Lauri Karttunen

Atticus Geiger, Ignacio Cases, Lauri Karttunen et al.

Deep learning models for semantics are generally evaluated using naturalistic corpora. Adversarial methods, in which models are evaluated on new examples with known semantic properties, have begun to reveal that good performance at these naturalistic tasks can hide serious shortcomings. However, we should insist that these evaluations be fair -that the models are given data sufficient to support the requisite kinds of generalization. In this paper, we define and motivate a formal notion of fairness in this sense. We then apply these ideas to natural language inference by constructing very challenging but provably fair artificial datasets and showing that standard neural models fail to generalize in the required ways; only task-specific models that jointly compose the premise and hypothesis are able to achieve high performance, and even these models do not solve the task perfectly.

Atticus Geiger, Ignacio Cases, Lauri Karttunen et al.

Standard evaluations of deep learning models for semantics using naturalistic corpora are limited in what they can tell us about the fidelity of the learned representations, because the corpora rarely come with good measures of semantic complexity. To overcome this limitation, we present a method for generating data sets of multiply-quantified natural language inference (NLI) examples in which semantic complexity can be precisely characterized, and we use this method to show that a variety of common architectures for NLI inevitably fail to encode crucial information; only a model with forced lexical alignments avoids this damaging information loss.