Ian Porada

Ian Porada, Alexandra Olteanu, Kaheer Suleman et al. · mila

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.

Ian Porada · mila

In this thesis, I refine our understanding as to what conclusions we can reach from coreference-based evaluations by expanding existing evaluation practices and considering the extent to which evaluation results are either converging or conflicting. First, I analyze standard coreference evaluations and show that their design often leads to non-generalizable conclusions due to issues of measurement validity - including contestedness (multiple, competing definitions of coreference) and convergent validity (evaluation results that rank models differently across benchmarks). Second, I propose and implement a novel evaluation focused on testing systems' ability to infer the relative plausibility of events, a key aspect of resolving coreference. Through this extended evaluation, I find that contemporary language models demonstrate strong performance on standard benchmarks - improving over earlier baseline systems within certain domains and types of coreference - but remain sensitive to the evaluation conditions: they often fail to generalize in ways one would expect a human to be capable of when evaluation contexts are slightly modified. Taken together, these findings clarify both the strengths, such as improved accuracy over baselines on widely used evaluations, and the limitations of the current NLP paradigm, including weaknesses in measurement validity, and suggest directions for future work in developing better evaluation methods and more genuinely generalizable systems.

Ian Porada, Xiyuan Zou, Jackie Chi Kit Cheung · mila

All state-of-the-art coreference resolution (CR) models involve finetuning a pretrained language model. Whether the superior performance of one CR model over another is due to the choice of language model or other factors, such as the task-specific architecture, is difficult or impossible to determine due to lack of a standardized experimental setup. To resolve this ambiguity, we systematically evaluate five CR models and control for certain design decisions including the pretrained language model used by each. When controlling for language model size, encoder-based CR models outperform more recent decoder-based models in terms of both accuracy and inference speed. Surprisingly, among encoder-based CR models, more recent models are not always more accurate, and the oldest CR model that we test generalizes the best to out-of-domain textual genres. We conclude that controlling for the choice of language model reduces most, but not all, of the increase in F1 score reported in the past five years.

Ian Porada, Jackie Chi Kit Cheung · mila

Challenge sets such as the Winograd Schema Challenge (WSC) are used to benchmark systems' ability to resolve ambiguities in natural language. If one assumes as in existing work that solving a given challenge set is at least as difficult as solving some more general task, then high performance on the challenge set should indicate high performance on the general task overall. However, we show empirically that this assumption of difficulty does not always hold. In particular, we demonstrate that despite the strong performance of prompted language models (LMs) on the WSC and its variants, these same modeling techniques perform relatively poorly at resolving certain pronominal ambiguities attested in OntoNotes and related datasets that are perceived to be easier. Motivated by these findings, we propose a method for ensembling a prompted LM with a supervised, task-specific system that is overall more accurate at resolving pronominal coreference across datasets. Finally, we emphasize that datasets involving the same linguistic phenomenon draw on distinct, but overlapping, capabilities, and evaluating on any one dataset alone does not provide a complete picture of a system's overall capability.

Ian Porada, Alessandro Sordoni, Jackie Chi Kit Cheung

Transformer models pre-trained with a masked-language-modeling objective (e.g., BERT) encode commonsense knowledge as evidenced by behavioral probes; however, the extent to which this knowledge is acquired by systematic inference over the semantics of the pre-training corpora is an open question. To answer this question, we selectively inject verbalized knowledge into the minibatches of a BERT model during pre-training and evaluate how well the model generalizes to supported inferences. We find generalization does not improve over the course of pre-training, suggesting that commonsense knowledge is acquired from surface-level, co-occurrence patterns rather than induced, systematic reasoning.

Ian Porada, Kaheer Suleman, Adam Trischler et al.

Understanding natural language requires common sense, one aspect of which is the ability to discern the plausibility of events. While distributional models -- most recently pre-trained, Transformer language models -- have demonstrated improvements in modeling event plausibility, their performance still falls short of humans'. In this work, we show that Transformer-based plausibility models are markedly inconsistent across the conceptual classes of a lexical hierarchy, inferring that "a person breathing" is plausible while "a dentist breathing" is not, for example. We find this inconsistency persists even when models are softly injected with lexical knowledge, and we present a simple post-hoc method of forcing model consistency that improves correlation with human plausibility judgements.

Ian Porada, Kaheer Suleman, Jackie Chi Kit Cheung

Modeling semantic plausibility requires commonsense knowledge about the world and has been used as a testbed for exploring various knowledge representations. Previous work has focused specifically on modeling physical plausibility and shown that distributional methods fail when tested in a supervised setting. At the same time, distributional models, namely large pretrained language models, have led to improved results for many natural language understanding tasks. In this work, we show that these pretrained language models are in fact effective at modeling physical plausibility in the supervised setting. We therefore present the more difficult problem of learning to model physical plausibility directly from text. We create a training set by extracting attested events from a large corpus, and we provide a baseline for training on these attested events in a self-supervised manner and testing on a physical plausibility task. We believe results could be further improved by injecting explicit commonsense knowledge into a distributional model.

Mingde Zhao, Sitao Luan, Ian Porada et al.

Temporal-Difference (TD) learning is a standard and very successful reinforcement learning approach, at the core of both algorithms that learn the value of a given policy, as well as algorithms which learn how to improve policies. TD-learning with eligibility traces provides a way to boost sample efficiency by temporal credit assignment, i.e. deciding which portion of a reward should be assigned to predecessor states that occurred at different previous times, controlled by a parameter $λ$. However, tuning this parameter can be time-consuming, and not tuning it can lead to inefficient learning. For better sample efficiency of TD-learning, we propose a meta-learning method for adjusting the eligibility trace parameter, in a state-dependent manner. The adaptation is achieved with the help of auxiliary learners that learn distributional information about the update targets online, incurring roughly the same computational complexity per step as the usual value learner. Our approach can be used both in on-policy and off-policy learning. We prove that, under some assumptions, the proposed method improves the overall quality of the update targets, by minimizing the overall target error. This method can be viewed as a plugin to assist prediction with function approximation by meta-learning feature (observation)-based $λ$ online, or even in the control case to assist policy improvement. Our empirical evaluation demonstrates significant performance improvements, as well as improved robustness of the proposed algorithm to learning rate variation.