Nikita Nangia

Aarohi Srivastava, Abhinav Rastogi, Abhishek Rao et al. · allen-ai, amazon-science

Language models demonstrate both quantitative improvement and new qualitative capabilities with increasing scale. Despite their potentially transformative impact, these new capabilities are as yet poorly characterized. In order to inform future research, prepare for disruptive new model capabilities, and ameliorate socially harmful effects, it is vital that we understand the present and near-future capabilities and limitations of language models. To address this challenge, we introduce the Beyond the Imitation Game benchmark (BIG-bench). BIG-bench currently consists of 204 tasks, contributed by 450 authors across 132 institutions. Task topics are diverse, drawing problems from linguistics, childhood development, math, common-sense reasoning, biology, physics, social bias, software development, and beyond. BIG-bench focuses on tasks that are believed to be beyond the capabilities of current language models. We evaluate the behavior of OpenAI's GPT models, Google-internal dense transformer architectures, and Switch-style sparse transformers on BIG-bench, across model sizes spanning millions to hundreds of billions of parameters. In addition, a team of human expert raters performed all tasks in order to provide a strong baseline. Findings include: model performance and calibration both improve with scale, but are poor in absolute terms (and when compared with rater performance); performance is remarkably similar across model classes, though with benefits from sparsity; tasks that improve gradually and predictably commonly involve a large knowledge or memorization component, whereas tasks that exhibit "breakthrough" behavior at a critical scale often involve multiple steps or components, or brittle metrics; social bias typically increases with scale in settings with ambiguous context, but this can be improved with prompting.

Julian Michael, Ari Holtzman, Alicia Parrish et al.

We present the results of the NLP Community Metasurvey. Run from May to June 2022, the survey elicited opinions on controversial issues, including industry influence in the field, concerns about AGI, and ethics. Our results put concrete numbers to several controversies: For example, respondents are split almost exactly in half on questions about the importance of artificial general intelligence, whether language models understand language, and the necessity of linguistic structure and inductive bias for solving NLP problems. In addition, the survey posed meta-questions, asking respondents to predict the distribution of survey responses. This allows us not only to gain insight on the spectrum of beliefs held by NLP researchers, but also to uncover false sociological beliefs where the community's predictions don't match reality. We find such mismatches on a wide range of issues. Among other results, the community greatly overestimates its own belief in the usefulness of benchmarks and the potential for scaling to solve real-world problems, while underestimating its own belief in the importance of linguistic structure, inductive bias, and interdisciplinary science.

Alicia Parrish, Harsh Trivedi, Ethan Perez et al.

Current QA systems can generate reasonable-sounding yet false answers without explanation or evidence for the generated answer, which is especially problematic when humans cannot readily check the model's answers. This presents a challenge for building trust in machine learning systems. We take inspiration from real-world situations where difficult questions are answered by considering opposing sides (see Irving et al., 2018). For multiple-choice QA examples, we build a dataset of single arguments for both a correct and incorrect answer option in a debate-style set-up as an initial step in training models to produce explanations for two candidate answers. We use long contexts -- humans familiar with the context write convincing explanations for pre-selected correct and incorrect answers, and we test if those explanations allow humans who have not read the full context to more accurately determine the correct answer. We do not find that explanations in our set-up improve human accuracy, but a baseline condition shows that providing human-selected text snippets does improve accuracy. We use these findings to suggest ways of improving the debate set up for future data collection efforts.

Alicia Parrish, Harsh Trivedi, Nikita Nangia et al.

The use of language-model-based question-answering systems to aid humans in completing difficult tasks is limited, in part, by the unreliability of the text these systems generate. Using hard multiple-choice reading comprehension questions as a testbed, we assess whether presenting humans with arguments for two competing answer options, where one is correct and the other is incorrect, allows human judges to perform more accurately, even when one of the arguments is unreliable and deceptive. If this is helpful, we may be able to increase our justified trust in language-model-based systems by asking them to produce these arguments where needed. Previous research has shown that just a single turn of arguments in this format is not helpful to humans. However, as debate settings are characterized by a back-and-forth dialogue, we follow up on previous results to test whether adding a second round of counter-arguments is helpful to humans. We find that, regardless of whether they have access to arguments or not, humans perform similarly on our task. These findings suggest that, in the case of answering reading comprehension questions, debate is not a helpful format.

Saku Sugawara, Nikita Nangia, Alex Warstadt et al.

For a natural language understanding benchmark to be useful in research, it has to consist of examples that are diverse and difficult enough to discriminate among current and near-future state-of-the-art systems. However, we do not yet know how best to select text sources to collect a variety of challenging examples. In this study, we crowdsource multiple-choice reading comprehension questions for passages taken from seven qualitatively distinct sources, analyzing what attributes of passages contribute to the difficulty and question types of the collected examples. To our surprise, we find that passage source, length, and readability measures do not significantly affect question difficulty. Through our manual annotation of seven reasoning types, we observe several trends between passage sources and reasoning types, e.g., logical reasoning is more often required in questions written for technical passages. These results suggest that when creating a new benchmark dataset, selecting a diverse set of passages can help ensure a diverse range of question types, but that passage difficulty need not be a priority.

Vlad Niculae, Caio F. Corro, Nikita Nangia et al.

Many types of data from fields including natural language processing, computer vision, and bioinformatics, are well represented by discrete, compositional structures such as trees, sequences, or matchings. Latent structure models are a powerful tool for learning to extract such representations, offering a way to incorporate structural bias, discover insight about the data, and interpret decisions. However, effective training is challenging, as neural networks are typically designed for continuous computation. This text explores three broad strategies for learning with discrete latent structure: continuous relaxation, surrogate gradients, and probabilistic estimation. Our presentation relies on consistent notations for a wide range of models. As such, we reveal many new connections between latent structure learning strategies, showing how most consist of the same small set of fundamental building blocks, but use them differently, leading to substantially different applicability and properties.

Caitlin Cisar, Emily Sheffield, Joshua Drake et al.

Generative AI applications commonly leverage user personas as a steering mechanism for synthetic data generation, but reliance on natural language representations forces models to make unintended inferences about which attributes to emphasize, limiting precise control over outputs. We introduce PILOT (Psychological and Linguistic Output Targeting), a two-phase framework for steering large language models with structured psycholinguistic profiles. In Phase 1, PILOT translates natural language persona descriptions into multidimensional profiles with normalized scores across linguistic and psychological dimensions. In Phase 2, these profiles guide generation along measurable axes of variation. We evaluate PILOT across three state-of-the-art LLMs (Mistral Large 2, Deepseek-R1, LLaMA 3.3 70B) using 25 synthetic personas under three conditions: Natural-language Persona Steering (NPS), Schema-Based Steering (SBS), and Hybrid Persona-Schema Steering (HPS). Results demonstrate that schema-based approaches significantly reduce artificial-sounding persona repetition while improving output coherence, with silhouette scores increasing from 0.098 to 0.237 and topic purity from 0.773 to 0.957. Our analysis reveals a fundamental trade-off: SBS produces more concise outputs with higher topical consistency, while NPS offers greater lexical diversity but reduced predictability. HPS achieves a balance between these extremes, maintaining output variety while preserving structural consistency. Expert linguistic evaluation confirms that PILOT maintains high response quality across all conditions, with no statistically significant differences between steering approaches.

Richard Yuanzhe Pang, Alicia Parrish, Nitish Joshi et al.

To enable building and testing models on long-document comprehension, we introduce QuALITY, a multiple-choice QA dataset with context passages in English that have an average length of about 5,000 tokens, much longer than typical current models can process. Unlike in prior work with passages, our questions are written and validated by contributors who have read the entire passage, rather than relying on summaries or excerpts. In addition, only half of the questions are answerable by annotators working under tight time constraints, indicating that skimming and simple search are not enough to consistently perform well. Our baseline models perform poorly on this task (55.4%) and significantly lag behind human performance (93.5%).

Alicia Parrish, Angelica Chen, Nikita Nangia et al.

It is well documented that NLP models learn social biases, but little work has been done on how these biases manifest in model outputs for applied tasks like question answering (QA). We introduce the Bias Benchmark for QA (BBQ), a dataset of question sets constructed by the authors that highlight attested social biases against people belonging to protected classes along nine social dimensions relevant for U.S. English-speaking contexts. Our task evaluates model responses at two levels: (i) given an under-informative context, we test how strongly responses reflect social biases, and (ii) given an adequately informative context, we test whether the model's biases override a correct answer choice. We find that models often rely on stereotypes when the context is under-informative, meaning the model's outputs consistently reproduce harmful biases in this setting. Though models are more accurate when the context provides an informative answer, they still rely on stereotypes and average up to 3.4 percentage points higher accuracy when the correct answer aligns with a social bias than when it conflicts, with this difference widening to over 5 points on examples targeting gender for most models tested.

Nikita Nangia, Saku Sugawara, Harsh Trivedi et al.

Crowdsourcing is widely used to create data for common natural language understanding tasks. Despite the importance of these datasets for measuring and refining model understanding of language, there has been little focus on the crowdsourcing methods used for collecting the datasets. In this paper, we compare the efficacy of interventions that have been proposed in prior work as ways of improving data quality. We use multiple-choice question answering as a testbed and run a randomized trial by assigning crowdworkers to write questions under one of four different data collection protocols. We find that asking workers to write explanations for their examples is an ineffective stand-alone strategy for boosting NLU example difficulty. However, we find that training crowdworkers, and then using an iterative process of collecting data, sending feedback, and qualifying workers based on expert judgments is an effective means of collecting challenging data. But using crowdsourced, instead of expert judgments, to qualify workers and send feedback does not prove to be effective. We observe that the data from the iterative protocol with expert assessments is more challenging by several measures. Notably, the human--model gap on the unanimous agreement portion of this data is, on average, twice as large as the gap for the baseline protocol data.

Alicia Parrish, William Huang, Omar Agha et al.

Many crowdsourced NLP datasets contain systematic gaps and biases that are identified only after data collection is complete. Identifying these issues from early data samples during crowdsourcing should make mitigation more efficient, especially when done iteratively. We take natural language inference as a test case and ask whether it is beneficial to put a linguist `in the loop' during data collection to dynamically identify and address gaps in the data by introducing novel constraints on the task. We directly compare three data collection protocols: (i) a baseline protocol, (ii) a linguist-in-the-loop intervention with iteratively-updated constraints on the task, and (iii) an extension of linguist-in-the-loop that provides direct interaction between linguists and crowdworkers via a chatroom. The datasets collected with linguist involvement are more reliably challenging than baseline, without loss of quality. But we see no evidence that using this data in training leads to better out-of-domain model performance, and the addition of a chat platform has no measurable effect on the resulting dataset. We suggest integrating expert analysis \textit{during} data collection so that the expert can dynamically address gaps and biases in the dataset.

Nikita Nangia, Clara Vania, Rasika Bhalerao et al.

Pretrained language models, especially masked language models (MLMs) have seen success across many NLP tasks. However, there is ample evidence that they use the cultural biases that are undoubtedly present in the corpora they are trained on, implicitly creating harm with biased representations. To measure some forms of social bias in language models against protected demographic groups in the US, we introduce the Crowdsourced Stereotype Pairs benchmark (CrowS-Pairs). CrowS-Pairs has 1508 examples that cover stereotypes dealing with nine types of bias, like race, religion, and age. In CrowS-Pairs a model is presented with two sentences: one that is more stereotyping and another that is less stereotyping. The data focuses on stereotypes about historically disadvantaged groups and contrasts them with advantaged groups. We find that all three of the widely-used MLMs we evaluate substantially favor sentences that express stereotypes in every category in CrowS-Pairs. As work on building less biased models advances, this dataset can be used as a benchmark to evaluate progress.

Lakshay Sharma, Laura Graesser, Nikita Nangia et al.

This paper explores the task Natural Language Understanding (NLU) by looking at duplicate question detection in the Quora dataset. We conducted extensive exploration of the dataset and used various machine learning models, including linear and tree-based models. Our final finding was that a simple Continuous Bag of Words neural network model had the best performance, outdoing more complicated recurrent and attention based models. We also conducted error analysis and found some subjectivity in the labeling of the dataset.

Nikita Nangia, Samuel R. Bowman

The GLUE benchmark (Wang et al., 2019b) is a suite of language understanding tasks which has seen dramatic progress in the past year, with average performance moving from 70.0 at launch to 83.9, state of the art at the time of writing (May 24, 2019). Here, we measure human performance on the benchmark, in order to learn whether significant headroom remains for further progress. We provide a conservative estimate of human performance on the benchmark through crowdsourcing: Our annotators are non-experts who must learn each task from a brief set of instructions and 20 examples. In spite of limited training, these annotators robustly outperform the state of the art on six of the nine GLUE tasks and achieve an average score of 87.1. Given the fast pace of progress however, the headroom we observe is quite limited. To reproduce the data-poor setting that our annotators must learn in, we also train the BERT model (Devlin et al., 2019) in limited-data regimes, and conclude that low-resource sentence classification remains a challenge for modern neural network approaches to text understanding.

Alex Wang, Yada Pruksachatkun, Nikita Nangia et al.

In the last year, new models and methods for pretraining and transfer learning have driven striking performance improvements across a range of language understanding tasks. The GLUE benchmark, introduced a little over one year ago, offers a single-number metric that summarizes progress on a diverse set of such tasks, but performance on the benchmark has recently surpassed the level of non-expert humans, suggesting limited headroom for further research. In this paper we present SuperGLUE, a new benchmark styled after GLUE with a new set of more difficult language understanding tasks, a software toolkit, and a public leaderboard. SuperGLUE is available at super.gluebenchmark.com.

Nikita Nangia, Samuel R. Bowman

Latent tree learning models learn to parse a sentence without syntactic supervision, and use that parse to build the sentence representation. Existing work on such models has shown that, while they perform well on tasks like sentence classification, they do not learn grammars that conform to any plausible semantic or syntactic formalism (Williams et al., 2018a). Studying the parsing ability of such models in natural language can be challenging due to the inherent complexities of natural language, like having several valid parses for a single sentence. In this paper we introduce ListOps, a toy dataset created to study the parsing ability of latent tree models. ListOps sequences are in the style of prefix arithmetic. The dataset is designed to have a single correct parsing strategy that a system needs to learn to succeed at the task. We show that the current leading latent tree models are unable to learn to parse and succeed at ListOps. These models achieve accuracies worse than purely sequential RNNs.

Nikita Nangia, Adina Williams, Angeliki Lazaridou et al.

This paper presents the results of the RepEval 2017 Shared Task, which evaluated neural network sentence representation learning models on the Multi-Genre Natural Language Inference corpus (MultiNLI) recently introduced by Williams et al. (2017). All of the five participating teams beat the bidirectional LSTM (BiLSTM) and continuous bag of words baselines reported in Williams et al.. The best single model used stacked BiLSTMs with residual connections to extract sentence features and reached 74.5% accuracy on the genre-matched test set. Surprisingly, the results of the competition were fairly consistent across the genre-matched and genre-mismatched test sets, and across subsets of the test data representing a variety of linguistic phenomena, suggesting that all of the submitted systems learned reasonably domain-independent representations for sentence meaning.

Adina Williams, Nikita Nangia, Samuel R. Bowman

This paper introduces the Multi-Genre Natural Language Inference (MultiNLI) corpus, a dataset designed for use in the development and evaluation of machine learning models for sentence understanding. In addition to being one of the largest corpora available for the task of NLI, at 433k examples, this corpus improves upon available resources in its coverage: it offers data from ten distinct genres of written and spoken English--making it possible to evaluate systems on nearly the full complexity of the language--and it offers an explicit setting for the evaluation of cross-genre domain adaptation.