*`ai2_arc`: Evaluates `arc_easy` and `arc_challenge`
#### Tasks
*`arc_easy`
*`arc_challange`
### Checklist
For adding novel benchmarks/datasets to the library:
* [ ] Is the task an existing benchmark in the literature?
* [ ] Have you referenced the original paper that introduced the task?
* [ ] If yes, does the original paper provide a reference implementation? If so, have you checked against the reference implementation and documented how to run such a test?
If other tasks on this dataset are already supported:
* [ ] Is the "Main" variant of this task clearly denoted?
* [ ] Have you provided a short sentence in a README on what each new variant adds / evaluates?
* [ ] Have you noted which, if any, published evaluation setups are matched by this variant?
author = {Brown, Tom and Mann, Benjamin and Ryder, Nick and Subbiah, Melanie and Kaplan, Jared D and Dhariwal, Prafulla and Neelakantan, Arvind and Shyam, Pranav and Sastry, Girish and Askell, Amanda and Agarwal, Sandhini and Herbert-Voss, Ariel and Krueger, Gretchen and Henighan, Tom and Child, Rewon and Ramesh, Aditya and Ziegler, Daniel and Wu, Jeffrey and Winter, Clemens and Hesse, Chris and Chen, Mark and Sigler, Eric and Litwin, Mateusz and Gray, Scott and Chess, Benjamin and Clark, Jack and Berner, Christopher and McCandlish, Sam and Radford, Alec and Sutskever, Ilya and Amodei, Dario},
booktitle = {Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems},
editor = {H. Larochelle and M. Ranzato and R. Hadsell and M. F. Balcan and H. Lin},
For adding novel benchmarks/datasets to the library:
* [ ] Is the task an existing benchmark in the literature?
* [ ] Have you referenced the original paper that introduced the task?
* [ ] If yes, does the original paper provide a reference implementation? If so, have you checked against the reference implementation and documented how to run such a test?
If other tasks on this dataset are already supported:
* [ ] Is the "Main" variant of this task clearly denoted?
* [ ] Have you provided a short sentence in a README on what each new variant adds / evaluates?
* [ ] Have you noted which, if any, published evaluation setups are matched by this variant?
Title: Towards ai-complete question answering: A set of prerequisite toy tasks
Abstract: https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.05698
One long-term goal of machine learning research is to produce methods that are applicable to reasoning and natural language, in particular building an intelligent dialogue agent. To measure progress towards that goal, we argue for the usefulness of a set of proxy tasks that evaluate reading comprehension via question answering. Our tasks measure understanding in several ways: whether a system is able to answer questions via chaining facts, simple induction, deduction and many more. The tasks are designed to be prerequisites for any system that aims to be capable of conversing with a human. We believe many existing learning systems can currently not solve them, and hence our aim is to classify these tasks into skill sets, so that researchers can identify (and then rectify) the failings of their systems. We also extend and improve the recently introduced Memory Networks model, and show it is able to solve some, but not all, of the tasks.
title={Towards ai-complete question answering: A set of prerequisite toy tasks},
author={Weston, Jason and Bordes, Antoine and Chopra, Sumit and Rush, Alexander M and Van Merri{\"e}nboer, Bart and Joulin, Armand and Mikolov, Tomas},
journal={arXiv preprint arXiv:1502.05698},
year={2015}
}
```
### Groups and Tasks
#### Groups
* Not part of a group yet
#### Tasks
*`babi`
### Checklist
For adding novel benchmarks/datasets to the library:
* [ ] Is the task an existing benchmark in the literature?
* [ ] Have you referenced the original paper that introduced the task?
* [ ] If yes, does the original paper provide a reference implementation? If so, have you checked against the reference implementation and documented how to run such a test?
If other tasks on this dataset are already supported:
* [ ] Is the "Main" variant of this task clearly denoted?
* [ ] Have you provided a short sentence in a README on what each new variant adds / evaluates?
* [ ] Have you noted which, if any, published evaluation setups are matched by this variant?
Title: `HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence?`,
Title: `HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence?`
Abstract: ```Recent work by Zellers et al. (2018) introduced a new task of commonsense natural language inference: given an event description such as "A woman sits at a piano," a machine must select the most likely followup: "She sets her fingers on the keys." With the introduction of BERT, near human-level performance was reached. Does this mean that machines can perform human level commonsense inference?
Abstract: https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.07830
Recent work by Zellers et al. (2018) introduced a new task of commonsense natural language inference: given an event description such as "A woman sits at a piano," a machine must select the most likely followup: "She sets her fingers on the keys." With the introduction of BERT, near human-level performance was reached. Does this mean that machines can perform human level commonsense inference?
In this paper, we show that commonsense inference still proves difficult for even state-of-the-art models, by presenting HellaSwag, a new challenge dataset. Though its questions are trivial for humans (>95% accuracy), state-of-the-art models struggle (<48%). We achieve this via Adversarial Filtering (AF), a data collection paradigm wherein a series of discriminators iteratively select an adversarial set of machine-generated wrong answers. AF proves to be surprisingly robust. The key insight is to scale up the length and complexity of the dataset examples towards a critical 'Goldilocks' zone wherein generated text is ridiculous to humans, yet often misclassified by state-of-the-art models.
In this paper, we show that commonsense inference still proves difficult for even state-of-the-art models, by presenting HellaSwag, a new challenge dataset. Though its questions are trivial for humans (>95% accuracy), state-of-the-art models struggle (<48%). We achieve this via Adversarial Filtering (AF), a data collection paradigm wherein a series of discriminators iteratively select an adversarial set of machine-generated wrong answers. AF proves to be surprisingly robust. The key insight is to scale up the length and complexity of the dataset examples towards a critical 'Goldilocks' zone wherein generated text is ridiculous to humans, yet often misclassified by state-of-the-art models.
Our construction of HellaSwag, and its resulting difficulty, sheds light on the inner workings of deep pretrained models. More broadly, it suggests a new path forward for NLP research, in which benchmarks co-evolve with the evolving state-of-the-art in an adversarial way, so as to present ever-harder challenges.```
Our construction of HellaSwag, and its resulting difficulty, sheds light on the inner workings of deep pretrained models. More broadly, it suggests a new path forward for NLP research, in which benchmarks co-evolve with the evolving state-of-the-art in an adversarial way, so as to present ever-harder challenges.
