Sequence-based neural networks show significant sensitivity to syntactic structure, but they still perform less well on syntactic tasks than tree-based networks. Such tree-based networks can be provided with a constituency parse, a dependency parse, or both. We evaluate which of these two representational schemes more effectively introduces biases for syntactic structure that increase performance on the subject-verb agreement prediction task. We find that a constituency-based network generalizes more robustly than a dependencybased one, and that combining the two types of structure does not yield further improvement. Finally, we show that the syntactic robustness of sequential models can be substantially improved by fine-tuning on a small amount of constructed data, suggesting that data augmentation is a viable alternative to explicit constituency structure for imparting the syntactic biases that sequential models are lacking.
As the name implies, contextualized representations of language are typically motivated by their ability to encode context. Which aspects of context are captured by such representations? We introduce an approach to address this question using Representational Similarity Analysis (RSA). As case studies, we investigate the degree to which a verb embedding encodes the verb's subject, a pronoun embedding encodes the pronoun's antecedent, and a full-sentence representation encodes the sentence's head word (as determined by a dependency parse). In all cases, we show that BERT's contextualized embeddings reflect the linguistic dependency being studied, and that BERT encodes these dependencies to a greater degree than it encodes less linguistically-salient controls. These results demonstrate the ability of our approach to adjudicate between hypotheses about which aspects of context are encoded in representations of language.
We present a new approach for detecting human-like social biases in word embeddings using representational similarity analysis. Specifically, we probe contextualized and non-contextualized embeddings for evidence of intersectional biases against Black women. We show that these embeddings represent Black women as simultaneously less feminine than White women, and less Black than Black men. This finding aligns with intersectionality theory, which argues that multiple identity categories (such as race or sex) layer on top of each other in order to create unique modes of discrimination that are not shared by any individual category.
The rise of machine‐learning systems that process sensory input has brought with it a rise in comparisons between human and machine perception. But such comparisons face a challenge: Whereas machine perception of some stimulus can often be probed through direct and explicit measures, much of human perceptual knowledge is latent, incomplete, or unavailable for explicit report. Here, we explore how this asymmetry can cause such comparisons to misestimate the overlap in human and machine perception. As a case study, we consider human perception of adversarial speech — synthetic audio commands that are recognized as valid messages by automated speech‐recognition systems but that human listeners reportedly hear as meaningless noise. In five experiments, we adapt task designs from the human psychophysics literature to show that even when subjects cannot freely transcribe such speech commands (the previous benchmark for human understanding), they can sometimes demonstrate other forms of understanding, including discriminating adversarial speech from closely matched nonspeech (Experiments 1 and 2), finishing common phrases begun in adversarial speech (Experiments 3 and 4), and solving simple math problems posed in adversarial speech (Experiment 5) — even for stimuli previously described as unintelligible to human listeners. We recommend the adoption of such “sensitive tests” when comparing human and machine perception, and we discuss the broader consequences of such approaches for assessing the overlap between systems.
We present a new approach for detecting human-like social biases in word embeddings using representational similarity analysis. Specifically, we probe contextualized and non-contextualized embeddings for evidence of intersectional biases against Black women. We show that these embeddings represent Black women as simultaneously less feminine than White women, and less Black than Black men. This finding aligns with intersectionality theory, which argues that multiple identity categories (such as race or sex) layer on top of each other in order to create unique modes of discrimination that are not shared by any individual category.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.