Cited by 185Topic ModelingDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningNatural Language Processing Techniques

Muppet: Massive Multi-task Representations with Pre-Finetuning

Open access
Aghajanyan, Armen, Gupta, Anchit, Shrivastava, Akshat, Chen, Xilun, Zettlemoyer, Luke, Gupta, Sonal·2021·Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

Abstract

We propose pre-finetuning, an additional largescale learning stage between language model pre-training and fine-tuning.Pre-finetuning is massively multi-task learning (around 50 datasets, over 4.8 million total labeled examples), and is designed to encourage learning of representations that generalize better to many different tasks.We show that prefinetuning consistently improves performance for pretrained discriminators (e.g.RoBERTa) and generation models (e.g.BART) on a wide range of tasks (sentence prediction, commonsense reasoning, MRC, etc.), while also significantly improving sample efficiency during fine-tuning.We also show that large-scale multi-tasking is crucial; pre-finetuning can hurt performance when few tasks are used up until a critical point (usually above 15) after which performance improves linearly in the number of tasks.

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 · 10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.468

Cites

78 of 78 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

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

4 of the 82 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Hector Levesque, Ernest Davis, and Leora Morgen- stern. 2012. The winograd schema challenge. In Thirteenth International Conference on the Princi- ples of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. Citeseer.
  2. Xin Li and Dan Roth. 2002. Learning question clas- sifiers. In COLING 2002: The 19th International Conference on Computational Linguistics.
  3. Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI Blog, 1(8):9.
  4. Melissa Roemmele, Cosmin Adrian Bejan, and An- drew S. Gordon. 2011. Choice of plausible alterna- tives: An evaluation of commonsense causal reason- ing. In 2011 AAAI Spring Symposium Series.
  5. Christian Szegedy, Vincent Vanhoucke, Sergey Ioffe, Jonathon Shlens, and Zbigniew Wojna. 2015. Re- thinking the inception architecture for computer vi- sion. corr abs/1512.00567 (2015). · arXiv
  6. Adina Williams, Nikita Nangia, and Samuel Bowman. 2018b. A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sen- tence understanding through inference. In Proceed- ings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 1112-1122. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  7. Xiang Zhang, Junbo Jake Zhao, and Yann LeCun. 2015b. Character-level convolutional networks for text classification. In NIPS.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Aghajanyan, A., Gupta, A., Shrivastava, A., Chen, X., Zettlemoyer, L., & Gupta, S.
Venue
Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
Published
2021
Pages
5799-5811
OpenAlex
W3124687886
Cited by
183
References
82
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 64 · 2022: 55 · 2021: 13
FWCI
17.90
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
multi-task learning, representation learning, language model pretraining, fine-tuning, sample efficiency, RoBERTa, BART, commonsense reasoning, machine reading comprehension, sentence prediction

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