Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020 2020
DOI: 10.18653/v1/2020.findings-emnlp.90
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Generative Data Augmentation for Commonsense Reasoning

Abstract: Recent advances in commonsense reasoning depend on large-scale human-annotated training sets to achieve peak performance. However, manual curation of training sets is expensive and has been shown to introduce annotation artifacts that neural models can readily exploit and overfit to. We propose a novel generative data augmentation technique, G-DAUG c , that aims to achieve more accurate and robust learning in a low-resource setting. Our approach generates synthetic examples using pretrained language models, an… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
63
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
4
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 83 publications
(75 citation statements)
references
References 50 publications
1
63
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Our work focuses on extractive question-answering (QA), which motivates the need for different generative models. Yang et al (2020) filter generated examples using influence functions, or methods that attempt to maximise diversity; we find that a different approach that considers answer agreement between QA models trained with different random seeds leads to better performance in our setting.…”
Section: Synthetic Question Generationmentioning
confidence: 96%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Our work focuses on extractive question-answering (QA), which motivates the need for different generative models. Yang et al (2020) filter generated examples using influence functions, or methods that attempt to maximise diversity; we find that a different approach that considers answer agreement between QA models trained with different random seeds leads to better performance in our setting.…”
Section: Synthetic Question Generationmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…We use influence functions (Cook and Weisberg, 1982;Koh and Liang, 2017) to estimate the effect on the validation loss of including a synthetic example as explored by Yang et al (2020), but adapted for QA. We filter out examples estimated to increase the validation loss.…”
Section: Influence Functionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While data augmentation (DA) has been widely adopted in computer vision (Shorten & Khoshgoftaar, 2019), DA for language tasks is less straightforward. Recently, generative language models have been used to synthesize examples for various NLP tasks (Kumar et al, 2020;Anaby-Tavor et al, 2020;Puri et al, 2020;Yang et al, 2020). Different from these methods which focus on the low-resource language-only tasks, our method demonstrates the advantage of synthetic captions in large-scale vision-language pre-training.…”
Section: Data Augmentationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…More recent work has used word embeddings (Wang and Yang, 2015) and LSTM language models (Fadaee et al, 2017) to perform word replacement. Other methods focus on fine-tuning contextual language models (Kobayashi, 2018;Wu et al, 2019b;Kumar et al, 2020) or large generative models (Anaby-Tavor et al, 2020;Yang et al, 2020;Kumar et al, 2020) to generate synthetic examples.…”
Section: Data Augmentation In Nlpmentioning
confidence: 99%