arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv 2102.01065cs.CL

问答建模的改进是否在各基准间普遍成立?

Do Question Answering Modeling Improvements Hold Across Benchmarks?

Stanford University(斯坦福大学);University of Southern California(南加州大学)

Nelson F. Liu, Tony Lee, Robin Jia, Percy Liang

AI总结:

本文提出“一致性”概念,在32个QA基准和20种建模方法上测量排名一致性,发现人工构建、降采样及程序化生成的基准间一致性较高,证明QA建模改进具有广泛普适性。

摘要:

问答(QA)建模的改进(例如架构选择和训练流程)是否在多样化的QA基准中保持一致?为研究这一问题,我们引入了“一致性”(concurrence)的概念——如果两个基准对一组建模方法给出相似的排名,则它们在该组建模方法上具有高一致性。我们测量了32个QA基准在20种不同建模方法上的一致性,发现人工构建的基准彼此之间具有高一致性,即使它们的篇章和问题分布差异很大。令人惊讶的是,即使是降采样的人工构建基准(即收集更少数据)和程序化生成的基准(例如完形填空格式的示例)也与人工构建的基准具有高一致性。这些结果表明,尽管社区多年来集中关注少数基准,所研究的建模改进仍具有广泛的普适性。

英文摘要:

Do question answering (QA) modeling improvements (e.g., choice of architecture and training procedure) hold consistently across the diverse landscape of QA benchmarks? To study this question, we introduce the notion of concurrence -- two benchmarks have high concurrence on a set of modeling approaches if they rank the modeling approaches similarly. We measure the concurrence between 32 QA benchmarks on a set of 20 diverse modeling approaches and find that human-constructed benchmarks have high concurrence amongst themselves, even if their passage and question distributions are very different. Surprisingly, even downsampled human-constructed benchmarks (i.e., collecting less data) and programmatically-generated benchmarks (e.g., cloze-formatted examples) have high concurrence with human-constructed benchmarks. These results indicate that, despite years of intense community focus on a small number of benchmarks, the modeling improvements studied hold broadly.

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。

↑