glue-fewshot-eval
Tuning Language Models as Training Data Generators for Augmentation-Enhanced Few-Shot Learning — Meng et al. (2022) (arXiv:2211.03044, 2022)
What this evaluates
Evaluates few-shot text classification performance across multiple natural language understanding tasks. It probes a model's ability to generalize from extremely limited labeled examples (16 per class) by generating synthetic training data and fine-tuning a classifier.
Datasets
- GLUE — total ?; splits: train (-1), dev (-1), test (-1); HF
glue
Metrics
Accuracy— range: [0, 1]- Proportion of correctly predicted labels out of total instances.
F1 score— range: [0, 1]- Harmonic mean of precision and recall, computed per class and averaged according to standard GLUE conventions.
Matthews correlation— range: [-1, 1]- Correlation coefficient between true and predicted binary classifications, ranging from -1 to 1.
Average performance(primary) — range: [0, 1]- Mean of task-specific scores (Accuracy, F1, or MCC) across all evaluated GLUE tasks, reported with standard deviation over 5 random few-shot splits.
Input / output format
Input: Raw text sequence (sentence or pair of sentences) for a given GLUE task.
Output: Discrete class label corresponding to the task's vocabulary.
Scoring recipe
def compute_glue_metrics(predictions, gold_labels, task_name):
if task_name in ['QQP', 'MRPC']:
return f1_score(gold_labels, predictions, average='macro')
elif task_name == 'CoLA':
return matthews_corrcoef(gold_labels, predictions)
else:
return accuracy_score(gold_labels, predictions)
Common pitfalls
- The paper uses the official GLUE development set as the test set, not the hidden test server. Evaluators must replicate this split to match reported numbers.
- Few-shot training/dev splits are strictly limited to 16 samples per label, sampled from the original training set. Using the full training set or different few-shot sizes will yield different results.
- STS-B is explicitly excluded because it is a regression task; including it will break the metric calculation and average score.
Evidence (verbatim from paper)
We conduct evaluation on all tasks of the GLUE benchmark (Wang et al., 2018) except STS-B which is a regression task. We follow the same data split and evaluation protocol as (Gao et al., 2021): Both D_train and D_dev contain 16 samples per label and are sampled from the original training set with 5 different random seeds. The original development sets are used for testing. For all reported results, we include the average and standard deviation over the 5 different D_train/D_dev splits. F1 score is used as the metric for QQP and MRPC, Matthews correlation for CoLA, and accuracy for the remaining tasks.
Citation
@misc{meng2022fewgen,
title={Tuning Language Models as Training Data Generators for Augmentation-Enhanced Few-Shot Learning},
author={Meng et al. (2022)},
year={2022},
note={arXiv:2211.03044}
}
- arXiv: 2211.03044