REVIEW 4 cited by
Probing the Probing Paradigm: Does Probing Accuracy Entail Task Relevance?
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
Although neural models have achieved impressive results on several NLP benchmarks, little is understood about the mechanisms they use to perform language tasks. Thus, much recent attention has been devoted to analyzing the sentence representations learned by neural encoders, through the lens of `probing' tasks. However, to what extent was the information encoded in sentence representations, as discovered through a probe, actually used by the model to perform its task? In this work, we examine this probing paradigm through a case study in Natural Language Inference, showing that models can learn to encode linguistic properties even if they are not needed for the task on which the model was trained. We further identify that pretrained word embeddings play a considerable role in encoding these properties rather than the training task itself, highlighting the importance of careful controls when designing probing experiments. Finally, through a set of controlled synthetic tasks, we demonstrate models can encode these properties considerably above chance-level even when distributed in the data as random noise, calling into question the interpretation of absolute claims on probing tasks.
Forward citations
Cited by 4 Pith papers
-
Exposure is not manifestation: measurement target and output resolution jointly determine which behavioural-faithfulness evaluator wins
Small hyperbolic models (146M–3B) report 100% creative-seed preference, 90.7% compliance-gap detection, and a selective-gating skeleton–wallpaper memory pilot as a companion-AI stack.
-
LLMs are Bayesian, In Expectation, Not in Realization
Transformers can be Bayes-competitive in prequential log loss even when their predictive distributions are not invariant to example order, provided the cumulative predictive KL to the Bayesian reference stays small.
-
SemSketches-2021: experimenting with the machine processing of the pilot semantic sketches corpus
The authors release a pilot corpus of 915 semantic sketches for Russian and report that the best automatic matcher achieves only 0.277 accuracy, far below human-level performance.
-
Behavioural vs. Representational Systematicity in End-to-End Models: An Opinionated Survey
A survey showing that common systematic generalization benchmarks measure behavioural systematicity, not the representational systematicity that Fodor and Pylyshyn's challenge requires, and mapping them onto Hadley's ...
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.