Data-driven scientific discovery requires the iterative integration of scientific domain knowledge, statistical expertise, and an understanding of data semantics to make nuanced analytical decisions, e.g., about which variables, transformations, and statistical models to consider. LM-based agents equipped with planning, memory, and code execution capabilities have the potential to support data-driven science. However, evaluating agents on such open-ended tasks is challenging due to multiple valid approaches, partially correct steps, and different ways to express the same decisions. To address these challenges, we present BLADE, a benchmark to automatically evaluate agents’ multifaceted approaches to open-ended research questions. BLADE consists of 12 datasets and research questions drawn from existing scientific literature, with ground truth collected from independent analyses by expert data scientists and researchers. To automatically evaluate agent responses, we developed corresponding computational methods to match different representations of analyses to this ground truth. Though language models possess considerable world knowledge, our evaluation shows that they are often limited to basic analyses. However, agents capable of interacting with the underlying data demonstrate improved, but still non-optimal, diversity in their analytical decision making. Our work enables the evaluation of agents for data-driven science and provides researchers deeper insights into agents’ analysis approaches.

While counterfactual examples are useful for analysis and training of NLP models, current generation methods either rely on manual labor to create very few counterfactuals, or only instantiate limited types of perturbations such as paraphrases or word substitutions. We present Polyjuice, a general-purpose counterfactual generator that allows for control over perturbation types and locations, trained by finetuning GPT-2 on multiple datasets of paired sentences. We show that Polyjuice produces diverse sets of realistic counterfactuals, which in turn are useful in various distinct applications: improving training and evaluation on three different tasks (with around 70% less annotation effort than manual generation), augmenting state-of-the-art explanation techniques, and supporting systematic counterfactual error analysis by revealing behaviors easily missed by human experts.

Though error analysis is crucial to understanding and improving NLP models, the common practice of manual, subjective categorization of a small sample of errors can yield biased and incomplete conclusions. This paper codifies model and task agnostic principles for informative error analysis, and presents Errudite, an interactive tool for better supporting this process. First, error groups should be precisely defined for reproducibility; Errudite supports this with an expressive domain-specific language. Second, to avoid spurious conclusions, a large set of instances should be analyzed, including both positive and negative examples; Errudite enables systematic grouping of relevant instances with filtering queries. Third, hypotheses about the cause of errors should be explicitly tested; Errudite supports this via automated counterfactual rewriting. We validate our approach with a user study, finding that Errudite (1) enables users to perform high quality and reproducible error analyses with less effort, (2) reveals substantial ambiguities in prior published error analyses practices, and (3) enhances the error analysis experience by allowing users to test and revise prior beliefs.