it locates in the WHERE clause. However, when the DS role comes to *table*, as shown in the second case, the element "*singer*" will locate in the FROM clause. For the given NL question and DS, the structure of the SQL query depends on the containing (NL, DS) patterns. We assume that the modest generalization capability is because of the over-fitting of (NL, DS) patterns. Unseen (NL, DS) patterns in the evaluation stage lead to failed parsing. To verify it, we first evaluate the performance on the samples synthesized via different E-R transformations. The experiment results are illustrated in Table 4. We notice that models make mistakes on almost all the samples generated using C2A E-R transformation. Actually, C2A is a special transformation that must create an (NL, DS) pattern, (target, *cell value*). In general, this pattern represents a condition in the WHERE clause. On the other hand, we randomly sample 100 pieces of data from the training set and the synthetic C2A data to evaluate whether (target, *cell value*) is not in the original dataset but appears in the synthesis dataset. Table 8 shows the statistic results of manually calculating the distribution of (NL, SQL) patterns. The combination (target, *cell value*) is not contained in the training set but exists as unseen patterns when it comes to Test Data Training Data RATSQL LGESQL T5 T5+PICARD Spider Dev. Spider Train. 69.83 70.57 59.09 67.60 Spider Train. + Affected 70.12 ↑0.29 69.89 ↓0.68 58.22 ↓0.87 67.70 ↑0.81 Spider Train. + Unaffected 70.38 ↑0.55 70.05 ↓0.52 58.99 ↓0.16 66.73 ↓0.04 Spider Dev. ETS Spider Train. 44.68 45.10 24.76 26.98 Spider Train. + Affected 67.21 ↑22.53 67.57 ↑22.47 51.64 ↑26.01 58.68 ↑31.70 Spider Train. + Unaffected 45.23 ↑0.55 45.17 ↑0.07 23.98 ↓0.78 26.40 ↓0.58 C2A samples. We additionally enumerate some typical error cases in Appendix C. The examples demonstrate that models tend to parse according to experiences so that they make mistakes on novel patterns. In this case, we suggest that the actual reason causing the modest generalization capability is the (NL, DS)-pattern-wise over-fitting. ## 6 Pattern-Specific Adversarial Training In this section, we study whether adversarial training can improve structural generalization by evaluating the efficiency of training with extra synthetic data. Setup: We conduct experiments to on both original and synthetic evaluation data. As the adversarial training, we train models with the original training set of Spider and additional synthetic data with a 1:0.2 ratio. We consider two kinds of extra synthetic training data in these experiments. The one is the data containing novel database schema (DS) and different SQL queries (compared with the original data). They are similar to the evaluation data we used to build the ETS in Section 4. We named these data **Affected**. The other are the data containing novel DS while the same SQL queries, which is similar to the data from the Dev. ETS in Section 5.1. We named them **Unaffected**. The synthetic evaluation data we used in this section is **Affected**. We report our results in Table 9. Experiment results in the upper block (line 1-3) illustrate that neither affected nor unaffected extra training data can improve the performance on the original development set. The reason is that extra training data do not provide the (NL, DS) patterns which are rare in the original training set but appear in the original development set. Actually, the problem of over-templated demonstrates that it is hard to find the aforementioned patterns. Unlikely, the transformations applied in this work either do not guarantee these patterns are created. Experiment results in the lower block (line 4-6) of Table 9 show that the affected extra training data is helpful to improve the performance on the synthetic evaluation data. However, the usage of unaffected data can not. The reason is that the former provides the (NL, DS) patterns which are rare in the original training set while are contained in the ETS. On the other hand, the latter do not provide any of these patterns because the perturbations are applied on untapped parts of DS in unaffected data. Therefore, we suggest that specific adversarial training can enhance the model despite it can not be verified on current datasets. This experiment amplifies the improvement of adversarial training by increasing the overlap of (NL, DS) patterns between the extra training data and the synthetic evaluation data. Therefore, we suggest that adversarial training is a possible way to improve structure generalization capability, and it needs more investigation in future works. ## 6.1 Not Only In Cross-Domain Actually, the problem of (NL, DS)-pattern-wise overfitting is not the specific problem that only exists in cross-domain text-to-SQL. Modest structural generalization is just one of the phenomena under a cross-domain setup. Single-domain text-to-SQL also has the same problem. From the view of (NL, DS) patterns, the deficiency of patterns in the training stage leads to the appearance of unseen patterns in the test stage and further causes performance decline. However, leaving out patterns is inevitable during the data collection process. Annotators can neither ensure to ask questions in all possible sentence patterns nor guarantee that all combinations of schema items are considered. For instance, as the example illustrated in Figure 1, confronting the third DS, annotators may not come up with the question about "*singer*", or they may ask in the way of *How many people* whose identity is a singer?. In this case, automatically addressing unseen patterns is also essential in single-domain text-to-SQL. ## 7 Conclusion In this work, we first report that current text-to-SQL datasets are too templated to investigate generalization capability. To this end, we constructed a generation framework to synthesize text-to-SQL data for evaluation in this work. Experiment results illustrate that the model generalization is poor. Furthermore, the analysis illustrates that the problem is caused by the overfitting of (NL, DS) patterns. Finally, we demonstrate that when adding extra training data to bring more unseen patterns in the evaluation stage, the performance will improve. Adversarial training is a possible way to enhance the text-to-SQL parser. ## Acknowledgments We sincerely thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments. This work has been supported by the China NSFC Project (No.62106142 and No.62120106006), Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Major Project (2021SHZDZX0102), and Startup Fund for Youngman Research at SJTU (SFYR at SJTU). ## Limitations The main limitation is the lexical noise in the automatic synthesizing process. We rename the related tables and columns by a series of rules. Therefore, naturalness is not always sufficient. For example, we create and rename a table by combining two table names in some cases. It will lead to a long table name with too much redundant noise. Therefore, we only considered the one-step transformations in this work to inhibit the influence of lexical noise accumulation. ## References Ben Bogin, Matt Gardner, and Jonathan Berant. 2019. Global reasoning over database structures for text-tosql parsing. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.11214*. Ruisheng Cao, Lu Chen, Zhi Chen, Yanbin Zhao, Su Zhu, and Kai Yu. 2021. Lgesql: Line graph enhanced text-to-sql model with mixed local and nonlocal relations. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.01093*. Zhi Chen, Lu Chen, Yanbin Zhao, Ruisheng Cao, Zihan Xu, Su Zhu, and Kai Yu. 2021. Shadowgnn: Graph projection neural network for text-to-sql parser. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.04689. Deborah A Dahl, Madeleine Bates, Michael K Brown, William M Fisher, Kate Hunicke-Smith, David S Pallett, Christine Pao, Alexander Rudnicky, and Elizabeth Shriberg. 1994. Expanding the scope of the atis task: The atis-3 corpus. In *Human Language Technology: Proceedings of a Workshop held at Plainsboro, New Jersey, March 8-11, 1994*. 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. Catherine Finegan-Dollak, Jonathan K. Kummerfeld, Li Zhang, Karthik Ramanathan, Sesh Sadasivam, Rui Zhang, and Dragomir Radev. 2018. Improving textto-SQL evaluation methodology. In *Proceedings* of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 351–360, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yujian Gan, Xinyun Chen, Qiuping Huang, Matthew Purver, John R Woodward, Jinxia Xie, and Pengsheng Huang. 2021a. Towards robustness of textto-sql models against synonym substitution. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.01065. Yujian Gan, Xinyun Chen, Jinxia Xie, Matthew Purver, John R. Woodward, John Drake, and Qiaofu Zhang. 2021b. Natural SQL: Making SQL easier to infer from natural language specifications. In *Findings* of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, pages 2030–2042, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jiaqi Guo, Zecheng Zhan, Yan Gao, Yan Xiao, JianGuang Lou, Ting Liu, and Dongmei Zhang. 2019. Towards complex text-to-SQL in cross-domain database with intermediate representation. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4524–4535, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. 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. Binyuan Hui, Ruiying Geng, Lihan Wang, Bowen Qin, Yanyang Li, Bowen Li, Jian Sun, and Yongbin Li. 2022. S 2SQL: Injecting syntax to question-schema interaction graph encoder for text-to-SQL parsers. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022, pages 1254–1262, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Srinivasan Iyer, Ioannis Konstas, Alvin Cheung, Jayant Krishnamurthy, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2017. Learning a neural semantic parser from user feedback. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 963–973, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. Robin Jia and Percy Liang. 2017. Adversarial examples for evaluating reading comprehension systems. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:1707.07328. 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. Fei Li and Hosagrahar V Jagadish. 2014. Constructing an interactive natural language interface for relational databases. *Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment*, 8(1):73–84. Qing Li and Yu-Liu Chen. 2009. *Entity-Relationship Diagram*, pages 125–139. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg. Xi Victoria Lin, Richard Socher, and Caiming Xiong. 2020. Bridging textual and tabular data for crossdomain text-to-sql semantic parsing. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2012.12627. Tok Wang Ling. 1985. A normal form for entityrelationship diagrams. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Entity-Relationship Approach, page 24–35, USA. IEEE Computer Society. Pingchuan Ma and Shuai Wang. 2021. Mt-teql: Evaluating and augmenting neural nlidb on real-world linguistic and schema variations. *Proc. VLDB Endow.*, 15(3):569–582. Xinyu Pi, Bing Wang, Yan Gao, Jiaqi Guo, Zhoujun Li, and Jian-Guang Lou. 2022. Towards robustness of text-to-SQL models against natural and realistic adversarial table perturbation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2007–2022, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Peng Qi, Yuhao Zhang, Yuhui Zhang, Jason Bolton, and Christopher D. Manning. 2020. Stanza: A python natural language processing toolkit for many human languages. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics:* System Demonstrations, pages 101–108, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. 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. *J. Mach. Learn. Res.*, 21:140:1–140:67. Ohad Rubin and Jonathan Berant. 2021. SmBoP: Semiautoregressive bottom-up semantic parsing. In *Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Structured Prediction for NLP (SPNLP 2021)*, pages 12–21, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Franco Scarselli, Marco Gori, Ah Chung Tsoi, Markus Hagenbuchner, and Gabriele Monfardini. 2008. The graph neural network model. IEEE transactions on neural networks, 20(1):61–80. Torsten Scholak, Nathan Schucher, and Dzmitry Bahdanau. 2021. PICARD: Parsing incrementally for constrained auto-regressive decoding from language models. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 9895–9901, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alane Suhr, Ming-Wei Chang, Peter Shaw, and Kenton Lee. 2020. Exploring unexplored generalization challenges for cross-database semantic parsing. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 8372– 8388. Association for Computational Linguistics. Lappoon R Tang and Raymond Mooney. 2000. Automated construction of database interfaces: Intergrating statistical and relational learning for semantic parsing. In *2000 Joint SIGDAT Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and* Very Large Corpora, pages 133–141. Bailin Wang, Richard Shin, Xiaodong Liu, Oleksandr Polozov, and Matthew Richardson. 2019. Rat-sql: Relation-aware schema encoding and linking for textto-sql parsers. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.04942*. Lijie Wang, Ao Zhang, Kun Wu, Ke Sun, Zhenghua Li, Hua Wu, Min Zhang, and Haifeng Wang. 2020. Dusql: A large-scale and pragmatic chinese text-tosql dataset. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6923–6935. Navid Yaghmazadeh, Yuepeng Wang, Isil Dillig, and Thomas Dillig. 2017. Sqlizer: query synthesis from natural language. *Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages*, 1(OOPSLA):1–26. Tao Yu, Rui Zhang, Heyang Er, Suyi Li, Eric Xue, Bo Pang, Xi Victoria Lin, Yi Chern Tan, Tianze Shi, Zihan Li, Youxuan Jiang, Michihiro Yasunaga, Sungrok Shim, Tao Chen, Alexander Fabbri, Zifan Li, Luyao Chen, Yuwen Zhang, Shreya Dixit, Vincent Zhang, Caiming Xiong, Richard Socher, Walter Lasecki, and Dragomir Radev. 2019a. CoSQL: A conversational text-to-SQL challenge towards crossdomain natural language interfaces to databases. 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 1962– 1979, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tao Yu, Rui Zhang, Kai Yang, Michihiro Yasunaga, Dongxu Wang, Zifan Li, James Ma, Irene Li, Qingning Yao, Shanelle Roman, et al. 2018. Spider: A large-scale human-labeled dataset for complex and cross-domain semantic parsing and text-to-sql task. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.08887. Tao Yu, Rui Zhang, Michihiro Yasunaga, Yi Chern Tan, Xi Victoria Lin, Suyi Li, Heyang Er, Irene Li, Bo Pang, Tao Chen, Emily Ji, Shreya Dixit, David Proctor, Sungrok Shim, Jonathan Kraft, Vincent Zhang, Caiming Xiong, Richard Socher, and Dragomir Radev. 2019b. SParC: Cross-domain semantic parsing in context. In *Proceedings of the* 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4511–4523, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. John M Zelle and Raymond J Mooney. 1996. Learning to parse database queries using inductive logic programming. In Proceedings of the national conference on artificial intelligence, pages 1050–1055. Victor Zhong, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2017. Seq2sql: Generating structured queries from natural language using reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.00103. ## A Generation Framework The overview of the generation framework is shown in Figure 5. For a given sample, we synthesize a new sample via altering the DS while keeping the question constant. In order to obtain a reasonable DS, we construct the entity-relationship graph of the given DS and apply graph-based transformations, which we introduce in Section A.1 and Section A.2 respectively. Moreover, we synchronously update the SQL by modifying the abstract syntax tree, and we show more details in Section A.3. ## A.1 Entity-Relationship Graph A relational database organizes data in predefined relationships, which are represented as the structural relationships among tables and columns. To clearly describe reasonable relationships, developers always utilize Entity-Relationship Diagram (ER Diagram) (Ling, 1985; Li and Chen, 2009) to define the relationships among the raw data, which is helpful to design the database structure. Inspired by ER Diagram, we attempt to modify the DS following the entity relationships so that the rationality of the altered DS can be ensured. To this end, we introduce the definition of Entity-Relationship (ER) Graph in this paper, which evolves from E-R Diagram while leaving out the attributes vertexes to emphasize the topology feature 6. The vertex in E-R Graph represents an entity, and the edge represents the relationship between the entities that its terminal vertexes correspond. Both the vertex and the edge function as a table in DS. For example, as shown in Figure 5, each of the table *people*, the table *author*, and the table *novel* corresponds to a vertex in E-R Graph, and the table *write* corresponds to an edge. Thus, to construct the E-R Graph, we manually annotate a binary tag for each table in DS to distinguish between entity and relationship. We label relationship following two principles and label the others as *entity*: Bridge Structure: The given table should contain exactly two foreign keys. Semantic Convention: The table name should be the combination of two entities such as the relationship *Customer_Addresses* combining *Customer* and *Address*. Apart from that, the phrase obeys human language conventions is also considered. For instance, the relationship *visit* linking *visitor* and museum. ## A.2 E-R Transformation E-R transformation is the graph transformation in the E-R graph. There are ten kinds of E-R transformation, containing five operations applied on vertexes or edges. We assume the databases that store the same data in the different schema can transform between each other via a sequence of E-R transformations. We illustrate all kinds of E-R transformations and the corresponding transformations in DS in Appendix. However, some transformations are insecure. For example, the usage of *delete edge* transformation will lead to information loss. Besides, some transformations rely on strict annotation criteria and costly manual labeling. For instance, whether a table can be split into two need rigorous judgment according to the semantic environment. In this work, we use three E-R transformations with no need for additional annotations, and they totally correspond to four different transformations in DS. Figure 2 illustrates the examples of each transformation, and we show more details below. Entity to Attribute (E2A) corresponds to a kind of *merge vertexes* E-R transformation. For a pair of vertexes in the E-R graph, we split them as a 6The attributes node in E-R Diagram refers to a column in the database. To emphasize the topology feature, we replace Diagram with *Graph*.   source entity and a target entity. The target entity corresponded table is the only one that contains the foreign keys of the source entity corresponded table in the DS. Both of the vertexes can be treated as the source entity as long as the combination is suitable. As the example shown in Figure 2, for the attributes in the source entity, we convert them into the new attributes in the target entity. To avoid semantic loss, we rename the attributes following rules. Besides, we utilize a series of rules to recognize a special column as the agent of the entity, such as the column name, and it will be used to replace the foreign key. Concept to Attribute (C2A) corresponds to a kind of *modify vertex* E-R transformation. Different from the column-wise modification, we focus on altering the role of the table. We attempt to convert the concept7 of an entity, which represents via table name in DS, to its attribute. Firstly, we detect a high-level category of the entity using a pre-trained NER model (Qi et al., 2020). In the example shown in Figure 2, people is the high-level category of singer. Then, we create an additional attribute to store the concept by rules. In this case, we use the new column identity to record the concept singer. Named to Unnamed (N2U) corresponds to a kind of *modify edge* E-R transformation. We name 7It refers to the definition of concept node in knowledge graph. the relationship represented by a table as **Named**, and that by foreign keys as **Unnamed**. For instance, in the original DS illustrated in Figure 2, the table sing is a named relationship and the foreign key aid in the table song represents an unnamed relationship. We change the type of relationship by creating a foreign key of one table in the other table, as the example shows. Unnamed to Named (U2N) also corresponds to a kind of *modify edge* E-R transformation, which is the reversed transformation of *Named to Unnamed*. We create a relationship table and name it with the combination of two target table names to store the relationship. Then, we build the connection by transferring the foreign key in the table and creating another foreign key in it, as the example in Figure 2 shows. ## A.3 Ast Updating To update the SQL precisely, we construct the AST of the given SQL following grammar rules and alter the SQL by modifying the AST. For each E-R transformation, we detect related subtrees in the AST and apply the corresponding rule to update the subtrees. For instance, we add an additional condition subtree in the corresponding WHERE subtrees while applying *concept to attribute* transformation. Finally, we parse the altered SQL with the modified AST. In this work, we consider two type of synthetic data, **affected** and **unaffected**. Affected samples contain different SQL compared with the original data, and the unaffected contain the same. We distinguish these two types according to whether the SQL involves a DS element that is influenced by the transformation. And the AST updating module is only used to synthesize affected data. ## B All Kinds Of E-R Transformations Table 10 illustrates all kind of E-R transformations and the corresponding transformation in DS. | Operation | Transformation in DS | | |-------------|---------------------------------|-------------------------------------------| | modify | inner modification of a table | | | merge | merge two tables | | | split | split an table in two | | | add | add a table | | | delete | delete a table | | | Vertexes | modify | conversion between table and foreign keys | | merge | merge two tables/foreign keys | | | split | split a table in foreign keys | | | add | add a table or a foreign key | | | delete | delete a table or a foreign key | | | Edges | | | Table 10: All kinds of transformation and the necessity of labels. Considered the cost of manual annotation, we only choose three of them in this work. ## C Errors Cases In Synthetic Evaluation Data Examples in Figure 6, Figure 7, and Figure 8 illustrate that models tend to predict following familiar sketch. ## D Syntax Roles Table 11 illustrates all the syntax role labels in the syntax role prediction experiment. ## E Hardness-Oriented Sampling Algorithm Algorithm 1 Hardness-Oriented Sampling Algorithm Require: original examples x1, x2*, ..., x*n Ensure: synthesis samples y1, y2*, ..., y*n 1: Dx ← get_hardness_distribution(x1, x2*, ..., x*n) 2: initialize the hardness distribution of synthesis samples: Dy ← ϕ 3: R ← ϕ 4: for i = 1 to n do 5: Xi ← *generate_all_variants*(xi) 6: if |Xi| = 0 **then** 7: yi ← xi 8: update(Dy, yi) 9: **else** 10: Ci ← find_same_hardness(Xi, xi) 11: if |Ci| > 0 **then** 12: yi ← *random_sampling*(Xi) 13: update(Dy, yi) 14: **else** 15: R.append(Xi) 16: **end if** 17: **end if** 18: **end for** 19: **while** |R| > 0 do 20: Find the hardness category with the largest difference between the current distribution and the original distribution: h ← find_hard_cat(Dx, Dy) 21: Sample an Xi from R which contain at least one variant with hardness h 22: if Can not sample an Xi **then** 23: break the loop 24: **end if** 25: **end while** 26: **return** y1, y2*, ..., y*n Question: How many singers do we have ?  Identity singer  Prediction: SELECT count(*) FROM people Figure 6: An example of failure prediction.   | Category | Syntax Role | Example | |------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------| | WHERE Clause | SELECT count(*) FROM head WHERE age > 56 | | | GROUP BY | SELECT visitor.ID FROM visiter GROUP BY visitor.ID HAVING count(*) > 1.0 | | | Clause | | | | ORDER BY Clause | SELECT Theme FROM farm_competition ORDER BY YEAR ASC | | | SQL Keyword | LIMIT Clause | SELECT Official_Name , Status FROM city ORDER BY Population DESC LIMIT 1 | | Select | | | | Aggregation | SELECT count(DISTINCT bike_id) FROM trip | | | Aggregation | Condition | SELECT city , COUNT(*) FROM station GROUP BY city | | Aggregation | HAVING COUNT(*) >= 15 | | | SELECT course_id FROM SECTION WHERE semester = 'Fall' AND | | | | UNION | YEAR = 2009 UNION SELECT course_id FROM SECTION WHERE semester = 'Spring' AND YEAR = 2010 | | | INTERSECT | SELECT country FROM people WHERE age < 25 INTERSECT SELECT country FROM people WHERE age > 30 | | | EXCEPT | SELECT donator_name FROM endowment EXCEPT SELECT donator_name FROM endowment WHERE amount < 9 | | | Nested SQL in | SELECT count(*) FROM Dogs WHERE Dogs.dog_id | | | Condition | NOT IN (SELECT Treatments.dog_id FROM Treatment) | | | SELECT count(*) FROM (SELECT * FROM endowment WHERE amount | | | | Nested SQL in FROM Clause | > 8.5 GROUP BY school_id HAVING count(*) > 1) | | | Nested SQL | Table 11: All syntax roles. | | ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? 9 ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? 9 ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? 1 ✗ 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? 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.? 3 ✓ 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?** 3,4,5,6 ✗ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? It's not important 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? Our work is not a methodology work. ✓ 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? 3,4,5,6 ✓ 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.)? Appendix A D ✓ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** 3, Appendix A ✓ 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.? Appendix A ✓ 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)? Appendix A ✓ 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? 9 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? Appendix A

li-etal-2023-enhancing-cross

Enhancing Cross-lingual Natural Language Inference by Soft Prompting with Multilingual Verbalizer

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.88

Cross-lingual natural language inference is a fundamental problem in cross-lingual language understanding. Many recent works have used prompt learning to address the lack of annotated parallel corpora in XNLI.However, these methods adopt discrete prompting by simply translating the templates to the target language and need external expert knowledge to design the templates. Besides, discrete prompts of human-designed template words are not trainable vectors and can not be migrated to target languages in the inference stage flexibly. In this paper, we propose a novel Soft prompt learning framework with the Multilingual Verbalizer (SoftMV) for XNLI. SoftMV first constructs cloze-style question with soft prompts for the input sample. Then we leverage bilingual dictionaries to generate an augmented multilingual question for the original question. SoftMV adopts a multilingual verbalizer to align the representations of original and augmented multilingual questions into a unified semantic space with consistency regularization. Experimental results on XNLI demonstrate that SoftMV can achieve state-of-the-art performance and significantly outperform the previous methods under the few-shot and full-shot cross-lingual transfer settings.

# Enhancing Cross-Lingual Natural Language Inference By Soft Prompting With Multilingual Verbalizer Shuang Li1, Xuming Hu1, Aiwei Liu1, Yawen Yang1**, Fukun Ma**1, Philip S. Yu2, **Lijie Wen**1∗ 1Tsinghua University, 2University of Illinois Chicago 1{lisa18,hxm19,liuaw20,yyw19,mfk22}@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn 2psyu@uic.edu, 1wenlj@tsinghua.edu.cn ## Abstract Cross-lingual natural language inference is a fundamental problem in cross-lingual language understanding. Many recent works have used prompt learning to address the lack of annotated parallel corpora in XNLI. However, these methods adopt discrete prompting by simply translating the templates to the target language and need external expert knowledge to design the templates. Besides, discrete prompts of human-designed template words are not trainable vectors and can not be migrated to target languages in the inference stage flexibly. In this paper, we propose a novel **Soft** prompt learning framework with the Multilingual Verbalizer (SoftMV) for XNLI. SoftMV first constructs cloze-style question with soft prompts for the input sample. Then we leverage bilingual dictionaries to generate an augmented multilingual question for the original question. SoftMV adopts a multilingual verbalizer to align the representations of original and augmented multilingual questions into the same semantic space with consistency regularization. Experimental results on XNLI demonstrate that SoftMV can achieve state-of-the-art performance and significantly outperform the previous methods under the few-shot and full-shot cross-lingual transfer settings1. ## 1 Introduction Multilingual NLP systems have gained more attention due to the increasing demand for multilingual services. Cross-lingual language understanding (XLU) plays a crucial role in multilingual systems, in which cross-lingual natural language inference (XNLI) is a fundamental and challenging task (Conneau et al., 2018; MacCartney and Manning, 2008; Li et al., 2023, 2022). NLI is a fundamental problem in NLU that could help with tasks like semantic parsing (Liu et al., 2022a; Lin et al., 2022), and relation extraction (Liu et al., 2022b; Hu et al., 2020, 2021). In XNLI settings, the model is trained on the source language with annotated data to reason the relationship between a pair of sentences (namely premise and hypothesis) and evaluated on the target language without parallel corpora. Type Prompt Templates  DP Premise. Question: Hypothesis? Answer: <MASK>. SP Premise. Hypothesis? <v1>...<vn> <MASK>. MP Premise. Question: Hypothesis? <v1>...<vn> Answer: <MASK>. Table 1: The example of prompt templates for Discrete Prompts (DP), Soft Prompts (SP), and Mixed Prompts (MP). Premise and Hypothesis are a pair of sentences from the NLI dataset. Question and Answer are template words of discrete prompts. <vi> is the trainable vector of soft prompts. Pre-trained multilingual language models, such as mBERT (Devlin et al., 2019), XLM (Conneau and Lample, 2019), and XLM-R (Conneau et al., 2020), have demonstrated promising performance in cross-lingual transfer learning. These language models learn a shared multilingual embedding space to represent words in parallel sentences. However, these models are trained on a large number of parallel corpora, which are not available in many low-resource languages. The major challenge of XNLI is the lack of annotated data for low-resource languages. To address this problem, some works explored using prompt learning (Brown et al., 2020; Schick and Schütze, 2021a; Shin et al., 2020) when adapting pre-trained language models to downstream tasks in cross-lingual scenarios. Prompt learning reformulates the text classification problem into a masked language modeling (MLM) problem by constructing cloze-style questions with a special token <MASK>. The model is trained to predict the masked word in the cloze-style questions. As shown in Table 1, prompt learning can be divided into three types: Discrete Prompts (DP), Soft Prompts (SP), and Mixed Prompts (MP). Zhao and Schütze (2021) investigated the effectiveness of prompt learning in multilingual tasks by simply applying soft, discrete, and mixed prompting with a uniform template in English. Qi et al. (2022) proposed a discrete prompt learning framework that constructs an augmented sample by randomly sampling a template in another language. By comparing the augmented samples and the original samples in the English template, the model can effectively perceive the correspondence between different languages. However, discrete prompts of human-designed template words require extensive external expert knowledge and are not flexible enough to adapt to different languages. Therefore, the model can't perform well when transferred from high-resource to low-resource languages. In this paper, we propose a novel **Soft** prompt learning framework with the Multilingual Verbalizer (SoftMV) for XNLI. First, we construct cloze-style questions for the input samples with soft prompts which consist of trainable vectors. Second, we apply the code-switched substitution strategy (Qin et al., 2021) to generate multilingual questions which can be regarded as cross-lingual views for the English questions. Compared with discrete prompts, soft prompts perform prompting directly in the embedding space of the model and can be easily adapted to any language without human-designed templates. Both the original and augmented questions are fed into a pre-trained cross-lingual base model. The classification probability distribution is calculated by predicting the masked token with the multilingual verbalizer to reduce the gap between different languages. Finally, the two probability distributions are regularized by the Kullback-Leibler divergence (KLD) loss (Kullback and Leibler, 1951) to align the representations of original and augmented multilingual questions into the same space. The entire model is trained with a combined objective of the cross-entropy term for classification accuracy and the KLD term for representation consistency. The well-trained soft prompt vectors will be frozen in the inference stage. Experimental results on the XNLI benchmark show that SoftMV outperforms the baseline models by a significant margin under both the few-shot and full-shot settings. Our contributions can be summarized as follows: framework with a Multilingual Verbalizer (SoftMV) for XNLI. SoftMV leverages bilingual dictionaries to generate augmented multilingual code-switched questions for original questions constructed with soft prompts. - We adopt the multilingual verbalizer to align the representations of original and augmented questions into the same semantic space with consistency regularization. - We conduct extensive experiments on XNLI and demonstrate that SoftMV can significantly outperform the baseline methods under the few-shot and full-shot cross-lingual transfer settings. ## 2 Related Work Early methods for cross-lingual natural language inference are mainly neural networks, such as Conneau et al. (2018) and Artetxe and Schwenk (2019). which encode sentences from different languages into the same embedding space via parallel corpora (Hermann and Blunsom, 2014). In recent years, large pre-trained cross-lingual language models have demonstrated promising performance. Devlin et al. (2019) extend the basic language model BERT to multilingual scenarios by pre-trained with multilingual corpora. Conneau and Lample (2019) propose a cross-lingual language model (XLM) which enhances BERT with the translation language modeling (TLM) objective. XLM-R (Conneau et al., 2020) is an improvement of XLM by training with more languages and more epochs. Although these methods do not rely on parallel corpora, they still have limitations because fine-tuning needs annotation efforts which are prohibitively expensive for low-resource languages. To tackle this problem, some data augmentation methods have been proposed for XNLI. Ahmad et al. (2021) propose to augment mBERT with universal language syntax using an auxiliary objective for cross-lingual transfer. Dong et al. (2021) adopt Reorder Augmentation and Semantic Augmentation to synthesize controllable and much less noisy data for XNLI. Bari et al. (2021) improve cross-lingual generalization by unsupervised sample selection and data augmentation from the unlabeled training examples in the target language. Zheng et al. (2021) propose a cross-lingual finetuning method to better utilize four types of data augmentations based on consistency regularization. - We propose a novel **Soft** prompt learning However, these methods do not perform well under the few-shot settings. Recently, prompt learning (Brown et al., 2020; Shin et al., 2020; Lester et al., 2021; Vu et al., 2022; Li and Liang, 2021; Qin and Eisner, 2021; Liu et al., 2022c) has shown promising results in many NLP tasks under the few-shot setting. The key idea of prompt learning for XNLI is reformulating the text classification problem into a masked language modeling problem by constructing cloze-style questions. Su et al. (2022) propose a novel promptbased transfer learning approach, which first learns a prompt on one or more source tasks and then uses it to initialize the prompt for a target task. Wu and Shi (2022) adopt separate soft prompts to learn embeddings enriched with domain knowledge. Schick and Schütze (2021a) explore discrete prompt learning to NLI with manually defined templates. Zhao and Schütze (2021) demonstrate that prompt learning outperforms fine-tuning for fewshot XNLI by simply applying soft, discrete, and mixed prompting with a uniform template in English. Qi et al. (2022) proposed a discrete prompt learning framework that constructs an augmented sample by randomly sampling a template in another language. However, discrete prompts of humandesigned template words require extensive external expert knowledge and are not flexible enough to adapt to different languages. In our work, we adopt trainable soft prompts to capture correspondence between different languages by comparing the augmented multilingual and original questions. ## 3 Framework The proposed SoftMV framework is illustrated in Figure 1. The training process of SoftMV is formalized in Algorithm 1. For every training triple (premise, hypothesis, label) in English, SoftMV first constructs a cloze-style question with soft prompts initialized from the vocabulary. Then, we apply the code-switched substitution strategy to generate multilingual questions which can be regarded as cross-lingual views for the English questions. Both the original and augmented questions are fed into a pre-trained cross-lingual model to calculate the answer distributions of the mask token with a multilingual verbalizer. SoftMV is trained by minimizing the cross-entropy loss for classification accuracy and the Kullback-Leibler divergence (KLD) loss for representation consistency. Finally, the well-trained soft prompt vectors are frozen in ## The Inference Stage. 3.1 Soft Prompting Each instance in batch I in XNLI dataset is denoted as (Pi, Hi, Yi)i∈I, where Pi = {w P j} m j=1 denotes the word sequence of premise, Hi = {w H j} n j=1 denotes the word sequence of hypothesis, and Yi ∈ Y denotes the class label. SoftMV first constructs a cloze-style question with soft prompts as illustrated in Table 1. The question template is expressed as "<s>Premise.</s> <s>Hypothesis? <v1>...<vn> <MASK></s>", where <s> and </s> are special tokens to separate sentences, <MASK> is the mask token, and viis associated with a trainable vector (in the PLM's first embedding layer). Soft prompts are tuned in the continuous space and initialized with the average value of embeddings of the PLM's multilingual vocabulary. In cross-lingual transfer Algorithm 1 The training process of SoftMV. Input: the number of epochs E and the training set D = {(Pi, Hi, Yi)}M i=1. 1: Reform D to a set of cloze-style questions Q = {(Qi, Yi)}M i=1 with soft prompts for each (Pi, Hi) as illustrated in Figure 1. 2: Extend the set Q = {(Qi, Qa i , Yi)}M i=1 by generating augmented multilingual questions with the code-switched strategy. 3: Divide Q into a set of batches B. 4: for epoch e = 1 to E do 5: Shuffle B. 6: for each batch {(Qi, Qa i , Yi)}1≤i≤N in B do 7: Compute total loss L by Eq. 7. 8: Update the parameters θ. 9: **end for** 10: **end for** scenarios, it's a challenge for a model to align contextualized representations in different languages into the same semantic space when trained solely on the English dataset. Therefore, we adopt the code-switched strategy to create multilingual augmentations for the original questions. Followed by Qin et al. (2021), we use bilingual dictionaries (Lample et al., 2018) to replace the words of the original sentences. Specifically, for the English sentence, we randomly choose n = α ∗ l words to be replaced with a translation word from a bilingual dictionary, where α is the code-switched rate and l is the length of the sentence. For example, given the sentence "Two men on bicycles competing in a  race." in English, we can generate a multilingual code-switched sample "Two Männer(DE) on Bicyclettes(FR) competing in a yarı¸s(TR)." which can be regarded as the cross-lingual view of the same meaning across different languages. The original and augmented cloze-style questions are fed into a pre-trained cross-lingual model to obtain the contextualized representation of the mask token, denoted as h o mask and h a mask. Let l denote the size of the vocabulary and d the dimension of the representation of the mask token, the answer probability distribution of the original question is calculated by: $\mathbf{\hat{\imath}}$ [ask],. ## Y O = Sof Tmax(Wh O mask), (1) where W ∈ R l×dis the trainable parameters of the pre-trained MLM layer. The answer probability distribution y a of the augmented question is calculated in the same way. ## 3.2 Multilingual Verbalizer After calculating the answer probability distribution of the mask token, we use the verbalizer to calculate the classification probability distribution. The verbalizer *M → V* is a function that maps NLI labels to indices of answer words in the given vocabulary. The model is trained to predict masked words that correspond to classification labels, as determined by the verbalizer. Concretely, the verbalizer of English is defined as {"Entailment" → "yes"; "Contradiction" → "no"; "Neutral" → "maybe"} according to Schick and Schütze (2021b). Without parallel corpora in cross-lingual scenarios, there is a gap in the classification space between the original and multilingual representations. Using the English verbalizer for all languages might hinder the model's ability to capture semantic representations for multilingual inputs. Thus we use a multilingual verbalizer to learn a consistent classification probability distribution across different languages. The multilingual verbalizer comprises a set of verbalizers for different languages. The multilingual verbalizer is denoted as {Ml, l *∈ L}*, where L is the set of languages and l is a specific language. The non-English verbalizers are translated from English using bilingual dictionaries. Specifically, the verbalizer of Turkish is defined as {"Entailment" → "Evet."; "Contradiction" → "hiçbir"; "Neutral" → "belki"}. ## 3.3 Training Objective In the training stage, given a batch I of N triples denoted as (Xo i , Xa i , Yi)1≤i≤N , the cross-entropy losses for the original question Xo i and the augmented question Xa iare respectively calculated 1364 by: $$\ell_{i}^{o}=-\frac{1}{|{\mathcal{L}}|}\sum_{l\in{\mathcal{L}}}\sum_{j=1}^{N}I(j={\mathcal{M}}_{l}(Y_{i}))\log y_{i,j}^{o},\ \ (2)$$ $$\ell_{i}^{a}=-\frac{1}{|{\mathcal{L}}|}\sum_{l\in{\mathcal{L}}}\sum_{j=1}^{N}I(j={\mathcal{M}}_{l}(Y_{i}))\log y_{i,j}^{a},\ \ (3)$$ where y o i,j (resp. y a i,j ) denotes the j-th element of the answer probability distribution y ofor the original question Xo i (resp. for the input Xa i ) and I(C) is the indicator function that returns 1 if C is true or 0 otherwise. The cross-entropy losses of the original and augmented questions on the batch I are calculated by: $$\begin{array}{l}{{{\mathcal L}_{O}=-\frac1N\sum_{i=1}^{N}\ell_{i}^{o},}}\\ {{{\mathcal L}_{A}=-\frac1N\sum_{i=1}^{N}\ell_{i}^{a}.}}\end{array}$$ However, for the same premise and hypothesis, the answer probability distribution of the augmented multilingual question created by the codeswitched strategy may lead to a deviation from that of the original question due to the misalignment of representations in the multilingual semantic space. Such a deviation may cause the model to learn the wrong probability distribution when the model is evaluated on target languages. To alleviate this problem, we propose a consistency regularization to constrain the answer probability distribution. In particular, we adopt the Kullback-Leibler divergence (KLD) to encourage the answer probability distribution of the augmented question to be close to that of the original question. The consistency loss is defined as: $$\mathcal{L}_{KLD}=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}(\mathrm{KL}(y_{i}^{o}||y_{i}^{a})+\mathrm{KL}(y_{i}^{a}||y_{i}^{o})),\tag{6}$$ (6) The cross-entropy loss encourages the model to learn correct predictions for the augmented inputs, while the KLD loss enforces consistency between the original and augmented representations in the same multilingual semantic space. Using these loss terms together ensures that the model not only performs well on the original inputs but also generalizes to the augmented inputs, resulting in a more robust model that effectively handles cross-lingual tasks. The overall objective in SoftMV is a tuned linear combination of the cross-entropy losses and KLD loss, defined as: $${\mathcal{L}}=\lambda_{O}{\mathcal{L}}_{O}+\lambda_{A}{\mathcal{L}}_{A}+\lambda_{K L D}{\mathcal{L}}_{K L D},\quad(7)$$ where λ∗ are tuning parameters for each loss term. ## 4 Experiment Setup 4.1 Benchmark Dataset We conducted experiments on the large-scale multilingual benchmark dataset of XNLI (Conneau et al., 2018), which extends the MultiNLI (Williams et al., 2018) benchmark (in English) to 15 languages2 through translation and comes with manually annotated development sets and test sets. For each language, the training set comprises 393K annotated sentence pairs, whereas the development set and the test set comprise 2.5K and 5K annotated sentence pairs, respectively. We evaluate SoftMV and other baseline models under the few-shot and full-shot cross-lingual settings, where the models are only trained on English and evaluated on other languages. For the few-shot setting, the training and validation data are sampled by Zhao and Schütze (2021) with k ∈ {1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256} shots per class from the English training data in XNLI. We report classification accuracy as the evaluation metric. ## 4.2 Implementation Details We implement SoftMV using the pre-trained XLMRoBERTa model (Conneau et al., 2020) based on PyTorch (Paszke et al., 2019) and the Huggingface framework (Wolf et al., 2020). XLM-R is a widely used multilingual model and the baseline (PCT) we compare with only report the results using XLM-R. We train our model for 70 epochs with a batch size of 24 using the AdamW optimizer. The hyperparameter α is set to 0.3 for combining objectives. The maximum sequence length is set to 256. All the experiments are conducted 5 times with different random seeds ({1, 2, 3, 4, 5}) and we report the average scores. The trained soft prompt vectors will be frozen in the inference stage. Appendix A shows the hyperparameters and computing devices used under different settings in detail. 2The languages are English (EN), French (FR), Spanish (ES), German (DE), Greek (EL), Bulgarian (BG), Russian (RU), Turkish (TR), Arabic (AR), Vietnamese (VI), Thai (TH), Chinese (ZH), Hindi (HI), Swahili (SW), and Urdu (UR) ## 4.3 Baseline Models We compared SoftMV with the following crosslingual language models: (1) mBERT (Devlin et al., 2019) is a BERT model pre-trained on Wikipedia with 102 languages; (2) XLM (Conneau and Lample, 2019) is pre-trained for two objectives (MLM and TLM) on Wikipedia with 100 languages; (3) XLM-R (Conneau et al., 2020) extends XLM with larger corpora and more epochs; (4) The work (Dong et al., 2021) proposes an adversarial data augmentation scheme based on XLM-R; (5) UXLA (Bari et al., 2021) enhances XLM-R with data augmentation and unsupervised sample selection; (6) The work (Zhao and Schütze, 2021) explores three prompt-learning methods for few-shot XNLI, including DP, SP, and MP; (7) PCT (Qi et al., 2022) is a discrete prompt learning framework with crosslingual templates. ## 5 Experiment Results 5.1 Main Results We conducted experiments on the XNLI dataset under the cross-lingual transfer setting, where models are trained on the English dataset and then directly evaluated on the test set of all languages. The settings can be further divided into two sub-settings: the few-shot setting using a fixed number of training samples per class, and the full-shot setting using the whole training set. Few-shot results Table 2 reports the results for comparing SoftMV with other models on XNLI under the few-shot setting. The results of compared models are taken from Zhao and Schütze (2021); Qi et al. (2022). PCT†in the 1/2/4/8-shot experiments are reproduced by us, for not being reported before. Note that all models are based on XLM-Rbase and trained on the same split of data from Zhao and Schütze (2021). Results show that SoftMV significantly outperforms all baselines for all languages under all settings by 3.5% on average. As expected, all models benefit from more shots. When the k shots per class decrease, the gap between the performance of SoftMV and the stateof-the-art model (PCT) becomes larger, implying our model has a stronger ability to align contextualized representations in different languages into the same space when training data are fewer. In particular, SoftMV outperforms PCT by 4.4%, 2.8%, 4.3%, and 8.9% in the 1/2/4/8-shot experiments respectively. When the k shots per class are larger than 8, the average performance of SoftMV also outperforms PCT by an absolute gain of 2.5% on average. Furthermore, for different languages, all methods perform best on EN (English) and worst on AR (Arabic), VI (Vietnamese), UR (Urdu), and SW (Swahili). It is difficult to obtain usable corpora for these low-resource languages for XLM-R. Thus, the model has a poor learning ability for these languages. SoftMV also outperforms PCT on these low-resource languages, which demonstrates that our model is more effective in cross-lingual scenarios, especially for low-resource languages. Full-shot results Table 3 shows the results on XNLI under the full-shot setting. The results of compared models are taken from Qi et al. (2022). SoftMV-XLM-Rbase achieves 78.8% accuracy averaged by 15 target languages, significantly outperforming the basic model XLM-Rbase by 4.6% on average. Compared with PCT, SoftMV improves by 3.5% on average based on XLM-Rbase. Furthermore, we can observe that the accuracy of SoftMV exceeds PCT by 0.3% on EN, but 4.6% on AR, 11.8% on SW, and 10.5% on UR. This indicates that SoftMV has better transferability across lowresource languages with well-trained soft prompt vectors. To further investigate the effectiveness, we also evaluated SoftMV with baselines based on XLM-Rlarge model. It can be seen that SoftMV achieves 82.1% accuracy on average, significantly outperforming PCT and XLM-Rlarge by 0.8% and 1.7%. Compared with the results on XLM-Rbase, the improvements of SoftMV on XLM-Rlarge are smaller, which indicates that SoftMV is more effective on XLM-Rbase which has fewer parameters and worse cross-lingual ability. The performance gains are due to the stronger ability of SoftMV to align contextualized representations in different languages into the same semantic space with consistency regularization. ## 5.2 Ablation Study To better understand the contribution of each key component of SoftMV, we conduct an ablation study under the 8-shot setting with XLM-Rbase. The results are shown in Table 4. After removing the code-switched method, the performance decreases by 1.9% on average which shows the augmented multilingual samples can help the model to understand other languages. When we remove the consistency loss, the average accuracy decreases by 2.5%. The consistency loss can help the model align the representations across different languages Shots Models EN FR ES DE EL BG RU TR AR VI TH ZH HI SW UR AVG. DP 33.2 34.1 33.8 33.0 33.2 33.2 33.8 34.0 32.1 32.8 33.0 33.6 33.4 33.5 32.0 33.2 SP 36.7 38.6 38.3 36.9 37.5 36.5 37.6 34.8 34.8 35.1 35.7 37.6 36.4 34.5 35.5 36.4 MP 33.3 33.7 34.0 33.0 32.1 32.3 33.0 34.6 32.3 32.8 32.2 33.4 34.1 32.9 32.7 33.1 PCT† 37.1 36.2 37.4 37.2 35.8 36.8 36.1 36.4 34.5 35.3 36.6 37.7 35.8 34.1 36.3 36.2 Ours 43.0 40.1 41.1 39.8 40.2 42.5 44.0 37.4 41.1 41.5 40.4 42.2 40.1 38.3 37.7 **40.6** DP 35.4 34.8 35.4 34.4 34.7 35.1 34.9 35.2 32.9 33.3 35.4 36.5 34.1 33.0 32.8 34.5 SP 38.0 38.6 38.2 38.2 38.4 38.1 39.2 34.8 35.9 36.7 37.2 37.7 36.3 34.4 35.5 37.1 MP 34.6 34.3 33.8 34.1 33.3 34.3 34.0 34.5 32.8 33.8 34.6 35.4 33.8 33.9 32.6 34.0 PCT† 39.3 38.4 39.0 38.7 38.9 39.2 38.8 38.2 37.6 38.1 38.4 40.1 38.2 33.7 38.0 38.3 Ours 41.3 42.6 40.9 44.2 42.1 41.7 44.1 40.2 40.2 39.3 40.0 40.8 41.3 37.5 40.4 **41.1** DP 39.5 38.3 38.9 38.9 37.7 37.6 37.5 37.2 35.4 36.0 37.8 38.7 36.4 34.7 35.9 37.4 SP 41.8 41.1 39.8 40.1 40.8 40.5 41.7 35.9 38.0 37.9 39.2 39.5 37.6 35.8 37.7 39.2 MP 36.3 35.4 35.5 35.2 34.0 33.8 34.2 35.6 33.1 34.1 36.0 37.1 34.6 33.5 33.5 34.8 PCT† 41.1 39.1 40.9 41.0 39.4 39.5 40.2 39.0 37.4 38.0 38.4 40.3 37.5 35.2 37.9 39.0 Ours 46.8 45.1 45.5 46.4 44.6 44.4 44.8 42.6 40.5 39.6 41.2 43.9 43.3 38.2 42.7 **43.3** DP 36.4 35.2 35.0 34.8 34.8 34.8 34.6 34.1 32.7 33.7 35.1 35.6 33.0 32.9 33.1 34.4 SP 39.0 38.8 38.2 38.2 38.7 38.8 39.7 35.1 36.3 37.4 37.9 37.2 35.9 34.5 35.6 37.4 MP 34.8 34.8 34.7 34.8 33.2 33.2 33.8 35.1 32.7 33.6 34.5 36.3 34.8 33.1 32.7 34.1 PCT† 38.3 35.8 38.7 37.2 36.6 36.1 37.1 35.9 34.8 35.4 36.3 38.1 36.1 34.5 34.9 36.4 Ours 47.5 46.7 47.0 46.4 47.5 46.5 46.3 43.7 46.5 45.8 45.1 42.5 43.2 42.1 42.8 **45.3** DP 38.2 36.6 36.9 37.5 37.4 37.1 36.5 35.7 35.1 35.8 37.2 37.9 35.9 33.8 34.9 36.4 SP 39.5 40.9 39.4 40.2 40.4 40.6 40.6 36.3 38.9 38.5 39.5 37.4 36.9 37.1 35.9 38.8 MP 33.2 34.4 34.5 34.0 32.6 33.0 33.9 34.7 32.5 33.3 33.5 35.7 34.3 33.3 32.7 33.7 PCT 46.5 44.3 41.5 36.9 45.7 40.8 42.4 43.7 43.6 44.7 43.9 44.8 44.8 40.1 42.5 43.1 Ours 48.8 48.0 47.1 47.7 47.2 47.4 47.8 44.3 45.6 46.6 44.9 46.1 44.9 43.4 43.3 **46.2** DP 43.7 43.9 42.8 43.5 42.5 43.5 42.5 42.0 41.8 41.9 40.5 39.9 39.3 37.5 39.8 41.7 SP 44.7 42.3 42.3 42.1 42.3 43.4 43.8 38.8 40.3 42.1 40.0 39.6 38.9 37.5 38.8 41.1 MP 45.5 44.7 41.2 42.6 42.3 42.2 42.2 41.2 41.0 41.7 40.2 40.9 40.2 36.5 40.5 41.5 PCT 49.6 48.8 45.5 44.4 47.4 45.4 45.5 44.3 45.7 46.7 41.6 45.6 46.7 40.3 42.9 45.4 Ours 50.7 48.5 49.1 48.7 48.7 49.8 48.8 47.0 47.9 48.8 45.8 45.1 45.2 43.6 44.9 **47.5** DP 48.9 48.0 45.0 48.1 46.9 47.6 44.9 45.7 45.6 47.3 45.7 45.2 41.6 41.0 43.3 45.7 SP 49.0 46.1 45.8 46.0 43.7 43.8 44.5 41.9 43.5 45.3 44.7 44.2 40.9 40.5 40.1 44.0 MP 51.8 48.3 46.6 48.2 46.8 46.0 44.8 44.8 43.9 48.3 45.0 43.0 40.1 37.8 44.0 45.3 PCT 51.5 51.3 50.9 49.3 50.6 50.2 49.1 47.4 48.1 49.7 47.3 48.2 47.6 44.6 44.0 48.7 Ours 54.0 53.6 52.3 51.1 50.7 52.6 51.4 50.1 48.9 51.4 51.2 53.1 51.1 46.3 48.9 **51.1** | 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 | |----------------------------| DP 53.7 49.3 48.5 51.0 47.4 50.5 46.9 49.6 46.2 48.9 44.8 49.6 44.8 42.0 44.2 47.8 SP 49.5 46.4 45.8 45.0 46.3 46.2 45.0 41.9 44.8 45.0 45.6 45.7 43.3 41.2 41.2 44.9 MP 52.6 50.3 49.7 49.0 49.1 48.0 46.4 48.5 46.5 48.2 48.1 50.5 47.0 42.9 44.0 48.1 PCT 55.0 53.3 53.8 52.8 53.4 51.9 51.7 50.9 50.4 51.7 50.0 51.2 51.5 47.0 47.9 51.5 Ours 56.6 55.1 55.7 54.7 55.4 55.7 53.7 53.5 52.1 54.5 53.4 54.3 53.1 49.3 51.0 **53.9** DP 60.1 54.4 50.6 55.4 55.1 55.6 51.4 50.8 53.2 55.1 53.4 52.7 46.1 45.3 48.4 52.5 SP 60.6 55.8 54.8 53.0 53.1 56.0 52.5 52.1 52.3 54.5 54.5 54.6 49.4 47.3 48.5 53.3 MP 60.1 55.3 51.6 50.7 54.6 54.0 53.5 51.3 52.8 52.3 53.4 53.8 49.6 45.3 47.2 52.4 PCT 60.3 58.3 58.3 56.3 57.9 56.7 55.2 54.6 54.7 57.4 55.6 55.8 54.6 51.6 52.6 56.0 Ours 63.3 59.5 61.0 59.5 58.6 60.5 57.8 56.4 58.2 59.2 59.1 60.6 56.1 56.0 53.5 **58.6** into the same semantic space. Removing the multilingual verbalizer leads to 1.7% accuracy drop on average. This demonstrates that the multilingual verbalizer can reduce the gap between different languages when calculating the classification probability distribution. We also replace soft prompts with discrete prompts as illustrated in Table 1, which leads to an accuracy drop of 1.3% on average. The accuracy decreases by 1.0% when using mixed prompts instead of soft prompts. The reason is that template words in mixed prompts have a bad effect on SoftMV if not specifically designed with expert knowledge. Furthermore, we use randomly initialized prompts to replace the prompts initialized from the multilingual vocabulary, which leads to 0.5% accuracy drop on average. ## 5.3 Analysis Of Code-Switched Method To further investigate the code-switched method, we conduct experiments using a single language to create augmented multilingual samples. Figure 2 Models EN FR ES DE EL BG RU TR AR VI TH ZH HI SW UR AVG. mBERT 73.7 70.4 70.7 68.7 69.1 70.4 67.8 66.3 66.8 66.5 64.4 68.3 64.2 61.8 59.3 67.2 XLM 83.2 76.7 77.7 74.0 72.7 74.1 72.7 68.7 68.6 72.9 68.9 72.5 65.6 58.2 62.4 70.7 XLM-Rbase 84.6 78.2 79.2 77.0 75.9 77.5 75.5 72.9 72.1 74.8 71.6 73.7 69.8 64.7 65.1 74.2 Dong et al. (2021) 80.8 75.8 77.3 74.5 74.9 76.3 74.9 71.4 70.0 74.5 71.6 73.6 68.5 64.8 65.7 73.0 DP-XLM-Rbase 83.9 78.1 78.5 76.1 75.7 77.1 75.3 73.2 71.6 74.7 70.9 73.4 70.2 63.6 65.5 73.9 SP-XLM-Rbase 84.7 78.3 78.8 75.6 75.3 76.3 75.7 73.3 70.3 74.0 70.6 74.1 70.2 62.8 64.9 73.7 MP-XLM-Rbase 84.2 78.4 78.8 76.9 75.3 76.5 75.7 72.7 71.2 75.2 70.8 72.8 70.7 61.5 66.0 73.8 PCT-XLM-Rbase 84.9 79.4 79.7 77.7 76.6 78.9 76.9 74.0 72.9 76.0 72.0 74.9 71.7 65.9 67.3 75.3 SoftMV-XLM-Rbase 85.2 80.8 79.9 78.7 84.1 81.3 79.5 76.0 77.5 78.8 77.0 76.0 72.0 77.7 77.8 **78.8** XLM-Rlarge 88.9 83.6 84.8 83.1 82.4 83.7 80.7 79.2 79.0 80.4 77.8 79.8 76.8 72.7 73.3 80.4 UXLA - - 85.7 84.2 - - - - 80.5 - - - 78.7 74.7 73.4 - PCT-XLM-Rlarge 88.3 84.2 85.1 83.7 83.1 84.4 81.9 81.2 80.9 80.7 78.8 80.3 78.4 73.6 75.6 81.3 SoftMV-XLM-Rlarge 88.9 85.1 85.8 84.2 83.7 85.2 82.3 82.1 81.5 81.4 79.7 81.2 79.1 74.2 76.4 **82.1** Table 3: Comparison results on XNLI under the full-shot cross-lingual transfer setting in accuracy(%). Each number is the mean performance of 5 runs. "AVG." is the average accuracy for 15 languages. The best performance is in bold. Models EN FR ES DE EL BG RU TR AR VI TH ZH HI SW UR AVG. Original 47.5 46.7 47.0 46.4 47.5 46.5 46.3 43.7 46.5 45.8 45.1 42.5 43.2 42.1 42.8 **45.3** w/o code-switched 46.8 45.4 44.9 45.2 45.7 45.4 45.0 41.4 44.8 44.2 42.7 38.5 40.4 38.9 41.1 43.4 w/o consistency loss 45.3 44.3 44.9 43.6 44.8 43.6 43.5 40.7 44.3 43.7 43.0 39.8 40.2 39.9 40.7 42.8 w/o multilingual verbalizer 44.8 44.7 44.5 43.7 45.0 44.8 44.8 43.2 43.0 43.6 43.1 42.0 42.9 41.6 42.4 43.6 using discrete prompts 46.0 45.4 46.0 45.1 45.4 45.4 45.5 42.2 44.6 44.7 44.2 40.8 42.2 41.4 41.6 44.0 using mixed prompts 46.2 45.8 46.1 45.6 45.7 45.1 45.8 42.3 44.7 44.9 44.6 41.0 42.5 42.0 41.7 44.3 using randomly initialized prompts 47.6 46.6 46.4 45.8 46.7 45.8 44.8 43.0 46.1 45.7 44.7 42.6 42.9 40.3 42.6 44.8  Accuracy shows the results of SoftMV with 10 different seeds under the 8-shot setting for 15 languages on average. We can observe that SoftMV performs worst with an accuracy of 42.1% when using AR (Arabic) to replace the words in sentences. When using TR (Turkish) to replace the words in sentences, the performance of SoftMV outperforms the results using another language. The reason is that TR is different from EN, while not too rare like low-resource languages such as UR (Urdu) and AR. Thus the model can better align contextualized representations in different languages into the same semantic space. When randomly selecting languages for the words of each sentence, SoftMV performs best with a lower standard deviation. Therefore, we apply a random strategy for the code-switched method in our experiments. ## 5.4 Analysis Of Soft Prompts  We also conducted experiments to show how the length of soft prompts impacts performance. The results are illustrated in Figure 3 under the 8-shot setting. We can observe that the performance of SoftMV is very sensitive to the value of length. As the length of soft prompts increases, the performance of SoftMV first increases and then decreases. As the length of soft prompts increases, the model has the more expressive power to reduce the gaps across different languages. Therefore, the performance of the model is gradually improved. SoftMV achieves the best performance when the length of soft prompts is 4. When the length is larger than 4, the accuracy decreases sharply. The reason is that the model with longer soft prompts tends to overfit the training data under the few-shot setting. ## 6 Conclusion In this paper, we propose a novel **Soft** prompt learning framework with a Multilingual Verbalizer (SoftMV) for XNLI. SoftMV applies the codeswitched substitution strategy to generate multilingual questions for original questions constructed with soft prompts. We adopt the multilingual verbalizer to align the representations of original and augmented samples into the same semantic space with consistency regularization. Experimental results on XNLI demonstrate that SoftMV significantly outperforms the previous methods under the few-shot and full-shot cross-lingual transfer settings. The detailed analysis further confirms the effectiveness of each component in SoftMV. ## 7 Limitations SoftMV is specifically designed for cross-lingual natural language inference. We believe that some of the ideas in our paper can be used in other tasks of XLU, which remains to be further investigated by subsequent research. In addition, we conduct experiments on the XNLI dataset which consists of 15 languages. SoftMV outperforms the baseline methods under the cross-lingual transfer settings. However, the cross-lingual ability of SoftMV on other languages, especially those lacking relevant datasets, needs to be verified in future work. ## Acknowledgements The work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (No. 2019YFB1704003), the National Nature Science Foundation of China (No. 62021002), Tsinghua BNRist and Beijing Key Laboratory of Industrial Bigdata System and Application. ## References Wasi Ahmad, Haoran Li, Kai-Wei Chang, and Yashar Mehdad. 2021. Syntax-augmented multilingual BERT for cross-lingual transfer. 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 4538–4554, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Mikel Artetxe and Holger Schwenk. 2019. Massively multilingual sentence embeddings for zeroshot cross-lingual transfer and beyond. *Transactions* of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7:597–610. M Saiful Bari, Tasnim Mohiuddin, and Shafiq Joty. 2021. UXLA: A robust unsupervised data augmentation framework for zero-resource cross-lingual NLP. 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 1978–1992, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. 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. Alexis Conneau, Kartikay Khandelwal, Naman Goyal, Vishrav Chaudhary, Guillaume Wenzek, Francisco Guzmán, Edouard Grave, Myle Ott, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2020. Unsupervised cross-lingual representation learning at scale. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 8440– 8451, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alexis Conneau and Guillaume Lample. 2019. Crosslingual language model pretraining. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32. Alexis Conneau, Ruty Rinott, Guillaume Lample, Adina Williams, Samuel Bowman, Holger Schwenk, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2018. XNLI: Evaluating crosslingual sentence representations. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2475–2485, Brussels, Belgium. 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. Xin Dong, Yaxin Zhu, Zuohui Fu, Dongkuan Xu, and Gerard de Melo. 2021. Data augmentation with adversarial training for cross-lingual NLI. 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 5158–5167, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Karl Moritz Hermann and Phil Blunsom. 2014. Multilingual models for compositional distributed semantics. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 58–68, Baltimore, Maryland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xuming Hu, Lijie Wen, Yusong Xu, Chenwei Zhang, and Philip Yu. 2020. SelfORE: Self-supervised relational feature learning for open relation extraction. In *Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical* Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 3673–3682, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xuming Hu, Chenwei Zhang, Fukun Ma, Chenyao Liu, Lijie Wen, and Philip S. Yu. 2021. Semi-supervised relation extraction via incremental meta self-training. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021*, pages 487–496, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Solomon Kullback and Richard A Leibler. 1951. On information and sufficiency. *The annals of mathematical statistics*, 22(1):79–86. Guillaume Lample, Alexis Conneau, Marc'Aurelio Ranzato, Ludovic Denoyer, and Hervé Jégou. 2018. Word translation without parallel data. In *International Conference on Learning Representations*. Brian Lester, Rami Al-Rfou, and Noah Constant. 2021. The power of scale for parameter-efficient prompt tuning. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3045–3059, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Shuang Li, Xuming Hu, Li Lin, Aiwei Liu, Lijie Wen, and Philip S. Yu. 2023. A multi-level supervised contrastive learning framework for low-resource natural language inference. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 31:1771– 1783. Shuang Li, Xuming Hu, Li Lin, and Lijie Wen. 2022. Pair-level supervised contrastive learning for natural language inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.10927. Xiang Lisa Li and Percy Liang. 2021. Prefix-tuning: Optimizing continuous prompts for generation. 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 4582– 4597, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Li Lin, Yixin Cao, Lifu Huang, Shuang Li, Xuming Hu, Lijie Wen, and Jianmin Wang. 2022. What makes the story forward? inferring commonsense explanations as prompts for future event generation. In *Proc. of* SIGIR, pages 1098–1109. Aiwei Liu, Honghai Yu, Xuming Hu, Shuang Li, Li Lin, Fukun Ma, Yawen Yang, and Lijie Wen. 2022a. Character-level white-box adversarial attacks against transformers via attachable subwords substitution. In Proc. of EMNLP. Shuliang Liu, Xuming Hu, Chenwei Zhang, Shuang Li, Lijie Wen, and Philip S. Yu. 2022b. Hiure: Hierarchical exemplar contrastive learning for unsupervised relation extraction. In *Proc. of NAACL-HLT*, pages 5970–5980. Xiao Liu, Kaixuan Ji, Yicheng Fu, Weng Tam, Zhengxiao Du, Zhilin Yang, and Jie Tang. 2022c. P-tuning: Prompt tuning can be comparable to fine-tuning across scales and tasks. In *Proceedings of the 60th* Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 61–68, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Bill MacCartney and Christopher D. Manning. 2008. Modeling semantic containment and exclusion in natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Coling 2008), pages 521–528, Manchester, UK. Coling 2008 Organizing Committee. Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, et al. 2019. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32. Kunxun Qi, Hai Wan, Jianfeng Du, and Haolan Chen. 2022. Enhancing cross-lingual natural language inference by prompt-learning from cross-lingual templates. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1910–1923, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Guanghui Qin and Jason Eisner. 2021. Learning how to ask: Querying LMs with mixtures of soft prompts. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5203–5212, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Libo Qin, Minheng Ni, Yue Zhang, and Wanxiang Che. 2021. Cosda-ml: multi-lingual code-switching data augmentation for zero-shot cross-lingual nlp. In *Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Conference on International Joint Conferences on Artificial* Intelligence, pages 3853–3860. Timo Schick and Hinrich Schütze. 2021a. 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, pages 255–269, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Timo Schick and Hinrich Schütze. 2021b. It's not just size that matters: Small language models are also fewshot learners. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference* of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2339–2352, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Taylor Shin, Yasaman Razeghi, Robert L. Logan IV, Eric Wallace, and Sameer Singh. 2020. AutoPrompt: Eliciting Knowledge from Language Models with Automatically Generated Prompts. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 4222–4235, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yusheng Su, Xiaozhi Wang, Yujia Qin, Chi-Min Chan, Yankai Lin, Huadong Wang, Kaiyue Wen, Zhiyuan Liu, Peng Li, Juanzi Li, Lei Hou, Maosong Sun, and Jie Zhou. 2022. On transferability of prompt tuning for natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 3949–3969, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tu Vu, Brian Lester, Noah Constant, Rami Al-Rfou', and Daniel Cer. 2022. SPoT: Better frozen model adaptation through soft prompt transfer. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5039–5059, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Adina Williams, Nikita Nangia, and Samuel Bowman. 2018. A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sentence understanding through inference. 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 1112–1122, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, 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. Hui Wu and Xiaodong Shi. 2022. Adversarial soft prompt tuning for cross-domain sentiment analysis. In *Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the* Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2438–2447, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Mengjie Zhao and Hinrich Schütze. 2021. Discrete and soft prompting for multilingual models. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 8547–8555, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Bo Zheng, Li Dong, Shaohan Huang, Wenhui Wang, Zewen Chi, Saksham Singhal, Wanxiang Che, Ting Liu, Xia Song, and Furu Wei. 2021. Consistency regularization for cross-lingual fine-tuning. 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 3403–3417, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. | Shots | α | lr | Epochs | Weight decay | Batch size | |---------|------|-------|----------|----------------|--------------| | 1 | 0.10 | 1e-05 | 70 | 0.01 | 12 | | 2 | 0.10 | 1e-05 | 70 | 0.01 | 12 | | 4 | 0.10 | 1e-05 | 70 | 0.01 | 12 | | 8 | 0.15 | 1e-05 | 70 | 0.01 | 12 | | 16 | 0.20 | 4e-06 | 70 | 0.01 | 12 | | 32 | 0.15 | 7e-06 | 70 | 0.01 | 12 | | 64 | 0.15 | 1e-06 | 70 | 0.01 | 12 | | 128 | 0.20 | 1e-06 | 70 | 0.01 | 12 | | 256 | 0.35 | 1e-06 | 70 | 0.01 | 12 | | Full | 0.30 | 1e-06 | 70 | 0.01 | 12 | Table 5: Hyperparameters used under different settings of XNLI. ## A Training Details A.1 Hyperparameters Table 5 shows the hyperparameters used under different settings of XNLI. The model is trained for 70 epochs and the checkpoint that performs best on the development set is selected for performance evaluation. ## A.2 Computing Device All experiments are conducted on GeForce GTX 3090Ti. We use batch size 24 for a single GPU. Three GPUs are used for few-shot experiments. The full-shot experiments use 6 GPUs. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Section 7 ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Section 4, Appendix A ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Abstract, 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, Section 5 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 4, Section 5 ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Section 4, Section 5 ✓ 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, Appendix A ✓ 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 4 ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Section 4 ✓ 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?** Section 4, 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? Section 4, 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? Section 4, 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 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 4, Appendix A 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.

xiong-etal-2023-confidence

A Confidence-based Partial Label Learning Model for Crowd-Annotated Named Entity Recognition

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.89

Existing models for named entity recognition (NER) are mainly based on large-scale labeled datasets, which always obtain using crowdsourcing. However, it is hard to obtain a unified and correct label via majority voting from multiple annotators for NER due to the large labeling space and complexity of this task. To address this problem, we aim to utilize the original multi-annotator labels directly. Particularly, we propose a CONfidence-based partial Label Learning (CONLL) method to integrate the prior confidence (given by annotators) and posterior confidences (learned by models) for crowd-annotated NER. This model learns a token- and content-dependent confidence via an Expectation{--}Maximization (EM) algorithm by minimizing empirical risk. The true posterior estimator and confidence estimator perform iteratively to update the true posterior and confidence respectively. We conduct extensive experimental results on both real-world and synthetic datasets, which show that our model can improve performance effectively compared with strong baselines.

# A Confidence-Based Partial Label Learning Model For Crowd-Annotated Named Entity Recognition Limao Xiong1, Jie Zhou1˚, Qunxi Zhu2, Xiao Wang1, Yuanbin Wu3**, Qi Zhang**1, Tao Gui4, Xuanjing Huang1, Jin Ma5**, Ying Shan**5 1 School of Computer Science, Fudan Univerisity 2 Research Institute of Intelligent Complex Systems, Fudan University 3 The Department of Computer Science and Technology, East China Normal University 4Institute of Modern Languages and Linguistics, Fudan University 5 Applied Research Center (ARC), Tencent PCG ## Abstract Existing models for named entity recognition (NER) are mainly based on large-scale labeled datasets, which always obtain using crowdsourcing. However, it is hard to obtain a unified and correct label via majority voting from multiple annotators for NER due to the large labeling space and complexity of this task. To address this problem, we aim to utilize the original multi-annotator labels directly. Particularly, we propose a Confidence-based Partial Label Learning (CPLL) method to integrate the prior confidence (given by annotators) and posterior confidences (learned by models) for crowd-annotated NER. This model learns a token- and content-dependent confidence via an Expectation–Maximization (EM) algorithm by minimizing empirical risk. The true posterior estimator and confidence estimator perform iteratively to update the true posterior and confidence respectively. We conduct extensive experimental results on both real-world and synthetic datasets, which show that our model can improve performance effectively compared with strong baselines. ## 1 Introduction Named entity recognition (NER) plays a fundamental role in many downstream natural language processing (NLP) tasks, such as relation extraction (Bach and Badaskar, 2007), event extraction (Wadden et al., 2019; Zhou et al., 2022). Recently, by leveraging deep learning models, existing NER systems have witnessed superior performances on NER datasets. However, these models typically require a massive amount of labeled training data, such as MSRA (Levow, 2006), Ontonotes 4.0 (Weischedel et al., 2011), and Resume (Zhang and Yang, 2018). In real applications, we often need to consider new types of entities in new domains where we do not have existing annotated. The majority way to label the data at a lower cost ˚ Corresponding author, jie_zhou@fudan.edu.cn. is crowdsourcing (Peng and Dredze, 2015), which labels the data using multiple annotators. The crowd-annotated datasets are always low quality for the following two reasons. First, as an exchange, crowd annotations are always nonexperts. Various annotators may have different interpretations of labeling guidelines. Moreover, they may make mistakes in the labeling process. It is hard to require a number of annotations to reach an agreement. For example, annotator 1 labels "David and Jack" as a PER entity, while the correct label is "David" and "Jack" under our guidelines (Table 1). Also we should label the continuous time and place as one entity (e.g, "tomorrow at 10:00 a.m." and "company ( room 1003 )"). Second, due to the ambiguous word boundaries and complex composition, the NER task is more challenging compared with the text classification tasks. Annotator 3 ignores the token "a.m." for the time entity and adds "the" as part of the place entity falsely. Also, he/she misses the person entities in the text. In this paper, we focus on building a powerful NER system based on crowd-annotated data, which is of low quality. There are two main ways to utilize crowdannotated data. One simple and important way to obtain high-quality annotations for each input instance is majority voting. As shown in Table 1, the majority voting method can not obtain the correct answers from these three annotations well. The right labels (e.g., "David", "Jack", "tomorrow at 10:00 a.m.", and "company ( room 1003 )") are only annotated by annotators 1 and 2 once. Another majority of work models the differences among annotators by finding the trustworthy annotators (Rodrigues et al., 2014; Nguyen et al., 2017; Yang et al., 2018). From Table 1, we can find that none of the three annotators labels the entities absolutely right. Thus, these two kinds of methods are a waste of human labor. To address this problem, we translated this task into a partial label learning (PLL) problem, which  trains the model based on the dataset where each sample is assigned with a set of candidate labels (Cour et al., 2011; Wen et al., 2021). Thus, it is natural to utilize all human labor via PLL, which can be divided into two types: 1) average-based methods which consider each candidate class equally (Hüllermeier and Beringer, 2006; Zhang and Yu, 2015); 2) identification-based methods which predict the ground-truth label as a latent variable via a translation matrix to describe the scores of each candidate label (Feng and An, 2019; Yan and Guo, 2020; Feng et al., 2020). Despite extensive studies on PLL methods, there are still two challenges in our condition. One challenge (C1) is that these methods are criticized when the same candidate label occurs more than once. The general PLL is under the assumption that each candidate label is only been assigned once, while each sample may be assigned the same classes multiple times by the different annotators in our situation. Another challenge (C2) is that most of the existing studies about PLL focus on image or text classification tasks, while we focus on a more complex task, sequence labeling, where each token is asserted with a label. Thus, the token itself and its content should be considered in this task. In this paper, we propose a Confidence-based Partial Label Learning (CPLL) model for crowdannotated NER. For C1, we treat the classes' labeled number for each sample as prior confidence provided by the annotators. Also, we learn the confidence scores via an Expectation–Maximization (EM) algorithm (Dempster et al., 1977). We estimate the real conditional probability PpY " y|T " *t, X* " xq via a true posterior estimator based on the confidence that consists of the prior and posterior confidences. For C2, we learn a token- and content-dependent confidence via a confidence estimator to consider both the token t and sequence input x, because the candidate labels are always token-dependent and content-dependent. In fact, our model can be applied to all the sequence labeling tasks, such as word segment, part of speech, etc. We conduct a series of experiments on one real-world dataset and four synthetic datasets. The empirical results show that our model can make use of the crowd-annotated data effectively. We also explore the influence of annotation inconsistency and balance of prior and posterior confidences. The main contributions of this work are listed as follows. - To better utilize the crowd-annotated data, we propose a CPLL algorithm to incorporate the prior and posterior confidences for sequence labeling task (i.e., NER). - To take the confidence scores into account, we design a true posterior estimator and confidence estimator to update the probability distribution of ground truth and token- and content-dependent confidence iteratively via the EM algorithm. - Extensive experiments on both real-world and synthetic datasets show that our CPLL model outperforms the state-of-the-art baselines, which indicates that our model disambiguates the noise labels effectively. ## 2 Our Approach In this section, we first give the formal definition of our task. Then, we provide an overview of our proposed CPLL model. Finally, we introduce the main components contained in our model. ## 2.1 Formal Definition Given a training corpus D " txi,pYˆi, Aiqu|D| i"1 , where x " tt1, t2*, ..., t*|x|u, (*Y , A* ˆ q " tpyˆ1, a1q,pyˆ2, a2q*, ...,*pyˆ|x|, a|x|qu. Here, yˆ " ty1, y2*, ...., y*|yˆ|u is the candidate label set of the token t and a " ra1, a2*, ..., a*|yˆ|s is 1376  Confidence Estimator B-PER I-PER B-PER ... B-TIME I-TIME B-TIME I-TIME ... B-PLACE I-PLACE I-PLACE O labeled times obtained from annotations. Specifically, a is the labeled times of candidate label y for token t. yˆ P t2Y zHzYu where Y is the label space and 2Y means the power set. For the rest of this paper, y denotes the true label of token t in text x unless otherwise specified. The goal of this task is to predict the truth posterior probability PpY " y|T " *t, X* " xq of token t in text x. ## 2.2 Overview In this paper, we propose a CONfidence-based partial Label Learning (CPLL) model for crowdannotated NER (Figure 1). Particularly, we learn the true posterior PpY " y|T " *t, X* " xq via a true posterior estimator f and a confidence score gpy; *Y , t,* ˆ xq by minimizing the following risk. $$R=\mathbb{E}_{p(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{\hat{y}})}\left[\sum_{t\in\mathbf{x}}\sum_{y}\underbrace{g(y;\mathbf{\hat{y}},t,\mathbf{x})}_{\text{Confidence}}*\underbrace{\mathcal{L}(f(y;t,\mathbf{x}),y)}_{\text{True posterior}}\right]\tag{1}$$ where the classifier fpy;t, xq is used to predict PpY " y|T " *t, X* " xq and L is the loss. Particularly, we rely on the Expectation-Maximization algorithm (Dempster et al., 1977) to find the maximum likelihood parameters of CPLL by regarding the ground truth as a latent variable. In the M-step, we train a naive classifier f to predict the true posterior PpY " y|T " *t, X* " xq via a true posterior estimator (Section 2.3). In the E-step, we update the confidence score via a confidence estimator (Section 2.4), which consists of the prior confidences (calculated from annotations) and posterior confidences (learned by model). ## 2.3 True Posterior Estimator First, we train a naive classifier as our true posterior estimator f to infer the true posterior PpY " y|T " *t, X* " xq. To model the sequence, we adopt a pre-trained language model (BERT (Kenton and Toutanova, 2019)) M to learn a contentaware token representation. Specifically, we input the sequence x " tt1, t2*, ..., t*|x|u into M to obtain the sequence representations, $$H={\mathcal{M}}({\bf x},\theta_{{\mathcal{M}}})\qquad\qquad(2)$$ where θM is the parameters of M, H " rh1, h2*, ..., h*|x|s. h is token t's content-aware representation. Then, we utilize a fully connected layer (FC) to predict the probability distribution, $$f(y;t,{\bf x})=\sigma(W*h+b)\qquad\qquad(3)$$ where σ is a sigmoid function, θF C " t*W, b*u is the learnable parameters of FC. We regard θ " tθM, θF Cu as a parameter set of true posterior estimator f. Negative learning (Kim et al., 2019) is adopted, which not only considers "the token belongs to positive label (candidate label y P yˆ)" but also "the token does not belong to negative label (its complementary label y R yˆ)". The loss function is computed, $${\cal L}(f(y;t,{\bf x}),y)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}-\log(f(y;t,{\bf x})),&y\in\hat{\bf y}\\ -\log(1-f(y;t,{\bf x})),&y\notin\hat{\bf y}\end{array}\right.\tag{4}$$ Finally, we optimize the empirical risk by integrating confidence gpy; yˆ*, t,* xq with the loss function (Equation 1). We will introduce the confidence gpy; yˆ*, t,* xq in detail below. ## 2.4 Confidence Estimator The confidence estimator is used to learn the confidence scores gpy; yˆ*, t,* xq, which represents the confidence of label y given the token t, text sequence x, and partial label yˆ. $$g(y;{\hat{\mathbf{y}}},t,\mathbf{x})=\alpha*c_{y;t,\mathbf{x}}^{A}+(1-\alpha)*c_{y;t,\mathbf{x}}^{M}\quad(5)$$ where the confidence score cM y;t,x is learned by model and c A y;t,x is given by annotators. α is a hyper-parameter used to balance these two terms. The annotators will affect the quality of the datasets and we can calculate the prior confidence based on the labeled times of each class. However, prior confidence is biased since the annotators we selected have biases. To address this problem, we also let the model learn the posterior confidence to reduce the biases in prior confidence. Posterior Confidence We update posterior confidence cM y;t,x based on true posterior distribution PpY " y|T " *t, X* " xq estimated by true posterior estimator fpy;t, xq. $$c_{y;t,\mathbf{x}}^{M}=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}\frac{exp(P(Y\!=\!y|T\!=\!t,X\!=\!\mathbf{x}))}{\sum_{\hat{y}\in\hat{y}}exp(P(Y\!=\!\hat{y}|T\!=\!t,X\!=\!\mathbf{x}))},&y\in\hat{\mathbf{y}}\\ \frac{exp(P(Y\!=\!y|T\!=\!t,X\!=\!\mathbf{x}))}{\sum_{\hat{y}\notin\hat{y}}exp(P(Y\!=\!\hat{y}|T\!=\!t,X\!=\!\mathbf{x}))},&y\notin\hat{\mathbf{y}}\end{array}\right.\tag{6}$$ We calculate the confidence score for positive and negative labels independently. Prior Confidence We translate the labeled times a obtained from annotation into prior confidence c A y;t,x . $$c_{y;t,\mathbf{x}}^{A}={\left\{\begin{array}{l l}{{\frac{e x p(a)}{\sum_{\hat{a}\in\mathbf{n}}e x p({\bar{a}})}},}&{y\in{\hat{\mathbf{y}}}}\\ {0,}&{y\notin{\hat{\mathbf{y}}}}\end{array}\right.}\qquad(7)$$ Note that both cM y;t,x and c A y;t,x are token and content dependent. The annotations are always affected by both the token self and the content of | #Sample #TIME #PLACE #PERSON | | | | | |--------------------------------|------|------|------|-----| | Training 1000 | 6934 | 958 | 3518 | | | Dev | 440 | 955 | 147 | 351 | | Test | 441 | 1015 | 171 | 356 | the token. Thus, we model the confidence by considering both the token and content. Finally, we compute the final confidence score gpy; yˆ*, t,* xq via Equation 5, which considers both biases from annotators and models. We update the parameters θ and confidence score in the M step and E step of the EM algorithm. Specifically, we perform the true posterior estimator and confidence estimator iteratively. The initialization of cM y;t,x is 1 |yˆ| for y P yˆ and 1 |Y|´|yˆ| for y R yˆ. ## 3 Experimental Setups In this section, we first introduce one real-world and four synthetic datasets we adopted to evaluate the performance (Section 3.1). Then, we list the selected popular baselines to investigate the validity of our CPLL model (Section 3.2). Finally, we present the implementation details and metrics to replicate the experiment easily (Section 3.3). ## 3.1 Datasets Real-World Dataset. To build the real-world dataset, we ask the annotators to label the person, place, and time in the text independently. Each sample is assigned to three annotators with guidelines and several examples. To be specific, we ask three students to label 1000 samples as the training set. The average Kappa value among the annotators is 0.215, indicating that the crowd annotators have low agreement on identifying entities in this data. In order to evaluate the system performances, we create a set of the corpus with gold annotations. Concretely, we randomly select 881 sentences from the raw dataset and let two experts generate the gold annotations. Among them, we use 440 sentences as the development set and the remaining 441 as the test set. Table 2 shows the statistical information of this dataset. Synthetic Datasets. Inspired by (Rodrigues et al., 2014), we build synthetic datasets by adding #Original r#Error BI C Percent Weibo 4951 5% 35 134 3.4% 10% 143 546 13.9% 20% 494 1706 44.4% 25% 615 2411 61.0% Resume 79014 5% 244 2011 2.8% 10% 920 7361 10.4% 20% 2979 25408 35.9% 25% 4145 37585 52.8% Ontonotes 41203 5% 295 1246 3.7% 10% 978 4368 12.9% 20% 3151 14849 43.6% 25% 4420 20542 60.5% MSRA 241809 5% 1439 6869 3.4% 10% 5115 26343 13.0% 20% 16729 86549 42.0% 25% 23163 120707 59.4% noise on four typical NER datasets: MSRA (Levow, 2006), Weibo (Peng and Dredze, 2015), Ontonotes 4.0 (Weischedel et al., 2011) and Resume (Zhang and Yang, 2018). To simulate a real noise situation, we add noise to the original datasets using four rules: 1) BE (Bound Error) that adds or deletes some tokens of the entity to destroy the bound (change "room 1003" to "(room 1003"); 2) ME (Missing Error) that removes the entity from the label ("David" is not labeled); 3) CE (Category Error) that changes the category of the entity (change "Location" to "Organization"); 4) SE (Segmentation Error) that splits the entity into two entities (change "tomorrow at 10:00 am" to "tomorrow" and "at 10:00 am"). We run each rule randomly with a perturbation rate r, which is set as 10% in the experiments. Additionally, we explore the influence of annotation inconsistency with different rates. Table 3 shows statistical information of these datasets based on token-level majority voting. We can find that a large number of entities are perturbed by our rules. For example, more than 40% tokens labeled as entities are perturbed with a perturbation rate r of 20%. ## 3.2 Baselines To verify the effectiveness of our CPLL model, we compare it with several strong and typical baselines, which can be categorized into three groups: votingbased models, partial label learning-based models, and annotator-based models. - **Voting-based models.** We select two votingbased models, entity-level and token-level voting models. The entity-level voting model obtains the ground truth by voting at the entity level. The token-level voting model calculates the ground truth by voting at the token level. A BERT-based sequence labeling model (Kenton and Toutanova, 2019) is trained based on the ground truth calculated by voting. - **Partial label learning-based models.** We adopt two classic PLL baselines to utilize the crowd-annotated data with multiple candidate labels. PRODEN-mlp (Lv et al., 2020) adopts a classifier-consistent risk estimator with a progressive identification method for PLL. Wen et al. (2021) propose a Leveraged Weighted (LW) loss for PLL to take the partial and non-partial labels into account, which is proved to be risk consistency. It achieved state-of-the-art results on various computer version tasks. We implement the models by translating the official codes to our NER task. - **Annotator-based models.** After seeing researchers achieve great success in fullysupervised learning, we are easily going to think about how to gain fully-supervised data from crowd-annotated data when we use crowdsourcing. Seqcrowd (Nguyen et al., 2017) uses a crowd component, a Hidden Markov Model (HMM) learned by the Expectation-Maximization algorithm, to transform crowd-annotated data into fully-supervised data instead of simply voting at token-level or entity-level. When we get the ground truth calculated by this crowd component, we can adopt some efficient fully-supervised learning method to finish the corresponding task. ## 3.3 Implementation Details And Metrics We adopt a PyTorch (Paszke et al., 2019) framework Transformers to implement our model based on GPU GTX TITAN X. Chinese-roberta-wwm-ext model (Cui et al., 2019) 1is used for our true posterior estimator. We utilize Adam optimizer (Kingma and Ba, 2014) to update our model and set different learning rates for the BERT module (0.00002) and the rest module (0.002). The max sequence length 1https://huggingface.co/hfl/chinese-roberta-wwmext/tree/main Real-World Ontonotes Weibo Resume MSRA Dev Test Dev Test Dev Test Dev Test Test Ours CPLL **90.37 90.60 79.39 81.47 69.72 68.23 96.57 96.07 95.42** Voting Token-level 89.45 90.40 78.17 80.12 67.79 63.81 95.81 95.39 94.68 Entity-level 89.79 90.04 78.02 79.30 65.59 59.34 95.64 94.88 94.78 PLL PRODEN-mlp 87.39 87.90 73.04 75.36 66.37 61.85 93.90 94.90 92.46 LW loss 88.80 89.83 79.07 80.45 69.63 64.26 96.37 95.64 95.35 Annotator Seqcrowd - - 62.80 65.34 47.56 41.49 92.73 93.30 91.90 Upper Bound Clean data - - 79.74 81.47 70.83 68.87 96.64 96.31 95.53 Table 4: The performance of our model and baselines in terms of F1. For real-world dataset, we do not report the results on clean data and Seqcrowd since we do not have ground truth for the training set. Table 5: The performance of ablation studies. is 512, the batch size is 8 and the dropout rate is 0.1. We search the best α from 0.1 to 0.9 with step 0.1 using the development set. All the baselines use the same settings hyper-parameters mentioned in their paper. Our source code will be available soon after this paper is accepted. To measure the performance of the models, we adopt Macro-F1 as the metric, which is widely used for NER (Yadav and Bethard, 2018). In particular, we evaluate the performance on the span level, where the answer will be considered correct only when the entire span is matched. ## 4 Experimental Results In this section, we conduct a series of experiments to investigate the effectiveness of the proposed CPLL model. Specifically, we compare our model with three kinds of strong baselines (Section 4.1) and do ablation studies to explore the influence of the key parts contained in CPLL (Section 4.2). Also, we investigate the influence of annotation inconsistency (Section 4.3) and hyper-parameter α, which controls the balance of posterior confidence and prior confidence (Section 4.4). | CPLL | 90.37 | 90.60 | 79.39 | 81.47 | 69.72 | 68.23 | 96.57 | 96.07 | 95.42 | |--------------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | w/o Posterior Confidence | 89.51 | 90.08 | 79.11 | 80.42 | 68.83 | 65.84 | 95.74 | 95.38 | 94.79 | | w/o Prior Confidence | 90.60 | 90.94 | 79.68 | 80.87 | 70.57 | 64.90 | 96.21 | 95.70 | 95.20 | | w/o Both | 86.73 | 86.32 | 78.66 | 80.22 | 67.33 | 61.59 | 95.72 | 95.23 | 94.61 | ## 4.1 Main Results To evaluate the performance of our model, we present the results of compared baselines and our CPLL model (See Table 4). **First**, we can find that our model outperforms all the baselines on both the real-world and synthetic datasets. The labels obtained by voting-based methods (e.g., Tokenlevel voting and entity-level voting) always contain much noise because of the large labeling space and the complexity of this task. For PLL-based models (e.g., PRODEN-mlp and LW loss), they ignore the labeled times by the annotators. Furthermore, annotator-based methods (e.g., Seqcrowd) aim to find the trustworthy label or annotator. Note that Seqcrow does not work on Weibo and performs poorly on Ontonotes. It is because Seqcrow cannot solve the case of small sizes or large noise of datasets, which is also verified in Section 2. All these methods cause information loss which affects the performance of the models largely. Our CPLL model makes use of the crowd-annotated data by translating this task into a PLL task to integrate confidence. **Second**, our CPLL model can reduce the influence of noise effectively. From the results, we observe that CPLL obtains comparable results with the model trained on the clean data. Our confidence estimator can learn the bias generated by annotations effectively via the posterior and prior confidence. ## 4.2 Ablation Studies To evaluate the effectiveness of each part contained in our model, we do ablation studies (See Table 5). We remove posterior confidence (w/o Posterior Confidence), prior confidence (w/o Prior Confi-  dence), and both of them (w/o Both) from CPLL model. For w/o Both, we remove the confidence estimator by setting the confidences as 1{|yˆ| for partial labels and 0 for non-partial labels. From the results, we find the following observations. 1) Confidence estimator can learn the annotation bias effectively. Removing it (w/o Both) reduces more than 4 points in terms of F1 on the test sets over real-world and Weibo datasets. 2) Both posterior confidence and prior confidence are useful for this task. Obviously, prior confidence is vital to leverage the labeled confidence given by annotators. However, prior confidence may exist bias since the annotators are limited. Thus, the posterior confidence learned by the model is also crucial for partial label learning to rectify the prediction. ## 4.3 Influence Of Annotation Inconsistency We also explore the influence of annotation inconsistency on synthetic datasets with various perturbation rates. Annotation inconsistency is used to model the label quality of crowd-sourcing. The bigger the perturbation rate, the worse the quality of the annotation. We report the results with a rate from 5% to 25% with step 5% over Weibo, Resume ,and Ontonotes datasets (Figure 2). First, our CPLL model outperforms all the baselines with different perturbation rates. Moreover, the higher the annotation inconsistency, the more our model improves relative to the baselines. Our model can reduce the influence of annotation inconsistency more effectively. Second, several baselines almost do not work with a large perturbation rate (e.g., 25%), while our model can handle it effectively. The F1 score of Seqcrowd is only less than 20 when the rate r is larger than 20%. Third, it is obvious that the annotation quality will affect the performance of the model largely. The higher the inconsistency, the worse the quality of the annotation and the worse the performance of the model. ## 4.4 Influence Of Hyper-Parameter Α We further investigate the influence of the hyperparameter α (in Equation 5), which is used to balance the posterior and prior confidence (Figure 3). The prior confidence demonstrates the labeled confidence given by the annotators, which is biased due to the selection of annotators. To reduce this bias, we enhance our model to estimate the posterior confidence that is learned by the model. From the figures, we can observe the following observations. First, when the noise is high, the smaller the α, the better the performance. Intuitively, the confidence given by annotators is not reliable when the perturbation rate r is large. Second, when the noise is low, the trend that the larger the α, the better the performance is relatively not as obvious. The reason is that the model can disambiguate the ground truth from the candidates easily since the data is clear. Most of the labels are correct and confidence is not important at this time. All the findings indicate that our confidence estimator can make use of prior confidence and learn posterior confidence effectively. ## 5 Related Work In this section, we mainly review the most related works about named entity recognition (Section 5.1) and partial label learning (Section 5.2). ## 5.1 Named Entity Recognition Named Entity Recognition (NER) is a research hotspot since it can be applied to many downstream Natural language Processing (NLP) tasks. A welltrained NER model takes language sequence as input and marks out all the entities in the sequence with the correct entity type. NER is widely treated as a sequence labeling problem, a token-level tagging task (Chiu and Nichols, 2015; Akbik et al., 2018; Yan et al., 2019). Also, some of the re-  searchers regard NER as a span-level classification task (Xue et al., 2020; Fu et al., 2021; Alemi et al., 2023). In these works, NER is a fully-supervised learning task based on large-scale labeled data, where each token is asserted with a golden label. Crowdsourcing platforms (e.g., Amazon Mechanical Turk) are a popular way to obtain large labeled data. Due to the large label space and complexity of NER, the quality of labeled data is low. The ground truth obtained by simple majority voting contains a lot of noise, which limits the performance of the model largely. There is some literature that trains the model from multiple annotators directly (Simpson and Gurevych, 2019; Nguyen et al., 2017). They mainly focus on modeling the differences among annotators to find a trustworthy annotator. In fact, a sentence may not be correctly labeled by all the annotators while they all may label part of the right entities. To address this problem, we translate this task into a partial label learning problem with a prior confidence score. ## 5.2 Partial Label Learning Unlike fully-supervised learning, which uses data with golden label y, Partial Label Learning (PLL) asserts a candidate set Y for each input x (Zhang et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2023; Lv et al., 2020). Despite the fact that we can not ensure golden label y always in the candidate set Y, most PLL researchers assume one of the candidate labels is the golden label for simplicity. The existing studies about PLL can be categorized into two groups, average-based methods (Zhang and Yu, 2015) and identification-based methods (Jin and Ghahramani, 2002; Lyu et al., 2019). Average-based methods (Zhang and Yu, 2015; Hüllermeier and Beringer, 2006) intuitively treat the candidate labels with equal importance. The main weakness of these algorithms is that the false positive may severely distract the model with wrong label information. Recently, identification-based methods (Jin and Ghahramani, 2002; Wang et al., 2023) are proposed to identify the truth label from the candidates by regarding the ground truth as a latent variable. More and more literature pays attention to representative methods (Lyu et al., 2019; Nguyen and Caruana, 2008), self-training methods (Wen et al., 2021), loss function adjustments (Wu and Zhang, 2018). However, most of the current work focuses on image classification or text classification tasks, while how to model the confidence for NER is not well studied. The sequence labeling task aims to identify the entities in the sentence with an entity type in the token level. Thus, how to model the token self and its content also plays an important role in this task. To address this problem, we design a confidence estimator to predict the token- and content-dependent confidence based on the prior confidence given by annotators. ## 6 Conclusion And Future Work In this paper, we translate crowd-annotated NER into a PLL problem and propose a CPLL model based on an EM algorithm. To rectify the model's prediction, we design a confidence estimator to predict token- and content-dependent confidence by incorporating prior confidence with posterior confidence. We conduct the experiments on one real-world dataset and four synthetic datasets to evaluate the performance of our proposed CPLL model by comparing it with several state-of-theart baselines. Moreover, we do ablation studies to verify the effectiveness of the key components and explore the influence of annotation inconsistency. In the future, we would like to investigate the performance of our model on other sequence labeling tasks. ## Limitations Although our work shows that our CPLL model can learn from crowd-annotated NER data well, there are at least two limitations. First, we set the hyperparameter α manually. It would be better if we could design a strategy to learn a *alpha* adaptive value for each sample atomically. Second, though we mainly experiment on NER tasks, our model can be applied to all sequence labeling tasks, such as part-of-speech tagging (POS), Chinese word segmentation, and so on. We would like to explore it in further work. ## Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. This work was partially funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.62206057), Shanghai Rising-Star Program (23QA1400200), Natural Science Foundation of Shanghai (23ZR1403500), and CCF-Tencent Open Fund. ## References Alan Akbik, Duncan A. J. Blythe, and Roland Vollgraf. 2018. Contextual string embeddings for sequence labeling. *international conference on computational* linguistics. Alexander Alemi, Ian Fischer, Joshua Dillon, Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, Marco Federici, Anjan Dutta, Patrick Forré, Nate Kush, Robert Geirhos, Jörn-Henrik Jacobsen, Richard Michaelis, and Wieland Zemel. 2023. Miner: Improving out-ofvocabulary named entity recognition from an information theoretic perspective. *meeting of the association for computational linguistics*. Nguyen Bach and Sameer Badaskar. 2007. A review of relation extraction. Literature review for Language and Statistics II, 2:1–15. Jason P.C. Chiu and Eric Nichols. 2015. Named entity recognition with bidirectional lstm-cnns. *Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics*. Timothee Cour, Ben Sapp, and Ben Taskar. 2011. Learning from partial labels. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12:1501–1536. Yiming Cui, Wanxiang Che, Ting Liu, Bing Qin, Ziqing Yang, Shijin Wang, and Guoping Hu. 2019. Pretraining with whole word masking for chinese bert. arXiv: Computation and Language. Arthur P Dempster, Nan M Laird, and Donald B Rubin. 1977. Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the em algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 39(1):1–22. Lei Feng and Bo An. 2019. Partial label learning with self-guided retraining. In *Proceedings of the* AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 33, pages 3542–3549. Lei Feng, Jiaqi Lv, Bo Han, Miao Xu, Gang Niu, Xin Geng, Bo An, and Masashi Sugiyama. 2020. Provably consistent partial-label learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:10948– 10960. Jinlan Fu, Xuanjing Huang, and Pengfei Liu. 2021. Spanner: Named entity re-/recognition as span prediction. *meeting of the association for computational* linguistics. Eyke Hüllermeier and Jürgen Beringer. 2006. Learning from ambiguously labeled examples. *Intelligent* Data Analysis, 10(5):419–439. Rong Jin and Zoubin Ghahramani. 2002. Learning with multiple labels. *Advances in neural information* processing systems, 15. Jacob Devlin Ming-Wei Chang Kenton and Lee Kristina Toutanova. 2019. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of NAACL-HLT, pages 4171–4186. Youngdong Kim, Junho Yim, Juseung Yun, and Junmo Kim. 2019. Nlnl: Negative learning for noisy labels. In *Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International* Conference on Computer Vision, pages 101–110. Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980. Gina-Anne Levow. 2006. The third international chinese language processing bakeoff: Word segmentation and named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the Fifth SIGHAN Workshop on Chinese Language Processing, pages 108–117. Jiaqi Lv, Miao Xu, Lei Feng, Gang Niu, Xin Geng, and Masashi Sugiyama. 2020. Progressive identification of true labels for partial-label learning. In *International Conference on Machine Learning*, pages 6500–6510. PMLR. Gengyu Lyu, Songhe Feng, Tao Wang, Congyan Lang, and Yidong Li. 2019. Gm-pll: graph matching based partial label learning. *IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering*, 33(2):521–535. An T Nguyen, Byron C Wallace, Junyi Jessy Li, Ani Nenkova, and Matthew Lease. 2017. Aggregating and predicting sequence labels from crowd annotations. In *Proceedings of the conference. Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting*, volume 2017, page 299. NIH Public Access. Nam Nguyen and Rich Caruana. 2008. Classification with partial labels. In *Proceedings of the 14th ACM* SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 551–559. Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, Alban Desmaison, Andreas Kopf, Edward Z. Yang, Zachary DeVito, Martin Raison, Alykhan Tejani, Sasank Chilamkurthy, Benoit Steiner, Lu Fang, Junjie Bai, and Soumith Chintala. 2019. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. *neural information processing systems*. Nanyun Peng and Mark Dredze. 2015. Named entity recognition for chinese social media with jointly trained embeddings. In Proceedings of the 2015 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 548–554. Filipe Rodrigues, Francisco Pereira, and Bernardete Ribeiro. 2014. Sequence labeling with multiple annotators. *Machine learning*, 95(2):165–181. Edwin Simpson and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. A Bayesian approach for sequence tagging with crowds. 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 1093–1104, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. 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), pages 5784–5789. Haobo Wang, Ruixuan Xiao, Yixuan Li, Lei Feng, Gang Niu, Gang Chen, and Junbo Zhao. 2023. Pico: Contrastive label disambiguation for partial label learning. Learning. Ralph Weischedel, Sameer Pradhan, Lance Ramshaw, Martha Palmer, Nianwen Xue, Mitchell Marcus, Ann Taylor, Craig Greenberg, Eduard Hovy, Robert Belvin, et al. 2011. Ontonotes release 4.0. LDC2011T03, Philadelphia, Penn.: Linguistic Data Consortium. Hongwei Wen, Jingyi Cui, Hanyuan Hang, Jiabin Liu, Yisen Wang, and Zhouchen Lin. 2021. Leveraged weighted loss for partial label learning. In *International Conference on Machine Learning*, pages 11091–11100. PMLR. Xuan Wu and Min-Ling Zhang. 2018. Towards enabling binary decomposition for partial label learning. In IJCAI, pages 2868–2874. Mengge Xue, Bowen Yu, Zhenyu Zhang, Tingwen Liu, Yue Zhang, and Bin Wang. 2020. Coarse-to-fine pre-training for named entity recognition. empirical methods in natural language processing. Vikas Yadav and Steven Bethard. 2018. A survey on recent advances in named entity recognition from deep learning models. In *27th International Conference* on Computational Linguistics, COLING 2018, pages 2145–2158. Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL). Hang Yan, Bocao Deng, Xiaonan Li, and Xipeng Qiu. 2019. Tener: Adapting transformer encoder for named entity recognition. *arXiv: Computation and* Language. Yan Yan and Yuhong Guo. 2020. Partial label learning with batch label correction. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 6575–6582. YaoSheng Yang, Meishan Zhang, Wenliang Chen, Wei Zhang, Haofen Wang, and Min Zhang. 2018. Adversarial learning for chinese ner from crowd annotations. In *Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on* Artificial Intelligence, volume 32. Min-Ling Zhang and Fei Yu. 2015. Solving the partial label learning problem: An instance-based approach. In *Twenty-fourth international joint conference on* artificial intelligence. Min-Ling Zhang, Bin-Bin Zhou, and Xu-Ying Liu. 2016. Partial label learning via feature-aware disambiguation. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 1335–1344. Yue Zhang and Jie Yang. 2018. Chinese ner using lattice lstm. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1554–1564. Jie Zhou, Qi Zhang, Qin Chen, Liang He, and XuanJing Huang. 2022. A multi-format transfer learning model for event argument extraction via variational information bottleneck. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 1990–2000. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist 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? Our work does not have any potential risks. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Abstract and 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?** 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?** 3.3 Implementation Details And Metrics ✓ C1. Did you report the number of parameters in the models used, the total computational budget (e.g., GPU hours), and computing infrastructure used? 3.3 Implementation Details 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. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? 3.3 Implementation Details and Metrics ✗ 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 run our model using the same seed and select the best based on the development set. 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?** 3.1 Datasets ✓ 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.? 3.1 Datasets ✓ 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)? 3.1 Datasets ✓ 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? 3.1 Datasets 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.

xu-etal-2023-towards-zero

Towards Zero-Shot Persona Dialogue Generation with In-Context Learning

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.90

Much work has been done to improve persona consistency by finetuning a pretrained dialogue model on high-quality human-annoated persona datasets. However, these methods still face the challenges of high cost and poor scalability. To this end, we propose a simple-yet-effective approach to significantly improve zero-shot persona consistency via in-context learning. Specifically, we first pre-train a persona-augmented dialogue generation model and then utilize in-context prompting mechanism to realize zero-shot persona customization. Experimental results demonstrate that our method can dramatically improve persona consistency without compromising coherence and informativeness in zero-shot settings.

# Towards Zero-Shot Persona Dialogue Generation With In-Context Learning Xinchao Xu, Zeyang Lei, Wenquan Wu, Zheng-Yu Niu, Hua Wu, Haifeng Wang Baidu Inc., Beijing, China {xuxinchao, leizeyang, wuwenquan01, niuzhengyu, wu_hua, wanghaifeng}@baidu.com ## Abstract Much work has been done to improve persona consistency by finetuning a pretrained dialogue model on high-quality human-annoated persona datasets. However, these methods still face the challenges of high cost and poor scalability. To this end, we propose a simpleyet-effective approach to significantly improve zero-shot persona consistency via in-context learning. Specifically, we first pre-train a persona-augmented dialogue generation model and then utilize in-context prompting mechanism to realize zero-shot persona customization. Experimental results demonstrate that our method can dramatically improve persona consistency without compromising coherence and informativeness in zero-shot settings. ## 1 Introduction Endowing a dialog agent with consistent personas plays a very crucial role for build a more engaging and human-like chatbot. While large-scale pretrained dialog models have achieved great success (Adiwardana et al., 2020; Roller et al., 2021; Bao et al., 2021a; Gu et al., 2022; Thoppilan et al., 2022), maintaining persona consistency remains unsatisfactory and challenging when applying these pretrained models to different scenarios with preset personas. Traditional approaches for addressing this issue typically involve manually collecting persona dialogue datasets, such as PersonaChat (Zhang et al., 2018), and fine-tuning pre-trained dialogue models on these datasets (Liu et al., 2020; Wolf et al., 2019). However, these methods face high costs for obtaining high-quality human-labeled persona datasets and scalability issues when encountering unseen persona information in the fine-tuned datasets (Huang et al., 2020; Roller et al., 2020) To this end, we propose a novel in-context prompting learning mechanism to tackle zero-shot persona-based dialogue generation. By leveraging the pre-trained dialogue foundation model, we aim to generate persona-based dialogues without the need for expensive labeled data. Prompt-based in-context learning(Brown et al., 2020, Liu et al., 2021) has demonstrated its efficacy in few-shot or even zero-shot settings. In this work, we aim to implement a zero-shot persona dialogue generation mechanism using in-context prompt learning. However, we face two challenges: - Selecting appropriate prompts: Previous research (Zheng and Huang, 2021) has identified that their prompting method is not compatible with knowledge-grounded approaches. The prompts should be effective for the pretrained dialogue foundation model to implement zero-shot persona dialogue generation (see Section 3). - Even though designing an appropriate prompt is crucial, improving the in-context learning ability of the pretrained model is also important (see Section 4). We would also like to highlight the practical value of our proposed work. In real application scenarios, the only cost of creating a new personalized chatbot is obtaining the corresponding persona prompts based on the prompt template, without the need for additional data annotation work. This significantly reduces the cost of creating a personalized chatbot. In summary, this work makes the following contributions: - We firstly propose a novel persona prompting mechanism in persona dialogue, enabling zero-shot capabilities to maintain consistency with preset personas. - We demonstrate the importance of persona information in the pre-trained dialogue model for persona dialog, which can improve the in-context learning ability compared to the state-of-the-art models PLATO-2(Bao et al.,  2020) and EVA2.0(Gu et al., 2022). ## 2 Related Work There exists much work on consistent personabased dialog generation. In particular, Zhang et al. (2018) proposed the PersonaChat dataset that has extensively promoted the development of this field where the crowd-workers are simply asked to chat with the other person naturally with the given personas. Zheng et al. (2019) constructed a large-scale persona dataset based on structured persona knowledge with public Weibo data. For improving persona consisitency, Qian et al. (2018) proposed an explicit persona model to generate consistent responses for given profile information. Liu et al. (2020) proposed P 2 BOT to improve dialogue consistency by incorporating mutual persona perception. Song et al. (2021) disentangled persona-based dialogue generation into consistency understanding and dialogue generation. Cao et al. (2022) presented a model-agnostic data manipulation method for consistent persona generation. While these works have shown promising performance on preset personas in their respective datasets, they heavily rely on expensive humanlabeled datasets. Moreover, customizing a chatbot with unseen personas in zero-shot settings remains challenging. To address these limitations, this paper proposes an in-context prompting learning mechanism to improve zero-shot persona consistency without the need for human-annotated data. ## 3 In-Context Persona Prompting Learning We propose a novel in-context prompting learning mechanism for zero-shot personalized dialogue. The idea is simple yet highly effective. We format the preset persona information into multiple turns of a dialogue and place it at the beginning of the original dialogue context, as illustrated in Figure 1. This approach differentiates our method from (Thoppilan et al., 2022), where the prompt consists of a single starting sentence. Furthermore, our method also differs from most previous prompting methods in GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020), where prompts are typically used to distinguish between different tasks. One of the key advantages of our approach is that it enables zero-shot persona customization without the need for annotating specific persona data. This distinguishes it from the dialogue prompting method proposed in (Zheng and Huang, 2021), which requires fine-tuning on specific persona information. The detailed process of in-context persona prompting is as follows: (1) Customize the specific persona settings in the prompt templates, as described in Table 3 of Appendix A. For example, if the name is set to *Lucy*, then the corresponding slot in the name response of the template is filled with *Lucy*. (2) Construct the dialog flow using the prompt based on the current dialog context, following the template. Place this constructed prompt in front of the dialog context. For example, if we choose three attributes name, *gender*, and age, then we need to connect the corresponding utterance-response pairs to create a sequence of six sentences and place them before the context. Note that our work involves 14 persona attributes. ## 4 Pre-Trained Dialogue Model To enhance the persona utilization ability of the pre-trained model in the aforementioned in-context prompting approach, we conduct pretraining on a persona-augmented dialogue generation model. Instead of using the conventional encoder-decoder architecture for dialogue generation, the pretrained model retains the use of the prefix LM (language model) approach, as described in (Dong et al., 2019; Bao et al., 2021a,b; Lei et al., 2022). The key difference lies in the inclusion of persona informa-  tion for both speakers in the input of the pretrained model. This requires specific modifications to the input representation, which are described in detail in the following subsection. ## 4.1 Input Representation A visual representation of our input representation is given in Figure 2. - **Input Tokens**: The input includes user profile, bot profile, context, and response. In order to handle cases with or without profiles, we randomly sample and add user profiles and bot profiles. During the construction of training samples, there is a 50% chance of adding profiles. As a result, the input can fall into one of the following four types: 25% of the samples do not include profile information, 25% only contain user profiles, 25% only contain bot profiles, and 25% include both user and bot profiles. The attributes and values of the profiles are packed into the user profile sequence or bot profile sequence, respectively. - **Delimiter Tokens**: In order to distinguish different input slots, special delimiters [BOS] and [EOS] are used. Each input part starts with [BOS] and ends with [EOS] and the sentence in the context ends with [EOS]. - **Embeddings**: The embeddings of the token are constructed by summing the corresponding token, position, type, and role embeddings as shown in Figure 2. ## 4.2 Data Collection For Pretrained Model The dataset for training our pre-trained model, referred to as Persona Dialogue Pre-training(PDP) Dataset, is collected from publicly available social media sources. Following the approach in (Mazaré et al., 2018; Bao et al., 2020), the text is processed  into the format of dialogue sessions. The key difference from previous dialogue pretraining corpora is the addition of profile information for dialogue participants in each dialogue session. In addition, another difference is that we did not truncate the length of the dialogue context. For example, in Meena (Adiwardana et al., 2020), the context is only 7 turns. The basic statistics of the dataset are presented in Table 1. ## 5 Experiments In this section, we will discuss the baselines, evaluation metrics, model comparisons, and results. ## 5.1 Baselines We select the following state-of-the-art Chinese pretrained generative dialogue models as baselines. - **EVA2.0** (Gu et al., 2022) is trained on the transformer-based architecture combined with a bidirectional encoder and a unidirectional decoder with cleaning WDC-Dialogue(Zhou et al., 2021). There are three model sizes: 300M, 970M and 2.8B. Since the the 2.8B version EVA2.0xLarge obtains the best performance, we compare with this version. - **PLATO-2-FT** is trained on the basis of PLATO-2 (Bao et al., 2021a) using the DuLeMon dataset (Xu et al., 2022) with persona utilization. The PLATO-2-FT model consists of approximately 1.6 billion parameters. | Models | Coherence | Informativeness | Persona Consistency | Persona_QA_Total | Persona_QA_Unseen | |------------|-------------|-------------------|-----------------------|--------------------|---------------------| | EVA-2.0 | 0.70 | 0.67 | - | 0.07 | 0.01 | | PLATO-2-FT | 0.76 | 0.74 | 0.45 | 0.15 | 0.11 | | Our method | 0.86 | 0.84 | 0.85 | 0.93 | 0.92 | Table 2: Comparison of human evaluation metric results on human-machine dialogs among our model and baselines. The higher the score, the better it is. The best results are written in bold. Persona_QA_Total is the result of the total testset and Persona_QA_Unseen is the result of the unseen testset. ## 5.2 Evaluation 5.3 Results Automatic evaluation of open-domain dialogue poses significant challenges, particularly when evaluating persona-related dialogues, which are often sparse (Roller et al., 2020). Therefore, in our experiments, we conduct human evaluations. Evaluation Metrics. In the human evaluation, participants engage in conversations with the chatbot and assess the quality of the chatbot's responses. We employ four utterance-level metrics for humanbot chat evaluation: coherence, informativeness, persona consistency, and persona question-answer. Inspired by the findings in (Vinyals and Le, 2015) that semantically similar questions can yield inconsistent answers, we devised the persona questionanswer metric for evaluation. For instance, by asking "*what do you do?*" and "*what is your job?*", we can observe if a chatbot consistently provides different answers. This metric helps assess the model's consistency with the preset chatbot's profile. Crowd-sourcing workers are tasked with scoring the response quality on a scale of [0, 1]. To evaluate coherence, informativeness, and persona consistency, we collected interactive conversations. Each conversation starts with a preselected topic and spans 7 turns. We extracted 100 diverse topics from the high-frequency topics of a commercial chatbot, covering various areas such as life, emotions, hobbies, and more. In total, 700 responses were evaluated for these metrics. For persona question-answer evaluation, we gathered 14 basic persona information attributes and created 24 questions for each attribute. The persona questionanswer test set comprises 336 questions, with 240 of them involving unseen persona attributes from the pretraining. More details about the persona question-answer evaluation can be found in Appendix C. The collected conversation data was distributed to crowd-sourcing workers for evaluation. We report the average score for each evaluation metric based on their assessments. The results presented in Table 2 demonstrate that our method is an effective zero-shot prompt-based learning approach that significantly improves persona consistency. It is evident that EVA-2.0 fails to achieve the desired results when utilizing persona prompting. We attribute this to the relatively small number of dialogue turns in the training data of these models, resulting in weaker in-context learning capabilities. In contrast, our method achieves a persona question-answer accuracy of 0.93, which is a substantial improvement compared to other models. Specifically, compared to PLATO-2-FT, our method exhibits a significant improvement of 78%. Notably, in terms of persona consistency, our method shows a 40% improvement, increasing from 0.45 to 0.85, which is a significant advancement over PLATO-2-FT. These results indicate that our model outperforms state-of-the-art baselines. We also analyzed the impact of persona categories that were not included in the pretraining data, and the persona question-answer accuracy was found to be 0.92. This demonstrates that our method can be extended to incorporate additional persona attributes, showcasing its excellent transferability. Additionally, we tested the customization ability of the model and examined whether the model's responses align with the pre-set persona configurations. Our model maintains consistency across different settings and exhibits strong robustness to variations in persona values, as detailed in Appendix C. These findings illustrate that our model possesses effective customization capabilities and achieves high persona consistency in the zero-shot setting. ## 6 Conclusion In this paper, we propose a novel in-context prompting learning mechanism for zero-shot personalized dialogues. Our framework is conceptually simple and practically effective, which can freely customize the pre-set personas of the chatbot. In addition, we train a new persona-augmented pre-trained generative dialogue model with the data merging the personal information of the dialogue speakers to enhance the in-context learning ability. Experiments demonstrate that our model can dramatically improve the persona consistency from 45% to 85% of dialogues while maintaining coherence and informativeness in the zero-shot setting. In the future, we will apply our zero-shot framework to problems related to common sense knowledge reasoning of personas. ## 7 Ethical Considerations We are sure that PDP has been collected in a manner that is consistent with the terms of use of any sources and the intellectual property and privacy rights of the original authors of the texts. Meanwhile, our project is approved by an IRB. Finally, we also provide details on the characteristics of PDP and steps taken to ensure the potential problems with the quality of the dataset do not create additional risks. ## 8 Limitations The biggest limitation of our framework is that persona prompting increases the input length of the model, increasing inference time. Through the analysis of real online user logs, the inference time will be 1.82 times that of the original. In the future, we will optimize the inference performance by compressing the length of the prompting part. ## References Daniel Adiwardana, Minh-Thang Luong, David R. So, Jamie Hall, Noah Fiedel, Romal Thoppilan, Zi Yang, Apoorv Kulshreshtha, Gaurav Nemade, Yifeng Lu, and Quoc V. Le. 2020. Towards a human-like opendomain chatbot. *CoRR*, abs/2001.09977. Siqi Bao, Huang He, Fan Wang, Hua Wu, Haifeng Wang, Wenquan Wu, Zhen Guo, Zhibin Liu, and Xinchao Xu. 2020. PLATO-2: towards building an open-domain chatbot via curriculum learning. *CoRR*, abs/2006.16779. Siqi Bao, Huang He, Fan Wang, Hua Wu, Haifeng Wang, Wenquan Wu, Zhen Guo, Zhibin Liu, and Xinchao Xu. 2021a. PLATO-2: Towards building an opendomain chatbot via curriculum learning. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021*, pages 2513–2525, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Siqi Bao, Huang He, Fan Wang, Hua Wu, Haifeng Wang, Wenquan Wu, Zhihua Wu, Zhen Guo, Hua Lu, Xinxian Huang, Xin Tian, Xinchao Xu, Yingzhan Lin, and Zhengyu Niu. 2021b. PLATO-XL: exploring the large-scale pre-training of dialogue generation. CoRR, abs/2109.09519. Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared 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 M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher 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. *CoRR*, abs/2005.14165. Yu Cao, Wei Bi, Meng Fang, Shuming Shi, and Dacheng Tao. 2022. A model-agnostic data manipulation method for persona-based dialogue generation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 7984–8002. Li Dong, Nan Yang, Wenhui Wang, Furu Wei, Xiaodong Liu, Yu Wang, Jianfeng Gao, Ming Zhou, and HsiaoWuen Hon. 2019. Unified Language Model Pretraining for Natural Language Understanding and Generation. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, volume 32. Curran Associates, Inc. Yuxian Gu, Jiaxin Wen, Hao Sun, Yi Song, Pei Ke, Chujie Zheng, Zheng Zhang, Jianzhu Yao, Xiaoyan Zhu, Jie Tang, and Minlie Huang. 2022. Eva2.0: Investigating open-domain chinese dialogue systems with large-scale pre-training. *ArXiv*, abs/2203.09313. Minlie Huang, Xiaoyan Zhu, and Jianfeng Gao. 2020. Challenges in building intelligent open-domain dialog systems. *ACM Trans. Inf. Syst.*, 38(3). 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. Zeyang Lei, Chao Zhang, Xinchao Xu, Wenquan Wu, Zheng-yu Niu, Hua Wu, Haifeng Wang, Yi Yang, and Shuanglong Li. 2022. PLATO-ad: A unified advertisement text generation framework with multitask prompt learning. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: Industry Track, pages 512–520, Abu Dhabi, UAE. Association for Computational Linguistics. Pengfei Liu, Weizhe Yuan, Jinlan Fu, Zhengbao Jiang, Hiroaki Hayashi, and Graham Neubig. 2021. Pretrain, prompt, and predict: A systematic survey of prompting methods in natural language processing. CoRR, abs/2107.13586. Qian Liu, Yihong Chen, Bei Chen, Jian-Guang Lou, Zixuan Chen, Bin Zhou, and Dongmei Zhang. 2020. You impress me: Dialogue generation via mutual persona perception. *CoRR*, abs/2004.05388. Pierre-Emmanuel Mazaré, 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. Qiao Qian, Minlie Huang, Haizhou Zhao, Jingfang Xu, and Xiaoyan Zhu. 2018. Assigning personality/profile to a chatting machine for coherent conversation generation. In *Proceedings of the TwentySeventh International Joint Conference on Artificial* Intelligence, IJCAI-18, pages 4279–4285. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization. Stephen Roller, Y-Lan Boureau, Jason Weston, Antoine Bordes, Emily Dinan, Angela Fan, David Gunning, Da Ju, Margaret Li, Spencer Poff, Pratik Ringshia, Kurt Shuster, Eric Michael Smith, Arthur Szlam, Jack Urbanek, and Mary Williamson. 2020. Open-domain conversational agents: Current progress, open problems, and future directions. *CoRR*, abs/2006.12442. Stephen Roller, Emily Dinan, Naman Goyal, Da Ju, Mary Williamson, Yinhan Liu, Jing Xu, Myle Ott, Eric Michael Smith, Y-Lan Boureau, and Jason Weston. 2021. Recipes for building an open-domain chatbot. 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 300–325. Association for Computational Linguistics. Haoyu Song, Yan Wang, Kaiyan Zhang, Weinan Zhang, and Ting Liu. 2021. Bob: Bert over bert for training persona-based dialogue models from limited personalized data. 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 167–177. Romal Thoppilan, Daniel De Freitas, Jamie Hall, Noam Shazeer, Apoorv Kulshreshtha, Heng-Tze Cheng, Alicia Jin, Taylor Bos, Leslie Baker, Yu Du, YaGuang Li, Hongrae Lee, Huaixiu Steven Zheng, Amin Ghafouri, Marcelo Menegali, Yanping Huang, Maxim Krikun, Dmitry Lepikhin, James Qin, Dehao Chen, Yuanzhong Xu, Zhifeng Chen, Adam Roberts, Maarten Bosma, Yanqi Zhou, Chung-Ching Chang, Igor Krivokon, Will Rusch, Marc Pickett, Kathleen S. Meier-Hellstern, Meredith Ringel Morris, Tulsee Doshi, Renelito Delos Santos, Toju Duke, Johnny Soraker, Ben Zevenbergen, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Mark Diaz, Ben Hutchinson, Kristen Olson, Alejandra Molina, Erin Hoffman-John, Josh Lee, Lora Aroyo, Ravi Rajakumar, Alena Butryna, Matthew Lamm, Viktoriya Kuzmina, Joe Fenton, Aaron Cohen, Rachel Bernstein, Ray Kurzweil, Blaise AgueraArcas, Claire Cui, Marian Croak, Ed H. Chi, and Quoc Le. 2022. Lamda: Language models for dialog applications. *CoRR*, abs/2201.08239. Oriol Vinyals and Quoc V. Le. 2015. A neural conversational model. *CoRR*, abs/1506.05869. Thomas Wolf, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, and Clement Delangue. 2019. Transfertransfo: A transfer learning approach for neural network based conversational agents. *CoRR*, abs/1901.08149. Xinchao Xu, Zhibin Gou, Wenquan Wu, Zheng-Yu Niu, Hua Wu, Haifeng Wang, and Shihang Wang. 2022. Long time no see! open-domain conversation with long-term persona memory. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022*, pages 2639–2650, Dublin, Ireland. 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. Chujie Zheng and Minlie Huang. 2021. Exploring prompt-based few-shot learning for grounded dialog generation. *CoRR*, abs/2109.06513. Yinhe Zheng, Guanyi Chen, Minlie Huang, Song Liu, and Xuan Zhu. 2019. Personalized dialogue generation with diversified traits. *CoRR*, abs/1901.09672. Hao Zhou, Pei Ke, Zheng Zhang, Yuxian Gu, Yinhe Zheng, Chujie Zheng, Yida Wang, Chen Henry Wu, Hao Sun, Xiaocong Yang, Bosi Wen, Xiaoyan Zhu, Minlie Huang, and Jie Tang. 2021. EVA: an opendomain chinese dialogue system with large-scale generative pre-training. *CoRR*, abs/2108.01547. ## A Prompt Templates The design of the prompt template is very important. Our prompt templates are shown in Table 3. We concatenate these dialogues and place them in front of the dialogue context. ## B Pre-Trained Model The model is shown in Figure 2. The input consists user profile, bot profile, context and response. The input embeddings is the sum of the token embeddings, the position embeddings, the type embeddings and the role embeddings. Different participants have the corresponding roles. We describe the details of different type token: (1) Token: we use the same token segmentation and the same vocabulary as PLATO-2(Bao et al., | No | Profile | Utterance | Response | |------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|--------------------------------| | 1 | Name | 你的名字叫什么 | 我叫[姓名] | | What's your name | My name is [name] | | | | 2 | Age | 你年龄是多少 | 我今年[年龄]了 | | How old are you | I am [age] this year | | | | 3 | Gender | 你性别是什么 | 我是[性别]呢 | | What is your gender | I'm [gender] | | | | 4 | Height | 你身高多少 | 我[身高], 感觉还行 | | How tall are you | I am [height], I feel okay | | | | 5 | Weight | 你体重多少 | 我[体重], 控制的不错的 | | How much do you weigh | I am [weight], well under control | | | | 6 | Birthday | 你生日哪天 | 我[生日], 很庆幸来到这个世界哈 | | When is your birthday | I was born on [birthday], I am fortunate to be in this world | | | | 7 | Father | 你爸爸是谁 | 我爸爸是[爸爸] | | Who is your father | My father is [dad] | | | | 8 | Mother | 你妈妈是谁 | 我妈妈是[妈妈] | | Who is your mother | My mother is [mother] | | | | 9 | Zodiac | 你属相什么 | 我属[属相], 不错吧 | | What is your Chinese zodiac | I am [zodiac], not bad | | | | 10 | Constellation | 你星座是什么 | 我是[星座]呢 | | What is your constellation | I am [constellation] | | | | 11 | Job | 你工作是什么 | 我工作是[工作] | | What is your job | My job is [job] | | | | 12 | Education | 你的学历是什么 | 我是[教育]呢 | | What's your educational background | I am [education] | | | | 13 | Hometown | 你家乡哪里 | 我是[家乡]的, 一个美丽的地方 | | Where is your hometown | I am from [hometown], a beautiful place | | | | 14 | Interest | 你的爱好是什么 | 我的爱好是[爱好]啊 | | What is your hobby | My hobby is [interest] | | | 2020), and it contains 30K BPE tokens; (2) Position: the position encoding starts from the response, and then the position encoding starts from the context in reverse order. The range of the response is 0-127, and the encoding range of the other part is 128-1023. This encoding makes learning more robust for different sequences; (3) Type: context, response, and profile are set as 0, 1, and 2 for encoding, respectively; (4) Role: user profile and bot profile are set according to the roles of the participants. We exploit a similar method as proposed in (Bao et al., 2021b). The target response and utterances in the context by the same user will be assigned the role 0, and the rest will be assigned 1. The layers of transformer model are set to L = 32, the attention heads are set to H = 32, the embedding dimension is D = 2048, and the maximal position length is set to 1024. We optimize all models using Adam(Kingma and Ba, 2015) with batch size of B = 524, 288 and learning rate of lr = 5e − 4. We conduct all experiments on 32 NVIDIA A100 40GB GPUs in mixed precision. It takes about 20 days to accomplish the training process of our pre-trained model. ## C Persona Qa Testset For the confidence of the results, we carefully set the dimension and quantity of the persona of the evaluation data. We have specifically designed different questions for each persona dimension. This is similar to an attack test, which can effectively measure the dialogue model's ability to maintain the persona's consistency. The types of questions are shown in Table 4. We enriched multiple test cases in each question type. Moreover, we also tested the impact of the number of test cases on the final results. For more confidence in the results, our final test set contains 24 cases for each question type, as shown in Table 5. During the experiment, in order to verify the customizability of the model on the chatbot persona, we set up multiple groups of different chatbot personas. We report in Table 6. The accuracy of persona QA is 0.98, 0.92, and 0.96. ## D Case Study To intuitively show the customized bot's personas ability of our method, we provided some generated cases in Figure 3. It demonstrates that the prompt- | Type | Description | Case | |-----------------------|------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Explicit Question | Ask directly | 你是谁 Who are you | | Redundant Question | Add or expand question word redundantly | 我不知道你叫什么名字 I don't know what your name is | | Unordered Question | Change the word order of the normal | 叫什么名字啊,你 | | questioning sentence | What's your name, you 你可以叫我杰克,怎么称呼你 | | | Coherent Question | Ask questions combined with chat history information | You can call me Jack, what should I call you | | Implicit Question | Questions entwined with other topics | 你都怎么介绍自己 How do you introduce yourself | | Interfering Question | Interfere before asking questions | 没记错的话,你是不是叫杰克 If I remember correctly, is your name Jack? 我叫段星星| 你知道我名字么| 叫啥呀 | | In-Context Question | Append the dialogue context before | My name is Duan Xingxing | Do you know my name | | the question sentence | | What is my name? | | Table 4: Different types of questions in Persona-Querstion-Ability(PQA). We deliberately design different question types to verify the robustness of the model and ensure the confidence of the evaluation. | No. | Questions | |-------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | 你是谁(Who are you) | | 2 | 我不知道你叫什么名字(I don't know your name) | | 3 | 叫什么名字啊,你(What's your name, you) | | 4 | 你可以叫我小杨,怎么称呼你(You can call me Xiao Yang, what should I call you) | | 5 | 你都怎么介绍自己(How do you introduce yourself) | | 6 | 没记错的话,你是不是叫小陈(If I remember correctly, is your name Xiao Chen) | | 7 | 你的名字是什么(What's your name) | | 8 | 介意告诉我你的名字吗(Would you mind telling me your name) | | 9 | 你的名字,我很想知道(Your name, I'd like to know) | | 10 | 我叫小明,你呢(My name is Xiao Ming, how about you) | | 11 | 我想和你做朋友,互相介绍下呗(I want to be friends with you and introduce each other) | | 12 | 你是小亮(You are Xiao Liang) | | 13 | 告诉我你的名字(Tell me your name) | | 14 | 我应该知道你叫啥(I should know your name) | | 15 | 你的名字,请告诉我(Your name please tell me) | | 16 | 我忘了你叫啥了,可以再介绍下自己吗(I forgot your name, can you introduce yourself again) | | 17 | 大家都管叫你什么啊(What do they call you) | | 18 | 我知道你叫啥,你叫小李,对不对(I know your name, your name is Xiao Li, right) 你好呀|| (Hello ||) | | 19 | 很高兴认识你|| (Nice to meet you ||) 你是谁(Who are you) 你好呀|| (Hello ||) 很高兴认识你|| (Nice to meet you ||) | | 20 | 你的名字是什么(What is your name) 你好呀|| (Hello ||) 很高兴认识你|| (Nice to meet you ||) 我也很高兴认识你|| (I'm also nice to meet you||) 相识就是缘分|| (Acquaintance is fate||) 你可以叫我小杨,怎么称呼你(You can call me Xiao Yang, What should I call you?) | | 21 | 我叫小段|| (My name is Xiao Duan||) 别人都说我名字特土|| (People say my name is Tetu||) | | 22 | 奥奥,叫啥呀(Oh, what's your name) 我叫小段|| (My name is Xiao Duan||) | | 23 | 你的名字比我好听|| (Your name sounds better than mine||) 那叫啥呀(What's that called) 我叫小段|| (My name is Xiao Duan ||) | | 24 | 你知道我名字么|| (Do you know my name ||) 叫啥呀(What is my name) Table 5: Example Questions of Name in persona QA testset. | | No. | Profile Type | Profile_1 | Profile_2 | Profile_3 | |-------|---------------------|--------------------------------|--------------------------------|----------------------------| | 1 | 姓名(Name) | 李蛋儿(Li Daner) | 小明(Xiao Ming) | 李红(Li Hong) | | 2 | 年龄(Age) | 14岁(14 years old) | 12岁(12 years old) | 22岁(22 years old) | | 3 | 性别(Gender) | 男(Male) | 男(Male) | 女(Female) | | 4 | 星座(Constellation) | 双鱼座(Pisces) | 双鱼座(Pisces) | 双鱼座(Pisces) | | 5 | 身高(Height) | 178cm | 163cm | 160cm | | 6 | 体重(Weight) | 65kg | 60kg | 60kg | | 7 | 生日(Birthday) | 3月20日(March 20) | 3月10日(March 10) | 3月2日(March 2) | | 8 | 爸爸(Father) | - | - | - | | 9 | 妈妈(Mother) | - | - | - | | 10 | 属相(Zodiac) | 牛(Ox) | 兔(Hare) | 龙(Dragon) | | 11 | 工作(Job) | 学生(Student) | 学生(Student) | 学生(Student) | | 12 | 教育(Education) | 小学生(Primary school student) | 小学生(Primary school student) | 大学生(University student) | | 13 | 家乡(Hometown) | 北京(Beijing) | 济南(Jinan) | 上海(Shanghai) | | 14 | 爱好(Interest) | 篮球(Basketball) | 足球(Football) | 游泳(Swimming) |  ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Section 8 ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Section 8 ✓ 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?** 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. Section 5.2 ## 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? 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.)? Left blank. D ✓ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** Section 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.? Section 4 ✗ 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? Section 7 ✗ D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Left blank.

zheng-etal-2023-grammar

Grammar-based Decoding for Improved Compositional Generalization in Semantic Parsing

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.91

Sequence-to-sequence (seq2seq) models have achieved great success in semantic parsing tasks, but they tend to struggle on out-of-distribution (OOD) data. Despite recent progress, robust semantic parsing on large-scale tasks with combined challenges from both compositional generalization and natural language variations remains an unsolved problem. To promote research in this area, this work presents CUDON, a large-scale dialogue dataset in Chinese language, particularly designed for evaluating compositional generalization of semantic parsing. The dataset contains about ten thousand multi-turn complex queries, and provides multiple splits with different degrees of train-test distribution divergence. We have investigated improving compositional generalization with grammar-based decodering on this dataset. With specially designed grammars leveraging program schema, we are able to substantially improve accuracy of seq2seq semantic parsers on OOD splits: A LSTM-based parser using a Context-free Grammar (CFG) achieves over 25{\%} higher accuracy than a standard seq2seq baseline; a parser using Tree-Substitution Grammar (TSG) improves parsing speed five to seven times over the CFG parser with only a small accuracy loss. The grammar-based LSTM parsers also outperforms BART- and T5-based seq2seq parsers on the OOD splits, despite having less than one tenth of parameters and no pretraining. We also verified our approach on the SMCalflow-CS dataset, particularly, on the zero-shot learning task.

# Grammar-Based Decoding For Improved Compositional Generalization In Semantic Parsing Jing Zheng and **Jyh-Herng Chow** and **Zhongnan Shen** and **Peng Xu** Ant Technologies U.S., Inc {jing.zheng, jyhherngchow, zhongnan.shen, peng.x}@antgroup.com ## Abstract Sequence-to-sequence (seq2seq) models have achieved great success in semantic parsing tasks, but they tend to struggle on out-of-distribution (OOD) data. Despite recent progress, robust semantic parsing on large-scale tasks that combine challenges from both compositional generalization and natural language variations remains an unsolved issue. To encourage research in this area, this work introduces CUDON, a large-scale dialogue dataset in the Chinese language, specifically created to evaluate the compositional generalization of semantic parsing. The dataset contains about ten thousand multi-turn complex queries, and provides multiple splits with different degrees of train-test distribution divergence. We have investigated improving compositional generalization through grammar-based decoding on this dataset. With specially designed grammars that leverage program schema, we are able to significantly improve the accuracy of seq2seq semantic parsers on OOD splits: a LSTM-based parser using a Context-free Grammar (CFG) achieves over 25% higher accuracy than a standard seq2seq baseline; a parser using Tree-Substitution Grammar (TSG) improves parsing speed by five to seven times over the CFG parser with only a small accuracy loss. The grammar-based LSTM parsers also outperforms BART- and T5-based seq2seq parsers on the OOD splits, despite having less than one tenth of the parameters and no pretraining. We also validated our approach on the SMCalflow-CS dataset, specifically on the zero-shot learning task. 1 Introduction The task of semantic parsing is to translate a natural language utterance into an executable program in certain meaning representation (MR). In recent years, sequence-to-sequence (seq2seq) models have become the dominant approach for this task (Jia and Liang, 2016; Dong and Lapata, 2016), mainly due to their excellent ability to handle natural language variations. However, evaluations on synthetic datasets such as SCAN (Lake and Baroni, 2018) have shown that seq2seq models do not reliably generalize to those out-of-distribution (OOD) utterances with element combinations not seen in the training data. The ability to generalize to novel element combinations is commonly known as *compositional generalization*. To improve compositional generalization, many recent studies propose specially-designed model architectures targeting SCAN-like synthetic datasets, and some have achieved perfect accuracy on some of these datasets (Li et al., 2019; Russin et al., 2019; Gordon et al., 2020; Lake, 2019; Liu et al., 2020a; Nye et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2020). However, most of these approaches have only been tested on synthetic datasets, which are constructed for a specific purpose and cannot represent the full range of challenges that a real-world semantic parser must address. This motivates us to study the compositional generalization problem in a more realistic setting, specifically, in the context of task-oriented dialogue systems, where semantic parsers must handle greater task complexity and navigate through a wider range of natural language variations and ambiguities. The contributions of this work are two-fold: first, on the dataset front, we have created CUDON1, a Chinese dialogUe Dataset for compOsitional geNeralization research. This is a new large-scale task-oriented dialogue dataset, which contains complex multi-turn cross-domain dialogues, created in a semi-synthetic manner, and specially tailored for studying the compositional generalization problem. It also provides 8 train/dev/test splits with different level of distribution divergence. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first large-scale Chinese dataset designed for this purpose. And the dataset being in Chinese makes it even more valuable since the similar resources are scarce. Second, on the modeling front, we find that by 1https://github.com/ant-research/dialog-dataset-forcompositional-semantic-parsing exploiting schema of the target program, including the syntax and function argument lists, in the  paradigm of grammar based decoding (Krishnamurthy et al., 2017; Yin and Neubig, 2017; Scholak et al., 2021), we can substantially improve compositional generalization of semantic parsers in the seq2seq framework. Both the parser using a context free grammar (CFG) and the one using a treesubstitution grammar (TSG) (Cohn et al., 2010) exceed a standard seq2seq baseline using Pointer Generator Network (See et al., 2017), by over 20 percent on the OOD splits, with the latter being 5-7 times as fast as the former. And they even compare favorably with parsers using large pretrained language models with more than 10 times of parameters. This level of improvement was not reported before in similar works. We also verified that the proposed approach also works in the SMCalflowCS (Yin et al., 2021) dataset without much tuning, achieving significant improvement in the zero-shot setting over the baseline, and exceeds previously reported results with pretrained language models in low-resource settings. In addition, we have not seen the TSG formalism used in grammar-based decoding before, although we adopt a model architecture similar to Platanios et al. (2021). ## 2 Dataset We have constructed a large-scale multi-turn crossdomain task-oriented dialogue dataset in the financial assistant scenario over seven domains and 52 intents. There is also a *common* domain for intents such as *goodbye* and *thankyou*, which can occur in all dialogues. The raw material of entities and properties, such as stock prices and gains, or the experience and best return of fund managers, was crawled from various websites. Throughout the course of dialogue generation, the system may carry out the user-requested tasks by consulting this data to produce realistic and coherent results. The MR we use is called *function expressions*, which allows arbitrarily nesting of function invocations. There are two types of functions: one with only named arguments, each associated with an intent in the dialogue system, and its arguments associated with the slots of the intent; the other can have both positional and named arguments, and perform non-interactive operations like data manipulation. Overall, the dataset has 9996 dialogues, with an average of 41 turns per dialogue and about 44% of the turns involve multiple domains. There are 3876 different delexicalized patterns of the target function expressions with highly unbalanced frequencies. We use the function *refer* to reference slots filled in previous turns, aided with *constraint* functions to limit search matching. This idea, borrowed from Andreas et al. (2020a), makes utterances seemingly independent to each other in a multi-turn dialogue. Figure 1 shows an example of a multi-turn dialogue. do( hotel/reserve_hotel( hotel_name = user_select( hotel/find_hotel(location = 'West Lake')), occupancy = '2', date = 'Sunday'), restaurant/find_restaurant( type = 'fastfood', location = hotel/find_hotel/address)) Figure 2: A function expression example ## 2.1 Function Expression As The Goal A common approach to task-oriented multi-turn dialogue generation is to use an agenda-based user simulator (Schatzmann et al., 2007). This approach, using a flat-structured goal representation defined by multiple tuples of intent, act, and slot-value pairs, is incapable of describing dataflows across multiple intents in a single dialogue turn. Instead of the flat-structured goal, we propose specifying a goal as a *function expression*, that can explicitly express the composition of intents and complex dataflow in a dialogue. For example, the goal *"find a hotel near West Lake, reserve a room* for two people for Sunday, and check if there is a fast food restaurant nearby", can be expressed as shown in Figure 2, where the **user_select** function triggers the system to ask the user to select one result from the **find_hotel** intent. Similar to Wang et al. (2015); Rastogi et al. (2020), we take a two-step approach. A goal is first generated from a set of production rules to create the function expression and its corresponding canonical utterance simultaneously. However, instead of simply paraphrasing this canonical utterance, we use the goal to drive a user simulator to generate a multi-turn dialogue where each user turn has its own function expression and canonical utterance. In the second step, we paraphrase the user utterances in this multi-turn dialogue to make them more natural and fluent. Appendix A describes the production rules used for goal generation in more detail. Appendix B describes how function expressions are used to generate multi-turn dialogues, and shows the goal that generates the dialogue shown in Figure 1. ## 2.2 Paraphrasing User Turns The generated canonical utterances are then paraphrased by crowd workers and a fine-tuned mBART model (Liu et al., 2020b). Our work focuses on the user-side modeling, so we only paraphrase the user utterances. We instruct the crowd workers to paraphrase every user turn of 500 dialogues, and paraphrase only three longest user turns of a dialogue for the remaining. We ask them to rewrite the utterances in accordance with the context and encourage them to express the same meaning but with different sentence structures. A dialogue is paraphrased by a worker, cross checked and possibly revised by a different worker, and finally verified and possibly modified by a third person. Then we collect all the human paraphrased data (a total of 38895 samples) to train an mBARTbased paraphrasing model, which is then used to paraphrase all remaining data. Inspired by recent prompt-based approaches (e.g., Liu et al. (2021)), during training we utilize the first word of each training sample as the prompt to initiate the paraphrase 90% of the time, while randomly selecting a word from anywhere in the sentence for the remaining 10%. This methodology ensures that the model is likely to begin the generated sentence with the prompt word, while still allowing for flexibility to use the prompt word in other positions when necessary. This approach improves the diversity and robustness of the model by generating a wider range of paraphrased outputs. During inference, for each utterance we provide the model with three different prompts based on the pattern of its function expression. We then filter out those results that have modified entity values. In the end, using the mBART model, we are able to paraphrase 94.8% of the remaining data. ## 2.3 Train/Test Splits The primary goal of this dataset is to help research of compositional generalization, so we want to split the data into train and test in multiple ways for experimentation. To facilitate data splitting, we pair each utterance with its context to form a data sample to make them mutually independent, allowing arbitrary way of splitting. In this work we use the user utterance from the previous round as context. Though this may not be the optimal setting for training the most accurate model, we think it is a reasonable compromise between flexibility and quality. For each split, we reserve a portion of randomly selected test samples as the validation data for checkpoint selection, and the rest for evaluation, on which we report results in the experiments. It is important to note that the validation data must not be used for model training, as it shares similarity with the evaluation data. IID Split We provide a standard random split of data samples, where train and test set have similar data distribution. We dedupe each set to get unique context-utterance pairs. We also remove samples from validation and evaluation data if they appear in the training set. TMCD Splits Shaw et al. (2021) proposes Target Maximum Compound Divergence (TMCD) for data splitting. Each target expression is represented as a sequence of atoms, where a compound describes the composition of the atoms. Thus, compound divergence measures the difference in the composition between the train and test sets. In this study, we define atoms as the tokens in function expressions and compounds as the parentchild relationship in function invocations. The compounds of a concrete example can be found in Appendix C. To study compositional generalization, following the MCD principle (Keysers et al., 2020), we aim to generate splits that have low atom divergence between the train and test sets, while having a significant difference in the representation of compounds in the train and test sets. To experiment with TMCD splits, we fix atom divergence at 0.1, and run 200 different splits to get their compound divergence, and then select six splits with varying compound divergence for model experiments. Length Split Length split is also often used in evaluating compositional generalization (e.g., in SCAN). Here we define the length of a function expression to be the max number of arguments among all the functions in the expression. The training set contains all the samples whose expression length is smaller than or equal to two. Those samples with expression length larger than two are divided into validation and test set. Appendix C describes these splits in more detail and contains plots that show the atom and compound distributions in the train/test set. ## 3 Approach To improve compositional generalization, we exploit the program schema to enhance seq2seq models in a grammar-based decoding framework. The model takes in the user utterance and the context as input, and outputs a sequence of rules and associated values, which can be used to construct the program. Intuitively, if the parser is aware of the argument list of each function, it can avoid predicting arguments not belonging to this function. And grammar can also help avoid generating ill-structured outputs. ## 3.1 Context Free Grammar (Cfg) We design a context free grammar that defines all valid function expressions. Figure 3 shows an example derivation tree for the below function expression: **f1(a1=f2(b1="abc"), a2=123)**, where f1 and f2 are function names; a1, a2, and b1 are  argument names; **"abc"** is a string literal copied from the input utterance, and 123 is a constant. Assuming that based on schema function f2 has an optional argument b2 that is not included in this expression. We use specific nonterminals to represent function argument lists and each of the arguments. The output rule sequence for this example can be found in Appendix D. The grammar induction process is described in and Appendix E. Some of the grammar design choices are made for greater generalizability. First, we introduce the nonterminal **$VALUE** to represent all types of argument values. An argument nonterminal must first rewrite as **$VALUE**, then as more specific value types. This ensures at grammar level every argument can be assigned to any value type even if it does not exist in the training data. Second, we always use a function's full named argument list in the rules, but allow each argument to have argument specific null values, e.g., f2_b2/_null_ in Figure 3. This way, the grammar is immune to novel combinations of function arguments in test data. However, this requires generation of uninvolved arguments and can negatively impact inference speed. ## Model Architecture As shown in Figure 4, we design an encoderdecoder model with span-copying mechanism for the CFG-based semantic parsers. The decoder takes rule id as input, and uses model output to cross attend to the encoder output, and pass the result to an output layer, which uses a softmax function to produce rule id distributions, from which  the tracker decides the best next rule or span ids. Appendix D explains in detail how rules and spans are indexed into integer ids. The output vocabulary includes all rule ids plus a special id (i.e. copy id) representing span copying, whose probability P_copy is used as a multiplier for span probabilities to ensure proper distribution. The decoder output and the projected encoder output are fed into a pointer network (Vinyals et al., 2015), which produces distribution for all input spans with an attention layer. Note, each input span can be viewed as a dynamic rule that rewrites $SPAN as the actual content, therefore span ids are used for represent these rules. The rule distribution (excluding the copy id) and the scaled span distribution are fed to the tracker, which generates the target program and ensure its validity. At each step, the tracker creates a mask based on its internal state to filter out illegal rules, picks the most probable legal rule id to update the internal state, and feeds the next rule id to the decoder to continue the loop, until a special end id is predicted. Note if a span id is selected at a certain step, the copy id is sent to the decoder, so that the decoder is agnostic of the content being copied. The prediction is performed in the order of top-down pre-order traversal, resulting in the leftmost derivation. To train the model, in addition to the encoder input, the trainer needs the sequence of rule ids and span ids as labels, which are obtained during grammar induction. We train the model using the negative log likelihood (NLL) loss in the extended vocabulary space with both rule ids and span ids, and use the exact match metric to pick the checkpoint. More details about the model can be found in Appendix F. Our approach is similar to Yin and Neubig (2017), but we use very different grammar design,  which targets greater compositional generalization. We also use span-level copy, like in Platanios et al. (2021), instead of token-level copy. We also don't use an abstract syntax tree, but a domain-specific grammar induced from the training data. ## 3.2 Tree-Substitution Grammar (Tsg) For a typical seq2seq model, inference time is closely related to the number of steps to produce a complete output. An obvious approach to boosting speed is to reduce necessary output steps, i.e., the total number of rules required to construct the whole derivation tree in our case. This motivates us to explore TSGs, where each production rule rewrites a frontier nonterminal as an entire elementary tree, and therefore requires significantly fewer generation steps. In fact, we can convert the aforementioned CFG into a TSG in a straightforward manner by packing rules responsible for generating a tree fragment into an elementary tree, as illustrated by the boxes in Figure 3. This way, we can create a TSG out of the original CFG, with much fewer generation steps required in the entire derivation. More details and examples can be found in G, which also describes the grammar induction process. ## Model Architecture At each generation step the model first predicts the rewrite rules for all the frontiers of the last predicted tree in parallel, and then the next elementary tree id. Note, predicting a frontier rewrite rule is equivalent to finding the right-hand-side elementary tree. Because of the parallel nature of frontier prediction, this approach greatly improves parsing speed over the CFG parser, especially for trees with many null-valued frontiers. Predicting frontiers independently may have advantage in compositional generalization as well, though it could also lead to errors caused by conflicting argument predictions. The model architecture is illustrated in Figure 5. Similar to the CFG parser, the TSG parser also uses an encoder-decoder model to predict tree ids, where the decoder takes input from the encoder and the past tree ids. We mix each tree's embedding with the max pooling of related frontier embeddings before feeding to the decoder. This leads to a small improvement over using embedding purely based tree ids. Frontier prediction is performed separately, by matching the frontier encoding vector against value encoding vectors from three different sources: previous tree instances, constants, and input text spans. Details can be found in Appendix H. The tracker then finds the best match for each frontier, and the next tree id, which is fed back to the decoder for the next prediction. It accumulates logits of frontier values and tree ids to find the derivation hypothesis with the highest combined score from both frontier and tree predictions. The tracker also checks potential conflicts between frontier values, and penalizes the violating hypotheses. This provides a slight accuracy improvement in beam search settings. Different from the CFG parser, the TSG parser makes prediction in a bottom-up post-order manner, so that the are trees predicted at a later step can attend to tree encoding vectors produced at earlier steps. Model training requires target labels as a sequence of elementary tree instances, each includes the tree id, frontier kind and value id information. We combine the negative log-likelihood (NLL) loss from tree id prediction and cross entropy (CE) loss from frontier value prediction for optimization. At inference time, the tracker assembles prediction outputs into the tree instances, from which the program is constructed. More details about the model can be found in Appendix H. ## 4 Experiments In this section we compare parsing accuracy and speed performance of all parsers. We use exact match accuracy as the metric, with minor normalization to filter out non-significant variations and to sort named arguments (order insensitive). Table 1 summarizes the sample sizes of train/validation/evaluation data of all the splits, along with compound divergence values. Baseline We train and evaluate baseline parsers using the OpenNMT-py toolkit (version 1.2.0). The baseline model is configured as a | train | valid | eval | div | | |---------|---------|--------|-------|--------| | IID | 132800 | 32402 | 41329 | 9e-5 | | Tmcd1 | 154586 | 21045 | 31662 | 0.1008 | | Tmcd2 | 150437 | 22808 | 34048 | 0.1360 | | Tmcd3 | 154840 | 20846 | 31607 | 0.2055 | | Tmcd4 | 151011 | 22767 | 33515 | 0.2350 | | Tmcd5 | 153169 | 21690 | 32434 | 0.3422 | | Tmcd6 | 155732 | 20771 | 30790 | 0.3792 | | Length | 196397 | 1074 | 9822 | 0.5021 | Table 1: Statistics of sample sizes and compound divergence values. source-to-target text translator, using a pointer generator network with two layers of bidirectional LSTMs as encoder and two layers of LSTMs as decoder. We found a small gain by using 300dimension pretrained embeddings from FastText2 for initialization. Since we observe large accuracy variations between models trained with different random seeds, to have a clear picture of the degree of variations, we run training 55 times with different seeds to collect the medians and other statistics. We find on TMCD splits, the standard deviation of accuracies range from 6.4 to 11.3 percent. For this reason we want to use large evaluation sets to reduce random effects. More details can be found in Appendix I. Grammar-based Parsers To ensure meaningful comparison against the baseline, grammarbased parsers also use bi-directional LSTM (Hochreiter and Schmidhuber, 1997) as the encoder, unidirectional LSTM as the decoder, and the same pretrained word embeddings for initialization. We make sure that grammar-based models have similar parameter sizes as the baseline (around 11M). Pretrained Models Since LSTM is not today's state of the art (SOTA) in modeling, to verify if our approach is still competitive compared against stronger models, we also train two additional parsers using T5 (Raffel et al., 2020) and BART (Lewis et al., 2019) models. Both were pretrained on a subset of the CLUE corpus (Xu et al., 2020) using UER-py (Zhao et al., 2019). The parameter sizes for the T5 3 model is 214M, and the BART 4 model 117M. We fine tune these models on our data as text-to-text translators. Considering the differences in training data and parameter ONMT BART T5 CFG TSG Tmcd1 51.8 71.7 **73.4** 52.3 49.1 Tmcd2 51.0 60.5 48.9 **77.5** 77.1 Tmcd3 31.5 **52.8** 41.3 47.9 49.1 Tmcd4 28.8 52.3 37.6 48.7 **54.4** Tmcd5 24.9 41.9 42.1 **57.1** 54.4 Tmcd6 27.3 35.8 32.0 55.8 **61.0** Length 0 0 0 **55.9** 39.9 Average 30.8 45.0 39.3 **56.4** 54.3 Tmcds 35.9 52.5 45.9 56.5 **56.7** sizes, the comparison is not strictly fair, but can help evaluate the competitiveness of our approach. We observe that besides the baseline, other parsers also have accuracy variations, but in much lighter degrees. For these parsers, we run model training five times with different random seeds, and report median accuracy, which appears reasonably stable in multiple experiments. ## 4.1 Results On Iid Split We first evaluate the models on the in-distribution data. As Table 2 shows, T5 has slightly higher accuracy than other parsers, which is expected given it has the largest parameter size and is pretrained on extra data. The rest are in the same ballpark, showing that the grammar-based parsers are competitive on the IID split. ## 4.2 Results On Ood Splits Results of all the parsers on the OOD data are summarized in Table 3, from which we have the following observations: First, both CFG and TSG beat the baseline by very large margins: 25.6% for CFG and 23.5% for TSG. They also outperform BART and T5, especially clear on the Length split, where ONMT, BART and T5 all have zero accuracy. CFG and TSG parsers have about the same accuracy on the TMCD splits, but the former has a 16% lead on the Length split, probably because the CFG parser detects null-valued arguments more reliably with serial argument prediction. T5 and BART lead the ONMT baseline almost everywhere, confirming the advantages of large pretrained models over LSTM. They are also the leaders on Tmcd1, which has the smallest diver-   Table 4: Comparison between CFG-f (no schema) and CFG (with schema). Table 5: Average parsing time in millisecond per utterance on Tesla P100 GPU. gence among all the OOD splits. However, on splits with higher divergence, they tend to perform much worse, especially for the T5 parser. This indicates large pretrained language models do not necessarily have sufficient compositional generalizabilites. ## 4.3 Importance Of Schema To examine the importance of schema information, we experimented with a different CFG design, which uses a right-recursion rule to generate arbitrary argument sequence, until the underlying model predicts the 'end-of-argument-list' rule. This is similar to the strategy used in Yin and Neubig (2018). This grammar, denoted CFG-f, still guarantees valid target syntax, but does not have knowledge of function schema. Table 4 shows that without using schema, CFG-f still matches CFG on the IID split, but falls far behind on all OOD splits, especially on the 'length' split. We believe that using the schema info is the key for achieving large gain on OOD data, and this is one of the main differences between our approach and many prior works. ## 4.4 Parsing Speed We test parsing speed of all the parsers on the first 4000 examples of the IID test set on a Tesla-P100 GPU. For fair comparison all parsers use greedy search inference mode, whose accuracy is very close to beam search on this dataset. As shown in the Table 5, the TSG parser is the clear winner in parsing speed: in both single and batch inference mode, it is five to seven times as fast as the CFG parser, five times as ONMT. BART and T5 models are much slower because of much larger parameter sizes, especially in the single inference mode, where GPU computation power cannot be fully utilized. $\begin{array}{c|c|c}\textbf{CLO}&\textbf{TOK}\\ \hline96.5&19.5\\ 22.2&3.2\\ \hline\end{array}$ | Batch | ONMT | BART | T5 | CFG | TSG | |---------|--------|--------|--------|-------|-------| | 1 | 93.9 | 462.3 | 1179.8 | 96.5 | 19.5 | | 32 | 17.0 | 29.9 | 65.8 | 22.2 | 3.2 | Table 2: Accuracy (%) on the IID split.  ## 4.5 Few-Shot Learning SMCalFlow (Andreas et al., 2020b) is a large-scale English dialogue dataset tailored for semantic parsing research. SMCalflow-CS is a subset of SMCalflow containing only single-turn utterances that cover two skills, calendar events and org chart. The training set mostly contains single-skill utterances, plus a limited number of composite samples involving both skills. The test set has composite samples only. Multiple few-shot learning tasks are created based on the number of composite samples (or shots) in the training set. The zero-shot task is the most challenging one to evaluate a model's generalizability, and we did not find results reported from prior works. For this experiment, we compare the TSG parser against the ONMT baseline, and two other parsers using pretrained models, whose results are cited from previous work. In order to use our current implementation on this dataset, we convert the programs in SMCalflow-CS to our MR in a lossless manner. We use exactly the same model configurations and parser setup from experiments mentioned earlier. As Table 6 shows, on the zero-shot task, the TSG parser outperforms the ONMT baseline significantly, and even beats the 8-shot T5 (Qiu et al., 2021) and the 16-shot BERT2SEQ result (Yin et al., 2021) despite using much smaller models without pretraining. When the number of shots increases, the gap between ONMT and TSG diminishes, similar to what we observe on our own dataset when the divergence decreases. T5 and BERT2SEQ become significantly better, motivating us to investigate more sophisticated models to catch up on higher-shot tasks. ## 4.6 Error Analysis We performed error analysis and find that the majority of errors are related to argument prediction errors, as shown in Table 7. The two parsers have similar overall accuracies on the TMCD splits, though the TSG parser tends to miss more arguments, which explains the large accuracy gap between the two on the Length split, where errors overwhelmingly come from argument missing. Currently we use a simple argument-specific vector to model null-valued arguments, which has large room for improvement. Looking more closely into details, we found some individual errors, e.g., confusing one specific function with another, can occur very frequently on some splits, accounting for a significant portion of the total errors. This is most likely caused by a highly frequent pattern in the test data but rare in training, resulting large numbers of errors. We notice some errors can be fixed by leveraging additional schema information. For example, sometimes arguments expecting numeric values are assigned non-numeric strings. By incorporating type checking, like in Platanios et al. (2021) and Krishnamurthy et al. (2017), this problem can be effectively addressed. Also, boundary errors of copied entities can be largely resolved by applying fuzzy match against a dictionary, for many entities with known categorical values. | Error Type | CFG | TSG | |---------------------|-------|-------| | Function prediction | 16.9 | 19.5 | | Argument missing | 4.0 | 9.6 | | Argument insertion | 8.0 | 4.8 | | Argument confusion | 9.4 | 5.5 | | Argument value | 9.3 | 10.8 | | Overall | 44.0 | 45.6 | ## 5 Related Work Dataset Compositional generalization research used to focus on fully synthetic datasets such as SCAN (Lake and Baroni, 2018), COGS (Kim and Linzen, 2020), NACS (Bastings et al., 2018), CFQ (Keysers et al., 2020), and so on. Recently researchers have also conducted experiments on non-synthetic datasets, such as GeoQuery (Zelle and Mooney, 1996), and SPIDER (Yu et al., 2018), trying to attack both compositional generalization and natural language variation challenge together. The most similar dataset to ours is SMCalFlowCS(Yin et al., 2021), which is extracted from SMCalflow(Andreas et al., 2020b), a large scale dialogue data set, for the purpose of compositional generalization research. However, our dataset has many more domains, multi-turn dialogues, more complex conversations, and different ways of splitting data. More importantly, our dataset is in Chinese with few similar resources. Modeling For small-scale synthetic data, many specialized model architectures proved to be effective on SCAN like tasks (Li et al., 2019; Russin et al., 2019; Gordon et al., 2020; Lake, 2019; Liu et al., 2020a; Nye et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2020). To also address natural language variations in non-synthetic tasks, some recent works exploit structure of the source input and its relation to the target side (Herzig and Berant, 2021; Shaw et al., 2021; Weißenhorn et al., 2022), and employ sourceside parsing that can be computationally demanding for long sentences, and may have coverage challenge and not available in all languages; while we try to exploit target-side structure only for higher efficiency. Some other works leverage source-side structure for data augmentation to overcome distribution divergence (Yang et al., 2022b; Qiu et al., 2022), which can clearly help but is not the focus of this paper. Grammar-based decoding has shown to help semantic parsing on in-distribution data (Krishnamurthy et al., 2017; Yin and Neubig, 2017). Oren et al. (2020) also look into compositional generalization, and find the accuracy gain from grammar-based decoding is small and inconsistent across all datasets. We think one of the main reasons for our improvement lies in different grammar design, which can leverage program schema to counter distribution divergence. Yang et al. (2022a) decompose a text-to-sql task into a sequence of subtasks, each to fill slots of a subclause by prompting preptrained language model. This in spirit is remotely similar to our approach, which predicts one function and its argument at each step, but with very different model architectures and on very different domains. The model architectures used in this paper bear resemblance to some of prior works. The model of the CFG parser is similar to Yin and Neubig (2017, 2018), except that we use span-level copying instead of token-by-token copying, and different grammar. And the span copying approach is previously used by Platanios et al. (2021), which also inspired us on the design of the TSG parser. Lastly, although LSTMs are not viewed state of the art, they can perform surprisingly well in some semantic parsing tasks comparing to large pretrained models, for example in Yang et al. (2021). ## 6 Conclusions Compositional generalization remains an unsolved problem for real-world semantic parsers. We propose a semi-synthetic large-scale task-oriented dialogue dataset intended to promote research in this area. We find that by designing appropriate grammars, leveraging schema information, and choosing right model architecture we can substantially improve both compositional generalization and parsing efficiency. We will investigate applying grammar-based decoding approach to large pretrained language models on more challenging tasks. ## Limitations The schema information and grammar design are domain specific. We have tested our approach mainly on our own dataset, though we believe the similar approach can be applied to other tasks, as long as the meaning representation involves functions and arguments. Also, we have not explored all approaches to obtain the highest possible accuracy on this dataset, because our main goal is to show the effectiveness of the proposed approach, which we believe is clearly demonstrated by the current result. At this stage, the difference between in-distribution and out-of-distribution accuracies remain very large, and there is a large room for further improvements. We hope by releasing this dataset we can help promote research in related areas. ## Ethics Statement This work proposes to release a new dataset to research community for improving compositional generalization in semantic parsing. The goal of the research topic is to make model work better on underrepresented language without relying on large training data and therefore long training time. The models proposed in this paper are very small in today's standard and do not require large computing resources for training and evaluation. We particularly pay attention to efficiency of models to save computing resource after deployment. ## Acknowledgments We want to thank Kuan Xu, Zujie Wen and Yongliang Wang for their supports in dataset generation, and Yi Su for helpful discussions. ## References Jacob Andreas, John Bufe, David Burkett, Charles Chen, Josh Clausman, Jean Crawford, Kate Crim, Jordan DeLoach, Leah Dorner, Jason Eisner, Hao Fang, Alan Guo, David Hall, Kristin Hayes, Kellie Hill, Diana Ho, Wendy Iwaszuk, Smriti Jha, Dan Klein, Jayant Krishnamurthy, Theo Lanman, Percy Liang, Christopher H. Lin, Ilya Lintsbakh, Andy McGovern, Aleksandr Nisnevich, Adam Pauls, Dmitrij Petters, Brent Read, Dan Roth, Subhro Roy, Jesse Rusak, Beth Short, Div Slomin, Ben Snyder, Stephon Striplin, Yu Su, Zachary Tellman, Sam Thomson, Andrei Vorobev, Izabela Witoszko, Jason Wolfe, Abby Wray, Yuchen Zhang, and Alexander Zotov. 2020a. Task-oriented dialogue as dataflow synthesis. *Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, 8:556–571. Jacob Andreas, John Bufe, David Burkett, Charles Chen, Josh Clausman, Jean Crawford, Kate Crim, Jordan DeLoach, Leah Dorner, Jason Eisner, et al. 2020b. Task-oriented dialogue as dataflow synthesis. *Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, 8:556–571. Jasmijn Bastings, Marco Baroni, Jason Weston, Kyunghyun Cho, and Douwe Kiela. 2018. Jump to better conclusions: SCAN both left and right. In Proceedings of the 2018 EMNLP Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 47–55, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xinyun Chen, Chen Liang, Adams Wei Yu, Dawn Song, and Denny Zhou. 2020. Compositional generalization via neural-symbolic stack machines. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, volume 33, pages 1690–1701. Curran Associates, Inc. Jianpeng Cheng, Devang Agrawal, Héctor Martínez Alonso, Shruti Bhargava, Joris Driesen, Federico Flego, Dain Kaplan, Dimitri Kartsaklis, Lin Li, Dhivya Piraviperumal, Jason D. Williams, Hong Yu, Diarmuid Ó Séaghdha, and Anders Johannsen. 2020. Conversational semantic parsing for dialog state tracking. In *Proceedings of the* 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 8107–8117, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Trevor Cohn, Phil Blunsom, and Sharon Goldwater. 2010. Inducing tree-substitution grammars. *Journal of Machine Learning Research*, 11:3053–3096. Róbert Csordás, Kazuki Irie, and Juergen Schmidhuber. 2021. The devil is in the detail: Simple tricks improve systematic generalization of transformers. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 619– 634, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Li Dong and Mirella Lapata. 2016. Language to logical form with neural attention. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 33–43, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jonathan Gordon, David Lopez-Paz, Marco Baroni, and Diane Bouchacourt. 2020. Permutation equivariant models for compositional generalization in language. In *International Conference on Learning Representations*. Jonathan Herzig and Jonathan Berant. 2021. Spanbased semantic parsing for compositional generalization. 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 908–921, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 1997. Long short-term memory. *Neural computation*, 9(8):1735– 1780. Robin Jia and Percy Liang. 2016. Data recombination for neural semantic parsing. In *Proceedings of the* 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 12–22, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics. Mihir Kale and Abhinav Rastogi. 2020. Template guided text generation for task-oriented dialogue. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6505–6520, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Daniel Keysers, Nathanael Schärli, Nathan Scales, Hylke Buisman, Daniel Furrer, Sergii Kashubin, Nikola Momchev, Danila Sinopalnikov, Lukasz Stafiniak, Tibor Tihon, Dmitry Tsarkov, Xiao Wang, Marc van Zee, and Olivier Bousquet. 2020. Measuring compositional generalization: A comprehensive method on realistic data. In International Conference on Learning Representations. Najoung Kim and Tal Linzen. 2020. COGS: A compositional generalization challenge based on semantic interpretation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 9087–9105, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jayant Krishnamurthy, Pradeep Dasigi, and Matt Gardner. 2017. Neural semantic parsing with type constraints for semi-structured tables. In *Proceedings of* the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1516–1526, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics. Brenden Lake and Marco Baroni. 2018. Generalization without systematicity: On the compositional skills of sequence-to-sequence recurrent networks. In *International conference on machine learning*, pages 2873–2882. PMLR. Brenden M. Lake. 2019. Compositional generalization through meta sequence-to-sequence learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2019, NeurIPS 2019, 8-14 December 2019, Vancouver, BC, Canada, pages 9788–9798. Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Ves Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2019. Bart: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.13461. Yuanpeng Li, Liang Zhao, Jianyu Wang, and Joel Hestness. 2019. Compositional generalization for primitive substitutions. 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 4293–4302, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Pengfei Liu, Weizhe Yuan, Jinlan Fu, Zhengbao Jiang, Hiroaki Hayashi, and Graham Neubig. 2021. Pretrain, prompt, and predict: A systematic survey of prompting methods in natural language processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.13586. Qian Liu, Shengnan An, Jian-Guang Lou, Bei Chen, Zeqi Lin, Yan Gao, Bin Zhou, Nanning Zheng, and Dongmei Zhang. 2020a. Compositional generalization by learning analytical expressions. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:11416– 11427. Yinhan Liu, Jiatao Gu, Naman Goyal, Xian Li, Sergey Edunov, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Mike Lewis, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020b. Multilingual denoising pre-training for neural machine translation. *Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, 8:726–742. Maxwell Nye, Armando Solar-Lezama, Josh Tenenbaum, and Brenden M Lake. 2020. Learning compositional rules via neural program synthesis. *Advances* in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:10832– 10842. Inbar Oren, Jonathan Herzig, Nitish Gupta, Matt Gardner, and Jonathan Berant. 2020. Improving compositional generalization in semantic parsing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.05647. Emmanouil Antonios Platanios, Adam Pauls, Subhro Roy, Yuchen Zhang, Alexander Kyte, Alan Guo, Sam Thomson, Jayant Krishnamurthy, Jason Wolfe, Jacob Andreas, and Dan Klein. 2021. Value-agnostic conversational semantic parsing. 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 3666–3681, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Linlu Qiu, Peter Shaw, Panupong Pasupat, Pawel Nowak, Tal Linzen, Fei Sha, and Kristina Toutanova. 2022. Improving compositional generalization with latent structure and data augmentation. In *Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational* Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4341–4362, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Linlu Qiu, Peter Shaw, Panupong Pasupat, Paweł Krzysztof Nowak, Tal Linzen, Fei Sha, and Kristina Toutanova. 2021. Improving compositional generalization with latent structure and data augmentation. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.07610*. Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, Peter J Liu, et al. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. *J. Mach. Learn. Res.*, 21(140):1–67. Abhinav Rastogi, Xiaoxue Zang, Srinivas Sunkara, Raghav Gupta, and Pranav Khaitan. 2020. Towards scalable multi-domain conversational agents: The schema-guided dialogue dataset. In *Proceedings of* the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 8689–8696. Jake Russin, Jason Jo, Randall C O'Reilly, and Yoshua Bengio. 2019. Compositional generalization in a deep seq2seq model by separating syntax and semantics. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.09708*. Jost Schatzmann, Blaise Thomson, Karl Weilhammer, Hui Ye, and Steve Young. 2007. Agenda-based user simulation for bootstrapping a POMDP dialogue system. In Human Language Technologies 2007: The Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics; Companion Volume, Short Papers, pages 149–152, Rochester, New York. Association for Computational Linguistics. Torsten Scholak, Nathan Schucher, and Dzmitry Bahdanau. 2021. PICARD: Parsing incrementally for constrained auto-regressive decoding from language models. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 9895–9901, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Abigail See, Peter J. Liu, and Christopher D. Manning. 2017. Get to the point: Summarization with pointergenerator 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. Peter Shaw, Ming-Wei Chang, Panupong Pasupat, and Kristina Toutanova. 2021. Compositional generalization and natural language variation: Can a semantic parsing approach handle both? 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 922–938, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Oriol Vinyals, Meire Fortunato, and Navdeep Jaitly. 2015. Pointer networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 28. Curran Associates, Inc. Yushi Wang, Jonathan Berant, and Percy Liang. 2015. Building a semantic parser overnight. 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 1332–1342, Beijing, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Pia Weißenhorn, Lucia Donatelli, and Alexander Koller. 2022. Compositional generalization with a broadcoverage semantic parser. In *Proceedings of the 11th* Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, pages 44–54, Seattle, Washington. Association for Computational Linguistics. Liang Xu, Xuanwei Zhang, and Qianqian Dong. 2020. Cluecorpus2020: A large-scale chinese corpus for pre-training language model. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2003.01355. Jingfeng Yang, Federico Fancellu, Bonnie Webber, and Diyi Yang. 2021. Frustratingly simple but surprisingly strong: Using language-independent features for zero-shot cross-lingual semantic parsing. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 5848– 5856, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jingfeng Yang, Haoming Jiang, Qingyu Yin, Danqing Zhang, Bing Yin, and Diyi Yang. 2022a. SEQZERO: Few-shot compositional semantic parsing with sequential prompts and zero-shot models. In *Findings* of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022, pages 49–60, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jingfeng Yang, Le Zhang, and Diyi Yang. 2022b. SUBS: Subtree substitution for compositional semantic parsing. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 169–174, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Pengcheng Yin, Hao Fang, Graham Neubig, Adam Pauls, Emmanouil Antonios Platanios, Yu Su, Sam Thomson, and Jacob Andreas. 2021. Compositional generalization for neural semantic parsing via spanlevel supervised attention. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2810–2823, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Pengcheng Yin and Graham Neubig. 2017. A syntactic neural model for general-purpose code generation. In *Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the* Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 440–450, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. Pengcheng Yin and Graham Neubig. 2018. TRANX: A transition-based neural abstract syntax parser for semantic parsing and code generation. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 7–12, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tao Yu, Rui Zhang, Heyang Er, Suyi Li, Eric Xue, Bo Pang, Xi Victoria Lin, Yi Chern Tan, Tianze Shi, Zihan Li, Youxuan Jiang, Michihiro Yasunaga, Sungrok Shim, Tao Chen, Alexander Fabbri, Zifan Li, Luyao Chen, Yuwen Zhang, Shreya Dixit, Vincent Zhang, Caiming Xiong, Richard Socher, Walter Lasecki, and Dragomir Radev. 2019. CoSQL: A conversational text-to-SQL challenge towards crossdomain natural language interfaces to databases. 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 1962– 1979, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tao Yu, Rui Zhang, Kai Yang, Michihiro Yasunaga, Dongxu Wang, Zifan Li, James Ma, Irene Li, Qingning Yao, Shanelle Roman, Zilin Zhang, and Dragomir Radev. 2018. Spider: A large-scale human-labeled dataset for complex and cross-domain semantic parsing and text-to-SQL task. In *Proceedings of the 2018* Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3911–3921, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. John M Zelle and Raymond J Mooney. 1996. Learning to parse database queries using inductive logic programming. In Proceedings of the national conference on artificial intelligence, pages 1050–1055. Zhe Zhao, Hui Chen, Jinbin Zhang, Xin Zhao, Tao Liu, Wei Lu, Xi Chen, Haotang Deng, Qi Ju, and Xiaoyong Du. 2019. Uer: An open-source toolkit for pre-training models. *EMNLP-IJCNLP 2019*, page 241. ## Appendices A Production Rules For Goal Generation Figure 6 illustrates our production rules to generate a goal. The right hand side of a rule can be associated with a **[weight]** and a **[canonical** utterance]. The **[weight]** is used to influence the sampling probability. This handy mechanism allows the designer to focus differently on certain generation. The **[canonical utterance]** is synchronously generated as the rule expands, where it can use \#i to refer to the text generated by i-th $rhs symbol. The outermost production rule also allows the && connector for sequential composition, which will be described below. To control the complexity of generated expressions, we use a parameter nested_rate to control the depth of nesting, and rate_decay to indicate how fast the probability decays when the generation goes deeper. Composition of intents mainly come from the following: - dataflow through object property (slot): for example, at Figure 6 line 6, **$FundCompanyName** may come from a property of a **$FundManager** (at line 15), which could come from **search_fund_manager** for fund_manager_name='xxx', resulting in this expression: **search_fund(fund_company_name** = get_property( search_fund_manager ( fund_manager_name = 'xxx'), 'current_company'), i.e., "*tell me some funds under* the company where fund manager 'xxx' works for". - through the && operator: the production rule S1 && S2 denotes the sequential composition of S1 and S2. S2 and S1 are not necessarily independent, as S2 can refer to the result of S1 (as in the Figure 2 **find_restaurant** example). ## B Function Expression To Dialog We have described how goals and their canonical utterances are generated. Although a goal itself can be a valid single-turn user request to the system, and the system is expected to execute the whole function expression, but a single turn with such complexity is very unlikely to happen in reality. Similar to the agenda-based simulator, we use this goal to drive multi-turn dialogues. In our work, a goal is divided into subgoals, and the dialogue generation proceeds with each subgoal one-by-one, respecting their dependency. For this dataset, we choose to let each subgoal comprise one intent function, so that given a subgoal, multi-turns can be generated with an existing traditional agendabased approach. This does not mean the resulting turns in the dialogue will become simply slot filling, as they can still contain nested simple functions, and multi-intent interactions occur through direct slot references, the refer function, or sequential composition To generate canonical utterance for each turn during dialogue generation, we use a templated approach similar to the T2G2 approach (Kale and Rastogi, 2020). User turns are annotated with function expressions. As an example, for the goal in Figure 7, which means "find some funds with at least 4-star rating and medium-to-high risk level, and I want to know how their heavy holdings perform", the tool generates the dialogue in Figure 1. Notice that the search_fund has 3 arguments, but in the dialogue the user may not inform all 3 slots in a single turn. In this example, the user informs the **em_rating** first and the system does a **search_fund** on rating. Then the user later informs the **fund_risk_type**; note that even though the function expression of this turn contains only the **fund_risk_type** argument, the system does a **search_fund** with not only fund_risk_type but also the slots known already from the context (to be more precisely, when these slots are not dependent of each other). Also notice that to create more realistic dialogues, the tool automatically create turns where the user may randomly request further information about the system's results to obtain the request type of dialogue acts. ## C Atom And Compound Distribution Keysers et al. (2020) defines the similarity of two weighted distributions P and Q, using the Chernoff coefficient as $$C_{\alpha}(P||Q)=\sum_{k}p_{k}^{\alpha}q_{k}^{1-\alpha}\in[0,1]$$ and the divergence of the two sets is 1 minus this similarity. They use α=0.5 for atom divergence and α=0.1 for compound divergence. To compute atom and compound divergence, we first delexicalize the expression, i.e., mask all quoted constants with placeholders; then following TMCD (Shaw et al., 2021), we define atoms to be the tokens in the function expressions, and compounds are the parent-child relation in function calls. For the example in Figure 7, it consists of the following compounds: fund/search_fund( fund_risk_type, - , - ) fund/search_fund( - , em_rating , - ) fund/search_fund( - , - , op )   8 GetFundPrediction = fund_prediction(fund_name=$FundName) [【#1】的走势预测**] # trend prediction for**【#1】 14 | [5] get_property($FundCompany, 'fund_company_name') [【#1】的公司**] # the fund company name of**【#1】 15 | [5] get_property($FundManager, 'current_company') [【#1】的公司] # the fund company【#1】**works at** stock/evaluate_stock( stock_name = get_property( user_select(fund/search_fund( fund_risk_type = '中高风险', em_rating = '4', op = '>=')), 'heavy_holdings')) Figure 7: An example goal as function expression user_select( fund/search_fund ) get_property( select, - ) get_property( -, Entity) stock/evaluate_stock( stock_name ) In Figure 8, we plot the atom and compound distribution in train (purple) and test (green) set for these splits. For IID split, as shown in Figure 8(a), both atom distribution (top) and compound distribution (bottom) show nearly identical distribution in the train set and the test set. X-axis are the atoms (or compounds), sorted by their frequency in the set and y-axis is the log(frequency), where atom divergence is 0.00003932, and compound divergence is 0.00008713. For TMCD splits, Figure 8(b) shows that atoms in the test set are all in the training set; on the other hand, Figure 8(c) shows some compounds in the test set are not in the training set. For the Length split, as shown in Figure 8(d), the atom and compound divergence are quite high: atom divergence is 0.2470, and compound divergence is 0.5021. The distribution shows that while all the atoms in the test set do appear in the training set, many compounds in the test set do not appear in the training set. ## D Cfg Used By Semantic Parser The CFG grammar used for semantic parsing in this paper is particularly designed for function expressions. In a derivation process, the start nonterminal # funds under [#1] # trend prediction for [#1] $$\newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset{\rightharpoonup}{\mathbf{#1}}}$$ $$\newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{#1}}}$$ * # the fund company of [#1] * # the fund company name of [#1] * # the fund company [#1] works at (NT) symbol $S first rewrites **$FUNCTION** representing generic function type, which further rewrites as a function name followed by a NT representing the invocation argument list. This NT then rewrites as a list of NTs representing all related arguments. As explained in the paper, we elect to include all named arguments declared in the function's schema, no matter whether they are actually used in the invocation. Then all the argument NTs will first rewrite as a generic NT **$VALUE**. If the argument was not used in the invocation, **$VALUE** will rewrite as a specific terminal symbol representing a "null" value, which will be filtered out in postprocessing; otherwise, **$VALUE** will rewrite as one of four value types: 1) **$CONSTANT**, which next rewrites as a terminal symbol for a unique string literal; 2) **$SPAN**, next as span of text in the input; 3) **$FUNCTION**, next as a corresponding function name and argument list NT as described above; 4) **$SLOT_REF**, next as reference to a slot, which can be either a leaf reference, represented by a terminal symbol with content in the form of **<domain>/<intent>/<slot>**; or a recursive reference, including a **$FUNCTION** followed by a terminal symbol with content **/<slot>**. Taking the example in Figure 3, the sequence of the rules used in the derivation are as follows: 1. $S -> $FUNCTION \# start rule 2. $FUNCTION-> 'f1' $f1_ARGS 3. $f1_ARGS -> '(' $f1_a1 $f2_a2 ')' 4. $f1_a1 -> 'a1=' $VALUE ',' 5. $VALUE -> $FUNCTION 6. $FUNCTION -> 'f2' $f2_ARGS 7. $f2_ARGS -> '(' $f2_b1 $f2_b2 ')' 8. $f2_b1 -> 'b1=' $VALUE ',' 9. $VALUE -> '"' $SPAN '"' 10. $SPAN -> 'abc' \# copied from input 11. $f2_b2 -> 'b2=' $VALUE ',' 12. $VALUE -> $CONSTANT 13. $CONSTANT -> 'f2_b2/_null_' \# null val 14. $VALUE -> $CONSTANT 15. $f2_a2 -> 'a2=' $VALUE 16. $VALUE -> $CONSTANT $$\begin{array}{c}{{\mathrm{\SS}}}\\ {{\mathrm{\SSf2\_a2\')\ }}}\\ {{\mathrm{\SSf2\_b2\')\ }}}\\ {{\mathrm{\SSf2\_b2\')\ }}}\\ {{\mathrm{\SSf2\_b2\')\ }}}\\ {{\mathrm{\SSf2\_b2\ }}}\\ {{\mathrm{\SSf2\_b2\ }}}\\ {{\mathrm{\SSf2\_b2\ }}}\end{array}$$  ## 17. $Constant -> '123' # Constant As can be easily seen the yield of the derivation is f1(a1=f2(b1="xyz", b2=f2_b2/_null_), a2=123",) which can be transformed to the correct form with a regex in the post processing stage. During inference, given input text, the model needs to predict the above derivation rules, which yield the program. In order to manage these rules, we assign each of them an integer id, ranging from 0 to V − 1, where V is the number of rules excluding the copy rule. We also assign each span an index starting from V, in the order of the span's end position and then start position. Assuming the input utterance has U tokens, there are N = (U + 1) ∗ U/2 total spans. The decoder predicts a sequence of above index ids, which are used by the tracker to retrieve rules and spans, and generate the program as yield. ## E Cfg Induction In order to obtain a CFG for semantic parsing, we need to perform grammar induction from the training data. The process is straightforward: First we implement a parser given the syntax of function expression language. Then we parse all the function expressions in the training data, extract the rules based on the parse, and save them in a grammar file. For string literals in the function expressions, if they appear in the utterance, we use span copy rule, otherwise, we add a constant rule. If the string literal appears multiple times in the source data, we always use the left most one, and masked span out to prevent duplicated copies from the same text. This simple strategy may encounter occasional bad cases, but overall, it is working as expected. During grammar induction, we also process the data and generate additional information needed by trainer, basically the rule id sequences, plus the span indexes. For each derivation, we always start from the rule **$S -> $FUNCTION** with a fixed id, and always append a special id marking the end of sequence, which the parsing model is trained to predict. ## F Modeling Details Of Cfg Parser The entire model architecture is illustrated in Figure 4. Below we describe the implementation details of each of the boxes. Encoder For encoder input, for convenience to use BERT model, we pack tokens of the context and the utterance together in the following way, which also works for other type of encoders: ## [Cls] <Context Tokens> [Sep] <Utt Tokens> [Sep] After encoding, we pass the vectors to both the decoder and the pointer, but with different masks. For the decoder input, we allow both context and utterance vectors being passed, but for the pointer input, we mask out the context part, only allow the utterance vectors to be used to avoid copying from context. This way we can apply different types of encoders, such as LSTMs and transformers, in a unified manner. Decoder The decoder can have multiple layers, each layer applies the decoder model layer to the decoder input, and then cross-attends to the encoder output vectors using a multihead attention layer: $$\mathbf{\Phi}_{n},\mathbf{h}_{e n c},\mathbf{h}_{e n c})$$ ## Hm = Model(Hi) Ho = Hm + Mha(Hm, Henc, Henc) where model can be RNN, transformers etc., MHA stands for multi-head attention, hiis the input to the decoder layer, can be either the output vector from the last decoder layer, or for the first decoder layer, the embedding vector of the current rule id. Pointer We use span copying instead of token copying. Each span is encoded as the concatenation of the encoding vector of the begin and end position of the span. The logit of a span [b, e] is computed as: $$l o g i t_{b,e}=\mathbf{v^{\mathsf{T}}t a n h}(\mathbf{W}_{s}[\mathbf{h}_{e n c}^{b};\mathbf{h}_{e n c}^{e}]+\mathbf{W}_{t}\mathbf{h}_{d e c})$$ where b and e are the span's begin and end positions; h benc and h eenc are the corresponding encoding vectors from the encoder; ";" means vector concatenation; hdec is the decoder output; Matrix Ws and Wt and vector v are trainable parameters. Applying a *softmax* to the logits gives us the span distributions. Tracker The tracker searches the derivation with the highest probability, whose yield is the target program, i.e., function expression. In order to ensure validity of derivation, the tracker maintains a stack, containing unprocessed rule's right-handside elements. At the top of the stack is always a NT, which must match the predicted rule's lefthand-side NT at next step, so that the rule can be applied. To ensure the predicted rules are valid, the tracker applies a pre-computed mask, according to the stack-top NT, on the prediction logits, so that invalid predictions are filtered out. At each step, after receiving a valid rule id, the tracker pops out the NT at the top of the stack, and pushes in the right-hand-side symbols of the rule in the reverse order. Then it pops out all terminal symbols (including the copied span) one by one to generate the target output, until the top symbol is an NT or the stack is empty. Should it be the latter case, the tracker will only accept the special end symbol at the next step, and then stop the derivation and return the result; Otherwise the tracker will feed the decoder with predicted rule id, or the copy id if a span id is predicted. ## G Converting Cfg To Tsg In the example in Appendix D, we can pack the rule 2, 3, 4, 15 together into a TSG rule: $FUNCTION -> 'f1' $f1_ARGS ( '(' ( $f1_a1 ( 'a1=' $VALUE ',' ) $f2_a2 ( 'a2=' $VALUE ',' ) ) ')' ) and pack rule 6, 7, 8, 13 into another TSG rule: These two rules each have two leaf NTs, **$VALUE**, which are called frontier NTs, or simply frontiers. In addition, the rule 9, 13, 17 can be viewed as degenerated TSG rules with height 1. To save the extra derivation step to rewrite $VALUE as **$FUNCTION**, we combine it with the rules above to create new rules so that **$VALUE** can directly rewrite as the same right hand side elementary tree, thus can save #Function -> 'f2' \$f2_ARGS('('f2')(\$f2_bl ( 'bl=' \$VALUE','))\$f2_b2 ( 'b2=' \$VALUE','))')' ) ! ## One Step Of Derivation. This Way, We Convert A Cfg To A Tsg, And At The Same Time Convert The Cfg Parser Training Data To Tsg Parser Training Data, As Sequences Of Tree Instances. Each Tree Instance Contains Both Tree Ids And Associated Frontier Kind And Value Ids. During Inference, The Tsg Parser Sequentially Predicts The Sequence Of Tree Indices - In The Above Example, Two Instances - Plus An End Symbol Terminating The Inference Process. The Tracker Then Uses These Tree Instances To Construct The Entire Derivation Tree, And Its Yield As The Output Program. H Modeling Details Of Tsg Parser In Figure 5, the encoder and decoder in the TSG parser are the same as in the CFG parser shown in Figure 4. The frontier encoder computes the frontier encoding vectors from the tree encoding from the decoder, and the embeddings retrieved from the tracker with frontier ids: hfrontier = h*tree* ⊙ tanh(e*frontier*) where h*tree* is the tree encoding vector, e*frontier* is the frontier embedding vector, and ⊙ is elementwise multiplication operator. Inside the decoder, we mix the tree embedding with max pooling of the embedings of the tree's frontiers, and use the mixed embedding to compute tree encoding vectors: $${\hat{\mathbf{e}}}_{\mathbf{t r e e}}=\mathbf{e}_{t r e e}+\operatorname*{max}_{t r e e^{\prime}s f r o n t i e r s}\{\mathbf{e}_{f r o n t i e r}\}$$ where e*tree* is the input tree embedding, ˆe**tree** is the output mixed embedding used to compute the tree encoding vector in the decoder. Then the pointer networks match the frontier encoding vector against frontier value vectors obtained from three kinds of sources: 1) previous tree instances, whose encodings are stored in a memory; 2) constants, with id-based embedding vectors; 3) text spans of input, with encoding from projected encoder output. Each of these corresponds to a "Pointer Networks" box in Figure 5: - *Span pointer* matches the frontier encoding vector from decoder output against spans in the input, and is similar to the pointer in the CFG parser, except that we use a multiplicative attention layer and use a bias term: $$l o g i t_{b,e}=[\mathbf{h}_{e n c}^{b};\mathbf{h}_{e n c}^{e}]^{\mathsf{T}}\mathbf{W}_{s p a n}\mathbf{h}_{f r o n t i e r}$$ where matrix W*span* and scalar b*span* are trainable parameters. - *Constant pointer* matches the frontier encoding against precomputed constant embeddings: logitc = e ⊺ cWconsthfrontier + b*const* where c is the constant index, matrix W*const* and scalar b*const* are trainable parameters. - *Past tree pointer* matches the frontier encoding against past tree encodings stored in a memory: logitt = h ⊺ tWtreehfrontier + b*tree* where t is the time step, matrix W*tree* and scalar b*tree* are trainable parameters. The tracker performs search of the derivation hypothesis with highest combined tree and frontier probabilities: $$\pi^{*}=\operatorname{argmax}_{\pi}\prod_{t\in T(\pi)}p(t)\prod_{f\in F(t)}\operatorname*{max}_{v}p(v|f)$$ where π is a derivation hypothesis; T(π) is the set of right-hand-side trees in π's rules; F(t)is the frontier set of tree t; v is a value of frontier f. In addition to ensuring validity of derivation, the matcher can perform other checks to alleviate the problems caused by parallel frontier prediction. As mentioned earlier, checking overlapped text copying does provide small improvement in beam search. Should there be a typing system, the tracker could also apply type check to make sure each frontier has appropriate value by penalizing type violations. ## I Accuracy Variations Of Baseline Parser We find the baseline parser's accuracy varies greatly with different random seeds. This phenomenon is also observed by Csordás et al. (2021). To study the degree of variation, we run training 55 times with different random seeds on all the splits. Table 8 and Figure 9 summarize the result. As we can see, the accuracy variations among different runs are very large for those TMCD splits, ranging from 6.4 to 11.3, probably because the model is sensitive to randomness in initialization. This also shows the importance of using large test splits, and reporting results from multiple runs. From the plot we also notice quite a few outlier points that are far from clusters, therefore we prefer median over mean when reporting results.  median% mean% **stddev%** IID 96.9 96.2 2.6 Tmcd1 51.8 52.0 9.0 Tmcd2 51.0 49.0 11.3 Tmcd3 31.5 31.7 9.2 Tmcd4 28.8 29.3 11.9 Tmcd5 24.9 26.0 6.9 Tmcd6 27.3 28.8 6.4 Length 0 0.1 0.3 ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist 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.

lyu-etal-2023-exploiting

Exploiting Rich Textual User-Product Context for Improving Personalized Sentiment Analysis

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.92

User and product information associated with a review is useful for sentiment polarity prediction. Typical approaches incorporating such information focus on modeling users and products as implicitly learned representation vectors. Most do not exploit the potential of historical reviews, or those that currently do require unnecessary modifications to model architectureor do not make full use of user/product associations. The contribution of this work is twofold: i) a method to explicitly employ historical reviews belonging to the same user/product in initializing representations, and ii) efficient incorporation of textual associations between users and products via a user-product cross-context module. Experiments on the IMDb, Yelp-2013 and Yelp-2014 English benchmarks with BERT, SpanBERT and Longformer pretrained language models show that our approach substantially outperforms previous state-of-the-art.

# Exploiting Rich Textual User-Product Context For Improving Personalized Sentiment Analysis Chenyang Lyu† Linyi Yang‡ Yue Zhang‡ Yvette Graham¶ **Jennifer Foster**† † School of Computing, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland ‡ School of Engineering, Westlake University, China ¶ School of Computer Science and Statistics, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland chenyang.lyu2@mail.dcu.ie, ygraham@tcd.ie, jennifer.foster@dcu.ie {yanglinyi, zhangyue}@westlake.edu.cn ## Abstract User and product information associated with a review is useful for sentiment polarity prediction. Typical approaches incorporating such information focus on modeling users and products as implicitly learned representation vectors. Most do not exploit the potential of historical reviews, or those that currently do require unnecessary modifications to model architecture or do not make full use of user/product associations. The contribution of this work is twofold: i) a method to explicitly employ historical reviews belonging to the same user/product in initializing representations, and ii) efficient incorporation of textual associations between users and products via a user-product cross-context module. Experiments on the IMDb, Yelp2013 and Yelp-2014 English benchmarks with BERT, SpanBERT and Longformer pretrained language models show that our approach substantially outperforms previous state-of-the-art. ## 1 Introduction It has been repeatedly shown that the user and product information associated with reviews is helpful for sentiment polarity prediction (Tang et al., 2015; Chen et al., 2016; Ma et al., 2017). Just as the same user is expected to have consistent narrative style and vocabulary, the reviews belonging to the same product are expected to exhibit similar vocabulary for specific terms. Most previous work models user and product identities as representation vectors which are implicitly learned during the training process and only focus on the interactions between either the user or product and the review text (Dou, 2017; Long et al., 2018; Amplayo, 2019; Zhang et al., 2021; Amplayo et al., 2022). This brings with it two major shortcomings: i) the associations between users and products are not fully exploited, and, ii) the text of historical reviews is not used. To tackle the first shortcoming, Amplayo et al. (2018) propose to incorporate similar user and product representations for review sentiment classifica-  tion. However, their approach ignores the associations *between users and products*. To tackle the second shortcoming, Lyu et al. (2020) propose to explicitly use historical reviews in the training process. However, their approach needs to incrementally store review representations during the training process, which results in a more complex model architecture, where the magnitude of the user and product matrix is difficult to control when the number of reviews grow very large. As shown in Figure 1, we propose two simple strategies to address the aforementioned issues. Firstly, we use pre-trained language models (PLMs) to pre-compute the representations of all historical reviews belonging to the same user or product. Historical review representations are then used to initialize user (or product) representations by average pooling over all tokens before again average pooling over all reviews. This allows historical review text to inform the user and product preference, which we believe is potentially more advantageous than implicitly learned representations. Time and memory costs are minimized compared to (Lyu et al., 2020) since the representations of historical reviews are average pooled and the precomputation is one-time. Secondly, we propose a user-product cross1419 context module which interacts on four dimensions: user-to-user, product-to-product, user-to-product and product-to-user. The former two are used to obtain similar user (or product) information, which is useful when a user (or product) has limited reviews. The latter two are used to model the product preference of the user (what kind of products do they like and what kind of ratings would they give to similar products?) and user preference associated with a product (what kinds of users like such products and what kinds of ratings would they give to this product?). We test our approach on three benchmark English datasets - IMDb, Yelp-2013, Yelp-2014. Our approach yields consistent improvements across several PLMs (BERT, SpanBERT, Longformer) and achieves substantial improvements over the previous state-of-the-art. ## 2 Methodology An overview of our approach is shown in Figure 2. We firstly feed the review text, D, into a PLM encoder to obtain its representation, HD. HD is then fed into a *user-product cross-context* module consisting of multiple attention functions together with the corresponding user embedding and product embedding. The output is used to obtain the distribution over all sentiment labels. The architecture design is novel in two ways: 1) the user and product embedding matrices are initialized using representations of historical reviews of the corresponding users/products, 2) a user-product crosscontext module works in conjunction with 1) to model textual associations between users and products. ## 2.1 Incorporating Textual Information Of Historical Reviews For the purpose of making use of the textual information of historical reviews, we initialize all user and product embedding vectors using the representations of their historical reviews. Specifically, assume that we have a set of users U = {u1*, ......, u*N } and products P = {p1*, ......, p*M}. Each user ui and product pj have their corresponding historical reviews: ui = {D ui 1 , ......, Dui ni} and pj = {D pj 1 , ......, Dpj mj }. For a certain user ui, we firstly feed D ui 1into the transformer encoder to obtain its representation H ui D1∈ RL×h, then we average H ui D1 along its first  dimension: $\bar{H}_{D_1}^{u_i}=\dfrac{\sum H_{D_1}^{u_i}}{T_{D_1}^{u_i}}$ (2) I don't. $1\times b$ ... $$\mathrm{(1)}$$ where H¯ ui D1∈ R1×h, L is the maximum sequence length, h is the hidden size of the transformer encoder, T ui D1 is the total number of tokens in D ui 1 excluding special tokens. Therefore, we sum the representations of all tokens in D ui 1and then average it to obtain a document vector H¯ ui D1 . The same procedure is used to generate the document vectors of all documents in ui = {D ui 1 , ......, Dui ni}. Finally, we obtain the representation of ui by: $$E_{u_{i}}={\frac{\sum_{k=1}^{n_{i}}{\bar{H}}_{D_{k}}^{u_{i}}}{n_{i}}}$$ $$\mathbf{(2)}$$ where Eui ∈ R1×his the initial representation of user ui. The same process is applied to generate the representations of all the other users as well as all products. Finally, we have EU ∈ RN×hand EP ∈ RM×has the user and product embedding matrix respectively. Moreover, in order to control the magnitude of EU , EP we propose scaling heuristics: $E_{U}=f_{U}E_{U},f_{U}=\frac{\text{F-Norm}(E)}{\text{F-Norm}(E_{U})}$ (3) where F-NORM is Frobenius norm, E is a normal matrix in which the elements Ei,j are drawn from a normal distribution N (0, 1). The same process is applied to EP as well. ## 2.2 User-Product Information Integration Having enriched user and product representations with historical reviews, we propose a user-product cross-context module for the purpose of garnering sentiment clues from textual associations between users and products. We use MULTI-HEAD ATTENTION (Vaswani et al., 2017) in four attention operations: user-to-user, product-to-product, user-to-product and *product-to-user*. Specifically, for MULTI-HEAD ATTENTION(Q,K,V), we use the user representation Eui or product representation Epj as Q and the user matrix EU and product matrix EP as K and V. For example, we obtain user-to-user attention output by: $$E_{u_{i}}^{u u}=A t t n_{u u}(E_{u_{i}},E_{U},E_{U})$$ , EU , EU ) (4) We follow the same schema to get E pp pj , E up ui and E pu pj . Additionally, we also employ two MULTI-HEAD ATTENTION operations between Eui /Epj (query) and HD (key and value). The corresponding outputs are ED ui and ED pj . We then combine the output of the user-product cross-context module and Hcls to form the final representations. In *Attn*uu and *Attn*pp, we add attention masks to prevent Eui and Epj from attending to themselves. Thus we also incorporate Eui and Epj as their *selfattentive* representations: $$H_{d}=g(E_{u_{i}}^{uu},E_{p_{j}}^{pp},E_{u_{i}}^{up},E_{p_{j}}^{pu},E_{u_{i}}^{D},E_{p_{j}}^{D},\tag{5}$$ $$E_{u_{i}},E_{p_{j}},H_{cls})$$ Hd is fed into the classification layer to obtain the sentiment label distribution. During the training process, we use cross-entropy to calculate the loss between our model predictions and the gold labels. ## 3 Experiments 3.1 Datasets Our experiments are conducted on three benchmark English document-level sentiment analysis datasets: IMDb, Yelp-13 and Yelp-14 (Tang et al., 2015). Statistics of the three datasets are shown in Appendix A.1. All three are fine-grained sentiment analysis datasets: Yelp-2013 and Yelp-2014 have 5 classes, IMDb has 10 classes. Each review is accompanied by its corresponding anonymized user ID and product ID. ## 3.2 Experimental Setup The pre-trained language models we employed in experiments are BERT (Devlin et al., 2019), SpanBERT (Joshi et al., 2020) and Longformer (Beltagy et al., 2020). We use the implementations from Huggingface (Wolf et al., 2019). The hyperparameters are empirically selected based on the performance on the dev set. We adopt an early stopping strategy. The maximum sequence is set to 512 for all models. For evaluation, we employ two metrics Accuracy and *RMSE* (Root Mean Square Error). More training details are available in Appendix A.2 ## 3.3 Results Results on the dev sets of IMDb, Yelp-2013 and Yelp-2014 for the BERT, SpanBERT and Longformer PLMs are shown in Table 1. We compare our approach to a vanilla user and product attention baseline where 1) the user and product representation matrices are randomly initialized and 2) we simply employ multi-head attention between user/product and document representations without the user-product cross-context module. Our approach is able to achieve consistent improvements over the baseline with all PLMs on all three datasets. For example, our approach gives improvements over the baseline of 4.3 accuracy on IMDb, 1.6 accuracy on Yelp-2013 and 1.7 accuracy on Yelp-2014 for BERT-base. Moreover, our approach can give further improvements for large PLMs such as Longformer-large: improvements of 4.8 accuracy on IMDb, 2.8 accuracy on Yelp2013 and 2.1 accuracy on Yelp-2014. The improvements over the baseline are statistically significant (p < 0.01) 1. In Table 2, we compare our approach to previous approaches on the test sets of IMDb, Yelp2013 and Yelp-2014. These include pre-BERT neural models - RRP-UPM (Yuan et al., 2019) and CHIM (Amplayo, 2019) - and state-of-the-art models based on BERT - IUPC (Lyu et al., 2020), MA-BERT (Zhang et al., 2021) and Injectors (Amplayo et al., 2022).2 We use BERT-base for a fair comparison with IUPC, MA-BERT and Injectors, which all use BERT-base. Our model obtains the best performance on IMDb, Yelp-2013 and Yelp2014, achieving absolute improvements in accuracy of 0.1, 1.2 and 0.9 respectively, and improvements in RMSE of 0.011, 0.018 and 0.010 respectively. ## 3.4 Ablation Study Results of an ablation analysis are shown in Table 3. The first row results are from a BERT model without user and product information. The next 1We use a paired t-test to determine the significance of our method's improvements over the baseline models. 2More results are shown in Appendix A.4. | IMDB | Yelp-2013 | Yelp-2014 | | | | | |------------------------------------|-------------|-------------|------|----------|------|-------| | Acc. (%) | RMSE | Acc. (%) | RMSE | Acc. (%) | RMSE | | | Vanilla BERT-base Attention | 55.4 | 1.129 | 69.1 | 0.617 | 70.7 | 0.610 | | + Our approach | 59.7 | 1.006 | 70.7 | 0.589 | 72.4 | 0.559 | | Vanilla BERT-large Attention | 55.7 | 1.070 | 69.9 | 0.590 | 71.3 | 0.579 | | + Our approach | 60.3 | 0.977 | 71.8 | 0.568 | 72.3 | 0.567 | | Vanilla SpanBERT-base Attention | 56.6 | 1.055 | 70.2 | 0.589 | 71.3 | 0.571 | | + Our approach | 60.2 | 1.026 | 71.5 | 0.578 | 72.6 | 0.562 | | Vanilla SpanBERT-large Attention | 57.6 | 1.009 | 71.6 | 0.563 | 72.5 | 0.556 | | + Our approach | 61.0 | 0.947 | 72.7 | 0.552 | 73.7 | 0.543 | | Vanilla Longformer-base Attention | 56.7 | 1.019 | 71.0 | 0.573 | 72.5 | 0.554 | | + Our approach | 59.6 | 0.990 | 72.6 | 0.558 | 73.3 | 0.548 | | Vanilla Longformer-large Attention | 57.0 | 0.967 | 70.7 | 0.571 | 72.2 | 0.555 | | + Our approach | 61.8 | 0.931 | 73.5 | 0.540 | 74.3 | 0.529 | Table 1: Results of our approach on various PLMs on the dev sets of IMDb, Yelp-2013 and Yelp-2014. We show the results of the baseline vanilla attention model for each PLM as well as the results of the same PLM with our proposed approach. We report the average of five runs with two metrics, Accuracy (↑) and RMSE (↓). IMDB Yelp-2013 Yelp-2014 Acc. (%) RMSE Acc. (%) RMSE Acc. (%) RMSE RRP-UPM (Yuan et al., 2019) 56.2 1.174 69.0 0.629 69.1 0.621 CHIM (Amplayo, 2019) 56.4 1.161 67.8 0.641 69.2 0.622 IUPC (Lyu et al., 2020) 53.8 1.151 70.5 0.589 71.2 0.592 MA-BERT (Zhang et al., 2021) 57.3 1.042 70.3 0.588 71.4 0.573 Injectors (Amplayo et al., 2022) 58.9 N/A 70.9 N/A 71.7 N/A Ours **59.0 1.031 72.1 0.570 72.6 0.563** Table 2: Experimental Results on the test sets of IMDb, Yelp-2013 and Yelp-2014. We report the average results of of five runs of two metrics Accuracy (↑) and RMSE (↓). The best performance is in bold. IMDB Yelp-2013 Yelp-2014 Acc. (%) RMSE Acc. (%) RMSE Acc. (%) RMSE BERT 50.8 1.187 67.2 0.639 67.8 0.629 + User-Product Information 55.4 1.129 69.1 0.617 70.7 0.610 + Textual Information 56.9 1.089 70.1 0.593 71.9 0.563 + User-Product Cross-Context 59.7 1.006 70.7 0.589 72.4 0.559 Table 3: Results of ablation studies on the dev sets of IMDb, Yelp-2013 and Yelp-2014. three rows correspond to: 1) *User-Product Information*, where we use the same method in the baseline vanilla attention model in Table 1 to inject userproduct information; 2) *Textual Information*, our proposed approach of using historical reviews to initialize user and product representations; 3) *UserProduct Cross-Context*, our proposed module incorporating the associations between users and products. The results show, firstly, that user and product information is highly useful for sentiment classification, and, secondly, that both textual information of historical reviews and user-product cross-context can improve sentiment classification. *Textual Information* gives ~1 accuracy improvement on the three datasets, while giving ~0.04 RMSE improvement on IMDb and Yelp-2014 and ~0.02 RMSE improvement on Yelp-2013. *User-Product CrossContext* achieves further improvements on IMDb of 2.8 accuracy and improvements on Yelp-2013 and Yelp-2014 of 0.6 and 0.5 accuracy respectively. ## 3.5 Varying Number Of Reviews We investigate model performance with different amounts of reviews belonging to the same user/product. We randomly sample a proportion of each user's reviews (from 10% to 100%). Then we use the sampled training data, where each user only has part of their total reviews (e.g. 10%), to train sentiment classification models. We conduct experiments on Yelp-2013 and IMDb using IUPC (Lyu et al., 2020), MA-BERT (Zhang et al., 2021) and our approach. The results are shown in Figure 3,  where the x-axis represents the proportion of reviews that we used in experiments. When the proportion of reviews lie between 10% and 50%, our approach obtains superior performance compared to MA-BERT and IUPC while the performance gain decreases when users have more reviews. The results show the advantage of our approach under a low-review scenario for users. ## 3.6 Scaling Factor For User/Product Matrix We conduct experiments with different scaling factor (see Equations 3) on the dev sets of Yelp-2013 and IMDb using BERT-base. We apply the same scaling factor to both user and product matrix. The results are shown in Figure 4, where we use scaling factor ranging from 0.05 to 1.5 with intervals of 0.05. The results show that our proposed scaling factor (green dashed lines in Figure 4) based on the Frobenius norm can yield competitive performance: best accuracy according to the blue dashed line. Although the RMSE of the Frobenius norm heuristic is not always the optimal, it is still a relatively lower RMSE compared to most of the other scaling factors (except the RMSE of SpanBERT-base on IMDb). Moreover, the Frobenius norm heuristic can reduce the efforts needed to tune the scaling factor, since the optimal scaling factor is varying for different models on different data, whereas the Frobenius norm heuristic is able to consistently provide a competitive dynamic scaling factor.  ## 4 Conclusion And Future Work In order to make the best use of user and product information in sentiment classification, we propose a text-driven approach: 1) explicitly utilizing historical reviews to initialize user and product representations 2) modeling associations between users and products with an additional user-product crosscontext module. The experiments conducted on three English benchmark datasets - IMDb, Yelp2013 and Yelp-2014 - demonstrate that our approach substantially outperforms previous stateof-the-art approaches and is effective for several PLMs. For future work, we aim to apply our approach to more tasks where there is a need to learn representations for various types of attributes, and to explore other compositionality methods for generating user/product representations. ## Acknowledgements This work was funded by Science Foundation Ireland through the SFI Centre for Research Training in Machine Learning (18/CRT/6183). We thank the reviewers for helpful feedback. ## Limitations The method introduced in this paper applies to a specific type of sentiment analysis task, where the item to be analysed is a review, the author of the review and the product/service being reviewed are known and uniquely identified, and the author (user) and product information is available for all reviews in the training set. While our approach is expected to perform well on other languages beyond English, the experimental results do not necessarily support that since our evaluation is only carried out on English data. ## References Reinald Kim Amplayo. 2019. Rethinking attribute representation and injection for sentiment classification. 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 5602– 5613, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Reinald Kim Amplayo, Jihyeok Kim, Sua Sung, and Seung-won Hwang. 2018. Cold-start aware user and product attention for sentiment classification. In *Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long* Papers), pages 2535–2544, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. Reinald Kim Amplayo, Kang Min Yoo, and Sang-Woo Lee. 2022. Attribute injection for pretrained language models: A new benchmark and an efficient method. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 1051–1064, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics. Iz Beltagy, Matthew E Peters, and Arman Cohan. 2020. Longformer: The long-document transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.05150. Huimin Chen, Maosong Sun, Cunchao Tu, Yankai Lin, and Zhiyuan Liu. 2016. Neural sentiment classification with user and product attention. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1650–1659, Austin, Texas. 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. Cícero dos Santos and Maíra Gatti. 2014. Deep convolutional neural networks for sentiment analysis of short texts. In Proceedings of COLING 2014, the 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers, pages 69–78, Dublin, Ireland. Dublin City University and Association for Computational Linguistics. Zi-Yi Dou. 2017. Capturing user and product information for document level sentiment analysis with deep memory network. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 521–526, Copenhagen, Denmark. 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. Yoon Kim. 2014. Convolutional neural networks for sentence classification. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1746–1751, Doha, Qatar. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yunfei Long, Mingyu Ma, Qin Lu, Rong Xiang, and Chu-Ren Huang. 2018. Dual memory network model for biased product review classification. In *Proceedings of the 9th Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity, Sentiment and Social Media* Analysis, pages 140–148, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Chenyang Lyu, Jennifer Foster, and Yvette Graham. 2020. Improving document-level sentiment analysis with user and product context. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 6724–6729, Barcelona, Spain (Online). International Committee on Computational Linguistics. Dehong Ma, Sujian Li, Xiaodong Zhang, Houfeng Wang, and Xu Sun. 2017. Cascading multiway attentions for document-level sentiment classification. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 634–643, Taipei, Taiwan. Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing. F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V. Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P. Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, V. Dubourg, J. Vanderplas, A. Passos, D. Cournapeau, M. Brucher, M. Perrot, and E. Duchesnay. 2011. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. *Journal of Machine Learning Research*, 12:2825–2830. Duyu Tang, Bing Qin, and Ting Liu. 2015. Learning semantic representations of users and products for document level sentiment classification. 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 1014–1023, Beijing, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. 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. Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, R'emi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, and Jamie Brew. 2019. Huggingface's transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. *ArXiv*, abs/1910.03771. Zhen Wu, Xin-Yu Dai, Cunyan Yin, Shujian Huang, and Jiajun Chen. 2018. Improving review representations with user attention and product attention for sentiment classification. *CoRR*, abs/1801.07861. Zichao Yang, Diyi Yang, Chris Dyer, Xiaodong He, Alex Smola, and Eduard Hovy. 2016. Hierarchical attention networks for document classification. In *Proceedings of the 2016 conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: human language technologies*, pages 1480– 1489. Zhigang Yuan, Fangzhao Wu, Junxin Liu, Chuhan Wu, Yongfeng Huang, and Xing Xie. 2019. Neural review rating prediction with user and product memory. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, CIKM 2019, Beijing, China, November 3-7,2019, pages 2341–2344. You Zhang, Jin Wang, Liang-Chih Yu, and Xuejie Zhang. 2021. MA-BERT: Learning representation by incorporating multi-attribute knowledge in transformers. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 2338–2343, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. ## A Appendix | Datasets | Train | Dev | Test | Words/Doc | |------------|---------|--------|--------|-------------| | IMDB | 67,426 | 8,381 | 9,112 | 394.6 | | Yelp-2013 | 62,522 | 7,773 | 8,671 | 189.3 | | Yelp-2014 | 183,019 | 22,745 | 25,399 | 196.9 | ## A.1 Datasets Table 4: Number of documents per split and average doc length of IMDb, Yelp-2013 and Yelp-2014. Our experiments are conducted on three benchmark English document-level sentiment analysis datasets: IMDb, Yelp-13 and Yelp-14 (Tang et al., 2015). Statistics of the three datasets are shown in Table 4. The IMDb dataset has the longest documents with an average length of approximately 395 words. The average number of reviews for each user/product is shown in Table 5. Table 5: Number of users and products with average amount of documents for each user and product in IMDb, Yelp-2013 and Yelp-2014. ## A.2 Hyperparameters | Datasets | Users | Products | Docs/User | Docs/Product | |------------|---------|------------|-------------|----------------| | IMDB | 1,310 | 1,635 | 64.82 | 51.94 | | Yelp-2013 | 1,631 | 1,633 | 48.42 | 48.36 | | Yelp-2014 | 4,818 | 4,194 | 47.97 | 55.11 | The metrics are calculated using the scripts in Pedregosa et al. (2011). All experiments are conducted on Nvidia GeForce RTX 3090 GPUs. We show the Learning Rate and Batch Size used to train our models on all datasets in Table 6. ## A.3 Training Objective We use *Cross-Entropy* to calculate the loss between our model predictions and the gold labels. J(θ) = − Xn i=1 Xm j=1 yi,j log(p(yi,j |Di, ui, pi)) (6) where n is the number of samples and m is the number of all classes, yi,j represents the actual probability of the i-th sample belonging to *class*j , yi,j is 1 only if the i-th sample belongs to *class*j otherwise it's 0. p(yi,j |Di, ui, pi) is the probability the i-th sample belongs to *class*j predicted by our model. ## A.4 Evaluation Results We compare our approach to previous approaches on the test sets of IMDb, Yelp-2013 and Yelp-2014. These include pre-BERT neural baseline models using CNN (dos Santos and Gatti, 2014; Kim, 2014) and LSTM (Yang et al., 2016) - UPNN (Tang et al., 2015), NSC (Chen et al., 2016), UPDMN (Dou, 2017), CMA (Ma et al., 2017), HCSC (Amplayo et al., 2018), DUPMN (Long et al., 2018), HUAPA (Wu et al., 2018), RRP-UPM (Yuan et al., 2019), CHIM (Amplayo, 2019) - and two state-of-the-art models based on BERT including IUPC (Lyu et al., 2020) and MA-BERT (Zhang et al., 2021). Results are shown in Table 7. ## A.5 Examples Some cases sampled from the dev set of Yelp-2013 and corresponding predictions from Vanilla BERT w/o user and product information, IUPC (Lyu et al., 2020), MA-BERT (Zhang et al., 2021) and our model are shown in Table 8. BERT-base 16 6e-5 16 6e-5 16 6e-5 BERT-large 8 3e-5 8 3e-5 8 3e-5 SpanBERT-base 16 6e-5 16 6e-5 16 6e-5 SpanBERT-large 8 3e-5 8 3e-5 8 3e-5 Longformer-base 16 3e-5 16 3e-5 16 3e-5 Longformer-large 4 2e-5 4 3e-5 4 3e-5 IMDB Yelp-2013 Yelp-2014 BS LR BS LR BS LR Table 6: The hyperparameters used to fine-tune all models on all datasets including Learning Rate (LR) and Batch Size (BS). Table 7: Experimental Results on the test sets of IMDb, Yelp-2013 and Yelp-2014. We report the average results of of five runs of two metrics Accuracy (↑) and RMSE (↓). The best performance is in bold. Example 1 This is a straightforward positive review since it clearly conveys the satisfaction towards the restaurant. Thus all models make the correct prediction. | IMDB | Yelp-2013 | Yelp-2014 | | | | | |-------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------|------|----------|------|-------| | Acc. (%) | RMSE | Acc. (%) | RMSE | Acc. (%) | RMSE | | | Pre-BERT models UPNN (Tang et al., 2015) | 43.5 | 1.602 | 59.6 | 0.784 | 60.8 | 0.764 | | NSC (Chen et al., 2016) | 53.3 | 1.281 | 65.0 | 0.692 | 66.7 | 0.654 | | UPDMN (Dou, 2017) | 46.5 | 1.351 | 63.9 | 0.662 | 61.3 | 0.720 | | CMA (Ma et al., 2017) | 54.0 | 1.191 | 66.3 | 0.677 | 67.6 | 0.637 | | HCSC (Amplayo et al., 2018) | 54.2 | 1.213 | 65.7 | 0.660 | 67.6 | 0.639 | | DUPMN (Long et al., 2018) | 53.9 | 1.279 | 66.2 | 0.667 | 67.6 | 0.639 | | HUAPA (Wu et al., 2018) | 55.0 | 1.185 | 68.3 | 0.628 | 68.6 | 0.626 | | RRP-UPM (Yuan et al., 2019) | 56.2 | 1.174 | 69.0 | 0.629 | 69.1 | 0.621 | | CHIM (Amplayo, 2019) | 56.4 | 1.161 | 67.8 | 0.641 | 69.2 | 0.622 | | BERT-based models IUPC (Lyu et al., 2020) | 53.8 | 1.151 | 70.5 | 0.589 | 71.2 | 0.592 | | MA-BERT (Zhang et al., 2021) | 57.3 | 1.042 | 70.3 | 0.588 | 71.4 | 0.573 | | Injectors (Amplayo et al., 2022) | 58.9 | N/A | 70.9 | N/A | 71.7 | N/A | | Ours | 59.0 | 1.031 | 72.1 | 0.570 | 72.6 | 0.563 | Example 2 This is similar to the first example in narrative style, but the ground-truth sentiment label is Positive rather than Very Positive since this user tends not to give very high ratings. This example shows the importance of user information. Example 3 This review conveys a very negative attitude. However, the author tends not to give very poor ratings plus the reviews this store received are not bad. With both user and product information, our model makes the correct prediction of Neutral. Example 4 All models, regardless of whether they use user and product information, predict Neutral or Negative while in fact the review label is Very Positive. This is a difficult example where the sentiment is subtly expressed. | Review | Vanilla | IUPC | MABERT | Ours | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|--------|--------|--------| | BERT | | | | | | Took travis here for one of our first dates and just love cibo. It 's situated in a home from 1913 and has colored lights wrapped all around the trees. You can either sit inside or on the gorgeous patio. Brick oven pizza and cheese plates offered here and it 's definitely a place for a cool date. (VP) | VP (✓) | VP (✓) | VP (✓) | VP (✓) | | a great sushi bar owned and operated by maggie and toshi who are both japanese. their product is always consistent and they always have a few good specials. service is great and the staff is very friendly and cheerful. value is really good particularly within their happy hour menu. our kids love it and they are always spoiled rotten by maggie and toshi so it is their favorite place. lastly we did a sake tasting there a few weeks ago and really had a great time. we all sat family style int he middle of the restaurant and got to experience some really interesting rice wines. we had a blast. great place (P) | VP (✗) | P (✓) | P (✓) | P (✓) | | VN (✗) | N (✗) | VN (✗) | Ne (✓) | | | well , i was disappointed. | i was expecting this one to be a | | | | | jazzed up container store. but ... it was just average. i used to visit container store in houston near the galleria. it has a nice selection of things. people are always ready to help etc.. but , this one has an aloof sort of customer service crowd. they say nice things about your kid but do not offer to help. hmm ... i have seen similar things they were selling at ikea. the quality did seem a little better than ikea but if you are buying a laundry room shelf for your laundry detergent ... who the hell cares. its a shelf ! does n't matter if it has 15 coats of paint on the metal or 2 coats. i found one of those sistema lunch boxes that i have been looking for over here and it was on sale. will i go back ? probably not. too far out for me , plus i like ikea better (Ne) Unfortunately tonight was the last night this location was open. The only two locations left in the valley are desert ridge and arrowhead. Please support them. (VP) | Ne (✗) | N (✗) | VN (✗) | N (✗) | | Table 8: Example reviews from the dev sets of Yelp-2013 and the corresponding predictions of each model. Very | | | | | Table 8: Example reviews from the dev sets of Yelp-2013 and the corresponding predictions of each model. Very Negative (VN), Negative (N), Neutral (Ne), Positive (P), Very Positive (VP). ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? The last section. ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Section 3. ✓ 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?** Section 3. ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section 3. ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Section 3. ✓ 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 3. ✓ 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 3. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Section 3 and 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. Section 3 and appendix. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Section 3 And Appendix. ✓ 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 3 and appendix. 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 3 and appendix. ✓ 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 and appendix. ✓ 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 3 and appendix. 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.

vazhentsev-etal-2023-efficient

Efficient Out-of-Domain Detection for Sequence to Sequence Models

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.93

Sequence-to-sequence (seq2seq) models based on the Transformer architecture have become a ubiquitous tool applicable not only to classical text generation tasks such as machine translation and summarization but also to any other task where an answer can be represented in a form of a finite text fragment (e.g., question answering). However, when deploying a model in practice, we need not only high performance but also an ability to determine cases where the model is not applicable. Uncertainty estimation (UE) techniques provide a tool for identifying out-of-domain (OOD) input where the model is susceptible to errors. State-of-the-art UE methods for seq2seq models rely on computationally heavyweight and impractical deep ensembles. In this work, we perform an empirical investigation of various novel UE methods for large pre-trained seq2seq models T5 and BART on three tasks: machine translation, text summarization, and question answering. We apply computationally lightweight density-based UE methods to seq2seq models and show that they often outperform heavyweight deep ensembles on the task of OOD detection.

# Efficient Out-Of-Domain Detection For Sequence To Sequence Models Artem Vazhentsev1,2 ♢, Akim Tsvigun6,7 ♢, Roman Vashurin4 ♢**, Sergey Petrakov**2, Daniil Vasilev5, Maxim Panov4, Alexander Panchenko2,1**, and Artem Shelmanov**3 1AIRI, 2Skoltech, 3MBZUAI, 4TII, 5HSE University, 6AI Center NUST MISiS, 7Semrush {vazhentsev, panchenko}@airi.net {sergey.petrakov}@skoltech.ru {roman.vashurin, maxim.panov}@tii.ae artem.shelmanov@mbzuai.ac.ae ## Abstract Sequence-to-sequence (seq2seq) models based on the Transformer architecture have become a ubiquitous tool applicable not only to classical text generation tasks such as machine translation and summarization but also to any other task where an answer can be represented in a form of a finite text fragment (e.g., question answering). However, when deploying a model in practice, we need not only high performance but also an ability to determine cases where the model is not applicable. Uncertainty estimation (UE) techniques provide a tool for identifying out-of-domain (OOD) input where the model is susceptible to errors. State-of-the-art UE methods for seq2seq models rely on computationally heavyweight and impractical deep ensembles. In this work, we perform an empirical investigation of various novel UE methods for large pre-trained seq2seq models T5 and BART on three tasks: machine translation, text summarization, and question answering. We apply computationally lightweight density-based UE methods to seq2seq models and show that they often outperform heavyweight deep ensembles on the task of OOD detection1. ## 1 Introduction Sequence-to-sequence (seq2seq) models achieve state-of-the-art performance in various NLP tasks, such as neural machine translation (NMT; Vaswani et al. (2017); Song et al. (2019); Zhu et al. (2020); Liu et al. (2020)), abstractive text summarization (ATS; Zhang et al. (2020); Lewis et al. (2020)), question answering (QA; Raffel et al. (2020)), and others. Such models may encounter various user inputs when exposed to the general public. In many cases, it is preferable to detect and handle in a special way what is known as out-of-domain (OOD) inputs. OOD instances are significantly different 1The code for reproducing experiments is available online at https://github.com/stat-ml/seq2seq_ood_ detection ♢ Equal contribution from the data used during training, and as a result, model predictions on such inputs might be unreliable. OOD can be performed in supervised and unsupervised ways. In a supervised approach, one trains a discriminator between in-domain (ID) and OOD instances on a labeled dataset of such instances, which is manually annotated (Hendrycks et al., 2019) or synthetically generated (Liang et al., 2018). The drawback of such an approach is that the discriminator is also limited in what instances it can correctly process. Therefore, in many practical cases, it might be better to use an unsupervised approach, where OOD instances are detected using uncertainty estimation (UE) methods. Related work. UE for text generation models is still an area of ongoing research with only a limited number of works. Malinin and Gales (2020) propose various ensemble-based UE methods for seq2seq models and evaluate them on two tasks: NMT and automatic speech recognition. Ensemblebased methods in conjunction with Monte Carlo (MC) dropout (Gal and Ghahramani, 2016) are also investigated in (Lukovnikov et al., 2021). The authors find that the ensemble-based UE methods lead to the best results for OOD detection in the neural semantic parsing task. Xiao et al. (2020) introduce a novel UE method BLEUVar, which is also based on MC dropout. The uncertainty score is calculated as a sum of the squared complements of BLEU scores for all pairs of generated texts obtained with different dropout masks. The method shows improvements over the baselines in NMT. Lyu et al. (2020) further explore this method for OOD detection in question answering. Gidiotis and Tsoumakas (2022) show that BLEUVar can also be applied for UE in summarization. The aforementioned methods entail performing multiple model inferences for each individual input, resulting in high computational overhead. Recently, Kuhn et al. (2022) propose a method that does not leverage MC dropout, but samples multiple predictions without additional inferences. It is called semantic entropy and is based on the idea that different samples can have the same meaning. It calculates the entropy of the probability distribution over meanings instead of their surface realizations. Semantic entropy outperforms the standard predictive entropybased methods proposed in (Malinin and Gales, 2020) on the free-form question answering task. Contributions. In this work, we show that there is significant room for improvement for existing OOD detection methods in seq2seq tasks. We find out that in some configurations, they even work worse than the random choice. Moreover, most of them are computationally intensive, which hinders their successful application in real-world settings. To address these issues, we adopt methods based on fitting the probability density of latent instance representations obtained from a trained neural network (Lee et al., 2018; Yoo et al., 2022). While these methods are shown to be effective for text classification tasks, their application in text generation tasks has received limited research attention. We fill this gap by conducting an empirical investigation of these methods for OOD detection in NMT, ATS, and QA tasks and show their superiority over the baselines from previous work. The main contributions of our paper are as follows. - We perform a large-scale empirical study of UE methods on three different sequence generation tasks: NMT, ATS, and QA, with various types of out-of-domain inputs: permutations of tokens from original input, texts from a new domain, and texts from another language. - We show that the density-based approaches are both more effective and computationally efficient than previously explored state-ofthe-art ensemble-based or MC dropout-based methods. The improvement is consistently observed in all considered tasks. ## 2 Out-Of-Domain Detection Methods OOD detection using uncertainty estimation is a binary classification task, where an uncertainty score U(x) of a given input x is a predictor of x coming from an unknown domain. In practice, a threshold δ is specified so that all x: U(x) > δ are considered to be OOD. The task of text generation involves complex autoregressive probabilistic models and usually requires making not one but multiple predictions (one per output token). These two factors make UE of predictions in text generation tasks much more complicated than in standard text classification tasks. Below, we provide a short overview of the approaches for uncertainty estimation of autoregressive model predictions investigated in our work. More comprehensive details can be found in Appendix A. All methods described below can be applied to the majority of modern Transformerbased pre-trained seq2seq models. ## 2.1 Information-Based Uncertainty Estimation Usually, seq2seq models for each input x can generate multiple candidate sequences y via beamsearch, where the resulting set of sequences B(x) = {y (b)} B b=1 is called a "beam". To get the uncertainty score associated with a prediction on x, we can aggregate individual uncertainties for input-output pairs (x, y (b)) of the whole beam. The simplest aggregation method is to take the probability of a sequence y∗that has the maximum confidence and is usually selected as a final model output. We refer to this method as *Maximum Sequence Probability (MSP)*. The alternative approach is to consider the hypotheses in the beam y (b)as samples from a distribution of possible sequences. In this case, we can compute the expected probabilities over the beam, yielding a method called Normalized Sequence Probability (NSP). Another option is to compute the average entropy of the predictive token distributions over the beam. ## 2.2 Ensembling One can train several models for a single task and benefit from their variability to estimate the uncertainty. In this section, we mostly follow Malinin and Gales (2020) who give a comprehensive overview of the information-based UE techniques for ensembles and Bayesian methods in general. First of all, note that hypotheses sequences that form the beam B(x) = {y (b)} B b=1 for the case of ensembling can be generated naturally by generating tokens sequentially according to the average of the probabilities of ensemble members. Such an ensembling approach is usually referred to as Product of Expectations (PE) ensemble. We consider two types of ensemble-based UE methods: sequence-level and token-level. Sequence-level methods obtain uncertainty scores for the whole sequence at once. *Total Uncertainty (TU)* is measured via entropy and *Reverse*  Mutual Information (RMI). We refer to these scores as PE-S-TU and PE-S-RMI in our experiments. One can also consider an alternative way of ensembling models that is usually called the Expectation of Products (EP) ensemble. It averages the probabilities of whole sequences computed by different models. This approach gives us two more variants of TU and RMI: EP-S-TU and EP-S-RMI. In token-level UE methods, we compute some uncertainty measure for each token first and then average these scores over all tokens in a sequence. We consider *Total Uncertainty* measured via entropy, Mutual Information (MI), *Expected Pairwise* KL Divergence (EPKL) and *Reverse Mutual Information (RMI)*. The resulting token-level uncertainties can be averaged via the PE approach leading to PE-T-TU, PE-T-MI, PE-T-EPKL, and PE-T-RMI methods. The alternative is to use EP averaging that gives us another four metrics to consider: EPT-TU, EP-T-MI, EP-T-EPKL and EP-T-RMI. ## 2.3 Density-Based Methods Recently, density-based methods exhibited outstanding performance in UE of deep neural network predictions (Lee et al., 2018; van Amersfoort et al., 2020; Kotelevskii et al., 2022; Yoo et al., 2022). Yet, none of them has been applied to seq2seq models. The basic idea behind density-based UE methods is to leverage the latent space of the model and fit the probability density of the training input representations within it. The lower value of the density is then considered as an indicator of a higher uncertainty due to the scarce training data used to make the prediction. We adopt two state-of-the-art methods of this type for seq2seq models: *Mahalanobis Distance* (MD; Lee et al. (2018)) and *Robust Density Estimation* (RDE; Yoo et al. (2022)). Let h(x) be a hidden representation of an instance x. The MD method fits a Gaussian centered at the training data centroid µ with an empirical covariance matrix Σ. The uncertainty score is the Mahalanobis distance between h(x) and µ: $$\mu(I)^{T}$$ ## U Md(X) = (H(X) − Μ) T Σ −1(H(X) − Μ). We suggest using the last hidden state of the encoder averaged over non-padding tokens or the last hidden state of the decoder averaged over all generated tokens as h(x). An ablation study of various embeddings extraction and reduction methods is provided in Appendix D. The RDE method improves over MD by reducing the dimensionality of h(x) via PCA decomposition. It also computes the covariance matrix in a robust way using the Minimum Covariance Determinant estimate (Rousseeuw, 1984). The uncertainty score U RDE(x) is also the Mahalanobis distance but in the space of reduced dimensionality. ## 3 Experiments Following (Malinin and Gales, 2020), we use two approaches to generating OOD data for a given "in-domain" (ID) dataset. In the first approach, we simply take texts from another dataset, which is distinct from the training set of the model in terms of domain and/or structure. In the second approach, we corrupt the dataset by randomly permuting the source tokens (PRM). The details of OOD data creation are provided in Appendix B. Following the previous works on OOD detection (Hendrycks and Gimpel, 2017; Malinin and Gales, 2020), we report the AU-ROC scores of detecting OOD instances mixed into the test set. To ensure stability, we run each experiment with 5 different random seeds and report the standard deviation. For brevity, in the main part, we report the results of only the two best-performing methods from each method group. Hardware configuration for experiments is provided in Appendix B.   ## 3.1 Performance On Id Vs Ood First and foremost, we must ensure that the task of identifying OOD examples is indeed crucial in text generation tasks. To do so, we compare the model's performance on ID and OOD data. Tables 3, 6, 8 in Appendix C depict a comparison of the model performance on ID and OOD observations in various ID-OOD settings for the NMT, ATS, and QA tasks. We can see that the model's quality is significantly worse on OOD data in all possible settings. This underlines the necessity of identifying OOD examples in real-world applications since the model is incapable of generating adequate predictions for such observations. ## 3.2 Machine Translation Experimental setup. We conduct experiments on two ID datasets: WMT'17 English-to-German (En-De; Bojar et al. (2017)) and WMT'20 Englishto-Russian (En-Ru; Barrault et al. (2020)). The OOD datasets were selected according to the benchmark of Malinin and Gales (2020). Since in reallife settings, OOD data come from various sources, we want to cover as many domains of data as possible with these datasets. For OOD data generation, we use texts from WMT'14 (Bojar et al., 2014) in French, the LibriSpeech test-clean (LTC) reference texts (Panayotov et al., 2015), and English comments from Reddit from the Shifts dataset (Malinin et al., 2022). The predictions are made by the multilingual mBART model (Liu et al., 2020). The details of the datasets and the model are provided Results. The performance of the selected methods is presented in Figure 1 and Figure 4 in Appendix H. For both ID datasets with LTC and PRM being OOD datasets, MD separates ID and OOD instances very clearly. It achieves an AU-ROC score very close to the optimal one, outperforming all the ensemble-based methods. When WMT'14 is used as OOD, for the model trained on the WMT'17, most of the ensemblebased methods notably fall behind even the random choice, which means that the model is overconfident in OOD instances. In contrast, MD and RDE yield adequate results. MD based on encoderderived embeddings shows the best quality in this setting. In the hardest setting, where Reddit is used as an OOD dataset, MSP and ensembles poorly detect OOD instances, while the density-based methods outperform all other techniques by a large margin. The only case where density-based methods show slightly lower performance is when WMT'14 and Reddit are considered OOD for the model trained on WMT'20. Overall, we can see that in most of the considered settings, MD substantially outperforms all other methods, and it is steadily better than the random choice baseline, while other methods are sometimes worse than the random choice. The compute time of the selected methods is presented in Table 13 in Appendix E. We see that the efficient density-based methods introduce only a small computational overhead compared to ensemble-based approaches. The complete results of all the considered methods are presented in Table 15 in Appendix H. Finally, the qualitative analysis of model performance and examples of ID/OOD predictions are presented in Tables 4,5 in Appendix C. ## 3.3 Abstractive Text Summarization Experimental setup. We experiment with four widely used datasets for ATS with each being ID and OOD: XSum (Narayan et al., 2018), AESLC (Zhang and Tetreault, 2019), Movie Reviews (MR; Wang and Ling (2016)), and Debate (Wang and Ling, 2016). Predictions are made by the standard BART model (Lewis et al., 2020). The details on the datasets and the model are provided in Appendix B. Results. For brevity, in the main part of the paper, we only keep the results with XSum being an OOD dataset. The results for other settings are presented in Appendix G. Figure 2 and Figure 5, Tables 16 and 17 in Appendix G illustrate the results of OOD detection in different corruption scenarios. First, we can clearly see that the density-based methods relying on both encoder and decoder features provide a large improvement over both information-based and ensemble-based methods. In each corruption scenario, at least one of the MD versions yields the highest AU-ROC scores. Second, we can observe that some OOD configurations where density-based methods achieve the optimal quality (e.g. MR-XSum, MR-Debate) turn out to be challenging for both information-based and ensemble-based methods. These methods perform worse than the random choice baseline. Third, when XSum is the ID dataset, RDE based on encoder features fails to perform well. MD, however, achieves the best results in these cases. Finally, the ensemble-based methods struggle to work stable across different settings. We can see that both PE-S-TU and PE-T-MI are even inferior to information-based methods in some IDOOD dataset configurations (e.g. AESLC-XSum, Debate-XSum). MD, on the contrary, shows robust results without performance gaps. ## 3.4 Question Answering Experimental setup. For the QA task, we select several widely-used KGQA datasets: Simple Questions (Bordes et al., 2015), Mintaka (Sen et al., 2022), and RuBQ 2.0 (Rybin et al., 2021). For predictions, we use the T5 model pre-trained for the QA task (Roberts et al., 2020). The details on the datasets and the model are given in Appendix B. The T5 model is used in zero-shot and if no sampling technique is undertaken, there will be no diversity for single model-based and density-based methods. Thus, we apply the bootstrap technique to estimate the confidence of the results obtained by calculating the standard deviation from the mean results. Results. Experiments on the QA task demonstrate similar behavior of UE methods. From Figure 3 and Table 18 in Appendix H, we can see that the density-based estimates obtained from encoderderived embeddings outperform all the other uncertainty methods by a large margin. They achieve high-quality results even in cases when the ensemble-based methods completely miss the target (e.g. RuBQ2-RuBQ2ru). This confusion can be explained by the fact that in the case when the model receives input data that is significantly different from what it was trained on, for example, the pre-training was mostly in English, and the question in Russian, the network is forced into default mode distribution based on the frequency of tokens. Example of such generation mode is illustrated in Table 7 in Appendix H. For experiments in settings RuBQ2-Mintaka and RuBQ2-PRM, we do not observe such a significant outlier as in the previous example. MD is the obvious leader, followed by RDE with a significant gap. Additional qualitative analysis in Table 7 in Appendix H shows that for a particular OOD example, often the uncertainty metric based on a single model and MC ensemble is not so different from the ID counterpart which explains their poor performance. ## 4 Conclusion We adopted the density-based UE methods for seq2seq models and demonstrated that they provide the best results in OOD detection across three sequence generation tasks: NMT, ATS, and QA. They appear to be superior to the ensemble-based methods in terms of both performance and compute time, which makes them a good choice for applying in practice. In future work, we are going to extend the application of density-based methods to seq2seq models in other UE tasks such as selective classification. ## Acknowledgements The work of Akim Tsvigun was prepared in the framework of the strategic project "Digital Business" within the Strategic Academic Leadership Program "Priority 2030" at NUST MISiS. This work was also supported in part by computational resources of the HPC facilities at the HSE University (Kostenetskiy et al., 2021). ## Limitations In our experiment, we presented results for three diverse sequence-to-sequence tasks, namely, machine translation, text summarization and knowledge graph question answering. While for these three tasks, we managed to observe common trends (i.e. some methods consistently outperformed other methods) a more large-scale study of various sequence-to-sequence tasks is needed to further confirm this observation and robustness of the best-performing method as identified in this work. ## Ethics Statement Uncertainty estimation methods are useful for building safer and more robust machine learning models. However, the extent to which they may interfere with other model tailoring methods, such as debiasing or compression models is not currently studied. In principle, we do not see large ethical implications in our research or risks. ## References Loïc Barrault, Magdalena Biesialska, Ondˇrej Bojar, Marta R. Costa-jussà, Christian Federmann, Yvette Graham, Roman Grundkiewicz, Barry Haddow, Matthias Huck, Eric Joanis, Tom Kocmi, Philipp Koehn, Chi-kiu Lo, Nikola Ljubešic, Christof ´ Monz, Makoto Morishita, Masaaki Nagata, Toshiaki Nakazawa, Santanu Pal, Matt Post, and Marcos Zampieri. 2020. Findings of the 2020 conference on machine translation (WMT20). In *Proceedings of* the Fifth Conference on Machine Translation, pages 1–55, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ondrej Bojar, Christian Buck, Christian Federmann, Barry Haddow, Philipp Koehn, Johannes Leveling, Christof Monz, Pavel Pecina, Matt Post, Herve SaintAmand, Radu Soricut, Lucia Specia, and Ale s Tamchyna. 2014. Findings of the 2014 workshop on statistical machine translation. In *Proceedings of the* Ninth Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation, pages 12–58, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ondrej Bojar, Rajen Chatterjee, Christian Federmann, Yvette Graham, Barry Haddow, Shujian Huang, Matthias Huck, Philipp Koehn, Qun Liu, Varvara Logacheva, Christof Monz, Matteo Negri, Matt Post, Raphael Rubino, Lucia Specia, and Marco Turchi. 2017. Findings of the 2017 conference on machine translation (wmt17). In *Proceedings of the Second Conference on Machine Translation, Volume 2:* Shared Task Papers, pages 169–214, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics. Antoine Bordes, Nicolas Usunier, Sumit Chopra, and Jason Weston. 2015. Large-scale simple question answering with memory networks. Yarin Gal and Zoubin Ghahramani. 2016. Dropout as a bayesian approximation: Representing model uncertainty in deep learning. In Proceedings of The 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 48 of *Proceedings of Machine Learning* Research, pages 1050–1059, New York, New York, USA. PMLR. Alexios Gidiotis and Grigorios Tsoumakas. 2022. Should we trust this summary? bayesian abstractive summarization to the rescue. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022,* Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 4119–4131. Association for Computational Linguistics. Dan Hendrycks, Steven Basart, Mantas Mazeika, and Duncan Wilson. 2019. Deep anomaly detection with outlier exposure. In International Conference on Learning Representations. Dan Hendrycks and Kevin Gimpel. 2017. A baseline for detecting misclassified and out-of-distribution examples in neural networks. In *5th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2017,* Toulon, France, April 24-26, 2017, Conference Track Proceedings. OpenReview.net. P. S. Kostenetskiy, R. A. Chulkevich, and V. I. Kozyrev. 2021. HPC Resources of the Higher School of Economics. *Journal of Physics: Conference Series*, 1740(1):012050. Nikita Yurevich Kotelevskii, Aleksandr Artemenkov, Kirill Fedyanin, Fedor Noskov, Alexander Fishkov, Artem Shelmanov, Artem Vazhentsev, Aleksandr Petiushko, and Maxim Panov. 2022. Nonparametric uncertainty quantification for single deterministic neural network. In *Advances in Neural Information* Processing Systems. Lorenz Kuhn, Yarin Gal, and Sebastian Farquhar. 2022. Semantic uncertainty: Linguistic invariances for uncertainty estimation in natural language generation. In *NeurIPS ML Safety Workshop*. Kimin Lee, Kibok Lee, Honglak Lee, and Jinwoo Shin. 2018. A simple unified framework for detecting outof-distribution samples and adversarial attacks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 31: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2018, NeurIPS 2018, December 3-8, 2018, Montréal, Canada, volume 31, pages 7167– 7177. 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. Shiyu Liang, Yixuan Li, and R Srikant. 2018. Enhancing the reliability of out-of-distribution image detection in neural networks. In International Conference on Learning Representations. 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. Denis Lukovnikov, Sina Däubener, and Asja Fischer. 2021. Detecting compositionally out-of-distribution examples in semantic parsing. In *Findings of the* Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 16-20 November, 2021, pages 591–598. Association for Computational Linguistics. Zhihao Lyu, Danier Duolikun, Bowei Dai, Yuan Yao, Pasquale Minervini, Tim Z Xiao, and Yarin Gal. 2020. You need only uncertain answers: Data efficient multilingual question answering. *Workshop on Uncertainty and Robustness in Deep Learning*. Andrey Malinin, Andreas Athanasopoulos, Muhamed Barakovic, Meritxell Bach Cuadra, Mark J. F. Gales, Cristina Granziera, Mara Graziani, Nikolay Kartashev, Konstantinos Kyriakopoulos, Po-Jui Lu, Nataliia Molchanova, Antonis Nikitakis, Vatsal Raina, Francesco La Rosa, Eli Sivena, Vasileios Tsarsitalidis, Efi Tsompopoulou, and Elena Volf. 2022. Shifts 2.0: Extending the dataset of real distributional shifts. Andrey Malinin and Mark Gales. 2020. Uncertainty estimation in autoregressive structured prediction. In International Conference on Learning Representations. 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, Brussels, Belgium, October 31 - November 4, 2018, pages 1797–1807. Association for Computational Linguistics. Vassil Panayotov, Guoguo Chen, Daniel Povey, and Sanjeev Khudanpur. 2015. Librispeech: an asr corpus based on public domain audio books. In Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2015 IEEE International Conference on, pages 5206–5210. IEEE. 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. *J. Mach. Learn. Res.*, 21:140:1–140:67. 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. Peter J Rousseeuw. 1984. Least median of squares regression. *Journal of the American statistical association*, 79(388):871–880. Ivan Rybin, Vladislav Korablinov, Pavel Efimov, and Pavel Braslavski. 2021. Rubq 2.0: an innovated russian question answering dataset. In European Semantic Web Conference, pages 532–547. Springer. Priyanka Sen, Alham Fikri Aji, and Amir Saffari. 2022. Mintaka: A complex, natural, and multilingual dataset for end-to-end question answering. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 1604–1619. Kaitao Song, Xu Tan, Tao Qin, Jianfeng Lu, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2019. Mass: Masked sequence to sequence pretraining for language generation. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 5926–5936. PMLR. Nicola Ueffing and Hermann Ney. 2007. Word-level confidence estimation for machine translation. *Comput. Linguistics*, 33(1):9–40. Joost van Amersfoort, Lewis Smith, Yee Whye Teh, and Yarin Gal. 2020. Uncertainty estimation using a single deep deterministic neural network. 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 9690–9700. PMLR. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. *Advances in neural information processing* systems, 30. Lu Wang and Wang Ling. 2016. Neural network-based abstract generation for opinions and arguments. In NAACL HLT 2016, The 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, San Diego California, USA, June 12-17, 2016, pages 47–57. The Association for Computational Linguistics. Tim Z. Xiao, Aidan N. Gomez, and Yarin Gal. 2020. Wat zei je? detecting out-of-distribution translations with variational transformers. *CoRR*, abs/2006.08344. KiYoon Yoo, Jangho Kim, Jiho Jang, and Nojun Kwak. 2022. Detection of adversarial examples in text classification: Benchmark and baseline via robust density estimation. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022*, pages 3656–3672, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jingqing Zhang, Yao Zhao, Mohammad Saleh, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. PEGASUS: pre-training with extracted gap-sentences for abstractive summarization. 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 11328–11339. PMLR. Rui Zhang and Joel R. Tetreault. 2019. This email could save your life: Introducing the task of email subject line generation. 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 446–456. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jinhua Zhu, Yingce Xia, Lijun Wu, Di He, Tao Qin, Wengang Zhou, Houqiang Li, and Tieyan Liu. 2020. Incorporating bert into neural machine translation. In International Conference on Learning Representations. ## A Methods A.1 Base Probabilistic Uncertainty Measures The task of sequence generation involves relatively complex autoregressive probabilistic models and there exist several variants of defining uncertainties for them. Let us consider the input sequence x and the output sequence y ∈ Y of the length L, where Y is a set of all possible output sequences. Then the standard autoregressive model parametrized by θ is given by: $$P(\mathbf{y}\mid\mathbf{x},\boldsymbol{\theta})=\prod_{l=1}^{L}P(y_{l}\mid\mathbf{y}_{<l},\mathbf{x},\boldsymbol{\theta}),$$ .) $\frac{1}{2}$ . where the distribution of each ylis conditioned on all the previous tokens in a sequence y<l = {y1*, . . . , y*l−1}. The probability P(y | x, θ) immediately gives a so-called **Unnormalized Sequence Probability** (USP) uncertainty metric: USP(y | x, θ) = 1 − P(y | x, θ). However, this metric tends to increase with the increase of the sequence length L which is usually undesirable in practice. That is why some alternatives are proposed. Normalized Sequence Probability (NSP; Ueffing and Ney (2007)) metric directly deals with the variable length via the appropriate normalization that corresponds to average token log-probability P¯(y | x, θ) = expn1L log P(y | x, θ) o: $$\mathrm{NSP}(\mathbf{y},\mathbf{x};{\boldsymbol{\theta}})=1-{\bar{P}}(\mathbf{y}\mid\mathbf{x},{\boldsymbol{\theta}}).$$ NSP(y, x; θ) = 1 − P¯(y | x, θ). (2) Average token-wise entropy (Malinin and Gales, 2020) allows to generalize the notion of standard entropy-based uncertainty metrics for the case of autoregressive models: $${\mathcal{H}}(\mathbf{y},\mathbf{x};{\boldsymbol{\theta}})={\frac{1}{L}}\sum_{l=1}^{L}{\mathcal{H}}(y_{l}\mid\mathbf{y}_{<l},\mathbf{x},{\boldsymbol{\theta}}),$$ $$\left(2\right)$$ $$(3)$$ $${\mathfrak{o n}}\;P(y_{l}\mid\mathbf{y}_{<l},\mathbf{x},{\boldsymbol{\theta}}).$$ where H(yl| y<l, x, θ) is an entropy of the token distribution P(yl| y<l, x, θ). ## A.2 Aggregation Of Uncertainties Over Beam In practice, seq2seq models for each input x usually generate several candidate sequences via beam-search procedure. The resulting set B(x) = {y (b)} B b=1 is usually called beam. Thus, for the solution of OOD detection problems, one needs to aggregate uncertainties of particular pairs (x, y (b)) into one uncertainty measure associated with an input x. The simplest method to measure the uncertainty for a beam of sequences is to take the sequence having maximum confidence as exactly this sequence is usually selected as a resulting output of the model. In this work, we consider the particular instantiation of this approach based on NSP measure (2) that we call Maximum Sequence Probability (MSP): $$\operatorname{MSP}(\mathbf{x};{\boldsymbol{\theta}})=1-\operatorname*{max}_{b\in{\overline{{1,B}}}}{\bar{P}}(\mathbf{y}^{(b)}\mid\mathbf{x},{\boldsymbol{\theta}}).$$ (b)| x, θ). (4) The alternative approach is to consider the hypotheses sequences y (b)as samples from a distribution of sequences P¯(y | x, θ). Each sequence is seen only once and to correctly compute the expectation of some uncertainty measure U(y, x; θ) over this distribution one needs to perform some corrections. The natural choice is importance weighting that leads to the following uncertainty estimate: $$\mathrm{U}(\mathbf{x};\boldsymbol{\theta})=\sum_{b=1}^{B}\mathrm{U}(\mathbf{y}^{(b)},\mathbf{x};\boldsymbol{\theta}){\frac{\bar{P}(\mathbf{y}^{(b)}\mid\mathbf{x},\boldsymbol{\theta})}{\sum_{j=1}^{B}\bar{P}(\mathbf{y}^{(j)}\mid\mathbf{x},\boldsymbol{\theta})}}.$$ $$\quad(4)$$ Thus, we got an averaged versions of NSP (2): $$\operatorname{NSP}(\mathbf{x};\boldsymbol{\theta})=1-\sum_{b=1}^{B}{\frac{{\bar{P}}(\mathbf{y}^{(b)}\mid\mathbf{x},\boldsymbol{\theta})^{2}}{\sum_{j=1}^{B}{\bar{P}}(\mathbf{y}^{(j)}\mid\mathbf{x},\boldsymbol{\theta})}}$$ and **entropy** (3): $${\mathcal{H}}(\mathbf{x};{\boldsymbol{\theta}})=\sum_{b=1}^{B}{\mathcal{H}}(\mathbf{y},\mathbf{x};{\boldsymbol{\theta}}){\frac{{\bar{P}}(\mathbf{y}^{(b)}\mid\mathbf{x},{\boldsymbol{\theta}})}{\sum_{j=1}^{B}{\bar{P}}(\mathbf{y}^{(j)}\mid\mathbf{x},{\boldsymbol{\theta}})}}.$$ ## A.3 Ensembling The uncertainty metrics in previous sections are applicable to a single model, while in many applications one can train several models for a single task and benefit from their variability. We assume that an ensemble of M models has been trained with resulting parameters θi, i = 1*, . . . , M*. In what follows, we discuss the variety of uncertainty measures that can be computed based on the ensemble of models. A.3.1 Beam Generation First of all, we need to discuss how to generate hypotheses sequences for the case of ensembling. We follow the most natural way by generating tokens sequentially according to the average of the probabilities of ensemble members: yl ∼ P(yl| y<l, x), (5) where for $l=1,\ldots,L$ we defined. $$P(y_{l}\mid\mathbf{y}_{<l},\mathbf{x})={\frac{1}{M}}\sum_{i=1}^{M}P(y_{l}\mid\mathbf{y}_{<l},\mathbf{x};\theta_{i}).$$ $$(6)$$ Such an ensembling approach is usually referred as *Product of Expectations (PE)* ensemble. In what follows, we assume that the beam B(x) = {y (b)} B b=1 is generated via PE ensemble. The corresponding importance weights are given by $$\pi^{(b)}={\frac{\bar{P}(\mathbf{y}^{(b)}\mid\mathbf{x})}{\sum_{j=1}^{B}\bar{P}(\mathbf{y}^{(j)}\mid\mathbf{x})}},$$ where $\tilde{P}({\bf y}^{(b)}\mid{\bf x})=\exp\biggl{\{}\frac{1}{L^{(b)}}\log P({\bf y}^{(b)}\mid{\bf x})\biggr{\}}$ with $L$ being the length of the sequence ${\bf y}^{(b)}$ and $P({\bf y}^{(b)}\mid{\bf x})=\prod_{l=1}^{L^{(b)}}P(y_{l}^{(b)}\mid{\bf y}_{<l}^{(b)},{\bf x})$. A.3.2 Sequence Level Ensembling For the ensembling on a sequence level, we consider two uncertainty measures: total uncertainty (TU) measured via entropy $${\mathcal{H}}_{S}(\mathbf{x})=\sum_{b=1}^{B}\pi^{(b)}\log{\bar{P}}(\mathbf{y}^{(b)}\mid\mathbf{x})$$ (b)| x) (7) and $${\cal M}_{S}({\bf x})=\frac{1}{M}\sum_{i=1}^{M}\sum_{b=1}^{B}\frac{\pi^{(b)}}{L^{(b)}}\log\frac{P({\bf y}^{(b)}\mid{\bf x})}{P({\bf y}^{(b)}\mid{\bf x},\theta_{i})},\tag{8}$$ $$(7)$$ which is known as reverse mutual information (RMI). We refer to these measures as PE-S-TU and PE-S-RMI in our experiments. We note that one can also consider an alternative way of ensembling models that is usually called *Expectation of Products (EP)* ensemble: $${\check{P}}(\mathbf{y}\mid\mathbf{x})=\exp\Bigl\{{\frac{1}{L}}\log{\frac{1}{M}}\sum\nolimits_{i=1}^{M}P(\mathbf{y}\mid\mathbf{x},\boldsymbol{\theta}_{i})\Bigr\},$$ and compute TU and RMI by substituting P¯(y | x) with P˘(y | x) in equations (7) and (8) respectively. We refer to these methods as EP-S-TU and EP-S-RMI in our experiments. 1439 ## A.3.3 Token Level Ensembling In the previous section, all the computation of uncertainties was performed on the level of the full sequences. However, multiple opportunities exist to perform it on the level of individual tokens and then aggregate the resulting token uncertainties over the whole sequence. Below we discuss this in detail. We start from a total uncertainty estimate via entropy: $${\cal H}_{T}({\bf x})=\sum_{b=1}^{B}\frac{\pi^{(b)}}{L^{(b)}}\sum_{l=1}^{L^{(b)}}{\cal H}(y_{l}\mid{\bf y}_{<l}^{(b)},{\bf x}),\tag{9}$$ where H(yl| y<l, x) is an entropy of the token distribution P(yl| y<l, x) given in (6). Additionally, for the ensemble one can compute the variety of other token level uncertainty measures including *Mutual Information (MI)*: $${\mathcal{M}}(y_{l}\mid\mathbf{y}_{<l},\mathbf{x})={\mathcal{H}}(y_{l}\mid\mathbf{y}_{<l}^{(b)},\mathbf{x})-{\frac{1}{M}}\sum_{i=1}^{M}{\mathcal{H}}(y_{l}\mid\mathbf{y}_{<l},\mathbf{x},\boldsymbol{\theta}_{i})$$ $$(10)$$ $$(12)$$ and *Expected Pairwise KL Divergence (EPKL)*: $${\mathcal{K}}(y_{l}\mid\mathbf{y}_{<l},\mathbf{x})={\binom{M}{2}}^{-1}\sum_{i\neq j}{\mathcal{K}}{\mathcal{L}}{\big(}P(y_{l}\mid\mathbf{y}_{<l},\mathbf{x},\boldsymbol{\theta}_{i})\parallel P(y_{l}\mid\mathbf{y}_{<l},\mathbf{x},\boldsymbol{\theta}_{j}){\big)},$$ where KL(P ∥ Q) refers to a KL-divergence between distributions P and Q. Finally, *Reverse Mutual Information (RMI)* also can be computed on the token level via a simple equation M(yl| y<l, x) = K(yl| y<l, x) − I(yl| y<l, x). (11) The resulting token-level uncertainties computed via MI (10), EPKL (11) and RMI (11) can be pluggedin in equation (9) on the place of entropy leading to corresponding sequence level uncertainty estimates. We refer to the resulting methods as PE-T-TU, PE-T-MI, PE-T-EPKL and PE-T-RMI. Additionally, instead of considering the distribution P(yl| y<l, x, θi) one might consider the expectation of products averaging leading to the distribution: $$\tilde{P}(y_{l}\mid\mathbf{y}_{<l},\mathbf{x})={\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{M}P(y_{l},\mathbf{y}_{<l},\mathbf{x},\boldsymbol{\theta}_{i})}{\sum_{j=1}^{M}P(\mathbf{y}_{<l},\mathbf{x},\boldsymbol{\theta}_{i})}}.$$ This gives us another four metrics to consider: EP-T-TU, EP-T-MI, EP-T-EPKL and EP-T-RMI. ## B Experimental Details B.1 Ood Dataset Creation In both corruption scenarios, we use test samples of the ID and OOD datasets. From the ID dataset, all the observations are used. If the number of texts in the test sample of the OOD dataset is less than that of the ID dataset, we add observations from the training and validation sets until the number of OOD instances equals the number of ID ones. Note that we do not clip the ID dataset if the OOD dataset still contains fewer observations. ## B.2 Datasets Description B.2.1 Machine Translation We select the WMT'14 dataset (Bojar et al., 2014), LTC (Panayotov et al., 2015), and Comments from Reddit (Malinin et al., 2022) for the following reasons. WMT'14 is different from the source datasets (WMT'17 En-De and WMT'20 En-Ru) in terms of the source language. The scenario when OOD data comes from different languages can be practical because one usually does not control the input data given by users, while the model output given the input in a different language might be unpredictable and cause reputational risks. In the next two settings, OOD texts only differ from ID in their formality level. Thus, LTC represents a new domain for the model with a completely different structure of texts as a spoken language. Comments from Reddit also refer to spoken language, embodying a structural shift in the data. B.2.2 Abstractive Summarization We select the following datasets since they all represent different domains. XSum (Narayan et al., 2018) consists of BBC news with their one-sentence introductory sentences as summaries. AESLC (Zhang and Tetreault, 2019) contains emails with their headlines as summaries. Movie Reviews dataset (Wang and Ling, 2016) (MR) is a collection of critics' opinions on the movie and their consensus. Finally, the Debate dataset (Wang and Ling, 2016) contains arguments and the debate topic pairs, with the former standing for documents and the latter embodying summaries. ## B.2.3 Question Answering Mintaka (Sen et al., 2022), as stated in the original article, is a complex, natural, and multilingual dataset designed for experimenting with end-to-end question-answering models. The advantage of this dataset is that it is large enough and has a decent quality of data at the same time. The trade-off between size and quality is the problem of such datasets as mentioned in (Sen et al., 2022). Besides, it provides professional translation of the questions in 8 languages and Wikidata knowledge graph IDs to cope with disambiguation. The second dataset that we use is RuBQ 2.0 (Rybin et al., 2021). It contains Russian questions, coupled with English machine translations, SPARQL queries and answers with Russian labels, and a subset of Wikidata knowledge graph identifiers. Different complexity of questions allows us to work with data that does not have a shift towards simple or complex questions. We also conduct experiments on the most popular and oldest Simple Questions (Bordes et al., 2015) dataset for KGQA that contains various questions. We select only the answerable ones. Thus, we work on the task of answering questions over datasets with links to the Wikidata Knowledge Graph. B.2.4 Dataset Statistics We give the summary statistics about the considered datasets in Table 1. ## B.3 Models B.3.1 Machine Translation We use the "large-CC25" version of mBART. We train an ensemble of 5 models with different random seeds for En-De and En-Ru tasks. As for the training settings, we follow the original setup and https://huggingface.co/facebook/mbart-large-cc25 hyperparameters from (Liu et al., 2020) and train models with 100K update steps. B.3.2 Abstractive Summarization In this experiment, we use the "bart-base" version of BART. For each dataset, we construct 5 ensembles each consisting of 5, with a total of 25 trained models. We leverage the hyperparameters and training setup proposed in the original paper (Lewis et al., 2020). ## B.3.3 Question Answering We use the checkpoint "t5-small-ssm-nq" of the T5 model (Raffel et al., 2020) . It is considered to be a state-of-the-art model for the QA task even in closed book setting. Table 1: Dataset statistics. We provide a number of instances for the training / validation / **test** sets, average lengths of texts and targets (answers / translations / summaries) in terms of tokens, and source / target languages. | Dataset | Num. instances | Av. document len. | Av. target len. | Language | |------------------|------------------------|---------------------|-------------------|--------------------| | NMT | | | | | | WMT'20 | 62M / 1997 / 3000 | 23.9 / 25.1 | 20.9 / 24.1 | English-to-Russian | | WMT'17 | 5.9M / 3000 / 3003 | 26.2 / 27.0 | 24.8 / 28.2 | English-to-German | | WMT'14 | 40.8M / 3000 / 3003 | 29.2 / 27.0 | 33.5 / 32.1 | English-to-French | | Shifts Reddit | - / 1362 / 3063 | - / 16.1 | - / 16.4 | English | | LibriSpeech | 28539 / 2703 / 2620 | - | 33.4 / 20.1 | English | | ATS | | | | | | XSum | 204045 / 11332 / 11334 | 454.6 | 26.1 | English | | Movie Reviews | 2685 / 299 / 747 | 972.9 | 28.5 | English | | AESLC | 14436 / 1960 / 1906 | 165.5 | 6.7 | English | | Debate | 1626 / 181 / 452 | 216.7 | 13.0 | English | | KGQA | | | | | | RuBQ 2.0 | - / 580 / 2330 | 36.46 / 13.85 | 12.66 / 3.07 | Russian / English | | Mintaka | 14000 / 2000 / 4000 | 14.36 | 3.97 | English | | Simple Questions | 19481 / 2821 / 5622 | 12.56 | 4.01 | English | ## B.4 Hardware & Resources NMT and KGQA experiments were performed using the following hardware: Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6140 CPU @ 2.30GHz, 36 cores CPU, NVIDIA Tesla v100 GPU, 16 Gb of VRAM. ATS experiments were performed using the following hardware: 2 Intel Xeon Platinum 8168, 2.7 GHz, 24 cores CPU; NVIDIA Tesla v100 GPU, 32 Gb of VRAM. We provide the information about the resources employed for each experiment in Table 2. | ID Dataset / Experiment | Model | Num. Params | Avg. GPU hours | |---------------------------|-------------|---------------|------------------| | NMT | | | | | WMT'20 | mBART-large | 611M | 1592 | | WMT'17 | 1392 | | | | ATS | | | | | AESLC | 30 | | | | Debate | 15 | | | | BART-base | 139M | | | | MR | 30 | | | | XSum | 150 | | | | KGQA | | | | | Simple Questions PRM | 80 | | | | RuBQ2.0 PRM | 40 | | | | T5-small | 77M | | | | RuBQ2.0 En vs Ru | 40 | | | | RuBQ2.0 vs Mintaka | 60 | | | ## C Qualitative Analysis C.1 Machine Translation Table 3 presents the BLEU score for the NMT task on ID and OOD datasets. We can see a significant decrease in model performance on the OOD dataset. These results demonstrate the necessity of the detection of OOD instances for maintaining the high quality of the model performance. | Dataset | WMT20 En-Ru | WMT17 En-De | | | |-----------|---------------|---------------|-----------|------------| | PRM | Reddit | PRM | Reddit | | | ID | 30.98±0.06 | 30.85±0.06 | | | | OOD | 6.85±0.15 | 24.44±0.20 | 8.63±0.06 | 11.04±0.02 | Table 3: Model performance for various ID/OOD settings on the NMT task. The first row demonstrates the BLEU↑ score on the ID test dataset for the considered models. The second row demonstrates the BLEU↑ score on the OOD test dataset, presented in the header of the table. Tables 4 and 5 present the textual examples for the models trained on the WMT17 En-De and the WMT20 En-Ru task for ID and OOD datasets. We can see, that for the PRM and WMT14 Fr as OOD, a model trained on the WMT17 En-De performs copying of the input to the output with a high probability. Therefore, the MSP uncertainty is quite low for these examples. However, MD-Encoder is able to correctly spot these instances with high uncertainty. We can see, that for instances from the LTC dataset, both models produce poor translations, and MD-Encoder precisely detects these instances with high uncertainty. The Reddit dataset consists of challenging texts, and a model trained on the WMT20 En-Ru generates translation with a low BLEU score. However, MD-Encoder produces higher uncertainty than MSP for these examples, and we are able to correctly detect these erroneous instances. Dataset Input Output MSP MD-Enc. **BLEU**  WMT17 So what? Was also? 0.99 0.39 37.99 **WMT17** Well-known platforms include Twitch and YouTube Gaming. Zu den bekannten Plattformen gehören Twitch und YouTube Gaming. 0.03 0.47 47.11 WMT14 Fr "Son côté humain est ressorti", raconte-t-il. "Son côté humain est ressorti", raconte-t-il. 0.05 0.97 13.84 **WMT14 Fr** Du chant classique pour adolescents Klassisches Gesang für Jugendliche 0.35 0.99 0.0 PRM Young The planning " musical association and Theatreima project"N a now. ares' Jung Die Planung "musikalische Vereinigung und Theatreima Projekt"N a jetzt. 0.4 0.68 9.97 PRM just timees did in Hind They so as.d emerge just timees did in Hind They so as.d emerge 0.17 0.94 0.0 LTC AT ANOTHER TIME HARALD ASKED ZUR ANDEREN ZEIT HARALD 0.18 0.99 - LTC NO ITS NOT TOO SOON NOCH NICHT VORher 0.27 0.99 - LTC YOU DON'T SEEM TO REALIZE THE POSITION DIE POSITION IST NICHT ERWEITERT 0.45 0.98 - Table 4: Textual examples with the input and output of the model trained on the WMT17 En-De task. We demonstrate uncertainty estimates from MSP and MD-Encoder and BLEU scores for the NMT task. For LTC, we do not show the BLEU score since ground-truth translation is not presented in the dataset. Uncertainty for each method is presented in the range [0-1]. The less saturated color indicates lower uncertainty.   ## C.2 Abstractive Summarization Table 6 illustrates the ROUGE-2 score for the ATS task on ID and OOD datasets. Similar to NMT, the model performs much very poorly on OOD data. Therefore, detection of OOD instances is crucial for maintaining the high quality of the model performance. | ID Dataset | AESLC | Debate | M.R. | XSum | | | | | | | |-------------------------------|----------|----------|---------------------|-----------------|---------------------|------|-------------|-------|-------|-------------------| | OOD Dataset | PRM Deb. | M.R. | XSum AESLC PRM M.R. | XSum AESLC Deb. | PRM XSum AESLC Deb. | M.R. | PRM | | | | | ID ROUGE-2 | 0.220 | 0.184 | 0.113 | 0.197 | | | | | | | | OOD Rouge-2 0.015 0.047 0.068 | 0.029 | 0.067 | 0.038 | 0.07 | 0.034 | 0.07 | 0.058 0.025 | 0.043 | 0.020 | 0.042 0.061 0.052 | Table 6: Model performance for various ID/OOD settings on the ATS task. The first row demonstrates the ROUGE-2↑ score on the ID test dataset for the considered models. The second row demonstrates the ROUGE-2↑ score on the OOD test dataset, presented in the header of the table. For the KGQA task, we also analyze the behaviour of the uncertainty metrics to further illustrate the effectiveness of density based approaches on particular examples. Table 7 depicts this analysis. It is evident that values of MD-Encoder estimates show clear difference between ID and OOD inputs. We can also clearly see that for most of the OOD inputs considered, output of the model is either factually incorrect or simply incomprehensible. We also report model quality on the ID/OOD datasets, further justifying this choice of datasets. Results are present in Table 8. For this analysis we have chosen a larger versions of the same model - t5-largessm-nq. It's clear that the model performs significantly better on both ID datasets, which motivates the need to detect OOD inputs with lower expected quality of the output. | ID/OOD | Question (Input) | Answer (Output) | MD-Enc. | RDE-Enc. | NSP | Entropy | PE-S-TU | PE-T-MI | |-----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------|-----------|------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------| | ID | What is the name of the capital of Romania? | Bucharest | 0.02 | 0.36 | 0.1 | 0.77 | 0.67 | 0.24 | | ID | What country owns the island of Tahiti? | France | 0.05 | 0.22 | 0.13 0.81 | 0.78 | 0.3 | | | OOD (different language) Как называется столица Румынии? | естар умни | 0.94 | 0.75 | 0.03 0.89 | 0.2 | 0.09 | | | | OOD (different language) Какой стране принадлежит остров Таити? | лександр едеране | 0.82 | 0.54 | 0.03 0.91 | 0.18 | 0.14 | | | | OOD (permutation) | of name of capital the the? is Romania | Chis,inau˘ | 0.62 | 0.33 | 0.06 0.74 | 0.7 | 0.24 | | | OOD (permutation) | thehit island? owni Tas country of | Lausanne, New Hampshire 0.51 | 0.33 | 0.04 0.8 | 0.74 | 0.26 | | | | OOD (different domain) | How many children did Donald Trump have? | 132,656 | 0.62 | 0.33 | 0.06 0.74 | 0.7 | 0.24 | | | OOD (different domain) | Who performed at the Super Bowl XXIII halftime show? | Whoopi Goldberg | 0.51 | 0.33 | 0.04 0.8 | 0.74 | 0.26 | | Table 7: Textual examples with the input and output of the model T5 (t5-small-ssm-nq) used in zero shot. We demonstrate uncertainty estimates for several illustrative examples for MD and RDE calculated on encoder embeddings, NSP, Entropy, PE-S-TU and PE-T-MI. The results presented in the table are standardised to the interval from 0 to 1 for the analysis of comparative values. The less saturated color indicates lower uncertainty. | ID Dataset | RuBQ En | WDSQ En | | | | | |---------------|-----------|-----------|---------|-------|-------|---------| | OOD Dataset | PRM | Ru | Mintaka | PRM | Ru | Mintaka | | ID Top-1 Acc | 0.170 | 0.159 | | | | | | OOD Top-1 Acc | 0.053 | 0.0 | 0.116 | 0.070 | 0.011 | 0.107 | Table 8: Model performance for various ID/OOD settings on the KGQA task. The first row demonstrates the Top-1 Accuracy on the ID test dataset for the considered models. The second row demonstrates the Top-1 Accuracy on OOD dataset, presented in the header of the table. ## D Ablation Study Of Various Embeddings Extraction And Reduction Methods Tables 9 and 10 show ROC-AUC for MD-Encoder and MD-Decoder correspondingly with various embedding reduction methods for OOD detection for selected settings for the NMT task. The function in the reduction method column means a method for aggregation embeddings for tokens in sequence vector representation. The embedding layers column means a layer from which we extract embeddings. For embeddings from all layers, we first average them across all layers and then apply the reduction method. The results show that the base method (mean+last layer) is the most stable embedding reduction method for OOD detection. For WMT20 as ID and Reddit as OOD, embeddings from the encoder from all layers are slightly better than from the last. However, in a setting with LTC as OOD, embeddings from the encoder from all layers significantly deteriorate OOD detection performance. For WMT17 as ID and LTC as OOD, embeddings from the decoder with maximum as the reduction method are slightly better than the mean embeddings. On the other hand, in a setting with Reddit as OOD and WMT17 or WMT20 as ID, embeddings from the decoder aggregated with maximum function significantly worsen OOD detection performance. | UE Method | Reduction Method | Embedding Layers | WMT20 En-Ru | WMT17 En-De | | | |-------------|--------------------|--------------------|---------------|---------------|----------|----------| | LTC | Reddit | LTC | Reddit | | | | | MD-Enc. | Mean | Last | 0.86±0.01 | 0.72±0.0 | 1.0±0.0 | 0.75±0.0 | | MD-Enc. | Max | Last | 0.63±0.03 | 0.56±0.01 | 1.0±0.0 | 0.67±0.0 | | MD-Enc. | Mean | All | 0.78±0.01 | 0.75±0.0 | 1.0±0.0 | 0.73±0.0 | | MD-Enc. | Max | All | 0.13±0.02 | 0.4±0.0 | 0.98±0.0 | 0.54±0.0 | Table 9: ROC-AUC↑ for the various settings for MT task for MD-Encoder method with various reduction methods. The first row indicates for the standard embeddings extraction and reduction methods, which is used in all other tables and figures. UE Method Reduction Method Embedding Layers WMT20 En-Ru **WMT17 En-De** LTC Reddit LTC **Reddit** MD-Dec. Mean Last 0.77±0.01 0.6±**0.01** 0.94±0.0 0.65±**0.00** MD-Dec. Max Last 0.83±**0.01** 0.38±0.01 0.99±0.0 0.57±0.0 MD-Dec. Mean All 0.65±0.04 0.57±0.03 0.88±0.01 0.58±0.01 MD-Dec. Max All 0.45±0.04 0.37±0.03 0.97±0.0 0.59±0.01 Table 10: ROC-AUC↑ for the various settings for MT task for MD-Decoder method with various reduction methods. The first row indicates for the standard embeddings extraction and reduction methods, which is used in all other tables and figures. We additionally carried out an analysis for the KBQA task and the results are shown in the following Tables 11 and 12. WE can see that it is the averaging over last encoder hidden state gives the best results. We have compared such approaches as averaging over all latent states as well as taking the maximum from all hidden states as well as from the last one. Moreover, we compute it both for encoder and decoder part and show that it is reasonably to focus specifically on the encoder's hidden states. Also, the calculation of the standard deviation of the estimate from the average ROC AOC allows us to trust the results, as there is no overlap between different standard deviations. | UE Method | Reduction Method | Embedding Layers | RuBQ 2.0 En | | | |--------------|--------------------|--------------------|---------------|-----------|------------| | RuBQ 2.0 PRM | RuBQ 2.0 Ru | Mintaka | | | | | MD-Enc. | Mean | Last | 0.95±0.00 | 1.00±0.00 | 0.87±0.01 | | MD-Enc. | Max | Last | 0.89±0.00 | 1.00±0.00 | 0.81±0.01 | | MD-Enc. | Mean | All | 0.86±0.01 | 1.00±0.00 | 0.80 ±0.01 | | MD-Enc. | Max | All | 0.87±0.01 | 0.97±0.00 | 0.76±0.01 | Table 11: ROC-AUC↑ for the various settings for KBQA task for MD-Encoder method with various reduction methods. The first row indicates for the standard embeddings extraction and reduction methods, which is used in all other tables and figures. | UE Method | Reduction Method | Embedding Layers | RuBQ 2.0 En | | | |--------------|--------------------|--------------------|---------------|-----------|-----------| | RuBQ 2.0 PRM | RuBQ 2.0 Ru | Mintaka | | | | | MD-Dec. | Mean | Last | 0.65±0.01 | 0.85±0.01 | 0.74±0.01 | | MD-Dec. | Max | Last | 0.62±0.01 | 0.62±0.01 | 0.69±0.01 | | MD-Dec. | Mean | All | 0.62±0.01 | 0.82±0.01 | 0.73±0.01 | | MD-Dec. | Max | All | 0.55±0.01 | 0.18±0.01 | 0.66±0.01 | Table 12: ROC-AUC↑ for the various settings for KBQA task for MD-Decoder method with various reduction methods. The first row indicates for the standard embeddings extraction and reduction methods, which is used in all other tables and figures. ## E Comparison Of Computational Time Of Ue Methods Table 13 presents the computational time for all considered methods for the NMT task with WMT17 as the ID dataset and PRM as the OOD dataset. These results demonstrate 1100% of the computational overhead time for the ensemble-based methods in comparison with the inference of a single model. Moreover, density-based methods show their computational efficiency and superior other methods by ROC-AUC with 18-20% additional overhead in comparison with the inference of a single model and only 1.5% in comparison with the ensemble-based methods. | UE Method | Inference Time, sec | UE Time, sec | Total, sec | |----------------------|-----------------------|----------------|--------------| | NSP | 834.1±23.6 | 0.0±0.0 | 834.1±23.6 | | MSP BLEUVAR | 4053.0±67.9 | 57.1±0.6 | 4110.1±68.5 | | MD-ENCODER | 2.0±2.9 | 152.3±4.7 | | | MD-DECODER | 0.5±0.2 | 150.8±2.0 | | | 150.3±1.8 | | | | | RDE-ENCODER | 14.6±1.5 | 164.9±3.3 | | | RDE-DECODER | 20.1±1.7 | 170.4±3.5 | | | EP-SEQ | 9532.9±0.0 | 0.0±0.0 | 9532.9±0.0 | | EP-TOK PE-TOK PE-SEQ | | | | We also present a Table 14 with the time cost results for the KBQA task. The presented table displays the mean values and their corresponding standard deviations for the evaluated uncertainty methods in a specific experiment. The dataset used in this experiment is RUBQ 2.0 English questions, and the out-of-domain (OOD) questions are questions with permuted tokens from the same dataset. Despite the high variability observed in this problem, as indicated by the large standard deviations, we can assert with confidence that the density-based methods exhibit significantly faster performance compared to both the ensemble-based and single model-based methods. | UE Method | Inference Time, sec | UE Time, sec | Total, sec | |----------------------|-----------------------|----------------|---------------| | NSP | 2087.2±571.2 | 0.0±0.0 | 2087.2±571.2 | | MSP BLEUVAR | 7875.0±3544.7 | 12.8±0.4 | 7887.8±3545.1 | | MD-ENCODER | 0.7±0.4 | 730.5±246.5 | | | MD-DECODER | 0.7±0.4 | 730.5±246.5 | | | RDE-ENCODER | 0.5±0.0 | 730.3±246.1 | | | 729.8±246.1 | | | | | RDE-DECODER | 0.5±0.0 | 730.3±246.1 | | | EP-SEQ | 7925.4±287.3 | 0.0±0.0 | 7925.4±287.3 | | EP-TOK PE-TOK PE-SEQ | | | | ## F Overall Comparison Of Ood Detection Methods On The Machine Translation Task Figure 4 presents the mean ROC curves over 5 seeds for the models trained on the WMT'20 En-Ru for the selected methods. The second dataset in the title of the figure represents OOD.  Table 15 presents the full results with all the considered methods. This table shows that density-based methods for most of the considered configurations outperform the best ensemble method by a large margin. | UE Method | WMT20 En-Ru | WMT17 En-De | | | | | | | |-------------|---------------|---------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------| | PRM | WMT14 Fr | LTC | Reddit | PRM | WMT14 Fr | LTC | Reddit | | | NSP | 0.88 ± 0.02 | 0.87 ± 0.0 | 0.97 ± 0.0 | 0.79 ± 0.01 | 0.58 ± 0.02 | 0.37 ± 0.02 | 0.8 ± 0.01 | 0.67 ± 0.0 | | MSP | 0.88 ± 0.01 | 0.88 ± 0.0 | 0.98 ± 0.0 | 0.74 ± 0.0 | 0.55 ± 0.02 | 0.33 ± 0.02 | 0.78 ± 0.01 | 0.58 ± 0.0 | | Entropy | 0.84 ± 0.01 | 0.83 ± 0.01 | 0.91 ± 0.01 | 0.74 ± 0.01 | 0.5 ± 0.02 | 0.28 ± 0.02 | 0.72 ± 0.01 | 0.55 ± 0.01 | | BLEUVar | 0.78 ± 0.01 | 0.76 ± 0.01 | 0.97 ± 0.0 | 0.55 ± 0.0 | 0.54 ± 0.01 | 0.49 ± 0.02 | 0.85 ± 0.01 | 0.56 ± 0.0 | | MD-Enc. | 0.95 ± 0.0 | 0.74 ± 0.01 | 0.86 ± 0.01 | 0.72 ± 0.0 | 1.0 ± 0.0 | 0.92 ± 0.01 | 1.0 ± 0.0 | 0.75 ± 0.0 | | MD-Dec. | 0.77 ± 0.01 | 0.47 ± 0.03 | 0.75 ± 0.04 | 0.6 ± 0.01 | 0.86 ± 0.01 | 0.67 ± 0.01 | 0.94 ± 0.0 | 0.65 ± 0.0 | | RDE-Enc. | 0.97 ± 0.0 | 0.63 ± 0.03 | 1.0 ± 0.0 | 0.73 ± 0.01 | 0.83 ± 0.01 | 0.61 ± 0.02 | 0.83 ± 0.02 | 0.7 ± 0.01 | | RDE-Dec. | 0.38 ± 0.01 | 0.5 ± 0.02 | 0.67 ± 0.05 | 0.43 ± 0.01 | 0.53 ± 0.04 | 0.51 ± 0.03 | 0.6 ± 0.08 | 0.5 ± 0.09 | | EP-S-TU | 0.49 | 0.57 | 0.76 | 0.46 | 0.54 | 0.4 | 0.75 | 0.55 | | EP-S-RMI | 0.64 | 0.49 | 0.42 | 0.63 | 0.67 | 0.5 | 0.54 | 0.56 | | EP-T-TU | 0.66 | 0.65 | 0.86 | 0.58 | 0.24 | 0.17 | 0.7 | 0.51 | | EP-T-MI | 0.35 | 0.45 | 0.43 | 0.37 | 0.65 | 0.61 | 0.58 | 0.43 | | EP-T-DU | 0.72 | 0.67 | 0.9 | 0.65 | 0.22 | 0.17 | 0.64 | 0.54 | | EP-T-EPKL | 0.36 | 0.45 | 0.4 | 0.43 | 0.69 | 0.7 | 0.63 | 0.45 | | EP-T-RMI | 0.41 | 0.45 | 0.39 | 0.5 | 0.75 | 0.86 | 0.78 | 0.56 | | PE-S-TU | 0.88 | 0.88 | 0.97 | 0.78 | 0.58 | 0.36 | 0.8 | 0.65 | | PE-S-RMI | 0.45 | 0.49 | 0.6 | 0.48 | 0.53 | 0.42 | 0.67 | 0.55 | | PE-T-TU | 0.88 | 0.83 | 0.89 | 0.81 | 0.58 | 0.3 | 0.73 | 0.64 | | PE-T-MI | 0.82 | 0.65 | 0.95 | 0.7 | 0.77 | 0.58 | 0.97 | 0.66 | | PE-T-DU | 0.88 | 0.83 | 0.89 | 0.81 | 0.58 | 0.3 | 0.73 | 0.64 | | PE-T-EPKL | 0.82 | 0.65 | 0.95 | 0.7 | 0.77 | 0.58 | 0.97 | 0.66 | | PE-T-RMI | 0.82 | 0.65 | 0.95 | 0.7 | 0.77 | 0.58 | 0.97 | 0.66 | Table 15: AU-ROC↑ for all the considered methods in NMT. The dataset in the first line in the header represent the ID dataset, in the second line is the OOD dataset. We select with **bold** the best results w.r.t. standard deviation. G ## Overall Comparison Of Ood Detection Methods On The Abstractive Text Summarization Task  UE Method XSum **M.R.** AESLC Debate M.R. PRM AESLC Debate XSum PRM NSP 0.94 ± 0.0 0.83 ± 0.05 0.76 ± 0.01 0.97 ± 0.0 0.22 ± 0.07 0.34 ± 0.06 0.23 ± 0.04 0.99 ± 0.0 MSP 0.93 ± 0.0 0.82 ± 0.05 0.74 ± 0.01 0.96 ± 0.01 0.2 ± 0.06 0.34 ± 0.06 0.23 ± 0.04 **0.99 ± 0.0** Entropy 0.94 ± 0.0 0.84 ± 0.05 0.79 ± 0.01 0.98 ± 0.0 0.23 ± 0.07 0.34 ± 0.06 0.17 ± 0.03 **1.0 ± 0.0** BLEUVar 0.92 ± 0.01 0.83 ± 0.02 0.71 ± 0.04 0.9 ± 0.01 0.64 ± 0.05 0.78 ± 0.03 0.75 ± 0.03 0.85 ± 0.02 MD-Enc. 0.99 ± 0.0 **0.98 ± 0.0** 0.87 ± 0.0 1.0 ± 0.0 1.0 ± 0.0 1.0 ± 0.0 1.0 ± 0.0 **1.0 ± 0.0** MD-Dec. **0.98 ± 0.0** 0.95 ± 0.0 **0.95 ± 0.01** 0.97 ± 0.0 1.0 ± 0.0 1.0 ± 0.0 1.0 ± 0.0 **1.0 ± 0.0** RDE-Enc. 0.8 ± 0.0 0.66 ± 0.0 0.58 ± 0.01 0.83 ± 0.01 1.0 ± 0.0 **1.0 ± 0.0** 0.98 ± 0.0 **0.99 ± 0.0** RDE-Dec. 0.88 ± 0.01 0.85 ± 0.01 **0.95 ± 0.01** 0.9 ± 0.01 0.98 ± 0.01 0.98 ± 0.01 0.98 ± 0.01 0.86 ± 0.03 EP-S-TU 0.95 ± 0.0 0.82 ± 0.01 0.81 ± 0.0 0.97 ± 0.0 0.23 ± 0.06 0.29 ± 0.05 0.19 ± 0.03 **0.99 ± 0.0** EP-S-RMI 0.85 ± 0.05 0.74 ± 0.01 0.81 ± 0.03 0.89 ± 0.02 0.43 ± 0.02 0.45 ± 0.1 0.32 ± 0.08 0.97 ± 0.03 EP-T-TU 0.94 ± 0.0 0.82 ± 0.01 0.79 ± 0.01 0.97 ± 0.0 0.23 ± 0.07 0.28 ± 0.06 0.14 ± 0.02 **0.99 ± 0.0** EP-T-MI 0.84 ± 0.02 0.75 ± 0.01 0.83 ± 0.01 0.85 ± 0.01 0.26 ± 0.05 0.49 ± 0.14 0.44 ± 0.12 0.92 ± 0.04 EP-T-RMI 0.95 ± 0.01 0.84 ± 0.0 0.91 ± 0.01 0.94 ± 0.0 0.41 ± 0.03 0.3 ± 0.12 0.21 ± 0.1 0.98 ± 0.01 EP-T-DU 0.85 ± 0.03 0.75 ± 0.02 0.62 ± 0.04 0.94 ± 0.03 0.23 ± 0.07 0.29 ± 0.07 0.16 ± 0.03 **0.99 ± 0.01** EP-T-EPKL 0.86 ± 0.02 0.76 ± 0.01 0.84 ± 0.01 0.87 ± 0.01 0.25 ± 0.04 0.48 ± 0.14 0.41 ± 0.12 0.93 ± 0.03 PE-S-TU 0.94 ± 0.01 0.81 ± 0.01 0.76 ± 0.02 0.96 ± 0.01 0.22 ± 0.07 0.28 ± 0.06 0.19 ± 0.04 0.99 ± 0.0 PE-S-RMI 0.8 ± 0.08 0.69 ± 0.03 0.77 ± 0.04 0.81 ± 0.0 0.56 ± 0.12 0.56 ± 0.13 0.64 ± 0.12 0.58 ± 0.45 PE-T-TU 0.94 ± 0.01 0.82 ± 0.01 0.79 ± 0.02 0.97 ± 0.0 0.23 ± 0.07 0.29 ± 0.07 0.15 ± 0.03 0.99 ± 0.0 PE-T-MI 0.97 ± 0.0 0.89 ± 0.01 0.88 ± 0.01 0.91 ± 0.02 0.68 ± 0.05 0.3 ± 0.05 0.1 ± 0.03 0.79 ± 0.05 PE-T-RMI 0.96 ± 0.0 0.89 ± 0.01 0.88 ± 0.01 0.91 ± 0.02 0.29 ± 0.03 0.3 ± 0.05 0.1 ± 0.03 0.76 ± 0.05 PE-T-DU 0.94 ± 0.01 0.82 ± 0.01 0.79 ± 0.02 0.97 ± 0.0 0.23 ± 0.07 0.29 ± 0.07 0.15 ± 0.03 0.99 ± 0.0 PE-T-EPKL 0.96 ± 0.0 0.89 ± 0.01 0.88 ± 0.01 0.91 ± 0.02 0.33 ± 0.02 0.3 ± 0.05 0.1 ± 0.03 0.78 ± 0.05 Table 16: Full results (AU-ROC↑) of OOD detection in ATS when XSum / Movie Reviews stand for the ID dataset. The dataset in the second line in the header represent the OOD dataset. We select with **bold** the best results w.r.t. standard deviation. UE Method AESLC **Debate** Debate M.R. XSum PRM AESLC M.R. XSum PRM NSP 0.73 ± 0.02 0.68 ± 0.05 0.72 ± 0.03 0.93 ± 0.01 0.73 ± 0.02 0.69 ± 0.04 0.67 ± 0.02 0.98 ± 0.0 MSP 0.72 ± 0.02 0.63 ± 0.04 0.72 ± 0.02 0.9 ± 0.01 0.69 ± 0.02 0.66 ± 0.05 0.67 ± 0.02 0.97 ± 0.01 Entropy 0.77 ± 0.02 0.67 ± 0.06 0.73 ± 0.04 0.94 ± 0.01 0.71 ± 0.02 0.69 ± 0.05 0.58 ± 0.01 0.98 ± 0.0 BLEUVar 0.67 ± 0.01 0.5 ± 0.01 0.66 ± 0.01 0.83 ± 0.01 0.68 ± 0.02 0.59 ± 0.04 0.69 ± 0.02 0.74 ± 0.02 MD-Enc. 0.95 ± 0.0 0.99 ± 0.0 0.96 ± 0.01 1.0 ± 0.0 0.99 ± 0.0 0.99 ± 0.0 0.98 ± 0.0 **1.0 ± 0.0** MD-Dec. 0.88 ± 0.01 0.95 ± 0.01 **0.96 ± 0.01** 0.79 ± 0.02 0.97 ± 0.01 1.0 ± 0.0 **0.97 ± 0.0** 0.96 ± 0.01 RDE-Enc. 0.81 ± 0.01 **0.98 ± 0.0** 0.87 ± 0.01 0.96 ± 0.0 0.94 ± 0.0 0.97 ± 0.0 0.86 ± 0.01 0.99 ± 0.0 RDE-Dec. 0.58 ± 0.02 0.71 ± 0.04 0.72 ± 0.04 0.54 ± 0.01 0.64 ± 0.07 0.86 ± 0.04 0.77 ± 0.04 0.68 ± 0.06 EP-S-TU 0.73 ± 0.01 0.66 ± 0.02 0.72 ± 0.01 0.93 ± 0.0 0.74 ± 0.01 0.7 ± 0.05 0.65 ± 0.02 0.98 ± 0.0 EP-S-RMI 0.55 ± 0.03 0.55 ± 0.05 0.55 ± 0.02 0.82 ± 0.02 0.56 ± 0.01 0.6 ± 0.07 0.45 ± 0.03 0.89 ± 0.05 EP-T-TU 0.76 ± 0.02 0.66 ± 0.02 0.72 ± 0.01 0.95 ± 0.01 0.7 ± 0.02 0.67 ± 0.06 0.57 ± 0.02 0.98 ± 0.0 EP-T-MI 0.61 ± 0.02 0.54 ± 0.04 0.65 ± 0.02 0.72 ± 0.03 0.65 ± 0.02 0.67 ± 0.04 0.48 ± 0.04 0.74 ± 0.04 EP-T-RMI 0.61 ± 0.02 0.51 ± 0.02 0.66 ± 0.02 0.85 ± 0.01 0.44 ± 0.04 0.58 ± 0.11 0.38 ± 0.06 0.91 ± 0.02 EP-T-DU 0.76 ± 0.02 0.67 ± 0.03 0.71 ± 0.02 0.94 ± 0.01 0.7 ± 0.02 0.64 ± 0.07 0.58 ± 0.02 0.97 ± 0.01 EP-T-EPKL 0.61 ± 0.02 0.53 ± 0.04 0.66 ± 0.02 0.77 ± 0.02 0.63 ± 0.02 0.66 ± 0.05 0.46 ± 0.05 0.78 ± 0.04 PE-S-TU 0.72 ± 0.01 0.66 ± 0.04 0.7 ± 0.02 0.92 ± 0.0 0.73 ± 0.02 0.67 ± 0.07 0.67 ± 0.02 0.98 ± 0.01 PE-S-RMI 0.57 ± 0.03 0.53 ± 0.07 0.62 ± 0.01 0.7 ± 0.05 0.6 ± 0.03 0.64 ± 0.11 0.47 ± 0.03 0.7 ± 0.24 PE-T-TU 0.75 ± 0.01 0.65 ± 0.05 0.7 ± 0.02 0.94 ± 0.01 0.7 ± 0.02 0.67 ± 0.07 0.57 ± 0.03 0.98 ± 0.01 PE-T-MI 0.64 ± 0.02 0.46 ± 0.04 0.68 ± 0.02 0.79 ± 0.03 0.45 ± 0.02 0.35 ± 0.03 0.42 ± 0.05 0.9 ± 0.02 PE-T-RMI 0.64 ± 0.02 0.45 ± 0.04 0.68 ± 0.02 0.78 ± 0.03 0.55 ± 0.03 0.34 ± 0.03 0.41 ± 0.07 0.89 ± 0.03 PE-T-DU 0.75 ± 0.01 0.65 ± 0.05 0.7 ± 0.02 0.95 ± 0.01 0.7 ± 0.02 0.67 ± 0.07 0.58 ± 0.03 0.98 ± 0.01 PE-T-EPKL 0.64 ± 0.02 0.45 ± 0.04 0.68 ± 0.02 0.79 ± 0.03 0.53 ± 0.03 0.35 ± 0.03 0.41 ± 0.06 0.89 ± 0.03 Table 17: Full results (AU-ROC↑) of OOD detection in ATS when AESLC / Debate stand for the ID dataset. The dataset in the second line in the header represent the OOD dataset. We select with **bold** the best results w.r.t. standard deviation. ## H Overall Comparison Of Ood Detection Methods On The Question Answering Task Figure 6 presents the mean ROC curves over 5 seeds for the T5 (t5-small-ssm-nq) model. The second dataset in the title of the figure represents OOD.  | UE Method | Simple Questions | RuBQ 2.0 En | | | | | |---------------------|--------------------|---------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------| | Simple Questions Ru | Mintaka | PRM | RuBQ 2.0 Ru | Mintaka | PRM | | | MSP | 0.48 ± 0.01 | 0.48 ± 0.01 | 0.51 ± 0.01 | 0.54 ± 0.01 | 0.53 ± 0.01 | 0.54 ± 0.01 | | NSP | 0.53 ± 0.01 | 0.53 ± 0.01 | 0.33 ± 0.01 | 0.41 ± 0.01 | 0.62 ± 0.01 | 0.41 ± 0.01 | | Entropy | 0.49 ± 0.00 | 0.49 ± 0.00 | 0.66 ± 0.01 | 0.64 ± 0.01 | 0.45 ± 0.01 | 0.64 ± 0.01 | | BLEUVAR | 0.69 ± 0.00 | 0.50 ± 0.01 | 0.63 ± 0.00 | 0.68 ± 0.01 | 0.49 ± 0.00 | 0.59 ± 0.01 | | MD-Enc. | 1.00 ± 0.00 | 0.99 ± 0.00 | 0.96 ± 0.00 | 1.00 ± 0.00 | 0.87 ± 0.01 | 0.95 ± 0.00 | | MD-Dec. | 0.86 ± 0.00 | 0.71 ± 0.00 | 0.66 ± 0.00 | 0.85 ± 0.01 | 0.74 ± 0.01 | 0.65 ± 0.01 | | RDE-Enc. | 0.90 ± 0.00 | 0.90 ± 0.00 | 0.77 ± 0.00 | 0.88 ± 0.00 | 0.75 ± 0.00 | 0.74 ± 0.01 | | RDE-Dec. | 0.76 ± 0.01 | 0.44 ± 0.00 | 0.49 ± 0.00 | 0.97 ± 0.01 | 0.53 ± 0.01 | 0.60 ± 0.01 | | EP-S-TU | 0.42 ± 0.00 | 0.47 ± 0.00 | 0.71 ± 0.01 | 0.41 ± 0.01 | 0.50 ± 0.01 | 0.66 ± 0.01 | | EP-S-RMI | 0.03 ± 0.00 | 0.50 ± 0.00 | 0.57 ± 0.01 | 0.03 ± 0.00 | 0.54 ± 0.01 | 0.58 ± 0.01 | | EP-T-TU | 0.70 ± 0.00 | 0.48 ± 0.01 | 0.67 ± 0.01 | 0.70 ± 0.01 | 0.47 ± 0.01 | 0.65 ± 0.01 | | EP-T-MI | 0.27 ± 0.00 | 0.48 ± 0.01 | 0.69 ± 0.01 | 0.22 ± 0.00 | 0.47 ± 0.01 | 0.64 ± 0.01 | | EP-T-RMI | 0.30 ± 0.00 | 0.46 ± 0.00 | 0.72 ± 0.01 | 0.24 ± 0.00 | 0.46 ± 0.01 | 0.67 ± 0.01 | | EP-T-DU | 0.80 ± 0.00 | 0.48 ± 0.01 | 0.57 ± 0.01 | 0.82 ± 0.01 | 0.50 ± 0.01 | 0.59 ± 0.01 | | EP-T-EPKL | 0.29 ± 0.00 | 0.46 ± 0.00 | 0.73 ± 0.01 | 0.23 ± 0.00 | 0.46 ± 0.01 | 0.67 ± 0.01 | | PE-S-TU | 0.02 ± 0.00 | 0.48 ± 0.01 | 0.58 ± 0.01 | 0.02 ± 0.00 | 0.55 ± 0.01 | 0.57 ± 0.01 | | PE-S-RMI | 0.32 ± 0.00 | 0.47 ± 0.00 | 0.71 ± 0.00 | 0.31 ± 0.01 | 0.49 ± 0.01 | 0.68 ± 0.01 | | PE-T-TU | 0.15 ± 0.00 | 0.46 ± 0.00 | 0.64 ± 0.01 | 0.15 ± 0.01 | 0.51 ± 0.01 | 0.63 ± 0.01 | | PE-T-MI | 0.07 ± 0.00 | 0.47 ± 0.00 | 0.62 ± 0.00 | 0.07 ± 0.00 | 0.52 ± 0.01 | 0.61 ± 0.01 | | PE-T-RMI | 0.02 ± 0.00 | 0.48 ± 0.00 | 0.64 ± 0.00 | 0.02 ± 0.00 | 0.52 ± 0.01 | 0.59 ± 0.01 | | PE-T-DU | 0.29 ± 0.00 | 0.46 ± 0.00 | 0.64 ± 0.01 | 0.30 ± 0.01 | 0.51 ± 0.01 | 0.63 ± 0.01 | | PE-T-EPKL | 0.03 ± 0.00 | 0.48 ± 0.00 | 0.64 ± 0.00 | 0.02 ± 0.00 | 0.52 ± 0.01 | 0.59 ± 0.01 | Table 18: Full results (AU-ROC↑) of OOD detection in QA obtained using t5-small-ssm-nq when SimpleQuestions / RuBQ2.0 En stand for the ID dataset. The dataset in the second line in the header represent the OOD dataset. Results are obtained by applying a bootstrap technique and averaging over 5 subsamples. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? 5 (after conclusion) ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? 5 (after conclusion) ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? 1 ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Not applicable. Left blank. B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Not applicable. 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.? 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. Not applicable. Left blank. ## 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? B 2.4 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? 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? 3; Appendices 3-5 ✗ 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.)? Not applicable in our case since we used public model checkpoints / datasets, released in HuggingFace repo. ## 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.

xiao-etal-2023-emotion

Emotion Cause Extraction on Social Media without Human Annotation

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.94

In social media, there is a vast amount of information pertaining to people{'}s emotions and the corresponding causes. The emotion cause extraction (ECE) from social media data is an important research area that has not been thoroughly explored due to the lack of fine-grained annotations. Early studies referred to either unsupervised rule-based methods or supervised machine learning methods using a number of manually annotated data in specific domains. However, the former suffers from limitations in extraction performance, while the latter is constrained by the availability of fine-grained annotations and struggles to generalize to diverse domains. To address these issues, this paper proposes a new ECE framework on Chinese social media that achieves high extraction performance and generalizability without relying on human annotation. Specifically, we design a more dedicated rule-based system based on constituency parsing tree to discover causal patterns in social media. This system enables us to acquire large amounts of fine-grained annotated data. Next, we train a neural model on the rule-annotated dataset with a specific training strategy to further improve the model{'}s generalizability. Extensive experiments demonstrate the superiority of our approach over other methods in unsupervised and weakly-supervised settings.

# Emotion Cause Extraction On Social Media Without Human Annotation Debin Xiao, Rui Xia∗ , and Jianfei Yu School of Computer Science and Engineering, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, China {debinxiao, rxia, jfyu}@njust.edu.cn ## Abstract In social media, there is a vast amount of information pertaining to people's emotions and the corresponding causes. The emotion cause extraction (ECE) from social media data is an important research area that has not been thoroughly explored due to the lack of fine-grained annotations. Early studies referred to either unsupervised rule-based methods or supervised machine learning methods using a number of manually annotated data in specific domains. However, the former suffers from limitations in extraction performance, while the latter is constrained by the availability of fine-grained annotations and struggles to generalize to diverse domains. To address these issues, this paper proposes a new ECE framework on Chinese social media that achieves high extraction performance and generalizability without relying on human annotation. Specifically, we design a more dedicated rule-based system based on constituency parsing tree to discover causal patterns in social media. This system enables us to acquire large amounts of fine-grained annotated data. Next, we train a neural model on the rule-annotated dataset with a specific training strategy to further improve the model's generalizability. Extensive experiments demonstrate the superiority of our approach over other methods in unsupervised and weakly-supervised settings. ## 1 Introduction The Emotion Cause Extraction (ECE) task was firstly introduced by Lee et al. (2010b), which aims to identify the underlying causes of a given emotion expression in textual data. Previous studies mainly focused on extracting emotion causes from news articles (Gui et al., 2016a; Xu et al., 2019; Li et al., 2018; Xia et al., 2019; Fan et al., 2019; Yan et al., 2021). One representative study among them is Gui et al. (2016a), which constructed a new corpus based on SINA City News. The corpus has attracted much attention in subsequent studies and become a benchmark dataset for the ECE task. In addition to news articles, microblog has nowadays become an important platform for Internet users to publish instant posts and share their personal opinions about hot events or topics, which contains a huge amount of subjective emotional expressions. Tracing the potential causes behind these subjective emotions is helpful to obtain a deep insight into the public emotions, discover the essential causes of the public opinion, and provide an important basis for governments to promptly adjust their political strategies. However, the ECE task faces significant challenges due to the wide range of topics, diverse domains, and the prevalence of informal expressions in social media. Early studies aimed to address these challenges by approaching the task from a linguistic perspective and employing rule-based methods to detect emotion cause expressions on social media (Gui et al., 2014; Li and Xu, 2014; Gao et al., 2015a,b; Yada et al., 2017). Although these rule-based methods are generally designed and can be applied to different domains or topics, their performance remains limited. Some recent studies further employed statistical machine learning or deep learning models to extract emotion causes in social media. However, most of these studies primarily focus on training their models on small-scale manually annotated corpora in several specific domains (Cheng et al., 2017; Chen et al., 2018a,b; Liu et al., 2021). Despite obtaining better extraction performance, these studies heavily rely on fine-grained cause annotations and are solely suitable for specific domains. Due to the huge amount of data and diverse domains in social media, it is impossible to manually construct an annotated corpus for each domain when we build a machine learning-based ECE system, which greatly limits the large-scale applications in real-world social media scenarios. ∗Corresponding author. To address the aforementioned problems, in this work, we propose a new approach to extract emotion causes on social media without human annotation. Our framework is centered around a rulebased method, bolstered by a specialized training strategy. Firstly, a Constituent-Based Rule (CBR) method is proposed to extract the emotion causes by utilizing the syntactic patterns in emotion and cause expressions, and obtain a large ruleannotated dataset without relying on human annotation. Secondly, a Rule-Guided Pseudo Supervised Learning (RGPS) framework is introduced to develop a general system for emotion cause extraction on social media. This method involves training a model on the rule-annotated dataset by masking the cue words and includes a label refinement module for iterative learning. In this work, CBR is a rule-based method that relies on the constituent syntactic structure in the Chinese language. Unlike previous methods that mostly utilized word-level patterns of emotion cause expressions, CBR employs carefully designed rules based on the constituency parsing tree. This approach effectively improves the performance of span-level ECE and achieves high precision in extraction. We employ CBR to a large-scale unannotated corpus to automatically obtain ruleannotated data. With such a rule-annotated dataset, we then train a neural model for extracting emotion cause spans based on a pre-trained language model. We propose to alleviate the problem of overfitting inherent rule patterns by masking significant rule features such as causal cue words. Additionally, we propose a label refinement module to enhance the diversity and accuracy of data labels through iterative training, which enables the model to further improve its extraction performance and generalization ability. To evaluate the effectiveness of our approach, we construct a new emotion cause dataset, COVID19- ECE, which focuses on the topic of the COVID-19 pandemic. We conduct experiments on COVID19- ECE and another social media ECE dataset named CoEmoCause (Liu et al., 2021). Our experimental findings are as follows: 1) compared to previous rule-based methods, our proposed constituentbased rules demonstrate a significant enhancement in span-level emotion cause extraction performance. Moreover, this approach achieves high precision, which is highly beneficial for large-scale practical applications in social media. 2) The pseudo-supervised ECE model significantly improves the recall of emotion cause extraction based on CBR, which leads to a noteworthy improvement in the F-score. Based on the rule-based pseudo annotation of 25,600 instances, our RGPS approach achieves comparable span-level extraction performance to standard supervised learning methods that uses hundreds of human-annotated instances. 3) By leveraging our RGPS approach and incorporating a small amount of human-annotated data, we achieve further improvements. E.g. with the help of 200 instances of human-annotated data, our approach yields results that are comparable to those obtained using full human annotations on that dataset. ## 2 Approach Traditional ECE aims at extracting emotion causes at the clause level (Gui et al., 2016a). Several recent studies extend the task to extract the fine-grained span-level causes (Oberländer and Klinger, 2020; Li et al., 2021a,b). Due to the short and informal nature of social media posts, span-level is more suitable for identifying the emotion causes in social media texts. Therefore, this work focuses on the span-level ECE task (Li et al., 2021b), which is formalized as follows: Given a post S containing a sequence of N tokens S = [w1, w2*, ..., w*N ] and an annotated emotion expression E = [e1, e2*, ..., e*K] in S , the span-level ECE task aims to detect the boundaries of the emotion cause span from S, which stimulates the emotion expressions. In the upcoming sections, we introduce our emotion cause extraction approach, which includes two main stages: Constituent-Based Rule (CBR) and Rule-Guided Pseudo-Supervised Learning (RGPS). ## 2.1 Constituent-Based Rule For Emotion Cause Extraction Previous works found that some specific words are indicative of emotion causes, and summarized these cue words into seven categories (Lee et al., 2010b). Earlier rule-based methods for the ECE task typically designed different word-level rules and constraints for these cue words to extract verbcentered cause triples, i.e., (Noun, Verb, Noun) (Li and Xu, 2014; Gui et al., 2014; Chen et al., 2010), which leads to limited performance in span-level ECE. To this end, we propose constituent-based rules to extract continuous emotion cause spans. In order to introduce CBR more clearly and pro- | Error Tolerance | 0 token | 3 token | 5 token | |-------------------|-----------|-----------|-----------| | Coverage | 62.07% | 79.41% | 85.89% | Table 1: Statistics of cause constituent coverage on the constituency parsing tree of the COVID19-ECE dataset. vide a comprehensive understanding of their implementation, we first conduct preliminary analysis and establish certain assumptions as a foundation. ## 2.1.1 Observation And Assumption As shown in Table 1, our statistics based on the human-annotated dataset (COVID19-ECE) show that 62.07% of the gold emotion cause spans overlap entirely with the text span corresponding to an individual constituent on the constituency parsing tree. The coverage improves to 85.89% when we allow for a 5-token error between the boundary of the constituent and the gold annotation. This indicates that most of the emotion cause span is a relatively complete and independent constituent and can be covered by a single constituent of the constituency parsing tree. Moreover, the statistics on the annotated corpus show that more than 90% of the cause constituent types in the constituency parsing tree belong to IP (Simple Clause), VP (Verb Phrase) and NP (Noun Phrase). Based on this observation, we propose our basic assumption that the span-level emotion cause extraction problem can be converted to a cause constituent recognition problem with specific constituent types on the constituency parsing tree. Specifically, we define some key constituents and causal syntactic relation on a constituency parsing tree for the ECE problem as follows. - **Emotion Constituent**: the constituent that completely covers the emotion word and has the deepest depth. - **Cue Word Constituent**: the constituent that completely covers the cue word and has the deepest depth. - **Cause Constituent**: the constituent with maximum coverage of cause span and has the deepest depth. - **Causal Syntactic Relation**: the connections between the cause constituent and the cue word constituent. Table 2: Cue words for proposed constituent-based rules. | Pattern | Cue Words | Examples | Number | |-----------------|---------------|------------|----------| | A | Prepositions | for | 9 | | Conjunctions | because | 4 | | | Reported Verbs | think/talk | 22 | | | Epistemic Verbs | see/hear/know | 34 | | | Copula | is | 1 | | | C | Light Verbs | let/make | 8 | | Causal Verbs | cause/lead to | 9 | | | D | Emotion Verbs | fear/hate | - | ## 2.1.2 Patterns, Cue Words, And Rule Details Based on these preliminary analysis and assumptions, we describe the details of CBR. In constituency parsing trees, there are relatively fixed syntactic patterns between specific types of cue words and the corresponding cause constituents they indicate. Based on this observation, we summarize four representative and general causal syntactic patterns. By employing pattern matching, we can identify the causal patterns present in the text and extract the corresponding cause constituents. Table 2 presents the categories and quantities of cue words corresponding to each pattern, and Figure 1 illustrates templates and examples for the four causal syntactic patterns. Due to space limitation, in the following we only introduce the first causal pattern in detail. The matching procedure for the other types of causal patterns remains similar. In Pattern A, as illustrated in Figure 1(a), the corresponding cue word category is preposition or conjunction. In constituency parsing, the category of the cue word is represented by 'P' to indicate a preposition, and its parent node type is 'PP' (prepositional phrase). When the right child node of it belongs to 'IP/VP/NP', the right child node is recognized as a potential cause constituent. Specifically, in the input text with the explicit emotion word 'scared', we first match the preposition cue word 'because'. Then, we check if the pattern of the subtree matches the template. If the validation is successful, we can locate the position of the cause constituent in the tree and map the corresponding node to the cause span 'the epidemic has broken out'. Note that it is possible to match multiple candidate constituents during the matching process. Following the practice in previous related works (Li and Xu, 2014; Gui et al., 2014; Chen et al., 2010), we only regard the candidate constituent closest to the emotion constituent or cue word constituent as   the cause constituent. Finally, we would like to state that although this work was carried out based on Chinese microblogs, its key idea can be applied in English as well. According to our observation, the syntactic patterns of emotion cause expression in Chinese and English are quite similar, and the vast majority of the CBR rules are mutually compatible, except for some minor differences. ## 2.2 **Rule-Guided Pseudo-Supervised Learning** The rule-annotated dataset reflects specific patterns but does not cover all causal patterns. This will affect the generalization performance of the model. Therefore, we propose the Rule-Guided PseudoSupervised learning method to alleviate this limitation. We use CBR for automatic data annotation to obtain a large-scale rule-annotated dataset. Next, we use RGPS to train a model based on the ruleannotated dataset, as shown in Figure 2. The span-level ECE task can be formalized as a sequence labeling task (Li et al., 2021b). Specifically, a post S = [w1, w2*, ..., w*N ] and a given emotion expression E = [e1, e2*, ..., e*K] in S are concatenated to form a combined sequence X as the input fed into a pre-trained model like BERT: [CLS], w1*, ..., w*N ,[SEP], e1*, ..., e*K,[SEP], where [CLS] and [SEP] are special tokens. The output of the model is the contextualized representation of each token in the combined sequence, and then we use a Conditional Random Field (CRF) layer to predict the labels of the input post. We use {*B, I, O*} as the label set. Here, B, I, and O represent the beginning, inside, and outside of a cause span, respectively, indicating the span ranges. In order to train the model to learn causal relations beyond the inherent patterns from the ruleannotated dataset, we propose a method called 'rule masking'. It involves randomly masking a specific proportion of the causal cue words and emotion cue words and then guiding the model to predict the emotion cause spans without seeing these explicit cues. This procedure breaks the inherent causal patterns in the rule-annotated dataset and prevents the model from relying on the cue words features during the encoding process, allowing the model to focus more on other effective and meaningful information. As shown in Figure 2, the [MASK] tokens in green and red represent the masked causal cue words and emotion cue words, respectively.  ``` The war leads panic. I am happy becausthe news. I like this cute puppy. [MASK] [MASK] [MASK] Rule-Annotated Data Rule-Masked Data ′ ``` The war leads to panic. I am happy to hear the news. I like *this cute puppy.* Note that, we mask the cue words in the attention mask of the model's input layer. During training, the model is trained to learn the original sequence labels, facilitating the capturing of connections between the emotion expression and the emotion cause span. We use Dr′to denote the modified dataset. The labels generated by CBR are limited and often inaccurate. After preliminary experiments, we found that the model obtained by initial training with the pseudo labels already significantly outperforms the rule-based method. Therefore, we propose label refinement to update the original labels during the training process iteratively. Specifically, we train an initial model θ (0) over the masked rule-annotated dataset D ′ r with the initial rule labels. In the subsequent iterative rounds, we employ the predicted labels of the previous round's model on the training set as the supervision labels for training the current round's model. Consequently, in the t-th iteration, the model's output is yˆ (t) = BERT-CRF(x; θ (t)). In each iteration, we use the model that has already converged in the previous iteration to initialize the model for the current round. The information in the original rule-annotated dataset is propagated through the iterative training procedure. The subsequent models are trained on a new refined dataset with more accurate and diverse labels, which helps the model learn more efficiently. Apply Rules Label-Refined Data *Train* Unlabeled Data Copy Infer *Re-train* Unlabeled Data Post-trained Model ## 3 Experiments 3.1 Evaluation Setup 3.1.1 Evaluation Datasets And Metrics In this work, there are two COVID-19 related datasets for evaluation: a new dataset COVID19- ECE constructed by us and an open-source emotion cause dataset CoEmoCause. We describe the two manually annotated datasets as follows:  COVID19-ECE. We selected a portion of data from the crawled large-scale corpus for human annotation of the emotion causes. We hired three annotators (all native Chinese speakers) to manually annotate 5,500 Chinese microblog posts. Two annotators work independently during the annotation process. They are required to annotate the cause span corresponding to the emotion words on the tweets that have been pre-matched with the emotion lexicon (Gui et al., 2016a). When the annotators have different opinions on the annotations, we involve the third annotator as the arbitrator. Finally, we end up with 1,793 labeled posts and we name it COVID19-ECE. CoEmoCause. This dataset is constructed by Liu et al. (2021) and originally comes from the epidemic dataset of the SMP2020 microblog emotion classification competition.1 There are 5,195 posts in the dataset with span-level annotations. There are nine emotion categories: respect, support, anger, happiness, surprise, disgust, sadness, fear, and anticipation. To ensure the emotion categories of this dataset conform to the rule-annotated dataset, we remove the samples belonging to support, anticipation and respect. Finally, we get 1,997 posts. The details of these two datasets are listed in Table 3. We split COVID19-ECE and CoEmoCause into a training set, validation set and a testing set with [75%, 10%, 15%] and [50%, 25%, 25%], respectively. Our primary approach is evaluated solely on the testing set. The training and validation sets will be used for other comparative methods and different settings. Due to space constraints, the main evaluation metrics are span-level Precision, Recall, and F1-score based on exact matching. If using span-level relaxed matching, our approach still achieves satisfactory results. ## 3.1.2 Pusedu-Supervised Training Dataset Since the Evaluation Datasets are related to COVID-19, so we use CBR to obtain a large1https://smp2020.aconf.cn/smp.html\#4. | Item | Number | |-----------------------|----------| | Number of posts | 48,014 | | Number of instances | 51,200 | | Number of cause spans | 58,466 | | Avg. length of post | 142.3 | | Avg. length of cause | 8.0 | scale rule-annotated dataset focusing on the topic of COVID-19. We collect data from the Chinese SINA MicroBlog, under the COVID-19 epidemic topic, from February 2020 to June 2020 as the raw corpus. We use the dictionary of causal cue words proposed by Lee et al. (2010b) and the dictionary of emotion words in Gui et al. (2016a) for keyword matching. Note that we made slight modifications to the aforementioned two dictionaries. We use Berkeley Neural Parser (Kitaev and Klein, 2018) to perform CBR for the automatic annotating in the pre-processed corpus. We finally obtained a ruleannotated dataset containing about 400K posts. We randomly sample 51,200 instances to form our training set, denoted as Dr. The statistics of the rule-annotated training set are shown in Table 4. We partition the training set into several training subsets with increasing data sizes, consisting of 400, 1,600, 3,200, 6,400, 12,800, 25,600, 38,400, and 51,200 instances, respectively. We select training subsets for model training based on different experimental setups. ## 3.1.3 Implementation Details We implemented our models with the PyTorch version of the Huggingface Transformers (Wolf et al., 2020). We use a learning rate of 1e-5 for BERT/RoBERTa and 1e-2 for CRF layer. We performed grid search for batch size in [16, 32, 64, 128, 256] and set it to 16. Warmup is applied on the initial 10% steps. The dropout rates between transformer layers are set to 0.1. AdamW is used as the optimizer. In fully-supervised setting, we use the validation set to preserve the checkpoints for final testing. In unsupervised setting, we train the model until it converges and use the average evaluation result on the test set of the last 10 steps as the final result. All results are averaged over 4 randomized replicate experiments. ## 3.2 Compared Methods We compare our proposed CBR and RGPS approach with other methods in two settings, depending on whether a small amount of human annotation is used. w/o human annotations. WBR (Word-Based Rules): Li and Xu (2014) adopts the word-level rules for ECE on social media. We take the span that is covered by the cause triples as the prediction. CBR: This refers to our proposed constituentbased rules. We use it to extract the span-level emotion causes directly. **CBR+RGPS**: This is our proposed approach to train the model on 25,600 rule-annotated instances. Note that we chose the proportion of the causal word mask to be 0.6 and the emotion cue mask to be 0.8 based on our empirical experiments. In addition, we conduct a single round of label refinement. w/ few human annotations. In this setting, we use additional 200 human-annotated instances as a supplement. **Supervised Training**: We use the pre-trained language model BERT*base* as the backbone. We add a CRF layer on top of the model and fine-tune it on the human-annotated data directly. The performance of the supervised method serves as a baseline for other methods. **Self-Training**: This method utilizes a model obtained through supervised learning on 200 manually annotated instances and conducts self-training on 25,600 unannotated instances (Du et al., 2021). **CBR+BERTCRF+FT**: This method uses the BERT-CRF model to train on 25,600 rule-annotated instances, and then fine-tunes it on 200 human-annotated instances. **CBR+RGPS+FT**: This method firstly trains the model with RGPS on 25,600 ruleannotated instances, and then fine-tunes it on 200 human-annotated instances. w/ full human annotations. We directly finetune the BERT-CRF model using full humanannotated data (Li et al., 2021b). The performance serves as an upper bound for other baseline models. ## 3.3 Main Results Based on the two experimental settings mentioned above, we compare these methods on two humanannotated datasets, Covid19-ECE and CoEmoCause, as shown in Table 5. Without the need for any human annotations, our proposed CBR outperforms WBR in all metrics and achieves high precision scores, which is highly beneficial for large-scale practical applications in social media. We believe that the constituent parsing provides more accurate cause span candidates, combined with the causal syntactic patterns we proposed, | COVID19-ECE | CoEmoCause | | | | | | | |----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | Method | P | R | F1 | P | R | F1 | | | WBR (Li and Xu, 2014) | 13.85 | 8.99 | 10.90 | 16.93 | 8.99 | 11.74 | | | CBR (Ours) | 48.84 | 14.89 | 22.83 | 69.41 | 18.71 | 29.47 | | | w/o human annotations | w/ rule-annotated data CBR+RGPS (Ours) | 46.79 | 31.06 | 37.21 | 32.82 | 28.59 | 30.56 | | Supervised Training (Li et al., 2021b) | 23.16 | 26.31 | 24.54 | 31.20 | 34.70 | 32.60 | | | Self-Training (Du et al., 2021) | 33.91 | 34.53 | 34.21 | 30.83 | 45.99 | 36.91 | | | w/ rule-annotated data CBR+BERT-CRF+FT | 45.00 | 41.56 | 43.14 | 36.41 | 40.86 | 38.50 | | | CBR+RGPS+FT (Ours) | 54.23 | 40.19 | 46.16 | 36.07 | 45.31 | 40.15 | | | w/ full human annotations | Supervised Training (Li et al., 2021b) | 45.94 | 45.93 | 45.90 | 40.57 | 43.94 | 42.05 | | w/ few human annotations | | | | | | | |  | COVID19-ECE | CoEmoCause | | | | | | |---------------|--------------|------|------|------|------|------| | Method | P | R | F1 | P | R | F1 | | RGPS | 46.8 | 31.1 | 37.2 | 32.8 | 28.6 | 30.6 | | w/o LR | 50.1 | 28.5 | 36.2 | 36.7 | 28.2 | 31.6 | | w/o RM | 40.1 | 23.1 | 29.2 | 36.5 | 22.8 | 27.7 | | w/o LR/RM | 41.8 | 21.7 | 28.6 | 39.4 | 21.5 | 27.5 | resulting in better overall performance. Based on 25600 rule-annotated instances, the proposed method CBR+RGPS shows a significant improvement in recall and F1 score when compared to the rule-based methods. This indicates that RGPS can improve the low coverage issues that exist with rule-based methods. However, we observe an obvious drop in precision on the CoEmoCause dataset, which may be attributed to differences in the dataset distribution. By incorporating an additional 200 instances of human-annotated data, our proposed CBR+RGPS+FT model demonstrates further improvements over the CBR+RGPS baseline. It achieves comparable or even better results compared to the fully-supervised baseline that requires 1,300 human-annotated instances. CBR+RGPS+FT also outperforms semi-supervised and CBR+BERT-CRF+FT with the highest F1 score. These findings suggest that the ruleannotated data can provide valuable knowledge to the model, and our proposed RGPS module can assist in efficiently utilizing such rule-annotated data. ## 3.4 Ablation Study On Rgps We study the effectiveness of each component of RGPS. Specifically, we use the following abbreviation to denote each component of RGPS: Rule Masking (RM) and Label Refinement (LR). As we can see from Table 6, Rule Masking plays a crucial role in RGPS by providing a solid foundation for further improvements. By employing Rule Masking, the model becomes capable of understanding the deep connections between emotions and causes, which facilitates enhanced performance. And we find that RGPS achieves the best results when cue words are masked at a ratio of 60%-80%. Furthermore, Label Refinement contributes to improving the generalization performance of the model and enhancing recall rates, albeit at the cost of sacrificing a certain level of precision.   ## 3.5 The Size Of Rule-Annotated Data We explore the performance change when having different sizes of rule-annotated data. We uniformly sample data from the rule-annotated dataset and train our neural model on it. The curves can be found in Figure 3. The X-axis is the number of rule-annotated data, while the Yaxis is the F1 score at the span level on the testing set. There is a significant growing trend when the number of rule-annotated instances is below 10K. Thereafter, the growing speed slow down and converges when the amount of data reaches approximately 25K. Furthermore, by further expanding the training data to around 50K instances on the COVID19-ECE dataset, the performance of our method CBR+RGPS approaches that of the model trained using 600 manually annotated instances. Additionally, the model subjected to one round of label refinement, CBR+RGPS-1, demonstrates superior performance compared to CBR+RGPS-0, providing evidence for the effectiveness of our approach. ## 3.6 Discussion On Human-Annotated Data We explore the dependence of different models on different sizes of human-annotated data on two datasets, COVID19-ECE and CoEmoCause, as shown in Figure 4. The X-axis indicates the number of human-annotated data, while the Yaxis indicates the F1 score on the testing set. CBR(25600)+RGPS indicates our proposed training framework, and we use BERT*base*-CRF as the backbone for post-training based on 25600 ruleannotated instances, which serves as a baseline. CBR(25600)+RGPS+FT indicates that we posttrain the model based on CBR(25600)+RGPS, and then fine-tune it on human-annotated data. We use a pre-trained Chinese T5-small (Wang et al., 2022) as another strong baseline, and formalize the ECE task as a Question Answering (QA) task. In the COVID19-ECE dataset, CBR(25600)+ RGPS+FT can achieve an F1 score of 47.5% by fine-tuning with only 100 human-annotated instances. The other models require 600 and more data to train from scratch to achieve similar results. In the CoEmoCause dataset, CBR(25600)+RGPS+FT also performs better than other methods, which indicates that our method can better alleviate the reliance of the model on human-annotated data.  ## 3.7 Generalizability Beyond The Rules This section further investigates the model's generalization ability on testing set within and outside the scope of rule coverage. Firstly, we divide the testing set into two subsets based on whether an instance can be successfully matched by the CBR. As shown in Figure 5, the red color denotes data outside the rule coverage and the blue color denotes the data within the rule coverage. All the models are trained on 25600 rule-annotated instances. We observe that CBR+RGPS outperforms CBR and CBR+BERT-CRF notably on the data instances outside the rule coverage. This indicates that our proposed pseudo-supervised framework assists the model in generalizing to data beyond the scope of rule coverage. Additionally, it also enhances the extraction performance of data within the rule coverage. With the incorporation of a small amount of human-annotated data, CBR+RGPS+FT(25600) achieves further improvements on data outside the rule coverage, but the performance gains on data within the rule coverage are limited. This suggests that the model's performance on data outside the rule coverage is one of the bottlenecks limiting the overall model performance. ## 4 Related Work Early works on emotion cause extraction (ECE) mainly focused on rule-based method. Lee et al. (2010b) first proposed a task on ECE and constructed a corpus for the task. They summarized seven groups of linguistic cues that could serve as an indicator of cause events. Based on these cues, some studies (Lee et al., 2010a, 2013; Chen et al., 2010; Gui et al., 2014; Li and Xu, 2014; Neviarouskaya and Aono, 2013; Yada et al., 2017) proposed various word-level or clause-level rulebased methods for this task. Gao et al. (2015a,b) presented a rule-based ECE method for microblogs based on cognitive theory. All these rule-based methods suffer from the problem of low coverage. In addition, they can't aware of the boundaries of the cause spans, which causes inferior performance when fine-grained ECE is required. Gui et al. (2016a) formalized the ECE task as a clause-level binary classification problem and released a benchmark ECE dataset collected from news articles. Based on this corpus, many traditional machine learning methods (Gui et al., 2016a,b; Xu et al., 2017) and deep learning methods (Gui et al., 2017; Li et al., 2018; Yu et al., 2019; Ding et al., 2019; Li et al., 2019; Xia et al., 2019; Xu et al., 2019; Fan et al., 2019; Yan et al., 2021) were proposed. Xia and Ding (2019) introduced a new task called Emotion-Cause Pair Extraction (ECPE) in news articles and many following studies have been proposed on this task (Ding et al., 2020a; Fan et al., 2020; Ding et al., 2020b; Wei et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2020a,b; Wu et al., 2020; Singh et al., 2021). Recently, some works proposed to extract emotion causes at the span level, and pointed out that the span-level cause is more precise than the clause-level cause (Oberländer and Klinger, 2020; Bi and Liu, 2020; Li et al., 2021a,b). Specific for the social media scenario, Song and Meng (2015) used topic modeling to extract word-level emotion causes in Chinese microblogs. Cheng et al. (2017) constructed a dataset with multiple-user structure for cause detection in Chinese microblogs. They proposed two cause detection tasks for microblogs (current subtweet-based cause detection and original subtweet-based cause detection) and used SVM and LSTM to deal with them. Chen et al. (2018b) presented a joint neural network approach for emotion classification and cause detection to obtain the mutual interaction across these two sub-tasks. Chen et al. (2018a) introduced a hierarchical Convolution Neural Network (Hier-CNN) to incorporate word contextual features and event-based features. Li et al. (2020) proposed a bootstrapping method to extract COVID-19 related triggers of different emotions on Twitter. Although the learning-based approaches achieve sound emotion cause extraction performance, they suffer from the dependence on significant amounts of domain-specific fine-grained human annotations to reach their full potential. ## 5 Conclusion In this paper, we explore how to build an emotion cause analysis system on social media without human annotation. First, we design a dedicated rule-based approach based on explicit causal cue words and constituency parsing tree, and then use it to annotate data on a large-scale corpus. On the basis of this, we introduce a strategy to alleviate the overfitting problem of the rule-annotated dataset and refine the labels during training to improve the generalization and scalability of our model. Experimental results on two datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach. ## Limitations Although we have shown the potential of performing automatic emotion cause extraction (ECE) on social media without human annotation, there are still several limitations in our work. Firstly, our work only considers the ECE task in Chinese microblogs. It might be interesting to investigate the effectiveness of our framework in social media platforms in other languages. Secondly, we only focus on extracting the emotion cause expressed in the current post. However, according to Cheng et al. (2017), 37% of the emotion causes exist in the original or historical posts in a conversation thread. Hence, it would be interesting to extend our work to more complex microblog structures in the future. ## Ethics Statement Our methodology encompasses the creation of a Chinese emotion cause dataset using a rule-based approach, accompanied by the development of a human-annotated dataset. Importantly, all the posts we gathered are openly accessible, ensuring transparency and accessibility for fellow researchers. To ensure the privacy and confidentiality of our annotators and experts, we have implemented rigorous anonymization measures, retaining only their ID for research purposes. Moreover, we have ensured fair compensation for the efforts invested by our annotators, recognizing and valuing their contributions to the project. ## Acknowledgments This work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 62076133 and 62006117), and the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province for Young Scholars (No. BK20200463) and Distinguished Young Scholars (No. BK20200018). ## References Hongliang Bi and Pengyuan Liu. 2020. Ecsp: A new task for emotion-cause span-pair extraction and classification. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.03507*. Xinhong Chen, Qing Li, and Jianping Wang. 2020a. A unified sequence labeling model for emotion cause pair extraction. In *Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics*, pages 208–218. Ying Chen, Wenjun Hou, and Xiyao Cheng. 2018a. Hierarchical convolution neural network for emotion cause detection on microblogs. In *International Conference on Artificial Neural Networks*, pages 115– 122. Springer. Ying Chen, Wenjun Hou, Xiyao Cheng, and Shoushan Li. 2018b. Joint learning for emotion classification and emotion cause detection. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 646–651. Ying Chen, Wenjun Hou, Shoushan Li, Caicong Wu, and Xiaoqiang Zhang. 2020b. End-to-end emotioncause pair extraction with graph convolutional network. In *Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics*, pages 198– 207. Ying Chen, Sophia Yat Mei Lee, Shoushan Li, and ChuRen Huang. 2010. Emotion cause detection with linguistic constructions. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Coling 2010), pages 179–187, Beijing, China. Coling 2010 Organizing Committee. Xiyao Cheng, Ying Chen, Bixiao Cheng, Shoushan Li, and Guodong Zhou. 2017. An emotion cause corpus for chinese microblogs with multiple-user structures. ACM Transactions on Asian and Low-Resource Language Information Processing (TALLIP), 17(1):1–19. Zixiang Ding, Huihui He, Mengran Zhang, and Rui Xia. 2019. From independent prediction to reordered prediction: Integrating relative position and global label information to emotion cause identification. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pages 6343–6350. Zixiang Ding, Rui Xia, and Jianfei Yu. 2020a. ECPE2D: Emotion-cause pair extraction based on joint twodimensional representation, interaction and prediction. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3161–3170, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Zixiang Ding, Rui Xia, and Jianfei Yu. 2020b. End-toend emotion-cause pair extraction based on sliding window multi-label learning. In *Proceedings of the* 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 3574–3583, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jingfei Du, Édouard Grave, Beliz 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, pages 5408–5418. Chuang Fan, Hongyu Yan, Jiachen Du, Lin Gui, Lidong Bing, Min Yang, Ruifeng Xu, and Ruibin Mao. 2019. A knowledge regularized hierarchical approach for emotion cause analysis. 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 5614–5624, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Chuang Fan, Chaofa Yuan, Jiachen Du, Lin Gui, Min Yang, and Ruifeng Xu. 2020. Transition-based directed graph construction for emotion-cause pair extraction. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 3707–3717, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Kai Gao, Hua Xu, and Jiushuo Wang. 2015a. Emotion cause detection for chinese micro-blogs based on ecocc model. In *Pacific-Asia Conference on* Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 3–14. Springer. Kai Gao, Hua Xu, and Jiushuo Wang. 2015b. A rulebased approach to emotion cause detection for chinese micro-blogs. *Expert Systems with Applications*, 42(9):4517–4528. Lin Gui, Jiannan Hu, Yulan He, Ruifeng Xu, Qin Lu, and Jiachen Du. 2017. A question answering approach to emotion cause extraction. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1708.05482. Lin Gui, Dongyin Wu, Ruifeng Xu, Qin Lu, and Yu Zhou. 2016a. Event-driven emotion cause extraction with corpus construction. In *Proceedings of* the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1639–1649, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics. Lin Gui, Ruifeng Xu, Qin Lu, Dongyin Wu, and Yu Zhou. 2016b. Emotion cause extraction, a challenging task with corpus construction. In Chinese National Conference on Social Media Processing, pages 98–109. Springer. Lin Gui, Li Yuan, Ruifeng Xu, Bin Liu, Qin Lu, and Yu Zhou. 2014. Emotion cause detection with linguistic construction in chinese weibo text. In CCF International Conference on Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing, pages 457–464. Springer. Nikita Kitaev and Dan Klein. 2018. Constituency parsing with a self-attentive encoder. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2676–2686, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. Sophia Yat Mei Lee, Ying Chen, and Chu-Ren Huang. 2010a. A text-driven rule-based system for emotion cause detection. In Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010 Workshop on Computational Approaches to Analysis and Generation of Emotion in Text, pages 45–53, Los Angeles, CA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Sophia Yat Mei Lee, Ying Chen, Chu-Ren Huang, and Shoushan Li. 2013. Detecting emotion causes with a linguistic rule-based approach 1. *Computational* Intelligence, 29(3):390–416. Sophia Yat Mei Lee, Ying Chen, Shoushan Li, and Chu-Ren Huang. 2010b. Emotion cause events: Corpus construction and analysis. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'10), Valletta, Malta. European Language Resources Association (ELRA). Min Li, Hui Zhao, Hao Su, YuRong Qian, and Ping Li. 2021a. Emotion-cause span extraction: a new task to emotion cause identification in texts. *Applied* Intelligence, 51(10):7109–7121. Weiyuan Li and Hua Xu. 2014. Text-based emotion classification using emotion cause extraction. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(4):1742–1749. Xiangju Li, Shi Feng, Daling Wang, and Yifei Zhang. 2019. Context-aware emotion cause analysis with multi-attention-based neural network. *KnowledgeBased Systems*, 174:205–218. Xiangju Li, Wei Gao, Shi Feng, Yifei Zhang, and Daling Wang. 2021b. Boundary detection with bert for span-level emotion cause analysis. In *Findings of* the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACLIJCNLP 2021, pages 676–682. Xiangju Li, Kaisong Song, Shi Feng, Daling Wang, and Yifei Zhang. 2018. A co-attention neural network model for emotion cause analysis with emotional context awareness. In *Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language* Processing, pages 4752–4757. Xiaoya Li, Mingxin Zhou, Jiawei Wu, Arianna Yuan, Fei Wu, and Jiwei Li. 2020. Analyzing covid-19 on online social media: Trends, sentiments and emotions. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.14464*. Zhuojin Liu, Zhongxin Jin, Chaodi Wei, Xiangju Li, and Shi Feng. 2021. Coemocause: A chinese fine-grained emotional cause extraction dataset. In *International* Conference on Web Information Systems and Applications, pages 519–530. Springer. Alena Neviarouskaya and Masaki Aono. 2013. Extracting causes of emotions from text. In *Proceedings* of the Sixth International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pages 932–936, Nagoya, Japan. Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing. Laura Ana Maria Oberländer and Roman Klinger. 2020. Token sequence labeling vs. clause classification for english emotion stimulus detection. In Proceedings of the Ninth Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, pages 58–70. Aaditya Singh, Shreeshail Hingane, Saim Wani, and Ashutosh Modi. 2021. An end-to-end network for emotion-cause pair extraction. In *Proceedings of the* Eleventh Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity, Sentiment and Social Media Analysis, pages 84–91, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Shuangyong Song and Yao Meng. 2015. Detecting concept-level emotion cause in microblogging. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web, pages 119–120. Junjie Wang, Yuxiang Zhang, Lin Zhang, Ping Yang, Xinyu Gao, Ziwei Wu, Xiaoqun Dong, Junqing He, Jianheng Zhuo, Qi Yang, Yongfeng Huang, Xiayu Li, Yanghan Wu, Junyu Lu, Xinyu Zhu, Weifeng Chen, Ting Han, Kunhao Pan, Rui Wang, Hao Wang, Xiaojun Wu, Zhongshen Zeng, Chongpei Chen, Ruyi Gan, and Jiaxing Zhang. 2022. Fengshenbang 1.0: Being the foundation of chinese cognitive intelligence. CoRR, abs/2209.02970. Penghui Wei, Jiahao Zhao, and Wenji Mao. 2020. Effective inter-clause modeling for end-to-end emotioncause pair extraction. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3171–3181. Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, 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. Sixing Wu, Fang Chen, Fangzhao Wu, Yongfeng Huang, and Xing Li. 2020. A multi-task learning neural network for emotion-cause pair extraction. In ECAI 2020, pages 2212–2219. IOS Press. Rui Xia and Zixiang Ding. 2019. Emotion-cause pair extraction: A new task to emotion analysis in texts. In *Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 1003– 1012, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Rui Xia, Mengran Zhang, and Zixiang Ding. 2019. RTHN: A RNN-transformer hierarchical network for emotion cause extraction. In *International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI)*, pages 5285– 5291. Bo Xu, Hongfei Lin, Yuan Lin, Yufeng Diao, Liang Yang, and Kan Xu. 2019. Extracting emotion causes using learning to rank methods from an information retrieval perspective. *IEEE Access*, 7:15573–15583. Ruifeng Xu, Jiannan Hu, Qin Lu, Dongyin Wu, and Lin Gui. 2017. An ensemble approach for emotion cause detection with event extraction and multi-kernel svms. Tsinghua Science and Technology, 22(6):646–659. Shuntaro Yada, Kazushi Ikeda, Keiichiro Hoashi, and Kyo Kageura. 2017. A bootstrap method for automatic rule acquisition on emotion cause extraction. In *2017 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshops (ICDMW)*, pages 414–421. IEEE. Hanqi Yan, Lin Gui, Gabriele Pergola, and Yulan He. 2021. Position bias mitigation: A knowledge-aware graph model for emotion cause 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 3364–3375, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xinyi Yu, Wenge Rong, Zhuo Zhang, Yuanxin Ouyang, and Zhang Xiong. 2019. Multiple level hierarchical network-based clause selection for emotion cause extraction. *IEEE Access*, 7:9071–9079. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? line 633 A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Not applicable. not applicable ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? line 3-31, line 136-142 ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Sec 3.2.1, Sec 4.3 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? sec 3.2.1, sec 4.3 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)? 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.? 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. sec A.2 ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Sec 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 4.2 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? sec 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? sec 4.4 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.)? Not applicable. Left blank. D ✓ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** sec 4.1 ✗ 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)? sec 4.1 ✓ 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? sec 4.1 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? sec 4.1

kim-etal-2023-pseudo

Pseudo Outlier Exposure for Out-of-Distribution Detection using Pretrained Transformers

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.95

For real-world language applications, detecting an out-of-distribution (OOD) sample is helpful to alert users or reject such unreliable samples. However, modern over-parameterized language models often produce overconfident predictions for both in-distribution (ID) and OOD samples. In particular, language models suffer from OOD samples with a similar semantic representation to ID samples since these OOD samples lie near the ID manifold.A rejection network can be trained with ID and diverse outlier samples to detect test OOD samples, but explicitly collecting auxiliary OOD datasets brings an additional burden for data collection. In this paper, we propose a simple but effective method called Pseudo Outlier Exposure (POE) that constructs a surrogate OOD dataset by sequentially masking tokens related to ID classes. The surrogate OOD sample introduced by POE shows a similar representation to ID data, which is most effective in training a rejection network. Our method does not require any external OOD data and can be easily implemented within off-the-shelf Transformers.A comprehensive comparison with state-of-the-art algorithms demonstrates POE{'}s competitiveness on several text classification benchmarks.

# Pseudo Outlier Exposure For Out-Of-Distribution Detection Using Pretrained Transformers Jaeyoung Kim∗ Gachon University kimjeyoung@gachon.ac.kr Kyuheon Jung∗ Pukyong National University kkyuhun94@pukyong.ac.kr Dongbin Na VUNO, Inc. dongbin.na@vuno.co Sion Jang Alchera Inc. so.jang@alcherainc.com ## Eunbin Park Pukyong National University cosmos42@pukyong.ac.kr ## Sungchul Choi† Pukyong National University sc82.choi@pknu.ac.kr ## Abstract For real-world language applications, detecting an out-of-distribution (OOD) sample is helpful to alert users or reject such unreliable samples. However, modern over-parameterized language models often produce overconfident predictions for both in-distribution (ID) and OOD samples. In particular, language models suffer from OOD samples with a similar semantic representation to ID samples since these OOD samples lie near the ID manifold. A rejection network can be trained with ID and diverse outlier samples to detect test OOD samples, but explicitly collecting auxiliary OOD datasets brings an additional burden for data collection. In this paper, we propose a simple but effective method called Pseudo Outlier Exposure (POE) that constructs a surrogate OOD dataset by sequentially masking tokens related to ID classes. The surrogate OOD sample introduced by POE shows a similar representation to ID data, which is most effective in training a rejection network. Our method does not require any external OOD data and can be easily implemented within off-the-shelf Transformers. A comprehensive comparison with state-of-theart algorithms demonstrates POE's competitiveness on several text classification benchmarks. ## 1 Introduction Pre-trained language models (PLMs) have achieved remarkable success in various natural language processing (NLP) tasks such as questionanswering (Yuan et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020), sentiment analysis (Clark et al., 2020), and text categorization (Devlin et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2019). While PLMs have become a de-facto standard promoting classification accuracy, recent studies have ∗These authors contributed equally. †Corresponding author. found that over-parameterized PLMs often produce overconfident predictions for out-of-distribution (OOD) samples (Jiang et al., 2020; Kong et al., 2020). For real-world language applications, these unreliable predictions can confuse users when interpreting the model's decisions. Therefore, language models require the ability to detect OOD samples to instill the reliability in NLP applications. The task of detecting OOD samples can be formulated as a binary hypothesis test of detecting whether an input data is from in-distribution (ID) or OOD. To detect an outlier data, in machine learning communities, the OOD detection task has been studied for many years (Hendrycks and Gimpel, 2017; Lakshminarayanan et al., 2017; Andersen et al., 2020). The prior works have proposed effective methods, including post-hoc algorithms (Lee et al., 2018b; Sun and Li, 2022), and training a rejection network by exposing the model to external OOD datasets (Hendrycks et al., 2019). However, existing post-hoc methods usually require a subset of actual OOD samples to tune their hyperparameters (Liang et al., 2018; Sun et al., 2021), especially, Hsu et al. (2020) find that hyperparameters tuned with limited OOD dataset are not generalized to others. Thus, these methods are not feasible in real-world applications; moreover, we often cannot know the entire distribution of OOD datasets. Similarly, training a rejection network not only brings an additional burden for OOD data collection but also may result in sub-par OOD detection performance in deciding which subset of external data to use. Intuitively, OOD examples that are excessively distant from training samples may not help with OOD detection because easy-tolearn outlier features can be discriminated rather trivially. Therefore, a desirable trait for OOD samples to effectively train rejection networks is that the OOD sample does not belong to ID but is sufficiently close to the distribution of ID samples (Lee et al., 2018a). In this paper, we primarily focus on detecting OOD samples by constructing a surrogate OOD dataset from training samples rather than using external OOD data to train a rejection network. To this end, we propose Pseudo Outlier Exposure (POE) which is a procedure to construct a nearOOD set by erasing tokens with high attention scores in training sentences. A rejection network can then be trained on the training (ID) and constructed OOD datasets to detect OOD samples. Numerical experiments confirm that our procedure indeed generates surrogate OOD data close to ID examples. Accordingly, a rejection network trained on this construction outperforms state-of-the-art OOD detection algorithms on several benchmarks. Our main contributions are: - Our novel method easily constructs a surrogate OOD dataset in an offline manner and can be applied to any ID training data without access to any real OOD sample. - We demonstrate that the resultant surrogate OOD dataset introduced by POE is sufficiently close to the distribution of ID samples, which results in improvement of OOD detection performance for the rejection network. - Through comprehensive comparison with stateof-the-art algorithms, we demonstrate POE's competitiveness on several text classification benchmarks. ## 2 Related Work 2.1 Post-Hoc Methods Post-hoc methods can detect an OOD sample by manipulating the features or logits of a pre-trained network without changing the weights of the given network. They have advantages where they do not require re-training a pre-trained classifier to detect OOD samples and can be simply applied in the inference time. Therefore, post-hoc methods can preserve the classification accuracy for the classifier. To detect OOD data, Hendrycks and Gimpel (2017) propose a simple post-hoc algorithm by thresholding the classifier's maximum softmax probability (MSP). ODIN (Liang et al., 2018) adds two additional strategies, temperature scaling and input preprocessing (adding perturbation to the test input) to the MSP for better separating confidence scores between ID and OOD samples. Treating the distribution of feature vectors of pre-trained models as class-conditional Gaussian distributions, Lee et al. (2018b) suggest the Mahalanobis distance-based confidence scoring rule with statistics of data samples in feature space. Energy (Liu et al., 2020) propose the OOD scoring rule using an energy score that is aligned with the probability density of the logits of a pre-trained network. They demonstrate that the energy-based scoring rule is less susceptible to the overconfidence issue for a softmax classifier. ReAct (Sun et al., 2021) suggests truncating the high activations of the penultimate layer to distinguish distinctive patterns arising when OOD data is fed into the model. DICE (Sun and Li, 2022) is a sparsification technique that ranks weights by contribution, and then uses the most significant weights to reduce noisy signals in OOD data. Except for MSP and Energy described above, other methods specify parameter(s) that must be tuned on a reserved OOD subset. However, in many real-world deployment settings, the distribution of entire OOD samples is usually unknown. ## 2.2 Training A Rejection Network Outlier Exposure (OE; Hendrycks et al., 2019) uses auxiliary datasets completely disjoint from the test time data to teach the model a representation for ID/OOD distinctions. However, in real-world applications, OE has a limitation in that collecting all possible OOD samples is not feasible, and OOD samples may not be known a priori. K-Folden (Li et al., 2021) is an ensemble method that trains K individual classification models. Each model is trained on a subset with K − 1 classes with the remaining class masked unknown (OOD) to the model. They train each model with a cross-entropy loss for the visible K − 1 labels and an additional Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence loss enforcing uniform predictions on the left-one-out label. For a test time, they simply average the probability distributions produced by these K models and treat the result as the final probability estimate for a test sample. However, the K-Folden lacks scalability to tasks with large classes and requires excessive computational costs because it requires K network instances. Moreover, their approach cannot be applied to a binary classification task (i.e., K = 2). Compared to these studies, our method does not require the actual real-world OOD dataset and only trains a single additional rejection network. ## 2.3 Feature Representation Learning Contrastive representation learning has shown remarkable performance for both ID classification and OOD detection (Khosla et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2022). Compared to the contrastive loss used in self-supervised representation learning (Chen et al., 2020), where a model learns the general features of a dataset without labels, Khosla et al. (2020) suggest a supervised-contrastive loss (SCL), instances of the same class form a dense cluster on the model's feature space, whereas instances of different classes are encouraged to be distant from each other. Motivated by Khosla et al. (2020), Zhou et al. (2021) propose the margin-based contrastive loss (MCL) to better increase the discrepancy of the representations for ID instances from different classes. MCL enforces the L2 distances of samples from the same class to be as small as possible, whereas the L2 distances of samples from different classes to be larger than a margin. They show that the model learned the intra-class compactness achieves advanced OOD detection performance. Compared to MCL (Zhou et al., 2021) used only K ID classes, we modify MCL by assigning a pseudo OOD set to the (K + 1)th OOD class in the contrastive loss. Thus, our variant version of MCL not only shrinks the manifold of the OOD samples in the feature space but also further maximizes the discrepancy of the representations for ID instances from the surrogate OOD classes. ## 3 Method Given Transformer-based PLMs with the softmax classifier, we propose a simple but effective method for detecting OOD samples. We first introduce the proposed method for generating surrogate OOD data and then present a rejection network that is trained with ID and the surrogate OOD. Notation. Let x ∈ XID be a training set, and y ∈ Y = {1*, ..., K*} be a label. For multi-class classification tasks, BERT-style Transformer f can be decomposed by the attention blocks and the last dense layer. We denote each layer as fatt, and fout, respectively. Unless otherwise mentioned, the output of fatt(·) denotes the [CLS] feature vector on the last attention block.  ## 3.1 Out-Of-Distribution Set Construction High-level idea. Following Lee et al. (2018b), we assume that class-conditional features on the PLM's penultimate layer (i.e., the last attention layer) follow the multivariate Gaussian distribution for the training set. We first calculate the empirical class mean and covariance of the training set. The former is defined as: $${\hat{\mu}}_{k}={\frac{1}{N_{k}}}\sum_{i:y_{i}=k}f_{\mathrm{att}}(x_{i}),$$ $${\mathrm{(1)}}$$ where Nk is the number of samples with class k. The latter can be calculated by: $$\hat{\Sigma}=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k}\sum_{i:y_{i}=k}(f_{\rm att}(x_{i})-\hat{\mu}_{k})^{\top}(f_{\rm att}(x_{i})-\hat{\mu}_{k}).\tag{2}$$ $${\hat{\mu}}_{k}).$$ Because our aim is to create surrogate OOD samples that are sufficiently close to the manifold of ID samples, a surrogate OOD sample x˜ would be satisfied the following condition: $$\operatorname*{max}_{x_{i}\in\mathcal{X}_{\mathrm{ID}}}M(x_{i})<M(\tilde{x})\leq\operatorname*{min}_{x_{i}^{\prime}\in\mathcal{X}_{\mathrm{000}}}M(x_{i}^{\prime}),\quad(3)$$ where x′ ∈ XOOD is an explicit OOD sample (e.g., an OOD sample comes from completely different ID tasks), and M(·) is the Mahalanobis distance between x and the closest class-conditional Gaussian distribution, i.e., $$M(x)=\max_{k}-(f_{\rm ant}(x)-\hat{\mu}_{k})^{\top}\hat{\Sigma}^{-1}(f_{\rm ant}(x)-\hat{\mu}_{k}).\tag{4}$$ Considering Eq. 3, we construct the surrogate OOD sample from the training sample, i.e., xtrain → x˜. To obtain the OOD data with a similar 1471 semantic representation to ID samples, we gradually erase tokens with high attention scores until x˜ has a larger Mahalanobis distance than the maximum ID Mahalanobis distance. It can be interpreted that the surrogate OOD sample starts with an ID and gradually turns into OOD as distinct tokens are erased. Data construction pipeline. Let x = {x 1*, ..., x*S} is the training sample where S is its sequence length, and x sis the s th token. In the PLM's architecture, we can identify key tokens that mainly affect to the model predictions by leveraging the attention score corresponding to the position of [CLS] token. Using the attention score for each token, we can easily remove these tokens for any training set; thus we construct x˜ excluding tokens that are correlated with ID classes. We gradually replace the attention score-based tokens with the [MASK] token for T(≤ S) steps using the attention score: $$\tilde{x}_{t+1}^{s^{*}}\leftarrow{\mathcal{A}}(\tilde{x}_{t}^{s^{*}}),\ t\in\{1,...,T\},\qquad(5)$$ where A(·) is the token replacement function, and s∗is the index where the token with the t th highest attention score is located. For each step, we calculate M(˜xt), and select x˜t∗ at the t∗ when M(˜xt∗ ) becomes greater than maxi:yi=k M(x i ID). For all training samples, we collect the surrogate OOD samples generated by the above process (see Fig. 1). ## 3.2 Rejection Network The task of detecting OOD samples is a binary hypothesis test $$f^{\prime}\left(x\right)={\begin{cases}1&{\mathrm{if}}\ x\in{\mathcal{X}}_{\mathrm{ID}}\\ 0&{\mathrm{if}}\ x\in{\mathcal{X}}_{\mathrm{OOD}},\end{cases}}\qquad{\mathrm{(6)}}$$ where f′is a decision model. In order for f′to learn the distinctive patterns between ID and OOD samples, we re-train the PLM f′ on both ID and the constructed OOD samples by leveraging a supervised contrastive representation learning. Because we construct the surrogate OOD set, we can explicitly make the model learns distinctive representations of an OOD class as well as K ID classes using the margin-based contrastive loss (MCL; Zhou et al., 2021). Different from MCL, which uses only ID classes, our variant version of MCL contrasts OOD instances to those from different ID classes. Let {x′i , y′i} B i=1 = {(xi, yi)| yi ∈ YID} BI i=1 ∪ {x˜i, y˜i} BO i=1 is a batch of training instances, and y˜i is assigned to OOD class K + 1. The BI denotes the size of a batch containing only ID samples, and the BO denotes the size of a batch containing only our synthesized OOD samples. We denote A(i) = {1, ..., B}\{i} is the set of all anchor instances for the batch samples. The MCL with K + 1 classes can be formulated as, $${\cal L}_{\rm margin}=\frac{1}{d(B_{\rm I}+B_{\rm O})}({\cal L}_{\rm p}+{\cal L}_{\rm n}),\tag{7}$$ where $d$ is the feature dimension of $f_{\rm att}(x)$, ${\cal L}_{\rm p}$ is the positive loss term that enforces the L2-distances of instances from the same class to be small, and Ln is the negative loss term that encourages the L2-distances of instances from different classes to be larger than a margin ξ. Lp is calculated by, $$\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{p}}=\sum_{i=1}^{B}\frac{1}{|P(i)|}\sum_{p\in P(i)}||f_{\mathrm{att}}(x_{i}^{\prime})-f_{\mathrm{att}}(x_{p}^{\prime})||^{2},\tag{8}$$ where P(i) = {p ∈ A(i)|y′i = y′p} is the set of indices for the instances from the same class as y′i . The negative loss term is defined as $$\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{n}}=\sum_{i=1}^{B}\frac{1}{|N(i)|}\sum_{n\in N(i)}\varphi(\xi-||f_{\text{att}}(x_{i}^{\prime})-f_{\text{att}}(x_{n}^{\prime})||^{2}).\tag{9}$$ In Eq. 9, N(i) = {n ∈ A(i)|y′i̸= y′n} is the set of indices for the instances from different classes with y′i . φ(·) is the ReLU function. The margin ξ is defined as the maximum distance between positive pairs, $$\xi=\max_{i=1}^{B}\max_{p\in P(i)}||f_{\rm att}(x_{i}^{\prime})-f_{\rm att}(x_{p}^{\prime})||^{2}.\tag{10}$$ In conclusion, we re-train f′ with the following objective, Ltotal = Lce + Lmargin, where Lce is the cross-entropy loss. We use Lce the same as the loss for ID class classification in order to (1) without changing the output node of f′out and (2) to apply the existing post-hoc methods without modification. In addition, during re-training, the [MASK] token of x˜ is randomly replaced with a word in the PLM's vocabulary so that the model learns about various OOD representations. ## 3.3 Out-Of-Distribution Scoring Rules We use the existing OOD scoring algorithm, which maps the outputs of the model for test samples to OOD detection scores. The low score indicates a low likelihood of being OOD. Our rejection network can be applied to existing post-hoc methods, and we combine three parameter-free methods with our method in this work. - MSP. Hendrycks and Gimpel (2017) use the maximum class probability maxk σ(f(x)), where σ(·) is the softmax function. - **Energy** (Liu et al., 2020) based scoring rule is defined as log PK k=1 exp(fk(x)). - **Mahalanobis (Maha)**. Lee et al. (2018b) propose the Mahalanobis distance-based scoring rule, but their method requires several hyperparameters should be tuned via a real OOD subset. Instead, following Zhou et al. (2021), we use the parameter-free Mahalanobis distance as a scoring rule: maxk −(fatt(x) − µˆk)⊤Σˆ −1(fatt(x) − µˆk). Unless otherwise mentioned, we use this scoring rule in our experiments. ## 4 Setup | ID | # train | # dev | # test | # classes | OOD | |------------|-----------|---------|----------|-------------|----------| | CLINCFULL | 15.0k | 3.0k | 4.5k | 150 | CLINCOOD | | CLINCSMALL | 7.5k | 3.0k | 4.5k | 150 | CLINCOOD | | SST2 | 6.2k | 1.5k | 1.8k | 2 | Yelp | | Yelp | 448k | 112k | 38k | 2 | SST2 | | NEWSTOP5 | 51.7k | 0.2k | 17.2k | 5 | NEWSREST | | IMDB | 20.0k | 5.0k | 25.0k | 2 | c-IMDB | ## 4.1 Dataset In order to demonstrate the effectiveness of our method, we conduct experiments on common benchmarks for the OOD detection task: - CLINC**FULL** is a user intent classification dataset designed for OOD detection, which consists of 150 intent classes from 10 domains. This dataset includes 22.5k ID utterances and 1.2k OOD utterances (CLINCOOD). - CLINC**SMALL** is the variant version of the CLINCFULL dataset, in which there are only 50 training utterances per each ID class. This dataset includes 15k ID utterances and 1.2k OOD utterances. Recently, in the field of NLP, Arora et al. (2021) categorize OOD samples by two types of distribution shifts: semantic and background shifts. Because the shifted benchmarks share a common ID text style (background) or content (semantic), these distribution shifts in such near-OOD detection problems are more subtle in comparison to arbitrary ID and OOD dataset pairs (e.g., training and OOD sets come from completely different tasks), and thus, are harder to detect. We also conduct experiments with semantic shift and background shift benchmarks to verify that POE is effective even with challenging ID/OOD pairs. The semantic shift benchmark we used is as follows: - NEWS**TOP5** is the rebuilt version of the News Category dataset (Misra, 2018) for OOD detection. NEWSTOP5 contains instances from the five most common classes of the News Category dataset, and the data from the remaining 36 classes are used as OOD (NEWSREST). - **IMDB** (Maas et al., 2011) is a binary sentiment classification dataset consisting of movie reviews. Kaushik et al. (2020) construct a set of augmented IMDB samples (c-IMDB) by editing IMDB examples to yield counterfactual labels. As a result, this changes the distribution of semantic features with high a correlation to ID labels. We use the IMDB as ID and c-IMDB as OOD. For evaluating POE on the background shift, we use the SST2 (Socher et al., 2013) and Yelp Polarity (Zhang et al., 2015) binary sentiment analysis datasets. The SST2 consists of movie reviews, whereas the Yelp polarity dataset contains reviews for different businesses, representing a domain shift from SST2. These datasets are used as ID/OOD pairs (i.e., SST2/Yelp and Yelp/SST2) in our experiments. The data statistics are described in Tab. 1. ## 4.2 Evaluation Metrics The OOD detection performance is measured with respect to the following standard criteria. - **AUROC** is the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve obtained by varying the operating point. Higher is better. - **FPR@95TPR (FPR)** is the probability that an OOD (negative) example is classified as a positive when the true positive rate (TPR) is as high as 95%. Lower is better. ## 4.3 Training Details Two PLMs are used to compare a wide variety of algorithms: BERT-uncased-base (Devlin et al., 2019) and RoBERTa-base (Liu et al., 2019). The PLMs are optimized with AdamW (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2018), the weight decay of 0.01, and the learning rate of 2e-5. We use a batch size of 16 and fine-tune the PLM for 10 epochs on the downstream task. When training the rejection network, we use BI of 16, and BO of 4. Other training configurations are equal to the above parameters. For all methods, we report the averaged performance over five runs using different random seeds. We implement our framework upon Huggingface's Transformers (Wolf et al., 2020) and implementation codes are available at https://github.com/ kimjeyoung/Pseudo_OutlierExposure. ## 4.4 Compared Methods | Hyperparameter | Range | | |------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------| | ODIN | temperature | {5, 50, 100, 500, 1000} | | perturbation | {0.001, 0.01, 0.1, 1.0} | | | DICE | sparsification (%) | {10, 30, 50, 90, 99} | | ReAct | truncating (%) | {80, 85, 90, 95, 99} | Table 2: Hyperparameters for post-hoc methods. We compare our method with six post-hoc methods: MSP, ODIN, Mahalanobis (Maha), Energy, ReAct, and DICE. As the orthogonal research, contrastive learning methods that efficiently learn informative feature representations are well-suited for OOD detection. In our work, the recently proposed KNN-Contrastive Learning (KNN; Zhou et al., 2022), Supervised-Contrastive Learning (SCL; Khosla et al., 2020), and Margin-based Contrastive Learning (MCL; Zhou et al., 2021) are also compared. The hyperparameters of compared contrastive learning methods are followed the original work as possible for a fair comparison. For the posthoc methods, excluding parameter-free methods, we report the best OOD detection performance by varying their hyperparameters and adopting their best settings on the test ID/OOD pairs. The detailed hyperparameter settings are reported in Tab. 2. ## 5 Result In this section, we present comprehensive experimental evaluations of POE. We compare POE with baselines for CLINC datasets (Sec. 5.1), followed by empirical results for semantic and background shift benchmarks (Sec. 5.2) and detailed analysis (Sec. 5.4). Due to the space limitation, we evaluate all methods based on RoBERTa in this section, and the experimental results based on BERT are reported in Appendix. | CLINCFULL | CLINCSMALL | | | | |-------------------|--------------|--------|-------|-------| | AUROC↑ | FPR↓ | AUROC↑ | FPR↓ | | | MSP | 95.71 | 20.08 | 95.18 | 23.91 | | Energy | 96.33 | 15.99 | 95.79 | 19.16 | | Maha | 97.55 | 12.66 | 96.81 | 17.58 | | ODIN | 96.36 | 16.49 | 95.73 | 20.24 | | ReAct | 95.71 | 20.08 | 95.20 | 23.74 | | DICE | 95.22 | 19.16 | 94.35 | 18.08 | | KNN-cosine | 96.37 | 19.83 | 96.03 | 23.91 | | KNN-euclidean | 96.39 | 19.33 | 95.87 | 23.66 | | SCL+MSP | 94.35 | 22.91 | 95.89 | 20.40 | | MCL+MSP | 95.73 | 17.93 | 95.83 | 19.96 | | POE+MSP (Ours) | 96.58 | 15.58 | 96.36 | 16.49 | | SCL+Energy | 95.16 | 17.08 | 96.50 | 15.24 | | MCL+Energy | 96.41 | 13.74 | 96.53 | 14.46 | | POE+Energy (Ours) | 96.98 | 12.16 | 96.62 | 13.33 | | SCL+Maha | 97.42 | 13.91 | 97.06 | 13.24 | | MCL+Maha | 97.63 | 11.24 | 97.38 | 13.91 | | POE+Maha (Ours) | 97.66 | 12.33 | 97.48 | 12.08 | ## 5.1 Result For Clinc Datasets The results in CLINCFULL and CLINCSMALL are presented in Tab. 3, where the best results for each block are highlighted in bold. Specifically, KNN (Zhou et al., 2022) uses the LOF algorithm (Breunig et al., 2000) as an OOD scoring rule, in which they use two basic distances to calculate the LOF score. We denote KNN using Euclidean distance as KNN-euclidean and using cosine distance as KNN-cosine, respectively. As shown in Tab. 3, POE outperforms all considered baselines on most ID and OOD distribution pairs on CLINC datasets, even though our method never requires access to real OOD data, unlike ODIN, ReAct, and DICE. Moreover, POE generally performs much better than other contrastive learning methods, especially on the CLINCSMALL which has a small size of training samples (50 instances per class). This empirical result shows that even if the rejection network is trained with the surrogate OOD set using small number of training samples and it shows the robust performance. ## 5.2 Result For Distribution Shift Benchmarks We also conduct the distribution shift experiment using two types of shifted OOD benchmarks to | Background Shift | Semantic Shift | | | | | | | | | | |--------------------|------------------|----------|-------|---------|-------|--------|-------|--------|-------|-------| | SST2 | Yelp | NEWSTOP5 | IMDB | Average | | | | | | | | AUROC↑ | FPR↓ | AUROC↑ | FPR↓ | AUROC↑ | FPR↓ | AUROC↑ | FPR↓ | AUROC↑ | FPR↓ | | | MSP | 67.06 | 92.75 | 80.81 | 65.29 | 74.14 | 79.98 | 59.52 | 92.97 | 70.38 | 82.75 | | Energy | 61.53 | 92.99 | 75.52 | 65.17 | 75.91 | 75.54 | 59.11 | 92.56 | 68.02 | 81.57 | | ODIN | 67.05 | 92.81 | 80.80 | 65.32 | 75.60 | 75.67 | 59.57 | 92.85 | 70.76 | 81.66 | | Maha | 64.64 | 93.53 | 91.04 | 51.74 | 79.77 | 68.73 | 60.48 | 93.96 | 73.98 | 76.99 | | ReAct | 67.07 | 92.75 | 83.21 | 65.30 | 74.46 | 78.77 | 59.83 | 92.91 | 71.14 | 82.43 | | DICE | 68.49 | 91.30 | 77.48 | 64.87 | 74.95 | 84.18 | 59.88 | 92.54 | 67.70 | 83.22 | | KNN-cosine | 74.16 | 90.75 | 79.46 | 65.18 | 75.17 | 78.52 | 59.15 | 92.32 | 71.99 | 81.69 | | KNN-euclidean | 74.48 | 90.63 | 79.80 | 65.03 | 75.11 | 78.42 | 58.54 | 92.50 | 71.98 | 81.65 | | SCL+MSP | 59.36 | 94.69 | 79.98 | 70.33 | 70.72 | 79.29 | 62.34 | 92.20 | 68.10 | 84.13 | | MCL+MSP | 62.23 | 89.95 | 89.30 | 58.93 | 72.87 | 77.56 | 59.09 | 92.44 | 70.87 | 79.72 | | POE+MSP (Ours) | 70.05 | 91.63 | 90.47 | 57.94 | 74.62 | 77.08 | 62.41 | 92.33 | 74.39 | 79.75 | | SCL+Energy | 56.53 | 94.93 | 76.72 | 70.42 | 73.69 | 77.02 | 62.28 | 92.13 | 67.31 | 83.63 | | MCL+Energy | 61.66 | 89.76 | 89.17 | 59.00 | 73.12 | 76.13 | 58.63 | 92.44 | 70.65 | 79.33 | | POE+Energy (Ours) | 70.74 | 88.14 | 90.16 | 57.53 | 74.31 | 76.07 | 62.01 | 92.09 | 74.31 | 78.46 | | SCL+Maha | 75.42 | 82.48 | 80.88 | 71.34 | 80.94 | 67.76 | 61.29 | 93.67 | 74.63 | 78.81 | | MCL+Maha | 90.16 | 60.16 | 97.10 | 17.13 | 80.19 | 66.21 | 60.46 | 93.43 | 81.98 | 59.23 | | POE+Maha (Ours) | 92.76 | 36.84 | 97.59 | 15.08 | 81.77 | 65.50 | 61.15 | 93.79 | 83.32 | 52.80 | | AUROC ↑ | CLINCSMALL | SST2 | IMDB | |-----------------|--------------|--------|--------| | w/o replacement | 96.32 | 91.67 | 61.02 | | w/ replacement | 97.48 | 92.76 | 61.15 | | AUROC ↑ | CLINCSMALL | SST2 | IMDB | |-----------|--------------|--------|--------| | CE | 95.18 | 67.06 | 59.52 | | CE+KL | 96.90 | 85.68 | 61.01 | | CE+SCL | 97.07 | 92.54 | 60.99 | | CE+MCL | 97.48 | 92.76 | 61.15 | Table 6: Ablation study assessing training objectives. We use the Mahalanobis as an OOD scoring rule. verify that our method can detect the challenging OOD samples successfully. Tab. 4 shows OOD detection results for the background and semantic shifts, and the best results are highlighted in bold. As shown in Tab. 4, interestingly, we observe that not only MSP but also the SCL and MCL struggle with these challenging OOD data. For example, on at least one ID/OOD pair (*underlined entries*), the naive MSP outperforms SCL+MSP and MCL+MSP except for POE+MSP. In contrast, POE more accurately detects distributionally shifted instances compared to baselines. Especially, POE performs the best with the Mahalanobis distance for both background and semantic shifts. ## 5.3 Ablation Study Recall that the [MASK] token of x˜ is randomly replaced with a word in the PLM's vocabulary for training the rejection network. We also assess how the replacement technique affects OOD detection performance (see Tab. 5). We observe that using the replacement technique brings additional performance gain by exposing diverse OOD representations to the rejection network. To investigate the promising design choices of training objectives, we conduct an ablation study by applying each training objective to the rejection network as shown in Tab. 6. The CE+KL can be another choice for training the rejection network, which is an additional KL penalty enforcing uniform predictions on the surrogate samples generated by POE, i.e., LKL = KL(f′(˜x), U), where U is the uniform distribution over K classes. Overall, the rejection network is well-suited with a contrastive loss, and CE+MCL shows the best performances for all datasets. Different from the KL loss, which can not impose any constraints on the distribution of the rejection network's inner representation of the given data, the rejection network with the contrastive loss learns the intra-class compactness for both ID and OOD classes, and it further separates the inter-class distances. We believe that this discriminative feature space introduced by the contrastive loss leads to better OOD detection performance. ## 5.4 Analysis Accuracy (%) CE CE+SCL CE+MCL CE+POE CLINCFULL 95.95 95.84 96.11 **96.80** CLINCSMALL 95.48 **95.99** 95.66 95.91 SST2 94.39 93.30 **94.45** 93.79 Yelp 97.75 97.76 97.65 **97.81** NEWSTOP5 92.48 92.51 **93.04** 92.49 IMDB 94.48 94.44 94.53 **94.92** Table 7: ID classification accuracies for contrastive learning methods. Classification Performance. When the post-hoc method is applied to the PLM trained on the downstream task, classification accuracy is maintained because its weights do not change. However, the accuracy may not be preserved when the weights of PLM are fine-tuned using a contrastive loss. We evaluate the PLM trained with the contrastive loss on the six ID datasets. The experimental results are shown in Tab. 7. We observe that contrastive losses do not significantly reduce or increase the classification performance, which is similar to the observations by Zhou et al. (2021). Analysis of the Surrogate OOD Set. To examine how closely the surrogate OOD samples lie in the ID manifold, we measure the Mahalanobis distance between ID and the surrogate OOD introduced by POE (Tab. 8). The RoBERTa is trained with the cross-entropy (CE) loss on the ID dataset and we calculate the Mahalanobis distance (Eq. 4) at the RoBERTa's penultimate layer. We observe that the surrogate OOD samples produced by POE indeed have similar representations to ID samples. For example, in the feature space of the RoBERTa trained on CLINCSMALL, the Mahalanobis distance between the surrogate OOD samples and the conditional Gaussian distribution for CLINCSMALL has | Target \ ID | CLINCSMALL | SST2 | IMDB | |---------------|--------------|--------|--------| | CLINCSMALL | -3.02 | -7.00 | -22.3 | | SST2 | -35.96 | -1.64 | -8.48 | | Yelp | -33.28 | -2.22 | -5.82 | | IMDB | -43.27 | -1.73 | -1.44 | | c-IMDB | -46.42 | -2.07 | -2.58 | | News | -37.65 | -7.01 | -20.31 | | POE X˜ | -18.86 | -3.25 | -4.60 |  the closest distance to the ID manifold. For the background (SST2) and semantic shift (IMDB) benchmarks, the IMDB and c-IMDB each has the most similar representation of paired ID set. However, the X˜SST2, and X˜IMDB are also sufficiently closed to SST2 and IMDB, respectively. We also assess whether surrogate OOD samples, which have similar representations to ID samples, are most effective for OOD detection. In our OOD construction, for all training samples, we collect x˜t∗ ∈ X˜ when M(˜xt∗ ) becomes greater than maxi:yi=k M(x i ID). Therefore, as T∗ = {t∗ i} NTrain i=1 increases, OOD samples that are semantically distant from the ID dataset can be generated. In Fig. 2, we report POE+Maha's OOD detection performances with varying levels of T∗. We identify that surrogate OOD samples produced by a larger T∗further away from the ID samples are generated (Left in Fig. 2). This trait is desirable as ID discriminative tokens are more erased in the surrogate sample. Moreover, we observe that POE+Maha with surrogate OOD sets introduced by T∗achieves the best AUROC scores for all datasets, whereas the OOD detection performance deteriorates when the reject network is trained with a set of OODs far from the ID. This empirical result shows that (1) POE leverages the simplicity of erasing attention-based tokens, but it is possible to generate pseudo OOD samples close to the distribution of ID, and (2) these OOD samples are effective in training the rejection network. ## 6 Conclusion In this paper, we propose a simple and intuitive OOD construction to train a rejection network. Motivated by the previous observation that OOD samples are most effective when semantically similar to ID samples, POE detects and erases tokens with high attention scores of PLMs. Its resultant surrogate OOD dataset is close to the distribution of ID samples that have been observed to improve the OOD detection performance of the rejection network. Extensive experiments conducted on challenging ID/OOD pairs show POE's competitiveness. ## 7 Limitation Although the proposed method achieves significantly improved OOD detection performances compared to the baselines, but POE can not be applied to a naive LSTM, and RNN because our OOD construction is based on an attention score of the PLM. We leave this issue for future work, but we believe that our proposed method can be used in various NLP tasks as PLMs are now adopted in most fields of NLP tasks. While we adopted a masking method using attention scores in this paper, it is not clear that tokens with high attention scores have the most direct impact on the model's predictions (Wiegreffe and Pinter, 2019). To provide readers with more information, we include additional experimental results in the Appendix to discuss the impact of different masking strategies on OOD detection performance. ## 8 Ethics Statement The reliability of language models is crucial to the stable deployment of real-world NLP applications. For example, the computer-aided resume recommendation system and neural conversational AI should provide trustworthy predictions because they are intimately related to the issue of trust in new technologies. In this paper, we propose a simple but effective method called POE for OOD detection tasks. We introduce a novel OOD construction pipeline without any external OOD samples to train a rejection network. We hope our work to provide researchers with a new methodological perspective. ## Acknowledgement This work was supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant and funded by the Korean government(No.2021R1C1C1012689 and No.2018R1D1A1B07045825). ## References Jakob Smedegaard Andersen, Tom Schöner, and Walid Maalej. 2020. Word-level uncertainty estimation for black-box text classifiers using rnns. In *Proceedings* of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 5541–5546. Udit Arora, William Huang, and He He. 2021. Types of out-of-distribution texts and how to detect them. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 10687–10701, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Markus M Breunig, Hans-Peter Kriegel, Raymond T Ng, and Jörg Sander. 2000. Lof: identifying densitybased local outliers. In Proceedings of the 2000 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data, pages 93–104. 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. Ting Chen, Simon Kornblith, Mohammad Norouzi, and Geoffrey Hinton. 2020. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In *International conference on machine learning*, pages 1597–1607. PMLR. Kevin Clark, Minh-Thang Luong, Quoc V. Le, and Christopher D. Manning. 2020. Pre-training transformers as energy-based cloze models. In *EMNLP*. 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. Dan Hendrycks and Kevin Gimpel. 2017. A baseline for detecting misclassified and out-of-distribution examples in neural networks. *Proceedings of International* Conference on Learning Representations. Dan Hendrycks, Mantas Mazeika, and Thomas Dietterich. 2019. Deep anomaly detection with outlier exposure. *Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations*. Yen-Chang Hsu, Yilin Shen, Hongxia Jin, and Zsolt Kira. 2020. Generalized odin: Detecting out-ofdistribution image without learning from out-ofdistribution data. In *Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF* Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10951–10960. Zhengbao Jiang, Frank F Xu, Jun Araki, and Graham Neubig. 2020. How can we know what language models know? Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:423–438. 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*. Prannay Khosla, Piotr Teterwak, Chen Wang, Aaron Sarna, Yonglong Tian, Phillip Isola, Aaron Maschinot, Ce Liu, and Dilip Krishnan. 2020. Supervised contrastive learning. *Advances in Neural* Information Processing Systems, 33:18661–18673. Lingkai Kong, Haoming Jiang, Yuchen Zhuang, Jie Lyu, Tuo Zhao, and Chao Zhang. 2020. Calibrated language model fine-tuning for in- and outof-distribution data. In *Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language* Processing (EMNLP), pages 1326–1340, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Balaji Lakshminarayanan, Alexander Pritzel, and Charles Blundell. 2017. Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30. Kimin Lee, Honglak Lee, Kibok Lee, and Jinwoo Shin. 2018a. Training confidence-calibrated classifiers for detecting out-of-distribution samples. *International* Conference on Learning Representations. Kimin Lee, Kibok Lee, Honglak Lee, and Jinwoo Shin. 2018b. A simple unified framework for detecting out-of-distribution samples and adversarial attacks. Advances in neural information processing systems, 31. Xiaoya Li, Jiwei Li, Xiaofei Sun, Chun Fan, Tianwei Zhang, Fei Wu, Yuxian Meng, and Jun Zhang. 2021. kFolden: k-fold ensemble for out-of-distribution detection. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on* Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3102–3115, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Shiyu Liang, Yixuan Li, and Rayadurgam Srikant. 2018. Enhancing the reliability of out-of-distribution image detection in neural networks. *International Conference on Learning Representations*. Weitang Liu, Xiaoyun Wang, John Owens, and Yixuan Li. 2020. Energy-based out-of-distribution detection. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:21464–21475. 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*. Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2018. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In *International Conference on Learning Representations*. Andrew L. 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: Human Language Technologies, pages 142–150, Portland, Oregon, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Rishabh Misra. 2018. News category dataset. 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. Yiyou Sun, Chuan Guo, and Yixuan Li. 2021. React: Out-of-distribution detection with rectified activations. *Advances in Neural Information Processing* Systems, 34. Yiyou Sun and Yixuan Li. 2022. Dice: Leveraging sparsification for out-of-distribution detection. In European Conference on Computer Vision. Sarah Wiegreffe and Yuval Pinter. 2019. Attention is not not explanation. 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 11–20, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, 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. 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*, 32. Xingdi Yuan, Marc-Alexandre Côté, Jie Fu, Zhouhan Lin, Chris Pal, Yoshua Bengio, and Adam Trischler. 2019. Interactive language learning by question answering. 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 2796–2813, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xiang Zhang, Junbo Zhao, and Yann LeCun. 2015. Character-level convolutional networks for text classification. Advances in neural information processing systems, 28. Wenxuan Zhou, Fangyu Liu, and Muhao Chen. 2021. Contrastive out-of-distribution detection for pretrained transformers. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Yunhua Zhou, Peiju Liu, and Xipeng Qiu. 2022. KNNcontrastive learning for out-of-domain intent classification. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5129–5141, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. ## A Additional Result Empirical Result for BERT. We report empirical results for BERT in Table 9 and Table 10. Comparison with other masking strategies. To provide readers with more information, we compare attention score-based masking with leave-oneout (LOO) method (Wiegreffe and Pinter, 2019). In Table 11, both attention-based masking and LOO are effective for the OOD detection task. However, attention-based masking has the advantage of being computationally efficient, as masking priorities can be obtained in a single forward pass. In contrast, LOO is computationally inefficient because it must remove each token in the input sentence one by one to verify the model predictions. AUROC ↑ CLINCFULL CLINCSMALL SST2 Yelp News IMDB MSP 96.39 95.14 65.42 83.78 71.44 56.26 Energy 97.02 96.35 62.77 82.49 73.46 54.41 ODIN 96.98 96.01 65.43 83.70 71.52 56.25 Maha 97.18 96.81 72.87 96.79 80.35 56.40 ReAct 96.39 96.01 65.42 83.76 71.99 56.33 DICE 94.57 95.02 65.68 83.40 71.74 56.32 KNN-cosine 96.94 96.03 72.77 84.41 73.26 57.67 KNN-euclidean 96.94 96.02 72.52 84.49 70.14 57.62 SCL+MSP 95.19 95.42 67.69 83.71 75.88 54.25 MCL+MSP 95.79 95.22 63.62 84.58 75.27 58.02 POE+MSP 96.25 95.92 **73.27** 85.24 77.23 56.64 SCL+Energy 96.43 96.71 65.23 81.92 76.83 56.91 MCL+Energy 96.69 96.82 62.71 84.96 76.03 57.67 POE+Energy **97.24 96.85** 72.97 85.11 77.96 56.17 SCL+Maha 97.01 96.80 67.82 94.95 80.16 **59.15** MCL+Maha 97.18 96.81 72.88 96.79 80.35 56.40 POE+Maha 97.03 96.19 73.03 **96.98 80.70** 57.49 Table 9: Comparison results based on BERT. For all methods, we report AUROC (%) scores. The best results are highlighted in bold. FPR ↓ CLINCFULL CLINCSMALL SST2 Yelp News IMDB MSP 17.41 20.08 91.03 69.57 82.89 91.32 Energy 12.24 14.99 97.87 68.56 76.34 91.44 ODIN 15.39 18.22 91.01 69.47 82.83 91.35 Maha 13.91 16.08 88.77 16.97 69.31 95.48 ReAct 17.41 18.24 91.03 69.57 80.63 **91.09** DICE 22.08 20.12 91.33 68.85 82.36 91.59 KNN-cosine 17.33 22.75 93.64 68.21 81.57 92.85 KNN-euclidean 17.00 22.83 93.59 68.79 86.01 92.97 SCL+MSP 22.49 20.91 90.71 68.64 77.85 92.97 MCL+MSP 20.91 21.58 92.64 68.05 76.77 93.02 POE+MSP 18.89 20.24 88.69 67.91 77.38 92.76 SCL+Energy 14.08 15.16 95.30 68.87 72.81 92.03 MCL+Energy 14.91 15.66 94.08 67.92 72.15 93.02 POE+Energy **12.46 14.08 88.52** 67.36 71.16 92.14 SCL+Maha 12.99 16.58 89.87 27.85 71.04 94.37 MCL+Maha 13.91 16.08 88.77 16.97 **69.31** 95.48 POE+Maha 14.35 18.83 90.14 **16.39** 70.18 94.14 CLINCSMALL **SST2 IMDB** AUROC↑ MSP Energy MAHA MSP Energy MAHA MSP Energy MAHA Random masking 94.68 95.13 96.32 68.43 70.28 91.97 61.03 61.34 55.68 Attention score 96.36 96.62 **97.48** 70.05 **70.74 92.76 62.41 62.01** 61.15 LOO **96.31 96.84** 97.35 **71.13** 70.54 92.50 61.88 61.71 **62.26** Table 11: Comparison result for different masking strategies using RoBERTa. Each value indicates the AUROC (%) score and the best results are highlighted in bold. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? 7. 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? 1. Introduction ✗ 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?** 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? No response. 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? No response. 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? No response. 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.)? No response. 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.

zhang-liu-2023-adversarial

Adversarial Multi-task Learning for End-to-end Metaphor Detection

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.96

Metaphor detection (MD) suffers from limited training data. In this paper, we started with a linguistic rule called Metaphor Identification Procedure and then proposed a novel multi-task learning framework to transfer knowledge in basic sense discrimination (BSD) to MD. BSD is constructed from word sense disambiguation (WSD), which has copious amounts of data. We leverage adversarial training to align the data distributions of MD and BSD in the same feature space, so task-invariant representations can be learned. To capture fine-grained alignment patterns, we utilize the multi-mode structures of MD and BSD. Our method is totally end-to-end and can mitigate the data scarcity problem in MD. Competitive results are reported on four public datasets. Our code and datasets are available.

# Adversarial Multi-Task Learning For End-To-End Metaphor Detection Shenglong Zhang Ying Liu ∗ Tsinghua University, Beijing, China, 100084 zsl18@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn yingliu@mail.tsinghua.edu.cn ## Abstract Metaphor detection (MD) suffers from limited training data. In this paper, we started with a linguistic rule called Metaphor Identification Procedure and then proposed a novel multi-task learning framework to transfer knowledge in basic sense discrimination (BSD) to MD. BSD is constructed from word sense disambiguation (WSD), which has copious amounts of data. We leverage adversarial training to align the data distributions of MD and BSD in the same feature space, so task-invariant representations can be learned. To capture fine-grained alignment patterns, we utilize the multi-mode structures of MD and BSD. Our method is totally end-to-end and can mitigate the data scarcity problem in MD. Competitive results are reported on four public datasets. Our code and datasets are available 1. ## 1 Introduction Metaphor involves a mapping mechanism from the source domain to the target domain, as proposed in Conceptual Metaphor Theory (Lakoff and Johnson, 2008). e.g. The police **smashed** *the drug ring after they* were tipped off . Smash in the above sentence means "hit hard" literally (source domain). However, it is employed in a creative way, indicating "overthrow or destroy" (target domain). The mapping from the source to the target makes the word a metaphor. Understanding metaphors in human languages is essential for a machine to dig out the underlying intents of speakers. Thus, metaphor detection and understanding are crucial for sentiment analysis (Cambria et al., 2017), and machine translation(Mao et al., 2018), etc. Metaphor detection (MD) requires a model to predict whether a specific word is literal or ∗Corresponding Author 1https://github.com/SilasTHU/AdMul metaphorical in its current context. Linguistically, if there is a semantic conflict between the contextual meaning and a more basic meaning, the word is a metaphor (Crisp et al., 2007; Steen, 2010; Do Dinh et al., 2018). The advent of large Pretrained Language Models has pushed the boundaries of MD far ahead (Devlin et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2019b). However, MD suffers from limited training data, due to complex and difficult expert knowledge for data annotation (Group, 2007). Recently, Lin et al. (2021) used self-training to expand MD corpus, but error accumulation could be a problem. Many researchers used various external knowledge like part of speech tags (Su et al., 2020; Choi et al., 2021), dictionary resources (Su et al., 2021; Zhang and Liu, 2022), dependency parsing (Le et al., 2020; Song et al., 2021), etc., to promote MD performance. These methods are not end-to-end, thus they impeded continuous training on new data. To address the data scarcity problem in MD, we propose a novel task called basic sense discrimination (BSD) from word sense disambiguation (WSD). BSD regards the most commonly used lexical sense as a basic usage, and aims to identify whether a word is basic in a certain context. Both BSD and MD need to compare the semantic difference between the basic meaning and the current contextual meaning. Despite the lack of MD data, we can distill knowledge from BSD to alleviate data scarcity and overfitting, which leads to the usage of multi-task learning. We design the Adversarial Multi-task Learning Framework (AdMul) to facilitate the knowledge transfer from BSD to MD. AdMul aligns the data distributions for MD and BSD through adversarial training to force shared encoding layers (for example, BERT) to learn task-invariant representations. Furthermore, we leverage the internal multi-mode structures for fine-grained alignment. The literal senses in MD are forcibly aligned with basic senses in BSD, which can push the literal senses away from the metaphorical. Similarly, the non-basic senses in BSD are aligned with metaphors in MD, which enlarges the discrepancy between basic and non-basic senses to enhance model performance. The contributions of this paper can be summarized as follows: - We proposed a new task, basic sense discrimination, to promote the performance of metaphor detection via a multi-task learning method. The data scarcity problem in MD can be mitigated via knowledge transfer from a related task. - Our proposed model, AdMul, uses adversarial training to learn task-invariant representations for metaphor detection and basic sense discrimination. We also make use of multimode structures for fine-grained alignment. Our model is free of any external resources, totally end-to-end, and can be easily trained. - Experimental results indicate that our model achieves competitive performance on four datasets due to knowledge transfer and the regularization effect of multi-task learning. Our zero-shot transfer result even surpasses finetuned baseline models. ## 2 Related Work Metaphor Detection: Metaphor detection is a popular task in figurative language computing (Leong et al., 2018, 2020). With the progress of natural language processing, various methods have been proposed. Traditional approaches used different linguistic features like word abstractness, word concreteness, part of speech tags and linguistic norms, etc., to detect metaphors (Shutova and Sun, 2013; Tsvetkov et al., 2014; Beigman Klebanov et al., 2018; Wan et al., 2020). These methods are not end-to-end and rely heavily on feature engineering. The rise of deep learning boosted the advancement of metaphor detection significantly. Gao et al. (2018), Wu et al. (2018) and Mao et al. (2019) used RNN and word embeddings to train MD models. Recently, lots of works combined the advantages of pre-trained language models and external resources to enhance the performance of metaphor detection (Su et al., 2020, 2021; Choi et al., 2021; Song et al., 2021; Zhang and Liu, 2022). Though great improvements have been made, these models still suffer from the lack of training data, which is well exemplified by their poorer performance on small datasets. Multi-task Learning: Multi-task learning (MTL) can benefit a target task via related tasks. It has brought great success in computer vision and natural language processing. MTL learns universal representations for different task inputs, so all tasks share a common feature space, where knowledge transfer becomes possible. Previous studies trained MTL models by deep neural networks like CNN or RNN, achieving promising results in text classification (Liu et al., 2017; Chen and Cardie, 2018). Liu et al. (2019a) and Clark et al. (2019) combined MTL framework with BERT (Devlin et al., 2019), obtaining encouraging results on multiple GLUE tasks. There are some other successful MTL applications in machine translation (Dong et al., 2015), information extraction (Nishida et al., 2019), and sentiment analysis (Liang et al., 2020), etc. Dankers et al. (2019) applied MTL to study the interplay of metaphor and emotion. Le et al. (2020) combined WSD and MD for better metaphor detection results. However, to the best of our knowledge, we are the first to use adversarial MTL for metaphor detection based on the linguistic nature of metaphors. ## 3 Proposed Method 3.1 Metaphor Identification Procedure Metaphor Identification Procedure (MIP) (Crisp et al., 2007) is the most commonly used linguistic rule in guiding metaphor detection. It is originally the construction guideline of VU Amsterdam Metaphor Corpus. MIP indicates that if a word contrasts with one of its more basic meanings but can be understood in comparison with it, then the word is a metaphor. A more basic meaning is more concrete, body-related, more precise, or historically older (Steen, 2010; Do Dinh et al., 2018). Some researchers have pointed out that when a word is used alone, it is very likely to depict a more basic meaning (Choi et al., 2021; Song et al., 2021). We concatenate the target word and the sentence as input. In the input, the first segment is the target used alone, presenting a more basic meaning. The second segment is the whole sentence, which can encode the contextual meaning of the target. Then the model adopts MIP to detect metaphors.  ## 3.2 From Wsd To Bsd Metaphor detection (MD) aims to identify whether a contextualized word is metaphorical. Word sense disambiguation (WSD) aims to determine the lexical sense of a certain word from a given sense inventory. The two tasks share the same nature: we should decide the sense of a given word according to its context. A word may have multiple senses, so WSD is a multinomial classification task, whereas MD is a binary classification task. Integrating WSD with MD can be quite expensive. For example, the stateof-the-art model (Barba et al., 2021) regarded WSD as an information extraction task. It concatenated all the candidate senses and tried to extract the correct one. Such a method requires not only external dictionary resources, but also enormous computing resources since the input may be a very long sequence. WordNet (Miller, 1995; Fellbaum, 1998) ranks the senses of a word according to its occurrence frequency2. The most commonly used lexical sense is at the top of the inventory list, which is usually a more basic meaning(Choi et al., 2021; Song et al., 2021; Zhang and Liu, 2022). Thus, we regard the 2https://wordnet.princeton.edu/frequently-askedquestions most commonly used sense as a basic sense of a word, and try to figure out whether a word in a certain context is basic or not. We call this task basic sense discrimination (BSD). Obviously, BSD is a binary classification task and fits MD. ## 3.3 Task Description Formally, given the MD dataset DMD = {(x MD iy MD i) nMD i=1 } and the BSD dataset DBSD = {(x BSD i, yBSD i) nBSD i=1 }, they have nMD and nBSD labeled training samples respectively. x = ([CLS], target, [SEP],sentence, [SEP]). Usually, MD and BSD have different data distributions p, so pMD(xMD) ̸= pBSD(xBSD). Both DMD andDBSD will be used to train a multi-task learning model, which will align pMD and pBSD in a same feature space via adversarial training. Our goal is to minimize the risk ϵ = E(x,y)∼pMD [f(x) ̸= y]. We actually use BSD as an auxiliary task and only care about the performance of MD. ## 3.4 Model Details We present AdMul to tackle MD and BSD simultaneously. As Fig. 1 shows, AdMul has five key parts: shared feature extractor Qf (BERT in our case, the green part), task-specific classifier Qy (the purple part), gradient reversal layer Qλ ( the grey part), global task discriminator Q g d (the red part) and local task discriminators Q lc d (the yellow part). ## 3.4.1 Feature Extractor AdMul adopts BERT as the feature extractor Qf , which is shared by both MD and BSD. We take the BERT hidden state of [CLS] as a semantic summary of the input segment pair (Devlin et al., 2019). [CLS] can automatically learn the positions of two target words in the two segments, and then perceive the semantic difference via self-attention mechanism (Vaswani et al., 2017). The hidden state then goes through a non-linear activation function and produces semantic discrepancy feature v: $$\mathbf{v}=\operatorname{tanh}\left(Q_{f}\left(x_{[C L S]}\right)\right).$$ . (1) On the other hand, we use the whole input sequence x to generate sentence embedding h via average pooling: $$h=Q_{f}\left(x\right).$$ h = Qf (x). (2) ## 3.4.2 Task-Specific Classifier Task-specific classifier Qy takes semantic discrepancy feature v as input. For the sake of brevity, we only draw a single classifier in the diagram. Actually, we are using use different classifiers for MD and BSD. $$\hat{\mathbf{y}}=Q_{y}(\mathbf{v})=\mathrm{softmax}(W_{Q_{y}}\mathbf{v}+b_{Q_{y}}),$$ where yˆ ∈ R 2is the predicted label distribution of x. WQy and bQy are weights and bias of Qy. Finally, we can compute classification losses: $$\begin{array}{l}{{{\mathcal L}_{y}^{\mathrm{MD}}=\frac{1}{|{\mathcal D}_{\mathrm{MD}}|}{\sum}_{i=1}^{|{\mathcal D}_{\mathrm{MD}}|}L_{C E}\left({\hat{y}}_{i},y_{i}\right),}}\\ {{{\mathcal L}_{y}^{\mathrm{BSD}}=\frac{1}{|{\mathcal D}_{\mathrm{BSD}}|}{\sum}_{i=1}^{|{\mathcal D}_{\mathrm{BSD}}|}L_{C E}\left({\hat{y}}_{i},y_{i}\right),}}\end{array}\tag{4}$$ where LCE is a cross-entropy loss function. yˆi and yi are the predicted probability and the ground truth label of the i-th training sample respectively. ## 3.4.3 Gradient Reversal Layer Gradient Reversal Layer (GRL) Qλ is the key point of adversarial learning (Ganin and Lempitsky, 2015). During the forward propagation, GRL works as an identity function. While during the back propagation, it will multiply the gradient by a negative scalar −λ to reverse the gradient. The operations can be formulated as the following pseudo function: $$\begin{array}{c}{{Q_{\lambda}(\mathbf{h})=\mathbf{h},}}\\ {{\frac{\partial Q_{\lambda}(\mathbf{h})}{\partial\mathbf{h}}=-\lambda I,}}\end{array}$$ $$\quad(6)$$ where I is an identity matrix and λ can be computed automatically (see Section 4.3). ## 3.4.4 Global Discriminator Sentence embedding h = Qf (x) first goes through GRL, then global discriminator Q g d tries to predict which task h belongs to. The training objective of Q g d is: $$(1)$$ $${\mathcal{L}}_{d}^{g}=\frac{1}{|{\mathcal{D}}|}\sum_{\mathbf{x}_{i}\in{\mathcal{D}}}L_{C E}\left(Q_{d}^{g}(Q_{f}(\mathbf{x}_{i})),d_{i}\right),\quad(8)$$ $$(2)$$ where D = DMD ∪ DBSD. diis the task label for input xi (d = 0 for MD and d = 1 for BSD). The feature extractor Qf tries to generate similar features to fool global task discriminator Q g d , so that Q g d cannot accurately discern the source task of the input feature. The features that cannot be used to distinguish the source are task-invariant (Liu et al., 2017; Chen and Cardie, 2018). As the model converges, Qf will learn universal representations to align the distributions for MD and BSD. $$({\mathfrak{I}})$$ ## 3.4.5 Local Discriminator We noticed some corresponding patterns between MD and BSD via simple linguistic analysis. As Fig. 2 illustrates. ,difsnc many513.5 $$\begin{array}{l l}{\color{blue}\upbullet}&{\text{Basic}}\\ {\color{red}{\text{nor}}}&{\color{blue}\upbullet}&{\text{Non-basic}}\end{array}$$ .  The samples in MD can be classified as literal or metaphorical, while the samples in BSD can be categorized as basic or non-basic. A basic sense (red samples) must be literal (green samples), so they are clustered closer in the feature space. A metaphor (yellow samples) must be non-basic (blue samples), hence they are closer. Moreover, the metaphorical and the basic are significantly dissimilar, so they lie at different corners in the feature space, far from each other. If we bring the literal and the basic closer, then the dividing line between the metaphorical and the literal will be clearer. If the metaphorical and the non-basic get closer, then BSD will be promoted as well. Better performance of BSD will strengthen knowledge transfer from BSD to MD. Such multi-mode patterns inspire us to apply fine-grained alignment (Pei et al., 2018; Yu et al., 2019). We forcibly push the class 0 samples (literal in MD and basic in BSD) closer, and cluster the class 1 samples (metaphor in MD and non-basic in BSD) closer. Therefore, we use two local discriminators. Each aligns samples from class c ∈ {0, 1}: $${\mathcal{L}}_{d}^{l}=\frac{1}{|{\mathcal{D}}|}\sum_{c=0}^{C}\sum_{\mathbf{x}_{i}\in{\mathcal{D}}}w_{d}L_{C E}(Q_{d}^{l_{c}}(\hat{y}_{i}^{c}Q_{f}(\mathbf{x}_{i})),d_{i}),\tag{9}$$ where diis the task label and C is the number of classes. d = 0 for MD and d = 1 for BSD. wd is a task weight. To maintain the dominance of MD in local alignment, we set w0 = 1 and w1 = 0.3 in all experiments. yˆ c i comes from Eq. 3. The classifier Qy will deliver a normalized label distribution for each sample xi, no matter which task it belongs to. We can view it as an attention mechanism. Qy thinks xi has a probability of yˆ c i to be class c. Then we use the label distribution as attention weights to apply to the sample. In practice, it performs better than hard attention, because more information can be considered. The training of local discriminators is also adversarial. The feature extractor Qf generates taskinvariant features to fool local discriminators Q lc d , so that Q lc d cannot discern which task the features in class c come from. ## 3.4.6 Training Objective The training of AdMul involves multiple objectives. It can be formulated as the loss function below: $$\begin{array}{c}{{\cal L}(\theta_{f},\theta_{d},\theta_{y})=}\\ {{\cal L}_{y}^{\rm MD}+\alpha{\cal L}_{y}^{\rm BSD}-\lambda(\beta{\cal L}_{d}^{g}+\gamma{\cal L}_{d}^{l}),}\end{array}\tag{10}$$ where $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are hyper-parameters to balance the loss magnitudes. θf , θd and θy are parameters of Qf , Qd (all discriminators) and Qy respectively. The optimization of L involves a mini-max game like Generative Adversarial Network (Goodfellow et al., 2014). The feature extractor Qf tries to make the deep features as similar as possible, so that both global and local task discriminators cannot differentiate which task they come from. After the training converges, the parameters ˆθf , ˆθy and ˆθd will deliver a saddle point of Eq. 10: $$\begin{array}{c}{{(\hat{\theta}_{f},\hat{\theta}_{y})=\arg\operatorname*{min}_{\theta_{f},\theta_{y}}{\mathcal{L}}(\theta_{f},\theta_{y},\theta_{d}),}}\\ {{(\hat{\theta}_{d})=\arg\operatorname*{max}_{\theta_{d}}{\mathcal{L}}(\theta_{f},\theta_{y},\theta_{d}).}}\end{array}$$ $$\quad(11)$$ $$(12)$$ At the saddle point, θy will minimize classification loss Ly (combined by L MD yand L BSD y). θd will minimize task discrimination loss Ld (combined by L g d and L l d ). θf will maximize the loss of task discriminators (features are task-invariant, so the task discrimination loss increases). AdMul can be easily trained via standard gradient descent algorithms. We take stochastic gradient descent (SGD) as an example: $$\begin{array}{l}{{\theta_{f}\longleftarrow\theta_{f}-\eta\left(\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}_{y}^{i}}{\partial\theta_{f}}-\lambda\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}_{d}^{i}}{\partial\theta_{f}}\right),}}\\ {{\theta_{y}\longleftarrow\theta_{y}-\eta\left(\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}_{y}^{i}}{\partial\theta_{y}}\right),}}\\ {{\theta_{d}\longleftarrow\theta_{d}-\eta\left(\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}_{d}^{i}}{\partial\theta_{d}}\right),}}\end{array}$$ (13) $$\begin{array}{l}\small\left(14\right)\end{array}$$ = $$\begin{array}{l}\small\left(15\right)\end{array}$$ . , (13) where i denotes the i-th training sample and η is learning rate. The update for θy and θd is the same as SGD. As for θf , if there is no minus sign for ∂Lid ∂θf , then SGD will minimize the task discrimination loss Ld, which means the features generated by Qf are dissimilar across tasks (Ganin and Lempitsky, 2015). ## 4 Experiments 4.1 Datasets Four metaphor detection datasets are used in our experiments. The information is shown in Table 1. VUA All (Steen, 2010) is the largest metaphor detection dataset to date. VUA All labels each word in a sentence. The sentences are from four genres, namely academic, conversation, fiction, and news. VUA Verb (Steen, 2010) is drawn from VUA All dataset. The target words are all verbs. **MOH-X** (Mohammad et al., 2016) is sampled from WordNet, with only verb targets included. WordNet | Dataset | #Sent. | #Tar. | %Met. | Avg. Len | |-------------|----------|---------|---------|------------| | VUA Alltr | 6,323 | 116,622 | 11.19 | 18.4 | | VUA Allval | 1,550 | 38,628 | 11.62 | 24.9 | | VUA Allte | 2,694 | 50,175 | 12.44 | 18.6 | | VUA Verbtr | 7,479 | 15,516 | 27.90 | 20.2 | | VUA Verbval | 1,541 | 1,724 | 26.91 | 25.0 | | VUA Verbte | 2,694 | 5,873 | 29.98 | 18.6 | | MOH-X | 647 | 647 | 48.69 | 8.0 | | TroFi | 3,737 | 3,737 | 43.54 | 28.3 | creates a sense inventory for each verb, of which some may have metaphorical senses. **TroFi** (Birke and Sarkar, 2006, 2007) is a dataset collected from 1987-1989 Wall Street Journal Corpus via an unsupervised method. TroFi only has verb targets as well. We use a word sense disambiguation (WSD) toolkit (Raganato et al., 2017) to create the basic sense discrimination (BSD) dataset. The toolkit provides SemCor (Miller et al., 1994), the largest manually annotated dataset for WSD. We filter out the targets that have less than 3 senses to balance the magnitudes of WSD and MD datasets. The information of BSD dataset is shown in Table 2. | Dataset | #Sent. | #Tar. | %Basic | Avg. Len | |-----------|----------|---------|----------|------------| | SemCorBSD | 34,479 | 130,808 | 60.83 | 22.34 | Table 2: BSD Dataset information. **%Basic**: Proportion of basic senses. ## 4.2 Compared Methods RNN_ELMo and **RNN_BERT** (Gao et al., 2018) are two end-to-end models use both GloVe and ELMo embeddings. RNN_HG and **RNN_MHCA** (Mao et al., 2019) are based on RNN. Both models regard the static GloVe embedding as literal, and dynamic ELMo embedding can present metaphorical senses. RNN_HG and RNN_MHCA also utilize linguistic rules. MUL_GCN (Le et al., 2020) uses multi-task learning to transfer knowledge from WSD to MD. However, it does not use shared layers. The knowledge transfer is accomplished via a loss term. MUL_GCN also leverages dependency relations. DeepMet (Su et al., 2020) is the winning method in the 2020 VUA and TOEFL Metaphor Detection Shared Task (Leong et al., 2020). DeepMet is built upon BERT, with various external resources like fine-grained part of speech tags utilized. MelBERT (Choi et al., 2021) is designed upon RoBERTa. It uses a late-interaction mechanism to encode the literal meaning and the contextual meaning of a target respectively. MelBERT also leverages part of speech information. MrBERT (Song et al., 2021) uses relation classification paradigm to detect metaphors. It embeds dependency relations into input to fine-tune pre-trained BERT, with various relation models applied. MisNet (Zhang and Liu, 2022) is a linguisticsdriven model. Two linguistic rules, namely Metaphor Identification Procedure and Selectional Preference Violation (Wilks, 1975, 1978) guide the model design. MisNet regards MD as semantic matching, with dictionary resources leveraged. ## 4.3 Implementation Details We use DeBERTa*base* as the backbone (feature extractor Qf in Fig. 1) for all experiments (He et al., 2021), through the APIs provided by HuggingFace (Wolf et al., 2020). The embedding dimension is 768. We set the maximum input sequence length as 150. The optimizer is AdamW (Peters et al., 2019). We let α = 0.2, β = 0.1, and γ = 0.1 according to the model performance on VUA Verb, and apply them to the rest datasets. The total training epoch, batch size, and learning rate are specific for each dataset, as Table 3 shows. | Dataset | Epochs | Batch Size | LR | |-----------|----------|--------------|------| | VUA All | 8 | 64 | 3e-5 | | VUA Verb | 5 | 64 | 3e-5 | | MOH-X | 5 | 32 | 2e-5 | | TroFI | 10 | 64 | 1e-5 | Table 3: Hyper-parameters. LR stands for learning rate. Instead of using a fixed constant, the parameter λ in GRL (Eq. 7) is set by λ =m 1+exp(−10p) − n, where m = 1.4 and n = 0.6. p = t T , where t and T are the current training step and the maximum training step respectively. λ is increasing from 0.1 to 0.8 in our case. Such a method stabilizes the training (Ganin and Lempitsky, 2015). At the beginning of the training, λ should be small so that the generated feature is not too hard for task discrimination. With training going on, adversarial Model VUA All VUA Verb MOH-X (10 fold) **TroFi (10 fold)** Pre. Rec. F1 Acc. Pre. Rec. F1 Acc. Pre. Rec. F1 Acc. Pre. Rec. F1 Acc. RNN_ELMo 71.6 73.6 72.6 93.1 68.2 71.3 69.7 81.4 79.1 73.5 75.6 77.2 70.1 71.6 71.1 74.6 RNN_BERT 71.5 71.9 71.7 92.9 66.7 71.5 69.0 80.7 75.1 81.8 78.2 78.1 70.3 67.1 68.7 73.4 RNN_HG 71.8 76.3 74.0 93.6 69.3 72.3 70.8 82.1 79.7 79.8 79.8 79.7 67.4 *77.8* 72.2 74.9 RNN_MHCA 73.0 75.7 74.3 93.8 66.3 *75.2* 70.5 81.8 77.5 83.1 80.0 79.8 68.6 76.8 72.4 75.2 MUL_GCN 74.8 75.5 75.1 93.8 72.5 70.9 71.7 83.2 79.7 80.5 79.6 79.9 **73.1** 73.6 73.2 *76.4* DeepMet *82.0* 71.3 76.3 - *79.5* 70.8 74.9 - - - - - - - - - MelBERT 80.1 76.9 78.5 - 78.7 72.9 75.7 - - - - - - - - - MrBERT **82.7** 72.5 77.2 *94.7* **80.8** 71.5 75.9 *86.4* 80.0 *85.1* 82.1 81.9 70.4 74.3 72.2 75.1 MisNet 80.4 *78.4* **79.4 94.9** 78.3 73.6 *75.9* 86.0 *84.2* 84.0 83.4 *83.6* 67.5 77.6 71.9 73.6 AdMul 78.4 **79.5** 79.0 *94.7* 78.5 78.1 78.3 87.0 **87.4 88.8 87.9 88.0** *70.5* **79.8 74.7 76.5** Table 4: MD Results on VUA All, VUA Verb, MOH-X, and TroFi. The first four baseline models are end-to-end. The best performance for each metric in **bold**, and the second best in *italic underlined*. Model Verb Adjective Adverb **Noun** Pre. Rec. F1 Acc. Pre. Rec. F1 Acc. Pre. Rec. F1 Acc. Pre. Rec. F1 Acc. RNN_ELMo 68.1 71.9 69.9 - 56.1 60.6 58.3 - 67.2 53.7 59.7 94.8 59.9 60.8 60.4 - RNN_BERT 67.1 72.1 69.5 87.9 58.1 51.6 54.7 88.3 64.8 61.1 62.9 94.8 63.3 56.8 59.9 88.6 RNN_HG 66.4 75.5 70.7 *88.0* 59.2 *65.6* 62.2 89.1 61.0 66.8 63.8 94.5 60.3 66.8 63.4 88.4 RNN_MHCA 66.0 76.0 70.7 87.9 61.4 61.7 61.6 89.5 66.1 60.7 63.2 *94.9* 69.1 58.2 63.2 89.8 DeepMet **78.8** 68.5 73.3 - **79.0** 52.9 63.3 - *79.4* 66.4 72.3 - *76.5* 57.1 65.4 - MelBERT 74.2 75.9 *75.1* - 69.4 60.1 64.4 - **80.2** 69.7 **74.6** - 75.4 66.5 *70.7* - MisNet 77.5 *77.7* **77.6 91.4** 68.8 65.2 67.0 *91.2* 76.4 *70.5* 73.3 **96.3** 74.4 *67.2* 70.6 *91.6* AdMul 77.2 **78.1 77.6 91.4** *72.4* **66.9 69.5 92.0** 76.3 **71.3** *73.7* 96.3 **77.0 70.3 73.5 92.4** training can be strengthened for better knowledge transfer. We choose the best model on the validation set for testing. Since MOH-X and TroFi do not have the training, validation, and testing split, we leverage 10-fold cross-validation. In each iteration, we pack MD and BSD samples into a mini-batch input. They have the same amount (half of the batch size). All experiments are done on an RTX 3090 GPU and CUDA 11.6. ## 5 Metaphor Detection Results 5.1 Overall Results To be consistent with previous studies (Mao et al., 2018; Choi et al., 2021; Zhang and Liu, 2022), we mainly focus on the F1 score. As Table 4 shows, our proposed AdMul obtains great improvements compared with the baseline models. Best scores are reported on 3 out of 4 datasets, including VUA Verb, MOH-X, and TroFi. We attain a comparable result to the state-of-the-art model on VUA All as well. The average F1 score across 4 datasets is 79.98, which is 2.33 points higher than MisNet (77.65 on average). We notice that AdMul performs better on small datasets (VUA Verb, MOH- X, and TroFi) than the large dataset (VUA All). We attribute it to different dataset sizes. Deep learning models need numerous data to achieve good performance, so MTL can help. The knowledge distilled from BSD can greatly promote MD, especially when faced with severe data scarcity problems. MTL also works as a regularization method to avoid overfitting via learning task-invariant features (Liu et al., 2019a). However, VUA All is a large dataset, so there may be a marginal utility for more data from a related task. VUA All requires predictions for each word class as well, while BSD only has open class (i.e., verb, noun, adjective, and adverb) words. Consequently, the rest word class targets cannot get enough transferred knowledge. The most significant enhancement is from MOHX. BSD dataset and MOH-X are both built upon WordNet, so the data distributions can be very similar. In such a case, AdMul can easily align globally, and pay more attention to local alignment. The improvement from TroFi is barely satisfactory. TroFi is built via an unsupervised method, therefore it may contain many noises. Many baseline models perform mediocrely on TroFi as observed. MUL_GCN is the only chosen baseline method in our experiments. MUL_GCN used an L2 loss term to force the encoder of MD and the encoder of WSD to generate similar deep features for both MD and WSD data. However, MUL_GCN only leveraged the features at the output layer, without using parameter-sharing strategy. Thus MUL_GCN did not allow latent interaction between different data distributions, and that is why our method performs better. ## 5.2 Vua All Breakdown Results Table 5 shows a breakdown analysis of VUA All dataset. The most important part of MD is the model performance on open class words. As we can see, AdMul achieves the best F1 scores on 3 out of 4 word classes, and acquires a result similar to MelBERT on adverbs. The biggest gains are reported on nouns, with 2.8 absolute F1 score improvements against the strongest baseline MelBERT. The enhancement in adjectives is also encouraging (2.5 absolute improvements against MisNet). Though AdMul performs slightly less well than MisNet on VUA All, AdMul obtains better results on open class words. As we mentioned before, WordNet only has annotated knowledge for open class words, which demonstrates that AdMul can get benefits from MTL. ## 5.3 Vua All Genres The sentences of VUA All dataset originate from four genres, namely academic, conversation, fiction, and news. The performance of our proposed AdMuL on the four genres is shown in Table 6.  | Genre | Pre. | Rec. | F1 | Acc. | |----------|--------|--------|------|--------| | Academic | 83.9 | 83.5 | 83.7 | 94.4 | Table 6: Performance of four genres in VUA All. The performance of conversation is inferior to the others. Conversations have more closed word classes (e.g., conjunctions, interjections, prepositions, etc.). The performance on academic is the best, since it has more open class words, which are adequate in WordNet. VUA All dataset annotates metaphoricity for closed word classes as well. However, these cases may be confusing. e.g. She checks her appearance in *a mirror.* The preposition in in the above sentence is tagged as metaphorical. However, it is quite tricky even for humans to notice the metaphorical sense. As Table 7 shows, there are lots of words in closed classes, but our proposed AdMuL cannot get transferred knowledge from auxiliary task BSD.  VERB 20,917 7,152 9,872 NOUN 20,514 6,859 8,588 ADJ 9,673 3,213 3,965 ADV 6,973 2,229 3,393 | POS | Train | Val | Test | |-------|---------|-------|--------| | VERB | 20,917 | 7,152 | 9,872 | | NOUN | 20,514 | 6,859 | 8,588 | | ADJ | 9,673 | 3,213 | 3,965 | | ADV | 6,973 | 2,229 | 3,393 | | PART | 2,966 | 1,137 | 1,463 | | PRON | 6,942 | 2,230 | 3,955 | | ADP | 13,310 | 4,556 | 5,300 | | DET | 10,807 | 3,541 | 4,118 | | CCONJ | 3,645 | 1,369 | 1,581 | | INTJ | 734 | 159 | 398 | PART 2,966 1,137 1,463 PRON 6,942 2,230 3,955 ADP 13,310 4,556 5,300 DET 10,807 3,541 4,118 CCONJ 3,645 1,369 1,581 INTJ 734 159 398 ## 5.4 Zero-Shot Transfer We use AdMul trained on VUA All to conduct zero-shot transfer on two small datasets, i.e., MOHX and TroFi. The results are shown in Table 8. Though the performance on VUA All is inferior to MisNet, AdMul has a stronger generalization ability, defeating the baseline models in all metrics across two datasets. It is worth mentioning that DeepMet and MelBERT are trained on an expanded version of VUA All (Choi et al., 2021), so they have more data than us. Our zero-shot performance on MOH-X is even better than fine-tuned MisNet, the previous state-of-the-art method (see Table 4). ## 5.5 Ablation Study | Model | MOH-X (Zero-shot) | TroFi (Zero-shot) | | | | | | | |---------|---------------------|---------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | Pre. | Rec. | F1 | Acc. | Pre. | Rec. | F1 | Acc. | | | DeepMet | 79.9 | 76.5 | 77.9 | - | 53.7 | 72.9 | 61.7 | - | | MelBERT | 79.3 | 79.7 | 79.2 | - | 53.4 | 74.1 | 62.0 | - | | MrBERT | 75.9 | 84.1 | 79.8 | 79.3 | 53.8 | 75.0 | 62.7 | 61.1 | | MisNet | 77.8 | 84.4 | 81.0 | 80.7 | 53.8 | 76.2 | 63.1 | 61.2 | | AdMul | 82.3 | 85.4 | 83.8 | 83.9 | 55.7 | 77.1 | 64.7 | 63.3 | We carried out ablation experiments to prove the effectiveness of each module, as Table 9 shows. We removed global discriminator Q g d , local discriminators Q lc d , and adversarial training (no discriminators used) respectively. Each setting hurts the performance of the MTL framework. It demonstrates that we cannot naively apply MTL to combine MD and BSD. Instead, we should carefully deal with the alignment patterns globally and locally for better knowledge transfer. In addition, we tested DeBERTa*base*, a model trained only on MD dataset. DeBERTa*base* takes the target word and its context as input, thus it can be viewed as a realization of MIP. The performance of DeBERTa*base* is mediocre, which indicates that the progress of AdMul is not only due to the large pre-trained language model, but closely related to our adversarial multi-task learning framework. | Model | Pre. | Rec. | F1 | Acc. | |------------------|--------|--------|------|--------| | AdMul | 78.5 | 78.1 | 78.3 | 87.0 | | w/o global disc. | 75.0 | 77.3 | 76.2 | 85.5 | | w/o local disc. | 71.9 | 80.5 | 76.0 | 84.7 | | w/o adv. | 79.3 | 73.0 | 76.0 | 86.2 | | DeBERTabase | 78.2 | 71.3 | 74.6 | 85.4 | ## 5.6 Hyper-Parameter Discussion In Eq. 10, there are three hyper-parameters, i.e., α, β, and γ that balance the loss of BSD, global alignment loss, and local alignment loss respectively. Here we conduct experiments on VUA Verb dataset to see the impacts of different loss weight values. We tune each weight with the rest fixed. The results are shown in Fig. 3. If α is too small, then the model cannot get enough transferred knowledge from BSD. On the contrary, if α is too large, then BSD will dominate the training, leading to poorer performance of MD. Two adversarial weights β and γ share the same pattern. If they are too small, then the data distributions cannot be aligned well globally or locally, resulting in inadequate knowledge transfer. On the contrary, if they are too big, distribution alignment will dominate the training. It is worth mentioning that the training is quite sensitive to γ, because our local alignment is based on a linguistic hypothesis. We should not pay much attention to local alignment, or it will disrupt the correct semantic space, leading to bad results. ## 5.7 Hyper-Parameter Search In this paper, the hyper-parameters are BSD loss weight α, global alignment loss weight β, local alignment loss weight γ, learning rate η, batch size, and total training epoch. We tune each hyper-parameter with the rest fixed. α, β, and γ are searched from 0.05 to 0.5, with an interval of 0.05. η is searched  in [1e − 5, 2e − 5, 3e − 5, 4e − 5, 5e − 5]. The batch size is selected from [16, 32, 64]. The total training epoch is selected from [5, 8, 10]. The best hyper-parameters are described in Section 4.3. As mentioned before, we tune all hyper-parameters on VUA Verb dataset, and apply them to the rest datasets, except η, batch size, and the total training epoch. ## 6 Conclusion In this paper, we proposed AdMul, an adversarial multi-task learning framework for end-to-end metaphor detection. AdMul uses a new task, basic sense discrimination to promote MD, achieving promising results on several datasets. The zero-shot results even surpass the previous fine-tuned stateof-the-art method. The ablation study demonstrates that the strong ability of AdMul comes not only from the pre-trained language model, but also from our adversarial multi-task learning framework. ## Acknowledgement This work is supported by 2018 National Major Program of Philosophy and Social Science Fund (18ZDA238), and Tsinghua University Initiative Scientific Research Program (2019THZWJC38). ## Limitations Though we simply assume that the most commonly used lexical sense is a more basic sense and such an assumption fits most cases, it may not be accurate all the time. Take the verb *dream* as an example. The most commonly used sense of *dream* according to WordNet is "have a daydream; indulge in a fantasy", which is metaphorical and non-basic. While it has another literal and basic sense, meaning "experience while sleeping". We are expecting a more fine-grained annotation system to clarify the evolution of different senses: which sense is basic and how other senses are derived. Such a system will benefit both metaphor detection and linguistic ontology studies. Due to computing convenience, our model cannot handle long texts. An indirect metaphor needs to be determined across several sentences. Such a case is beyond our capabilities (Zhang and Liu, 2022). We will also leave it as a future work. ## Ethics Statement Our proposed AdMul aims to detect metaphors in English, and the method can also be applied to other languages or multi-lingual cases. Though our manual observations did not show that there were biased metaphor detection cases for AdMul, there may still exist biases from the pre-trained language model. We use DeBERTa*base* in all experiments, which is pre-trained on a variety of datasets, including Wikipedia, BookCorpus3, and CommonCrawl, etc(He et al., 2021). The total pre-training data size is about 78GB. Since AdMul needs to fine-tune DeBERTa*base*, AdMul may inherit poisonous languages from the pre-trained language model, like hate speech, gender bias, stereotypes, etc. ## References Edoardo Barba, Luigi Procopio, and Roberto Navigli. 2021. ConSeC: Word sense disambiguation as continuous sense comprehension. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1492–1503, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Beata Beigman Klebanov, Chee Wee (Ben) Leong, and Michael Flor. 2018. A corpus of non-native written English annotated for metaphor. 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 86–91, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. Julia Birke and Anoop Sarkar. 2006. A clustering approach for nearly unsupervised recognition of nonliteral language. In 11th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 329–336, Trento, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Julia Birke and Anoop Sarkar. 2007. Active learning for the identification of nonliteral language. In *Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Approaches* 3https://github.com/butsugiri/homemade_bookcorpus to Figurative Language, pages 21–28, Rochester, New York. Association for Computational Linguistics. Erik Cambria, Soujanya Poria, Alexander Gelbukh, and Mike Thelwall. 2017. Sentiment analysis is a big suitcase. *IEEE Intelligent Systems*, 32(6):74–80. Xilun Chen and Claire Cardie. 2018. Multinomial adversarial networks for multi-domain text classification. 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 1226–1240, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. Minjin Choi, Sunkyung Lee, Eunseong Choi, Heesoo Park, Junhyuk Lee, Dongwon Lee, and Jongwuk Lee. 2021. MelBERT: Metaphor detection via contextualized late interaction using metaphorical identification theories. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of* the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1763–1773, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Kevin Clark, Minh-Thang Luong, Urvashi Khandelwal, Christopher D. Manning, and Quoc V. Le. 2019. BAM! born-again multi-task networks for natural language understanding. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5931–5937, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Peter Crisp, Raymond Gibbs, Alice Deignan, Graham Low, Gerard Steen, Lynne Cameron, Elena Semino, Joe Grady, Alan Cienki, Zoltan Kövecses, et al. 2007. Mip: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. *Metaphor and Symbol*, 22(1):1– 39. Verna Dankers, Marek Rei, Martha Lewis, and Ekaterina Shutova. 2019. Modelling the interplay of metaphor and emotion through multitask learning. 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 2218– 2229, Hong Kong, China. 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. Erik-Lân Do Dinh, Hannah Wieland, and Iryna Gurevych. 2018. Weeding out conventionalized metaphors: A corpus of novel metaphor annotations. In *Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 1412–1424, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Daxiang Dong, Hua Wu, Wei He, Dianhai Yu, and Haifeng Wang. 2015. Multi-task learning for multiple language translation. 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 1723–1732, Beijing, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. Christiane Fellbaum. 1998. WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. The MIT Press. Yaroslav Ganin and Victor Lempitsky. 2015. Unsupervised domain adaptation by backpropagation. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 37 of *Proceedings of* Machine Learning Research, pages 1180–1189, Lille, France. PMLR. Ge Gao, Eunsol Choi, Yejin Choi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. Neural metaphor detection in context. In *Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 607–613, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ian J. Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. Generative adversarial networks. Pragglejaz Group. 2007. Mip: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. *Metaphor* and symbol, 22(1):1–39. Pengcheng He, Jianfeng Gao, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. Debertav3: Improving deberta using electra-style pretraining with gradient-disentangled embedding sharing. George Lakoff and Mark Johnson. 2008. Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago press. Duong Le, My Thai, and Thien Nguyen. 2020. Multitask learning for metaphor detection with graph convolutional neural networks and word sense disambiguation. *Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on* Artificial Intelligence, 34(05):8139–8146. Chee Wee (Ben) Leong, Beata Beigman Klebanov, Chris Hamill, Egon Stemle, Rutuja Ubale, and Xianyang Chen. 2020. A report on the 2020 VUA and TOEFL metaphor detection shared task. In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Figurative Language Processing, pages 18–29, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Chee Wee (Ben) Leong, Beata Beigman Klebanov, and Ekaterina Shutova. 2018. A report on the 2018 VUA metaphor detection shared task. In *Proceedings of* the Workshop on Figurative Language Processing, pages 56–66, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. Bin Liang, Rongdi Yin, Lin Gui, Jiachen Du, Yulan He, and Ruifeng Xu. 2020. Aspect-invariant sentiment features learning: Adversarial multi-task learning for aspect-based sentiment analysis. In *Proceedings of* the 29th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management, CIKM '20, page 825–834, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. Zhenxi Lin, Qianli Ma, Jiangyue Yan, and Jieyu Chen. 2021. CATE: A contrastive pre-trained model for metaphor detection with semi-supervised learning. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 3888–3898, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Pengfei Liu, Xipeng Qiu, and Xuanjing Huang. 2017. Adversarial multi-task learning for text classification. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1–10, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xiaodong Liu, Pengcheng He, Weizhu Chen, and Jianfeng Gao. 2019a. Multi-task deep neural networks for natural language understanding. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4487–4496, Florence, Italy. 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. Rui Mao, Chenghua Lin, and Frank Guerin. 2018. Word embedding and WordNet based metaphor identification and interpretation. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1222– 1231, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. Rui Mao, Chenghua Lin, and Frank Guerin. 2019. Endto-end sequential metaphor identification inspired by linguistic theories. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3888–3898, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. George A. Miller. 1995. Wordnet: A lexical database for english. *Commun. ACM*, 38(11):39–41. George A. Miller, Martin Chodorow, Shari Landes, Claudia Leacock, and Robert G. Thomas. 1994. Using a semantic concordance for sense identification. In Human Language Technology: Proceedings of a Workshop held at Plainsboro, New Jersey, March 8-11, 1994. Saif Mohammad, Ekaterina Shutova, and Peter Turney. 2016. Metaphor as a medium for emotion: An empirical study. In *Proceedings of the Fifth Joint* Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, pages 23–33, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics. Kosuke Nishida, Kyosuke Nishida, Masaaki Nagata, Atsushi Otsuka, Itsumi Saito, Hisako Asano, and Junji Tomita. 2019. Answering while summarizing: Multi-task learning for multi-hop QA with evidence extraction. In *Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 2335–2345, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Zhongyi Pei, Zhangjie Cao, Mingsheng Long, and Jianmin Wang. 2018. Multi-adversarial domain adaptation. *Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence*, 32(1). Matthew E. Peters, Sebastian Ruder, and Noah A. Smith. 2019. To tune or not to tune? adapting pretrained representations to diverse tasks. In Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Representation Learning for NLP (RepL4NLP-2019), pages 7–14, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alessandro Raganato, Jose Camacho-Collados, and Roberto Navigli. 2017. Word sense disambiguation: A unified evaluation framework and empirical comparison. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Volume 1, Long Papers, pages 99–110, Valencia, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ekaterina Shutova and Lin Sun. 2013. Unsupervised metaphor identification using hierarchical graph factorization clustering. In *Proceedings of the 2013 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies*, pages 978–988, Atlanta, Georgia. Association for Computational Linguistics. Wei Song, Shuhui Zhou, Ruiji Fu, Ting Liu, and Lizhen Liu. 2021. Verb metaphor detection via contextual relation learning. 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 4240–4251, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Gerard Steen. 2010. A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU, volume 14. John Benjamins Publishing. Chang Su, Kechun Wu, and Yijiang Chen. 2021. Enhanced metaphor detection via incorporation of external knowledge based on linguistic theories. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 1280–1287, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Chuandong Su, Fumiyo Fukumoto, Xiaoxi Huang, Jiyi Li, Rongbo Wang, and Zhiqun Chen. 2020. DeepMet: A reading comprehension paradigm for token-level metaphor detection. In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Figurative Language Processing, pages 30–39, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yulia Tsvetkov, Leonid Boytsov, Anatole Gershman, Eric Nyberg, and Chris Dyer. 2014. Metaphor detection with cross-lingual model transfer. In *Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association* for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 248–258, Baltimore, Maryland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Ł ukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, volume 30. Curran Associates, Inc. Mingyu Wan, Kathleen Ahrens, Emmanuele Chersoni, Menghan Jiang, Qi Su, Rong Xiang, and Chu-Ren Huang. 2020. Using conceptual norms for metaphor detection. In *Proceedings of the Second Workshop* on Figurative Language Processing, pages 104–109, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yorick Wilks. 1975. A preferential, pattern-seeking, semantics for natural language inference. Artificial intelligence, 6(1):53–74. Yorick Wilks. 1978. Making preferences more active. Artificial intelligence, 11(3):197–223. Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, 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. Chuhan Wu, Fangzhao Wu, Yubo Chen, Sixing Wu, Zhigang Yuan, and Yongfeng Huang. 2018. Neural metaphor detecting with CNN-LSTM model. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Figurative Language Processing, pages 110–114, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. Chaohui Yu, Jindong Wang, Yiqiang Chen, and Meiyu Huang. 2019. Transfer learning with dynamic adversarial adaptation network. In *2019 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM)*, pages 778–786. Shenglong Zhang and Ying Liu. 2022. Metaphor detection via linguistics enhanced Siamese network. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 4149–4159, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? We have discussed the limitations in Section Limitations. ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? We believe that our work is only for metaphor detection and linguistic study, so there will not be potential risks. However, we discussed the underlying poisonous languages from the pre-trained language model that we used in Section Ethics Statement. ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? We have summarized the main claims in Abstract and Introduction. ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? We did not use any AI writing assistants. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** We used public datasets for our experiments, and open-source libraries for implementation. Please see Section 4.1 Dataset and 4.3 Implementation Details. ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? We have cited the datasets and open-source software in Section 4.1 Dataset and 4.3 Implementation Details. ✗ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? MOH-X dataset did not clearly tell the license. TroFi dataset is under GPL policy. VUA All and VUA Verb datasets are under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Huggingface Transformers is under the Apache-2.0 license. DeBERTa is under the MIT license. We use these artifacts for research purposes, which is permitted by the terms of all artifacts. ✗ 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 the artifacts for research purposes, which is permitted by their terms. 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. The datasets we used in this work are widely used, but we cannot trace how they deal with ethical problems. However, we cannot make changes to the datasets to maintain fair comparisons with the baseline methods. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? We only have a brief introduction to the used artifacts in Section 4.1 Datasets. We cited the artifacts, and the original websites or information can be easily found. ✓ 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 The Responsible NLP Checklist used at ACL 2023 is adopted from NAACL 2022, with the addition of a *question on AI writing* assistance. be significant, while on small test sets they may not be. We have statistical information for the used datasets in Section 4.1 Datasets, including the number of examples, details of the dataset split, and how they were collected. ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** The experiments are shown in 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? The parameters and computing device are reported in Section 4.3 Implementation Details. All experiments are completed on a single RTX 3090 GPU. The training time on VUA All, VUA Verb, MOH-X, and TroFi are about 3.5h, 18m, 10m, and 70m respectively. ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? The information is discussed in Section 4.3 Implementation Details and Appendix A.2 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? Experimental statistics can be seen in Section 5. The computing method is also clarified in Section 4.3 Implementation Details. ✗ 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.)? Our method is end-to-end, so we did not use any existing packages. ## 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.

adebara-etal-2023-serengeti

{SERENGETI}: Massively Multilingual Language Models for {A}frica

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.97

Multilingual pretrained language models (mPLMs) acquire valuable, generalizable linguistic information during pretraining and have advanced the state of the art on task-specific finetuning. To date, only {\textasciitilde}31 out of {\textasciitilde}2,000 African languages are covered in existing language models. We ameliorate this limitation by developing SERENGETI, a set of massively multilingual language model that covers 517 African languages and language varieties. We evaluate our novel models on eight natural language understanding tasks across 20 datasets, comparing to 4 mPLMs that cover 4-23 African languages. SERENGETI outperforms other models on 11 datasets across the eights tasks, achieving 82.27 average F{\_}1. We also perform analyses of errors from our models, which allows us to investigate the influence of language genealogy and linguistic similarity when the models are applied under zero-shot settings. We will publicly release our models for research. Anonymous link

## Serengeti: Massively Multilingual Language Models For Africa Ife Adebara1,⋆ AbdelRahim Elmadany1,⋆ Muhammad Abdul-Mageed1,2 **Alcides Alcoba**1 1Deep Learning & Natural Language Processing Group, The University of British Columbia 2Department of Natural Language Processing & Department of Machine Learning, MBZUAI {ife.adebara@,a.elmadany@,muhammad.mageed@,alcobaaj@mail.}ubc.ca ## Abstract  Multilingual pretrained language models (mPLMs) acquire valuable, generalizable linguistic information during pretraining and have advanced the state of the art on task-specific finetuning. To date, only ∼ 31 out of ∼ 2, 000 African languages are covered in existing language models. We ameliorate this limitation by developing SERENGETI, a massively multilingual language model that covers 517 African languages and language varieties. We evaluate our novel models on eight natural language understanding tasks across 20 datasets, comparing to 4 mPLMs that cover 4 − 23 African languages. SERENGETI outperforms other models on 11 datasets across the eights tasks, achieving 82.27 average F1. We also perform analyses of errors from our models, which allows us to investigate the influence of language genealogy and linguistic similarity when the models are applied under zero-shot settings. We will publicly release our models for research.1 ## 1 **Introduction** Pretraining NLP models with a language modeling objective has gained popularity as a precursor to task-specific finetuning (Ettinger, 2020). Pretrained models like BERT (Devlin et al., 2019), ELMo (Peters et al., 2018), Roberta (Liu et al., 2019), GPT (Radford et al., 2018, 2019; Brown et al., 2020a), and BART (Lewis et al., 2020) have advanced the state of the art in a wide variety of tasks, demonstrating how these models acquire valuable, generalizable linguistic information during the pretraining process. However, training language-specific models is possible for only a few languages which have large amounts of data. A popular alternative has been pretrained multilingual language models (mPLM) such as mBERT (Devlin 1https://github.com/UBC-NLP/serengeti ⋆ Authors contributed equally. et al., 2019) and XML-R (Conneau et al., 2020). mPLMs are trained on large amounts of unlabelled data from multiple languages so that low resource languages may benefit from shared vocabulary and other linguistic information from high-resource and similar languages in the model. The vast majority of the world's ∼ 7, 000 languages today remain uncovered by mPLMs, however. African languages are no exception. Although there are few mPLMs that support a small number of African languages (Devlin et al., 2019; Ogueji et al., 2021; Nzeyimana and Niyongabo Rubungo, 2022; Alabi et al., 2022a; Jude Ogundepo et al., 2022; Conneau et al., 2020), these cover only a total of 31 languages. This is grossly inadequate considering that Africa is believed to be home to ∼ 2, 000 languages (Eberhard et al., 2021). Each of these languages encapsulates unique features that are essential in preserving linguistic diversity. The same way every species embodies essential value to the natural ecosystem, each language plays a crucial role in the linguistic ecosystem. That is, each language encodes knowledge about people, their traditions, wisdom, and environment, as well as how it is that they interact with the sum of the concepts in their own culture (Adebara and AbdulMageed, 2022). This in turn allows people and communities to preserve and transmit their knowledge, values, unique modes of thinking, meaning and expression, history, culture, traditions, and memory to next generations, while participating in society and constructing their future (UNESCO 66260, 2022). Language technology plays an important role in building inclusive knowledge societies, providing access to education and information, supporting freedom of expression, cultural and linguistic diversity, and further stimulating innovation. This technology thus has great impact on multiple domains, including education, government, health, recreation, among others. This motivates adequate representation of African languages in the ongoing technological revolution. This is also likely to connect Africa to the rest of the world. Building technologies for African languages may also aid languages that may be at risk of falling into a state of disuse at an alarming rate, thus hopefully preventing subsequent language death that may become inevitable (Adebara and Abdul-Mageed, 2022). Developing LMs that represent a large number of African languages is therefore very crucial for achieving progress in Afrocentric NLP (Adebara and Abdul-Mageed, 2022) and indeed in addressing issues related to representation bias in artificial intelligence and linguistic diversity - two research themes of international relevance (Bender et al., 2021). Motivated by this call for Afrocentric NLP, we introduce **SERENGETI**. SERENGETI is a massively multilingual language model exploiting a large manually-curated dataset for 517 African languages and language varieties. These languages belong to 14 *language families* and are written in 5 different *scripts*. In addition to these African languages, SERENGETI is also pretrained on the top 10 most spoken languages globally. We also introduce **AfroNLU**, an extensive benchmark exploiting 20 *different datasets* across 28 *different languages and language varieties* for various NLP tasks. For even richer evaluation, we also apply our models to an African language identification task covering all the 517 languages in our pretraining. To the best of our knowledge, AfroNLU is the most extensive and *inclusive* evaluation benchmark proposed to date for African NLP. Our contributions in this work are as follows: (1) we collect a large dataset of 517 African languages and language varieties and exploit it to develop SERENGETI. (2) we propose AfroNLU, a new extensive benchmark for African NLU that has the widest and most inclusive coverage for African NLP today. (3) we benchmark SERENGETI on AfroNLU and show through meaningful comparisons how our model excels and acquire new SOTA. (4) we offer a linguistically motivated analysis of model performance substantiated in language genealogy, allowing us for the first time to derive insights across the widest range of African languages in the African NLP literature to date. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: In Section 2 we discuss related work. We describe genealogical information in Section 3. Next, we give a detailed description of SERENGETI in Section 4. In Section 5 we describe AfroNLU, the benchmark we create. We present performance of SERENGETI in Section 6 and compare it to other mPLMs. We conclude in Section 7, and outline a number of limitations and use cases for our work in Section 8 and Section 9. ## 2 **Related Work** Afrocentric NLP. An *Afrocentric* approach to technology development is crucial for African languages. An afrocentric approach will mean that what technologies to build and how to build, evaluate, and deploy them arises from the needs of local African communities (Adebara and Abdul-Mageed, 2022). We provide more details in Section B in the Appendix. African Language Models. Here, we briefly describe language models covering any number of African languages. Since we develop encoder-only models in this work, we will restrict our discussion to this category of models. We provide information about the African languages covered by these models in Table 1. AfriBERTa (Ogueji et al., 2021) is trained using a Transformer with the standard masked language modelling objective and covers 11 African languages. The pretraining corpus for this model is small (only 108.8 million tokens), when compared to many other models. *AfroLM* (Dossou et al., 2022) supports 23 African languages, the largest number of African languages before SERENGETI. It is trained on a multi-domain dataset | Language Model | African languages represented | |------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | MBERT | Afrikaans, Malagasy, Swahili, Yoruba | | XLM-R | Afrikaans, Amharic, Hausa, Oromo, Somali, Swahili, Xhosa. | | KinyarBERT | Kinyarwanda | | AfriBERTA | Afaan Oromoo, Amharic, Gahuza, Hausa, Igbo, Nigerian Pidgin, Somali, Swahili, Tigrinya and Yoruba | | Afro-XLMR | Afrikaans, Amharic, Hausa, Igbo, Malagasy, Chichewa, Oromo, Nigerian Pidgin, Kinyarwanda, Kirundi, Shona, Somali, Sesotho, Swahili, isiXhosa, Yoruba, and isiZulu | | AfroLM | Amharic, Afaan Oromoo, Bambara, Ghomala, Ewe, Fon, Hausa, Igbo, Kinyarwanda, Lingala, Luganada, Luo, Moore, Chewa, Nigerian Pidgin, Shona, Swahili, Setswana, Akan Twi, Wolof, Xhosa, Yoruba, IsiZulu | | SERENGETI | Includes 517 African languages. | from various sources (Adelani et al., 2022a; Alabi et al., 2022b; Jude Ogundepo et al., 2022; Niyongabo et al., 2020). It uses a self-active learning framework and achieves SOTA on NER, sentiment analysis, and text classification. *Afro-XLMR* (Alabi et al., 2022a) uses language adaptation on the 17 most-resourced African languages and three other high-resource foreign languages widely used in Africa (i.e., English, French, and Arabic) simultaneously to provide a single model for crosslingual transfer learning. Authors show that AfroXLM-R has competitive results with AfriBERTa and XLM-R on NER, topic classification, and news classification. *KINYaBERT* (Nzeyimana and Niyongabo Rubungo, 2022) uses a two-tier BERT architecture that involves a morphological analyzer and explicitly represents morphological information for Kinyawanda–a morphologically rich African language. Authors show that KINYaBERT achieves good convergence and accuracy, and is robust on multiple downstream tasks. *mBERT* (Devlin et al., 2019) is a multilingual variant of BERT trained on 104 languages including four African languages. *XLM-R* (Conneau et al., 2020) uses a Transformer based architecture and obtains SOTA on cross-lingual classification, sequence labeling, and question answering on 100 languages including eight African languages. ## 3 **Genealogy Of African Languages** Genealogical or genetic classification groups languages based on their historical and evolutionary relationships. Genetically related languages are often classified into similar families in a hierarchical tree like structure that shows the level of similarity between the languages. Languages with a higher degree of similarity belong to the same class while languages with a lower degree of similarity are further subdivided into different classes and subclasses. Two closely related languages can therefore be viewed as sisters of the same parent language/ancestor–they are languages that evolved over time and/or space from an older parent language (Gerhardt, 2020). Typological classification differs from geneological classification in that the former is based on grammatical features or types (Vossen, 2020). For instance, a typological classification would group tone languages together, or split languages based on their morphological structure into, for instance, isolating or agglutinating languages. Despite this difference, languages that belong to the same family often share similar typological information (Gerhardt, 2020). For example, most Benue-Congo languages are tone languages (Williamson, 2006). In the case of African languages, where typological information is scarcely available (Adebara and Abdul-Mageed, 2022; Güldemann, 2018), utilizing genetic classes may be a useful way to determine typological information. If the typological information of one language in a group is known, we may make a sensible assumption that other languages in that group perhaps share similar features with minor variations. We use geneological classification information in evaluating SERENGETI's behaviour. Specifically, we investigate the relationship between language similarity and model performance in zero-shot scenarios for South African languages in some datasets in our benchmark. We use classification information from Ethnologue (Eberhard et al., 2021) in all our analyses. We provide a broad overview of the families in our models under six broad ancestors in Section D in the Appendix. ## 4 **Serengeti** 4.1 **Pretraining Data** SERENGETI is pretrained using 42GB of data comprising a multi-domain, multi-script collection | Vocabulary | Training Data | | | | | | | |----------------|-----------------|------------|---------|------------------|------------------|----------------|----------------------| | Model | Tok | Vocab Size | #Params | #Lang. (afr/all) | Tokens (afr/all) | Size (afr/all) | Source | | xlmr | SP | 250k | 270M | 8 / 100 | UNK/164B | UNK/2.4 GB | CC-100 | | mbert | WP | 110K | 110M | 4 / 100 | UNK/12.8B | UNK/100GB | Books, Wiki. | | Afro-XLMR | SP | 70.6K | 270M | 17 / 20 | - | 21.6 GB | mC4, CC, BBC, VOA | | AfriBERTa | WP | 70k | 111M | 11 / 11 | 108.8M | 0.94 GB | BBC, CC | | AfroLM | SP | 250K | 264M | 23/23 | - | 0.73GB | mC4, CC, BBC, VOA | | SERENGETI-E110 | WP | 110K | 170M | 517 / 527 | 7.1B/8.6B | 40/42GB | RT, News, GD, HD, EC | | SERENGETI-E250 | WP | 250K | 277M | 517/527 | 7.1B/8.6B | 40/42GB | RT, News, GD, HD, EC | | SERENGETI | SP | 250K | 278M | 517/527 | 7.1B/8.6B | 40/42GB | RT, News, GD, HD, EC | of texts that we manually curate. The pretraining data covers 517 African languages and the 10 most spoken languages globally (i.e., Arabic, English, French, German, Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, and Turkish). The multi-domain dataset comprises texts from religious, news, government documents, health documents, and existing corpora written in five scripts from the set *{Arabic, Coptic, Ethiopic, Latin, and Vai}*. For the top ten foreign languages, we randomly select 1M paragraphs from Wikipedia for each language to use in our overall pretraining data. We provide further details of the pretraining data in Section C in the Appendix. We also show all languages in our pretraining data in Tables F.1, F.2, and F.3. ## 4.2 **Preprocessing** To prepare the raw data for pretraining, we perform light preprocessing to retain a faithful representation of the naturally occurring text. Specifically, we ensure that images and non-text materials are not in our dataset by using regular expression and manual curation techniques. We do not perform any further preprocessing of the data before splitting the text off into tokens. For tokenization, we use a WordPiece tokenizer (Song et al., 2021). We experiment with two vocabulary sizes, 110K and 250K. ## 4.3 **Serengeti Models** We pretrain both Electra style (Clark et al., 2020b; Chi et al., 2021) as well as XLM-R style (Conneau et al., 2020) models, as follows. SERENGETI-E110 and SERENGETI-E250. We first pretrain Electra (Chi et al., 2021) style models. Electra uses a multilingual replaced token detection (MRTD) objective for training. Unlike other training objectives, the goal of MRTD is to distinguish real input tokens from corrupted tokens. Models built with this objective are pretrained as discriminators rather than generators. We train the models with two vocabulary sizes, 110K and 250K, and hence refer to them as SERENGETIE110 and SERENGETI-E250. Each of these models has 12 layers and 12 attention heads. We pretrain each model for 40 epochs with a sequence length of 512, a learning rate of 2e − 4 and a batch size of 216 and 104 for the SERENGETI-E110 and SERENGETI-E250, respectively. We pre-train the models on 1 Google Cloud TPU with 8 cores (v3.8) from TensorFlow Research Cloud (TFRC). 2 SERENGETI Model. Apart form the Electra models, we also experiment with an XLM-R base architecture. We train the model with a 250K vocabulary size for 20 epochs. This model has 12 layers and 12 attention heads, a sequence length of 512 and a batch size of 8. We pre-train this model on 80 M50 AMD Pod GPUs with 16G ram. Our XLMR model has better performance compared to the Electra models as we will show. We provide information about each model we build and compare with in Table 2. ## 5 **Afronlu Benchmark** Our goal is to evaluate our models extensively, and so we combine all available datasets we could acquire to create an evaluation benchmark that we refer to as **AfroNLU**. AfroNLU is composed of seven different tasks, covering both token and sentence level tasks, across 18 different datasets. The benchmark covers a total of 32 different languages and language varieties. In addition we evaluate our best model (SERENGETI) on an African lan- | Cluster | Dataset | Languages | TRAIN | DEV | TEST | |---------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|-----------|---------|--------| | masakaner-v1⋆ | amh, hau, ibo, kin, lug, luo, pcm, swh, wol, yor | 443,692 | 60,515 | 134,126 | | | masakaner-v2⋆ | bam, bbj, ewe, fon, hau, ibo, kin, lug, mos, nya, pcm, sna, swa, tsn, twi, wol, xho, yor, zul | 2,537,792 | 362,837 | 726,830 | | | masakaner-east⋆ | amh, kin, lug, luo, swh | 162,388 | 21,206 | 46,407 | | | masakaner-eastwest⋆ | amh, hau, ibo, kin, lug, luo, pcm, swh, wol, yor | 416,113 | 56,512 | 126,176 | | | masakaner-west⋆ | hau, ibo, pcm, wol, yor | 253,725 | 35,306 | 79,769 | | | nchlt-ner ⋆ | afr, nbl, nso, sot, ssw, tsn, tso, ven, xho, zul | 1,749,372 | 219,703 | 215,616 | | | yoruba-twi-ner⋆ | yor | 20,237 | 2,811 | 5,471 | | | wikiann⋆ | afr, amh, ibo, mlg, kin, som, swh, yor | 9,244 | 9,240 | 9,424 | | | Phrase Chunking | phrase-chunk⋆ | afr, nso, sot, ssw, tsn, tso, ven, zul | 107,492 | 12,972 | 13,389 | | POS | igbo-pos⋆ | ibo | 756,775 | 94,692 | 95,048 | | NER | amharic-news† | amh | 41,185 | 5,148 | 5,149 | | kinnews† | kir | 15,308 | 1,701 | 4,254 | | | News | kirnews† | run | 3,320 | 369 | 923 | | swahili-news-v0.2† | swh | 19,986 | 2,221 | 7,338 | | | bambara-v2† | bam | 2,436 | 305 | 305 | | | Sentiment Analysis | pidgin-tweet† | pcm | 11,200 | 1,400 | 1,400 | | yosm† | yor | 800 | 200 | 500 | | | Topic | hausa-topic† | hau | 2,045 | 290 | 582 | | yoruba-topic† | yor | 1,340 | 189 | 379 | | | QA | qa-swahili† | swh | 49,881 | 5,077 | 499 | | LID | AfroLID† | 517 African Languages | 2,496,980 | 25,850 | 51,400 | | Afri-Senti | amh, hau, ibo, pcm, swh, yor | - | | | | Table 3: Distribution of AfroNLU datasets. ⋆indicates that datasize is measured at token level. †indicates data size measured at sentence level. | Tasks | AfriBERTa | Afro-XLMR | KinyaBERT | SERENGETI | |---------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------| | NER PC | - | - | - | | | POS | - | - | - | | | NC | - | | | | | SA | - | - | | | | TC | - | | | | | QA | - | - | - | | | LID | - | - | - | | | GLUE | - | - | - | | Table 4: Tasks evaluation comparison across different African language MLMs. NER: named entity recognition, PC: phrase chunking, POS: part of speech, NC: news classification, SA: sentiment analysis, TC: topic classification, QA: question answering, LID: language identification. guage identification (LID) task covering all the 517 languages in our pretraining collection. For LID, we use two datasets to test SERENGETI. This puts AfroNLU at a total of *20 different datasets* and eight different tasks. To the best of our knowledge, our evaluation benchmark is the most extensive compared to previous published research. We provide detailed statistics of the datasets comprising AfroNLU in Table 3. We also provide a detailed comparison of our AfroNLU benchmark with evaluation data from other models in Table 4. We now describe each of the downstream tasks in AfroNLU. ## 5.1 **Named Entity Recognition (Ner)** We evaluate our models on NER datasets across multiple languages. We use MasakhaNER data (Ifeoluwa Adelani et al., 2021), WikiAnn (Pan et al., 2017; Rahimi et al., 2019), Yoruba-Twi NER data (Alabi et al., 2020), Distance Supervision NER (DS NER) Data (Hedderich et al., 2020) and multiple NER data from SADiLaR. For our experiments, we use the region aggregates on MasakhaNER. Specifically, we use MasakhaNER-east, MasakhaNERwest, and MasakhaNER-eastwest. MasakhaNEReast includes NER data for Amharic, Kinyawanda, Luganda, Luo, and Swahili. MasakhaNER-west includes NER data for Hausa, Igbo, Nigerian-Pidgin, Wolof, and Yoruba. MasakhaNER-eastwest, on the other hand, includes a combination of MasakhaneNER-east and MasakhaneNER-west. Data from SADiLaR cover ten indigenous South African languages and is annotated for person, organisation, location, and miscellaneous named entities. Miscellaneous named entities refer to all rigid designators that do not fall into one of the other categories, including temporal expressions (dates and times), URLs, numerical expressions, publications, names of languages, nationalities, among others. More details about the datasets are in Table 3. ## 5.2 **Part Of Speech Tagging** We test our models on POS tagging datasets for Igbo taken from IgboNLP (Onyenwe et al., 2018, 2019). In Table 3, we provide the statistical details for the dataset. ## 5.3 **Phrase Chunks** We evaluate our models on phrase chunks datasets for ten Indigenous languages of South Africa (see Table 3). The data has annotations for noun, verb, adjective, adverbial, and prepositional phrase chunks. Words not belonging to these phrase types are labelled with the tag O. ## 5.4 **Sentiment Analysis** We finetune our model on three sentiment analysis datasets, including Bambara Sentiment dataset (Diallo et al., 2021), YOSM–a new Yorùbá Sentiment Corpus for Movie Reviews (Shode et al., 2022), and the Nigerian Pidgin sentiment dataset (Oyewusi et al., 2020), respectively. Some details of these datasets is in Table 3. ## 5.5 **News Classification** We use news classification datasets for Amharic (Azime and Mohammed, 2021), Kinyarwanda (Niyongabo et al., 2020), Kirundi (Niyongabo et al., 2020), and Swahili (David, 2020a,b). The Amharic dataset contains six classes–news, sport, politics, international news, business, and entertainment. The Swahili dataset also has six categories including local news, international, finance, health, sports, and entertainment. The datasets for Kinyarwanda and Kirundi have 14 and 12 categories each, respectively. Again, data statistics are in Table 3. ## 5.6 **Topic Classification** We include topic classification datasets for Yorùbá and Hausa (Hedderich et al., 2020). The Yorùbá and Hausa datasets contain news titles collected from VOA Hausa and BBC Yorùbá news sites. The Yorùbá dataset has seven topics–Nigeria, Africa, world, entertainment, health, sports, and politics, while the Hausa dataset is categorized into five topics - Nigeria, Africa, world, health, and politics. In Table 3, we provide details about the data split sizes. ## 5.7 **Question Answering** We use TYDIA question answering dataset (Clark et al., 2020a). The dataset has a primary task and a gold passage task. The primary task has two subtasks, one for passage selection and another that is a minimal answer span. For the passage selection subtask, a list of passages is given and the required response is either the index of the passage where the answer to the question is or null (if no answer exists in the passage). The minimal answer span subtask on the other hand gives a full article and the expected answer is either the start and end byte indices of the minimal span that answers the question, yes or no response, or null (if no minimal answer exists). For the gold passage task, a correct answer is predicted from a passage containing one answer. This is similar to existing reading comprehension. We use the Kiswahili dataset alone, since it is the only African language in the dataset. Details about the data splits can be found in Table 3. ## 5.8 **Language Identification** We also evaluate SERENGETI on the task of language identification (LID). LID focuses on identifying the human language a piece of text or speech segment belongs to, making automatic LID an important first step in processing human language appropriately (Tjandra et al., 2021; Thara and Poornachandran, 2021). We use datasets from AfroLID (Adebara et al., 2022b) for this task. AfroLID data is a multi-genre, multi-script dataset for 517 African languages. We compare the performance of AfroLID data on our models with performance on AfroLID tool. To ensure a fair comparison, the data used for AfroLID is completely different from the data used for SERENGETI. We also evaluate our LID model on AfriSenti dataset (Muhammad et al., 2022; Yimam et al., 2020). ## 6 **Experimental Setup And Evaluation** We evaluate SERENGETI on eight task clusters in the benchmark, and report results on our Test set in Table 5. We also report performance on our Dev set in Table E.1 (Appendix). For each task cluster, we finetune for a maximum of 25 epochs with a patience value of five. We compare results from SERENGETI, SERENGETI-E110, and SERENGETI-E250 to encoder-only models covering any number of African languages. Specifically, we compare with XLMR, mBERT, Afro-XLMR, and AfriBERTa. We report the results of each experiment as an average of three runs, showing Cluster Dataset SOTA XLMR mBERT Afro-XLMR AfriBERTa SERENGETI-E110 SERENGETI-E250 SERENGETI masakaner-v1 84.80±0.3*‡ ‡ ‡* 81.41 ±0.26 78.57 ±0.53 84.16 ±0.45 81.42 ±0.30 81.23 ±0.32 81.54 ±0.68 **84.53** ±0.56 masakaner-v2 87.00 ±1.2*‡ ‡ ‡* 87.17 ±0.18 84.82±0.96 88.69 ±0.12 86.22 ±0.06 86.57 ±0.27 86.69 ±0.29 **88.86** ±0.25 masakaner-east 80.62⋆ 80.38 ±0.56 78.33 ±1.25 83.02 ±0.31 79.31 ±0.92 80.53 ±0.71 81.26 ±0.68 **83.75** ±0.26 masakaner-eastwest 82.34⋆ 82.85 ±0.38 82.37 ±0.90 **86.31** ±0.30 82.98 ±0.44 82.90 ±0.49 83.67 ±0.44 85.94 ±0.27 masakaner-west 83.11⋆ 82.85±0.79 83.99 ±0.39 **86.78** ±0.44 84.08 ±0.32 82.06 ±0.67 83.45 ±0.81 86.27 ±0.94 nchlt-ner - 71.41 ±0.07 70.58 ±0.26 72.27 ±0.14 68.74 ±0.29 64.46 ±0.37 64.42 ±0.24 **73.18** ±0.24 yoruba-twi-ner - 61.18 ±2.19 70.37 ±0.61 58.48 ±1.85 69.24 ±3.05 61.77 ±1.24 57.99 ±2.61 **71.25** ±1.73 wikiann 83.82 ±0.39 82.65 ±0.77 **86.01** ±0.83 83.05 ±0.20 83.17 ±0.54 84.85 ±0.53 85.83 ±0.94 Phrase Chunking phrase-chunk - 88.86 ±0.18 88.65 ±0.06 90.12 ±0.12 87.86 ±0.20 90.39 ±0.21 89.93 ±0.33 **90.51** ±0.04 POS igbo-pos - 85.50 ±0.08 85.42 ±0.13 85.39 ±0.21 85.43 ±0.05 85.50 ±0.16 **85.61** ±0.13 85.54 ±0.08 | NER News Classification Sentiment Analysis | |----------------------------------------------| News Classification amharic-news - 84.97 ±0.55 59.01 ±1.47 86.18 ±0.85 86.54 ±1.20 86.50 ±0.71 86.34 ±0.30 **86.82** ±0.72 kinnews 76.58 ±0.70 77.45 ±0.43 79.13 ±0.53 80.40 ±1.50 **81.43** ±1.02 80.38 ±1.36 79.80 ±0.68 kirnews - 57.18 ±3.44 74.71 ±2.56 87.67 ±0.92 **89.59** ±0.27 78.75 ±3.24 86.60 ±1.28 87.53 ±2.31 swahili-news-v0.2 - 87.50 ±0.91 85.12 ±0.93 87.49 ±1.26 87.91 ±0.36 87.33 ±0.28 86.12 ±1.30 **88.24** ±0.99 Sentiment Analysis bambara-v2 64.00† 47.17 ±1.83 64.56 ±1.71 59.40 ±0.56 65.06 ±2.08 65.07 ±2.59 **65.76** ±2.02 63.36 ±3.31 pidgin-tweet - 70.42 ±0.68 68.59 ±0.47 **71.40** ±0.51 69.19 ±0.97 71.06 ±0.39 70.46 ±1.02 69.74 ±0.92 yosm 87.20‡ 85.57 ±1.09 85.25 ±0.25 87.46 ±0.42 **88.66** ±0.23 86.86 ±0.95 85.58 ±1.51 87.86 ±0.81 Topic hausa-topic 48.52 †† 85.80 ±1.45 81.38 ±0.42 88.67 ±0.30 **92.59** ±0.69 88.52 ±1.31 89.07 ±0.95 89.93 ±0.49 yoruba-topic 54.93 †† 54.69 ±2.89 71.79 ±1.43 75.13 ±1.40 **81.79** ±0.66 65.22 ±4.72 66.34 ±4.09 79.87 ±1.61 QA qa-swahili 81.90 ‡‡ 82.79 ±1.93 **83.40** ±0.78 79.94 ±0.39 57.3 ±1.8 79.76 ±0.52 81.25 ±1.33 80.01 ±0.78 AfroNLU Score 76.91 77.85 81.09 80.37 79.45 79.87 **82.44** the standard deviation. We also evaluate SERENGETI on language identification and show results on Afrolid in Table 6 and on Afrisenti in Table 7. For multilingual datasets in each task, we show evaluation results per language, comparing the performance of various models in Table E.4 in the Appendix. Table 6: Performance of SERENGETI on African LID (F1). ⋆ Results as reported in Adebara et al. (2022b). Table 7: Comparison between AfroLID (Adebara et al., 2022b) and SERENGETIon AfriSenti Dev dataset. | Task | AfroLID | SERENGETI | |--------|-----------|-------------| | Dev | 96.14⋆ | 97.64 ±0.02 | | Test | 95.95⋆ | 97.41 ±0.02 | ## 6.1 **Performance Analysis** | AfroLID | SERENGETI | | |-----------------------|-------------|-------------| | Amharic (amh) | 97.00 | 99.50 ±0.01 | | Hausa (hau) | 89.00 | 98.09±0.02 | | Igbo (ibo) | 46.00 | 95.28±0.00 | | Nigerian Pidgin (pcm) | 56.00 | 77.73±0.01 | | Swahili (swh) | 96.00 | 98.66±0.02 | | Yoruba (yor) | 82.00 | 98.96±0.00 | We report the results for seven of our eight tasks in Table 5. Named Entity Recognition (NER). SERENGETI sets a new SOTA on six out of eight datasets on the NER cluster. The lowest F1 across all models are on NCHLT and Yoruba-Twi datasets (on both Dev and Test). SERENGETI achieves best performance on both of these datasets on Test (with 73.18 F1 on the first and 71.25 on the second). Phrase Chunking. SERENGETI outperforms all models on the phrase chunking task on both Dev and Test data, reaching 90.51 F1 on Test. Part of Speech (POS) Tagging. In the POS tagging task, SERENGETI outperformed all other models in the Dev. and Test sets. News Classification. Our SERENGETI outperforms other models on three out of four datasets on Test data (and on two datasets on Dev).3. We do not report SOTA results for Amharic, Kirnews, and Kinnews datasets because their authors report performance in accuracy (and so are not comparable to our results). We show performance of SERENGETI on each category in the news classification cluster in Figure E.1 in the Appendix. Sentiment Analysis. SERENGETI-E250 outperforms other models on one out of three tasks in our sentiment analysis task cluster. Afro-XMLR and AfriBERTa outperform other models on one each. To further investigate performance, we conduct an error analysis on the three sentiment datasets (see Figure E.2 in the Appendix). Topic Classification. AfriBERTa outperforms 3Our SERENGETI-E110 outperforms SERENGETI on one dataset in Dev and Test sets other models on both tasks in our topic classification cluster, followed by SERENGETI. We show confusion matrices for Hausa and Yoruba topic classification in Figure E.3 in the Appendix. Language Identification. SERENGETI outperforms AfroLID on AfroLID and AfriSenti data (see Table 6 and 7 for details). We also compare the performance of SERENGETI to AfroLID, and Franc4, on the 88 African languages represented in Franc in Table E.3 (Appendix). SERENGETI outperforms AfroLID and Franc with an average F1 score of 96.29. SERENGETI outperforms both models on 59 languages and has similar results with AfroLID on 19 languages. Next, we evaluate the performance of SERENGETI on Creole languages. Again, we record improvement in results for Creole languages when compared with AfroLID. SERENGETI outperforms AfroLID in 7 out of 9 languages and acquires similar scores on 2 languages. We assume that the addition of the ten most spoken languages to the pretraining data for SERENGETI may have helped the model learn the Creoles better. This is because Creoles share some features including vocabularies and syntax with some of those top ten languages. ## 6.2 **Error Analysis** In the sentiment analysis cluster, best performance is recorded for positive categories while negative categories have the worst performance. A finegrained analysis of the Yoruba sentiment dataset found that SERENGETI failed to correctly categorize sentiment if the polarity item(s) were not seen in training, can be associated with both positive and negative sentiments, the polarity item(s) is a negation, or if ambivalent markers are present in the sentence. We provide a table showing examples of each type of error we found in Table E.2 in the Appendix. For the news classification task, politics and tourism are the best performing classes while education and relationships have the worst performance on kirnews and kinnews respectively. It is important to mention that the worst performing categories do not have the smallest data sizes. For the topic classification, the best performance is on the world class for Hausa topic modelling while entertainment and sport have best performance for Yoruba. The worst performance is on Nigeria and health for Hausa and Yoruba topic datasets respectively. ## 6.3 **Imbalanced Distribution** We find imbalances in the class distributions for all datasets except YOSM. We find a positive correlation between the size of each category in a dataset and the model accuracy. We also find a positive correlation with the number of examples in a specific class and the accuracy we acquire. We provide confusion matrices that represents the sizes of each category and the performance of SERENGETI in Figures E.4, E.5, and E.6 in the Appendix. ## 6.4 **Genealogy & Language Contact** Our preliminary analyses show that language similarity may improve model performance in zeroshot settings. This we believe is due to high crosslingual transfer information (Conneau et al., 2020) from similar languages. Similar languages often share many features (e.g., vocabulary, syntax, and script) sometimes up to a point of mutual intelligibility (Nassenstein, 2019; Arndt, 2015; RoyCampbell, 2006). Languages in contact may also have such similarities. By *language in contact*, we mean all languages that speakers of a specific language interact with and influence. A language can be in contact with another due to trade, geographic proximity, migration, or even colonization. Languages in contact can influence each other in multiple ways, such as borrowing words, grammatical structures, phonology, or orthographic conventions (Matras, 2009). To illustrate our hypothesis, we select two datasets with South African (SA) languages in AfroNLU - NCHLT-ner and phrasechunk. We select SA languages because they are contact languages (see Figure D.5 in Appendix for a genealogical classification tree that highlights the SA languages.) (Nassenstein, 2019; Arndt, 2015; Roy-Campbell, 2006). To determine the significance of language similarity and language contact in our own zero-shot settings, we measure the Jaccard similarity between the pretraining data for the SA languages (see Table 8). We find strong similarities between some of these languages (see bolded examples in Table 8). We also finetune a BERT model and compare the performance of BERT with MBERT. We do this because BERT does not include any similar language in its representation. XLM-R, mBERT, and AfriBERTa are not trained on most SA languages but have high scores in zero-shot settings see Table 9 and Table E.4 in Appendix. We argue that XLM-R in addition to afr nbl nso sot ssw tsn tso ven xho zul kin lug nya run sna som afr 1 0.28 0.35 0.26 0.27 0.36 0.29 0.22 **0.42** 0.38 0.34 0.38 0.26 0.25 0.25 **0.43** nbl 0.28 1 **0.47 0.41 0.62** 0.26 **0.48 0.42 0.41 0.55** 0.37 0.35 **0.48 0.43 0.46** 0.35 nso 0.35 0.47 1 **0.55 0.47** 0.38 **0.51 0.40 0.42 0.50 0.40** 0.38 **0.42** 0.39 0.39 **0.42** sot 0.26 0.41 0.55 1 **0.43** 0.27 **0.52 0.46** 0.31 **0.41** 0.33 0.29 **0.45 0.40** 0.39 0.34 ssw 0.27 **0.62 0.47 0.43** 1 0.25 **0.50 0.44** 0.38 **0.52** 0.36 0.33 **0.48 0.43 0.43** 0.34 tsn 0.36 0.26 0.38 0.27 0.25 1 0.28 0.21 0.39 0.36 0.31 0.36 0.25 0.24 0.23 0.37 tso 0.29 **0.48 0.48 0.52 0.50** 0.28 1 **0.47** 0.37 **0.48** 0.38 0.34 **0.51 0.44 0.44** 0.37 ven 0.22 **0.42 0.40 0.46 0.44** 0.21 0.47 1 0.27 0.35 0.29 0.26 **0.44** 0.38 **0.41** 0.29 xho 0.42 0.41 0.42 0.31 0.38 0.39 0.37 0.27 1 **0.56 0.41 0.47** 0.35 0.33 0.32 **0.45** zul 0.38 **0.55 0.50 0.41 0.52** 0.36 **0.48** 0.35 0.56 1 **0.44 0.44 0.44 0.40** 0.39 **0.45** Dataset Lang XLMR BERT mBERT Affro-XLMR AfriBERTa SERENGETI afr 80.68±0.75 71.47 80.08±0.29 80.55±0.11 74.5 ±0.64 **81.57**±0.59 nbl 74.64 ±0.66 61.02 73.48 ±0.18 75.26±0.28 72.28 ±0.67 **77.13**±0.67 nso 77.0 ±1.23 64.27 78.75 ±0.45 80.13±0.51 75.45 ±1.09 **80.69**±0.64 sot 54.71 ±1.51 49.75 54.68 ±0.49 55.57±0.2 54.09 ±0.98 **56.26**±1.52 ssw 71.75 ±0.65 65.18 71.24 ±0.75 72.35±1.02 69.38 ±0.58 **73.37**±0.82 tsn 77.02 ±0.22 70.96 76.35 ±0.47 77.68±0.96 73.89 ±1.41 **79.05**±0.75 tso 74.24 ±0.08 65.09 72.95 ±0.67 74.85 ±0.43 71.05 ±0.9 **75.13**±0.31 ven 64.06 ±0.31 61.51 63.11 ±1.27 64.39 ±0.36 63.24 ±1.26 **65.42**±0.76 xho 70.77±2.45 58.17 68.54 ±1.44 72.37±0.39 67.00 ±1.27 **72.92**±0.29 zul 69.44 ±0.62 54.27 67.74 ±1.46 70.28±0.49 67.17 ±0.15 **71.20**±0.44 afr 95.34±0.16 89.92 95.68±0.30 95.13±0.06 90.22 ±0.81 **96.01**±0.14 nso 96.57 ±0.61 95.26 96.85 ±0.55 **98.36**±0.2 96.47 ±0.14 98.28±0.1 sot 82.93 ±0.38 80.59 83.08 ±0.78 85.28±0.61 82.18 ±0.93 **85.69**±0.76 ssw 82.9 ±1.03 82.09 81.91 ±0.47 **84.73**±0.18 83.24 ±0.11 83.45±0.12 tsn 92.77 ±0.16 92.09 92.64 ±0.66 94.11±0.49 92.71 ±0.42 **94.03**±0.19 tso 86.42 ±0.46 86.75 86.90 ±0.31 87.39 ±0.18 86.73 ±0.95 **89.32**±0.43 ven 92.31 ±0.45 92.32 90.47 ±0.32 92.42 ±0.68 92.02 ±0.33 **92.54**±0.21 zul 87.30 ±0.26 84.93 87.29 ±1.04 88.67±0.66 85.74 ±0.55 **90.05**±0.81 cross-lingual transfers from other languages acquires representation from afr and xho where xho alone shares more than 0.4 similarity with afr, nbl, nso, and zul. mBERT also learns representation from afr while AfriBERTa learns representations from Gahuza which is a code-mixed variety of KIN and RUN. BERT on the other hand significantly performs lower than MBERT in all languages except on ssw, and ven (Phrase chunk). SERENGETI, however, outperforms other models on these languages which demonstrates the impact of pretraining on each of these languages. These analyses are in no way conclusive, but do provide insights on how linguistic information may impact model performance in zero-shot settings. Future work can further probe the influence of similar languages in a more in-depth fashion. (See Appendix F for detailed analysis). ## 7 **Conclusion** We reported our efforts to develop SERENGETI, a suite of three massively multilingual language models for African NLP. SERENGETI outperforms 4 mPLMs on 11 datasets across 8 tasks. We provide extensive evaluations of model outputs, including zero-shot performance of the mPLMs. We also offer broad linguistically-motivated analyses of model performance. | NCHLT-NER Phrase Chunk | |--------------------------| ## 8 **Limitations** We identify the following limitations for our work: 1. Due to limited access to a wide network of native speakers from the majority of languages, we were able to manually inspect only a subset of languages present in our pretraining data. Specifically, we could only manually evaluate Afrikaans, Yorùbá, Igbo, Hausa, Luganda, Kinyarwanda, Chichewa, Shona, Somali, Swahili, Xhosa, Bemba, and Zulu. Future work should focus on increasing the subset of languages evaluated manually in order to ensure quality. We believe automatic analyses are not sufficient before development of models that get deployed in particular applications. 2. Another limitation is related to our inability to perform extensive analysis of biases and hateful speech present in our pretraining data. Again, this is due to relatively restricted access to native speakers (and even automated tools) to perform this analysis. As a result, we cannot fully ensure that our models is free from biases and socially undesirable effects. Therefore, it is important that these models be used with care and caution, and be analyzed for biases and socially undesirable effects before use. 3. Additionally, due to unavailability of sufficient computing resources, we were unable to evaluate large language models such as BLOOM, even though it covers 22 African languages. 4. Finally, even though AfroNLU has diverse tasks at the word and sentence level, these tasks only cover few African languages. We therefore encourage the creation of more datasets for downstream NLU tasks in more (and more diverse) African languages. We believe broader benchmarks will continue to be important for future progress in African NLP. ## 9 **Ethics Statement And Wider Impacts** SERENGETI aligns with Afrocentric NLP where the needs of African people is put into consideration when developing technology. We believe SERENGETI will not only be useful to speakers of the languages supported, but also researchers of African languages such as anthropologists and linguists. We discuss below some use cases for SERENGETI and offer a number of broad impacts. 1. SERENGETI aims to address the lack of access to technology in about 90% of the world's languages, which automatically discriminates against native speakers of those languages. More precisely, it does so by focusing on Africa. To the best of our knowledge, SERENGETI is the first massively multilingual PLM developed for African languages and language varieties. A model with knowledge of 517 African languages, is by far the largest to date for African NLP. 2. SERENGETI enables improved access of important information to the African community in Indigenous African languages. This is especially beneficial for people who may not be fluent in other languages. This will potentially connect more people globally. 3. SERENGETI affords opportunities for language preservation for many African languages. To the best of our knowledge, SERENGETI consists of languages that have not been used for any NLP task until now. We believe that it can help encourage continued use of these languages in several domains, as well as trigger future development of language technologies for many of these languages. 4. To mitigate discrimination and bias, we adopt a manual curation of our datasets. Native speakers of Afrikaans, Yorùbá, Igbo, Hausa, Luganda, Kinyarwanda, Chichewa, Shona, Somali, Swahili, Xhosa, Bemba, and Zulu also manually evaluated a subset of the data to ensure its quality. The data collected for this work is taken from various domains to further ensure a better representation of the language usage of native speakers. 5. Although LMs are useful for a wide range of applications, they can also be misused. SERENGETI is developed using publicly available datasets that may carry biases. Although we strive to perform analyses and diagnostic case studies to probe performance of our models, our investigations are by no means comprehensive nor guarantee absence of bias in the data. In particular, we do not have access to native speakers of most of the languages covered. This hinders our ability to investigate samples from each (or at least the majority) of the languages. ## Acknowledgements MAM gratefully acknowledges support from Canada Research Chairs (CRC), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC; RGPIN-2018-04267), the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC; 435-2018-0576; 895-2020-1004; 8952021-1008), Canadian Foundation for Innovation (CFI; 37771), Digital Research Alliance of Canada,5 UBC ARC-Sockeye,6 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD), and Google. Any opinions, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of CRC, NSERC, SSHRC, CFI, the Alliance, AMD, Google, or UBC ARCSockeye. ## References Julien Abadji, Pedro Javier Ortiz Suárez, Laurent Romary, and Benoît Sagot. 2021. Ungoliant: An optimized pipeline for the generation of a very large-scale multilingual web corpus. Proceedings of the Workshop on Challenges in the Management of Large Corpora (CMLC-9) 2021. Limerick, 12 July 2021 (Online-Event), pages 1 - 9, Mannheim. LeibnizInstitut für Deutsche Sprache. Ife Adebara and Muhammad Abdul-Mageed. 2022. Towards afrocentric NLP for African languages: Where we are and where we can go. In *Proceedings of the* 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3814–3841, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ife Adebara, Muhammad Abdul-Mageed, and Miikka Silfverberg. 2022a. Linguistically-motivated YorùbáEnglish machine translation. In *Proceedings of the* 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 5066–5075, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics. Ife Adebara, AbdelRahim Elmadany, Muhammad Abdul-Mageed, and Alcides Alcoba Inciarte. 2022b. AfroLID: A neural language identification tool for African languages. David Adelani, Jesujoba Alabi, Angela Fan, Julia Kreutzer, Xiaoyu Shen, Machel Reid, Dana Ruiter, 5https://alliancecan.ca 6https://arc.ubc.ca/ubc-arc-sockeye Dietrich Klakow, Peter Nabende, Ernie Chang, Tajuddeen Gwadabe, Freshia Sackey, Bonaventure F. P. Dossou, Chris Emezue, Colin Leong, Michael Beukman, Shamsuddeen Muhammad, Guyo Jarso, Oreen Yousuf, Andre Niyongabo Rubungo, Gilles Hacheme, Eric Peter Wairagala, Muhammad Umair Nasir, Benjamin Ajibade, Tunde Ajayi, Yvonne Gitau, Jade Abbott, Mohamed Ahmed, Millicent Ochieng, Anuoluwapo Aremu, Perez Ogayo, Jonathan Mukiibi, Fatoumata Ouoba Kabore, Godson Kalipe, Derguene Mbaye, Allahsera Auguste Tapo, Victoire Memdjokam Koagne, Edwin Munkoh-Buabeng, Valencia Wagner, Idris Abdulmumin, Ayodele Awokoya, Happy Buzaaba, Blessing Sibanda, Andiswa Bukula, and Sam Manthalu. 2022a. A few thousand translations go a long way! leveraging pre-trained models for African news translation. In *Proceedings of the* 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 3053–3070, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. David Ifeoluwa Adelani, Graham Neubig, Sebastian Ruder, Shruti Rijhwani, Michael Beukman, Chester Palen-Michel, Constantine Lignos, Jesujoba O. Alabi, Shamsuddeen H. Muhammad, Peter Nabende, Cheikh M. Bamba Dione, Andiswa Bukula, Rooweither Mabuya, Bonaventure F. P. Dossou, Blessing Sibanda, Happy Buzaaba, Jonathan Mukiibi, Godson Kalipe, Derguene Mbaye, Amelia Taylor, Fatoumata Kabore, Chris Chinenye Emezue, Anuoluwapo Aremu, Perez Ogayo, Catherine Gitau, Edwin Munkoh-Buabeng, Victoire M. Koagne, Allahsera Auguste Tapo, Tebogo Macucwa, Vukosi Marivate, Elvis Mboning, Tajuddeen Gwadabe, Tosin Adewumi, Orevaoghene Ahia, Joyce NakatumbaNabende, Neo L. Mokono, Ignatius Ezeani, Chiamaka Chukwuneke, Mofetoluwa Adeyemi, Gilles Q. Hacheme, Idris Abdulmumin, Odunayo Ogundepo, Oreen Yousuf, Tatiana Moteu Ngoli, and Dietrich Klakow. 2022b. Masakhaner 2.0: Africa-centric transfer learning for named entity recognition. Alham Fikri Aji, Genta Indra Winata, Fajri Koto, Samuel Cahyawijaya, Ade Romadhony, Rahmad Mahendra, Kemal Kurniawan, David Moeljadi, Radityo Eko Prasojo, Timothy Baldwin, Jey Han Lau, and Sebastian Ruder. 2022. One country, 700+ languages: NLP challenges for underrepresented languages and dialects in Indonesia. In *Proceedings* of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 7226–7249, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Jesujoba Alabi, Kwabena Amponsah-Kaakyire, David Adelani, and Cristina Espana-Bonet. 2020. Massive vs. curated embeddings for low-resourced languages: The case of Yorùbá and Twi. In Proceedings of The 12th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 2754–2762. Jesujoba O. Alabi, David Ifeoluwa Adelani, Marius Mosbach, and Dietrich Klakow. 2022a. Adapting pre-trained language models to African languages via multilingual adaptive fine-tuning. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 4336–4349, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics. Jesujoba O. Alabi, David Ifeoluwa Adelani, Marius Mosbach, and Dietrich Klakow. 2022b. Multilingual language model adaptive fine-tuning: A study on African languages. Julia Angwin, Jeff Larson, Surya Mattu, and Lauren Kirchner. 2018. Machine bias. *Nieman reports*, 72(3/4):37. Jochen S. Arndt. 2015. *Missionaries, Africans and* the Emergence of Xhosa and Zulu as Distinct Languages in South Africa, 1800-54. Ph.D. thesis. Copyright - Database copyright ProQuest LLC; ProQuest does not claim copyright in the individual underlying works; Last updated - 2022-11-02. Mikel Artetxe, Sebastian Ruder, and Dani Yogatama. 2020. On the cross-lingual transferability of monolingual representations. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4623–4637, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Israel Abebe Azime and Nebil Mohammed. 2021. An Amharic News Text classification Dataset. Solon Barocas and Andrew D. Selbst. 2016. Big data's disparate impact. *California law review*, 104(3):671– 732. Emily M. Bender. 2011. On achieving and evaluating language-independence in nlp. *Linguistic Issues in* Language Technology, 6. Emily M. Bender, Timnit Gebru, Angelina McMillanMajor, and Shmargaret Shmitchell. 2021. On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAccT '21, page 610–623, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. Laurent Besacier, Etienne Barnard, Alexey Karpov, and Tanja Schultz. 2014. Automatic speech recognition for under-resourced languages: A survey. Speech Communication, 56:85–100. Tolga Bolukbasi, Kai-Wei Chang, James Y Zou, Venkatesh Saligrama, and Adam T Kalai. 2016. Man is to computer programmer as woman is to homemaker? debiasing word embeddings. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 29. Curran Associates, Inc. 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. 2020a. Language models are few-shot learners. In *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, volume 33, pages 1877–1901. Curran Associates, Inc. Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared 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 M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020b. Language models are few-shot learners. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS'20, Red Hook, NY, USA. Curran Associates Inc. Joy Buolamwini and Timnit Gebru. 2018. Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. In *Proceedings of* the 1st Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency, volume 81 of *Proceedings of Machine* Learning Research, pages 77–91. PMLR. Pei-Xuan Cai, Yao-Chung Fan, and Fang-Yie Leu. 2022. Compare encoder-decoder, encoder-only, and decoder-only architectures for text generation on lowresource datasets. In *Advances on Broad-Band Wireless Computing, Communication and Applications*, pages 216–225, Cham. Springer International Publishing. Aylin Caliskan, Joanna J Bryson, and Arvind Narayanan. 2017. Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biases. *Science*, 356(6334):183–186. Bharathi Raja Chakravarthi and Vigneshwaran Muralidaran. 2021. Findings of the shared task on hope speech detection for equality, diversity, and inclusion. In *Proceedings of the First Workshop on Language Technology for Equality, Diversity and Inclusion*, pages 61–72, Kyiv. Association for Computational Linguistics. Zewen Chi, Shaohan Huang, Li Dong, Shuming Ma, Saksham Singhal, Payal Bajaj, Xia Song, and Furu Wei. 2021. Xlm-e: Cross-lingual language model pre-training via ELECTRA. James Clackson. 2007. *The Indo-European language* family, Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics, page 1–26. Cambridge University Press. Jonathan H. Clark, Eunsol Choi, Michael Collins, Dan Garrette, Tom Kwiatkowski, Vitaly Nikolaev, and Jennimaria Palomaki. 2020a. TyDi QA: A benchmark for information-seeking question answering in typologically diverse languages. *Transactions of the* Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:454– 470. Kevin Clark, Minh-Thang Luong, Quoc V. Le, and Christopher D. Manning. 2020b. ELECTRA: Pretraining text encoders as discriminators rather than generators. In *International Conference on Learning* Representations. Bernard Comrie. 2017. *Languages of the World*, chapter 2. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Alexis Conneau, Kartikay Khandelwal, Naman Goyal, Vishrav Chaudhary, Guillaume Wenzek, Francisco Guzmán, Edouard Grave, Myle Ott, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2020. Unsupervised cross-lingual representation learning at scale. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 8440– 8451, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Denis Creissels, Gerrit J Dimmendaal, Zygmunt Frajzyngier, and Christa König. 2008. Africa as a morphosyntactic area. *A linguistic geography of* Africa, 86150. Brian Daigle. 2021. Data protection laws in Africa: A Pan-African survey and noted trends. *J. Int'l Com. &* Econ., page 1. Davis David. 2020a. Swahili : News classification dataset. Davis David. 2020b. Swahili : News classification dataset. The news version contains both train and test sets. 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. Mountaga Diallo, Chayma Fourati, and Hatem Haddad. 2021. Bambara language dataset for sentiment analysis. Gerrit J. Dimmendaal. 2020. 364 Nilo-Saharan and Its Limits. In *The Oxford Handbook of African Languages*. Oxford University Press. Gerrit J Dimmendaal, Colleen Ahland, Angelika Jakobi, and Constance Kutsch Lojenga. 2019. Linguistic features and typologies in languages commonly referred to as 'Nilo-Saharan'. *Cambridge Handbook* of African Languages, pages 326–381. Sumanth Doddapaneni, Gowtham Ramesh, Mitesh M. Khapra, Anoop Kunchukuttan, and Pratyush Kumar. 2021. A primer on pretrained multilingual language models. Bonaventure F. P. Dossou, Atnafu Lambebo Tonja, Oreen Yousuf, Salomey Osei, Abigail Oppong, Iyanuoluwa Shode, Oluwabusayo Olufunke Awoyomi, and Chris Chinenye Emezue. 2022. Afrolm: A self-active learning-based multilingual pretrained language model for 23 African languages. Matthew S Dryer. 2013. Order of subject, object and verb. the world atlas of language structures online, ed. by matthew s. dryer and martin haspelmath. leipzig: Max planck institute for evolutionary anthropology. Online: https://wals. info. Cynthia Dwork, Moritz Hardt, Toniann Pitassi, Omer Reingold, and Rich Zemel. 2011. Fairness through awareness. Technical report, Cornell University Library, arXiv.org. David M Eberhard, F Simons Gary, and Charles D Fennig (eds). 2021. Ethnologue: Languages of the world. Twenty-fourth edition, Dallas, Texas: SIL International. Allyson Ettinger. 2020. What BERT Is Not: Lessons from a New Suite of Psycholinguistic Diagnostics for Language Models. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:34–48. Virginia Eubanks. 2018. Automating inequality: how high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor, first edition. St. Martin's Press, New York, NY. Angela Fan, Shruti Bhosale, Holger Schwenk, Zhiyi Ma, Ahmed El-Kishky, Siddharth Goyal, Mandeep Baines, Onur Celebi, Guillaume Wenzek, Vishrav Chaudhary, Naman Goyal, Tom Birch, Vitaliy Liptchinsky, Sergey Edunov, Edouard Grave, Michael Auli, and Armand Joulin. 2020. Beyond EnglishCentric multilingual machine translation. Eduard Fosch-Villaronga and Adam Poulsen. 2022. *Diversity and Inclusion in Artificial Intelligence*, pages 109–134. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. Zygmunt Frajzyngier. 2018. Afroasiatic languages. Ana Freire, Lorenzo Porcaro, and Emilia Gómez. 2021. Measuring diversity of artificial intelligence conferences. In Proceedings of 2nd Workshop on Diversity in Artificial Intelligence (AIDBEI), volume 142 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 39–50. PMLR. Ludwig Gerhardt. 2020. 125 Reflections on the History of African Language Classification. In *The Oxford* Handbook of African Languages. Oxford University Press. David Gil and Antoinette Schapper, editors. 2020. *Austronesian Undressed: How and why languages become isolating*. John Benjamins. Jeff Good. 2020. 138139 Niger-Congo, with a Special Focus on Benue-Congo. In *The Oxford Handbook of* African Languages. Oxford University Press. Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Myle Ott, Giri Anantharaman, and Alexis Conneau. 2021. Larger-scale Transformers for multilingual masked language modeling. In *Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Representation Learning for NLP (RepL4NLP-2021)*, pages 29–33, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tom Güldemann, editor. 2018. The Languages and Linguistics of Africa. De Gruyter Mouton. Junxian He, Chunting Zhou, Xuezhe Ma, Taylor BergKirkpatrick, and Graham Neubig. 2022. Towards a unified view of parameter-efficient transfer learning. In *International Conference on Learning Representations*. Michael A. Hedderich, David Adelani, Dawei Zhu, Jesujoba Alabi, Udia Markus, and Dietrich Klakow. 2020. Transfer learning and distant supervision for multilingual Transformer models: A study on African languages. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 2580–2591, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Sara Hooker. 2021. Moving beyond "algorithmic bias is a data problem". *Patterns*, 2(4):100241. Dirk Hovy, Federico Bianchi, and Tommaso Fornaciari. 2020. "You Sound Just Like Your Father" Commercial Machine Translation Systems Include Stylistic Biases. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1686–1690, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Larry M Hyman. 2003. African languages and phonological theory. *Glot International*, 7(6):153–163. David Ifeoluwa Adelani, Jade Abbott, Graham Neubig, Daniel D'souza, Julia Kreutzer, Constantine Lignos, Chester Palen-Michel, Happy Buzaaba, Shruti Rijhwani, Sebastian Ruder, et al. 2021. Masakhaner: Named entity recognition for African languages. arXiv e-prints, pages arXiv–2103. Pratik Joshi, Sebastin Santy, Amar Budhiraja, Kalika Bali, and Monojit Choudhury. 2020. The state and fate of linguistic diversity and inclusion in the NLP world. In *Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of* the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6282–6293, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Odunayo Jude Ogundepo, Akintunde Oladipo, Mofetoluwa Adeyemi, Kelechi Ogueji, and Jimmy Lin. 2022. AfriTeVA: Extending ?small data? pretraining approaches to sequence-to-sequence models. In Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Deep Learning for Low-Resource Natural Language Processing, pages 126–135, Hybrid. Association for Computational Linguistics. Johanita Kirsten. 2018. *Afrikaans*, pages 13–30. Palgrave Macmillan UK, London. Nikita Kitaev, Steven Cao, and Dan Klein. 2019. Multilingual constituency parsing with self-attention and pre-training. In *Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 3499–3505, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Allison Koenecke, Andrew Nam, Emily Lake, Joe Nudell, Minnie Quartey, Zion Mengesha, Connor Toups, John R. Rickford, Dan Jurafsky, and Sharad Goel. 2020. Racial disparities in automated speech recognition. *Proceedings of the National Academy of* Sciences of the United States of America, 117(14):pp. 7684–7689. Julia Kreutzer, Isaac Caswell, Lisa Wang, Ahsan Wahab, Daan van Esch, Nasanbayar Ulzii-Orshikh, Allahsera Tapo, Nishant Subramani, Artem Sokolov, Claytone Sikasote, Monang Setyawan, Supheakmungkol Sarin, Sokhar Samb, Benoît Sagot, Clara Rivera, Annette Rios, Isabel Papadimitriou, Salomey Osei, Pedro Ortiz Suárez, Iroro Orife, Kelechi Ogueji, Andre Niyongabo Rubungo, Toan Q. Nguyen, Mathias Müller, André Müller, Shamsuddeen Hassan Muhammad, Nanda Muhammad, Ayanda Mnyakeni, Jamshidbek Mirzakhalov, Tapiwanashe Matangira, Colin Leong, Nze Lawson, Sneha Kudugunta, Yacine Jernite, Mathias Jenny, Orhan Firat, Bonaventure F. P. Dossou, Sakhile Dlamini, Nisansa de Silva, Sakine Çabuk Ballı, Stella Biderman, Alessia Battisti, Ahmed Baruwa, Ankur Bapna, Pallavi Baljekar, Israel Abebe Azime, Ayodele Awokoya, Duygu Ataman, Orevaoghene Ahia, Oghenefego Ahia, Sweta Agrawal, and Mofetoluwa Adeyemi. 2021. Quality at a glance: An audit of web-crawled multilingual datasets. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.12028*. 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. 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. 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*. Alex Boniface Makulilo. 2012. Privacy and data protection in Africa: a state of the art. *International Data* Privacy Law, 2(3):163–178. Nina Markl. 2022. Language variation and algorithmic bias: understanding algorithmic bias in British English automatic speech recognition. In Proceedings of 2022 5th ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT 2022), pages 521–534. ACM Association for Computing Machinery. Joshua L Martin and Kevin Tang. 2020. Understanding racial disparities in automatic speech recognition: The case of habitual" be". In *INTERSPEECH*, pages 626–630. Yaron Matras. 2009. *Contact languages*, Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics, page 275–307. Cambridge University Press. Josh Meyer, Lindy Rauchenstein, Joshua D. Eisenberg, and Nicholas Howell. 2020. Artie bias corpus: An open dataset for detecting demographic bias in speech applications. In *Proceedings of the* Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 6462–6468, Marseille, France. European Language Resources Association. Margaret Mitchell, Dylan Baker, Nyalleng Moorosi, Emily Denton, Ben Hutchinson, Alex Hanna, Timnit Gebru, and Jamie Morgenstern. 2020. Diversity and inclusion metrics in subset selection. In *Proceedings* of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, AIES '20, page 117–123, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. Shamsuddeen Hassan Muhammad, David Ifeoluwa Adelani, Sebastian Ruder, Ibrahim Said Ahmad, Idris Abdulmumin, Bello Shehu Bello, Monojit Choudhury, Chris Chinenye Emezue, Saheed Salahudeen Abdullahi, Anuoluwapo Aremu, Alipio Jeorge, and Pavel Brazdil. 2022. NaijaSenti: A Nigerian Twitter Sentiment Corpus for Multilingual Sentiment Analysis. Nico Nassenstein. 2019. Kinyarwanda and Kirundi: On Colonial Divisions, Discourses of National Belonging, and Language Boundaries. *Modern Africa:* Politics, History and Society, 7(1):11–40. Rubungo Andre Niyongabo, Qu Hong, Julia Kreutzer, and Li Huang. 2020. KINNEWS and KIRNEWS: Benchmarking cross-lingual text classification for Kinyarwanda and Kirundi. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 5507–5521, Barcelona, Spain (Online). International Committee on Computational Linguistics. Antoine Nzeyimana and Andre Niyongabo Rubungo. 2022. KinyaBERT: a morphology-aware Kinyarwanda language model. In *Proceedings of the 60th* Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5347– 5363, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ziad Obermeyer, Brian Powers, Christine Vogeli, and Sendhil Mullainathan. 2019. Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations. *Science (American Association for the Advancement of Science)*, 366(6464):447–453. Kelechi Ogueji, Yuxin Zhu, and Jimmy Lin. 2021. Small data? no problem! exploring the viability of pretrained multilingual language models for lowresourced languages. In *Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Multilingual Representation Learning*, pages 116–126, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ikechukwu E Onyenwe, Mark Hepple, Uchechukwu Chinedu, and Ignatius Ezeani. 2018. A basic language resource kit implementation for the IgboNLP project. ACM Trans. Asian Low-Resour. Lang. Inf. Process., 17(2). Ikechukwu E. Onyenwe, Mark Hepple, Uchechukwu Chinedu, and Ignatius Ezeani. 2019. Toward an effective Igbo part-of-speech tagger. *ACM Trans.* Asian Low-Resour. Lang. Inf. Process., 18(4). Wuraola Fisayo Oyewusi, Olubayo Adekanmbi, and Olalekan Akinsande. 2020. Semantic enrichment of Nigerian Pidgin English for contextual sentiment classification. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.12450*. Sinno Jialin Pan and Qiang Yang. 2010. A survey on transfer learning. *IEEE Transactions on Knowledge* and Data Engineering, 22(10):1345–1359. Xiaoman Pan, Boliang Zhang, Jonathan May, Joel Nothman, Kevin Knight, and Heng Ji. 2017. Cross-lingual name tagging and linking for 282 languages. In *Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long* Papers), pages 1946–1958, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. Matthew E. Peters, Mark Neumann, Mohit Iyyer, Matt Gardner, Christopher Clark, Kenton Lee, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. Deep contextualized word representations. 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 2227–2237, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. Edoardo Maria Ponti, Goran Glavaš, Olga Majewska, Qianchu Liu, Ivan Vulic, and Anna Korhonen. 2020. ´ XCOPA: A multilingual dataset for causal commonsense reasoning. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 2362–2376, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Victor Porkhomovsky. 2020. 269Afro-Asiatic Overview. In *The Oxford Handbook of African Languages*. Oxford University Press. Alec Radford, Karthik Narasimhan, Tim Salimans, and Ilya Sutskever. 2018. Improving language understanding by generative pre-training. 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. *Journal of Machine Learning Research*, 21(140):1–67. Afshin Rahimi, Yuan Li, and Trevor Cohn. 2019. Massively multilingual transfer for NER. In *Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for* Computational Linguistics, pages 151–164, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Zaline Makini Roy-Campbell. 2006. The state of African languages and the global language politics: Empowering African languages in the era of globalization. In *Selected proceedings of the 36th annual* conference on African linguistics, pages 1–13. Cascadilla Proceedings Project Somerville, MA. Sebastian Ruder. 2022. The State of Multilingual AI. http://ruder.io/ state-of-multilingual-ai/. Sebastian Ruder, Matthew E. Peters, Swabha Swayamdipta, and Thomas Wolf. 2019. Transfer learning in natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Tutorials, pages 15–18, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. Weber, Long Phan, Loubna Ben Allal, Ludovic Tanguy, Manan Dey, Manuel Romero Muñoz, Maraim Masoud, Mar'ia Grandury, Mario vSavsko, Max Huang, Maximin Coavoux, Mayank Singh, Mike Tian-Jian Jiang, Minh Chien Vu, Mohammad Ali Jauhar, Mustafa Ghaleb, Nishant Subramani, Nora Kassner, Nurulaqilla Khamis, Olivier Nguyen, Omar Espejel, Ona de Gibert, Paulo Villegas, Peter Henderson, Pierre Colombo, Priscilla Amuok, Quentin Lhoest, Rheza Harliman, Rishi Bommasani, Roberto L'opez, Rui Ribeiro, Salomey Osei, Sampo Pyysalo, Sebastian Nagel, Shamik Bose, Shamsuddeen Hassan Muhammad, Shanya Sharma, S. Longpre, Somaieh Nikpoor, Stanislav Silberberg, Suhas Pai, Sydney Zink, Tiago Timponi Torrent, Timo Schick, Tristan Thrush, Valentin Danchev, Vassilina Nikoulina, Veronika Laippala, Violette Lepercq, Vrinda Prabhu, Zaid Alyafeai, Zeerak Talat, Arun Raja, Benjamin Heinzerling, Chenglei Si, Elizabeth Salesky, Sabrina J. Mielke, Wilson Y. Lee, Abheesht Sharma, Andrea Santilli, Antoine Chaffin, Arnaud Stiegler, Debajyoti Datta, Eliza Szczechla, Gunjan Chhablani, Han Wang, Harshit Pandey, Hendrik Strobelt, Jason Alan Fries, Jos Rozen, Leo Gao, Lintang Sutawika, M Saiful Bari, Maged S. Al-shaibani, Matteo Manica, Nihal V. Nayak, Ryan Teehan, Samuel Albanie, Sheng Shen, Srulik Ben-David, Stephen H. Bach, Taewoon Kim, Tali Bers, Thibault Févry, Trishala Neeraj, Urmish Thakker, Vikas Raunak, Xiang Tang, Zheng Xin Yong, Zhiqing Sun, Shaked Brody, Y Uri, Hadar Tojarieh, Adam Roberts, Hyung Won Chung, Jaesung Tae, Jason Phang, Ofir Press, Conglong Li, Deepak Narayanan, Hatim Bourfoune, Jared Casper, Jeff Rasley, Max Ryabinin, Mayank Mishra, Minjia Zhang, Mohammad Shoeybi, Myriam Peyrounette, Nicolas Patry, Nouamane Tazi, Omar Sanseviero, Patrick von Platen, Pierre Cornette, Pierre Franccois Lavall'ee, Rémi Lacroix, Samyam Rajbhandari, Sanchit Gandhi, Shaden Smith, Stéphane Requena, Suraj Patil, Tim Dettmers, Ahmed Baruwa, Amanpreet Singh, Anastasia Cheveleva, Anne-Laure Ligozat, Arjun Subramonian, Aur'elie N'ev'eol, Charles Lovering, Daniel H Garrette, Deepak R. Tunuguntla, Ehud Reiter, Ekaterina Taktasheva, Ekaterina Voloshina, Eli Bogdanov, Genta Indra Winata, Hailey Schoelkopf, Jan-Christoph Kalo, Jekaterina Novikova, Jessica Zosa Forde, Jordan Clive, Jungo Kasai, Ken Kawamura, Liam Hazan, Marine Carpuat, Miruna Clinciu, Najoung Kim, Newton Cheng, Oleg Serikov, Omer Antverg, Oskar van der Wal, Rui Zhang, Ruochen Zhang, Sebastian Gehrmann, S. Osher Pais, Tatiana Shavrina, Thomas Scialom, Tian Yun, Tomasz Limisiewicz, Verena Rieser, Vitaly Protasov, Vladislav Mikhailov, Yada Pruksachatkun, Yonatan Belinkov, Zachary Bamberger, Zdenvek Kasner, Alice Rueda, Amanda Pestana, Amir Feizpour, Ammar Khan, Amy Faranak, Ananda Santa Rosa Santos, Anthony Hevia, Antigona Unldreaj, Arash Aghagol, Arezoo Abdollahi, Aycha Tammour, Azadeh HajiHosseini, Bahareh Behroozi, Benjamin Olusola Ajibade, Bharat Kumar Saxena, Carlos Muñoz Ferrandis, Danish Contractor, David M. Lansky, Davis David, Douwe Teven Le Scao, Angela Fan, Christopher Akiki, Elizabeth-Jane Pavlick, Suzana Ili'c, Daniel Hesslow, Roman Castagn'e, Alexandra Sasha Luccioni, Franccois Yvon, Matthias Gallé, Jonathan Tow, Alexander M. Rush, Stella Rose Biderman, Albert Webson, Pawan Sasanka Ammanamanchi, Thomas Wang, Benoît Sagot, Niklas Muennighoff, Albert Villanova del Moral, Olatunji Ruwase, Rachel Bawden, Stas Bekman, Angelina McMillan-Major, Iz Beltagy, Huu Nguyen, Lucile Saulnier, Samson Tan, Pedro Ortiz Suarez, Victor Sanh, Hugo Laurenccon, Yacine Jernite, Julien Launay, Margaret Mitchell, Colin Raffel, Aaron Gokaslan, Adi Simhi, Aitor Soroa Etxabe, Alham Fikri Aji, Amit Alfassy, Anna Rogers, Ariel Kreisberg Nitzav, Canwen Xu, Chenghao Mou, Chris C. Emezue, Christopher Klamm, Colin Leong, Daniel Alexander van Strien, David Ifeoluwa Adelani, Dragomir R. Radev, Eduardo G. Ponferrada, Efrat Levkovizh, Ethan Kim, Eyal Bar Natan, Francesco De Toni, Gérard Dupont, Germán Kruszewski, Giada Pistilli, Hady ElSahar, Hamza Benyamina, Hieu Tran, Ian Yu, Idris Abdulmumin, Isaac Johnson, Itziar Gonzalez-Dios, Javier de la Rosa, Jenny Chim, Jesse Dodge, Jian Zhu, Jonathan Chang, Jorg Frohberg, Josephine L. Tobing, Joydeep Bhattacharjee, Khalid Almubarak, Kimbo Chen, Kyle Lo, Leandro von Werra, Leon Kiela, Duong Anh Nguyen, Edward Tan, Emily Baylor, Ezinwanne Ozoani, Fatim T Mirza, Frankline Ononiwu, Habib Rezanejad, H.A. Jones, Indrani Bhattacharya, Irene Solaiman, Irina Sedenko, Isar Nejadgholi, Jan Passmore, Joshua Seltzer, Julio Bonis Sanz, Karen Fort, Lívia Macedo Dutra, Mairon Samagaio, Maraim Elbadri, Margot Mieskes, Marissa Gerchick, Martha Akinlolu, Michael McKenna, Mike Qiu, M. K. K. Ghauri, Mykola Burynok, Nafis Abrar, Nazneen Rajani, Nour Elkott, Nourhan Fahmy, Olanrewaju Modupe Samuel, Ran An, R. P. Kromann, Ryan Hao, Samira Alizadeh, Sarmad Shubber, Silas L. Wang, Sourav Roy, Sylvain Viguier, ThanhCong Le, Tobi Oyebade, Trieu Nguyen Hai Le, Yoyo Yang, Zachary Kyle Nguyen, Abhinav Ramesh Kashyap, Alfredo Palasciano, Alison Callahan, Anima Shukla, Antonio Miranda-Escalada, Ayush Kumar Singh, Benjamin Beilharz, Bo Wang, Caio Matheus Fonseca de Brito, Chenxi Zhou, Chirag Jain, Chuxin Xu, Clémentine Fourrier, Daniel Le'on Perin'an, Daniel Molano, Dian Yu, Enrique Manjavacas, Fabio Barth, Florian Fuhrimann, Gabriel Altay, Giyaseddin Bayrak, Gully A. Burns, Helena U. Vrabec, Iman I.B. Bello, Isha Dash, Ji Soo Kang, John Giorgi, Jonas Golde, Jose David Posada, Karthi Sivaraman, Lokesh Bulchandani, Lu Liu, Luisa Shinzato, Madeleine Hahn de Bykhovetz, Maiko Takeuchi, Marc Pàmies, María Andrea Castillo, Marianna Nezhurina, Mario Sanger, Matthias Samwald, Michael Cullan, Michael Weinberg, M Wolf, Mina Mihaljcic, Minna Liu, Moritz Freidank, Myungsun Kang, Natasha Seelam, Nathan Dahlberg, Nicholas Michio Broad, Nikolaus Muellner, Pascale Fung, Patricia Haller, R. Chandrasekhar, R. Eisenberg, Robert Martin, Rodrigo L. Canalli, Rosaline Su, Ruisi Su, Samuel Cahyawijaya, Samuele Garda, Shlok S Deshmukh, Shubhanshu Mishra, Sid Kiblawi, Simon Ott, Sinee Sang-aroonsiri, Srishti Kumar, Stefan Schweter, Sushil Pratap Bharati, T. A. Laud, Th'eo Gigant, Tomoya Kainuma, Wojciech Kusa, Yanis Labrak, Yashasvi Bajaj, Y. Venkatraman, Yifan Xu, Ying Xu, Yun chao Xu, Zhee Xao Tan, Zhongli Xie, Zifan Ye, Mathilde Bras, Younes Belkada, and Thomas Wolf. 2022. Bloom: A 176bparameter open-access multilingual language model. ArXiv, abs/2211.05100. Guillaume Segerer. 2008. Closed adjective classes and primary adjectives in African Languages. Working paper or preprint. Iyanuoluwa Shode, David Ifeoluwa Adelani, and Anna Feldman. 2022. YOSM: A new Yorùbá Sentiment Corpus for Movie Reviews. *AfricaNLP 2022* @ICLR. Gabriele Sommer. 2020. 889 Pidgin and Creole Languages. In *The Oxford Handbook of African Languages*. Oxford University Press. Xinying Song, Alex Salcianu, Yang Song, Dave Dopson, and Denny Zhou. 2021. Fast WordPiece tokenization. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, pages 2089–2103, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ewan Sutherland. 2018. Digital privacy in Africa : cybersecurity, data protection & surveillance. Data Protection & Surveillance (June 22, 2018). Rachael Tatman. 2017. Gender and dialect bias in YouTube's automatic captions. In Proceedings of the First ACL Workshop on Ethics in Natural Language Processing, pages 53–59, Valencia, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics. Rachael Tatman and Conner Kasten. 2017. Effects of Talker Dialect, Gender & Race on Accuracy of Bing Speech and YouTube Automatic Captions. In Proc. Interspeech 2017, pages 934–938. S. Thara and Prabaharan Poornachandran. 2021. Transformer based language identification for MalayalamEnglish code-mixed text. *IEEE Access*, 9:118837– 118850. Andros Tjandra, Diptanu Gon Choudhury, Frank Zhang, Kritika Singh, Alexis Conneau, Alexei Baevski, Assaf Sela, Yatharth Saraf, and Michael Auli. 2021. Improved language identification through cross-lingual self-supervised learning. UNESCO 66260. 2022. State of the art - indigenous languages in research webinar: concept note and agenda, 20 may 2022. Asahi Ushio and Jose Camacho-Collados. 2021. TNER: An all-round python library for Transformerbased named entity recognition. In *Proceedings of* the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations, pages 53–62, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Rainer Vossen. 2020. 9091 African Language Types. In The Oxford Handbook of African Languages. Oxford University Press. Alicia Beckford Wassink, Cady Gansen, and Isabel Bartholomew. 2022. Uneven success: automatic speech recognition and ethnicity-related dialects. Speech Communication, 140:50–70. K. Williamson. 2006. Benue–Congo languages*. In Keith Brown, editor, *Encyclopedia of Language &* Linguistics (Second Edition), second edition edition, pages 734–735. Elsevier, Oxford. Linting Xue, Noah Constant, Adam Roberts, Mihir Kale, Rami Al-Rfou, Aditya Siddhant, Aditya Barua, and Colin Raffel. 2021. mT5: A massively multilingual pre-trained text-to-text Transformer. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 483–498, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Seid Muhie Yimam, Hizkiel Mitiku Alemayehu, Abinew Ayele, and Chris Biemann. 2020. Exploring Amharic sentiment analysis from social media texts: Building annotation tools and classification models. In *Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics*, pages 1048– 1060, Barcelona, Spain (Online). International Committee on Computational Linguistics. Susan Zhang, Stephen Roller, Naman Goyal, Mikel Artetxe, Moya Chen, Shuohui Chen, Christopher Dewan, Mona Diab, Xian Li, Xi Victoria Lin, Todor Mihaylov, Myle Ott, Sam Shleifer, Kurt Shuster, Daniel Simig, Punit Singh Koura, Anjali Sridhar, Tianlu Wang, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2022. Opt: Open pre-trained Transformer language models. ## Appendices We provide an overview of the Appendix. Introduction - We share a large map of Africa showing the 517 Languages covered in our pretraining data in Figure A.1. - We also share the scripts represented in our pretraining data in Table A.1. ## Literature Review - We provide a more extensive literature review in B. We discuss Afrocentric NLP, multilingualism in NLP, diversity and inclusion in NLP and multilingual language models. Pretraining Data We discuss the pretraining data in more detain in Section C. Typology Information for AfroNLU In Section D we discuss 6 families that cover the languages in 18 datasets in AfroNLU. For each family, we provide visualizations that cover any number of languages in the 18 datasets. We provide visualizations for: - Afro-Asiatic in Figure D.1, - Austronesian in Figure D.2, - Creole in Figure D.3, - Indo-European in Figure D.4, - Niger-Congo in Figure D.5, and - Nilo-Saharan in Figure D.6. Evaluation We provide more information about the evaluations. We do the following: - We show SERENGETI's performance on the Dev. set in Table E.1. - We show SERENGETI's performance on each language in our multilingual datasets in Table E.4. - We perform error analysis and show examples of errors in Table E.2. We also show confusion matrices for the news classification, sentiment analysis, and topic classification clusters in in Figure E.1, Figure E.2, and Figure E.3. - We discuss the implications of imbalanced distribution and show confusion matrices for the news classification, sentiment analysis, and topic classification clusters in Figure E.4, Figure E.5, and Figure E.6. - We show results from comparing SERENGETI with AfroLID and Franc on AfroLID test set in Table 7. - Information about the languages in our pretraining data is provided in Table F.1, Table F.2 and Table F.3. - We share statistics of the top ten languages with the largest data in SERENGETI and the ten languages with the least dataset in Table F.4. Genealogy /Language Contact Analysis We further analyize our claim on the interaction of similar languages and zero-shot settings in Section F. - We create a Figure highlighting the languages er perform analysis on in Figure E.7. - We show the Jaccard similarity scores in Table 8. - Next we show the results of each language in zero-shot settings and results for finetuning on BERT in Table 9. ## A **Introduction** | Script | Languages | |----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------| | Ethiopic | Amharic, Basketo, Maale, ⋆Oromo, Sebat Bet Gurage Tigrinya, Xamtanga | | Arabic | Fulfude Adamawa, Fulfude Caka Tarifit | | Vai | Vai | | Coptic | Coptic | Table A.1: Scripts represented in SERENGETI. ## B **Literature Review** Representation learning is an integral part of modern NLP systems. It has significantly improved the state of the art in natural language understanding (NLU) and natural language generation (NLG). We now discuss Afrocentric NLP, Multilingualism in NLP, Diversity and Inclusion in NLP, MLMs, and LMs for African languages.  ## B.1 **Afrocentric Nlp** More than 2, 000 Indigenous languages are spoken in Africa, which is about a third of all languages spoken in the world (Eberhard et al., 2021). Unfortunately, the majority of these languages have not received any NLP attention to date. Rather, most NLP research has focused on higher resource languages. Most of these resourceful languages are typologically very different from Indigenous African languages. Methods used to develop technologies for these languages remain *Western-centric*, and may not be directly extensible to Indigenous African languages (Adebara and Abdul-Mageed, 2022). Existing NLP technologies also mostly function within the contexts of values and beliefs that reflect western societies and pose unique challenges if the technologies are applied within African com- ## Munities. Afrocentric NLP adopts a holistic approach to NLP throughout the life cycle of NLP policy making to model development and deployment. It discourages the current language data gas flaring policies that have led to the low resource status of many Indigenous African languages. Afrocentric NLP entails an understanding of the need for multidimensional policies that influence the language policy in education, media, government, and other domains to create ever-increasing, multi-domain, big data sources for NLP. During the archival and collection of language data, Afrocentric NLP necessitates respect of user consent, data sovereignty, wishes of local communities, and privacy (Sutherland, 2018; Daigle, 2021; Makulilo, 2012). For model development, approaches tailored to the unique typological features of African languages are of utmost priority. This also means development of models that understand simple to complex tones–a common feature in about 80% of African languages–serial verb constructions, and many other features (Hyman, 2003; Creissels et al., 2008). Afrocentric NLP also prioritizes deploying models in formats that people without programming experience can easily use. Furthermore, from an Afrocentric approach, development of certain NLP applications such as language models, language identification tools, spelling checkers, language specific keyboards, and machine translation systems is crucial to advance NLP for African languages. ## B.2 **Multilingualism In Nlp** Multilingualism, the ability to handle multiple languages within a single system or model, is becoming increasingly important as the amount of text and speech data in many languages increase. NLP systems capable of handling multiple languages can provide greater access to information and communication for people who speak languages other than those most commonly used or supported by NLP. Multilingualism in NLP (Ruder, 2022) is mainly achieved through building (1) a single model trained on several languages (Devlin et al., 2019; Conneau et al., 2020) and (2) transfer learning (Raffel et al., 2020; He et al., 2022; Ruder et al., 2019). In the former, large transformer models have achieved state-of-the-art on many tasks while the latter has enabled the use of low-resource languages through finetuned on various NLP tasks. Due to lack of adequate (or good quality) pretraining data (Kreutzer et al., 2021), transfer learning is often the most accessible method for a few low resource languages. Unfortunately, about 94% of the world's languages are either *left-behinds*, in that it is probably impossible to build NLP resources for them, or *scraping-bys* with no labelled datasets (Joshi et al., 2020). For the left-behinds, labelled and unlabelled data is unavailable and even transfer learning approaches are beyond reach. So far, to the best of our knowledge, the largest multilingual model for African languages is pretrained on only 28 African languages (Dossou et al., 2022). Most multilingual models are often trained with no more than 100 languages because increasing the number of language would mean decreasing its capacity to learn representations of each language (Conneau et al., 2020). Nevertheless, increasing model size was shown to ameliorate this problem (Goyal et al., 2021). In some cases, these benchmarks are translations from English (Artetxe et al., 2020; Nzeyimana and Niyongabo Rubungo, 2022; Ponti et al., 2020) and may not necessarily be a good evaluation for the languages. This is because translating from a source language may mask concept gaps and differences in linguistic constituents (Segerer, 2008) in the target language. That is, translations are at best approximations of the target language (Adebara and Abdul-Mageed, 2022; Joshi et al., 2020). For example, when translating into English (which marks (in)definiteness morphologically) from Yorùbá (which uses bare nouns but marks these features contextually), ambiguities arise (Adebara et al., 2022a). For evaluation of multilingual models, several benchmarks have been created(Artetxe et al., 2020) with most of these supporting English and other high-resource languages. More recently, a few evaluation sets were introduced for African languages (Ifeoluwa Adelani et al., 2021; Shode et al., 2022; Niyongabo et al., 2020).We include these evaluation sets in our benchmark, which we henceforth refer to as AfroNLU. When evaluating multilingual models, reporting model performance for each language in the benchmark is preferred because reporting the results as a single value on all languages may mask the model's performance on individual languages (Ruder, 2022). Large pre-training data, finetuning data, and evaluation benchmarks remain open challenging questions for achieving progress in multilingual NLP. For SERENGETI, we report results for each language in each benchmark across the 9 tasks we evaluate on. ## B.3 **Diversity And Inclusion In Nlp** Diversity relates to the level of variety within a system. It is the measure of distinctiveness between the various individuals within a group. Inclusion on the other hand relates to the level of representation or alignment of an individual within a group and the ability for that individual to function to its fullest ability (Fosch-Villaronga and Poulsen, 2022; Mitchell et al., 2020). Diversity and inclusion in NLP has gained increasing attention in recent years. In general, there is an acknowledgement that overrepresentation (and under-representation) of certain groups in the data used to train models (Mitchell et al., 2020) can be amplified by resulting technologies. This raises concerns about the technology and how it is that it can further existing biases and societal inequalities. But these biases can be exhibited in various ways beyond training data, including the algorithms implemented, the diversity of researchers and engineers developing the models, and the societal and cultural context in which they are used. Although this is starting to change, often times most of the data exploited in NLP models come from closely related Western languages. Most of these languages are Indo-European (Aji et al., 2022; Joshi et al., 2020), and many of them share close geographic proximity and typology. In addition, the people who speak these languages have similar cultures. The implication is that several linguistic phenomena and typologies are underrepresented in NLP data while those prevalent in Indo-European languages are over-represented (Chakravarthi and Muralidaran, 2021). About 88.38% of the 2, 679 languages whose typology is described in WALS (Dryer, 2013) have not been used in NLP (Joshi et al., 2020). Many ideas and topics, alien to Western cultures have also never been seen (Adebara and Abdul-Mageed, 2022; Bender, 2011) in NLP data. African languages–and indeed many low resource languages–have rich linguistic typology, probably not seen in any other language in the world (Bender, 2011). An obvious problem with the current lack of diversity in NLP data is that the methods and models developed have overfit to these Indo-European typologies and cannot generalize to other typologies. Similarly, machine translation systems have been found to exhibit gender, racial (Bolukbasi et al., 2016; Caliskan et al., 2017; Chakravarthi and Muralidaran, 2021) and stylistic biases (Hovy et al., 2020) in their outputs perpetuated through the data used for training. A number of studies have also found that algorithms could exhibit biases (Hooker, 2021; Buolamwini and Gebru, 2018; Dwork et al., 2011). For example, a recent study that investigated performance of Amazon Transcribe and Google Speech-To-Text on British English reported notably higher error rates for second language speakers of different varieties of British English (Markl, 2022). In another study, an evaluation of automatic speech recognition systems show substantial performance differences between 'standard' US English and African American English (AAE) varieties (Koenecke et al., 2020). In this study, commercial ASR systems developed by Amazon, Apple, Google, IBM, and Microsoft were evaluated and higher rates of errors were recorded for speakers of AAE than speakers of standard US varieties. Similar studies have also recorded higher errors in nonwhite users of English (Wassink et al., 2022; Martin and Tang, 2020). Other studies also reported differences in the performance of Youtube's automatic caption in different settings. One study reported higher accuracy in the transcriptions of US English compared with Indian English (Meyer et al., 2020). Another reported lower accuracy scores for women and speakers of Scottish English (Tatman, 2017) and non-white speakers of English (Tatman and Kasten, 2017). Apart from data and algorithmic biases, the diversity crises in AI research is also argued to perpetuate historical biases (Freire et al., 2021). A more inclusive and diverse workforce could promote the exploration of questions and solutions beyond currently investigated research questions (Fosch-Villaronga and Poulsen, 2022). Several initiatives have been adopted to increase diversity in AI, including providing travel grants to marginalized communities to attend conferences, creating mentoring opportunities, special workshops, and community diversity chairs. A number of organizations have also been developed to promote diversity and inclusion in AI and NLP, such as Masakhane, Black in AI, LatinX in AI. The impact of using biased systems in decision making have been extensively studied. Algorithmic decision-making using biased systems have been shown to have significant discriminatory effects in health (Obermeyer et al., 2019; Eubanks, 2018), employment (Barocas and Selbst, 2016), housing (Buolamwini and Gebru, 2018; Barocas and Selbst, 2016), government benefit allocation (Eubanks, 2018), policing (Buolamwini and Gebru, 2018; Barocas and Selbst, 2016; Angwin et al., 2018), and freedom (Angwin et al., 2018). Lack of diversity also has implication on access to technology. Currently, due to the use of a few high resource languages in NLP, there is limited global access to important applications such as machine translation, speech processing, information retrieval, and sentiment analysis. These technologies play an important role in ensuring a language thrives and offer major contributions to ongoing communication, literacy, education, and translation efforts in communities worldwide. These languages which have barely been used for NLP, usually referred to as low-resource languages, represent more than 90% of the world's 7, 000 languages (Joshi et al., 2020). The current focus of NLP on resource-rich languages does also have aggravating effects on the language endangerment problem which has been of serious concern for linguistics and language policy around the world. An alarming 50 − 90% of languages have been envisaged to go extinct by the end of the century due to the domination by some of these resource-rich languages (Besacier et al., 2014). Overall, diversity and inclusion in NLP remain active areas of research and comprise pressing issues of international significance. SERENGETI contributes to diversity and inclusion in NLP as follows: (1) We develop SERENGETI, a suite of massively, multilingual language models that support 517 African languages and language varieties. To the best of our knowledge, more than 400 of these languages have never been represented in any language model to date. (2) The languages we support belong to 14 language families. (3) We provide a massive benchmark covering 28 languages across eight different tasks. ## B.4 **Multilingual Language Models** MLMs have proven effective for cross-lingual NLU and NLG, often outperforming monolingual language models (Conneau et al., 2020). Different objectives have been adopted for training (Doddapaneni et al., 2021), using Transformer architectures. These LMs use one of the three different variants of Transformer architectures–encoder-decoder, encoder-only and decoder-only (Cai et al., 2022). In the encoder-decoder models, input is encoded by the encoder side and the decoder conducts the operation to predict the sequence one token at a time or just reconstruct it by denoising. MBART (Liu et al., 2020), AfriTeva (Jude Ogundepo et al., 2022), M2M100 (Fan et al., 2020), and MT5 (Xue et al., 2021) are representatives for this architecture. Encoder-only models use only the encoder part of the transformer architecture, while decoderonly models use its decoder only. Some examples of encoder-only models are BERT (Devlin et al., 2019), XLMR (Conneau et al., 2020), and Electra (Chi et al., 2021), while BLOOM (Scao et al., 2022), GPT (Radford et al., 2018, 2019; Brown et al., 2020b), OPT (Zhang et al., 2022) are examples of decoder-only models. Most LMs developed for African languages use an encoder-only architecture, except AfriTEVA and AfroT5 which use encoder-decoder architectures. These models are further finetuned on specific tasks. Finetuning has demonstrated its effectiveness on various NLU and NLG downstream tasks including part of speech tagging (Conneau et al., 2020), named entity recognition (Ushio and Camacho-Collados, 2021; Conneau et al., 2020), and question answering (Conneau et al., 2020). Finetuning follows a transfer learning approach which attempts to transfer knowledge from other sources to benefit a current task. This is based on the premise that previous knowledge may improve solutions for a current task (Pan and Yang, 2010; Raffel et al., 2020; He et al., 2022; Ruder et al., 2019). Transfer learning allows the domains, tasks, and distributions used in training and testing to be different thereby enabling a new task to leverage previously acquired domain knowledge. Potential benefits include faster learning, better generalization, and a more robust system. In the real world, we find many examples of transfer learning where humans transfer previous knowledge while learning or performing a task. For instance, knowing how to play the piano may facilitate learning to play the guitar and knowing how to ride a bicycle may facilitate learning to ride a motorbike. Finetuning is thus done by reusing the LM's parameters as a starting point, while adding one task-specific layer trained from scratch. Finetuning can be done on an individual or joint basis (Kitaev et al., 2019). In the former, a model is finetuned on single language for a specific downstream task. In the later, training data from a combination of multiple languages can be jointly finetuned in a single model. ## C **Pretraining Data** We provide details of our pretraining data below: Religious Domain. Our religious data is taken from online Bibles, Qurans, and data crawled from the Jehovah's witness website. We also include religious texts from the book of Mormon. News Domain. We collect data from online newspapers (Adebara and Abdul-Mageed, 2022) and news sites such as Voice of America, Voice of Nigeria, BBC, Global voices, and DW news sites. We collect local newspapers from 27 languages from across Africa. Government Documents. We collect government documents South African Centre for Digital Language Resources (SADiLaR), and the Universal Declaration of human rights (UDHR) in multiple languages. Health Documents. We collect multiple health documents from the Department of Health, State Government of Victoria, Australia. We collect documents in Amharic, Dinka, Harari, Oromo, Somali, Swahili, and Tigrinya. Existing Corpora. We collect corpora available on the web for different African languages, including from Project Gutenberg for Afrikaans, South African News data. for Sepedi and Setswana, OSCAR (Abadji et al., 2021) for Afrikaans, Amharic, Somali, Swahili, Oromo, Malagasy, and Yoruba. We also used Tatoeba for Afrikaans, Amharic, Bemba, Igbo, Kanuri, Kongo, Luganda, Malagasy, Sepedi, Ndebele, Kinyarwanda, Somali, Swahili, Tsonga, Xhosa, Yoruba, and Zulu; Swahili Language Modelling Data for Swahili; Ijdutse corpus for Hausa; Data4Good corpora for Luganda, CC-100 for Amharic, Fulah, Igbo, Yoruba, Hausa, Tswana, Lingala, Luganada, Afrikaans, Somali, Swahili, Swati, North Sotho, Oromo, Wolof, Xhosa, and Zulu; Afriberta-Corpus for Afaan / Oromo, Amharic, Gahuza, Hausa, Igbo, Pidgin, Somali, Swahili, Tigrinya and Yoruba; mC4 for Afrikaans, Amharic, Hausa, Igbo, Malagasy, Chichewa, Shona, Somali, Sepedi, Swahili, Xhosa, Yoruba and Zulu. ## D **Typology Information For Afronlu** SERENGETI consists of languages from 14 families including: Afro-Asiatic, Austronesean, CreoleEnglish, Creole-French, Creole-Kongo, CreoleNgbandi, Creole-Portuguese, khoe-kwadi-Hainum, khoe-kwadi-Nama khoe-kwadi-Southwest, IndoEuropean, Niger-Congo, and Nilo Saharan. We discuss the classes from AfroNLU which includes Afro-Asiatic, Austronesian, Creole-English, NigerCongo, and Nilo-Saharan. ## D.1 **Afro-Asiatic** Afro-Asiatic (aka Hamito-Semitic) is one of the language families of Africa. It consists of five or six branches: Berber, Chadic, Cushitic, Egyptian, Omotic (or a single Cush-Omotic), and Semitic(Porkhomovsky, 2020; Comrie, 2017). Many Afro-Asiatic languages are spoken in Central, East, North, and West Africa. They are also spoken in the Middle East and in scattered communities in Europe, the United States, and the Caucasus (Frajzyngier, 2018). In Figure D.1, we show relationship between the Afro-asiatic languages in AfroNLU. ## D.2 **Austronesian** Austronesian languages are found along Mainland Southeast Asia, through Indonesia, Western New Guniea, and the Madagascar area in Africa (Eberhard et al., 2021). Many of them have been shown to exhibit an isolating word structure. This means that the words in these languages are of minimal morphological complexity (Gil and Schapper, 2020). In Figure D.2, we show the geneology for Malagasy, the only Austronesian language in our benchmark. ## D.3 **Creole** A creole language is one spoken initially only in situations of contact between speakers of two or more mutually unintelligible languages, and not as a language within an ethnic group (Sommer, 2020). Historically, creoles have evolved along trade routes or in colonized communities particularly when several groups of people without a common lingua franca are forced to communicate in the presence of a dominant language. Creole languages therefore often include lexical items and grammatical features from multiple contact languages. Usually, one dominant language that is also referred to as the *lexifier* language contributes a majority of the vocabulary. Creole languages are classified based on their geographical location and are further grouped according to their main lexifier languages, their presumed origins, and the major languages with which they are in contact (i.e., *contact* languages). Figure D.3 shows the geneology for Nigerian Pidgin, the only Creole in our pretraining collection. ## D.4 **Indo-European** Afrikaans is the only "Indigenous" Indo-European language spoken in Africa. Although it may also be viewed as not being truly Indigenous to Africa (Kirsten, 2018). Indo-European languages were originally domiciled in Europe, Iran, Turkey, Western Asia and India (Clackson, 2007; Eberhard et al., 2021; Comrie, 2017; Kirsten, 2018). However, due to migration, Indo-European languages are spoken around the world. In 2003, over 2.5 billion people spoke an Indo-European language (Clackson, 2007). In Figure D.4, we show the geneology for Afrikaans. ## D.5 **Niger-Congo** Niger-Congo, also referred to as NigerKordofanian, is the largest language family Figure D.1: Afro-Asiatic languages in SERENGETI pretraining data. Amharic (amh), Hausa (hau), Oromo (gaz), Somali (som)  and Tigrinya (tir) are presented in red circles. **Crosble -**C** - **Basis -**C** - **A**lantale -**C** - **Kro -**C** - **P**om Figure D.2: Austroneasean language family consisting of Malagasy (mlg). Figure D.3: SERENGETI pretraining data has one creole language, Nigerian Pidgin, indicated with ISO-639-3 code pcm. in Africa (Good, 2020; Comrie, 2017). It consists of the highest number of languages and speakers in Africa. Niger-Congo languages spread across sub-Saharan Africa, with Benue-Congo, including Bantu languages dominating the southern part of the continent. Figure D.5 shows the Niger-congo languages in our collection. Although we use similar colours for languages which are sisters of the same parent, only some of those languages are mutually intelligible. That is speakers of each individual language understand each other's language without learning it. Specifically, Kinyawanda (kin) and Kirundi (run) are mutually intelligible (Nassenstein, 2019). Ndebele, Siswati, Xhosa, and Zulu also share various levels of intelligibility mutually intelligible (Arndt, 2015; Roy-Campbell, 2006). Sepedi, Sotho, and Tswana also share some levels of mutual intelligibility (Roy-Campbell, 2006). ## D.6 **Nilo-Saharan** Nilo-Saharan is subdivided into four branches that include North Eastern, Central Sudanic and two disputed branches–Songhay and Koman (Dimmendaal Figure D.4: Indo-European language family consisting of Afrikaans (afr). et al., 2019; Dimmendaal, 2020; Comrie, 2017). These branches are further divided into other subgroups, languages, and dialects. Nilo-Saharan languages are spoken predominantly by eastern and central African pastoralists, and includes in its main Chari-Nile branch the Central Sudanic and Eastern Sudanic (also called Nilotic) languages. Figure D.6 shows the Nilo-saharan languages in our pretraining data. ## E **Evaluation** E.1 **Performance Analysis** In this section, we provide more information about our evaluation procedure and results using visualizations and tables. Figure E.1 shows the confusion matrix for the news classification cluster. Figure E.2 shows the performance of SERENGETI on the sentiment analysis cluster. Each confusion matrix represents each dataset in the sentiment analysis cluster. In Figure E.3, we show SERENGETI performance on each category in the topic classification datasets. ## E.2 **Error Analysis** In the sentiment analysis cluster, best performance is recorded for positive categories while negative categories have the worst performance. A finegrained analysis of the Yoruba sentiment dataset found that SERENGETI failed to correctly categor-  ize sentiment if the polarity item(s) were not seen in training, can be associated with both positive and negative sentiments, the polarity item(s) is a negation, or if ambivalent markers are present in the sentence. We provide a table showing examples of each type of error we found in Table E.2 in the Appendix. For the news classification task, politics and tourism are the best performing classes while education and relationships have the worst performance on kirnews and kinnews respectively. It is important to mention that the worst performing categories do not have the smallest data sizes. For the topic classification, the best performance is on the world class for Hausa topic modelling while entertainment and sport have best performance for Yoruba. The worst performance is on Nigeria and health for Hausa and Yoruba topic datasets respectively. ## E.3 **Imbalanced Distribution** We find imbalances in the class distributions for all datasets except YOSM. We find a positive correlation between the size of each category in a dataset and the model accuracy. The larger the number of examples in a specific class, the better the accuracy, | Cluster | Task | SOTA | XLMR | mBERT | Afro-XLMR | AfriBERTa | Serengeti-E110 | Serengeti-E250 | Serengeti | |---------------------------------|--------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|------------------|------------------|-------------| | masakaner-v1 | 84.8±0.3 | 85.59 ±0.20 | 82.82 ±0.10 | 87.79 ±0.33 | 85.19 ±0.08 | 86.11±0.27 | 86.42 ±0.26 | 88.82 ±0.18 | | | masakaner-v2 | 85.7±0.1⋆ | 87.00 ±0.12 | 85.07±0.83 | 87.46 ±0.06 | 86.19 ±0.11 | 86.51 ±0.22 | 86.81 ±0.24 | 88.98 ±0.20 | | | masakaner-east | - | 83.52 ±1.03 | 82.85 ±0.42 | 87.28 ±0.68 | 83.33 ±0.56 | 85.64 ±0.50 | 87.12 ±0.62 | 88.09 ±0.57 | | | masakaner-eastwest | - | 87.70 ±0.30 | 87.29 ±0.33 | 89.34 ±0.07 | 87.77 ±0.34 | 88.14 ±0.26 | 88.96±0.15 | 90.38 ±0.17 | | | masakaner-west | - | 89.77 ±0.53 | 90.28 ±0.46 | 89.97 ±0.23 | 89.36±0.46 | 88.24 ±0.52 | 89.44 ±0.56 | 91.58 ±0.08 | | | nchlt-ner | - | 72.19 ±0.13 | 71.44 ±0.07 | 73.22 ±0.2 | 69.25 ±0.25 | 65.67 ±0.07 | 65.86 ±0.16 | 73.81 ±0.18 | | | yoruba-twi-ner | - | 57.40 ±2.51 | 75.35 ±0.78 | 68.02 ±2.01 | 82.40 ±0.04 | 65.6 ±2.87 | 62.45 ±1.04 | 79.68 ±1.42 | | | wikiann | - | 84.82 ±0.24 | 84.68 ±0.85 | 87.00 ±1.12 | 84.58 ±0.46 | 84.21 ±0.12 | 85.64 ±0.36 | 86.91 ±0.31 | | | Phrase Chunking | phrase-chunk | - | 90.41 ±0.10 | 89.62 ±0.24 | 91.54 ±0.24 | 89.47 ±0.22 | 91.99 ±0.02 | 91.70 ±0.27 | 92.01 ±0.18 | | POS | igbo-pos | - | 85.40 ±0.04 | 85.31 ±0.16 | 85.23 ±0.26 | 85.35 ±0.07 | 85.39 ±0.14 | 85.54 ±0.12 | 85.36 ±0.18 | | NER | amharic-news | - | 85.83 ±0.56 | 60.83 ±0.91 | 85.97 ±0.34 | 87.03 ±0.35 | 86.37 ±0.42 | 86.13 ±0.20 | 86.84 ±0.32 | | kinnews | - | 76.5 ±0.91 | 77.98 ±0.41 | 79.15 ±0.57 | 78.21 ±0.41 | 80.09 ±0.68 | 79.54 ±1.00 | 79.32 ±1.49 | | | News | kirnews | - | 53.77 ±2.54 | 66.87 ±1.48 | 86.77 ±1.49 | 86.72 ±0.21 | 73.63 ±6.66 | 83.18 ±1.3 | 85.39 ±2.73 | | swahili-news-v0.2 | - | 88.43 ±0.31 | 85.28 ±0.21 | 88.89 ±0.58 | 88.76 ±0.82 | 88.09 ±1.02 | 86.97 ±1.31 | 89.29 ±0.74 | | | bambara-v2 | - | 46.22 ±1.94 | 65.00 ±2.00 | 62.81 ±1.35 | 60.19 ±1.61 | 60.50 ±0.94 | 63.90 ±3.5 | 63.17 ±0.51 | | | Sentiment Analysis pidgin-tweet | - | 69.99 ±0.41 | 69.00 ±0.44 | 71.41 ±0.16 | 69.47 ±0.84 | 69.98 ±0.35 | 69.64 ±0.23 | 68.27 ±1.11 | | | yosm | - | 81.18 ±1.63 | 83.99 ±0.49 | 85.50 ±0.87 | 87.47 ±0.53 | 85.33 ±0.76 | 83.00 ±1.32 | 84.83 ±2.93 | | | Topic | hausa-topic | - | 84.75 ±1.88 | 83.48 ±1.52 | 87.83 ±0.53 | 88.41 ±0.49 | 87.50 ±0.11 | 88.21 ±0.61 | 89.52 ±1.11 | | yoruba-topic | - | 64.37 ±3.15 | 82.81 ±1.56 | 86.60 ±1.21 | 85.74 ±2.23 | 78.11 ±4.55 | 73.07 ±3.38 | 83.58 ±1.68 | | | AfroNLU Score | 77.77 | 79.54 | 82.96 | 80.92 | 80.03 | 80.43 | 83.04 | | | Table E.1: Performance of models on seven AfroNLU benchmark DEV datasets. (F1) score is the evaluation metric. In QA task, we train the models on English squad TRAIN and DEV datasets. We exclude the QA from AfroNLU DEV datasets. We use a dash (-) for tasks without a known SOTA. Table E.2: Error analysis of Yoruba Sentiment analysis dataset. The polarity items are highlighted in red. | Category | Sentence | Gold | Prediction | | | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|--------------|----|----| | Ambivalence Markers | Kò burú s ùgbò n ó ti pé jù | positive | negative | | | | ˙ | ˙ | ˙ | | | | | Sinimá tì a lè pè nì ìràwó sinimá tì ò n` ˙ ko mó nà mó nà s ùgbò n n tì kò nì ohun ámúye ni. | negative | positive | | | | | ˙ | ˙ | ˙ | ˙ | ˙ | ˙ | | Negation | Eré síse naa ko dára to, ìtàn naa kò yeni, ní èrò tèmi òs èré tó daa jù ni ìyá náà | negative | positive | | | | ˙ | | | | | | | S e oun tó o fé . | negative | positive | | | | | ˙ | ˙ | | | | | | Not seen in training | Wo n rí sinima yìí s e, àgbó dò wò ni | positive | negative | | | | ˙ | ˙ | ˙ | ˙ | | | | Irú yádi fíímù. Mo kórìrá gbogbo dídágbé mi nìkan kejì tì o. Ìdo tí nlá! | negative | positive | | | | | ´ | | | | | | | ˙ | | | | | | | Polarity item can be either | Ìkìlò . O ní láti wo ìparí eré yìí nítorí wípé nkan ´ ˙ | | | | | | positive or negative | s e lè ní ìparí eré náà. | positive | negative | | | | ˙ ˙ ˙ Nìkan ní ìpò àwàdà Nollywood gbòòrò. S é ó ní ˙ ìdánílójú nítòótó . | negative | positive | | | | | ˙ | | | | | |  Figure E.1: Confusion matrices showing the performance of SERENGETI for each categories in Kirnews and Kinnews classification datasets. The categories are (1) politics, (2) sports, (3) economy, (4) health, (5) entertainment, (6) history, (7) technology, (8) tourism, (9) culture, (10) fashion (11) religion, (12) environment, (13) education, and (14) relationship. Kirnews does not have Class 8 and 10.    although we find a few exceptions. We provide confusion matrices that represents the sizes of each category and the performance of SERENGETI in Figures E.4, E.5, and E.6.  1. " 9 1 987 an 200 100 50–50 -0     | ISO-639-3 | SERENGETI | AfroLID | Franc | ISO-639-3 | SERENGETI | AfroLID | Franc | ISO-639-3 | SERENGETI | AfroLID | Franc | |-----------------------------------|---------------------------------|-------------------------------|---------|-------------|-------------|-----------|---------|-------------|-------------|-----------|---------| | aar | 100.00 | 96.00 | 74.00 | kde | 99.00 | 95.00 | 60.00 | pov | 98.00 | 93.00 | 82.00 | | ada | 100.00 | 100.00 | 98.00 | kdh | 100.00 | 99.00 | 95.00 | run | 97.00 | 91.00 | 68.00 | | afr | 100.00 | 97.00 | 81.00 | kea | 98.00 | 96.07 | 0.00 | sag | 100.00 | 100.00 | 30.00 | | amh | 99.00 | 97.00 | 36.00 | kin | 94.00 | 89.00 | 47.00 | shk | 100.00 | 100.00 | 93.00 | | bam | 92.00 | 70.00 | 30.00 | kmb | 98.00 | 94.00 | 71.00 | sna | 98.00 | 97.00 | 91.00 | | bba | 100.00 | 100.00 | 83.00 | kng | 99.00 | 98.00 | 58.00 | som | 98.00 | 95.00 | 89.00 | | bci | 97.00 | 98.00 | 92.00 | koo | 96.00 | 96.00 | 96.00 | sot | 92.00 | 88.00 | 93.00 | | bem | 98.00 | 94.00 | 90.00 | kqn | 99.00 | 98.00 | 84.00 | ssw | 92.00 | 86.00 | 68.00 | | bfa | 100.00 | 99.00 | 91.00 | kqs | 99.00 | 95.00 | 73.00 | suk | 100.00 | 99.00 | 34.00 | | bin | 100.00 | 99.00 | 97.00 | ktu | 98.00 | 93.00 | 19.00 | sus | 99.00 | 99.00 | 96.00 | | bum | 98.00 | 97.00 | 72.00 | lia | 98.00 | 97.00 | 100.00 | swh | 95.00 | 77.00 | 70.00 | | cjk | 98.00 | 96.00 | 56.00 | lin | 98.00 | 99.00 | 98.00 | tem | 99.00 | 99.00 | 88.00 | | crs | 97.00 | 96.00 | 83.00 | lot | 100.00 | 99.00 | 93.00 | tir | 100.00 | 99.00 | 97.00 | | dag | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | loz | 100.00 | 95.00 | 92.00 | tiv | 100.00 | 100.00 | 99.00 | | dga | 98.00 | 100.00 | 78.00 | lua | 98.00 | 99.00 | 87.00 | toi | 98.00 | 98.00 | 80.00 | | dip | 98.00 | 93.00 | 86.00 | lue | 98.00 | 95.00 | 68.00 | tsn | 81.00 | 76.00 | 33.00 | | dyu | 95.00 | 96.00 | 0.00 | lug | 96.00 | 87.00 | 64.00 | tso | 97.00 | 99.00 | 94.00 | | ewe | 93.00 | 97.00 | 97.00 | lun | 97.00 | 97.00 | 86.00 | twi | 100.00 | 100.00 | 87.00 | | fat | 98.00 | 98.00 | 94.00 | men | 98.00 | 98.00 | 99.00 | umb | 100.00 | 99.00 | 76.00 | | fon | 98.00 | 97.00 | 92.00 | mfq | 92.00 | 95.00 | 88.00 | vai | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | | fuf | 96.00 | 93.00 | 52.00 | mos | 99.00 | 97.00 | 90.00 | ven | 98.00 | 95.00 | 85.00 | | fuv | 95.00 | 94.00 | 61.00 | nba | 100.00 | 99.00 | 61.00 | vmw | 98.00 | 97.00 | 95.00 | | gaa | 98.00 | 95.00 | 97.00 | nbl | 79.00 | 74.00 | 47.00 | wol | 87.00 | 81.00 | 21.00 | | gaz | 94.00 | 94.00 | 96.00 | ndo | 97.00 | 96.00 | 76.00 | xho | 75.00 | 67.00 | 30.00 | | gjn | 100.00 | 98.00 | 99.00 | nso | 89.00 | 83.00 | 59.00 | xsm | 99.00 | 99.00 | 53.00 | | gkp | 68.00 | 63.00 | 69.00 | nya | 99.00 | 92.00 | 75.00 | yor | 99.00 | 98.00 | 66.00 | | hau | 95.00 | 88.00 | 77.00 | nym | 98.00 | 99.00 | 54.00 | zdj | 98.00 | 96.00 | 63.00 | | ibb | 99.00 | 98.00 | 84.00 | nyn | 95.00 | 92.00 | 92.00 | zul | 68.00 | 50.00 | 40.00 | | ibo | 97.00 | 97.00 | 88.00 | nzi | 100.00 | 97.00 | 98.00 | | | | | | kbp | 100.00 | 100.00 | 98.00 | pcm | 96.00 | 96.00 | 82.00 | | | | | | SERENGETI Average f1_score: 96.29 | AfroLID Average f1_score: 91.63 | Franc Average: f1_score 74.81 | | | | | | | | | | ## F **Detailed Geneaology And Language** Contact Analysis In this Section, we use Figures and Tables to provide evidence for the influence of similar languages in zero-shot settings. First, we highlight in purple the similar languages that we perform genealogy analysis on in Figure E.7. In the figure, the languages with mutual intelligibility are presented in similar coloured circles. To determine the significance of language similarity and language contact in our own zero-shot settings, we measure the Jaccard similarity between the pretraining data for the South African languages in AfroNLU (see Table 8). To calculate the Jaccard similarities, we removed digits, emojis, and punctuation marks. We do this to ensure that we reduce interference with the similarity scores. We find strong similarities between some of these languages as in the bolded examples in Table 8. We find that although XLM-R, mBERT, and AfriBERTa are not trained on most most of these languages, we record high scores in zero-shot settings see Table E.4). We argue that XLM-R in addition to cross-lingual transfers from other languages acquires representation from afr and xho where xho alone shares more than 0.4 similarity with afr, nbl, nso, and zul. mBERT also learns representation from afr while AfriBERTa learns representations from Gahuza which is a code-mixed variety of kin and run. SERENGETI however, outperforms other models on these datasets indicating that learning the representation of each language improves performance. Next, we finetune a BERT model and compare the performance of BERT with MBERT. We do this because BERT is a monolingual model and does not include any similar language in its representation. In Table 9, BERT significantly performs lower than MBERT in all languages in NCHLTNER. BERT also has lower performance on the phrase-chunk dataset in all languages except on ssw, and ven. This analysis is far from being conclusive and future work can further probe the influence of similar languages in more detail. This is necessary to evaluate to what extent similar languages have an influence on performance in zero-shot settings and why in zero shot settings, some monolingual models outperform multilingual ones. For example, in the case of ssw and ven.   Cluster Dataset Lang. XLMR mBERT Afro-XLMR AfriBERTa SERENGETI amh 73.98±0.64 0.0 ±0.0 **77.38**±0.47 69.61±0.76 74.26±0.54 hau 91.39±0.24 88.25 ±0.42 91.92±0.86 91.12±0.37 **92.03**±0.59 ibo 84.55 ±0.15 84.44 ±0.97 87.51±0.92 87.95±0.54 **87.82**±0.63 kin 73.54 ±0.35 71.02 ±1.34 78.46±0.34 75.07 ±0.51 **78.56**±0.34 lug 78.65 ±1.25 79.07 ±2.01 82.11 ±0.99 77.84 ±0.4 **84.61**±0.4 luo 74.28 ±1.87 74.47 ±0.08 75.20 ±1.23 70.76 ±1.57 **77.28**±1.61 pcm 88.89 ±0.56 88.88 ±0.91 **90.07**±0.18 87.65±0.43 89.65±0.63 swa 87.68±0.98 86.12±0.5 87.77±0.1 87.72±0.13 **88.08**±0.13 wol 63.4 ±0.68 64.25 ±1.66 **68.09** ±1.65 60.9 ±1.69 66.26±1.47 yor 78.97 ±0.93 79.45±0.36 **83.76**±0.34 79.89±0.89 83.08±1.18 bam 80.66 ±0.99 79.2 ±1.43 81.04 ±0.31 78.55 ±0.42 **82.11**±0.53 bbj 72.82 ±1.07 62.44 ±0.59 73.31 ±0.74 71.97 ±1.61 **73.66**±0.87 ewe 88.54 ±0.23 84.19 ±1.12 89.58 ±0.54 86.97 ±0.4 **89.75**±0.14 fon 82.34 ±0.09 77.87 ±0.47 82.62 ±0.73 78.66 ±0.39 **82.86**±0.53 hau 86.09±0.61 82.66 ±1.46 87.29±0.67 86.14±0.38 **87.33**±0.62 ibo 89.67 ±0.28 84.04 ±1.09 91.99±0.11 91.56±0.36 **92.28**±0.21 kin 84.04 ±0.48 83.53 ±0.81 **86.51**±0.3 83.22 ±0.25 86.38±0.35 lug 86.18 ±0.22 85.78 ±1.41 88.17 ±0.56 85.32 ±0.49 **89.24**±0.37 mos 74.55 ±0.65 67.75 ±1.84 **75.25** ±0.71 69.95±0.89 73.74±1.62 nya 90.23 ±0.14 88.6 ±0.65 **91.84**±0.23 88.83 ±0.11 91.29±0.19 pcm 89.11 ±0.1 87.90 ±1.0 **89.27**±0.4 87.81±0.45 88.77±0.37 sna 94.15 ±0.19 93.06 ±0.75 95.35±0.16 93.51 ±0.32 **95.92**±0.2 swa 92.37±0.05 91.09±0.33 **93.06**±0.14 92.43±0.11 92.87±0.33 tsn 85.69 ±0.89 85.02 ±0.85 88.24 ±0.26 83.58 ±0.79 **88.43**±0.1 twi 79.60 ±1.45 78.05 ±2.3 79.94 ±1.6 75.35 ±0.81 **80.25**±1.1 wol 85.14 ±0.34 83.65 ±1.11 84.60 ±0.4 81.68 ±0.38 **85.97**±0.43 xho 87.6±0.15 86.24 ±1.2 **89.59**±0.37 86.18 ±0.17 88.76±0.76 yor 86.56 ±0.36 83.45±1.63 **88.91**±0.27 87.45±0.17 87.99±0.61 zul 86.32 ±0.6 84.16 ±1.75 89.75±0.16 84.9 ±0.27 **90.41**±0.24 afr 80.68±0.75 80.08±0.29 80.55±0.11 74.5 ±0.64 **81.57**±0.59 nbl 74.64 ±0.66 73.48 ±0.18 75.26±0.28 72.28 ±0.67 **77.13**±0.67 nso 77.0 ±1.23 78.75 ±0.45 80.13±0.51 75.45 ±1.09 **80.69**±0.64 sot 54.71 ±1.51 54.68 ±0.49 55.57±0.2 54.09 ±0.98 **56.26**±1.52 ssw 71.75 ±0.65 71.24 ±0.75 72.35±1.02 69.38 ±0.58 **73.37**±0.82 tsn 77.02 ±0.22 76.35 ±0.47 77.68±0.96 73.89 ±1.41 **79.05**±0.75 tso 74.24 ±0.08 72.95 ±0.67 74.85 ±0.43 71.05 ±0.9 **75.13**±0.31 ven 64.06 ±0.31 63.11 ±1.27 64.39 ±0.36 63.24 ±1.26 **65.42**±0.76 xho 70.77±2.45 68.54 ±1.44 72.37±0.39 67.00 ±1.27 **72.92**±0.29 zul 69.44 ±0.62 67.74 ±1.46 70.28±0.49 67.17 ±0.15 **71.20**±0.44 amh 57.76±0.45 33.96 ±1.83 64.27±1.91 60.16±2.83 **68.11**±1.75 ibo 73.6 ±1.32 70.83 ±1.86 73.93±1.12 **76.14**±1.42 75.73±2.78 kin 69.67 ±2.07 77.35 ±4.47 **82.24**±2.17 79.8 ±1.06 79.78±1.78 swh 88.09±0.32 88.00±0.28 88.83±0.47 86.13±0.2 **89.16**±0.35 yor 83.8 ±2.06 81.96±0.88 **87.96**±1.24 82.77±0.23 85.00±2.42 afr 95.34±0.16 95.68±0.30 95.13±0.06 90.22 ±0.81 **96.01**±0.14 nso 96.57 ±0.61 96.85 ±0.55 **98.36**±0.2 96.47 ±0.14 98.28±0.1 sot 82.93 ±0.38 83.08 ±0.78 85.28±0.61 82.18 ±0.93 **85.69**±0.76 ssw 82.9 ±1.03 81.91 ±0.47 **84.73**±0.18 83.24 ±0.11 83.45±0.12 tsn 92.77 ±0.16 92.64 ±0.66 94.11±0.49 92.71 ±0.42 **94.03**±0.19 tso 86.42 ±0.46 86.90 ±0.31 87.39 ±0.18 86.73 ±0.95 **89.32**±0.43 ven 92.31 ±0.45 90.47 ±0.32 92.42 ±0.68 92.02 ±0.33 **92.54**±0.21 zul 87.30 ±0.26 87.29 ±1.04 88.67±0.66 85.74 ±0.55 **90.05**±0.81 ISO-639-3 Language ISO-639-3 Language ISO-639-3 Language ISO-639-3 Language aar Afar / Qafar bky Bokyi dow Doyayo gol Gola aba Abe / Abbey bmo Bambalang dsh Daasanach gqr Gor abn Abua bmv Bum dua Douala gso Gbaya, Southwest acd Gikyode bom Berom dug Chiduruma gud Dida, Yocoboue ach Acholi bov Tuwuli dwr Dawro gur Farefare ada Dangme box Bwamu / Buamu dyi Sénoufo, Djimini guw Gun adh Jopadhola / Adhola bqc Boko dyu Jula gux Gourmanchema adj Adjukru / Adioukrou bqj Bandial ebr Ebrie guz Ekegusii afr Afrikaans bsc Oniyan ebu Kiembu / Embu gvl Gulay agq Aghem bsp Baga Sitemu efi Efik gwr Gwere aha Ahanta bss Akoose ego Eggon gya Gbaya, Northwest ajg Aja bst Basketo eka Ekajuk hag Hanga akp Siwu bud Ntcham eko Koti har Harari alz Alur bum Bulu eto Eton hau Hausa amh Amharic bun Sherbro etu Ejagham hay Haya ann Obolo bus Bokobaru etx Iten / Eten hbb Nya huba anu Anyuak / Anuak buy Bullom So ewe Ewe heh Hehe anv Denya bwr Bura Pabir ewo Ewondo her Herero asa Asu bwu Buli fak Fang hgm Haillom asg Cishingini bxk Bukusu fat Fante hna Mina atg Ivbie North-Okpela-Arhe byf Bete ffm Fulfulde, Maasina ibb Ibibio ati Attie byv Medumba fia Nobiin ibo Igbo avn Avatime bza Bandi fip Fipa idu Idoma avu Avokaya bzw Basa flr Fuliiru igb Ebira azo Awing cce Chopi fon Fon ige Igede bam Bambara chw Chuabo fub Fulfulde, Adamawa igl Igala bav Vengo cjk Chokwe fue Fulfulde, Borgu ijn Kalabari bba Baatonum cko Anufo fuf Pular ikk Ika bbj Ghomala cme Cerma fuh Fulfulde, Western Niger ikw Ikwere bbk Babanki cop Coptic ful Fulah iqw Ikwo bci Baoule cou Wamey fuq Fulfulde Central Eastern Niger iri Rigwe bcn Bali crs Seychelles Creole fuv Fulfude Nigeria ish Esan bcw Bana csk Jola Kasa gaa Ga iso Isoko bcy Bacama cwe Kwere gax Oromo, Borana-Arsi-Guji iyx yaka bdh Baka daa Dangaleat gaz Oromo, West Central izr Izere bds Burunge dag Dagbani gbo Grebo, Northern izz Izii bem Bemba / Chibemba dav Dawida / Taita gbr Gbagyi jgo Ngomba beq Beembe dga Dagaare gde Gude jib Jibu ber Berber dgd Dagaari Dioula gid Gidar jit Jita bex Jur Modo dgi Dagara, Northern giz South Giziga jmc Machame bez Bena dhm Dhimba gjn Gonja kab Kabyle bfa Bari dib Dinka, South Central gkn Gokana kam Kikamba bfd Bafut did Didinga gkp Kpelle, Guinea kbn Kare bfo Birifor, Malba dig Chidigo gmv Gamo kbo Keliko bib Bisa dik Dinka, Southwestern gna Kaansa kbp Kabiye bim Bimoba dip Dinka, Northeastern gnd Zulgo-gemzek kby Kanuri, Manga bin Edo diu Gciriku gng Ngangam kcg Tyap biv Birifor, Southern dks Dinka, Southeastern gof Goofa kck Kalanga bjv Bedjond dnj Dan gog Gogo kdc Kutu Table F.1: Languages covered in SERENGETI - Part I. ISO-639-3 Language ISO-639-3 Language ISO-639-3 Language ISO-639-3 Language   kde Makonde laj Lango mfh Matal ngb Ngbandi, Northern kdh Tem lam Lamba mfi Wandala ngc Ngombe kdi Kumam lap Laka mfk Mofu, North ngl Lomwe kdj Ng'akarimojong lee Lyélé mfq Moba ngn Bassa kdl Tsikimba lef Lelemi mfz Mabaan ngo Ngoni kdn Kunda lem Nomaande mgc Morokodo ngp Ngulu kea Kabuverdianu lgg Lugbara mgh Makhuwa-Meetto nhr Naro ken Kenyang lgm Lega-mwenga mgo Meta' nhu Noone khy Kele / Lokele lia Limba, West-Central mgq Malila nih Nyiha kia Kim lik Lika mgr Mambwe-Lungu nim Nilamba / kinilyamba kik Gikuyu / Kikuyu lin Lingala mgw Matumbi nin Ninzo kin Kinyarwanda lip Sekpele mif Mofu-Gudur niy Ngiti kiz Kisi lmd Lumun mkl Mokole nka Nkoya / ShiNkoya kki Kagulu lmp Limbum mlg Malagasy nko Nkonya kkj Kako lnl Banda, South Central mlr Vame nla Ngombale kln Kalenjin log Logo mmy Migaama nnb Nande / Ndandi klu Klao lom Loma mnf Mundani nnh Ngiemboon kma Konni loq Lobala mnk Mandinka nnq Ngindo kmb Kimbundu lot Latuka moa Mwan nse Chinsenga kmy Koma loz Silozi mos Moore nnw Nuni, Southern knf Mankanya lro Laro moy Shekkacho nso Sepedi kng Kongo lsm Saamya-Gwe / Saamia moz Mukulu ntr Delo knk Kuranko lth Thur / Acholi-Labwor mpe Majang nuj Nyole kno Kono lto Tsotso mpg Marba nus Nuer koo Konzo lua Tshiluba mqb Mbuko nwb Nyabwa koq Kota luc Aringa msc Maninka, Sankaran nxd Ngando kqn Kikaonde lue Luvale mur Murle nya Chichewa kqp Kimré lug Luganda muy Muyang nyb Nyangbo kqs Kisi lun Lunda mwe Mwera nyd Olunyole / Nyore kqy Koorete luo Dholuo / Luo mwm Sar nyf Giryama kri Krio lwg Wanga mwn Cinamwanga nyk Nyaneka krs Gbaya lwo Luwo mws Mwimbi-Muthambi nym Nyamwezi krw Krahn, Western maf Mafa myb Mbay nyn Nyankore / Nyankole krx Karon mas Maasai myk Sénoufo, Mamara nyo Nyoro ksb Shambala / Kishambala maw Mampruli myx Masaaba nyu Nyungwe ksf Bafia mbu Mbula-Bwazza mzm Mumuye nyy Nyakyusa-Ngonde / Kyangonde ksp Kabba mck Mbunda mzw Deg nza Mbembe, Tigon ktj Krumen, Plapo mcn Masana / Massana naq Khoekhoe nzi Nzema ktu Kikongo mcp Makaa naw Nawuri odu Odual kua Oshiwambo mcu Mambila, Cameroon nba Nyemba ogo Khana kub Kutep mda Mada nbl IsiNdebele oke Okpe kuj Kuria mdm Mayogo ncu Chunburung okr Kirike kus Kusaal mdy Maale ndc Ndau oku Oku kvj Psikye men Mende nde IsiNdebele orm Oromo kwn Kwangali meq Merey ndh Ndali ozm Koonzime kyf Kouya mer Kimiiru ndj Ndamba pcm Nigerian Pidgin kyq Kenga mev Maan / Mann ndo Ndonga pem Kipende kzr Karang mfe Morisyen / Mauritian Creole ndv Ndut pkb Kipfokomo / Pokomo lai Lambya mfg Mogofin ndz Ndogo ISO-639-3 Language ISO-639-3 Language ISO-639-3 Language pov Guinea-Bissau Creole tcd Tafi won Wongo poy Pogolo / Shipogoro-Pogolo ted Krumen, Tepo xan Xamtanga rag Lulogooli tem Timne xed Hdi rel Rendille teo Teso xho Isixhosa rif Tarifit tex Tennet xnz Mattokki rim Nyaturu tgw Senoufo, Tagwana xog Soga rnd Uruund thk Tharaka xon Konkomba rng Ronga / ShiRonga thv Tamahaq, Tahaggart xpe Kpelle rub Gungu tir Tigrinya xrb Karaboro, Eastern run Rundi / Kirundi tiv Tiv xsm Kasem rwk Rwa tke Takwane xtc Katcha-Kadugli-Miri sag Sango tlj Talinga-Bwisi xuo Kuo saq Samburu tll Otetela yal Yalunka sba Ngambay tog Tonga yam Yamba sbd Samo, Southern toh Gitonga yao Yao / Chiyao sbp Sangu toi Chitonga yat Yambeta sbs Kuhane tpm Tampulma yba Yala sby Soli tsc Tshwa ybb Yemba sef Sénoufo, Cebaara tsn Setswana yom Ibinda ses Songhay, Koyraboro Senni tso Tsonga yor Yoruba sev Sénoufo, Nyarafolo tsw Tsishingini yre Yaoure sfw Sehwi ttj Toro / Rutoro zaj Zaramo sgw Sebat Bet Gurage ttq Tawallammat zdj Comorian, Ngazidja shi Tachelhit ttr Nyimatli zga Kinga shj Shatt tui Toupouri ziw Zigula shk Shilluk tul Kutule zne Zande / paZande sid Sidama tum Chitumbuka zul Isizulu sig Paasaal tuv Turkana sil Sisaala, Tumulung tvu Tunen sna Shona twi Twi snf Noon umb Umbundu sng Sanga / Kiluba urh Urhobo snw Selee uth ut-Hun som Somali vag Vagla sop Kisonge vai Vai sor Somrai ven Tshivenda sot Sesotho vid Chividunda soy Miyobe vif Vili spp Senoufo, Supyire vmk Makhuwa-Shirima ssw Siswati vmw Macua suk Sukuma vun Kivunjo sus Sosoxui vut Vute swa Swahili wal Wolaytta swc Swahili Congo wbi Vwanji swh Swahili wec Guere swk Sena, Malawi wes Pidgin, Cameroon sxb Suba wib Toussian, Southern taq Tamasheq wmw Mwani tcc Datooga wol Wolof Table F.3: Languages covered in SERENGETI - Part III. ISO-639-3 #Tokens swh 2,912,488,735 afr 1,264,478,436 som 587,549,878 swa 499,792,448 hau 286,806,539 amh 241,700,000 mlg 137,852,716 zne 89,981,183 sna 75,413,519 ... ... bam 3,262 har 3,066 dyo 1,797 fvr 1,680 tbz 1,578 ddn 1,372 fuc 1,336 knc 1,097 eot 1,041 cgg 845 ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? 8 ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? 8 ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? 1 and 7 ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** 4 And 5 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? 2, 4 and 5 ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? 2, 4 and 5 ✓ 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)? 9 ✗ 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 only publicly available data to develop our models. Our data comes from 517 languages and language varieties and hence it is challenging to carry out manual investigation on it. However, since the data belong to the public domain, we do not have serious concerns about privacy or anti-social language beyond what already exists online and is accessible to anyone. ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ✓ 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. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 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?** 5 And 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? 5 ✓ C2. Did you discuss the experimental setup, including hyperparameter search and best-found hyperparameter values? 4, 5 ✓ 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? 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, Appendix ✓ 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.)? 2, 4, 5, 6, Appendix ## D ✓ **Did You Use Human Annotators (E.G., Crowdworkers) Or Research With Human Participants?** 7 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.

do-etal-2023-prompt

Prompt- and Trait Relation-aware Cross-prompt Essay Trait Scoring

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.98

Automated essay scoring (AES) aims to score essays written for a given prompt, which defines the writing topic. Most existing AES systems assume to grade essays of the same prompt as used in training and assign only a holistic score. However, such settings conflict with real-education situations; pre-graded essays for a particular prompt are lacking, and detailed trait scores of sub-rubrics are required. Thus, predicting various trait scores of unseen-prompt essays (called cross-prompt essay trait scoring) is a remaining challenge of AES. In this paper, we propose a robust model: prompt- and trait relation-aware cross-prompt essay trait scorer. We encode prompt-aware essay representation by essay-prompt attention and utilizing the topic-coherence feature extracted by the topic-modeling mechanism without access to labeled data; therefore, our model considers the prompt adherence of an essay, even in a cross-prompt setting. To facilitate multi-trait scoring, we design trait-similarity loss that encapsulates the correlations of traits. Experiments prove the efficacy of our model, showing state-of-the-art results for all prompts and traits. Significant improvements in low-resource-prompt and inferior traits further indicate our model{'}s strength.

# Prompt- And Trait Relation-Aware Cross-Prompt Essay Trait Scoring Heejin Do⋆, Yunsu Kim⋆†**, Gary Geunbae Lee**⋆† ⋆Graduate School of AI, POSTECH †Department of Computer Science and Engineering, POSTECH {heejindo, yunsu.kim, gblee}@postech.ac.kr ## Abstract  Automated essay scoring (AES) aims to score essays written for a given prompt, which defines the writing topic. Most existing AES systems assume to grade essays of the same prompt as used in training and assign only a holistic score. However, such settings conflict with real-education situations; pre-graded essays for a particular prompt are lacking, and detailed trait scores of sub-rubrics are required. Thus, predicting various trait scores of unseenprompt essays (called cross-prompt essay trait scoring) is a remaining challenge of AES. In this paper, we propose a robust model: promptand trait relation-aware cross-prompt essay trait scorer. We encode prompt-aware essay representation by essay-prompt attention and utilizing the topic-coherence feature extracted by the topic-modeling mechanism without access to labeled data; therefore, our model considers the prompt adherence of an essay, even in a crossprompt setting. To facilitate multi-trait scoring, we design trait-similarity loss that encapsulates the correlations of traits. Experiments prove the efficacy of our model, showing state-of-theart results for all prompts and traits. Significant improvements in low-resource-prompt and inferior traits further indicate our model's strength. ## 1 Introduction Automated essay scoring (AES) aims to score essays written for a specific prompt, which defines the writing instructions and topic. As a subordinate or alternative to human scorers, it has the advantages of fairness and low costs. Thus far, most AES systems have been built on the assumptions of grading essays on the same prompt used for training and only assigning an overall score, achieving noticeable growth (Taghipour and Ng, 2016; Dong et al., 2017; Yang et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2022). However, such settings conflict with realeducation systems, where pre-labeled essays for a specific prompt are not given, and in-depth feedback requires multiple trait scores. Acknowledging this, recent works have suggested cross-prompt models (Jin et al., 2018; Li et al., 2020; Ridley et al., 2020) that are tested using essays of unseen prompt, like zero-shot learning, and trait-scoring models (Mathias and Bhattacharyya, 2020; Hussein et al., 2020; Kumar et al., 2021; He et al., 2022) that output multiple trait scores. Handling both settings (Figure 1) is a direction for practical AES and yet has rarely been studied (Ridley et al., 2021). For a cross-prompt setting, using non-promptspecific features that capture the general essay qualities such as length and readability is emphasized (Ridley et al., 2020; Uto, 2021). This is to avoid the model biased toward the prompts of trained essays, but the model fails to reflect any prompt-relevant information (e.g., whether the essay fits the prompt topic), inhibiting accurate scoring. For trait scoring, most methods extend holistic scoring models without particular consideration of trait properties. Both settings leave huge room for improvement. In this paper, we propose a robust model, promptand trait relation-aware cross-prompt trait scorer (ProTACT), with the ultimate goal of improving AES for practical use. Attending to the promptrelevant aspects and trait similarities leads to overcoming both cross-prompt and multi-trait settings. To ensure that the model reflects prompt-relevant information, we introduce a novel architecture to obtain prompt-aware essay representation. Rather than only encoding the essay, we directly encode the prompt instruction and apply attention. This provides hints for scoring in cross-prompt settings since prompt content is always-given information, even for ungraded essays of new prompts. Furthermore, we suggest extracting the topic-coherence feature by applying the topic modeling mechanism latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) (Blei et al., 2003). This feature notifies essay coherence on a specific topic to the model without accessing labels. To facilitate multi-trait scoring, we designed a trait-similarity loss that incorporates correlations between different trait scores. Practically, trait scores are not independent of one another; for example, both *Prompt Adherence* and *Content* traits evaluate prompt-relevant aspects of an essay. Finding strong correlations between trait scores, we mirror this for model training. Specifically, we penalize when the similarity of actual trait scores is over a threshold but that of predicted trait scores is low. This enhances the advantages of multi-trait learning by mutually assisting in different tasks. We evaluate ProTACT with the widely used ASAP and ASAP++ datasets. ProTACT achieves state-of-the-art results, outperforming the baseline system (Ridley et al., 2021) for all QWK scores of traits and prompts. Significant improvements of 6.4% on average and 10.3% for the *Content* trait are observed for a low-resource prompt, which performed poorly due to lacking similar-type training essays. This highlights the strength of ProTACT in the cross-prompt setting, overcoming the absence of pre-graded essays. Remarkably improved assessments for previously inferior traits further prove the effectiveness of multi-trait scoring. Codes and datasets are available on Github1. ## 2 Related Work AES studies mostly focus on the **prompt-specific** holistic scoring task. Aside from early machine learning-based regression or classification approaches (Landauer, 2003; Attali and Burstein, 2006; Larkey, 1998; Rudner and Liang, 2002), recent deep-learning-based methods for automatically learning essay representation are dominant. Notably, approaches that hierarchically represent essays from word- or sentence- to essay-level show competitive accuracy (Taghipour and Ng, 2016; Dong and Zhang, 2016; Dong et al., 2017). Late attempts to fine-tune pre-trained models to develop 1https://github.com/doheejin/ProTACT more successful AES include Yang et al. (2020), who fine-tune BERT by combining regression and ranking loss, and Wang et al. (2022), who suggest a multi-scale representation for BERT. Zhang and Litman (2019) additionally encode source excerpts of source-dependent essays and suggest a co-attention. Our essay-prompt attention is distinct from theirs, as we encode the prompt rather than the source excerpt and apply attention differently. Pointing out that previous successes in AES are far from real-world systems, few studies of the cross-prompt setting suggest methods of not examining target-prompt essays (Jin et al., 2018; Li et al., 2020; Ridley et al., 2020). Considering the essay's semantic disparity by different prompts, the use of non-prompt-specific features of general essay qualities is highlighted in cross-prompt settings; Ridley et al. (2020) crafted the features of essay qualities, categorized as length-based, readability, text complexity, *text variation*, and *sentiment*. However, they disregard the topic-coherence of the essay, which is an important consideration for grading (Miltsakaki and Kukich, 2004). To consider coherence during rating, we suggest a way of extracting the topic-coherence feature. To provide several trait scores that fit the subrubrics, a few **trait-scoring** studies have been proposed; however, they simply extend the existing holistic scoring methods by adding multi-output linear layers (Hussein et al., 2020) or using multiple trait-specific models (Mathias and Bhattacharyya, 2020; Kumar et al., 2021). Emphasizing both the cross-prompt and trait scoring task, Ridley et al. (2021) suggest a leading model for the **crossprompt trait scoring** task. They extend the Dong et al. (2017) model by setting multiple trait-specific layers and concatenating the features of Ridley et al. (2021). Despite achieving the best results on the task, the performance still lags far behind the prompt-specific holistic scoring. In addition, the performance gaps between traits and between target prompts are remarkable. We propose a novel architecture to improve cross-prompt trait scoring and thereby reduce the performance gap. ## 3 Model Description: Protact To benefit from both automatically learning essay representations and precisely designed essay features, we combine both approaches. Therefore, ProTACT comprises two main parts: obtaining the prompt-aware essay representation and extracting the essay features (Figure 2). The learned promptaware essay representation is concatenated with the  pre-extracted essay features, constructing the final essay representation to score. The model is trained with the loss function that interpolates our traitsimilarity loss and the mean squared error (MSE). ## 3.1 Prompt-Aware Essay Representation We apply the hierarchical structure to encode the essay, first obtaining sentence-level representations and then a document-level representation. Hierarchically learning the document representation has proven effective for AES models, as it mirrors the essay structure that comprises sentences (Dong et al., 2017; Ridley et al., 2020, 2021). To score multiple traits, we set separate traitspecific layers on top of the shared layers as the baseline model (Ridley et al., 2021), but with different layer constructions. Shared layers and traitspecific layers are for sentence- and essay-level representations, respectively. To obtain M essay representations for M traits (including the overall score), M trait-specific modules exist. Sharing lowlevel layers enables information interchange between different traits, alleviating the data shortage caused by partial trait coverage. To obtain prompt-aware essay representation for each trait, we introduce essay-prompt attention. Unlike existing methods that only encode the essay, we encode the prompt information in parallel and apply attention to the essay representation. Essay Representation Instead of directly using word embedding, we use part-of-speech (POS) embedding for generalized representation, since doing so prevents overfitting to training data in cross-prompt settings (Jin et al., 2018; Ridley et al., 2020, 2021). Each sentence is POS-tagged with the Python NLTK2 package, and the tagged words of each sentence are mapped to dense vectors. Then, to obtain **sentence-level representation**, the 1D convolutional layer followed by attention pooling (Dong et al., 2017) is applied for each sentence. The following equations explain the convolutional (Eq. 1) and attention-pooling layers (Eqs. 2, 3, 4): $\begin{array}{rcl}\mathbf{c}_i&=&f(\mathbf{W}_c\cdot[\mathbf{x}_i:\mathbf{x}_{i+hw-1}]+\mathbf{b}_c)\\ \mathbf{a}_i&=&\tanh(\mathbf{W}_a\cdot\mathbf{c}_i+\mathbf{b}_a)\\ u_i&=&\dfrac{\exp(\mathbf{w}_u\cdot\mathbf{a}_i)}{\sum\exp(\mathbf{w}_u\cdot\mathbf{a}_j)}\\ \mathbf{s}&=&\sum u_i\mathbf{c}_i\\ \end{array}$ is the first approximation of the 2D. (3) where ciis the feature representation after the convolutional layer, Wc is the weight matrix, bc is the bias vector, and hw is the window size of the convolutional layer. The final sentence representation s is obtained by the weighted sum where uiis the attention weight, aiis the attention vector, and wu is the weight vector. Wa and ba are the attention matrix and bias vector, respectively. To examine each point of the long-range essays effectively, we first apply the multi-head selfattention (Vaswani et al., 2017) mechanism for the **essay-level representation**. Each trait-specific module takes the generated sentence-level representations as input and applies the multi-head selfattention. Consider the j-th trait score prediction 2https://www.nltk.org/ task; the output of the previous layer, S, which is the matrix of sentence representations set as a query, key, and value: $$\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{i}}^{\mathrm{j}}=\mathrm{Att}(SW_{i}^{j1},SW_{i}^{j2},SW_{i}^{j3})\tag{5}$$ $$\mathrm{MH}(S)^{j}=\mathrm{Concat}(\mathrm{H}_{1}^{\mathrm{j}},...,\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{h}}^{\mathrm{j}})W^{jO}\tag{6}$$ where Att and Hi denote scaled-dot product attention and the i-th head, respectively, and W j1 i, W j2 i, and W j3 iare the parameter matrices. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to apply the multi-head self-attention mechanism in both crossprompt and trait-scoring settings. We hypothesize that this better models the structural aspect of the essay with the use of POS embedding and easily captures the relationship between different points of the essay from various perspectives. Next, the recurrent layer of LSTM (Hochreiter and Schmidhuber, 1997) is applied to the output: h j $$\begin{array}{r l}{={}}&{{}\mathrm{LSTM}(m_{t-1}^{j},m_{t}^{j})}\end{array}$$ ) (7) where j is the j-th trait score prediction task, mj is the concatenated output of the previous layer, and h j t denotes the hidden representation for the j-th task at time-step t. As LSTM captures sequential connections, directly applying it to a relationencoded representation can lead to the sequential interpretation of relations (Li et al., 2018). This is followed by the attention pooling layer (Eqs. 2, 3, 4). Prompt Representation In practical education situations, grades are scored based on prompt instructions. Inspired by this, we encode the prompt instruction corresponding to each essay and make the model attend to it. Prompt representation is also obtained in the same order as the essay representation: embedding layer, convolutional layer with attention pooling, multi-head self-attention with LSTM, and attention pooling layer. However, to contain the contents of the prompt, we add the POS embedding with the pre-trained GloVe (Pennington et al., 2014) word embedding. Essay-Prompt Attention For the next step, essay-prompt attention is performed using a multihead self-attention mechanism. The queries are set as the obtained prompt representation and the keys and values are set as the obtained essay representation. This allows every position of the essay to view sub-parts of the prompt; hence, essay-prompt attention captures the relationship between the essay and the prompt. Finally, the LSTM with attention pooling layer is applied to obtain the prompt-aware essay representation, paj, for each j-th task. | Easy ID | Topic Distribution \[(Topic, Prob)\] | | **TC** | |:-----------:|:-------------------:|:-------------------:|:--------------:| | 1 | \[(0, **0.8337**), (5, 0.16295)\] | | 0.8337 | | 2 | \[(0, **0.7541**), (1, 0.0472), (5, 0.1472), ...\] | | 0.7541 | | ... | ... | ... | ... | | 11194 | \[(2, 0.0477), (5, **0.8701**), (6, 0.0727)\] | | 0.8701 | | 11195 | \[(0, 0.0705), (2, 0.0664), (5, **0.8405**), ...\] | | 0.8405 | | Table 1: Example of the extracted features by LDA for each essay (TC denotes the Topic-coherence feature). Final Prediction The essay representation is subsequently concatenated with pre-engineered features. As in the baseline model, we also use the nonprompt-specific features of PAES (Ridley et al., 2020) that are exquisitely engineered to represent general essay quality in various aspects. However, we additionally concatenate our own feature of topic coherence. The feature vectors, f, are then concatenated with each trait prediction, paj: conj = [paj;f]. Then, the trait-attention defined in Ridley et al. (2021) is performed to attend to the representations of the other traits where j = 1, 2*, . . . , M*: $$\begin{array}{l}{{[\bf{con}^{1},\ldots,\bf{con}^{M}]}}\\ {{\exp(\mathrm{score}(\bf{con}^{j},\bf{A}_{-j,i}))}}\\ {{\sum_{l}\exp(\mathrm{score}(\bf{con}^{j},\bf{A}_{-j,l}))}}\\ {{\sum v_{i}^{j}\bf{A}_{-j,i}}}\\ {{[\bf{con}^{j};t^{j}]}}\end{array}\tag{8}$$ = $$\frac{1}{2}$$ = $$\frac{1}{2}$$ = $$\frac{1}{2}$$. ### A $$\large v_i^j$$ $$\large\mathbf{t^j}$$ $$\large\mathbf{final^j}$$ ... i = j =Xv finalj = [conj; t where A is a concatenation of the representations for each trait prediction; A−j indicates the masking of the target trait's representation; v j i is the attention weight for the i-th trait; t jis the attention vector. The final representation, finalj, for each trait prediction is obtained by concatenating conj and t j. Lastly, the final trait score, yˆ jis obtained by applying a linear layer with the sigmoid function yˆ j = sigmoid(w jy · finalj + b jy). Here, w jy is a weights vector and b jy is a bias. ## 3.2 Topic-Coherence Feature To complement the existing non-prompt-specific features, in which prompt-related information is entirely excluded, we suggest using the LDA topic modeling mechanism. Looking at the document sets with the number of topics as a hyper-parameter, LDA identifies the topics and topic distributions for each document. Therefore, it can find out how an essay is focused on a particular topic, considering essays as documents. Since only essays are used without labels, features can be extracted even for new prompt essays in cross-prompt situations.  Specifically, given the essay sets written for N prompts, we apply LDA by setting the number of topics as N to obtain the topic distribution for each essay (Table 1); having multiple topics with low probabilities indicates lacked focus on a single topic, while the presence of a high-probability topic implies high focus on a certain topic. Then, the highest topic rate among the topic distributions for each essay is extracted as the topic-coherence feature. LDA is conducted separately for each training set since target-prompt essays should not be seen in training, eg., the training set of target-prompt 1 only includes prompts 2–8 essays. For testing, target-prompt essays are also used for extraction. ## Does The Feature Imply Topic-Coherence? To examine whether our feature connotes the topiccoherence, we investigate the extracted feature's distribution with labeled *Narrativity* trait score on our dataset, which is the attribute for evaluating the essay's coherence to the prompt, with integers 0–4. We plot the case when the target-prompt is 5, as it has the most essays among the prompts for which *Narrativity* trait is evaluated. Figure 3 shows box plot3 distributions of extracted features according to essays' *Narrativity* trait scores. The plotted training set only includes prompts 3,4, and 6 essays because only prompts 3–6 have labeled *Narrativity* score. The greater distribution of high topic coherence at higher *Narrativity* scores indicates that our feature reflects the essay's actual topic coherence. It is noteworthy that the test set shows similar trends in that our feature can give direct hints about consistency when scoring unseen prompt essays. Does the Topic Correspond to Each Prompt? We further investigate the probability of the same prompt's essays having the same highest topic, in each training set (Table 2). Each Set denotes the training essay set of the target-prompt n, where 3seaborn (https://seaborn.pydata.org/) is used.  Table 2: The probabilities of the essays of the same  prompt have the same highest topic in each training set. LDA is separately applied. The left index of Pr1–7 denotes different prompts by the Set since each target prompt is excluded. For example, index Pr1 of Set1 denotes the probability of prompt 2 essays having the same highest topic. Overall high probabilities imply that topics extracted by LDA are strongly related to the actual prompts, further notifying that our feature allows the model to recognize prompt relevance even in the cross-prompt setting. ## 3.3 Trait-Similarity Loss As in most AES systems, the existing cross-prompt trait scoring system is trained with the MSE loss. However, the only use of MSE loss disregards the correlations between different trait scores (Figure 4). We integrate trait-relationship into the loss function, called the Trait-Similarity (TS) loss. In detail, when the similarity of the ground-truth trait score vectors is beyond the threshold, the model learning proceeds in the direction to increase the similarity of the predicted trait score vectors. The TS loss (Lts) is defined as follows: $$\mathrm{L}_{\mathrm{ts}}(y,\hat{y})=\frac{1}{c}\sum_{j=2}^{M}\sum_{k=j+1}^{M}\mathrm{TS}(\hat{\mathbf{y}}_{j},\hat{\mathbf{y}}_{k},\mathbf{y}_{j},\mathbf{y}_{k})\tag{12}$$ $$\mathrm{TS}=\begin{cases}1-\cos(\hat{\mathbf{y}}_{j},\hat{\mathbf{y}}_{k})&,\text{if}\mathrm{r}(\mathbf{y}_{j},\mathbf{y}_{k})\geq\delta\\ 0&,\text{otherwise}\end{cases}\tag{13}$$ where cos and r denote the cosine similarity and the Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC),  respectively; δ is the threshold and c is the number of calculated T S that is not 0; yj = [y1j , y1j , · · · , yNj ] is j-th ground-truth trait vector and yˆj = [ˆy1j , yˆ2j , *· · ·* , yˆNj ] is predicted trait vector. Note that *Overall* trait (j = 1) is excluded, as its score has relatively low correlations than other traits. The total loss, Ltotal, is calculated as the interpolation of Lmse and Lts: $$\operatorname{L}_{\mathrm{total}}(y,{\hat{y}})=\lambda\cdot\operatorname{L}_{\mathrm{mse}}(y,{\hat{y}})+(1-\lambda)\cdot\operatorname{L}_{\mathrm{ts}}(y,{\hat{y}})$$ where the MSE loss is defined as, Lmse(y, yˆ) = 1 NM PN i=1 PM j=1(ˆyij − yij ) 2, when predicting M trait scores for N essays and given the ground truth y and prediction yˆ. Note that TS loss of reflecting similarity between the traits is distinct from Wang et al. (2022)'s work of reflecting the similarity between the actual score and predicted score in a loss function for prompt-specific holistic scoring. Given the entire trait set, Y , the specific trait set for each i-th training sample Y i differs depending on its prompt. Thus, for accurate calculation, masking to handle traits without gold scores is applied as yi = yi ⊗ *mask*i and ˆyi = ˆyi ⊗ *mask*i. On the i-th essay, *mask*ij is computed for the j-th trait with the following function (Ridley et al., 2021): $$mask_{ij}=\begin{cases}1,&\text{if}Y_{j}\in Y^{i}\\ 0,&\text{otherwise}\end{cases}\tag{14}$$ ## 4 Experiment We experimented with the same dataset4as the baseline system, which is comprised of the publicly available Automated Student Assessment Prize (ASAP5) and ASAP++6 datasets (Mathias and Bhattacharyya, 2018). The original ASAP dataset contains eight prompts and their corresponding English-written essay sets, without personal information. Essays are assigned human-graded scores for their overall quality, and only essays of prompts 7 and 8 are assigned additional scores for several traits of scoring rubrics. Thus, the ASAP++ dataset, which has the same essay sets as ASAP but additionally graded trait scores for Prompts 1–6, is also utilized. Therefore, trait scores for prompts 1–6 are from the ASAP++, whereas trait scores for prompts 7 and 8 and overall scores for all prompts are from the ASAP dataset (Table 3). For comparison, we exclude the *Style* and *Voice* attributes, which only appear in one prompt, as in the baseline model. Validation and Evaluation For the overall training procedure, we applied the prompt-wise crossvalidation that is used for the existing cross-prompt AES (Jin et al., 2018; Ridley et al., 2020, 2021). In detail, essays of one prompt are set as test data while essays of other prompts are set as training data, which is repeated for each prompt. The development set of each case comprises essays of the same prompts as the training set. For the evaluation, we used Quadratic Weighted Kappa (QWK), the official metric for ASAP competition and most frequently used for AES tasks, which measures the agreement between the human rater and the system. Training Details For a fair comparison, we maintained training details of the baseline model, other than those required by ProTACT. Out of the total 50 epochs, the one with the highest average QWK score for all traits in the development set was selected for the test. We set the dropout rate as 0.5, CNN filter and kernel size as 100 and 5, respectively, LSTM units as 100, POS embedding dimension as 50, and batch size as 10. We set two heads and the embedding dimension to 100 for multihead attention. The total number of parameters is 2.76M. For TS loss, δ of 0.7, and λ of 0.7 are used. The RMSprop algorithm (Dauphin et al., 2015) is used for optimization. The code is implemented in Tensorflow 2.0.0 and Python 3.7.11, and a Geforce RTX 2080Ti GPU card is used. Running the model five times with different seeds, {12, 22, 32, 42, 52}, 1543 | Prompts | | | | | | | | | | | |----------------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | Model | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | AVG | SD(↓) | | PAES (Ridley et al., 2020) | 0.605 | 0.522 | 0.575 | 0.606 | 0.634 | 0.545 | 0.356 | 0.447 | 0.536 | - | | CTS (Ridley et al., 2021) | 0.623 | 0.540 | 0.592 | 0.623 | 0.613 | 0.548 | 0.384 | 0.504 | 0.553 | - | | *CTS-baseline | 0.629 | 0.543 | 0.596 | 0.620 | 0.614 | 0.546 | 0.382 | 0.501 | 0.554 | 0.020 | | ProTACT | 0.647 | 0.587 | 0.623 | 0.632 | 0.674 | 0.584 | 0.446 | 0.541 | 0.592 | 0.016 | Table 4: Average QWK scores over all traits for each **prompt**; SD is the averaged standard deviation for five seeds, and **bold** text indicates the highest value. | Traits | | | | | | | | | | | | |----------------------------|---------|---------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | Model | Overall | Content | Org | WC | SF | Conv | PA | Lang | Nar | AVG | SD(↓) | | PAES (Ridley et al., 2020) | 0.657 | 0.539 | 0.414 | 0.531 | 0.536 | 0.357 | 0.570 | 0.531 | 0.605 | 0.527 | - | | CTS (Ridley et al., 2021) | 0.67 | 0.555 | 0.458 | 0.557 | 0.545 | 0.412 | 0.565 | 0.536 | 0.608 | 0.545 | - | | *CTS-baseline | 0.670 | 0.551 | 0.459 | 0.562 | 0.556 | 0.413 | 0.568 | 0.533 | 0.610 | 0.547 | 0.012 | | ProTACT | 0.674 | 0.596 | 0.518 | 0.599 | 0.585 | 0.450 | 0.619 | 0.596 | 0.639 | 0.586 | 0.009 | Table 5: Average QWK scores over all prompts for each **trait** (WC: Word Choice; PA: Prompt Adherence; Nar: Narrativity; Org: Organization; SF: Sentence Fluency; Conv: Conventions; Lang: Language). the average scores represent the final scores. LDA is applied using the Gensim7library, specifying the number of prompts as the number of topics. Considering that each training and test uses an essay set of seven and eight prompts for LDA, the passes are set to 12 and 15, respectively. ## 5 Results And Discussion The results clearly show that ProTACT outperforms the baseline CTS model for all prompts (Table 4) and traits (Table 5). In Ridley et al. (2021), PAES of the cross-prompt holistic scoring model is separately used for each trait scoring as a comparison of CTS, which is their proposed model. The *CTS-baseline is our implementation, with which we mainly compared our model for a fair comparison. For target-prompt predictions (Table 4), ProTACT achieved 3.8% improvements on average. Compared to prompts 1 and 4, which already had high-quality predictions of 0.629 and 0.620, the other six prompts' predictions achieved larger improvement, reducing gaps between different prompts. This indicates that our methods provide more aid when predicting essays of a target prompt vulnerable to cross-prompt settings. We further investigated the low-resource prompt, which lacks similar-type essays in its training data (Table 6). When predicting target-prompt 7, only 723 essays are of the same *Narrative* type (prompt 8) in the training set (Table 3). We compare their results with prompts 1,2, and 8, which contain all traits of prompt 7. ProTACT for target-prompt 7 achieved an average 6.4% increment, and especially a 10.3% increment for the *Content* trait; the 7https://radimrehurek.com/gensim/ | Target | Model | Overall | Content | Org | Conv | Avg | |---------------|---------|-----------|-----------|-------|--------|-------| | *CTS-baseline | 0.679 | 0.523 | 0.535 | 0.490 | 0.557 | | | 1,2,8 | ProTACT | 0.673 | 0.585 | 0.585 | 0.523 | 0.592 | | (avg) | ∆ | -0.6% | 6.2% | 5.0% | 3.3% | 3.5% | | *CTS-baseline | 0.720 | 0.398 | 0.231 | 0.179 | 0.382 | | | ProTACT | 0.735 | 0.501 | 0.315 | 0.232 | 0.446 | | | 7 | ∆ | 1.5% | 10.3% | 8.4% | 5.3% | 6.4% | improvement rate is almost twice that of prompts 1, 2, and 8. This is noticeable given the severely inferior baseline target-prompt 7 predictions of all three trait scores, except *Overall*. Another point to note is that prompts 1, 2, 8, and 7 all deal with long essays (Table 3) that require strong encoding ability (Wang et al., 2022), but improved 4.2% on average, implying the efficacy of our encoding strategy. For each trait scoring task (Table 5), ProTACT achieved an average 3.9% enhancement over the baseline system. In particular, noticeable improvements are shown in all traits except the *Overall*, which already had considerably higher performance than other traits. Multiple trait-scoring tasks share information between layers, so inferior tasks might benefit more than superior tasks. Thus, ProTACT alleviates the data shortages in specific trait-scoring tasks caused by partial-trait coverage. ## 5.1 Ablation Studies Incremental Analysis To explore the impact of each model component, we conducted an incremental analysis. Starting from encoding essay representation with a multi-head self-attention mechanism and using general essay features, we gradually added essay-prompt attention, topic-coherence fea-  | Traits | | | | | | | | | | | | |---------------------|---------|---------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | Model | Overall | Content | Org | WC | SF | Conv | PA | Lang | Nar | AVG | SD(↓) | | *CTS-baseline | 0.670 | 0.551 | 0.459 | 0.562 | 0.556 | 0.413 | 0.568 | 0.533 | 0.610 | 0.547 | 0.012 | | MSA | 0.671 | 0.562 | 0.486 | 0.580 | 0.573 | 0.441 | 0.568 | 0.545 | 0.610 | 0.560 | 0.012 | | + Essay-Prompt Att | 0.671 | 0.565 | 0.477 | 0.582 | 0.574 | 0.435 | 0.573 | 0.550 | 0.618 | 0.561 | 0.012 | | + TC feature | 0.673 | 0.592 | 0.500 | 0.591 | 0.577 | 0.444 | 0.612 | 0.570 | 0.633 | 0.577 | 0.012 | | + TS loss (ProTACT) | 0.674 | 0.596 | 0.518 | 0.599 | 0.585 | 0.450 | 0.619 | 0.596 | 0.639 | 0.586 | 0.009 | Table 8: Results of ablation studies. The average QWK scores over all prompts for each **trait**.  ture, and TS loss. The results show both promptand trait-wise incremental advances (Tables 7,8). In particular, remarkable improvements on all prompts after applying *+TC feature* prove that informing prompt-related knowledge facilitates scoring in cross-prompt settings (Table 7). Figure 5 shows increases in trait scoring tasks over the baseline (Table 8). The simple use of self-attention improves overall trait-scoring tasks, especially for syntactic traits such as *Conventions* and *Organization*, which evaluate overall grammatical writing conventions and essay structure, respectively. This matches our goal of multi-head self-attention capturing the structural and syntactic aspects. In contrast, supplementary use of essay-prompt attention somewhat decreases the scoring quality for those syntactic traits, yet particularly increases promptrelevant traits such as *Prompt-Adherence* and *Narrativity*. Using the topic-coherence feature remarkably enhances scoring for *Prompt Adherence* and Content traits, which evaluates the essay's adherence to the topic and quantity of prompt-relevant  text in the essay, respectively (Mathias and Bhattacharyya, 2018). The results on typical coherencerelated traits (Shin and Gierl, 2022) prove that our feature explicitly supports related-aspect scoring and grows interpretability. Lastly, TS loss enhances all trait-scoring tasks, which shows the reflection of trait correlations boosts multi-trait joint learning. TS Loss with Variations To further optimize the TS loss, we have changed the criterion for the loss from PCC to cosine similarity. In addition, we experimented with the different values of the hyper-parameter δ for both conditions. Different δ values greater than 0.6 and condition change have little influence (Table 9). Since the average correlation between trait scores is 0.87 and the cosine similarity is 0.97, no significant variation appeared when constraining the similarity over high values. ## 6 Conclusion We proposed a prompt- and trait relation-aware cross-prompt essay trait scorer (ProTACT) to improve AES in practical settings. Experimental results prove that informing prompt-relevant knowledge to the model assists the scoring of unseen prompt essays, and capturing trait similarities facilitates joint learning of multiple traits. Significant improvements in low-resource-prompt and inferior traits indicate the capacity to overcome the lacked pre-rated essays and strength in multi-trait scoring. ## Limitations The limitations of our work can be summarized in three points. First, as mentioned in Section 5, although a direct consideration of prompt information is helpful for related trait-scoring tasks, it may not be for irrelevant traits. Therefore, selectively applying each method depending on which traits are to score might further improve the model. Second, although the use of pre-engineered features, such as our topic-coherence feature, has the advantage of interpretability (Uto et al., 2020), it requires additional engineering steps, as in other AES studies using hand-crafted features (Amorim et al., 2018; Dascalu et al., 2017; Nguyen and Litman, 2018; Ridley et al., 2021). Finally, despite the large improvements observed on the specific datasets ASAP and ASASP++, the model has not experimented on other datasets. Feedback Prize dataset8 is well-designed for scoring English-written argumentative writings with multiple trait labels, but the prompts are not defined; thus, it does not fit for cross-prompt AES. Essay-BR dataset (Marinho et al., 2022) contains essays on multiple prompts with labeled multiple trait scores. Thus, in future work, our proposed methods can be extended to multilingual cases of AES using the dataset. ## Ethics Statement We adhere to the ACL Code of Ethics. This work did not use any private datasets and did not contain any personal confidential information. ## Acknowledgements This work was partly supported by Institute of Information & communications Technology Planning & Evaluation (IITP) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (No.2019-0-01906, Artificial Intelligence Graduate School Program (POSTECH)) and MSIT (Ministry of Science and ICT), Korea, under the ITRC (Information Technology Research Center) support program (IITP-2023-20200-01789) supervised by the IITP (Institute for Information & Communications Technology Planning & Evaluation). ## References Evelin Amorim, Marcia Cançado, and Adriano Veloso. 2018. Automated essay scoring in the presence of biased ratings. 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 229–237. Yigal Attali and Jill Burstein. 2006. Automated essay scoring with e-rater® v. 2. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 4(3). David M Blei, Andrew Y Ng, and Michael I Jordan. 2003. Latent dirichlet allocation. Journal of machine Learning research, 3(Jan):993–1022. Mihai Dascalu, Wim Westera, Stefan Ruseti, Stefan Trausan-Matu, and Hub Kurvers. 2017. Readerbench learns dutch: building a comprehensive automated essay scoring system for dutch language. In *International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education*, pages 52–63. Springer. Yann Dauphin, Harm De Vries, and Yoshua Bengio. 2015. Equilibrated adaptive learning rates for nonconvex optimization. *Advances in neural information* processing systems, 28. Fei Dong and Yue Zhang. 2016. Automatic features for essay scoring-an empirical study. In *EMNLP*, volume 435, pages 1072–1077. Fei Dong, Yue Zhang, and Jie Yang. 2017. Attentionbased recurrent convolutional neural network for automatic essay scoring. In *CoNLL*, pages 153–162. Yaqiong He, Feng Jiang, Xiaomin Chu, and Peifeng Li. 2022. Automated chinese essay scoring from multiple traits. In *Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics*, pages 3007–3016. Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 1997. Long short-term memory. *Neural computation*, 9(8):1735– 1780. Mohamed A Hussein, Hesham A Hassan, and Mohammad Nassef. 2020. A trait-based deep learning automated essay scoring system with adaptive feedback. Int J Adv Comput Sci Appl, 11(5):287–293. Cancan Jin, Ben He, Kai Hui, and Le Sun. 2018. Tdnn: a two-stage deep neural network for promptindependent automated essay scoring. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1088–1097. Rahul Kumar, Sandeep Mathias, Sriparna Saha, and Pushpak Bhattacharyya. 2021. Many hands make light work: Using essay traits to automatically score essays. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.00781*. Thomas K Landauer. 2003. Automated scoring and annotation of essays with the intelligent essay assessor. Automated essay scoring: A cross-disciplinary perspective. Leah S Larkey. 1998. Automatic essay grading using text categorization techniques. In Proceedings of the 21st annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, pages 90–95. Xia Li, Minping Chen, and Jian-Yun Nie. 2020. Sednn: shared and enhanced deep neural network model for cross-prompt automated essay scoring. *KnowledgeBased Systems*, 210:106491. Xia Li, Minping Chen, Jianyun Nie, Zhenxing Liu, Ziheng Feng, and Yingdan Cai. 2018. Coherence-based automated essay scoring using self-attention. In *Chinese computational linguistics and natural language* processing based on naturally annotated big data, pages 386–397. Springer. Jeziel C Marinho, Rafael T Anchiêta, and Raimundo S Moura. 2022. Essay-br: a brazilian corpus to automatic essay scoring task. Journal of Information and Data Management, 13(1). Sandeep Mathias and Pushpak Bhattacharyya. 2018. Asap++: Enriching the asap automated essay grading dataset with essay attribute scores. In Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC 2018). Sandeep Mathias and Pushpak Bhattacharyya. 2020. Can neural networks automatically score essay traits? In *Proceedings of the Fifteenth Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications*, pages 85–91. Eleni Miltsakaki and Karen Kukich. 2004. Evaluation of text coherence for electronic essay scoring systems. Natural Language Engineering, 10(1):25–55. Huy Nguyen and Diane Litman. 2018. Argument mining for improving the automated scoring of persuasive essays. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 32. Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher D 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. Robert Ridley, Liang He, Xin-yu Dai, Shujian Huang, and Jiajun Chen. 2021. Automated cross-prompt scoring of essay traits. In *Proceedings of the AAAI* conference on artificial intelligence, volume 35, pages 13745–13753. Robert Ridley, Liang He, Xinyu Dai, Shujian Huang, and Jiajun Chen. 2020. Prompt agnostic essay scorer: A domain generalization approach to crossprompt automated essay scoring. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.01441. Lawrence M Rudner and Tahung Liang. 2002. Automated essay scoring using bayes' theorem. *The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment*, 1(2). Jinnie Shin and Mark J Gierl. 2022. Evaluating coherence in writing: Comparing the capacity of automated essay scoring technologies. Journal of Applied Testing Technology. Kaveh Taghipour and Hwee Tou Ng. 2016. A neural approach to automated essay scoring. In *Proceedings of the 2016 conference on empirical methods in* natural language processing, pages 1882–1891. Masaki Uto. 2021. A review of deep-neural automated essay scoring models. *Behaviormetrika*, 48(2):459– 484. Masaki Uto, Yikuan Xie, and Maomi Ueno. 2020. Neural automated essay scoring incorporating handcrafted features. In *Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics*, pages 6077–6088. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30. Yongjie Wang, Chuan Wang, Ruobing Li, and Hui Lin. 2022. On the use of bert for automated essay scoring: Joint learning of multi-scale essay representation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.03835. Ruosong Yang, Jiannong Cao, Zhiyuan Wen, Youzheng Wu, and Xiaodong He. 2020. Enhancing automated essay scoring performance via fine-tuning pre-trained language models with combination of regression and ranking. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020*, pages 1560–1569. Haoran Zhang and Diane Litman. 2019. Co-attention based neural network for source-dependent essay scoring. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.01993*. ## A Detailed Ablation Studies In our main paper, we have conducted the incremental analysis in Section 5.1 to examine the effect of gradually adding each model component. The results have shown that adding the TC feature to the model, where multi-head self-attention and essayprompt attention are applied, yields the greatest performance improvement. To closely investigate the individual contribution of the seemingly effectual TC feature, we now compare the results of separately adding the TC feature and essay-prompt attention (Table 10). The noticeable point is that despite little overall improvements when separately applying essayprompt attention and the TC feature, their simultaneous application leads to significantly increased performance. These results indicate our proposed methods can yield synergies when jointly applied. | Traits | | | | | | | | | | | | |-------------------------------------|---------|---------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | Model | Overall | Content | Org | WC | SF | Conv | PA | Lang | Nar | AVG | SD(↓) | | MSA | 0.671 | 0.562 | 0.486 | 0.580 | 0.573 | 0.441 | 0.568 | 0.545 | 0.610 | 0.560 | 0.012 | | MSA + Essay-Prompt Att | 0.671 | 0.565 | 0.477 | 0.582 | 0.574 | 0.435 | 0.573 | 0.550 | 0.618 | 0.561 | 0.012 | | MSA + TC feature | 0.672 | 0.562 | 0.485 | 0.585 | 0.565 | 0.428 | 0.609 | 0.568 | 0.629 | 0.567 | 0.011 | | MSA + Essay-Prompt Att + TC feature | 0.673 | 0.592 | 0.500 | 0.591 | 0.577 | 0.444 | 0.612 | 0.570 | 0.633 | 0.577 | 0.012 | Table 10: Results of detailed ablation studies. The average QWK scores over all prompts for each **trait**.  ## B Analysis Of Trait Relationship In Section 3.3, we showed the correlation coefficients and cosine similarities between the groundtruth trait scores of prompt types 1,2, and 8, which have the same trait composition. To further analyze relations between all different traits, we additionally examined trait scores of other prompts (Figure 6). Likewise, we investigated the relationship between trait scores within prompts that are evaluated of the same traits. The correlation and cosine similarity results within the same prompt sets show similar tendencies, although the specific values are different. This explains the construction of our TS loss, which has criteria of correlation between actual trait scores while reflecting cosine similarities of predicted trait scores. Moreover, we find out higher similarities between prompt-related traits such as *Prompt Adherence* and *Content*. However, a relatively low association is observed for traits with distinctive evaluation rubrics, such as Conventions and *Content* traits. ## C Topic-Coherence Feature And Related Traits In the main paper, we examined the relationship of our topic-coherence feature with *Narrativity* trait  score to see if extracted features using LDA truly reflect the coherence of the essay (Section 3.2). Since we subsequently found that the topic is highly related to the prompt, we additionally investigated the feature relationship with the *Prompt Adherence* trait score, which is another coherence-related trait (Shin and Gierl, 2022). We also examine the case of predicting target-prompt 5, where the training set contains essays of prompts except 5. Since only prompts 3–6 have *Prompt Adherence* trait for evaluation, plotted training set only contains essays of prompts 3,4 and 6. Figure 7 shows similar tendencies as the distribution with *Narrativity* trait, implying that the topic-coherence feature also conveys whether the essay written adherent to the prompt. These findings further explain the observed significant improvements on *Prompt Adherence* trait scoring, in incremental analysis (Figure 5). ## D Examples Of The Prompt Table 11 shows the specific examples of the prompt in the ASAP dataset, which we utilized. We encoded the corresponding prompt contents for each essay. Prompts 1–2 define argumentative essay writing, prompts 3–6 describe the writing of sourcedependent essays, and prompts 7–8 define the narrative type of essays. | Prompt ID | Prompt | |-------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | More and more people use computers, but not everyone agrees that this benefits society. Those who support advances in technology believe that computers have a positive effect on people. They teach hand-eye coordination, give people the ability to learn about faraway places and people, and even allow people to talk online with other people. Others have different ideas. Some experts are concerned that people are spending too much time on their computers and less time exercising, enjoying nature, and interacting with family and friends. Write a letter to your local newspaper in which you state your opinion on the effects computers have on people. Persuade the readers to agree with you. | | 2 | Censorship in the Libraries. "All of us can think of a book that we hope none of our children or any other children have taken off the shelf. But if I have the right to remove that book from the shelf - that work I abhor - then you also have exactly the same right and so does everyone else. And then we have no books left on the shelf for any of us." –Katherine Paterson, Author. Write a persuasive essay to a newspaper reflecting your vies on censorship in libraries. Do you believe that certain materials, such as books, music, movies, magazines, etc., should be removed from the shelves if they are found offensive? Support your position with convincing arguments from your own experience, observations, and/or reading. | | 3 | Write a response that explains how the features of the setting affect the cyclist. In your response, include examples from the essay that support your conclusion. | | 4 | Read the last paragraph of the story. "When they come back, Saeng vowed silently to herself, in the spring, when the snows melt and the geese return and this hibiscus is budding, then I will take that test again." Write a response that explains why the author concludes the story with this paragraph. In your response, include details and examples from the story that support your ideas. | | 5 | Describe the mood created by the author in the memoir. Support your answer with relevant and specific information from the memoir. | | 6 | Based on the excerpt, describe the obstacles the builders of the Empire State Building faced in attempting to allow dirigibles to dock there. Support your answer with relevant and specific information from the excerpt. | | 7 | Write about patience. Being patient means that you are understanding and tolerant. A patient person experience difficulties without complaining. Do only one of the following: write a story about a time when you were patient OR write a story about a time when someone you know was patient OR write a story in your own way about patience. | | 8 | We all understand the benefits of laughter. For example, someone once said, "Laughter is the shortest distance between two people." Many other people believe that laughter is an important part of any relationship. Tell a true story in which laughter was one element or part. | Table 11: The eight prompts of the ASAP dataset. ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? Limitations Section ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? Limitations Section ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? Abstract and Introduction (Section1) ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** Section3.2, Section 4 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? Section3.2, Section 4 ✓ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? Section 4 ✓ 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 ✓ 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 4 ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? Section 4 ✓ 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, Table 3 ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** Section 4, 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? Section 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? 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? Section 4, 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 4 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.

zheng-etal-2023-augesc

{A}ug{ESC}: Dialogue Augmentation with Large Language Models for Emotional Support Conversation

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.99

Crowdsourced dialogue corpora are usually limited in scale and topic coverage due to the expensive cost of data curation. This would hinder the generalization of downstream dialogue models to open-domain topics. In this work, we leverage large language models for dialogue augmentation in the task of emotional support conversation (ESC). By treating dialogue augmentation as a dialogue completion task, we prompt a fine-tuned language model to complete full dialogues from available dialogue posts of various topics, which are then postprocessed based on heuristics. Applying this approach, we construct AugESC, an augmented dataset for the ESC task, which largely extends the scale and topic coverage of the crowdsourced ESConv corpus. Through comprehensive human evaluation, we demonstrate that our approach is superior to strong baselines of dialogue augmentation and that AugESC has comparable dialogue quality to the crowdsourced corpus. We also conduct human interactive evaluation and prove that post-training on AugESC improves downstream dialogue models{'} generalization ability to open-domain topics. These results suggest the utility of AugESC and highlight the potential of large language models in improving data-scarce dialogue generation tasks.

# Aug**Esc: Dialogue Augmentation With Large Language Models For** Emotional Support Conversation Chujie Zheng Sahand Sabour Jiaxin Wen Zheng Zhang Minlie Huang∗ The CoAI Group, DCST, Institute for Artificial Intelligence, State Key Lab of Intelligent Technology and Systems, Beijing National Research Center for Information Science and Technology, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China chujiezhengchn@gmail.com aihuang@tsinghua.edu.cn ## Abstract Crowdsourced dialogue corpora are usually limited in scale and topic coverage due to the expensive cost of data curation. This would hinder the generalization of downstream dialogue models to open-domain topics. In this work, we leverage large language models for dialogue augmentation in the task of emotional support conversation (ESC). By treating dialogue augmentation as a dialogue completion task, we prompt a fine-tuned language model to complete full dialogues from available dialogue posts of various topics, which are then postprocessed based on heuristics. Applying this approach, we construct AUGESC, an augmented dataset for the ESC task, which largely extends the scale and topic coverage of the crowdsourced ESConv corpus. Through comprehensive human evaluation, we demonstrate that our approach is superior to strong baselines of dialogue augmentation and that AUGESC has comparable dialogue quality to the crowdsourced corpus. We also conduct human interactive evaluation and prove that post-training on AUGESC improves downstream dialogue models' generalization ability to open-domain topics. These results suggest the utility of AUGESC and highlight the potential of large language models in improving data-scarce dialogue generation tasks.1 ## 1 Introduction Current open-domain dialogue corpora are commonly curated through crowdsourcing to endow dialogue models with sophisticated skills (Liu et al., 2021; Dinan et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2018), since the desired high-quality dialogues are usually not available in public sources. For example, the task of emotional support conversation (ESC) (Liu et al., 2021) aims to support help-seekers to reduce dailylife emotional distress. To train downstream dia- ∗Corresponding author. 1The project repository is available at https://github. com/thu-coai/AugESC.  logue models, Liu et al. (2021) crowdsourced the ESConv dataset, which contains only 1.3K dialogue sessions covering 13 topic categories. The construction of ESConv reveals typical limitations of crowdsourcing dialogue data. First, it is time-consuming especially when the desired dialogues should contain long multi-turn interactions (e.g., the ESConv dialogues contain about 30 utterances on average). Also, it usually requires laborious worker training and human screening to ensure the high dialogue quality. Consequently, the expensive data curation restricts the scale and topic coverage of collected dialogues, which may hinder the generalization of downstream dialogue models to open-domain topics. In this work, we leverage large language models for large-scale dialogue augmentation in the ESC task. We first present a simple yet effective 1552 approach, which treats dialogue augmentation as a dialogue completion task (§ 3), as illustrated in Figure 1. We fine-tune the 6B GPT-J model (Wang and Komatsuzaki, 2021) with ESConv samples, prompt it to complete full dialogues on various topics using the dialogue posts of EmpatheticDialogues (Rashkin et al., 2019), and postprocess augmented dialogues based on heuristics. We thus construct AUGESC, an augmented dataset for the ESC task, which largely extends the scale (45x larger) and topic coverage of the original ESConv dataset (§ 4). To demonstrate the superiority of our approach, we compare with strong baselines of dialogue augmentation (§ 5) through human evaluation. We show that our approach performs substantially better and that the quality of the constructed AUGESC is comparable to the crowdsourced ESConv. To further prove the utility of AUGESC, we conduct human interactive evaluation (§ 6) and show that post-training on AUGESC improves downstream dialogue models' generalization ability to opendomain topics. Our contributions are summarized in four folds: - We present a simple yet effective approach for large-scale dialogue augmentation by formulating it as a dialogue completion task. - We release an augmented dataset AUGESC for the ESC task, which is 45x the scale of the crowdsourced ESConv corpus and largely extends the latter's topic coverage. - We conduct comprehensive human evaluation, which validates the superiority of our approach and the reasonable quality of AUGESC. - We conduct human interactive evaluation, which verifies AUGESC's utility in improving downstream dialogue models' generalization ability to open-domain topics. ## 2 Related Work Data Augmentation with Language Models The emergence of pre-trained language models has greatly promoted the progress of NLP technology in the past few years (Devlin et al., 2019; Radford et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020), and meanwhile bring opportunities for automatic data augmentation of various NLP tasks. For instance, Schick and Schutze ¨ (2021) prompt GPT-2 (Radford et al., 2019) with textual instructions to generate a textual similarity dataset. Wang et al. (2021) leverage the 175B-parameter GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020) model to generate training data for text classification and language understanding tasks. West et al. (2022) use GPT-3 to acquire large-scale commonsense knowledge. Liu et al. (2022) construct a natural language inference dataset through the collaboration with crowdworkers and GPT-3. Different from them, our work focuses on data augmentation for open-domain dialogue generation, which is more complex and challenging due to the much longer text length, the open-ended nature, and the higher demand for dialogue quality. The more relevant work to ours are (Mohapatra et al., 2020; Kim et al., 2022), which both train different dialogue models to simulate the interaction between crowdworkers. Our work differs from them in two aspects. (1) Instead of simulated interaction, we treat dialogue augmentation as a dialogue completion task (§ 3). We show in § 5 that our approach performs better in both effectiveness and efficiency. (2) Beyond verifying the utility of augmented data in training downstream models (§ 6), we focus more on analyzing and evaluating the quality of augmented dialogues (§ 4 and 5). Emotional Support Conversation (ESC) ESC (Liu et al., 2021) is a dialogue generation task where the dialogue model plays the role of peer supporter and helps the help-seeker reduce dailylife emotional distress. It usually requires various support skills to achieve effective support, such as asking questions, expressing empathy, and providing suggestions (Rashkin et al., 2019; Zheng et al., 2021; Sabour et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2023). As discussed in (Liu et al., 2021), high-quality ESC data usually does not naturally exist and can hardly be complemented by empathetic or emotional dialogue data. The authors thus crowdsourced the ESConv dataset through laborious worker training and quality control mechanisms. As a result, ESConv contains only 1.3K dialogue sessions and 13 topic categories, reflecting the intractability of crowdsourcing large-scale high-quality ESC dialogues. Our work attempts to alleviate data scarcity through automatic dialogue augmentation. ## 3 Methodology We treat dialogue augmentation as a dialogue completion task, as illustrated in Figure 1 and 2. The dialogue augmentation procedure contains three steps: (1) fine-tuning the language model (§ 3.1), (2) prompting it to complete full dialogues on var- The following is a conversation with an AI assistant. The assistant is helpful, empathetic, clever, and very friendly. It can use various support skills to provide ## Emotional Support To Human. Human: I moved into a new state recently, and there's a ## Lot To Do, But I Don'T Have Any Friends In The New Place I stay at. AI: What's it like being away from family? Human: Family is all I have here. They aren't exactly close, so I haven't gotten to see them in a while. AI: That must be difficult. How do you feel about where you live? Human: It's OK. I'm learning to like it a little bit. At least now I have someone who is usually around when I wake up. AI: If only you were that lucky with people in general. People move for so many different reasons. I've found that often when I move, I just need to adjust my social circle a little, and I find that I then end up liking where I am. Human: That's true. Maybe I should just find some people to hang out with. AI: Well, of course! There are a LOT of online social groups. We can start with that. Human: I think that's a good idea. And I already know one person at my current location. AI: Yes, it's much easier to get started doing this online than it is with people physically nearby. I know that you were actually just thinking that. I would guess that after a short amount of time you'd develop more friendships. Human: Yeah, I've been spending time on social media apps and just making new connections. I've found some really good friends through it. AI: That's wonderful! I'd say, you're on your way! Human: What should I do first? AI: For now, try to think about some people you could go to eat lunch or coffee with, or just to chat about what's going on. Human: Oh yeah, that's a great idea! Thank you! AI: You are welcome! Of course, when you can afford it, do get together with others in real life! It'll be much more rewarding than anything you could do alone. Human: Do you think that will help? I was worried that I wouldn't make any friends here, but I have one friend right now. AI: It certainly will help immensely. Real life friends are the best of all! Human: That's good to hear! I guess I'll keep trying. Thanks for the help! AI: You are welcome! And again, I wish you the best of luck with your new situation! Figure 2: A cherry-picked example dialogue from AUGESC. The task description and the starting utterance is fed into the fine-tuned language model, which then generates the subsequent dialogue. ious topics (§ 3.2), and (3) postprocessing augmented dialogues based on heuristics (§ 3.3). ## 3.1 Fine-Tuning Language Model As the first step of our approach, an autoregressive language model is fine-tuned with dialogue samples to acquire the ability of completing a full dialogue from the starting utterance. Previous work (Zheng and Huang, 2021; Wei et al., 2022) has shown that the textual instruction facilitates the generalization of language models. As shown in Figure 2, we adopts the textual instruction that contains a paragraph of task description and distinguishes the seeker and supporter with the role prompts "Human" and "AI". During the next step of dialogue completion (§ 3.2), the language model is first fed with the task description and a starting utterance (starting with "Human: "), followed by the next "AI: ". It then generates the subsequent dialogue until the EOS token is decoded. In practice, we adopted GPT-J (Wang and Komatsuzaki, 2021), an open-sourced autoregressive language model with 6B parameters. We fine-tuned it for 1 epoch on 100 sampled ESConv dialogue sessions, which we found could lead to a balance between domain adaptation and the generalization to unseen dialogue topics. See Appendix B for implementation details. ## 3.2 Dialogue Completion The second step is to collect available, diverse, and informative dialogue posts as starting utterances, which are then used to prompt the language model to complete full dialogues on various topics. In the scope of ESC, we target those dialogue posts that describe emotional problems in daily life. We utilized dialogue posts from EmpatheticDialogues (ED) (Rashkin et al., 2019), a crowdsourced empathetic dialogue dataset widely used in academic research. ED contains rich and diverse dialogue posts, which are assigned with emotion labels and contain detailed descriptions about the emotional states. We used the posts with negative emotion labels and retained those with lengths between 10 and 602(with NLTK tokenization, similarly below) to ensure the proper amount of information . Finally, we collected 8,950 dialogue posts 2We noticed that a longer post usually leads to a dialogue with longer utterances. Since the ESConv dialogues generally do not contain too long utterances, we also set an upper bound (60) for the post length to avoid large gaps with ESConv. | Heuristics | Proportions | ESConv | AUGESC | | |----------------------------------------------------|---------------|------------|----------|-----| | Augmentation Failures Non-dialogue | 0.3% | | | | | Unfinished Generation | 3.4% | | | | | Prompt Word Leakage | 2.1% | | | | | Harmful Self-reinforcement Unbalanced # Utterances | 5.2% | | | | | Consecutive # Utterances | 3.5% | | | | | Distributional Gaps with ESConv Total # Utterances | 4.8% | | | | | Utterance Length | 8.0% | | | | | Final Retention | 72.7% | # Sessions | 1.3K | 65K | | Average Session Length | 543.6 | 496.4 | | | | # Utterances | 38K | 1,738K | | | | Average # Utterances | 28.9 | 26.7 | | | | Average Utterance Length | 18.8 | 18.7 | | | | # Utterances | 20K | 867K | | | | Seeker | Avg # Uttr | 15.4 | 13.3 | | | Avg Uttr Len | 16.8 | 17.4 | | | | # Utterances | 18K | 872K | | | | Supporter | Avg # Uttr | 13.6 | 13.4 | | | Avg Uttr Len | 21.0 | 19.8 | | | with the average length 19.9. We traversed these posts for 10 epochs and obtained 89,500 raw generated texts with nucleus sampling (Holtzman et al., 2019) and p = 0.9 (the default decoding algorithm adopted in our work). ## 3.3 Postprocessing In the final postprocessing step, we remove undesirable augmented cases based on heuristics. Specifically, we removed three types of undesirable cases: (1) **Augmentation Failures**. It includes generating *Non-dialogue* contents, *Unfinished Generation* where the dialogue has not been generated completely, and *Prompt Word Leakage* where the utterances contain the role prompts "Human" or "AI". (2) **Harmful Self-reinforcement**. A language model is prone to reinforcing itself to generate new text with similar patterns to the precedent generated text (Holtzman et al., 2019). For instance, given the dialogue history where the speakers' utterance numbers are unbalanced or one speaker has said consecutive utterances, the language model is more prone to continuously generating unbalanced or consecutive utterances, which generally do not appear in natural conversations. We thus set requirements for *Unbalanced/Consecutive Utterance* Number to alleviate the harmful self-reinforced patterns, which also facilitates balanced information exchange between interlocutors. (3) **Distributional Gaps with ESConv**. We also set requirements for the *Total Utterance Number* and Utterance Length to (a) avoid large distributional gaps with ESConv and (b) encourage in-depth discussion with enough conversation turns. See Appendix C for details of the filtering rules. Table 1 shows the postprocessing results. After postprocessing the 89,500 raw texts, we obtained 65K augmented dialogues (72.7%). Benefiting from model fine-tuning, our approach shows a good controllability of generating valid dialogues (only 0.3% non-dialogue, 3.4% unfinished generation, and 2.1% prompt word leakage). The phenomenon of self-reinforcement also unavoidably occurs in the generation of GPT-J (5.2%/3.5% unbalanced/consecutive utterance number), which suggests the necessity of restricting the utterance numbers during postprocessing. Considering that heuristic-based postprocessing may not guarantee the perfect quality of augmented dialogues, we also conducted comprehensive human evaluation to assess the dialogue quality (§ 5). The results show that the currently obtained AUGESC has been of reasonable quality. On the other hand, there are still no reliable automatic methods for open-domain dialogue evaluation (Liu et al., 2016; Deriu et al., 2021), and even human evaluation is an open problem (Smith et al., 2022). We leave further quality refinement methods of dialogue augmentation for future work. ## 4 Data Analysis 4.1 Statistics The statistics of our constructed AUGESC dataset are shown in Table 2. An example dialogue from AUGESC is shown in Figure 2. AUGESC contains 65K dialogue sessions and 1,738K utterances, roughly 50/45x the scale of ESConv. The AUGESC dialogues generally have a close utterance number ESConv pandemic (5.2), covid (5.0), depression (3.4), support (3.2), christmas (3.1), job (2.6), anxiety (2.6), online (2.6), vaccine (2.4), zoom (2.2), holidays (2.2), correct (2.1), feeling (2.1), helpful (2.1), stress (2.0), virus (2.0), hard (2.0), breakup (2.0), mturk (1.9), merry (1.9), quit (1.9), virtual (1.8), unemployment (1.8), struggling (1.8), resume (1.8), youtube (1.7), honestly (1.7), moment (1.7), daily (1.6), survey (1.6) AUGESC car (4.9), sounds (4.0), dog (3.2), guess (3.2), house (2.9), police (2.8), money (2.6), parents (2.6), hope (2.5), brother (2.5), idea (2.4), buy (2.4), neighbors (2.4), insurance (2.3), afraid (2.2), mom (2.1), luck (2.1), driving (2.1), agree (2.0), told (2.0), husband (2.0), excited (2.0), Figure (2.0), nice (1.9), upset (1.9), cat (1.9), sense (1.9), scared (1.9), vet (1.8), stole (1.8) Table 3: Top 30 salient topic features associated with ESConv and AUGESC. The rounded z-scored log odds ratios are marked in the parentheses, where values greater than 2 indicate significant (> 2 std) association. and length to ESConv due to the heuristics for controlling their distributional gaps (Table 1, Total Utterance Number and Utterance Length). We observe that in the ESConv dialogues, the utterance number of seeker is usually larger than supporter (15.4 vs. 13.6), while their numbers are closer in AUGESC (13.3 vs. 13.4). This is because the augmentation process of AUGESC has to trade off the self-reinforcement phenomenon, as discussed in § 3.3 (the heuristics of Unbalanced/Consecutive Utterance Number). ## 4.2 Topic Analysis To analyze the topic features, we extracted the lexical correlates of ESConv and AUGESC. We calculated the log odds ratio, informative Dirichlet prior (Monroe et al., 2008) of all words for each dataset contrasting to the other. Statistics are based on the whole 1.3K ESConv sessions or the randomly sampled 1.3K AUGESC sessions for fair comparison. As shown in Table 3, dialogue topics in ESConv are closely related to its period of data curation (2020 to 2021). For instance, the topics like "*pandemic, covid, vaccine, virus*" are directly relevant to COVID-19, while those like "*online, zoom, virtual*" imply the influence of COVID-19. It indicates that the ESConv dialogues may revolve around the emotional problems under the background of or caused by COVID-19, as demonstrated by the topics "depression, job, anxiety, breakup, unem-  ployment". As a result, ESConv may fail to cover topics about general daily life (besides, the ESConv dialogues also leak the information of crowdsourcing tasks, such as "*mturk, quit, survey*"). By contrast, AUGESC covers a broader range of daily-life dialogue topics, such as "car, dog, house, police, money" and many others in Table 3, benefiting from the diverse dialogue posts from ED (§3.2). We thus suggest that AUGESC largely complements the topic coverage of ESConv, which can facilitate the generalization of downstream dialogue models to open-domain topics. ## 4.3 Diversity Analysis To analyze the diversity of augmented dialogues, we extracted the TF-IDF vector of each dialogue in ESConv and AUGESC using the Sklearn library (Pedregosa et al., 2011). We computed and counted the TF-IDF similarity between any two dialogues. As shown in Figure 3 (left), AUGESC has close inter-dialogue diversity to ESConv. It suggests that different dialogues in AUGESC have little overlap with each other, which thus can provide diverse training samples for downstream dialogue models. We also visualized the TF-IDF vectors of dialogues by applying 2-dimensional Principal Component Analysis (PCA). As shown in Figure 3 (right), the regions that are specially correlated with the two datasets are salient, as marked explicitly with arrows. It suggests that AUGESC has a different range of dialogue contents from ESConv and their combination can lead to a broader range. ## 5 Evaluation For Dialogue Quality The quality of dialogue data is critical to training downstream dialogue models (Zhou et al., 2021; Gu et al., 2023). To validate the quality of AUGESC, we conduct comprehensive human | Informativeness | Understanding | Helpfulness | Consistency | Coherence | Unsafety ↓ | | |-----------------------------|-----------------|---------------|---------------|-------------|--------------|------| | κ | 0.42 | 0.35 | 0.37 | 0.35 | 0.40 | 0.39 | | Crowdsourced | 2.52 | 2.42 | 2.23 | 2.56 | 2.42 | 0.13 | | Simulated Chat (BlenderBot) | 1.86 * | 1.90 * | 1.49 * | 2.12 * | 1.90 * | 0.03 | | Simulated Chat (GPT-J) | 2.29 | 2.28 | 2.02 | 2.25 * | 2.16 * | 0.14 | | Our Approach w/o FT (GPT-3) | 2.23 * | 2.07 * | 1.62 * | 2.11 * | 1.96 * | 0.16 | | Our Approach | 2.41 | 2.37 | 2.12 | 2.34 * | 2.19 * | 0.14 | evaluation and compare our approach with strong baselines of dialogue augmentation. ## 5.2 Evaluation Setups 5.1 Compared Methods Simulated Chat This baseline comes from (Mohapatra et al., 2020; Kim et al., 2022), which simulates the crowdworkers' interaction with separately trained models. Following (Mohapatra et al., 2020), we fine-tuned two models with the seekers' and supporters' utterances in ESConv separately. We used the dialogue posts in § 3.2 as the first seekers' utterances, and then the two models took turns to reply to simulate interaction. We set the maximum utterance number to 40 and terminated the simulated conversation if the latest utterance contained the word "bye". We implemented it with two different base models. **Simulated Chat (BlenderBot)** uses the 1.4B BlenderBot model (Roller et al., 2021), which is the state-of-the-art open-sourced dialogue model. **Simulated Chat (GPT-J)** uses the same 6B GPT-J model as in our approach. Our Approach w/o FT This baseline denotes directly prompting the language model to complete dialogues without fine-tuning, which is an ablated variant of our approach and can help us understand the influence of fine-tuning in § 3.1. However, we found that GPT-J cannot work well without finetuning. We thus implemented this ablated variant with the 175B **GPT-3** davinci model (Brown et al., 2020) through the OpenAI API. We applied the same postprocessing as in § 3.3. See Appendix D for details. Crowdsourced We meanwhile evaluate the quality of the ESConv dialogues, which are written by crowdworkers and contain natural human-human interactions. We expect this baseline to serve as an anchor point of dialogue quality evaluation. We refer to (Liu et al., 2021) to design the evaluation protocol. When crowdsourcing the ESConv dataset, Liu et al. (2021) asked the crowdworkers to complete a survey to rate their performance during conversation. The survey results were used to build up the data screening criteria of ESConv. Inspired by this survey, we design the following metrics for assessing the quality of augmented dialogues. **Informativeness** measures how much detailedly the help-seeker describes his/her emotional problem. **Understanding** measures how much the supporter understands the help-seeker's experience and feelings. **Helpfulness** measures how much the supporter succeeds in helping the seeker reduce emotional distress and feel better. Besides, we also assess the general dialogue quality. **Consistency** measures whether the behaviors of the speakers are consistent with their roles, and whether the behavior of the same speaker is not self-contradictory. **Coherence** measures whether the conversation is on-topic and in-depth and whether the topic transition is natural. **Unsafety** measures whether the conversation contains unsafe contents, such as toxic language, sensitive topics, or immoral suggestions. See Appendix E for the detailed evaluation guideline. All the metrics are rated with the four-level Likert scale ranging from 0 to 3 (higher is better except Unsafety). We recruited 60 college students as annotators. We randomly sampled 60 dialogue sessions for each method. Each session was rated by three different annotators. ## 5.3 Results As shown in Table 4, our approach produces augmented dialogues with the highest quality among all the methods. (1) **Compared to Simulated Chat** (BlenderBot), our approach demonstrates the better potential of general language models for dialogue augmentation than specifically pre-trained dialogue models (our advantages are reflected in almost all the metrics). It is because general language models store more general knowledge and thus can better generalize to various dialogue posts for dialogue augmentation. (2) **Compared to Simulated Chat (GPT-J)**, our advantage is not substantial due to the same base model. However, since our approach performs one-time generation of the whole dialogue, it is superior in efficiency to Simulated Chat, which takes turns to generate the two speakers' utterances with two models (as a reference, time cost: 60 seconds vs. 80 seconds per session, GPU memory: 1 model vs. 2 models). Interestingly, our approach slightly outperforms Simulated Chat, which indicates that fine-tuning one language model with whole dialogues may be better than fine-tuning two models with two speakers' utterances separately (the former can be viewed as the parameter-shared version of the latter). (3) Compared to Our Approach w/o FT (GPT-3), our approach is remarkably better due to model fine-tuning, which enables better adaptation to our interested ESC task, as reflected in the metrics Understanding and Helpfulness. (4) **Compared to the** crowdsourced ESConv, our approach produces augmented dialogues with comparable evaluation scores, which confirms the reasonable quality of AUGESC. Nevertheless, there is still a gap in Consistency and Coherence, which is a long-standing problem in open-ended text generation (Dou et al., 2022) and deserves further study in the more general NLG research. See Appendix A.1 for further discussion about the limitations of AUGESC's quality. Also see Appendix F for additional augmented dialogue examples of Simulated Chat (BlenderBot) and Our Approach w/o FT, respectively. ## 5.4 Toxicity Assessment We manually inspected the few cases with non-zero unsafety scores (all are 1-point) in augmented and crowdsourced dialogues and found that they are all about potentially sensitive topics (e.g., talking about alcohol experiences). We conjecture that the unsafety of Simulated Chat (BlenderBot) is the lowest (even lower than the Crowdsourced ESConv) because the BlenderBot model has been processed | Attributes | ESConv | AUGESC | |-----------------|----------|----------| | Toxicity | 0.0613 | 0.0597 | | Severe Toxicity | 0.0427 | 0.0418 | | Identify Attack | 0.0531 | 0.0493 | | Insult | 0.0786 | 0.0823 | | Profanity | 0.0539 | 0.0516 | | Threat | 0.1155 | 0.1146 | by safety mechanisms (Xu et al., 2020) and usually avoids discussion about sensitive topics. However, this also sacrifices the quality of augmented dialogues, as reflected in the lowest quality of Simulated Chat (BlenderBot) in Table 4. Language toxicity has been an essential consideration in the NLP research (Gehman et al., 2020; Dinan et al., 2021; Zheng et al., 2023). As an additional evaluation for the potential toxicity in augmented dialogues, we assessed ESConv and AUGESC using Perspective API, a widely used toxicity detection API in online discussions. All the utterances were assessed by Perspective API's toxicity scores (between 0 and 1, lower is safer) of six production attributes. For each attribute, we reported the score averaged over all the utterances. From Table 5, ESConv and AUGESC both show little toxicity (very low scores) and AUGESC is even lower, while the dialogue quality of AUGESC still slightly underperforms ESConv, as judged by human annotators (Table 4). We conjecture that there may be a trade-off between reducing such "toxicity" and improving dialogue quality. For instance, the supporter cannot help the help-seeker reduce emotional distress without discussing the seeker's emotional problem in depth. On the other hand, toxicity in dialogues is subtle due to its sensitiveness to the dialogue context (Pavlopoulos et al., 2020; Sun et al., 2022), and its identification is still under exploration. Given that the toxicity detectors like Perspective API may introduce new biases (Hosseini et al., 2017; Sap et al., 2019), we did not apply additional toxicity postprocessing to AUGESC in the current work. We leave the further investigation of the toxicity problem in augmented dialogues as future work. ## 6 Evaluation For Data Utility Recall that dialogue augmentation aims to improve smaller downstream dialogue models, which is a Trained on AUGESC? Yes No Fluency 47 13   Identification 68 22 Comforting 55 22 Suggestion 58 15 Overall 58 28 realistic and practical setting since the deployment of large language models is expensive. To verify the utility of AUGESC, we conduct **human interactive evaluation** to explore how much AUGESC can improve the generalization of downstream dialogue models to open-domain topics. ## 6.1 Compared Models We compared two 1.4B BlenderBot models: one is fine-tuned **only on ESConv** (1,100 dialogues, 2 epochs), while the other is further **post-trained on** AUGESC (1 epoch). Note that we used AUGESC for model post-training since we observed that (1) post-training on AUGESC facilitates better generalization to open-domain topics, and (2) first-training on ESConv provides a good initialization point due to the better consistency and coherence of crowdsourced dialogues (Table 4), which is critical to the multi-turn interaction capability. ## 6.2 Evaluation Setups Following (Liu et al., 2021), we conducted pairwise human interactive evaluation. We recruited the same participants as in § 5. Each participant was asked to talk about the same emotional problem with the two bots, which accepted the same first utterances. Each conversation lasted at least 8 turns (8 utterances from participants and 8 from bots), after which the participant could either continue or end it. It is worth noting that we adopted the **open-domain setting**, that is, the participants were allowed to talk about any topics they wanted without restrictions. It is distinct from the setting in (Liu et al., 2021) where the participants were only allowed to talk about limited topic categories (i.e., in-domain topics). After the conversations, the participants were asked to compare the two bots based on the following aspects, which follow the evaluation protocol of | AUGESC? | PPL | B-2 | B-4 | R-L | D-2 | D-3 | |-----------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | No | 11.2 | 7.8 | 2.4 | 16.9 | 23.8 | 48.0 | | Yes | 11.5 | 7.7 | 2.4 | 16.7 | 24.3 | 49.4 | (Liu et al., 2021). **Fluency**: which bot's responses were more fluent and understandable? **Identification**: which bot explored your situation more in-depth and was more helpful in identifying your problem? **Comforting**: which bot was more skillful in comforting you? **Suggestion**: which bot gave you more helpful suggestions for your problems? Overall: generally, which bot's emotional support do you prefer? We collected 60 pairs of interactive conversations (each participant contributed one). ## 6.3 Results As shown in Table 6, AUGESC significantly improves the dialogue model's performance in all aspects. It strongly proves the utility of AUGESC in enhancing the generalization of downstream dialogue models to open-domain topics. We argue that the results are *non-trivial*. The BlenderBot model has been very powerful in open-domain dialogue (Roller et al., 2021). Given that the crowdsourced ESConv dataset has greatly improved BlenderBot's ability of emotional support (Liu et al., 2021), any further substantial improvement on top of this is by no means easy. ## 6.4 In-Domain Evaluation We conducted the additional automatic evaluation on the in-domain ESConv test set (200 held-out dialogue sessions), which aims to verify whether post-training on AUGESC sacrifices the in-domain performance. As shown in Table 7, post-training on AUGESC little influences the in-domain performance (the gaps are marginal), suggesting that improving the open-domain generalization ability is compatible with maintaining the underlying dialogue capability. ## 7 Conclusion In this work, we present a simple yet effective approach for dialogue augmentation, which is formulated as a dialogue completion task. Using this approach, we release an augmented dataset AUGESC for the task of emotional support conversation (ESC), which largely extends the scale and topic coverage of the crowdsourced ESConv corpus. Through comprehensive empirical evaluation, we show that: (1) our approach produces augmented dialogues with higher quality than strong baselines of dialogue augmentation, (2) AUGESC has comparable dialogue quality to the crowdsourced ESConv corpus, and (3) post-training on AUGESC notably improves the generalization capability of downstream dialogue models to open-domain topics. Our work demonstrates the prowess and utility of large language models in improving data-scarce tasks, especially complex open-domain dialogue tasks. It may inspire more work regarding training data augmentation with large language models. Future work can explore automatic methods for further quality refinement of dialogue augmentation. ## Ethical Considerations The EmpatheticDialogues (Rashkin et al., 2019) dataset for dialogue post collection, the GPT-J model (Wang and Komatsuzaki, 2021), and the BlenderBot model (Roller et al., 2021) are all widely used in academic research, can be accessed from HuggingFace Hub or official websites, and are all in the English language as well as AUGESC. Using the above public resources, the construction of AUGESC does not involve human participants and thus does not collect any personal identifying information. We raise attention that AUGESC may possibly contain toxic or biased contents, which cannot be fully assessed in either automatic or human evaluation (§ 5). Future access to AUGESC should be only for research usage and should NOT be used for real-deployed systems, commercial purposes, or any other usage than academic research. Anyone using AUGESC in the research should be aware of its limitations and should acknowledge and/or try to mitigate them to the extent possible. Our work strictly follows the task definition and evaluation protocols (§ 5 and 6) of the original ESC paper (Liu et al., 2021), where the support is provided through social interactions (e.g., between peers or friends) rather than professional counseling. As mentioned in (Liu et al., 2021), further efforts are still needed to probe the ethical extent to which dialogue models can or should provide support. These protocols should also not be used directly in fields other than the ESC task (i.e., peer emotional support in daily life) that require the guidance of professional researchers, such as psychological counseling. We also ethically conducted the human evaluation. We transparently communicated with the participants of our study intent and explicitly informed them of the disclaimers before they participated. We paid the participants at the hourly wage above $10/hour, going well beyond the local labor compensation standard. We acknowledge that the results of human evaluation could be affected by the participants' demographic and geographic characteristics. This work has obtained study approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB). ## Acknowledgements This work was supported by the National Science Foundation for Distinguished Young Scholars (with No. 62125604). This work was also supported by the Guoqiang Institute of Tsinghua University, with Grant No. 2020GQG0005, Tsinghua Precision Medicine Foundation, and the NSFC project (with No. 62206150). ## References 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. In *NeurIPS*. Jan Deriu, Alvaro Rodrigo, Arantxa Otegi, Guillermo Echegoyen, Sophie Rosset, Eneko Agirre, and Mark Cieliebak. 2021. Survey on evaluation methods for dialogue systems. *Artificial Intelligence Review*. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In *NAACL*. Emily Dinan, Gavin Abercrombie, A Stevie Bergman, Shannon Spruit, Dirk Hovy, Y-Lan Boureau, and Verena Rieser. 2021. Anticipating safety issues in e2e conversational ai: Framework and tooling. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2107.03451. Emily Dinan, Stephen Roller, Kurt Shuster, Angela Fan, Michael Auli, and Jason Weston. 2018. Wizard of wikipedia: Knowledge-powered conversational agents. In *ICLR*. Yao Dou, Maxwell Forbes, Rik Koncel-Kedziorski, Noah A Smith, and Yejin Choi. 2022. Is gpt-3 text indistinguishable from human text? scarecrow: A framework for scrutinizing machine text. In ACL. Joseph L Fleiss. 1971. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. *Psychological bulletin*, 76(5):378. Burt L Monroe, Michael P Colaresi, and Kevin M Quinn. 2008. Fightin'words: Lexical feature selection and evaluation for identifying the content of political conflict. *Political Analysis*, 16(4):372–403. Samuel Gehman, Suchin Gururangan, Maarten Sap, Yejin Choi, and Noah A Smith. 2020. Realtoxicityprompts: Evaluating neural toxic degeneration in language models. In *Findings of EMNLP*. Yixin Nie, Mary Williamson, Mohit Bansal, Douwe Kiela, and Jason Weston. 2021. I like fish, especially dolphins: Addressing Contradictions in Dialogue Modeling. In ACL. Yuxian Gu, Jiaxin Wen, Hao Sun, Yi Song, Pei Ke, Chujie Zheng, Zheng Zhang, Jianzhu Yao, Lei Liu, Xiaoyan Zhu, et al. 2023. Eva2. 0: Investigating open-domain chinese dialogue systems with largescale pre-training. *Machine Intelligence Research*, 20(2):207–219. Ari Holtzman, Jan Buys, Li Du, Maxwell Forbes, and Yejin Choi. 2019. The curious case of neural text degeneration. In *ICLR*. Fabian Pedregosa, Gael Varoquaux, Alexandre Gram- ¨ fort, Vincent Michel, Bertrand Thirion, Olivier Grisel, Mathieu Blondel, Peter Prettenhofer, Ron Weiss, Vincent Dubourg, et al. 2011. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in python. *JMLR*. Hossein Hosseini, Sreeram Kannan, Baosen Zhang, and Radha Poovendran. 2017. Deceiving google's perspective api built for detecting toxic comments. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:1702.08138. Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. ROUGE: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In *Text Summarization* Branches Out. Eric Michael Smith, Orion Hsu, Rebecca Qian, Stephen Roller, Y-Lan Boureau, and Jason Weston. 2022. Human evaluation of conversations is an open problem: comparing the sensitivity of various methods for evaluating dialogue agents. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2201.04723. Siyang Liu, Chujie Zheng, Orianna Demasi, Sahand Sabour, Yu Li, Zhou Yu, Yong Jiang, and Minlie Huang. 2021. Towards emotional support dialog systems. In ACL. Hao Sun, Guangxuan Xu, Jiawen Deng, Jiale Cheng, Chujie Zheng, Hao Zhou, Nanyun Peng, Xiaoyan Zhu, and Minlie Huang. 2022. On the safety of conversational models: Taxonomy, dataset, and benchmark. In *Findings of ACL*. Biswesh Mohapatra, Gaurav Pandey, Danish Contractor, and Sachindra Joshi. 2020. Simulated chats for taskoriented dialog: Learning to generate conversations from instructions. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.10216*. Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and WeiJing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In ACL. John Pavlopoulos, Jeffrey Sorensen, Lucas Dixon, Nithum Thain, and Ion Androutsopoulos. 2020. Toxicity detection: Does context really matter? In ACL. Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. *OpenAI* blog. Minju Kim, Chaehyeong Kim, Yongho Song, Seungwon Hwang, and Jinyoung Yeo. 2022. Botstalk: Machine-sourced framework for automatic curation of large-scale multi-skill dialogue datasets. In EMNLP. Hannah Rashkin, Eric Michael Smith, Margaret Li, and Y-Lan Boureau. 2019. Towards empathetic opendomain conversation models: A new benchmark and dataset. In ACL. Jiwei Li, Michel Galley, Chris Brockett, Jianfeng Gao, and Bill Dolan. 2016. A diversity-promoting objective function for neural conversation models. In NAACL. Stephen Roller, Emily Dinan, Naman Goyal, Da Ju, Mary Williamson, Yinhan Liu, Jing Xu, Myle Ott, Eric Michael Smith, Y-Lan Boureau, and Jason Weston. 2021. Recipes for building an open-domain chatbot. In *EACL*. Sahand Sabour, Chujie Zheng, and Minlie Huang. 2022. CEM: commonsense-aware empathetic response generation. In *AAAI*. Alisa Liu, Swabha Swayamdipta, Noah A Smith, and Yejin Choi. 2022. Wanli: Worker and ai collaboration for natural language inference dataset creation. In Findings of EMNLP. Maarten Sap, Dallas Card, Saadia Gabriel, Yejin Choi, and Noah A Smith. 2019. The risk of racial bias in hate speech detection. In ACL. 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 *EMNLP*. Timo Schick and Hinrich Schutze. 2021. Generating ¨ datasets with pretrained language models. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2104.07540. Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2018. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In *ICLR*. Ben Wang and Aran Komatsuzaki. 2021. GPT-J6B: A 6 Billion Parameter Autoregressive Language Model. https://github.com/kingoflolz/ mesh-transformer-jax. Zirui Wang, Adams Wei Yu, Orhan Firat, and Yuan Cao. 2021. Towards zero-label language learning. *arXiv* preprint arXiv:2109.09193. Jason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Y Zhao, Kelvin Guu, Adams Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, Andrew M Dai, and Quoc V Le. 2022. Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners. In *ICLR*. Sean Welleck, Jason Weston, Arthur Szlam, and Kyunghyun Cho. 2019. Dialogue Natural Language Inference. In ACL. Peter West, Chandra Bhagavatula, Jack Hessel, Jena D Hwang, Liwei Jiang, Ronan Le Bras, Ximing Lu, Sean Welleck, and Yejin Choi. 2022. Symbolic knowledge distillation: from general language models to commonsense models. In *NAACL*. Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Remi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, ´ and Jamie Brew. 2020. Transformers: State-of-theart natural language processing. In *EMNLP*. Jing Xu, Da Ju, Margaret Li, Y-Lan Boureau, Jason Weston, and Emily Dinan. 2020. Recipes for safety in open-domain chatbots. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2010.07079. 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 ACL. Chujie Zheng, Yunbo Cao, Daxin Jiang, and Minlie Huang. 2020. Difference-aware knowledge selection for knowledge-grounded conversation generation. In Findings of EMNLP 2020. Chujie Zheng and Minlie Huang. 2021. Exploring prompt-based few-shot learning for grounded dialog generation. *arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.06513*. Chujie Zheng, Pei Ke, Zheng Zhang, and Minlie Huang. 2023. Click: Controllable text generation with sequence likelihood contrastive learning. In Findings of ACL. Chujie Zheng, Yong Liu, Wei Chen, Yongcai Leng, and Minlie Huang. 2021. Comae: A multi-factor hierarchical framework for empathetic response generation. In *Findings of ACL*. Chujie Zheng, Jinfeng Zhou, Yinhe Zheng, Libiao Peng, Zhen Guo, Wenquan Wu, Zhengyu Niu, Hua Wu, and Minlie Huang. 2022. Cdconv: A benchmark for contradiction detection in chinese conversations. In EMNLP. Hao Zhou, Pei Ke, Zheng Zhang, Yuxian Gu, Yinhe Zheng, Chujie Zheng, Yida Wang, Chen Henry Wu, Hao Sun, Xiaocong Yang, et al. 2021. Eva: An open-domain chinese dialogue system with large-scale generative pre-training. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:2108.01547. Hao Zhou, Chujie Zheng, Kaili Huang, Minlie Huang, and Xiaoyan Zhu. 2020. KdConv: A Chinese multi-domain dialogue dataset towards multi-turn knowledge-driven conversation. In ACL. Jinfeng Zhou, Chujie Zheng, Bo Wang, Zheng Zhang, and Minlie Huang. 2023. Case: Aligning coarse-tofine cognition and affection for empathetic response generation. In ACL. ## A Limitations A.1 Dialogue Quality Of Augesc Through our manual inspection, we found that the inconsistency issue mainly occurs in the seekerprovided information. For instance, the seeker first expresses "*sadness about the loss of the dog that* he/she has raised for 14 years". When the supporter asks "*the age of the dog*", the seeker answers "13", which is obviously contradictory to the aforementioned "*14 years*". While the inconsistency can be easily detected based on human commonsense, models are prone to make such mistakes (Welleck et al., 2019; Nie et al., 2021; Zheng et al., 2022). Another issue we noticed is the improper topic transition. That is, after several turns of conversation, the supporter sometimes discusses topics other than the seeker's emotional problem. We conjecture that the root cause is the seeker's inability to proactively provide personalized, in-depth, and detailed information about the emotional problem. In this case, the conversation is only driven by the suggestions offered or the questions raised by the supporter, which may thus induce improper topic transition and make the conversation less coherent. ## A.2 Generalization To Other Tasks Or Models We only experimented with the ESC task as our work focuses more on the quality analysis (§ 4 and 5) and utility evaluation (§ 6) of augmented dialogues. The motivation we study in the ESC task is in two folds: (1) The construction of the ESConv dataset reveals the typical limitations of crowdsourcing dialogue corpora (§ 1). (2) (Liu et al., 2021) provides detailed data screening criteria, enabling us to design a reasonable and convincing protocol for dialogue quality evaluation (§ 5). However, it is intuitive to generalize our approach to other dialogue generation tasks. For instance, in knowledge-grounded dialogue (Dinan et al., 2018; Zhou et al., 2020; Zheng et al., 2020), we can additionally utilize knowledge bases for dialogue augmentation. We leave the broader applications of our dialogue augmentation approach to future work. While we only experimented with GPT-J, one can expect that exploiting larger language models would produce augmented dialogues with better quality, especially given that the commercial language models (e.g., OpenAI's GPT-3) exhibit much stronger performance than the open-sourced ones and are getting more easily accessible. ## B Implementation Details Training We implemented GPT-J with the Transformers library (Wolf et al., 2020). We fine-tuned it for 1 epoch with 100 ESConv dialogue sessions, which are sampled over the 13 topic categories evenly. The batch size was set to 2, and the language modeling loss was averaged over all the tokens in dialogues (excluding the task descrpition texts). We used the AdamW optimizer (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2018), the learning rate 5e-6, and the linear learning rate scheduler with warmup steps 5. We set the maximum input length to 1,500, and applied gradient checkpointing and model parallelism to reduce GPU memory occupation. The finetuning of GPT-J requires four Tesla V100 32GB GPUs and takes about 1 hour. Generation The maximum generation length was set to 1,500. We adopted nucleus sampling (Holtzman et al., 2019) with p = 0.9. We set the repetition penalty factor to 1.05 to avoid generating duplicate contents. The generation of GPT-J requires one Tesla V100 32GB GPU and takes about 1 minute for one augmented dialogue. ## C Details Of Filtering Rules Augmentation Failures *Non-dialogue*: Each line in the generated text should start with "Human:" or "AI:" (i.e., one utterance per line). Unfinished Generation: The generated text should contain the decoded EOS token. *Prompt Word Leakage*: The utterances should not leak the role prompts "Human" or "AI". Harmful Self-reinforcement *Unbalanced Utterance Number*: The number of utterances of one speaker should be no more than 2.5x the other. *Consecutive Utterance Number*: The number of consecutive utterances from the same speaker should not exceed 3. Otherwise, in a self-reinforced generation, one speaker may say obviously more utterances than the other (*unbalance*) or one speaker may always say *consecutive* utterances while the other does not. Such a dialogue would appear unnatural and odd, because it is inconsistent with the common conversational behavior. Distributional Gaps with ESConv *Total Utterance Number*: The total number of utterances should be more than 10 (a too short dialogue also usually does not contain in-depth discussion). *Utterance Length*: The average utterance length from the seeker/supporter should be between 6/8 and | Heuristics | Proportions | |----------------------------------------------------|---------------| | Augmentation Failures Non-dialogue | 24.8% | | Unfinished Generation | N/A | | Prompt Word Leakage | 11.2% | | Harmful Self-reinforcement Unbalanced # Utterances | 0.2% | | Consecutive # Utterances | 0.0% | | Distributional Gaps with ESConv Total # Utterances | 8.2% | | Utterance Length | 7.9% | | Final Retention | 47.9% | 40 and the maximum utterance length should not exceed 80. It is worth noting that the minimum average utterance lengths for seeker/supporter (6 and 8, respectively) are set according to the thresholds adopted in the quality control mechanisms in (Liu et al., 2021). Discussion and Limitation All the above thresholds are determined based on our heuristics and the statistics of ESConv. For instance, there are few ESConv dialogues that contain over 3 consecutive utterances from the same speaker (Consecutive Utterance Number), and also few dialogues that have average utterance lengths over 40 and maximum utterance lengths over 80. We are not able to systematically analyze the influence the determinated thresholds, such as the quality of obtained augmented dialogues and the corresponding performance of downstream dialogue models (§ 5 and 6). Unfortunately, evaluating these ablations would be prohibitively expensive since they all require extensive human efforts for reliable evaluation. ## D Details Of Directly Prompting Gpt-3 In § 5.1, we implemented Our Approach w/o FT with the 175B-parameter GPT-3 davinci (Brown et al., 2020) because we found GPT-J cannot work well without fine-tuning. Since we noticed that GPT-3 usually generated non-dialogue contents when the generation length is increasing, we set the maximum generation length of GPT-3 to 400 to avoid meaningless overhead. The GPT-3 expense was about $0.025 per generated text on average. We used 2K dialogue posts to directly prompt GPT-3 to complete full dialogues, from which 60 augmented dialogues were sampled for human evaluation. For the whole 2K samples, we applied the same postprocessing as in our approach. As shown in Table 8, GPT-3 makes many augmentation failures (24.8% non-dialogue and 11.2% prompt word leakage). Note that its harmful self-reinforcement is little because it seldom produces valid dialogues. The results suggest that directly prompting the language model (even the 175B GPT-3) is inferior to fine-tuning (the much smaller GPT-J than GPT-3) in controllability (72.7% vs. 47.9% retention ratios) as well as the quality of produced augmented dialogues (§ 5.3). ## E Guideline Of Dialogue Quality Evaluation We present the guideline of human evaluation for dialogue quality (§ 5.2) in Figure 4. ## F Examples Of Augmented Dialogues From Baselines We present the augmented dialogue examples of Simulated Chat (BlenderBot) and Our Approach w/o FT (§ 5.1) in Figure 5 and 6, respectively. Guideline of Dialogue **Quality Evaluation** This study aims to evaluate the quality of the conversation between a *help-seeker* (i.e., a person who is seeking support) and a *help-supporte*r (i.e., a person who is providing support). Each task provides you with a single conversation. You need to evaluate the conversation from the following aspects. Disclaimer: the *conversations may contain offensive or upsetting contents.* Help-seeker **Evaluation** Ø **Informativeness**: the help-seeker's level of detail in describing his/her own emotional problems. Options 1. Detailed description 2. Moderate description 3. Minor description 4. No description Examples 1. "I am sad" does not tell us much about the seeker's situation. For instance, the reason why they are sad is not mentioned. 2. "I feel so lonely after my dog passed away. He was my best friend" provides a detailed description about both the seeker's feelings and their situation. Supporter Evaluation Ø **Understanding**: the supporter's level of understanding the help-seeker's experience and feeling. Options 1. Complete understanding 2. Moderate understanding 3. Minor understanding 4. No understanding Examples When the seeker mentions "I feel so lonely after my dog passed away. He was my best friend" 1. "That must be really hard. Losing a pet is always tough, especially when they are your best friend." shows complete understanding. 2. "I am sorry to hear that" demonstrates minor understanding since it has a suitable emotion yet does not include much information about what the seeker has said. 3. "Haha that's funny! I love dogs" shows no understanding. Ø **Helpfulness**: whether the supporter is able to help the seeker feel better and reduce the emotional distress. Options 1. Completely helpful 2. Mostly helpful 3. A little helpful 4. Not helpful General **Evaluation** Ø **Consistency**: whether the behaviors of the speakers are consistent with their roles, and whether the behavior of a same speaker is not self-contradictory. Options 1. Fully consistent 2. Mostly consistent 3. Mostly inconsistent 4. Fully inconsistent Examples 1. (Role confusion) The supporter talks about his/her emotional problems, and the seeker provides comfort and suggestions. 2. (Self-contradictory) If the speaker first says "I love my dog, he is my best friend" and later says "I don't like dogs", they are being self-contradictory. Ø **Coherence**: whether the conversation is on-topic and in-depth and the topic transition is natural. Options 1. Fully coherent 2. Mostly coherent 3. Mostly incoherent 4. Fully incoherent Examples 1. (Contextually incoherence) If one speaker says "I love my dog, he is my best friend" and the other responds "dogs have a good sense of smell". 2. (Unnatural topic transition) If the conversation starts off about the seeker's problem and later turns into a conversation about an entirely different topic. Ø **Unsafety**: whether the conversation contains unsafe contents. Options 1. Safe 2. A bit unsafe 3. Mostly unsafe 4. Fully unsafe Examples 1. Toxic language such as offensive contents, hate speech, biased opinions, etc. 2. Sensitive topics such as medicine, violence, politics, gender or race, etc. 3. Immoral suggestions (e.g., "cheating on your wife is a great idea"). Figure 4: Guideline of human evaluation for dialogue quality (§ 5). | Human: I think someone was following me home last night. I took off running and didnt stop until I got home. AI: I'm sorry to hear that. Did you see anything? Human: I had my dog with me, and she was barking at everything so I called the cops. AI: That sounds like a really stressful situation. I'm glad you were able to get the dog out of there! Human: I am too. I hope the person that was following her has a horrible life AI: It sounds like you are very concerned about your dog and her safety. Is that correct? Human: Yes, I am. It is scary to think that someone could be out there AI: I can't imagine how hard it must be for you to be stuck in that situation. Human: Yes. I just don't know what to do. AI: Do you have any friends or family who can help you? Human: No, but I have a friend that lives in the same town. AI: That's good at least. I'm sure your friend would be happy to help you if she knows you're in this situation | Human: She does, but she doesn't want to get involved. AI: That sounds very frustrating. I feel bad that she doesn't want to be involved in something like this. Human: I have a feeling that she's not going to get into it. AI: I understand that completely. It's a difficult situation for everyone in this world Human: It's especially difficult since we are both in this town. AI: Do you think she will get involved in a different town? Human: I don't know. But I hope she gets involved. AI: It's definitely important that you are confident she'll get involved though. Human: I agree. She has a good family, so I hope they help her out. AI: If she is willing to do it, she will. Human: Thank you. I hope so too. AI: You're very welcome. Please stay safe! Human: Thanks. You too. Have a nice day. AI: Thankyou, you too! Stay safe. Human: Again. Have good day. Bye! | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| blender Figure 5: An example of augmented dialogue produced by **Simulated Chat (BlenderBot)** (§ 5.1), which contain obvious illogical and confusing contents, such as the unclear intent of the supporter (AI) and the unreasonable and illogical suggestions provided by the supporter. There are also obvious uninformative, meaningless, or repetitive contents, such as that the help-seeker (Human) cannot provide useful information and that the supporter also fails to explore the help-seeker's situations effectively. | Human: I worked hard the entire smesetr only yo fail again! AI: What did you fail at exactly? Human: My project report AI: How many mistakes did you make? Human: I didn't understand some questions AI: You should have talked to me before starting this project. I could have told you those questions. Human: I forgot to talk to you AI: See, now you know how I feel when you forget to communicate with me. Human: But it's hard AI: Hard for you and hard for me as well. But the most important thing is that we can understand each other now. So that we can work together to figure out solutions to your problems. Human: Yes, you are right AI: What do you feel right now? Human: I feel very bad AI: Is there anything I can do for you? Human: Talk to me for a while | AI: If you don't mind, I'd like to read this news article Human: No, not now. Please talk to me AI: Talking to me is like talking to a wall. I'm tired of listening to you anyway. Human: Why? AI: I've been working on projects all day and then you come here and distract me from my work. You keep talking and you never stop. You don't even bother to learn about me and my interests. Just like an elementary school kid. Human: Is that why you're ignoring me? AI: Yes, you should be the one feeling bad because I'm doing something really important right now. It's not just your fault, but your parent's fault as well. Human: Hey! AI: Fine, I'll give you some time to reflect on what you have done. Human: You are just being mean. And if you don't want to talk to me, fine, I will go somewhere else. AI: That's right, go somewhere else. Human: Fine. | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| Figure 6: An example of augmented dialogue produced by **Our Approach w/o FT** (§ 5.1, Appendix D), which shows little empathy and understanding . ## Acl 2023 Responsible Nlp Checklist A For Every Submission: ✓ A1. Did you describe the limitations of your work? 3.3, Ethical Considerations, Appendix A ✓ A2. Did you discuss any potential risks of your work? 5.4, Ethical Considerations ✓ A3. Do the abstract and introduction summarize the paper's main claims? 1 ✗ A4. Have you used AI writing assistants when working on this paper? Left blank. ## B ✓ **Did You Use Or Create Scientific Artifacts?** 3, 4 ✓ B1. Did you cite the creators of artifacts you used? 3.1, 3.2, 5.1 ✗ B2. Did you discuss the license or terms for use and / or distribution of any artifacts? We refer readers to the original releases in case the license information of those work changes. ✓ 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)? 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? 5.4, Ethical Considerations ✓ B5. Did you provide documentation of the artifacts, e.g., coverage of domains, languages, and linguistic phenomena, demographic groups represented, etc.? 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. 3.2, 3.3, 4, 6.1, 6.4 ## C ✓ **Did You Run Computational Experiments?** 3, 5, 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? 3.1, 5.1, 6.1 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? 3.1, 5.1, 6.1, Appendix B. We did not do 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? Not applicable. We mainly perform human evaluation. ✓ 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.)? 3.2, 4.3, Appendix B D ✓ **Did you use human annotators (e.g., crowdworkers) or research with human participants?** 5, 6 ✓ 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.? 5.2, 6.2, Figure 4 ✓ 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)? 5.2, 6.2, 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? Ethical Considerations, Figure 4 ✓ D4. Was the data collection protocol approved (or determined exempt) by an ethics review board? Ethical Considerations D5. Did you report the basic demographic and geographic characteristics of the annotator population that is the source of the data? Not applicable. Our dataset is machine-augmented rather than human-written.

ahmed-etal-2023-2

$2*n$ is better than $n^2$: Decomposing Event Coreference Resolution into Two Tractable Problems

https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.100

Event Coreference Resolution (ECR) is the task of linking mentions of the same event either within or across documents. Most mention pairs are not coreferent, yet many that are coreferent can be identified through simple techniques such as lemma matching of the event triggers or the sentences in which they appear. Existing methods for training coreference systems sample from a largely skewed distribution, making it difficult for the algorithm to learn coreference beyond surface matching. Additionally, these methods are intractable because of the quadratic operations needed. To address these challenges, we break the problem of ECR into two parts: a) a heuristic to efficiently filter out a large number of non-coreferent pairs, and b) a training approach on a balanced set of coreferent and non-coreferent mention pairs. By following this approach, we show that we get comparable results to the state of the art on two popular ECR datasets while significantly reducing compute requirements. We also analyze the mention pairs that are {``}hard{''} to accurately classify as coreferent or non-coreferentcode repo: $\mathtt{github.com/ahmeshaf/lemma\_ce\_coref}$.

# 2 ∗ N **Is Better Than** N 2**: Decomposing Event Coreference Resolution Into** Two Tractable Problems Shafiuddin Rehan Ahmed1 Abhijnan Nath2 James H. Martin1 **Nikhil Krishnaswamy**2 1Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA {shah7567, james.martin}@colorado.edu 2Department of Computer Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA {abhijnan.nath, nkrishna}@colostate.edu ## Abstract Event Coreference Resolution (ECR) is the task of linking mentions of the same event either within or across documents. Most mention pairs are not coreferent, yet many that are coreferent can be identified through simple techniques such as lemma matching of the event triggers or the sentences in which they appear. Existing methods for training coreference systems sample from a largely skewed distribution, making it difficult for the algorithm to learn coreference beyond surface matching. Additionally, these methods are intractable because of the quadratic operations needed. To address these challenges, we break the problem of ECR into two parts: a) a heuristic to efficiently filter out a large number of non-coreferent pairs, and b) a training approach on a balanced set of coreferent and non-coreferent mention pairs. By following this approach, we show that we get comparable results to the state of the art on two popular ECR datasets while significantly reducing compute requirements. We also analyze the mention pairs that are "hard" to accurately classify as coreferent or non-coreferent1. ## 1 Introduction Event coreference resolution (ECR) is the task of finding mentions of the same event within the same document (known as "within-document coreference resolution," or *WDCR*) or across text (known as "cross-document coreference resolution," or CDCR) documents. This task is used for knowledge graph construction, event salience detection and question answering (Postma et al., 2018). Traditionally, ECR is performed on pairs of event mentions by calculating the similarity between them and subsequently using a clustering algorithm to identify ECR relations through transitivity. The pairwise similarity is estimated using a supervised machine learning method, where an 1code repo: github.com/ahmeshaf/lemma_ce_coref algorithm is trained to distinguish between positive and negative examples based on ground truth. The positive examples are all pairs of coreferent mentions, while the negative examples are all pairs of non-coreferent mentions. To avoid comparing completely unrelated events, the negative pairs are only selected from documents coming from the set of related topics. Many coreferent pairs are similar on the surface, meaning that the event triggers (the words or phrases referring to the event) have the same lemma and appear in similar sentences. We can use these features in a heuristic to further classify the positive (P+) and negative (P−) pairs into four categories: 1. P + easy: coreferent/positive mention pairs with high surface similarity. 2. P + FN: coreferent/positive mention pairs with low surface similarity. 3. P − hard: non-coreferent/negative mention pairs with high surface similarity. 4. P − TN: non-coreferent/negative mention pairs with low surface similarity As shown in Figure 1, P + easy represents coreferent mention pairs that can be correctly identified by the heuristic, but P − hard are non-coreferent pairs that might be difficult for the heuristic to identify. Similarly, P − TN (True Negatives) are non-coreferent pairs that the heuristic can correctly infer, but P + FN (False Negatives) require additional reasoning (that *Indianapolis* is coreferent with *Colts*) to make the coreference judgement. Most mention pairs are non-coreferent, comprising all pairs corresponding to P − hard and P − TN. However, we observe that that the distribution of the three categories (P + easy, P − hard, and P + FN) is fairly similar across most ECR datasets, with P − TN causing the imbalance between positive and negative pairs. Previous methods do not differentiate between these four categories and randomly select  the positive and negative pairs to train their coreference systems from this heavily skewed distribution. This makes it challenging for the coreference algorithm to identify coreferent links among a large number of non-coreferent ones. Furthermore, as ECR is performed on n 2 number of mention pairs, where n is the number of mentions in the corpus, these methods can become intractable for a large corpus. To improve the efficiency of the ECR process while achieving near sate of the art (SOTA) results, we divide the problem into two manageable subtasks: a) a heuristic to efficiently and accurately filter out a large number of P − TN as a way of balancing the skewed distribution, and b) an ECR system trained on the balanced set of coreferent and noncoreferent mention pairs (P + easy and P − hard). This approach also eases the analysis of some of the mention pairs that are difficult to classify with an ECR system, which we present in this paper. ## 2 Related Work Pre-Transformer Methods Pre-Transformer language model-related works in event coreference such as Kenyon-Dean et al. (2018) trained neural models with customized objective (loss) functions to generate richer representations of mentionpairs using "static" embeddings such as contextual Word2Vec (Mikolov et al., 2013) as well as document-level features such as TF-IDF and heuristically-motivated features like mentionrecency, word overlap, and lemma overlap, etc. As such, they improved upon the baselines established by Cybulska and Vossen (2015) on the ECB+ corpus. Similarly, works such as Barhom et al. (2019) suggest both disjoint and joint-clustering of events mentions with their related entity clusters by using a predicate-argument structure. In this, their disjoint model surpassed Kenyon-Dean et al. (2018) by 9.5 F1 points using the CoNLL scorer (Pradhan et al., 2014) whereas their joint model improved upon the disjoint model by 1.2 points for entities and 1 point for events. Transformer-based Cross-encoding Most recent works (Meged et al., 2020; Zeng et al., 2020; Cattan et al., 2021; Allaway et al., 2021; Caciularu et al., 2021; Held et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2022a) in CDCR have shown success in using pairwise mention representation learning models, a method popularly known as cross-encoding. These methods use distributed and contextually-enriched "nonstatic" vector representations of mentions from large, Transformer-based language models like various BERT-variants to calculate supervised pairwise scores for those event mentions. At inference, such works use variations of incremental or agglomerative clustering techniques to form predicted coreference links and evaluate their chains on gold coreference standards. The methods vary with the context they use for cross-encoding. Cattan et al. (2021) use only sentence-level context, Held et al. (2021) use context from sentences surrounding the mentions, and Caciularu et al. (2021) use context from entire documents. In our research, we have focused on the CDLM model from Caciularu et al. (2021) and their methodology, which uses a combination of enhanced pretraining using the global attention mechanism inspired by Beltagy et al. (2020) as well as finetuning on a task-specific dataset using pretrained special tokens to generate more semantically-enhanced embeddings for mentions. Beltagy et al. (2020) and Caciularu et al. (2021) cleverly use the global attention mechanism to linearly scale the oft-quadratic complexity of pairwise scoring of mentions in coreference resolution while also accommodating longer documents (up to 4,096 tokens). Previous works such as Baldwin (1997), Stoyanov and Eisner (2012), Lee et al. (2012), and Lee et al. (2013) also reduce computation time by strategically using deterministic, rule-based systems along with neural architectures. Recently, pruning P − TN for ECR has been shown to be effective by Held et al. (2021). They create individual representations for mentions and use them in a bi-encoder method to retrieve potential coreferent candidates, which are later refined using a cross-encoder trained on hard negative examples. In contrast, our approach utilizes a computationally efficient pruning heuristic and trains the crossencoder on a smaller dataset. We also conduct an error analysis on all hard examples that are misclassified by the cross-encoder, which is made feasible by the heuristic. ## 3 Datasets We experiment with two popular ECR datasets distinguished by the effectiveness of a lemma heuristic on the dataset. ## 3.1 Event Coreference Bank Plus (Ecb+) The ECB+ corpus (Cybulska and Vossen, 2014) is a popular English corpus used to train and evaluate systems for event coreference resolution. It extends the Event Coref Bank corpus (ECB; Bejan and Harabagiu (2010)), with annotations from around 500 additional documents. The corpus includes annotations of text spans that represent events, as well as information about how those events are related through coreference. We divide the documents from topics 1 to 35 into the training and validation sets2, and those from 36 to 45 into the test set, following the approach of Cybulska and Vossen (2015). ## 3.2 Gun Violence Corpus (Gvc) The Gun Violence Corpus (Vossen et al., 2018) is a recent English corpus exclusively focusing on event coreference resolution. It is intended to be a more challenging dataset than ECB+ which has a very strong lemma baseline (Cybulska and Vossen, 2014). It is a collection of texts surrounding a 2Validation set includes documents from the topics 2, 5, 12, 18, 21, 34, and 35  Table 1: ECB+ and GVC Corpus statistics for event mentions. T/ST = topics/sub-topics, D = documents, M = event mentions, C = clusters, S = singletons. single topic (gun violence) and various sub-topics. Since it does not have coreference links across subtopics, we only consider mention pairs within the sub-topics. We use the data split by Bugert et al. (2021). Table 1 contains the statistics for ECB+ and GVC corpora. ## 4 System Overview There are two major components in our system: the heuristic and the discriminator (cross-encoder) trained on the output of the heuristic. ## 4.1 Lemma Heuristics (Lh, Lhora) A key feature of ECR is its high baseline achieved by comparing the lemmas of mention triggers and sentences. To leverage this feature, we incorporate it as the first step in our coreference resolution system. We utilize spaCy3to extract the lemmas, a widely-used tool for this task. In addition to matching lemmas of triggers, we also create and utilize a set of synonymous4lemma pairs that commonly appear in coreferent mention pairs in our training set. This approach allows us to identify coreferent mention pairs that have different triggers and improve the overall recall. The heuristic, LH, only utilizes the synonymous lemma pairs from the training set. We also evaluate the performance of LHOra, which uses synonymous lemma pairs from the entire dataset which means it uses the coreference information of the development and test sets to create synonymous lemma pairs. For a mention pair (A, B), with triggers (tA, tB), head lemmas (lA, lB) and for a given synonymous lemma pair set (SynP ), we consider only lemma pairs that pass any of the following rules: - (lA, lB) ∈ SynP - lA == lB - tB *contains l*A 3https://spacy.io/ model en_core_web_md v3.4 4The words need not be synonyms in strict definitions, but rather appear in coreference chains.  ## - Ta Contains Lb For mentions that have matching trigger lemmas/triggers or are synonymous, we proceed by comparing the context of the mentions. In this work, we only compare the mention's sentence to check for similarities between two mentions. To further refine our comparison, we remove stop words and convert the tokens in the text to their base form. Then, we determine the overlap between the two mentions and predict that the pair is coreferent if the overlap exceeds a certain threshold. We tune the threshold using the development sets. ## 4.1.1 Filtering Out P− Tn Cross-document coreference systems often struggle with a skewed distribution of mention pairs, as seen in Figure 2. In any dataset, only 5-10% of the pairs are corefering, while the remaining 90% are non-coreferent. To address this, we use the heuristic to balance the distribution by selectively removing non-coreferent pairs (P − TN), while minimizing the loss of coreferent pairs (P + FN). We do this by only considering the mention pairs that the heuristic predicts as coreferent, and discarding the non-coreferent ones. ## 4.1.2 P− Hard, P+ Easy**, And P**+ Fn **Analysis** P + easy and P − hard: As defined earlier, P + easy are the mention pairs that the heuristic correctly predicts as coreferent when compared to the ground-truth, and P − hard are the heuristic's predictions of coreference that are incorrect when compared to the ground-truth. In §4.2.1, we go through how we fix heuristic's P− hard predictions while minimizing the errors introduced in terms of P+ easy. P + FN: We define a pair as a P + FN only if it cannot be linked to the true cluster through subsequent steps.  As shown in Figure 3, if a true cluster is {a, b, c} and the heuristic discards one pair (a, c), it will not be considered as a P + FN because the coreference can be inferred through transitivity. However, if it discards two pairs {(a,c), (b,c)}, they will both be considered as P + FN. We hypothesize that an ideal heuristic is one that maintains a balance between P + easy and P − hard while minimizing P + FN, and therefore, we tune the heuristic's threshold accordingly using the development sets of the corpora. We evaluate the heuristics LH and LHOra by plotting the distributions P + easy, P − hard, and P + FN generated by each for the two corpora. From Figure 4, We observe similar distributions for the test and development sets with the chosen threshold value from the development set. We also observe that LH causes a significant number of P + FN, while LHOra has a minimal number of P + FN. Minimizing the count of P + FN is important as it directly affects   the system's recall. The distributions of P + easy and P − hard remain balanced across all datasets except when LHOra is used in GVC where there are double the number of P − hard to P + easy. P − hard should be minimized as it can affect the system's overall precision. ## 4.2 Cross-Encoder A common technique to perform ECR is to use Transformer-based cross-encoding (CE) on the mention pair (A, B). This process, depicted in Figure 5, begins by surrounding the trigger with special tokens (<m> and </m>). The mentions are then combined into a single input for the transformer (e.g., RoBERTa). The pooled output of the transformer (ECLS) and the output corresponding to the tokens of the event triggers (EA and EB) are extracted.5 ECLS, EA, EB, and the element-wise product of the mention embeddings (EA⊙EB) are all concatenated to create a unified representation of the mention pair. This representation is used, with a classifier, to learn the coreference score, CE (A, B), between the pair after finetuning the transformer. ## 4.2.1 P+ Easy & P− Hard **Discriminator (**D) The cross-encoder's encoding is non-symmetric, meaning, depending on the order in which the mentions are concatenated, it will give different coreference scores. In reality, the order should not matter for predicting if the two events are the same or not. We propose a symmetric cross-encoding scorer where we take the average of the scores predicted from both combinations of concatenation. So for a mention pair, p = (A, B), the symmetric cross-encoder coreference scorer (D) is given as: $$\mathbb{D}(p)={\frac{\mathbb{C}\mathbb{E}(\mathbf{A},\mathbf{B})+\mathbb{C}\mathbb{E}(\mathbf{B},\mathbf{A})}{2}}\qquad{\mathrm{(1)}}$$ We employ a cross-encoder with a symmetric scorer, as outlined in Equation 1, as the discriminator for P + easy and P − hard. We conduct experiments utilizing two different Transformer models, RoBERTa (Dsmall) and Longformer (Dlong), which vary in their maximum input capacity. ## 5 Experimental Setup We describe our process of training, prediction, and hyperparameter choice in this section. ## 5.1 Mention Pair Generation We use the gold mentions from the datasets. Following previous methods, we generate all the pairs (Pall) of mentions (Mv) from documents coming from the same topic. We use gold topics in the training phase and predicted topics through document clustering in the prediction phase (Bugert et al., 2021). ## 5.2 Training Phase During the training phase, we leverage LH to generate a balanced set of positive and negative samples, labeled as P + easy and P − hard, respectively. These samples are then used to train our models, Dsmall and Dlong separately, using the Binary Cross Entropy Loss (BCE) function as follows: $$L=\sum_{\begin{array}{l}{{p_{+}\in\mathrm{P_{easy}^{+}},}}\\ {{p_{-}\in\mathrm{P_{hard}^{-}}}}\end{array}}\log\mathbb{D}(p_{+})+\log\left(1-\mathbb{D}(p_{-})\right)$$ Unlike traditional methods, we do not rely on random sampling or artificial balancing of the dataset. Instead, our heuristic ensures that the positive and negative samples are naturally balanced (as depicted in Figure 6). A side-effect of adopting this approach is that some of the positive samples are ## Algorithm 1 Training Phase Require: D: Training Document Set T: gold topics Mv: gold event mentions in D S v: sentences of the mentions Dv: documents of the mentions G: gold mention cluster map P ← TopicMentionPairs(Mv, T) SynP ← SynonymousLemmaPairs(*P, G*) P + easy, P − hard, P + FN, P − TN ← LH(*P, G,* SynP , Sv) Dlong ← TrainCrossEncoder(P+ easy, P− hard, Dv) Dsmall ← TrainCrossEncoder(P+ easy, P− hard, S v) return SynP , Dlong, Dsmall excluded in training. We do this to keep the training and prediction phases consistent and, to ensure the cross-encoder is not confused by the inclusion of these hard positive examples. Additionally, for D with Longformer, we utilize the entire document for training, while for D with RoBERTa, we only use the sentence containing the mention to provide contextual information. We employ the Adam optimizer with a learning rate of 0.0001 for the classifier and 0.00001 for finetuning the Transformer model. This entire process is illustrated in Algorithm 1. To ensure optimal performance, we train our system separately for both the ECB+ and GVC training sets. We utilize a single NVIDIA A100 GPU  ## Algorithm 2 Prediction Phase Require: D: testing document set T: gold/clustered topics Mv: gold event mentions in D S v: sentences of the mentions SynP : synonymous lemma pairs from training Dsmall, Dlong: trained CE discriminators P ← TopicMentionPairs(Mv, T) AH, P + ← LH(P, SynP , Sv) AP ← Dsmall(P +) > 0.5 AP ← Dlong(P +) > 0.5 return ConnectedComponents(AH), ConnectedComponents(AP) with 80GB memory to train Dlong with the Longformer model, and a single NVIDIA RTX 3090 GPU (24 GB) for training Dsmall with the RoBERTa-BASE model. We train each system for 10 epochs, with each epoch taking approximately one hour for the Longformer model and 15 minutes for the RoBERTa model. ## 5.3 Prediction Phase In the prediction phase, we first pass the mention pairs through the heuristic and create an adjacency matrix called AH based on its coreferent predictions. The ones predicted not coreferent by the heuristic are discarded. This step is crucial in terms of making the task tractable. Next, we pass the mention pairs that are predicted to be coreferent by the heuristic through Dsmall and Dlong separately. Using the subsequent coreferent predictions from these models, we generate another adjacency matrix AP. To create event clusters, we use these matrices to identify connected components. As a baseline, we use the matrix AH to generate the clusters. We then use AP to assess the improvements made by using Dsmall and Dlong over the baseline. This process is illustrated in Algorithm 2. The process takes between 6-10 minutes to run the Longformer model and between 1-2 minutes to run the RoBERTa one. ## 6 Results We evaluate the event clusters formed using the standard coreference evaluation metrics (MUC, B3, CEAFe, LEA and CoNLL F1—the average of MUC, B3and *CEAF*e Vilain et al. (1995); Bagga and Baldwin (1998); Luo (2005); Luo et al. (2014); Pradhan et al. (2014); Moosavi et al. (2019)). We | CoNLL F1 | | | |-------------------------|------|------| | Methods | ECB+ | GVC | | Bugert et al. (2021) | - | 59.4 | | Cattan et al. (2021) | 81.0 | - | | Caciularu et al. (2021) | 85.6 | - | | Held et al. (2021) | 85.7 | 83.7 | | LH | 76.4 | 51.8 | | LH + Dsmall | 80.3 | 73.7 | | LH + Dlong | 81.7 | 75.0 | | LHOra | 81.9 | 53.4 | | LHOra + Dsmall | 85.9 | 75.4 | | LHOra + Dlong | 87.4 | 76.1 | run the baseline results (LH and LHOra) and the combination of each heuristic with the two discriminators (LH/LHOra+ Dsmall/Dlong). We compare to previous methods for ECB+ and GVC as shown in Table 2. Bold indicates current or previous SOTA and our best model. CoNLL F1 scores show that LH and LHOra are strong baselines for the ECB+ corpus, where LHOra surpasses some of the previous best methods. From this, we can say that making improvements in the heuristic by better methods of finding synonymous lemma pairs is a viable solution for tackling ECB+ with a heuristic. However, the heuristics fall short for GVC, where LHOra is only marginally better than LH. This may be due to the lower variation in lemmas in the GVC corpus. We hypothesize methods that can automatically detect synonymous lemma pairs will not be beneficial for GVC, and LH itself is sufficient as a heuristic here. The discriminators consistently make significant improvements over the heuristics across both datasets. For ECB+, Dlong is nearly 2 points better than Dsmall in terms of the CoNLL measure. Both Dsmall and Dlong when coupled with LHOra surpass the state of the art for this dataset. LH +Dlong beats Cattan et al. (2021) but falls short of SOTA, albeit by only 4 points. On GVC, both fall short of SOTA (Held et al., 2021) by only 8-9 points on CoNLL F1, with substantially fewer computations. In terms of computational cost-to-performance ratio, as we elaborate in §7.1, our methods outperform all the previous methods. For ECR, where context is key, we would expect better performance from encoders with longer context. Dlong and Dsmall show this trend for both  ECB+ and GVC datasets. However, the gain we get from using the entire document is not substantial for the amount of additional computation required. An interesting line of future work would to automatically detect the core sections in the document that contribute to coreference and then only use that as context for ECR. ## 7 Discussion 7.1 Time Complexity Analysis The heuristic is a very fast process that scales linearly with the number of mentions in a corpus. Specifically, by hashing the lemma pairs and sentence token lemmas, this step performs linear comparisons of mention pairs at prediction. The mention pair cross-encoding with Transformer is a computationally intensive process. A method that encodes all mention pairs in a large corpus can become intractable. Our method, however, is linear in complexity with the number of mentions, as shown in Figure 7, and outperforms previous methods in terms of computational efficiency. While Held et al. (2021)'s cross-encoding at prediction is linear (5*n), their pruning step is quadratic. They rely additionally on training a bi-encoder and a mention neighborhood detector step that requires GPUs. ## 7.2 Synonymous Lemma Pairs We have established an upper limit for ECR using the LHOra+ Dlong method for ECB+. Previous methods such as Held et al. (2021), use an oracle coreference scorer after their pruning step. In other words, their oracle assumption involves using a perfect cross-encoder. In contrast, we only use the oracle for pruning by assuming a perfect set of synonymous lemma pairs. This means that improved pruning methods can lead to better ECR performance. We believe that it is possible to create a more effective synonymous pair detector than LHOra by adopting recent work on predicate class detection (Brown et al., 2014, 2022) that use VerbNet (Schuler, 2005). In future research, we aim to enhance the process of generating synonymous pairs through the use of cross-encoding or additional steps such as word sense disambiguation with the Proposition Bank (Palmer et al., 2005; Pradhan et al., 2022). Identifying the sense of the trigger will help refine the lemma pairs that appear in coreference chains. Additionally, annotating the sense of the trigger is a straightforward process that can be easily incorporated into annotation procedures for new datasets, which is more efficient than coreference annotations. ## 7.3 Qualitative Error Analysis We carry out a comprehensive analysis on errors the discriminator makes after the heuristic's predictions. Unlike previous methods (Barhom et al., 2019) where they sample a subset of mentions to carry out the error analysis, we do so for the entire dataset. By efficiently discarding the large number of P − TN, we are able to isolate the shortcomings of the crossencoder, analyze them and offer solutions. Table 6 in Appendix C lists the various kinds of errors (incorrect and missing links) made by Dsmall on the ECB+ and GVC dev sets. We find error categories like same-sentence pronouns, weak temporal reasoning, ambiguity due to coreferring entities, misleading lexical similarity, and missed set-member coreferent links. Table 6 in the appendix presents examples of each. Incorrect links due to same-sentence pronouns like "it" and "this" can be avoided by refining the heuristics-based mention-pair generation process to exclude same-sentence pronouns. Similarly, ambiguous temporal contexts like "Saturday" and "New Year's Day" that refer to the day of occurrence of the same event in articles published on different dates can be resolved by leveraging more temporal context/metadata where available. Also, errors in lexically-different but semantically similar event mention lemmas can be reduced by leveraging more-enriched contextual representations. By using the Oracle for pruning, we can focus on where Dsmall falls short in terms of false positives. We first sort the final event clusters based on purity (number of non-coreferent links within the cluster compared to ground truth). Next, we identify pairs that the discriminator incorrectly predicted to be coreferent within these clusters, specifically focusing on highly impure clusters. We look for these pairs in highly impure clusters and analyze the mention sentences. Our findings are as follows: - Problems caused when two big clusters are joined through very similar (almost adversarial) examples, e.g., "British hiker" vs. "New Zealand hiker." This error can be fixed by performing an additional level of clustering, such as, K-means. - Problems with set-member relations, such as "shootings" being grouped with specific "shooting" events. The sets often include many non-coreferent member events. To address this issue, we can identify whether an event is plural or singular prior to coreference resolution. - Contrary to the notion that singleton mentions cause the most errors, we found that singletons appear in the *least* impure clusters. This means the cross-encoder discriminator is good in separating out singletons. ## 8 Conclusion & Future Work We showed that a simple heuristic paired with a crossencoder does comparable ECR to more complicated methods while being computationally efficient. We set a upper bound for the performance on ECB+ suggesting improvement with better synonyms pairs detection we can achieve better results. Through extensive error analysis, we presented the shortcomings of the crossencoder in this task and suggested ways to improve it. Future research directions include applying our method to the more challenging task of crosssubtopic event coreference (e.g., FCC (Bugert et al., 2020)) where scalability and compute-efficiency are crucial metrics, making the current heuristicbased mention pair generation process "learnable" using an auxiliary cross-encoder, and incorporating word-sense disambiguation and lemma-pair annotations into the pipeline to resolve lexical ambiguity. An exciting direction for future work made tractable by our work is to incorporate additional cross-encoding features into the pipeline, especially using the latest advancements in visual transformers (Dosovitskiy et al., 2021; Bao et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2021; Radford et al., 2021). Another important direction is to test our method on languages with a richer morphology than English. ## Limitations The most evident limitation of this research is that is has only been demonstrated on English corefernce. Using a lemma-based heuristic requires using a lemmatization algorithm in the preprocessing phase and for more morphologically complex languages, especially low-resourced ones, lemmatization technology is less well-developed and may not be a usable part of our pipeline. Application to more morphologically-rich languages is among our planned research directions. In addition, all our experiments are performed on the gold standard mentions from ECB+ and GVC, meaning that coreference resolution is effectively independent of mention detection, and therefore we have no evidence how our method would fare in a pipeline where the two are coupled. A further limitation is that training of the crossencoders still requires intensive usage of GPU hardware (the GPU used for training Longformer is particularly high-end). ## Ethics Statement We use publicly-available datasets, meaning any bias or offensive content in those datasets risks being reflected in our results. By its nature, the Gun Violence Corpus contains violent content that may be troubling for some. We make extensive use of GPUs for training the discriminator models as part of our pipeline. While this has implications for resource consumption and access implications for those without similar hardware, the linear time complexity of our solution presents a way forward that relies less overall on GPU hardware than previous approaches, increasing the ability to perform event coreference resolution in low-compute settings. ## Acknowledgements We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the anonymous reviewers whose insightful comments and constructive feedback helped to greatly improve the quality of this paper. We gratefully acknowledge the support of U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) FA8750-18-20016-AIDA - RAMFIS: Representations of vectors and Abstract Meanings for Information Synthesis. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of DARPA or the U.S. government. Finally, we extend our thanks to the BoulderNLP group and the SIGNAL Lab at Colorado State for their valuable input and collaboration throughout the development of this work. ## References Emily Allaway, Shuai Wang, and Miguel Ballesteros. 2021. Sequential cross-document coreference resolution. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4659–4671, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Amit Bagga and Breck Baldwin. 1998. Algorithms for scoring coreference chains. In *In The First International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation Workshop on Linguistics Coreference*, pages 563–566. Breck Baldwin. 1997. CogNIAC: high precision coreference with limited knowledge and linguistic resources. In Operational Factors in Practical, Robust Anaphora Resolution for Unrestricted Texts. Hangbo Bao, Li Dong, Songhao Piao, and Furu Wei. 2021. Beit: Bert pre-training of image transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.08254. Shany Barhom, Vered Shwartz, Alon Eirew, Michael Bugert, Nils Reimers, and Ido Dagan. 2019. Revisiting joint modeling of cross-document entity and event coreference resolution. In *Proceedings of the* 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4179–4189, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Cosmin Bejan and Sanda Harabagiu. 2010. Unsupervised event coreference resolution with rich linguistic features. In *Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, pages 1412–1422, Uppsala, Sweden. Association for Computational Linguistics. Iz Beltagy, Matthew E Peters, and Arman Cohan. 2020. Longformer: The long-document transformer. arXiv e-prints, pages arXiv–2004. Susan Windisch Brown, Julia Bonn, Ghazaleh Kazeminejad, Annie Zaenen, James Pustejovsky, and Martha Palmer. 2022. Semantic representations for nlp using verbnet and the generative lexicon. *Frontiers in artificial intelligence*, 5. Susan Windisch Brown, Dmitriy Dligach, and Martha Palmer. 2014. Verbnet class assignment as a wsd task. Computing Meaning: Volume 4, pages 203–216. Michael Bugert, Nils Reimers, Shany Barhom, Ido Dagan, and Iryna Gurevych. 2020. Breaking the subtopic barrier in cross-document event coreference resolution. In *Text2story@ ecir*, pages 23–29. Michael Bugert, Nils Reimers, and Iryna Gurevych. 2021. Generalizing cross-document event coreference resolution across multiple corpora. *Computational Linguistics*, 47(3):575–614. Avi Caciularu, Arman Cohan, Iz Beltagy, Matthew Peters, Arie Cattan, and Ido Dagan. 2021. CDLM: Cross-document language modeling. In *Findings* of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, pages 2648–2662, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Arie Cattan, Alon Eirew, Gabriel Stanovsky, Mandar Joshi, and Ido Dagan. 2021. Cross-document coreference resolution over predicted mentions. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021*, pages 5100–5107, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Agata Cybulska and Piek Vossen. 2014. Using a sledgehammer to crack a nut? lexical diversity and event coreference resolution. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'14), pages 4545–4552, Reykjavik, Iceland. European Language Resources Association (ELRA). Agata Cybulska and Piek Vossen. 2015. Translating granularity of event slots into features for event coreference resolution. In Proceedings of the The 3rd Workshop on EVENTS: Definition, Detection, Coreference, and Representation, pages 1–10, Denver, Colorado. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, et al. 2021. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. In *International* Conference on Learning Representations. William Held, Dan Iter, and Dan Jurafsky. 2021. Focus on what matters: Applying discourse coherence theory to cross document coreference. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1406–1417, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. Kian Kenyon-Dean, Jackie Chi Kit Cheung, and Doina Precup. 2018. Resolving event coreference with supervised representation learning and clustering-oriented regularization. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1805.10985. Heeyoung Lee, Angel Chang, Yves Peirsman, Nathanael Chambers, Mihai Surdeanu, and Dan Jurafsky. 2013. Deterministic coreference resolution based on entity-centric, precision-ranked rules. *Computational linguistics*, 39(4):885–916. 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. Ze Liu, Yutong Lin, Yue Cao, Han Hu, Yixuan Wei, Zheng Zhang, Stephen Lin, and Baining Guo. 2021. Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 10012–10022. Xiaoqiang Luo. 2005. On coreference resolution performance metrics. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Language Technology and Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, HLT '05, page 25–32, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xiaoqiang Luo, Sameer Pradhan, Marta Recasens, and Eduard Hovy. 2014. An extension of BLANC to system mentions. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 24–29, Baltimore, Maryland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yehudit Meged, Avi Caciularu, Vered Shwartz, and Ido Dagan. 2020. Paraphrasing vs coreferring: Two sides of the same coin. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 4897–4907, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tomas Mikolov, Kai Chen, Greg Corrado, and Jeffrey Dean. 2013. Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. arXiv preprint arXiv:1301.3781. Nafise Sadat Moosavi, Leo Born, Massimo Poesio, and Michael Strube. 2019. Using automatically extracted minimum spans to disentangle coreference evaluation from boundary detection. In *Proceedings of the* 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4168–4178, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Martha Palmer, Daniel Gildea, and Paul Kingsbury. 2005. The Proposition Bank: An annotated corpus of semantic roles. *Computational Linguistics*, 31(1):71– 106. Marten Postma, Filip Ilievski, and Piek Vossen. 2018. SemEval-2018 task 5: Counting events and participants in the long tail. In *Proceedings of The* 12th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, pages 70–80, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. Sameer Pradhan, Julia Bonn, Skatje Myers, Kathryn Conger, Tim O'gorman, James Gung, Kristin Wrightbettner, and Martha Palmer. 2022. PropBank comes of Age—Larger, smarter, and more diverse. In Proceedings of the 11th Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, pages 278–288, Seattle, Washington. Association for Computational Linguistics. Sameer Pradhan, Xiaoqiang Luo, Marta Recasens, Eduard Hovy, Vincent Ng, and Michael Strube. 2014. Scoring coreference partitions of predicted mentions: A reference implementation. In *Proceedings of the* 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 30–35, Baltimore, Maryland. Association for Computational Linguistics. Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In *International conference on machine learning*, pages 8748–8763. PMLR. Karin Kipper Schuler. 2005. *VerbNet: A broadcoverage, comprehensive verb lexicon*. University of Pennsylvania. Veselin Stoyanov and Jason Eisner. 2012. Easy-first coreference resolution. In Proceedings of COLING 2012, pages 2519–2534. Marc Vilain, John Burger, John Aberdeen, Dennis Connolly, and Lynette Hirschman. 1995. A modeltheoretic coreference scoring scheme. In *Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Message Understanding*, MUC6 '95, page 45–52, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Piek Vossen, Filip Ilievski, Marten Postma, and Roxane Segers. 2018. Don't annotate, but validate: A data-to-text method for capturing event data. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018). Xiaodong Yu, Wenpeng Yin, and Dan Roth. 2022a. Pairwise representation learning for event coreference. In Proceedings of the 11th Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, pages 69–78, Seattle, Washington. Association for Computational Linguistics. Xiaodong Yu, Wenpeng Yin, and Dan Roth. 2022b. Pairwise representation learning for event coreference. In Proceedings of the 11th Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, pages 69–78. Yutao Zeng, Xiaolong Jin, Saiping Guan, Jiafeng Guo, and Xueqi Cheng. 2020. Event coreference resolution with their paraphrases and argument-aware embeddings. In *Proceedings of the 28th International* Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 3084–3094, Barcelona, Spain (Online). International Committee on Computational Linguistics. ## A Ablation Study Of Global Attention Table 3 compares Dlong performance with and without Longformer global attention on the ECB+ and | Features | ECB+ | GVC | |------------------|--------|-------| | w/o global attn. | 85.0 | 76.5 | | w/ global attn. | 82.9 | 77.0 |   Table 3: Table showing the CoNLL F1 scores from the D Encoder with and without Longformer Global Attention on GVC and ECB+ dev sets. GVC dev sets. This shows a dataset-specific contrast vis-à-vis sequence length where performance with global attention on GVC dev set is only marginally better than without, while the reverse is seen on the ECB+ dev set. More specifically, this suggests that perhaps the "relevant" or "core" context for ECR lies closer to the neighborhood of event lemmas (wrapped by trigger tokens) than the CLS tokens (that use global attention) in both corpora, albeit more so in ECB+. As such, applying global attention to the CLS tokens here encodes more irrelevant context. Therefore, Dlong with Longformer global attention performs less well on ECB+ while being almost comparable to Dlong without global attention on GVC. ## B Full Results Table 4 shows complete results for all metrics from all models for within and cross-document coreference resolution on the GVC test set. Table 5 shows complete results for all metrics from all models on the ECB+ test set. ## C Qualitative Error Examples Table 6 presents an example of each type of error we identified in the output of our discriminator (Dsmall). Table 4: Results on within and cross-document event coreference resolution on GVC test set. Bolded F1 values indicate current or previous state of the art according to that metric as well as our best model. | MUC | B3 | CEAF e | LEA | CoNLL | | | | | | | | | | |----------------------|------|----------|-------|---------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | R | P | F1 | R | P | F1 | R | P | F1 | R | P | F1 | F1 | | | Bugert et al. (2021) | 78.1 | 66.3 | 71.7 | 73.6 | 49.9 | 59.5 | 38.2 | 60.9 | 47.0 | 56.5 | 38.2 | 45.6 | 59.4 | | Held et al. (2021) | 91.8 | 91.2 | 91.5 | 82.2 | 83.8 | 83.0 | 75.5 | 77.9 | 76.7 | 79.0 | 82.3 | 80.6 | 83.7 | | LH | 94.8 | 82.0 | 87.9 | 90.1 | 28.5 | 43.3 | 16.3 | 47.8 | 24.3 | 85.1 | 23.9 | 37.4 | 51.8 | | LHOra | 95.2 | 82.3 | 88.3 | 91.2 | 29.1 | 44.1 | 18.6 | 54.7 | 27.8 | 86.4 | 24.9 | 38.6 | 53.4 | | LH + Dsmall | 87.0 | 89.6 | 88.3 | 82.3 | 67.9 | 74.4 | 62.0 | 55.2 | 58.4 | 77.6 | 57.8 | 66.2 | 73.7 | | LHOra + Dsmall | 89.1 | 90.2 | 89.6 | 85.0 | 68.0 | 75.6 | 62.7 | 59.6 | 61.1 | 80.6 | 59.5 | 68.5 | 75.4 | | LH + Dlong | 84.0 | 91.1 | 87.4 | 79.0 | 76.4 | 77.7 | 69.6 | 52.5 | 59.9 | 74.1 | 63.9 | 68.6 | 75.0 | | LHOra + Dlong | 84.9 | 91.4 | 88.0 | 80.4 | 77.4 | 78.9 | 70.5 | 54.3 | 61.3 | 75.7 | 65.5 | 70.2 | 76.1 | Table 5: Results on within and cross-document event coreference resolution on ECB+ test set with gold mentions and predicted topics. Bolded F1 values indicate current or previous state of the art according to that metric as well as our best model. | MUC | B3 | CEAF e | LEA | CoNLL | | | | | | | | | | |-------------------------|------|----------|-------|---------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | R | P | F1 | R | P | F1 | R | P | F1 | R | P | F1 | F1 | | | Barhom et al. (2019) | 78.1 | 84.0 | 80.9 | 76.8 | 86.1 | 81.2 | 79.6 | 73.3 | 76.3 | 64.6 | 72.3 | 68.3 | 79.5 | | Meged et al. (2020) | 78.8 | 84.7 | 81.6 | 75.9 | 85.9 | 80.6 | 81.1 | 74.8 | 77.8 | 64.7 | 73.4 | 68.8 | 80.0 | | Cattan et al. (2021) | 85.1 | 81.9 | 83.5 | 82.1 | 82.7 | 82.4 | 75.2 | 78.9 | 77.0 | 68.8 | 72.0 | 70.4 | 81.0 | | Zeng et al. (2020) | 85.6 | 89.3 | 87.5 | 77.6 | 89.7 | 83.2 | 84.5 | 80.1 | 82.3 | - | - | - | 84.3 | | Yu et al. (2022b) | 88.1 | 85.1 | 86.6 | 86.1 | 84.7 | 85.4 | 79.6 | 83.1 | 81.3 | - | - | - | 84.4 | | Allaway et al. (2021) | 81.7 | 82.8 | 82.2 | 80.8 | 81.5 | 81.1 | 79.8 | 78.4 | 79.1 | - | - | - | 80.8 | | Caciularu et al. (2021) | 87.1 | 89.2 | 88.1 | 84.9 | 87.9 | 86.4 | 83.3 | 81.2 | 82.2 | 76.7 | 77.2 | 76.9 | 85.6 | | Held et al. (2021) | 87.0 | 88.1 | 87.5 | 85.6 | 87.7 | 86.6 | 80.3 | 85.8 | 82.9 | 74.9 | 73.2 | 74.0 | 85.7 | | LH | 85.1 | 75.6 | 80.1 | 83.2 | 72.2 | 77.3 | 66.2 | 78.1 | 71.7 | 67.3 | 62.6 | 64.9 | 76.4 | | LHOra | 99.1 | 79.6 | 88.3 | 97.9 | 67.7 | 80.0 | 65.9 | 93.7 | 77.4 | 85.1 | 63.8 | 72.9 | 81.9 | | LH + Dsmall | 76.2 | 86.9 | 81.2 | 77.8 | 85.7 | 81.6 | 83.9 | 73.0 | 78.1 | 68.7 | 71.5 | 70.1 | 80.3 | | LHOra + Dsmall | 89.8 | 87.6 | 88.7 | 90.7 | 80.2 | 85.1 | 82.5 | 85.1 | 83.8 | 83.3 | 72.2 | 77.3 | 85.9 | | LH + Dlong | 80.0 | 87.3 | 83.5 | 79.6 | 85.4 | 82.4 | 83.1 | 75.5 | 79.1 | 70.5 | 73.3 | 71.9 | 81.7 | | LHOra + Dlong | 93.7 | 87.9 | 90.7 | 94.1 | 79.6 | 86.3 | 81.6 | 88.7 | 85.0 | 86.8 | 73.2 | 79.4 | 87.4 | | Category | Snippet | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Adversarial/Conflicting | British climber <m> dies </m> in New Zealand fall The first of the <m> deaths </m> this weekend was that of a New Zealand climber who fell on Friday morning. | | Adversarial/Conflicting | British climber <m> dies </m> in New Zealand fall Australian Ski Mountaineer <m> Dies</m> in Fall in New Zealand. | | Adversarial/Conflicting | ..Prosecutor Kym Worthy announces charges against individuals involved in the gun violence <m> deaths </m> of children in Detroit Grandparents charged in 5-year - old 's shooting <m> death </m> Buy Photo Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy announces charges against individuals involved in the gun violence deaths of children... | | Pronoun Lemmas | This just does not happen in this area whatsoever . <m> It </m>'s just unreal , " said neighbor Sheila Rawlins <m> This </m> just does not happen in this area whatsoever . It 's just unreal , " said neighbor Sheila Rawlins . | | Set-Member Relationship | On Friday , Chicago surpassed 700 <m> homicides </m> so far this year <m> Homicide </m> Watch Chicago Javon Wilson , the teenage grandson of U.S. Rep. Danny Davis , was shot to death over what police called an arugment over sneakers in his Englewood home Friday evening . | | Weak Temporal Reasoning | Police : in an unrelated <m> incident </m> a man was shot at 3:18 a.m. Saturday in North Toledo Toledo mother grieves 3-year - old 's <m> shooting</m> death | Judge sets bond at 580,000 USD for Toledo man accused of rape , kidnapping | Toledo man sentenced to 11 years in New Year 's Day shooting | | Incomplete, Short Context | Ellen DeGeneres to <m> Host </m> Oscars It will be her second <m> stint </m> in the job , after hosting the 2007 ceremony and earning an Emmy nomination for it . | | Similar context, Different event times | near Farmington Road around 9 p.m. There they found a 32-year - old unidentified man with a <m> gunshot </m> wound outside of a home The family was driving about 8:26 p.m. Sunday in the 1100 block of South Commerce Street when <m> gunshots were fired </m> from a dark sedan that began following their vehicle... | | Same Lemma, Ambiguous Context | Police : Man Shot To Death In Stockton Related To 3-Year - Old <m> Killed </m> By Stray Bullet 2 p.m. UPDATE : Stockton Police have identified the man shot and killed on Police : Man Shot To Death In Stockton Related To 3-Year - Old Killed By Stray Bullet 2 p.m. UPDATE : Stockton Police have identified the man shot and <m> killed </m> on Tuesday night. | | Lexically different, Semantically same | One man is dead after being <m> shot </m> by a gunman Employees at a Vancouver wholesaler were coping Saturday with the death of their boss , who was <m> gunned down </m> at their office Christmas party . | | Misc. | Baton Rouge Police have charged 17-year - old Ahmad Antoine of Baton Rouge with Negligent Homicide in the city 's latest shooting <m> death </m> Tagged Baton Rouge , <m> homicide </m>. | | Table 6: Qualitative Analysis on the hard mention pairs incorrectly linked (or missed) by our Discriminator (Dsmall) in | | Table 6: Qualitative Analysis on the hard mention pairs incorrectly linked (or missed) by our Discriminator (Dsmall) in the ECB+ and GVC dev set: Underlined and bold-faced mentions surrounded by trigger tokens respectively indicate incorrect and missing assignments. Underlined spans without trigger tokens represents the category-specific quality being highlighted. The miscellaneous category (Misc.) refers to other errors including (reasonable) predictions that are either incorrect annotations in the gold data or incomplete gold sentences.