REVIEW 1 cited by
Preserving Commonsense Knowledge from Pre-trained Language Models via Causal Inference
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
read the original abstract
Fine-tuning has been proven to be a simple and effective technique to transfer the learned knowledge of Pre-trained Language Models (PLMs) to downstream tasks. However, vanilla fine-tuning easily overfits the target data and degrades the generalization ability. Most existing studies attribute it to catastrophic forgetting, and they retain the pre-trained knowledge indiscriminately without identifying what knowledge is transferable. Motivated by this, we frame fine-tuning into a causal graph and discover that the crux of catastrophic forgetting lies in the missing causal effects from the pretrained data. Based on the causal view, we propose a unified objective for fine-tuning to retrieve the causality back. Intriguingly, the unified objective can be seen as the sum of the vanilla fine-tuning objective, which learns new knowledge from target data, and the causal objective, which preserves old knowledge from PLMs. Therefore, our method is flexible and can mitigate negative transfer while preserving knowledge. Since endowing models with commonsense is a long-standing challenge, we implement our method on commonsense QA with a proposed heuristic estimation to verify its effectiveness. In the experiments, our method outperforms state-of-the-art fine-tuning methods on all six commonsense QA datasets and can be implemented as a plug-in module to inflate the performance of existing QA models.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
AblationBench: Evaluating Automated Planning of Ablations in Empirical AI Research
AblationBench is a new benchmark for testing AI planning of ablation experiments, and it shows that current language models recover only a minority of the human reference ablations.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.