Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Evaluating Compositionality in Sentence Embeddings

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1802.04302 v2 pith:LNQIIP6X submitted 2018-02-12 cs.CL stat.ML

classification cs.CLstat.ML
keywords datasetembeddingsfindperformancetrainingcompositionalityinfersentsentence
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

An important challenge for human-like AI is compositional semantics. Recent research has attempted to address this by using deep neural networks to learn vector space embeddings of sentences, which then serve as input to other tasks. We present a new dataset for one such task, `natural language inference' (NLI), that cannot be solved using only word-level knowledge and requires some compositionality. We find that the performance of state of the art sentence embeddings (InferSent; Conneau et al., 2017) on our new dataset is poor. We analyze the decision rules learned by InferSent and find that they are consistent with simple heuristics that are ecologically valid in its training dataset. Further, we find that augmenting training with our dataset improves test performance on our dataset without loss of performance on the original training dataset. This highlights the importance of structured datasets in better understanding and improving AI systems.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Investigating BERT's Knowledge of Language: Five Analysis Methods with NPIs

    cs.CL 2019-09 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    BERT's apparent knowledge of English NPI licensing varies across five evaluation methods, from near-perfect on gradient minimal pairs to inconsistent on absolute judgments and scope probing.

  2. Trust at Your Own Peril: A Mixed Methods Exploration of the Ability of Large Language Models to Generate Expert-Like Systems Engineering Artifacts and a Characterization of Failure Modes

    cs.CL 2025-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Closed-source LLMs can produce systems engineering artifact text that scores nearly identically to a human expert benchmark on MAUVE text similarity, but expert review of the best-scoring outputs reveals three failure...

  3. Higher-order Comparisons of Sentence Encoder Representations

    cs.CL 2019-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Sentences that take humans longer to read also show larger disagreement between layers of pretrained language encoders.

Pith tools