lexical-simplification-eval
Enhancing Pre-trained Language Model with Lexical Simplification — Bao et al. (2020) (arXiv:2012.15070, 2020)
What this evaluates
Evaluates the robustness and classification accuracy of pre-trained language models when augmented with rule-based lexical simplification as auxiliary inputs. It probes whether lemmatization and rare-word replacement preserve semantic meaning while mitigating lexical diversity effects on downstream NLU tasks.
Datasets
- SST-2 — total ?; splits: train (-1), test (-1)
- CR — total ?; splits: train (-1), test (-1)
- SUBJ — total ?; splits: train (-1), test (-1)
- MR — total ?; splits: train (-1), test (-1)
- AG — total ?; splits: train (-1), test (-1)
Metrics
accuracy (primary) — range: [0, 1]
- The proportion of correctly predicted class labels out of the total number of instances: (TP + TN) / (TP + TN + FP + FN).
F1 — range: [0, 1]
- The harmonic mean of precision and recall, calculated as 2 * (precision * recall) / (precision + recall).
Input / output format
Input: Original text sequence paired with a rule-simplified version of the same text (lemmatized and rare words replaced) as auxiliary input.
Output: Discrete class label corresponding to the dataset's taxonomy (e.g., positive/negative sentiment or one of four news topics).
Scoring recipe
def compute_accuracy(predictions, gold_labels):
correct = sum(1 for p, g in zip(predictions, gold_labels) if p == g)
return correct / len(gold_labels)
Common pitfalls
- The simplified auxiliary input must be processed alongside the original text, not as a replacement.
- Rare word replacement strictly preserves part-of-speech tags; ignoring this constraint alters the evaluation protocol.
- Performance gains are measured relative to specific baselines (BERT-base, ELECTRA-large) under identical training/inference conditions.
Evidence (verbatim from paper)
Experiments on SST-2, MR, CR, SUBJ, and AG show consistent performance gains over baseline models (e.g., +1.1% to +0.8% F1), outperforming synonym replacement, back-translation, and cutoff methods in both training and inference.
Citation
@misc{bao2020enhancing,
title={Enhancing Pre-trained Language Model with Lexical Simplification},
author={Bao et al. (2020)},
year={2020},
note={arXiv:2012.15070}
}
1---2name: lexical-simplification-eval3description: Evaluates the robustness and classification accuracy of pre-trained language models when augmented with rule-based lexical simplification as auxiliary inputs. It probes whether lemmatization and rare-word replacement preserve semantic meaning while mitigating lexical diversity effects on downstream NLU tasks. Use when the user wants to benchmark on SST-2, CR, SUBJ, MR, AG, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports accuracy.4---56# lexical-simplification-eval78> Enhancing Pre-trained Language Model with Lexical Simplification — Bao et al. (2020) (arXiv:2012.15070, 2020)910## What this evaluates1112Evaluates the robustness and classification accuracy of pre-trained language models when augmented with rule-based lexical simplification as auxiliary inputs. It probes whether lemmatization and rare-word replacement preserve semantic meaning while mitigating lexical diversity effects on downstream NLU tasks.1314## Datasets1516- **SST-2** — total ?; splits: train (-1), test (-1)17- **CR** — total ?; splits: train (-1), test (-1)18- **SUBJ** — total ?; splits: train (-1), test (-1)19- **MR** — total ?; splits: train (-1), test (-1)20- **AG** — total ?; splits: train (-1), test (-1)2122## Metrics2324- `accuracy` **(primary)** — range: [0, 1]25 - The proportion of correctly predicted class labels out of the total number of instances: (TP + TN) / (TP + TN + FP + FN).26- `F1` — range: [0, 1]27 - The harmonic mean of precision and recall, calculated as 2 * (precision * recall) / (precision + recall).2829## Input / output format3031**Input**: Original text sequence paired with a rule-simplified version of the same text (lemmatized and rare words replaced) as auxiliary input.3233**Output**: Discrete class label corresponding to the dataset's taxonomy (e.g., positive/negative sentiment or one of four news topics).3435## Scoring recipe3637```python38def compute_accuracy(predictions, gold_labels):39 correct = sum(1 for p, g in zip(predictions, gold_labels) if p == g)40 return correct / len(gold_labels)41```4243## Common pitfalls4445- The simplified auxiliary input must be processed alongside the original text, not as a replacement.46- Rare word replacement strictly preserves part-of-speech tags; ignoring this constraint alters the evaluation protocol.47- Performance gains are measured relative to specific baselines (BERT-base, ELECTRA-large) under identical training/inference conditions.4849## Evidence (verbatim from paper)5051> Experiments on SST-2, MR, CR, SUBJ, and AG show consistent performance gains over baseline models (e.g., +1.1% to +0.8% F1), outperforming synonym replacement, back-translation, and cutoff methods in both training and inference.5253## Citation5455```bibtex56@misc{bao2020enhancing,57 title={Enhancing Pre-trained Language Model with Lexical Simplification},58 author={Bao et al. (2020)},59 year={2020},60 note={arXiv:2012.15070}61}62```6364- arXiv: 2012.15070