Text Characterization Toolkit
Simig, Daniel, Wang, Tianlu, Dankers, Verna, Henderson, Peter, Batsuren, Khuyagbaatar, Hupkes, Dieuwke, Diab, Mona
–arXiv.org Artificial Intelligence
In NLP, models are usually evaluated by reporting single-number performance scores on a number of readily available benchmarks, without much deeper analysis. Here, we argue that - especially given the well-known fact that benchmarks often contain biases, artefacts, and spurious correlations - deeper results analysis should become the de-facto standard when presenting new models or benchmarks. We present a tool that researchers can use to study properties of the dataset and the influence of those properties on their models' behaviour. Our Text Characterization Toolkit includes both an easy-to-use annotation tool, as well as off-the-shelf scripts that can be used for specific analyses. We also present use-cases from three different domains: we use the tool to predict what are difficult examples for given well-known trained models and identify (potentially harmful) biases and heuristics that are present in a dataset.
arXiv.org Artificial Intelligence
Oct-4-2022
- Country:
- North America
- Dominican Republic (0.04)
- United States
- Texas > Travis County
- Austin (0.04)
- Louisiana > Orleans Parish
- New Orleans (0.05)
- Texas > Travis County
- Europe
- Germany > Berlin (0.04)
- Portugal > Lisbon
- Lisbon (0.04)
- Italy > Tuscany
- Florence (0.04)
- Ireland > Leinster
- County Dublin > Dublin (0.04)
- Denmark > Capital Region
- Copenhagen (0.04)
- Belgium > Brussels-Capital Region
- Brussels (0.04)
- Asia
- Africa > Kenya
- Mandera County > Mandera (0.04)
- North America
- Genre:
- Research Report (0.83)
- Technology: