Look at the First Sentence: Position Bias in Question Answering
Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 kernel pith:VR47DM43record.jsonopen to challenge →
read the original abstract
Many extractive question answering models are trained to predict start and end positions of answers. The choice of predicting answers as positions is mainly due to its simplicity and effectiveness. In this study, we hypothesize that when the distribution of the answer positions is highly skewed in the training set (e.g., answers lie only in the k-th sentence of each passage), QA models predicting answers as positions can learn spurious positional cues and fail to give answers in different positions. We first illustrate this position bias in popular extractive QA models such as BiDAF and BERT and thoroughly examine how position bias propagates through each layer of BERT. To safely deliver position information without position bias, we train models with various de-biasing methods including entropy regularization and bias ensembling. Among them, we found that using the prior distribution of answer positions as a bias model is very effective at reducing position bias, recovering the performance of BERT from 37.48% to 81.64% when trained on a biased SQuAD dataset.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
BabelJudge: Measuring LLM-as-a-Judge Reliability Across Languages and Agent Trajectories
BabelJudge introduces a perturbation-based framework to audit LLM judges for position bias, verbosity bias, order inconsistency, and cross-lingual degradation without human preference labels.
-
Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena
GPT-4 as an LLM judge achieves over 80% agreement with human preferences on MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena, matching human agreement levels and providing a scalable evaluation method.
-
LLMs-as-Judges: A Comprehensive Survey on LLM-based Evaluation Methods
A survey that organizes LLMs-as-judges research into functionality, methodology, applications, meta-evaluation, and limitations.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.