Overconfidence in the Face of Ambiguity with Adversarial Data

Adversarial data collection has shown promise as a method for building models which are more robust to the spurious correlations that generally appear in naturalistic data. However, adversarially-collected data may itself be subject to biases, particularly with regard to ambiguous or arguable labeling judgments. Searching for examples where an annotator disagrees with a model might over-sample ambiguous inputs, and filtering the results for high inter-annotator agreement may under-sample them. In either case, training a model on such data may produce predictable and unwanted biases. In this work, we investigate whether models trained on adversarially-collected data are miscalibrated with respect to the ambiguity of their inputs. Using Natural Language Inference models as a testbed, we find no clear difference in accuracy between naturalistically and adversarially trained models, but our model trained only on adversarially-sourced data is considerably more overconfident of its predictions and demonstrates worse calibration, especially on ambiguous inputs. This effect is mitigated, however, when naturalistic and adversarial training data are combined.