Although current evaluation of questionanswering systems treats predictions in isolation, we need to consider the relationship between predictions to measure true understanding. A model should be penalized for answering "no" to "Is the rose red?" if it answers "red" to "What color is the rose?". We propose a method to automatically extract such implications for instances from two QA datasets, VQA and SQuAD, which we then use to evaluate the consistency of models. Human evaluation shows these generated implications are well formed and valid. Consistency evaluation provides crucial insights into gaps in existing models, and retraining with implicationaugmented data improves consistency on both synthetic and human-generated implications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ribeiro et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: