CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 18Adversarial Robustness in Machine LearningTopic ModelingDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning

A Close Look into the Calibration of Pre-trained Language Models

Open access
Chen, Yangyi, Yuan, Lifan, Cui, Ganqu, Liu, Zhiyuan, Ji, Heng·2022·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2211.00151arXiv 2211.00151
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Pre-trained language models (PLMs) may fail in giving reliable estimates of their predictive uncertainty. We take a close look into this problem, aiming to answer two questions: (1) Do PLMs learn to become calibrated in the training process? (2) How effective are existing calibration methods? For the first question, we conduct fine-grained control experiments to study the dynamic change in PLMs' calibration performance in training. We consider six factors as control variables, including dataset difficulty, available training samples, training steps, the number of tunable parameters, model scale, and pretraining. We observe a consistent change in calibration performance across six factors. We find that PLMs don't learn to become calibrated in training, evidenced by the continual increase in confidence, no matter whether the predictions are correct or not. We highlight that our finding somewhat contradicts two established conclusions: (a) Larger PLMs are more calibrated; (b) Pretraining improves model calibration. Next, we study the effectiveness of existing calibration methods in mitigating the overconfidence issue. Besides unlearnable calibration methods (e.g., label smoothing), we adapt and extend two recently proposed learnable methods that directly collect data to train models to have reasonable confidence estimations. Experimental results show that learnable methods significantly reduce PLMs' confidence in wrong predictions. The code is available at \url{https://github.com/lifan-yuan/PLMCalibration}.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2211.00151

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Pretraining improves model calibration.

    “pretraining improves model calibration.”

    From Can LLMs Express Their Uncertainty? An Empirical Evaluation of Confidence Elicitation in LLMs (2023) · cites this paper as Chen et al. (2022)

    The Introduction identifies “pretraining improves model calibration” as an established conclusion that this paper challenges. In Section 4.2 (page unavailable), the authors report that pretraining consistently increases confidence in wrong predictions and conclude that it does not enable models to become calibrated; its effect on other calibration measures depends on the evaluation dataset. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • More complex decision-making is currently bottlenecked by issues such as over-confidence and miscalibration, misalignment with human values or bias, hallucinations in self-evaluation, and lack of human-in-the-loop mechanisms in face of uncertainties.

    “More complex decision-making is currently bottlenecked by issues such as over-confidence and miscalibration (Jiang et al., 2021; Braverman et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2022), misalignment with human values or bias (Liang et al., 2021; Feng et al., 2023), hallucinations in self-evaluation (Shinn et al., 2023), and lack of human-in-the-loop mechanisms in face of uncertainties (Nguyen et al., 2022a; R”

    From Cognitive Architectures for Language Agents (2023) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2022

  • Chen et al. (2022) found that PLMs are not well calibrated.

    “Chen et al. (2022) finds that PLMs are not well calibrated”

    From Can LLMs Express Their Uncertainty? An Empirical Evaluation of Confidence Elicitation in LLMs (2023) · cites this paper as Chen et al. (2022)

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 66

  1. Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam Mc- Candlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neu- ral Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 6-12, 2020, virtual.
  2. Yangyi Chen, Hongcheng Gao, Ganqu Cui, Fanchao Qi, Longtao Huang, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. 1351 2022. Why should adversarial perturbations be im- perceptible? rethink the research paradigm in ad- versarial NLP. In Proceedings of the 2022 Con- ference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2022, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, December 7-11, 2022, pages 11222- 11237. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  3. Ganqu Cui, Lifan Yuan, Bingxiang He, Yangyi Chen, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2022. A uni- fied evaluation of textual backdoor learning: Frame- works and benchmarks. In NeurIPS.
  4. Soham Dan and Dan Roth. 2021. On the effects of transformer size on in-and out-of-domain calibra- tion. In Findings of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 16-20 November, 2021, pages 2096-2101. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics. · DOI
  5. Ona de Gibert, Naiara Perez, Aitor García-Pablos, and Montse Cuadros. 2018. Hate speech dataset from a white supremacy forum. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Abusive Language Online (ALW2), pages 11-20, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  6. Morris H DeGroot and Stephen E Fienberg. 1983. The comparison and evaluation of forecasters. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series D (The Statis- tician), 32(1-2):12-22.
  7. Shrey Desai and Greg Durrett. 2020. Calibration of pre-trained transformers. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Lan- guage Processing (EMNLP), pages 295-302, On- line. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  8. Ning Ding, Yujia Qin, Guang Yang, Fuchao Wei, Zong- han Yang, Yusheng Su, Shengding Hu, Yulin Chen, Chi-Min Chan, Weize Chen, et al. 2022. Delta tun- ing: A comprehensive study of parameter efficient methods for pre-trained language models. ArXiv preprint, abs/2203.06904. · arXiv
  9. Mai ElSherief, Caleb Ziems, David Muchlinski, Vaish- navi Anupindi, Jordyn Seybolt, Munmun De Choud- hury, and Diyi Yang. 2021. Latent hatred: A bench- mark for understanding implicit hate speech. In Pro- ceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Meth- ods in Natural Language Processing, pages 345- 363, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  10. Yarin Gal and Zoubin Ghahramani. 2016. Dropout as a bayesian approximation: Representing model un- certainty in deep learning. In Proceedings of the 33nd International Conference on Machine Learn- ing, ICML 2016, New York City, NY, USA, June 19- 24, 2016, volume 48 of JMLR Workshop and Con- ference Proceedings, pages 1050-1059. JMLR.org.
  11. Jiatao Gu, Yong Wang, Kyunghyun Cho, and Victor O. K. Li. 2019. Improved zero-shot neural ma- chine translation via ignoring spurious correlations. In Proceedings of the 57th Conference of the Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2019, Florence, Italy, July 28-August 2, 2019, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 1258-1268. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  12. Chuan Guo, Geoff Pleiss, Yu Sun, and Kilian Q. Weinberger. 2017. On calibration of modern neu- ral networks. In Proceedings of the 34th Inter- national Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2017, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 6-11 August 2017, volume 70 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Re- search, pages 1321-1330.
  13. PMLR.
  14. Kartik Gupta, Amir Rahimi, Thalaiyasingam Ajan- than, Thomas Mensink, Cristian Sminchisescu, and Richard Hartley. 2021. Calibration of neural net- works using splines. In 9th International Con- ference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Virtual Event, Austria, May 3-7, 2021. OpenRe- view.net.
  15. Zellig S Harris. 1954. Distributional structure. Word, 10(2-3):146-162.
  16. Dan Hendrycks, Steven Basart, Mantas Mazeika, Mohammadreza Mostajabi, Jacob Steinhardt, and Dawn Song. 2019a. Scaling out-of-distribution de- tection for real-world settings. ArXiv preprint, abs/1911.11132. · arXiv
  17. Dan Hendrycks, Kimin Lee, and Mantas Mazeika. 2019b. Using pre-training can improve model ro- bustness and uncertainty. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learn- ing, ICML 2019, 9-15 June 2019, Long Beach, Cal- ifornia, USA, volume 97 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 2712-2721. PMLR.
  18. Dan Hendrycks, Norman Mu, Ekin Dogus Cubuk, Barret Zoph, Justin Gilmer, and Balaji Lakshmi- narayanan. 2020. Augmix: A simple data process- ing method to improve robustness and uncertainty. In 8th International Conference on Learning Repre- sentations, ICLR 2020, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 26-30, 2020. OpenReview.net.
  19. Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 1997. Long short-term memory. Neural computation, 9(8):1735-1780.
  20. Sebastian Houben, Stephanie Abrecht, Maram Akila, Andreas Bär, Felix Brockherde, Patrick Feifel, Tim Fingscheidt, Sujan Sai Gannamaneni, Seyed Egh- bal Ghobadi, Ahmed Hammam, Anselm Hasel- hoff, Felix Hauser, Christian Heinzemann, Marco Hoffmann, Nikhil Kapoor, Falk Kappel, Marvin Klingner, Jan Kronenberger, Fabian Küppers, Jonas Löhdefink, Michael Mlynarski, Michael Mock, Firas Mualla, Svetlana Pavlitskaya, Maximilian Poretschkin, Alexander Pohl, Varun Ravi Ku- mar, Julia Rosenzweig, Matthias Rottmann, Ste- fan Rüping, Timo Sämann, Jan David Schneider, Elena Schulz, Gesina Schwalbe, Joachim Sicking, Toshika Srivastava, Serin Varghese, Michael We- ber, Sebastian Wirkert, Tim Wirtz, and Matthias Woehrle. 2021. Inspect, understand, overcome: A survey of practical methods for AI safety. CoRR, abs/2104.14235. · arXiv
  21. Neil Houlsby, Andrei Giurgiu, Stanislaw Jastrzebski, Bruna Morrone, Quentin de Laroussilhe, Andrea Gesmundo, Mona Attariyan, and Sylvain Gelly. 2019. Parameter-efficient transfer learning for NLP. In Proceedings of the 36th International Confer- ence on Machine Learning, ICML 2019, 9-15 June 2019, Long Beach, California, USA, volume 97 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 2790-2799. PMLR.
  22. Saurav Kadavath, Tom Conerly, Amanda Askell, Tom Henighan, Dawn Drain, Ethan Perez, Nicholas Schiefer, Zac Hatfield Dodds, Nova DasSarma, Eli Tran-Johnson, et al. 2022. Language models (mostly) know what they know. ArXiv preprint, abs/2207.05221. · arXiv
  23. Lingkai Kong, Haoming Jiang, Yuchen Zhuang, Jie Lyu, Tuo Zhao, and Chao Zhang. 2020. Cali- brated language model fine-tuning for in-and out- of-distribution data. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Lan- guage Processing (EMNLP), pages 1326-1340, On- line. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  24. Ananya Kumar, Tengyu Ma, Percy Liang, and Aditi Raghunathan. 2022. Calibrated ensembles can mit- igate accuracy tradeoffs under distribution shift. In The 38th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial In- telligence.
  25. Balaji Lakshminarayanan, Alexander Pritzel, and Charles Blundell. 2017. Simple and scalable predic- tive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA, pages 6402-6413.
  26. Brian Lester, Rami Al-Rfou, and Noah Constant. 2021. The power of scale for parameter-efficient prompt tuning. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Process- ing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 7-11 November, 2021, pages 3045-3059. Association for Computational Linguis- tics. · DOI · Paper page
  27. Stephanie Lin, Jacob Hilton, and Owain Evans. 2022. Teaching models to express their uncertainty in words. ArXiv preprint, abs/2205.14334. · arXiv
  28. Pengfei Liu, Weizhe Yuan, Jinlan Fu, Zhengbao Jiang, Hiroaki Hayashi, and Graham Neubig. 2021. Pre- train, prompt, and predict: A systematic survey of prompting methods in natural language processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.13586. · arXiv
  29. Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Man- dar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining ap- proach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692. · arXiv
  30. Hans Peter Luhn. 1957. A statistical approach to mech- anized encoding and searching of literary informa- tion. IBM Journal of research and development, 1(4):309-317.
  31. Julian J. McAuley and Jure Leskovec. 2013. From amateurs to connoisseurs: modeling the evolution of user expertise through online reviews. In 22nd International World Wide Web Conference, WWW '13, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, May 13-17, 2013, pages 897-908. International World Wide Web Confer- ences Steering Committee / ACM. · DOI
  32. Tom McCoy, Ellie Pavlick, and Tal Linzen. 2019. Right for the wrong reasons: Diagnosing syntactic heuristics in natural language inference. In Proceed- ings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3428-3448, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Lin- guistics. · DOI · Paper page
  33. Matthias Minderer, Josip Djolonga, Rob Romijnders, Frances Hubis, Xiaohua Zhai, Neil Houlsby, Dustin Tran, and Mario Lucic. 2021. Revisiting the cal- ibration of modern neural networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34: An- nual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2021, NeurIPS 2021, December 6-14, 2021, virtual, pages 15682-15694.
  34. Mahdi Pakdaman Naeini, Gregory F. Cooper, and Mi- los Hauskrecht. 2015. Obtaining well calibrated probabilities using bayesian binning. In Proceed- ings of the Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Ar- tificial Intelligence, January 25-30, 2015, Austin, Texas, USA, pages 2901-2907. AAAI Press.
  35. Preslav Nakov, Sara Rosenthal, Zornitsa Kozareva, Veselin Stoyanov, Alan Ritter, and Theresa Wilson. 2013. SemEval-2013 task 2: Sentiment analysis in Twitter. In Second Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (*SEM), Volume 2: Pro- ceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval 2013), pages 312- 320, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. Association for Com- putational Linguistics.
  36. Yixin Nie, Adina Williams, Emily Dinan, Mohit Bansal, Jason Weston, and Douwe Kiela. 2020. Ad- versarial NLI: A new benchmark for natural lan- guage understanding. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics, pages 4885-4901, Online. Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  37. Jeremy Nixon, Michael W. Dusenberry, Linchuan Zhang, Ghassen Jerfel, and Dustin Tran. 2019. Mea- suring calibration in deep learning. In IEEE Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops, CVPR Workshops 2019, Long Beach, CA, USA, June 16-20, 2019, pages 38-41. Computer Vision Foundation / IEEE.
  38. Gabriel Pereyra, George Tucker, Jan Chorowski, Lukasz Kaiser, and Geoffrey E. Hinton. 2017. Reg- ularizing neural networks by penalizing confident output distributions. In 5th International Con- ference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2017, Toulon, France, April 24-26, 2017, Workshop Track Proceedings. OpenReview.net.
  39. John Platt et al. 1999. Probabilistic outputs for sup- port vector machines and comparisons to regularized likelihood methods. Advances in large margin clas- sifiers, 10(3):61-74.
  40. Christopher Potts, Zhengxuan Wu, Atticus Geiger, and Douwe Kiela. 2021. DynaSent: A dynamic bench- mark for sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Vol- ume 1: Long Papers), pages 2388-2404, Online. As- sociation for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  41. Mamshad Nayeem Rizve, Kevin Duarte, Yogesh S Rawat, and Mubarak Shah. 2021. In defense of pseudo-labeling: An uncertainty-aware pseudo- label selection framework for semi-supervised learn- ing. ArXiv preprint, abs/2101.06329. · arXiv
  42. Xuan Sheng, Zhaoyang Han, Piji Li, and Xiangmao Chang. 2022. A survey on backdoor attack and de- fense in natural language processing. In 22nd IEEE International Conference on Software Quality, Reli- ability and Security, QRS 2022, Guangzhou, China, December 5-9, 2022, pages 809-820. IEEE. · DOI
  43. Chenglei Si, Chen Zhao, Sewon Min, and Jordan Boyd- Graber. 2022. Revisiting calibration for question an- swering. ArXiv preprint, abs/2205.12507. · arXiv
  44. Jasper Snoek, Yaniv Ovadia, Emily Fertig, Balaji Lakshminarayanan, Sebastian Nowozin, D. Sculley, Joshua V. Dillon, Jie Ren, and Zachary Nado. 2019. Can you trust your model's uncertainty? evaluat- ing predictive uncertainty under dataset shift. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32: Annual Conference on Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems 2019, NeurIPS 2019, December 8- 14, 2019, Vancouver, BC, Canada, pages 13969- 13980.
  45. Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, Jean Wu, Jason Chuang, Christopher D. Manning, Andrew Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2013a. Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment tree- bank. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Process- ing, pages 1631-1642, Seattle, Washington, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  46. Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, Jean Wu, Jason Chuang, Christopher D. Manning, Andrew Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2013b. Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment tree- bank. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Process- ing, pages 1631-1642, Seattle, Washington, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  47. Aarohi Srivastava, Abhinav Rastogi, Abhishek Rao, Abu Awal Md Shoeb, Abubakar Abid, Adam Fisch, Adam R Brown, Adam Santoro, Aditya Gupta, Adrià Garriga-Alonso, et al. 2022. Beyond the imitation game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models. ArXiv preprint, abs/2206.04615. · arXiv
  48. Christian Szegedy, Vincent Vanhoucke, Sergey Ioffe, Jonathon Shlens, and Zbigniew Wojna. 2016. Re- thinking the inception architecture for computer vi- sion. In 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2016, Las Ve- gas, NV, USA, June 27-30, 2016, pages 2818-2826. IEEE Computer Society. · DOI · Paper page
  49. Dennis Ulmer, Jes Frellsen, and Christian Hardmeier. 2022. Exploring predictive uncertainty and calibra- tion in NLP: A study on the impact of method & data scarcity. In Findings of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, December 7-11, 2022, pages 2707-2735. Association for Computational Linguis- tics.
  50. Juozas Vaicenavicius, David Widmann, Carl R. Ander- sson, Fredrik Lindsten, Jacob Roll, and Thomas B. Schön. 2019. Evaluating model calibration in clas- sification. In The 22nd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, AISTATS 2019, 16-18 April 2019, Naha, Okinawa, Japan, vol- ume 89 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Re- search, pages 3459-3467. PMLR.
  51. Neeraj Varshney, Swaroop Mishra, and Chitta Baral. 2022. Investigating selective prediction approaches across several tasks in iid, ood, and adversarial set- tings. ArXiv preprint, abs/2203.00211. · arXiv
  52. Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2019. GLUE: A multi-task benchmark and analysis plat- form for natural language understanding. In 7th International Conference on Learning Representa- tions, ICLR 2019, New Orleans, LA, USA, May 6-9, 2019. OpenReview.net.
  53. Haotao Wang, Chaowei Xiao, Jean Kossaifi, Zhid- ing Yu, Anima Anandkumar, and Zhangyang Wang. 2021. Augmax: Adversarial composition of random augmentations for robust training. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Sys- tems 2021, NeurIPS 2021, December 6-14, 2021, virtual, pages 237-250.
  54. Tianlu Wang, Rohit Sridhar, Diyi Yang, and Xuezhi Wang. 2022. Identifying and mitigating spurious correlations for improving robustness in NLP mod- els. In Findings of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics: NAACL 2022, Seattle, WA, United States, July 10-15, 2022, pages 1719-1729. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  55. Jason Wei and Kai Zou. 2019. EDA: Easy data aug- mentation techniques for boosting performance on text classification tasks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natu- ral Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 6382-6388, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  56. Adina Williams, Nikita Nangia, and Samuel Bowman. 2018a. A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sen- tence understanding through inference. In Proceed- ings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 1112-1122, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguis- tics. · DOI · Paper page
  57. Adina Williams, Nikita Nangia, and Samuel Bowman. 2018b. A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sen- tence understanding through inference. In Proceed- ings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 1112-1122, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguis- tics. · DOI · Paper page
  58. Yuxin Xiao, Paul Pu Liang, Umang Bhatt, Willie Neiswanger, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Louis- Philippe Morency. 2022. Uncertainty quantification with pre-trained language models: A large-scale em- pirical analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.04714. · arXiv
  59. Xi Ye and Greg Durrett. 2022. Can explanations be useful for calibrating black box models? In Pro- ceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 6199-6212. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics. · DOI
  60. Lifan Yuan, Yichi Zhang, Yangyi Chen, and Wei Wei. 2021. Bridge the gap between CV and nlp! A gradient-based textual adversarial attack framework. CoRR, abs/2110.15317. · arXiv
  61. Elad Ben Zaken, Yoav Goldberg, and Shauli Ravfogel. 2022. Bitfit: Simple parameter-efficient fine-tuning for transformer-based masked language-models. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the As- sociation for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22- 27, 2022, pages 1-9. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  62. Chiyuan Zhang, Samy Bengio, Moritz Hardt, Ben- jamin Recht, and Oriol Vinyals. 2021a. Understand- ing deep learning (still) requires rethinking general- ization. Communications of the ACM, 64(3):107- 115.
  63. Shujian Zhang, Chengyue Gong, and Eunsol Choi. 2021b. Knowing more about questions can help: Improving calibration in question answering. In Findings of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 1958-1970, On- line. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  64. Xiang Zhang, Junbo Jake Zhao, and Yann LeCun. 2015. Character-level convolutional networks for text classification. In Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems 28: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2015, December 7-12, 2015, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, pages 649-657.
  65. Yunxiang Zhang, Liangming Pan, Samson Tan, and Min-Yen Kan. 2022. Interpreting the robustness of neural NLP models to textual perturbations. In Findings of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics: ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 3993-4007. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics. · DOI
  66. Yukun Zhu, Ryan Kiros, Richard S. Zemel, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Raquel Urtasun, Antonio Torralba, and Sanja Fidler. 2015. Aligning books and movies: Towards story-like visual explanations by watching movies and reading books. In 2015 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV 2015, Santiago, Chile, December 7-13, 2015, pages 19- 27. IEEE Computer Society. · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chen, Y., Yuan, L., Cui, G., Liu, Z., & Ji, H.
Affiliations
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
  • Huazhong University of Science and Technology (CN)
  • Tsinghua University (CN)
Corresponding author
Chen, Yangyi
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2022
Pages
1343-1367
ISSN
0736-587X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2211.00151
arXiv
2211.00151
OpenAlex
W4385571092
Cited by
18
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4
FWCI
3.19
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
Tsinghua University
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
Keywords
pre-trained language models, model calibration, forecast uncertainty, overconfidence, label smoothing, confidence estimation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review