Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Probing What Different NLP Tasks Teach Machines about Function Word Comprehension

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1904.11544 v2 pith:7ZORYDTW submitted 2019-04-25 cs.CL

Probing What Different NLP Tasks Teach Machines about Function Word Comprehension

classification cs.CL
keywords pretrainingtasksfunctionprobingcomprehensionlanguageacrossmodeling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

We introduce a set of nine challenge tasks that test for the understanding of function words. These tasks are created by structurally mutating sentences from existing datasets to target the comprehension of specific types of function words (e.g., prepositions, wh-words). Using these probing tasks, we explore the effects of various pretraining objectives for sentence encoders (e.g., language modeling, CCG supertagging and natural language inference (NLI)) on the learned representations. Our results show that pretraining on language modeling performs the best on average across our probing tasks, supporting its widespread use for pretraining state-of-the-art NLP models, and CCG supertagging and NLI pretraining perform comparably. Overall, no pretraining objective dominates across the board, and our function word probing tasks highlight several intuitive differences between pretraining objectives, e.g., that NLI helps the comprehension of negation.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.