Title: SuperGLUE: A Stickier Benchmark for General-Purpose Language Understanding Systems
Abstract: https://w4ngatang.github.io/static/papers/superglue.pdf
SuperGLUE is a benchmark styled after GLUE with a new set of more difficult language understanding tasks.
Homepage: https://super.gluebenchmark.com/
@inproceedings{NEURIPS2019_4496bf24,
author = {Wang, Alex and Pruksachatkun, Yada and Nangia, Nikita and Singh, Amanpreet and Michael, Julian and Hill, Felix and Levy, Omer and Bowman, Samuel},
booktitle = {Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems},
editor = {H. Wallach and H. Larochelle and A. Beygelzimer and F. d\textquotesingle Alch\'{e}-Buc and E. Fox and R. Garnett},
pages = {},
publisher = {Curran Associates, Inc.},
title = {SuperGLUE: A Stickier Benchmark for General-Purpose Language Understanding Systems},
url = {https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2019/file/4496bf24afe7fab6f046bf4923da8de6-Paper.pdf},
volume = {32},
year = {2019}
}
super-glue-lm-eval-v1
: SuperGLUE eval adapted from LM Eval V1super-glue-t5-prompt
: SuperGLUE prompt and evaluation that matches the T5 paper (if using accelerate, will error if record is included.)
Comparison between validation split score on T5x and LM-Eval (T5x models converted to HF)
T5V1.1 Base | SGLUE | BoolQ | CB | Copa | MultiRC | ReCoRD | RTE | WiC | WSC |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
T5x | 69.47 | 78.47(acc) | 83.93(f1) 87.5(acc) | 50(acc) | 73.81(f1) 33.26(em) | 70.09(em) 71.34(f1) | 78.7(acc) | 63.64(acc) | 75(acc) |
LM-Eval | 71.35 | 79.36(acc) | 83.63(f1) 87.5(acc) | 63(acc) | 73.45(f1) 33.26(em) | 69.85(em) 68.86(f1) | 78.34(acc) | 65.83(acc) | 75.96(acc) |
-
super-glue-lm-eval-v1
boolq
cb
copa
multirc
record
rte
wic
wsc
-
super-glue-t5-prompt
super_glue-boolq-t5-prompt
super_glue-cb-t5-prompt
super_glue-copa-t5-prompt
super_glue-multirc-t5-prompt
super_glue-record-t5-prompt
super_glue-rte-t5-prompt
super_glue-wic-t5-prompt
super_glue-wsc-t5-prompt
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?