Yasaman Razeghi

Henrique Santos, Ke Shen, Alice M. Mulvehill et al. · stanford

Programming machines with commonsense reasoning (CSR) abilities is a longstanding challenge in the Artificial Intelligence community. Current CSR benchmarks use multiple-choice (and in relatively fewer cases, generative) question-answering instances to evaluate machine commonsense. Recent progress in transformer-based language representation models suggest that considerable progress has been made on existing benchmarks. However, although tens of CSR benchmarks currently exist, and are growing, it is not evident that the full suite of commonsense capabilities have been systematically evaluated. Furthermore, there are doubts about whether language models are 'fitting' to a benchmark dataset's training partition by picking up on subtle, but normatively irrelevant (at least for CSR), statistical features to achieve good performance on the testing partition. To address these challenges, we propose a benchmark called Theoretically-Grounded Commonsense Reasoning (TG-CSR) that is also based on discriminative question answering, but with questions designed to evaluate diverse aspects of commonsense, such as space, time, and world states. TG-CSR is based on a subset of commonsense categories first proposed as a viable theory of commonsense by Gordon and Hobbs. The benchmark is also designed to be few-shot (and in the future, zero-shot), with only a few training and validation examples provided. This report discusses the structure and construction of the benchmark. Preliminary results suggest that the benchmark is challenging even for advanced language representation models designed for discriminative CSR question answering tasks. Benchmark access and leaderboard: https://codalab.lisn.upsaclay.fr/competitions/3080 Benchmark website: https://usc-isi-i2.github.io/TGCSR/

Catarina G Belém, Preethi Seshadri, Yasaman Razeghi et al.

Gender bias research has been pivotal in revealing undesirable behaviors in large language models, exposing serious gender stereotypes associated with occupations, and emotions. A key observation in prior work is that models reinforce stereotypes as a consequence of the gendered correlations that are present in the training data. In this paper, we focus on bias where the effect from training data is unclear, and instead address the question: Do language models still exhibit gender bias in non-stereotypical settings? To do so, we introduce UnStereoEval (USE), a novel framework tailored for investigating gender bias in stereotype-free scenarios. USE defines a sentence-level score based on pretraining data statistics to determine if the sentence contain minimal word-gender associations. To systematically benchmark the fairness of popular language models in stereotype-free scenarios, we utilize USE to automatically generate benchmarks without any gender-related language. By leveraging USE's sentence-level score, we also repurpose prior gender bias benchmarks (Winobias and Winogender) for non-stereotypical evaluation. Surprisingly, we find low fairness across all 28 tested models. Concretely, models demonstrate fair behavior in only 9%-41% of stereotype-free sentences, suggesting that bias does not solely stem from the presence of gender-related words. These results raise important questions about where underlying model biases come from and highlight the need for more systematic and comprehensive bias evaluation. We release the full dataset and code at https://ucinlp.github.io/unstereo-eval.