Cited by 14Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning

Trained on 100 million words and still in shape: BERT meets British National Corpus

Open access
Samuel, David, Kutuzov, Andrey, Øvrelid, Lilja, Velldal, Erik·2023·Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EACL 2023

Abstract

While modern masked language models (LMs) are trained on ever larger corpora, we here explore the effects of down-scaling training to a modestly-sized but representative, wellbalanced, and publicly available English text source -the British National Corpus.We show that pre-training on this carefully curated corpus can reach better performance than the original BERT model.We argue that this type of corpora has great potential as a language modeling benchmark.To showcase this potential, we present fair, reproducible and data-efficient comparative studies of LMs, in which we evaluate several training objectives and model architectures and replicate previous empirical results in a systematic way.We propose an optimized LM architecture called LTG-BERT.

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.findings-eacl.146

Cites

57 of 61 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?

  • Winning submissions using the LTG-BERT architecture outperformed models trained on trillions of words.

    “The winning submissions using the LTG-BERT architecture (Samuel et al., 2023) outperformed models trained on trillions of words.”

    From Findings of the BabyLM Challenge: Sample-Efficient Pretraining on Developmentally Plausible Corpora (2023) · cites this paper as Samuel et al., 2023

    The Introduction says the LTG-BERT model outperformed the original BERT, which was trained on a corpus 30 times larger. It does not report winning submissions or a comparison with models trained on trillions of words; Section 7 says the authors deliberately did not compare against more recent models. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The best-performing models overall use the LTG-BERT architecture.

    “The best-performing models overall (Charpentier and Samuel, 2023) use the LTG-BERT architecture (Samuel et al., 2023)”
  • ELC-BERT and the runner-up Boot-BERT used as their starting point the LTG-BERT architecture from Samuel et al. (2023).

    “This model, as well as the runner-up submission Boot-BERT (Samuel, 2023), used as their starting point the LTG-BERT architecture from Samuel et al. (2023).”
  • ELC-BERT and Boot-BERT are both based on LTG-BERT.

    “ELC-BERT and Boot-BERT are both based on LTG-BERT (Samuel et al., 2023)”

    From Findings of the BabyLM Challenge: Sample-Efficient Pretraining on Developmentally Plausible Corpora (2023) · cites this paper as Samuel et al., 2023

    The Conclusion (page unavailable) says the authors release their model under the name LTG-BERT. Searches for “ELC-BERT Boot-BERT” and for models based on LTG-BERT found no passage identifying either model or stating that it is based on LTG-BERT. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    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: 4

  1. Roy Bar-Haim, Ido Dagan, Bill Dolan, Lisa Ferro, and Danilo Giampiccolo. 2006. The second pascal recognising textual entailment challenge. Proceed- ings of the Second PASCAL Challenges Workshop on Recognising Textual Entailment. 16
  2. Emily M Bender, Timnit Gebru, Angelina McMillan- Major, and Shmargaret Shmitchell. 2021. On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Confer- ence on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pages 610-623.
  3. Luisa Bentivogli, Ido Dagan, Hoa Trang Dang, Danilo Giampiccolo, and Bernardo Magnini. 2009. The fifth pascal recognizing textual entailment challenge. In In Proc Text Analysis Conference (TAC'09. 16
  4. Alex Wang and Kyunghyun Cho. 2019. BERT has a mouth, and it must speak: BERT as a Markov random field language model. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Methods for Optimizing and Eval- uating Neural Language Generation, pages 30-36, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics. 14 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Samuel, D., Kutuzov, A., Øvrelid, L., & Velldal, E.
Affiliations
University of Oslo (NO)
Venue
Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EACL 2023
Published
2023
Pages
1954-1974
OpenAlex
W4386566517
Cited by
14
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 9
FWCI
2.48
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EACL (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
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 › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
Keywords
BERT, British National Corpus, masked language models, training data size, pre-training, training objectives, model architecture, data efficiency, English language models

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