Cited by 123Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesSentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining

Framework for Deep Learning-Based Language Models Using Multi-Task Learning in Natural Language Understanding: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Directions

Open access
Samant, Rahul Manohar, Bachute, Mrinal R., Gite, Shilpa, Kotecha, Ketan·2022·IEEE Access

Abstract

Learning human languages is a difficult task for a computer. However, Deep Learning (DL) techniques have enhanced performance significantly for almost all-natural language processing (NLP) tasks. Unfortunately, these models cannot be generalized for all the NLP tasks with similar performance. NLU (Natural Language Understanding) is a subset of NLP including tasks, like machine translation, dialogue-based systems, natural language inference, text entailment, sentiment analysis, etc. The advancement in the field of NLU is the collective performance enhancement in all these tasks. Even though MTL (Multi-task Learning) was introduced before Deep Learning, it has gained significant attention in the past years. This paper aims to identify, investigate, and analyze various language models used in NLU and NLP to find directions for future research. The Systematic Literature Review (SLR) is prepared using the literature search guidelines proposed by Kitchenham and Charters on various language models between 2011 and 2021. This SLR points out that the unsupervised learning method-based language models show potential performance improvement. However, they face the challenge of designing the general-purpose framework for the language model, which will improve the performance of multi-task NLU and the generalized representation of knowledge. Combining these approaches may result in a more efficient and robust multi-task NLU. This SLR proposes building steps for a conceptual framework to achieve goals of enhancing the performance of language models in the field of NLU.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/access.2022.3149798

Cites

104 of 104 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The disparity in performance between deep learning and traditional models is considerable across these tasks.

    “The disparity in performance between deep learning and traditional models is considerable across these tasks.”

    From Large language models (LLMs): survey, technical frameworks, and future challenges (2024) · cites this paper as Samant et al. 2022

  • Both natural language processing and graph learning employ analogous learning methodologies.

    “Furthermore, both natural language processing (NLP) and graph learning (GL) employ analogous learning methodologies (Samant et al. 2022).”

    From Large language models (LLMs): survey, technical frameworks, and future challenges (2024) · cites this paper as Samant et al. 2022

  • Deep learning algorithms in computer vision display superior efficacy compared to traditional learning algorithms across a broad spectrum of tasks.

    “Studies indicate that deep learning algorithms within the field of computer vision (CV), display superior efficacy in contrast to traditional learning algorithms across a broad spectrum of tasks.”

    From Large language models (LLMs): survey, technical frameworks, and future challenges (2024) · cites this paper as Samant et al. 2022

    The “Models Based on CNN” and “Capsule Neural Network-Based Models” sections discuss CNNs for text and image classification, but do not compare deep learning with traditional algorithms across computer-vision tasks. Searches for computer vision and for comparisons with traditional methods found no passage addressing the claimed superiority. The retrieved passages have no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. E. S. Dos Reis, C. A. Da Costa, D. E. Da Silveira, and R. S. Bavaresco, ''Transformer aftermath review,'' Commun. ACM, vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 154-163, Apr. 2021.
  2. A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, and A. N. Gomez, ''Attention is all you need,'' in Proc. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., Dec. 2017, pp. 5999-6009.
  3. B. Kitchenham and S. Charters, ''Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in SE,'' Guidel. Perform. Syst. Lit. Rev., vol. 3, pp. 1-44, Oct. 2007.
  4. Q. Le and T. Mikolov, ''Distributed representations of sentences and documents,'' in Proc. Int. Conf. Mach. Learn., 2014, pp. 1188-1196.
  5. S. Sabour, N. Frosst, and G. Hinton, ''Matrix capsules with em routing,'' in Proc. 6th Int. Conf. Learn. Represent., 2018, pp. 1-15.
  6. A. Radford, J. Wu, R. Child, D. Luan, D. Amodei, and I. Sutskever, ''Language models are unsupervised multi-task learners,'' OpenAI Blog, vol. 1, no. 8, p. 9, 2019.
  7. Z. Yang, Z. Dai, Y. Yang, J. Carbonell, R. R. Salakhutdinov, and Q. V. Le, ''XLNet: Generalized autoregressive pre-training for language under- standing,'' in Proc. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., 2019, pp. 5754-5764.
  8. A. Wang, A. Singh, J. Michael, F. Hill, O. Levy, and S. R. Bowman, ''GLUE: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding,'' 2018, arXiv:1804.07461. · arXiv
  9. D. Chen, ''A through examination of the CNN/daily mail reading comprehension task,'' in Proc. 54th Annu. Meeting ACL, Berlin, Germany, 2018, pp. 2358-2367.
  10. W. Che, Y. Liu, Y. Wang, B. Zheng, and T. Liu, ''Towards better UD parsing,'' in Proc. CoNLL, 2018, pp. 55-64.
  11. E. Tomal and K. D. Forbus, ''EA NLU: Practical language understanding for cognitive modelling,'' in Proc. 22nd Int. Florida Artif. Intell. Res. Soc. Conf., vol. 22, 2009, pp. 117-122.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Samant, R. M., Bachute, M. R., Gite, S., & Kotecha, K.
Affiliations
Symbiosis International University (IN)
Venue
IEEE Access
Published
2022
Volume
10
Pages
17078-17097
ISSN
2169-3536 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4210894209
Cited by
123
References
103
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 8
FWCI
1.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Access (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
Keywords
multi-task learning, natural language understanding, language models, deep learning, conceptual framework, machine translation, dialogue systems, natural language inference, sentiment analysis, knowledge representation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review