Papers › Benchmarking Long-tail Generalization with Likelihood Splits

Benchmarking Long-tail Generalization with Likelihood Splits

13 Oct 2022arXiv:2210.06799archive 2025-07-28

Ameya Godbole, Robin Jia

In order to reliably process natural language, NLP systems must generalize to the long tail of rare utterances. We propose a method to create challenging benchmarks that require generalizing to the tail of the distribution by re-splitting existing datasets. We create 'Likelihood Splits' where examples that are assigned lower likelihood by a pre-trained language model (LM) are placed in the test set, and more likely examples are in the training set. This simple approach can be customized to construct meaningful train-test splits for a wide range of tasks. Likelihood Splits surface more challenges than random splits: relative error rates of state-of-the-art models increase by 59% for semantic parsing on Spider, 93% for natural language inference on SNLI, and 33% for yes/no question answering on BoolQ, on our splits compared with the corresponding random splits. Moreover, Likelihood Splits create fairer benchmarks than adversarial filtering; when the LM used to create the splits is also employed as the task model, our splits do not unfairly penalize the LM.

PaperPDFCode

In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.

Code

ameyagodbole/long-tail-likelihood-splits officialmentioned in paperMIT report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Tasks

BenchmarkingLanguage ModelingLanguage ModellingNatural Language InferenceQuestion AnsweringSemantic Parsing

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

Test

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections