Jump to better conclusions: SCAN both left and right
| Authors |
|
|---|---|
| Publication date | 2018 |
| Host editors |
|
| Book title | The 2018 EMNLP Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP |
| Book subtitle | EMNLP 2018 : proceedings of the First Workshop : November 1, 2018, Brussels, Belgium |
| ISBN (electronic) |
|
| Event | 2018 EMNLP Workshop BlackboxNLP |
| Pages (from-to) | 47-55 |
| Publisher | Stroudsburg, PA: The Association for Computational Linguistics |
| Organisations |
|
| Abstract |
Lake & Baroni (2018) recently introduced the SCAN data set, which consists of simple commands paired with action sequences and is intended to test the strong generalization abilities of recurrent sequence-to-sequence models. Their initial experiments suggested that such models may fail because they lack the ability to extract systematic rules. Here, we take a closer look at SCAN and show that it does not always capture the kind of generalization that it was designed for. To mitigate this we propose a complementary dataset, which requires mapping actions back to the original commands, called NACS. We show that models that do well on SCAN do not necessarily do well on NACS, and that NACS exhibits properties more closely aligned with realistic use-cases for sequence-to-sequence models.
|
| Document type | Conference contribution |
| Note | Later version also available. |
| Language | English |
| Published at | https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W18-5407 |
| Downloads |
W18-5407v2
(Other version)
|
| Permalink to this page | |