Papers

There is growing evidence that the classical notion of adversarial robustness originally introduced for images has been adopted as a de facto standard by a large part of the NLP research community. We show that this notion is problematic in the context of NLP as it considers a narrow spectrum of linguistic phenomena. In this paper, we argue for semantic robustness, which is better aligned with the human concept of linguistic fidelity. We characterize semantic robustness in terms of biases that it is expected to induce in a model. We study semantic robustness of a range of vanilla and robustly trained architectures using a template-based generative test bed. We complement the analysis with empirical evidence that, despite being harder to implement, semantic robustness can improve performance %gives guarantees for on complex linguistic phenomena where models robust in the classical sense fail.

poster session 1 @ red 4, poster session 8 @ red 4, oral session 1 @ red 4, poster session 1, poster session 8, oral session 1

The goal of a summary is to concisely state the most important information in a document. With this principle in mind, we introduce new reference-free summary evaluation metrics that use a pretrained language model to estimate the information content shared between a document and its summary. These metrics are a modern take on the Shannon Game, a method for summary quality scoring proposed decades ago, where we replace human annotators with language models. We also view these metrics as an extension of BLANC, a recently proposed approach to summary quality measurement based on the performance of a language model with and without the help of a summary. Using transformer based language models, we empirically verify that our metrics achieve state-of-the-art correlation with human judgement of the summary quality dimensions of both coherence and relevance, as well as competitive correlation with human judgement of consistency and fluency.

poster session 1 @ red 4, poster session 8 @ red 4, oral session 1 @ red 4, poster session 1, poster session 8, oral session 1

In attempts to "explain" predictions of machine learning models, researchers have proposed hundreds of techniques for attributing predictions to features that are deemed important. While these attributions are often claimed to hold the potential to improve human "understanding" of the models, surprisingly little work explicitly evaluates progress towards this aspiration. In this paper, we conduct a crowdsourcing study, where participants interact with deception detection models that have been trained to distinguish between genuine and fake hotel reviews. They are challenged both to simulate the model on fresh reviews, and to edit reviews with the goal of lowering the probability of the originally predicted class. Successful manipulations would lead to an adversarial example. During the training (but not the test) phase, input spans are highlighted to communicate salience. Through our evaluation, we observe that for a linear bag-of-words model, participants with access to the feature coefficients during training are able to cause a larger reduction in model confidence in the testing phase when compared to the no-explanation control. For the BERT-based classifier, popular local explanations do not improve their ability to reduce the model confidence over the no-explanation case. Remarkably, when the explanation for the BERT model is given by the (global) attributions of a linear model trained to imitate the BERT model, people can effectively manipulate the model.

poster session 1 @ red 4, poster session 8 @ red 4, oral session 1 @ red 4, poster session 1, poster session 8, oral session 1