Natural language processing has seen rapid progress over the past decade. Due to the speed of developments, some practices get established without proper evaluation. Considering one such case and focusing on reading comprehension, we ask our first research question: 1) How does the order of inputs – i.e., question and context – affect model performance? Additionally, given recent advancements in input emphasis, we ask a second research question: 2) Does emphasizing either the question, the context, or both enhance performance? Experimenting with 9 large language models across 3 datasets, we find that presenting the context before the question improves model performance, with an accuracy increase of up to 31%. Furthermore, emphasizing the context yields superior results compared to question emphasis, and in general, emphasizing parts of the input is particularly effective for addressing questions that models lack the parametric knowledge to answer. Experimenting with both prompt-based and attention-based emphasis methods, we additionally find that the best method is surprisingly simple: it only requires concatenating a few tokens to the input and results in an ac- curacy improvement of up to 36%, allowing smaller models to outperform their significantly larger counterparts.

The differences between cloze-task language model (LM) probing with 1) expert-made templates and 2) naturally-occurring text have often been overlooked. Here, we evaluate 16 different LMs on 10 probing English datasets – 4 template-based and 6 template-free – in general and biomedical domains to answer the following research questions: (RQ1) Do model rankings differ between the two approaches? (RQ2) Do models’ absolute scores differ between the two approaches? (RQ3) Do the answers to RQ1 and RQ2 differ between general and domain-specific models? Our findings are: 1) Template-free and template-based approaches often rank models differently, except for the top domain- specific models. 2) Scores decrease by up to 42% Acc@1 when comparing parallel template-free and template-based prompts. 3) Perplexity is negatively correlated with accuracy in the template-free approach, but, counter-intuitively, they are positively correlated for template-based probing. 4) Models tend to predict the same answers frequently across prompts for template-based probing, which is less common when employing template-free techniques.

Prior work has uncovered a set of common problems in state-of-the-art context-based question answering (QA) systems: a lack of attention to the context when the latter conflicts with a model’s parametric knowledge, little robustness to noise, and a lack of consistency with their answers. However, most prior work focus on one or two of those problems in isolation, which makes it difficult to see trends across them. We aim to close this gap, by first outlining a set of – previously discussed as well as novel – desiderata for QA models. We then survey relevant analysis and methods papers to provide an overview of the state of the field. The second part of our work presents experiments where we evaluate 15 QA systems on 5 datasets according to all desiderata at once. We find many novel trends, including (1) systems that are less susceptible to noise are not necessarily more consistent with their answers when given irrelevant context; (2) most systems that are more susceptible to noise are more likely to correctly answer according to a context that conflicts with their parametric knowledge; and (3) the combination of conflicting knowledge and noise can reduce system performance by up to 96%. As such, our desiderata help increase our understanding of how these models work and reveal potential avenues for improvements.

As part of the BioNLP Open Shared Tasks 2019, the CRAFT Shared Tasks 2019 provides a platform to gauge the state of the art for three fundamental language processing tasks — dependency parse construction, coreference resolution, and ontology concept identification — over full-text biomedical articles. The structural annotation task requires the automatic generation of dependency parses for each sentence of an article given only the article text. The coreference resolution task focuses on linking coreferring base noun phrase mentions into chains using the symmetrical and transitive identity relation. The ontology concept annotation task involves the identification of concept mentions within text using the classes of ten distinct ontologies in the biomedical domain, both unmodified and augmented with extension classes. This paper provides an overview of each task, including descriptions of the data provided to participants and the evaluation metrics used, and discusses participant results relative to baseline performances for each of the three tasks.

Systems that locate mentions of concepts from ontologies in free text are known as ontology concept recognition systems. This paper describes an approach to the evaluation of the workings of ontology concept recognition systems through use of a structured test suite and presents a publicly available test suite for this purpose. It is built using the principles of descriptive linguistic fieldwork and of software testing. More broadly, we also seek to investigate what general principles might inform the construction of such test suites. The test suite was found to be effective in identifying performance errors in an ontology concept recognition system. The system could not recognize 2.1% of all canonical forms and no non-canonical forms at all. Regarding the question of general principles of test suite construction, we compared this test suite to a named entity recognition test suite constructor. We found that they had twenty features in total and that seven were shared between the two models, suggesting that there is a core of feature types that may be applicable to test suite construction for any similar type of application.