Back to Square One: Artifact Detection, Training and Commonsense Disentanglement in the Winograd Schema

The Winograd Schema (WS) has been proposed as a test for measuring commonsense capabilities of models. Recently, pre-trained language model-based approaches have boosted performance on some WS benchmarks but the source of improvement is still not clear. This paper suggests that the apparent progress on WS may not necessarily reflect progress in commonsense reasoning. To support this claim, we first show that the current evaluation method of WS is sub-optimal and propose a modification that uses twin sentences for evaluation. We also propose two new baselines that indicate the existence of artifacts in WS benchmarks. We then develop a method for evaluating WS-like sentences in a zero-shot setting to account for the commonsense reasoning abilities acquired during the pretraining and observe that popular language models perform randomly in this setting when using our more strict evaluation. We conclude that the observed progress is mostly due to the use of supervision in training WS models, which is not likely to successfully support all the required commonsense reasoning skills and knowledge.

PDF Abstract EMNLP 2021 PDF EMNLP 2021 Abstract

Datasets


Task Dataset Model Metric Name Metric Value Global Rank Result Benchmark
Coreference Resolution Winograd Schema Challenge Random chance baseline Accuracy 50 # 77
Coreference Resolution Winograd Schema Challenge ALBERT-xxlarge 235M Accuracy 78.8 # 24
Coreference Resolution Winograd Schema Challenge ALBERT-base 11M Accuracy 55.4 # 70
Coreference Resolution Winograd Schema Challenge RoBERTa-large 354M Accuracy 73.9 # 28
Coreference Resolution Winograd Schema Challenge RoBERTa-base 125M Accuracy 63 # 47
Coreference Resolution Winograd Schema Challenge BERT-large 340M Accuracy 61.4 # 56
Coreference Resolution Winograd Schema Challenge BERT-base 110M Accuracy 56.5 # 68
Common Sense Reasoning WinoGrande ALBERT-xxlarge 235M Accuracy 58.7 # 50
Common Sense Reasoning WinoGrande BERT-large 345M Accuracy 55.6 # 58
Common Sense Reasoning WinoGrande ALBERT-base 11M Accuracy 52.8 # 66
Common Sense Reasoning WinoGrande Random baseline Accuracy 50 # 72
Common Sense Reasoning WinoGrande RoBERTa-large 355M Accuracy 54.9 # 61
Common Sense Reasoning WinoGrande BERT-base 110M Accuracy 53.1 # 65
Common Sense Reasoning WinoGrande RoBERTa-base 125M Accuracy 56.3 # 55

Methods


No methods listed for this paper. Add relevant methods here