REVIEW 2 cited by
Measure and Improve Robustness in NLP Models: A Survey
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
Measure and Improve Robustness in NLP Models: A Survey
read the original abstract
As NLP models achieved state-of-the-art performances over benchmarks and gained wide applications, it has been increasingly important to ensure the safe deployment of these models in the real world, e.g., making sure the models are robust against unseen or challenging scenarios. Despite robustness being an increasingly studied topic, it has been separately explored in applications like vision and NLP, with various definitions, evaluation and mitigation strategies in multiple lines of research. In this paper, we aim to provide a unifying survey of how to define, measure and improve robustness in NLP. We first connect multiple definitions of robustness, then unify various lines of work on identifying robustness failures and evaluating models' robustness. Correspondingly, we present mitigation strategies that are data-driven, model-driven, and inductive-prior-based, with a more systematic view of how to effectively improve robustness in NLP models. Finally, we conclude by outlining open challenges and future directions to motivate further research in this area.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
ART: Automatic multi-step reasoning and tool-use for large language models
ART automatically generates multi-step reasoning programs with tool integration for LLMs, yielding substantial gains over few-shot and auto-CoT prompting on BigBench and MMLU while matching hand-crafted CoT on most tasks.
-
Evaluation of Adversarial Robustness in Arabic Language Models
Arabic BERT-family sentiment models lose up to 92% accuracy under diacritics and 58% under conjunction attacks; paraphrase attacks cut accuracy by 76% on average, and adversarial training only partially helps.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.