Cited by 464Natural Language Processing TechniquesTopic ModelingMultimodal Machine Learning Applications

Mask-Predict: Parallel Decoding of Conditional Masked Language Models

Open access
Ghazvininejad, Marjan, Levy, Omer, Liu, Yinhan, Zettlemoyer, Luke·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

Marjan Ghazvininejad, Omer Levy, Yinhan Liu, Luke Zettlemoyer. Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP). 2019.

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/d19-1633

Cites

18 of 18 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?

  • Several object detectors used the bipartite matching loss.

    “Several object detectors [9,25,35] used the bipartite matching loss.”

    From End-to-End Object Detection with Transformers (2020) · cites this paper as [9]

    The Training Objective section describes cross-entropy loss over masked translation tokens, and Experimental Setup §4.1 describes machine-translation benchmarks. Searches for bipartite matching loss and object detection found no passage addressing whether object detectors use that loss. (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: 2

  1. Paulius Micikevicius, Sharan Narang, Jonah Alben, Gregory Diamos, Erich Elsen, David Garcia, Boris Ginsburg, Michael Houston, Oleksii Kuchaiev, Ganesh Venkatesh, and Hao Wu. 2018. Mixed preci- sion training. In International Conference on Learn- ing Representations.
  2. Rico Sennrich, Barry Haddow, and Alexandra Birch. 2016. Neural machine translation of rare words with subword units. In Proceedings of the 54th An- nual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1715- 1725, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ghazvininejad, M., Levy, O., Liu, Y., & Zettlemoyer, L.
Affiliations
Meta (Israel) (IL)
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
6111-6120
OpenAlex
W2937808806
Cited by
464
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 54 · 2023: 84 · 2022: 80 · 2021: 107 · 2020: 74 · 2019: 7
FWCI
25.63
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)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
Keywords
parallel decoding, masked language models, beam search, text generation

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