BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Byron C. Wallace

Byron C. Wallace contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Computation and LanguageMachine LearningArtificial IntelligenceInformation RetrievalHuman-Computer Interaction

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
14works
0followers
5topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

14 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

Compared to What? Baselines and Metrics for Counterfactual Prompting

Counterfactual prompting (i.e., perturbing a single factor and measuring output change) is widely used to evaluate things like LLM bias and CoT faithfulness. But in this work we argue that observed effects cannot be attributed to the targeted factor without accounting for baseline ``meaning-preserving'' modifications to text that establish general model sensitivity. This is because every counterfactual edit is a compound treatment that bundles the variable of interest with incidental surface-form variation; this violates treatment variation irrelevance. We observe prediction flip rates on MedQA of 14.9% when we surgically change patient gender. However, this is statistically indistinguishable from the flip rates induced by simply paraphrasing inputs (14.1%). In this case, it would therefore be unwarranted to conclude that the LLM is especially sensitive to patient gender. To account for this and robustly measure the effects of targeted interventions, we propose a framework in which we compare (via statistical testing) differences observed under target interventions to those induced by paraphrasing inputs. We then use this framework to revisit a analysis done on the MedPerturb dataset, which reported evidence of model sensitivity to patient demographics and stylistic cues. We find that these effects largely dissipate when we account for general model sensitivity, with only 5 of 120 tests reaching statistical significance. Applying the same framework to occupational biography classification, we detect clearly significant directional gender bias, showing that the framework identifies real directional effects even when they are small. We evaluate a range of metrics -- aggregate, per-sample distributional, and regression -- and find that per-sample metrics are dramatically more powerful than aggregate metrics and regression powerfully and uniquely characterizes effect direction and magnitude.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Combining Feature and Instance Attribution to Detect Artifacts

Training the deep neural networks that dominate NLP requires large datasets. These are often collected automatically or via crowdsourcing, and may exhibit systematic biases or annotation artifacts. By the latter we mean spurious correlations between inputs and outputs that do not represent a generally held causal relationship between features and classes; models that exploit such correlations may appear to perform a given task well, but fail on out of sample data. In this paper we evaluate use of different attribution methods for aiding identification of training data artifacts. We propose new hybrid approaches that combine saliency maps (which highlight important input features) with instance attribution methods (which retrieve training samples influential to a given prediction). We show that this proposed training-feature attribution can be used to efficiently uncover artifacts in training data when a challenging validation set is available. We also carry out a small user study to evaluate whether these methods are useful to NLP researchers in practice, with promising results. We make code for all methods and experiments in this paper available.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Evaluating Factuality in Text Simplification

Automated simplification models aim to make input texts more readable. Such methods have the potential to make complex information accessible to a wider audience, e.g., providing access to recent medical literature which might otherwise be impenetrable for a lay reader. However, such models risk introducing errors into automatically simplified texts, for instance by inserting statements unsupported by the corresponding original text, or by omitting key information. Providing more readable but inaccurate versions of texts may in many cases be worse than providing no such access at all. The problem of factual accuracy (and the lack thereof) has received heightened attention in the context of summarization models, but the factuality of automatically simplified texts has not been investigated. We introduce a taxonomy of errors that we use to analyze both references drawn from standard simplification datasets and state-of-the-art model outputs. We find that errors often appear in both that are not captured by existing evaluation metrics, motivating a need for research into ensuring the factual accuracy of automated simplification models.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Learning to Ask Like a Physician

Existing question answering (QA) datasets derived from electronic health records (EHR) are artificially generated and consequently fail to capture realistic physician information needs. We present Discharge Summary Clinical Questions (DiSCQ), a newly curated question dataset composed of 2,000+ questions paired with the snippets of text (triggers) that prompted each question. The questions are generated by medical experts from 100+ MIMIC-III discharge summaries. We analyze this dataset to characterize the types of information sought by medical experts. We also train baseline models for trigger detection and question generation (QG), paired with unsupervised answer retrieval over EHRs. Our baseline model is able to generate high quality questions in over 62% of cases when prompted with human selected triggers. We release this dataset (and all code to reproduce baseline model results) to facilitate further research into realistic clinical QA and QG: https://github.com/elehman16/discq.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Understanding Clinical Trial Reports: Extracting Medical Entities and Their Relations

The best evidence concerning comparative treatment effectiveness comes from clinical trials, the results of which are reported in unstructured articles. Medical experts must manually extract information from articles to inform decision-making, which is time-consuming and expensive. Here we consider the end-to-end task of both (a) extracting treatments and outcomes from full-text articles describing clinical trials (entity identification) and, (b) inferring the reported results for the former with respect to the latter (relation extraction). We introduce new data for this task, and evaluate models that have recently achieved state-of-the-art results on similar tasks in Natural Language Processing. We then propose a new method motivated by how trial results are typically presented that outperforms these purely data-driven baselines. Finally, we run a fielded evaluation of the model with a non-profit seeking to identify existing drugs that might be re-purposed for cancer, showing the potential utility of end-to-end evidence extraction systems.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Entity-Switched Datasets: An Approach to Auditing the In-Domain Robustness of Named Entity Recognition Models

Named entity recognition systems perform well on standard datasets comprising English news. But given the paucity of data, it is difficult to draw conclusions about the robustness of systems with respect to recognizing a diverse set of entities. We propose a method for auditing the in-domain robustness of systems, focusing specifically on differences in performance due to the national origin of entities. We create entity-switched datasets, in which named entities in the original texts are replaced by plausible named entities of the same type but of different national origin. We find that state-of-the-art systems' performance vary widely even in-domain: In the same context, entities from certain origins are more reliably recognized than entities from elsewhere. Systems perform best on American and Indian entities, and worst on Vietnamese and Indonesian entities. This auditing approach can facilitate the development of more robust named entity recognition systems, and will allow research in this area to consider fairness criteria that have received heightened attention in other predictive technology work.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Interpretability Analysis for Named Entity Recognition to Understand System Predictions and How They Can Improve

Named Entity Recognition systems achieve remarkable performance on domains such as English news. It is natural to ask: What are these models actually learning to achieve this? Are they merely memorizing the names themselves? Or are they capable of interpreting the text and inferring the correct entity type from the linguistic context? We examine these questions by contrasting the performance of several variants of LSTM-CRF architectures for named entity recognition, with some provided only representations of the context as features. We also perform similar experiments for BERT. We find that context representations do contribute to system performance, but that the main factor driving high performance is learning the name tokens themselves. We enlist human annotators to evaluate the feasibility of inferring entity types from the context alone and find that, while people are not able to infer the entity type either for the majority of the errors made by the context-only system, there is some room for improvement. A system should be able to recognize any name in a predictive context correctly and our experiments indicate that current systems may be further improved by such capability.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

ERASER: A Benchmark to Evaluate Rationalized NLP Models

State-of-the-art models in NLP are now predominantly based on deep neural networks that are opaque in terms of how they come to make predictions. This limitation has increased interest in designing more interpretable deep models for NLP that reveal the `reasoning' behind model outputs. But work in this direction has been conducted on different datasets and tasks with correspondingly unique aims and metrics; this makes it difficult to track progress. We propose the Evaluating Rationales And Simple English Reasoning (ERASER) benchmark to advance research on interpretable models in NLP. This benchmark comprises multiple datasets and tasks for which human annotations of "rationales" (supporting evidence) have been collected. We propose several metrics that aim to capture how well the rationales provided by models align with human rationales, and also how faithful these rationales are (i.e., the degree to which provided rationales influenced the corresponding predictions). Our hope is that releasing this benchmark facilitates progress on designing more interpretable NLP systems. The benchmark, code, and documentation are available at https://www.eraserbenchmark.com/

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Evidence Inference 2.0: More Data, Better Models

How do we most effectively treat a disease or condition? Ideally, we could consult a database of evidence gleaned from clinical trials to answer such questions. Unfortunately, no such database exists; clinical trial results are instead disseminated primarily via lengthy natural language articles. Perusing all such articles would be prohibitively time-consuming for healthcare practitioners; they instead tend to depend on manually compiled systematic reviews of medical literature to inform care. NLP may speed this process up, and eventually facilitate immediate consult of published evidence. The Evidence Inference dataset was recently released to facilitate research toward this end. This task entails inferring the comparative performance of two treatments, with respect to a given outcome, from a particular article (describing a clinical trial) and identifying supporting evidence. For instance: Does this article report that chemotherapy performed better than surgery for five-year survival rates of operable cancers? In this paper, we collect additional annotations to expand the Evidence Inference dataset by 25\%, provide stronger baseline models, systematically inspect the errors that these make, and probe dataset quality. We also release an abstract only (as opposed to full-texts) version of the task for rapid model prototyping. The updated corpus, documentation, and code for new baselines and evaluations are available at http://evidence-inference.ebm-nlp.com/.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Explaining Black Box Predictions and Unveiling Data Artifacts through Influence Functions

Modern deep learning models for NLP are notoriously opaque. This has motivated the development of methods for interpreting such models, e.g., via gradient-based saliency maps or the visualization of attention weights. Such approaches aim to provide explanations for a particular model prediction by highlighting important words in the corresponding input text. While this might be useful for tasks where decisions are explicitly influenced by individual tokens in the input, we suspect that such highlighting is not suitable for tasks where model decisions should be driven by more complex reasoning. In this work, we investigate the use of influence functions for NLP, providing an alternative approach to interpreting neural text classifiers. Influence functions explain the decisions of a model by identifying influential training examples. Despite the promise of this approach, influence functions have not yet been extensively evaluated in the context of NLP, a gap addressed by this work. We conduct a comparison between influence functions and common word-saliency methods on representative tasks. As suspected, we find that influence functions are particularly useful for natural language inference, a task in which 'saliency maps' may not have clear interpretation. Furthermore, we develop a new quantitative measure based on influence functions that can reveal artifacts in training data.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Learning to Faithfully Rationalize by Construction

In many settings it is important for one to be able to understand why a model made a particular prediction. In NLP this often entails extracting snippets of an input text `responsible for' corresponding model output; when such a snippet comprises tokens that indeed informed the model's prediction, it is a faithful explanation. In some settings, faithfulness may be critical to ensure transparency. Lei et al. (2016) proposed a model to produce faithful rationales for neural text classification by defining independent snippet extraction and prediction modules. However, the discrete selection over input tokens performed by this method complicates training, leading to high variance and requiring careful hyperparameter tuning. We propose a simpler variant of this approach that provides faithful explanations by construction. In our scheme, named FRESH, arbitrary feature importance scores (e.g., gradients from a trained model) are used to induce binary labels over token inputs, which an extractor can be trained to predict. An independent classifier module is then trained exclusively on snippets provided by the extractor; these snippets thus constitute faithful explanations, even if the classifier is arbitrarily complex. In both automatic and manual evaluations we find that variants of this simple framework yield predictive performance superior to `end-to-end' approaches, while being more general and easier to train. Code is available at https://github.com/successar/FRESH

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Query-Focused EHR Summarization to Aid Imaging Diagnosis

Electronic Health Records (EHRs) provide vital contextual information to radiologists and other physicians when making a diagnosis. Unfortunately, because a given patient's record may contain hundreds of notes and reports, identifying relevant information within these in the short time typically allotted to a case is very difficult. We propose and evaluate models that extract relevant text snippets from patient records to provide a rough case summary intended to aid physicians considering one or more diagnoses. This is hard because direct supervision (i.e., physician annotations of snippets relevant to specific diagnoses in medical records) is prohibitively expensive to collect at scale. We propose a distantly supervised strategy in which we use groups of International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes observed in 'future' records as noisy proxies for 'downstream' diagnoses. Using this we train a transformer-based neural model to perform extractive summarization conditioned on potential diagnoses. This model defines an attention mechanism that is conditioned on potential diagnoses (queries) provided by the diagnosing physician. We train (via distant supervision) and evaluate variants of this model on EHR data from Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston and MIMIC-III (the latter to facilitate reproducibility). Evaluations performed by radiologists demonstrate that these distantly supervised models yield better extractive summaries than do unsupervised approaches. Such models may aid diagnosis by identifying sentences in past patient reports that are clinically relevant to a potential diagnosis.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Semi-Automating Knowledge Base Construction for Cancer Genetics

In this work, we consider the exponentially growing subarea of genetics in cancer. The need to synthesize and centralize this evidence for dissemination has motivated a team of physicians to manually construct and maintain a knowledge base that distills key results reported in the literature. This is a laborious process that entails reading through full-text articles to understand the study design, assess study quality, and extract the reported cancer risk estimates associated with particular hereditary cancer genes (i.e., penetrance). In this work, we propose models to automatically surface key elements from full-text cancer genetics articles, with the ultimate aim of expediting the manual workflow currently in place. We propose two challenging tasks that are critical for characterizing the findings reported cancer genetics studies: (i) Extracting snippets of text that describe \emph{ascertainment mechanisms}, which in turn inform whether the population studied may introduce bias owing to deviations from the target population; (ii) Extracting reported risk estimates (e.g., odds or hazard ratios) associated with specific germline mutations. The latter task may be viewed as a joint entity tagging and relation extraction problem. To train models for these tasks, we induce distant supervision over tokens and snippets in full-text articles using the manually constructed knowledge base. We propose and evaluate several model variants, including a transformer-based joint entity and relation extraction model to extract <germline mutation, risk-estimate>} pairs. We observe strong empirical performance, highlighting the practical potential for such models to aid KB construction in this space. We ablate components of our model, observing, e.g., that a joint model for <germline mutation, risk-estimate> fares substantially better than a pipelined approach.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Trialstreamer: Mapping and Browsing Medical Evidence in Real-Time

We introduce Trialstreamer, a living database of clinical trial reports. Here we mainly describe the evidence extraction component; this extracts from biomedical abstracts key pieces of information that clinicians need when appraising the literature, and also the relations between these. Specifically, the system extracts descriptions of trial participants, the treatments compared in each arm (the interventions), and which outcomes were measured. The system then attempts to infer which interventions were reported to work best by determining their relationship with identified trial outcome measures. In addition to summarizing individual trials, these extracted data elements allow automatic synthesis of results across many trials on the same topic. We apply the system at scale to all reports of randomized controlled trials indexed in MEDLINE, powering the automatic generation of evidence maps, which provide a global view of the efficacy of different interventions combining data from all relevant clinical trials on a topic. We make all code and models freely available alongside a demonstration of the web interface.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access