Cited by 898Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

How Contextual are Contextualized Word Representations? Comparing the Geometry of BERT, ELMo, and GPT-2 Embeddings

Open access
Ethayarajh, Kawin·2019·Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP)

Abstract

Replacing static word embeddings with contextualized word representations has yielded significant improvements on many NLP tasks.However, just how contextual are the contextualized representations produced by models such as ELMo and BERT?Are there infinitely many context-specific representations for each word, or are words essentially assigned one of a finite number of word-sense representations?For one, we find that the contextualized representations of all words are not isotropic in any layer of the contextualizing model.While representations of the same word in different contexts still have a greater cosine similarity than those of two different words, this self-similarity is much lower in upper layers.This suggests that upper layers of contextualizing models produce more context-specific representations, much like how upper layers of LSTMs produce more task-specific representations.In all layers of ELMo, BERT, and GPT-2, on average, less than 5% of the variance in a word's contextualized representations can be explained by a static embedding for that word, providing some justification for the success of contextualized representations.

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/d19-1006

Cites

26 of 26 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?

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

Show all 27 references

1 of the 27 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Eneko Agirre, Daniel Cer, Mona Diab, Aitor Gonzalez- Agirre, and Weiwei Guo. 2013. Sem 2013 shared task: Semantic textual similarity, including a pilot on typed-similarity. In SEM 2013: The Second Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Seman- tics. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  2. John Hewitt and Christopher D. Manning. 2019. A structural probe for finding syntax in word represen- tations. In North American Chapter of the Associ- ation for Computational Linguistics: Human Lan- guage Technologies. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  3. Tomas Mikolov, Ilya Sutskever, Kai Chen, Greg S Cor- rado, and Jeff Dean. 2013a. Distributed representa- tions of words and phrases and their compositional- ity. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. pages 3111-3119.
  4. Matthew Peters, Mark Neumann, Mohit Iyyer, Matt Gardner, Christopher Clark, Kenton Lee, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. Deep contextualized word rep- resentations. In Proceedings of the 2018 Confer- ence of the North American Chapter of the Associ- ation for Computational Linguistics: Human Lan- guage Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers). pages 2227-2237.
  5. Ian Tenney, Patrick Xia, Berlin Chen, Alex Wang, Adam Poliak, R. Thomas McCoy, Najoung Kim, Benjamin Van Durme, Samuel R. Bowman, Dipan- jan Das, and Ellie Pavlick. 2019. What do you learn from context? probing for sentence structure in contextualized word representations. In Inter- national Conference on Learning Representations. https://openreview.net/forum?id=SJzSgnRcKX.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 601–700 of 898

Metadata

Authors
Ethayarajh, K.
Affiliations
Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
Ethayarajh, Kawin
Venue
Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP)
Published
2019
Pages
55-65
OpenAlex
W2971569798
Cited by
841
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 93 · 2025: 92 · 2024: 115 · 2023: 160 · 2022: 158 · 2021: 157 · 2020: 64
FWCI
36.26
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
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 › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Keywords
contextualized word representations, word embeddings, BERT, ELMo, GPT-2, embedding geometry, cosine similarity, static embeddings, layer-wise analysis

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