Pathologies of Neural Models Make Interpretations Difficult

One way to interpret neural model predictions is to highlight the most important input features---for example, a heatmap visualization over the words in an input sentence. In existing interpretation methods for NLP, a word's importance is determined by either input perturbation---measuring the decrease in model confidence when that word is removed---or by the gradient with respect to that word. To understand the limitations of these methods, we use input reduction, which iteratively removes the least important word from the input. This exposes pathological behaviors of neural models: the remaining words appear nonsensical to humans and are not the ones determined as important by interpretation methods. As we confirm with human experiments, the reduced examples lack information to support the prediction of any label, but models still make the same predictions with high confidence. To explain these counterintuitive results, we draw connections to adversarial examples and confidence calibration: pathological behaviors reveal difficulties in interpreting neural models trained with maximum likelihood. To mitigate their deficiencies, we fine-tune the models by encouraging high entropy outputs on reduced examples. Fine-tuned models become more interpretable under input reduction without accuracy loss on regular examples.Comment: EMNLP 2018 camera read

A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference

Understanding entailment and contradiction is fundamental to understanding natural language, and inference about entailment and contradiction is a valuable testing ground for the development of semantic representations. However, machine learning research in this area has been dramatically limited by the lack of large-scale resources. To address this, we introduce the Stanford Natural Language Inference corpus, a new, freely available collection of labeled sentence pairs, written by humans doing a novel grounded task based on image captioning. At 570K pairs, it is two orders of magnitude larger than all other resources of its type. This increase in scale allows lexicalized classifiers to outperform some sophisticated existing entailment models, and it allows a neural network-based model to perform competitively on natural language inference benchmarks for the first time.Comment: To appear at EMNLP 2015. The data will be posted shortly before the conference (the week of 14 Sep) at http://nlp.stanford.edu/projects/snli

Visual Entailment: A Novel Task for Fine-Grained Image Understanding

Existing visual reasoning datasets such as Visual Question Answering (VQA), often suffer from biases conditioned on the question, image or answer distributions. The recently proposed CLEVR dataset addresses these limitations and requires fine-grained reasoning but the dataset is synthetic and consists of similar objects and sentence structures across the dataset. In this paper, we introduce a new inference task, Visual Entailment (VE) - consisting of image-sentence pairs whereby a premise is defined by an image, rather than a natural language sentence as in traditional Textual Entailment tasks. The goal of a trained VE model is to predict whether the image semantically entails the text. To realize this task, we build a dataset SNLI-VE based on the Stanford Natural Language Inference corpus and Flickr30k dataset. We evaluate various existing VQA baselines and build a model called Explainable Visual Entailment (EVE) system to address the VE task. EVE achieves up to 71% accuracy and outperforms several other state-of-the-art VQA based models. Finally, we demonstrate the explainability of EVE through cross-modal attention visualizations. The SNLI-VE dataset is publicly available at https://github.com/ necla-ml/SNLI-VE

A corpus for studying full answer justification

International audienceQuestion answering (QA) systems aim at retrieving precise information from a large collection of documents. To be considered as reliable by users, a QA system must provide elements to evaluate the answer. This notion of answer justification can also be useful when developing a QA system in order to give criteria for selecting correct answers. An answer justification can be found in a sentence, a passage made of several consecutive sentences or several passages of a document or several documents. Thus, we are interested in pinpointing the set of information that allows verifying the correctness of the answer in a candidate passage and the question elements that are missing in this passage. Moreover, the relevant information is often given in texts in a different form from the question form : anaphora, paraphrases, synonyms. In order to have a better idea of the importance of all the phenomena we underlined, and to provide enough examples at the QA developer’s disposal to study them, we decided to build an annotated corpus