REVIEW 2 cited by
GLUE-X: Evaluating Natural Language Understanding Models from an Out-of-distribution Generalization Perspective
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
GLUE-X: Evaluating Natural Language Understanding Models from an Out-of-distribution Generalization Perspective
read the original abstract
Pre-trained language models (PLMs) are known to improve the generalization performance of natural language understanding models by leveraging large amounts of data during the pre-training phase. However, the out-of-distribution (OOD) generalization problem remains a challenge in many NLP tasks, limiting the real-world deployment of these methods. This paper presents the first attempt at creating a unified benchmark named GLUE-X for evaluating OOD robustness in NLP models, highlighting the importance of OOD robustness and providing insights on how to measure the robustness of a model and how to improve it. The benchmark includes 13 publicly available datasets for OOD testing, and evaluations are conducted on 8 classic NLP tasks over 21 popularly used PLMs, including GPT-3 and GPT-3.5. Our findings confirm the need for improved OOD accuracy in NLP tasks, as significant performance degradation was observed in all settings compared to in-distribution (ID) accuracy.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
STAR: Rethinking MoE Routing as Structure-Aware Subspace Learning
STAR rethinks MoE routing as structure-aware subspace learning by adding a GHA-tracked principal subspace to standard routers, yielding more stable specialization and better performance on synthetic, language, and vis...
-
TrustLLM: Trustworthiness in Large Language Models
TrustLLM defines eight trustworthiness principles, creates a six-dimension benchmark, and evaluates 16 LLMs showing proprietary models generally lead but some open-source ones are close while over-calibration can hurt...
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.