With recent advances, neural models can achieve human-level performance on various natural language tasks. However, there are no guarantees that any explanations from these models are faithful, i.e. that they reflect the inner workings of the model. Atomic inference overcomes this issue, providing interpretable and faithful model decisions. This approach involves making predictions for different components (or atoms) of an instance, before using interpretable and deterministic rules to derive the overall prediction based on the individual atom-level predictions. We investigate the effectiveness of using LLM-generated facts as atoms, decomposing Natural Language Inference premises into lists of facts. While directly using generated facts in atomic inference systems can result in worse performance, with 1) a multi-stage fact generation process, and 2) a training regime that incorporates the facts, our fact-based method outperforms other approaches.

Knowledge distillation optimises a smaller student model to behave similarly to a larger teacher model, retaining some of the performance benefits. While this method can improve results on in-distribution examples, it does not necessarily generalise to out-of-distribution (OOD) settings. We investigate two complementary methods for improving the robustness of the resulting student models on OOD domains. The first approach augments the distillation with generated unlabeled examples that match the target distribution. The second method upsamples data points among the training set that are similar to the target distribution. When applied on the task of natural language inference (NLI), our experiments on MNLI show that distillation with these modifications outperforms previous robustness solutions. We also find that these methods improve performance on OOD domains even beyond the target domain.

Spurred by recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs), virtual assistants are poised to take a leap forward in terms of their dialogue capabilities. Yet a major bottleneck to achieving genuinely transformative task-oriented dialogue capabilities remains the scarcity of high quality data. Existing datasets, while impressive in scale, have limited domain coverage and contain few genuinely challenging conversational phenomena; those which are present are typically unlabelled, making it difficult to assess the strengths and weaknesses of models without time-consuming and costly human evaluation. Moreover, creating high quality dialogue data has until now required considerable human input, limiting both the scale of these datasets and the ability to rapidly bootstrap data for a new target domain. We aim to overcome these issues with LUCID, a modularised and highly automated LLM-driven data generation system that produces realistic, diverse and challenging dialogues. We use LUCID to generate a seed dataset of 4,277 conversations across 100 intents to demonstrate its capabilities, with a human review finding consistently high quality labels in the generated data.

Neural models have been shown to exploit shallow surface features to perform language understanding tasks, rather than learning the deeper language understanding and reasoning skills that practitioners desire. Previous work has developed debiasing techniques to pressure models away from spurious features or artifacts in datasets, with the goal of having models instead learn useful, task-relevant representations. However, what do models actually learn as a result of such debiasing procedures? In this work, we evaluate three model debiasing strategies, and through a set of carefully designed tests we show how debiasing can actually increase the model’s reliance on hidden biases, instead of learning robust features that help it solve a task. Further, we demonstrate how even debiasing models against all shallow features in a dataset may still not help models address NLP tasks. As a result, we suggest that debiasing existing models may not be sufficient for many language understanding tasks, and future work should consider new learning paradigms, to address complex challenges such as commonsense reasoning and inference.

Current Natural Language Inference (NLI) models achieve impressive results, sometimes outperforming humans when evaluating on in-distribution test sets. However, as these models are known to learn from annotation artefacts and dataset biases, it is unclear to what extent the models are learning the task of NLI instead of learning from shallow heuristics in their training data.We address this issue by introducing a logical reasoning framework for NLI, creating highly transparent model decisions that are based on logical rules. Unlike prior work, we show that improved interpretability can be achieved without decreasing the predictive accuracy. We almost fully retain performance on SNLI, while also identifying the exact hypothesis spans that are responsible for each model prediction.Using the e-SNLI human explanations, we verify that our model makes sensible decisions at a span level, despite not using any span labels during training. We can further improve model performance and the span-level decisions by using the e-SNLI explanations during training. Finally, our model is more robust in a reduced data setting. When training with only 1,000 examples, out-of-distribution performance improves on the MNLI matched and mismatched validation sets by 13% and 16% relative to the baseline. Training with fewer observations yields further improvements, both in-distribution and out-of-distribution.

Natural Language Inference (NLI) datasets contain annotation artefacts resulting in spurious correlations between the natural language utterances and their respective entailment classes. These artefacts are exploited by neural networks even when only considering the hypothesis and ignoring the premise, leading to unwanted biases. Belinkov et al. (2019b) proposed tackling this problem via adversarial training, but this can lead to learned sentence representations that still suffer from the same biases. We show that the bias can be reduced in the sentence representations by using an ensemble of adversaries, encouraging the model to jointly decrease the accuracy of these different adversaries while fitting the data. This approach produces more robust NLI models, outperforming previous de-biasing efforts when generalised to 12 other NLI datasets (Belinkov et al., 2019a; Mahabadi et al., 2020). In addition, we find that the optimal number of adversarial classifiers depends on the dimensionality of the sentence representations, with larger sentence representations being more difficult to de-bias while benefiting from using a greater number of adversaries.