arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv周末暂无论文更新,休息一下吧,周末愉快~~
arXiv 2012.11634cs.AI
收藏

探索和分析机器常识基准

Exploring and Analyzing Machine Commonsense Benchmarks

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute(伦斯勒理工学院)

Henrique Santos, Minor Gordon, Zhicheng Liang, Gretchen Forbush, Deborah L. McGuinness

摘要:

常识问答(QA)任务,以基准的形式,不断被引入挑战和比较常识QA系统。基准测试提供了问题集,系统开发人员可以在将其实现提交给官方排行榜之前使用这些问题集来训练和测试新模型。虽然这些任务是为了在确定的维度(例如主题,推理类型)中评估系统而创建的,但这些元数据是有限的,并且主要以非结构化格式呈现或完全不存在。由于机器常识是一个快节奏的领域,因此在这些评估维度方面全面评估当前基准和系统的问题变得更加严重。我们认为,缺乏一个共同的词汇来调整这些方法的元数据限制了研究人员在他们的努力,以了解系统的缺陷,并在未来的任务作出有效的选择。在本文中,我们首先讨论这个MCS生态系统的元素和它们的元数据。然后,我们介绍了我们是如何支持的方法,最初专注于常识性的基准评估。我们描述了我们最初的MCS基准本体,一个可扩展的通用词汇表,正式基准元数据,并展示了它是如何支持开发的基准工具,使基准的探索和分析。

英文摘要:

Commonsense question-answering (QA) tasks, in the form of benchmarks, are constantly being introduced for challenging and comparing commonsense QA systems. The benchmarks provide question sets that systems' developers can use to train and test new models before submitting their implementations to official leaderboards. Although these tasks are created to evaluate systems in identified dimensions (e.g. topic, reasoning type), this metadata is limited and largely presented in an unstructured format or completely not present. Because machine common sense is a fast-paced field, the problem of fully assessing current benchmarks and systems with regards to these evaluation dimensions is aggravated. We argue that the lack of a common vocabulary for aligning these approaches' metadata limits researchers in their efforts to understand systems' deficiencies and in making effective choices for future tasks. In this paper, we first discuss this MCS ecosystem in terms of its elements and their metadata. Then, we present how we are supporting the assessment of approaches by initially focusing on commonsense benchmarks. We describe our initial MCS Benchmark Ontology, an extensible common vocabulary that formalizes benchmark metadata, and showcase how it is supporting the development of a Benchmark tool that enables benchmark exploration and analysis.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑