Cited by 111Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesSentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Parallel Context Windows for Large Language Models

Open access
Ratner, Nir, Levine, Yoav, Belinkov, Yonatan, Ram, Ori, Magar, Inbal, Abend, Omri, Karpas, Ehud, Shashua, Amnon, Leyton-Brown, Kevin, Shoham, Yoav·2023·Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)

Abstract

Nir Ratner, Yoav Levine, Yonatan Belinkov, Ori Ram, Inbal Magar, Omri Abend, Ehud Karpas, Amnon Shashua, Kevin Leyton-Brown, Yoav Shoham. Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2023.

Overview

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/v1/2023.acl-long.352

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

  • Context window adaptation techniques seek to extend the usable input length of LLMs by modifying attention mechanisms, positional encoding schemes, or input structures.

    “Context window adaptation techniques seek to extend the usable input length of LLMs by modifying attention mechanisms, positional encoding schemes, or input structures.”

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. Neel Alex, Eli Lifland, Lewis Tunstall, Abhishek Thakur, Pegah Maham, C. Jess Riedel, Emmie Hine, Carolyn Ashurst, Paul Sedille, Alexis Car- lier, Michael Noetel, and Andreas Stuhlmüller. 2021. Raft: A real-world few-shot text classification bench- mark. · DOI
  2. Max Bartolo, Alastair Roberts, Johannes Welbl, Sebas- tian Riedel, and Pontus Stenetorp. 2020. Beat the ai: Investigating adversarial human annotation for read- ing comprehension. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:662-678. · DOI
  3. Iñigo Casanueva, Tadas Temcinas, Daniela Gerz, Matthew Henderson, and Ivan Vulic. 2020. Ef- ficient intent detection with dual sentence en- coders. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on NLP for ConvAI -ACL 2020. Data avail- able at https://github.com/PolyAI-LDN/task-specific- datasets.
  4. Ido Dagan, Oren Glickman, and Bernardo Magnini. 2006. The pascal recognising textual entailment chal- lenge. In Machine Learning Challenges. Evaluating Predictive Uncertainty, Visual Object Classification, and Recognising Tectual Entailment, pages 177-190, Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  5. Xiaowen Ding, Bing Liu, and Philip Yu. 2008. A holis- tic lexicon-based approach to opinion mining. pages 231-240. · DOI
  6. Mandy Guo, Joshua Ainslie, David Uthus, Santiago On- tanon, Jianmo Ni, Yun-Hsuan Sung, and Yinfei Yang. 2021. Longt5: Efficient text-to-text transformer for long sequences. · DOI · Paper page
  7. Zhixiong Han, Yaru Hao, Li Dong, Yutao Sun, and Furu Wei. 2022. Prototypical calibration for few- shot learning of language models. · DOI
  8. Charles T. Hemphill, John J. Godfrey, and George R. Doddington. 1990. The ATIS spoken language sys- tems pilot corpus. In Speech and Natural Language: Proceedings of a Workshop Held at Hidden Valley, Pennsylvania, June 24-27,1990.
  9. Maor Ivgi, Uri Shaham, and Jonathan Berant. 2022. Ef- ficient long-text understanding with short-text mod- els. · DOI
  10. Gautier Izacard and Edouard Grave. 2020. Leverag- ing passage retrieval with generative models for open domain question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.01282. · arXiv
  11. Stefan Larson, Anish Mahendran, Joseph J. Peper, Christopher Clarke, Andrew Lee, Parker Hill, Jonathan K. Kummerfeld, Kevin Leach, Michael A. Laurenzano, Lingjia Tang, and Jason Mars. 2019. An evaluation dataset for intent classification and out-of- scope prediction. In Proceedings of the 2019 Confer- ence on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Pro- cessing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP).
  12. Yoav Levine, Itay Dalmedigos, Ori Ram, Yoel Zeldes, Daniel Jannai, Dor Muhlgay, Yoni Osin, Opher Lieber, Barak Lenz, Shai Shalev-Shwartz, et al. 2022a. Standing on the shoulders of giant frozen language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.10019. · arXiv
  13. Yoav Levine, Ori Ram, Daniel Jannai, Barak Lenz, Shai Shalev-Shwartz, Amnon Shashua, Kevin Leyton- Brown, and Yoav Shoham. 2022b. Huge frozen lan- guage models as readers for open-domain question answering. In ICML 2022 Workshop on Knowledge Retrieval and Language Models.
  14. Xin Li and Dan Roth. 2002. Learning question clas- sifiers. In COLING 2002: The 19th International Conference on Computational Linguistics.
  15. Jimmy Lin, Xueguang Ma, Sheng-Chieh Lin, Jheng- Hong Yang, Ronak Pradeep, and Rodrigo Nogueira. 2021. Pyserini: A Python toolkit for reproducible information retrieval research with sparse and dense representations. In Proceedings of the 44th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR 2021), pages 2356-2362.
  16. Jingjing Liu, D. Scott Cyphers, Panupong Pasupat, Ian McGraw, and James R. Glass. 2012. A conversa- tional movie search system based on conditional ran- dom fields. In Interspeech.
  17. Todor Mihaylov, Peter Clark, Tushar Khot, and Ashish Sabharwal. 2018. Can a suit of armor conduct elec- tricity? a new dataset for open book question answer- ing. In EMNLP.
  18. Sewon Min, Mike Lewis, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2021. Noisy channel language model prompting for few-shot text classification. · DOI
  19. Nasrin Mostafazadeh, Michael Roth, Annie Louis, Nathanael Chambers, and James Allen. 2017. Ls- dsem 2017 shared task: The story cloze test. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Linking Models of Lexical, Sentential and Discourse-level Semantics, pages 46-51.
  20. Bo Pang and Lillian Lee. 2004. A sentimental education: Sentiment analysis using subjectivity summarization based on minimum cuts. CoRR, cs.CL/0409058. · arXiv
  21. Ofir Press, Noah Smith, and Mike Lewis. 2022. Train short, test long: Attention with linear biases enables input length extrapolation. In International Confer- ence on Learning Representations.
  22. Ofir Press, Noah A Smith, and Mike Lewis. 2021. Train short, test long: Attention with linear biases enables input length extrapolation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.12409. · arXiv
  23. Stephen Robertson, Hugo Zaragoza, et al. 2009. The probabilistic relevance framework: Bm25 and be- yond. Foundations and Trends® in Information Re- trieval, 3(4):333-389.
  24. Uri Shaham, Elad Segal, Maor Ivgi, Avia Efrat, Ori Yoran, Adi Haviv, Ankit Gupta, Wenhan Xiong, Mor Geva, Jonathan Berant, et al. 2022. Scrolls: Stan- dardized comparison over long language sequences. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.03533. · arXiv
  25. Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, Jean Wu, Jason Chuang, Christopher D. Manning, Andrew Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2013. Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empiri- cal Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1631-1642, Seattle, Washington, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  26. Yi Tay, Mostafa Dehghani, Samira Abnar, Yikang Shen, Dara Bahri, Philip Pham, Jinfeng Rao, Liu Yang, Sebastian Ruder, and Donald Metzler. 2020. Long range arena: A benchmark for efficient transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.04006. · arXiv
  27. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. CoRR, abs/1706.03762. · arXiv
  28. Pawel Swietojanski Xingkun Liu, Arash Eshghi and Ver- ena Rieser. 2019. Benchmarking natural language understanding services for building conversational agents. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Workshop on Spoken Dialogue Systems Technology (IWSDS), pages xxx-xxx, Ortigia, Siracusa (SR), Italy. Springer.
  29. Manzil Zaheer, Guru Guruganesh, Avinava Dubey, Joshua Ainslie, Chris Alberti, Santiago Ontanon, Philip Pham, Anirudh Ravula, Qifan Wang, Li Yang, and Amr Ahmed. 2020. Big bird: Transformers for longer sequences. · DOI · Paper page
  30. Xiang Zhang, Junbo Zhao, and Yann LeCun. 2015a. Character-level convolutional networks for text clas- sification. In Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems, volume 28.
  31. Xiang Zhang, Junbo Jake Zhao, and Yann LeCun. 2015b. Character-level convolutional networks for text clas- sification. In NIPS.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Ratner, N., Levine, Y., Belinkov, Y., Ram, O., Magar, I., Abend, O., Karpas, E., Shashua, A., Leyton-Brown, K., & Shoham, Y.
Corresponding author
Ratner, Nir
Venue
Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)
Published
2023
Pages
6383-6402
ISSN
0736-587X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4385570090
Cited by
111
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 13
FWCI
12.86
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
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
large language models, context window size, long-range dependencies

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