  The Winograd Schema Challenge (WSC) (Levesque, Davis, and Morgenstern 2011),
a benchmark for commonsense reasoning, is a set of 273 expert-crafted pronoun
resolution problems originally designed to be unsolvable for statistical models
that rely on selectional preferences or word associations. However, recent
advances in neural language models have already reached around 90% accuracy on
variants of WSC. This raises an important question whether these models have
truly acquired robust commonsense capabilities or whether they rely on spurious
biases in the datasets that lead to an overestimation of the true capabilities
of machine commonsense. To investigate this question, we introduce WinoGrande,
a large-scale dataset of 44k problems, inspired by the original WSC design, but
adjusted to improve both the scale and the hardness of the dataset. The key
steps of the dataset construction consist of (1) a carefully designed
crowdsourcing procedure, followed by (2) systematic bias reduction using a
novel AfLite algorithm that generalizes human-detectable word associations to
machine-detectable embedding associations. The best state-of-the-art methods on
WinoGrande achieve 59.4-79.1%, which are 15-35% below human performance of
94.0%, depending on the amount of the training data allowed. Furthermore, we
establish new state-of-the-art results on five related benchmarks - WSC
(90.1%), DPR (93.1%), COPA (90.6%), KnowRef (85.6%), and Winogender (97.1%).
These results have dual implications: on one hand, they demonstrate the
effectiveness of WinoGrande when used as a resource for transfer learning. On
the other hand, they raise a concern that we are likely to be overestimating
the true capabilities of machine commonsense across all these benchmarks. We
emphasize the importance of algorithmic bias reduction in existing and future
benchmarks to mitigate such overestimation.
