We Need to Talk About Random Splits
  Gorman and Bedrick (2019) argued for using random splits rather than standard
splits in NLP experiments. We argue that random splits, like standard splits,
lead to overly optimistic performance estimates. We can also split data in
biased or adversarial ways, e.g., training on short sentences and evaluating on
long ones. Biased sampling has been used in domain adaptation to simulate
real-world drift; this is known as the covariate shift assumption. In NLP,
however, even worst-case splits, maximizing bias, often under-estimate the
error observed on new samples of in-domain data, i.e., the data that models
should minimally generalize to at test time. This invalidates the covariate
shift assumption. Instead of using multiple random splits, future benchmarks
should ideally include multiple, independent test sets instead; if infeasible,
we argue that multiple biased splits leads to more realistic performance
estimates than multiple random splits.
