arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv 2303.09092cs.CL
收藏

共指消解模型泛化性评估面临的挑战:一种测量建模视角

Challenges to Evaluating the Generalization of Coreference Resolution Models: A Measurement Modeling Perspective

Mila, McGill University(米拉-麦吉尔大学);Microsoft Research Montréal(微软研究院蒙特利尔分部)

Ian Porada, Alexandra Olteanu, Kaheer Suleman, Adam Trischler, Jackie Chi Kit Cheung

AI总结:

该研究从测量建模视角出发,指出多数据集下共指消解模型的泛化性评估易混淆测量相关的不同因素,受共指定义与操作化差异影响,难以得出可靠泛化结论,并提出测量建模框架可用于讨论相关挑战。

摘要:

在多个数据集上评估同一个共指消解(CR)模型的做法日益普遍。这类多数据集评估能否让我们得出关于模型泛化性的有意义结论?还是说,它们更多反映的是特定实验设置(例如所用的具体数据集)的特质?为研究这一问题,我们从测量建模的视角来看待评估,测量建模是社会科学中常用于分析测量效度的框架。通过这一视角,我们揭示了多数据集评估存在混淆不同因素的风险,这些因素关乎被测量的对象究竟是什么。这进而使得我们难以从这类评估中得出更具泛化性的结论。例如,我们发现在七个数据集中,原本旨在反映CR模型泛化性的测量结果,往往与共指的定义方式及其操作化方式的差异相关;这限制了我们就CR模型在任一单一维度上的泛化能力得出结论的能力。我们认为,测量建模框架为讨论CR评估实际测量的内容所面临的相关挑战提供了必要的术语体系。

英文摘要:

It is increasingly common to evaluate the same coreference resolution (CR) model on multiple datasets. Do these multi-dataset evaluations allow us to draw meaningful conclusions about model generalization? Or, do they rather reflect the idiosyncrasies of a particular experimental setup (e.g., the specific datasets used)? To study this, we view evaluation through the lens of measurement modeling, a framework commonly used in the social sciences for analyzing the validity of measurements. By taking this perspective, we show how multi-dataset evaluations risk conflating different factors concerning what, precisely, is being measured. This in turn makes it difficult to draw more generalizable conclusions from these evaluations. For instance, we show that across seven datasets, measurements intended to reflect CR model generalization are often correlated with differences in both how coreference is defined and how it is operationalized; this limits our ability to draw conclusions regarding the ability of CR models to generalize across any singular dimension. We believe the measurement modeling framework provides the needed vocabulary for discussing challenges surrounding what is actually being measured by CR evaluations.

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。

↑