Automated Crossword Solving
Authors:
Eric Wallace,
Nicholas Tomlin,
Albert Xu,
Kevin Yang,
Eshaan Pathak,
Matthew Ginsberg,
Dan Klein
Abstract:
We present the Berkeley Crossword Solver, a state-of-the-art approach for automatically solving crossword puzzles. Our system works by generating answer candidates for each crossword clue using neural question answering models and then combines loopy belief propagation with local search to find full puzzle solutions. Compared to existing approaches, our system improves exact puzzle accuracy from 7…
▽ More
We present the Berkeley Crossword Solver, a state-of-the-art approach for automatically solving crossword puzzles. Our system works by generating answer candidates for each crossword clue using neural question answering models and then combines loopy belief propagation with local search to find full puzzle solutions. Compared to existing approaches, our system improves exact puzzle accuracy from 71% to 82% on crosswords from The New York Times and obtains 99.9% letter accuracy on themeless puzzles. Additionally, in 2021, a hybrid of our system and the existing Dr.Fill system outperformed all human competitors for the first time at the American Crossword Puzzle Tournament. To facilitate research on question answering and crossword solving, we analyze our system's remaining errors and release a dataset of over six million question-answer pairs.
△ Less
Submitted 3 July, 2022; v1 submitted 19 May, 2022;
originally announced May 2022.
Super-NaturalInstructions: Generalization via Declarative Instructions on 1600+ NLP Tasks
Authors:
Yizhong Wang,
Swaroop Mishra,
Pegah Alipoormolabashi,
Yeganeh Kordi,
Amirreza Mirzaei,
Anjana Arunkumar,
Arjun Ashok,
Arut Selvan Dhanasekaran,
Atharva Naik,
David Stap,
Eshaan Pathak,
Giannis Karamanolakis,
Haizhi Gary Lai,
Ishan Purohit,
Ishani Mondal,
Jacob Anderson,
Kirby Kuznia,
Krima Doshi,
Maitreya Patel,
Kuntal Kumar Pal,
Mehrad Moradshahi,
Mihir Parmar,
Mirali Purohit,
Neeraj Varshney,
Phani Rohitha Kaza
, et al. (15 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
How well can NLP models generalize to a variety of unseen tasks when provided with task instructions? To address this question, we first introduce Super-NaturalInstructions, a benchmark of 1,616 diverse NLP tasks and their expert-written instructions. Our collection covers 76 distinct task types, including but not limited to classification, extraction, infilling, sequence tagging, text rewriting,…
▽ More
How well can NLP models generalize to a variety of unseen tasks when provided with task instructions? To address this question, we first introduce Super-NaturalInstructions, a benchmark of 1,616 diverse NLP tasks and their expert-written instructions. Our collection covers 76 distinct task types, including but not limited to classification, extraction, infilling, sequence tagging, text rewriting, and text composition. This large and diverse collection of tasks enables rigorous benchmarking of cross-task generalization under instructions -- training models to follow instructions on a subset of tasks and evaluating them on the remaining unseen ones. Furthermore, we build Tk-Instruct, a transformer model trained to follow a variety of in-context instructions (plain language task definitions or k-shot examples). Our experiments show that Tk-Instruct outperforms existing instruction-following models such as InstructGPT by over 9% on our benchmark despite being an order of magnitude smaller. We further analyze generalization as a function of various scaling parameters, such as the number of observed tasks, the number of instances per task, and model sizes. We hope our dataset and model facilitate future progress towards more general-purpose NLP models.
△ Less
Submitted 24 October, 2022; v1 submitted 15 April, 2022;
originally announced April 2022.
Detoxifying Language Models Risks Marginalizing Minority Voices
Authors:
Albert Xu,
Eshaan Pathak,
Eric Wallace,
Suchin Gururangan,
Maarten Sap,
Dan Klein
Abstract:
Language models (LMs) must be both safe and equitable to be responsibly deployed in practice. With safety in mind, numerous detoxification techniques (e.g., Dathathri et al. 2020; Krause et al. 2020) have been proposed to mitigate toxic LM generations. In this work, we show that current detoxification techniques hurt equity: they decrease the utility of LMs on language used by marginalized groups…
▽ More
Language models (LMs) must be both safe and equitable to be responsibly deployed in practice. With safety in mind, numerous detoxification techniques (e.g., Dathathri et al. 2020; Krause et al. 2020) have been proposed to mitigate toxic LM generations. In this work, we show that current detoxification techniques hurt equity: they decrease the utility of LMs on language used by marginalized groups (e.g., African-American English and minority identity mentions). In particular, we perform automatic and human evaluations of text generation quality when LMs are conditioned on inputs with different dialects and group identifiers. We find that detoxification makes LMs more brittle to distribution shift, especially on language used by marginalized groups. We identify that these failures stem from detoxification methods exploiting spurious correlations in toxicity datasets. Overall, our results highlight the tension between the controllability and distributional robustness of LMs.
△ Less
Submitted 13 April, 2021;
originally announced April 2021.
