Cited by 143Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesArtificial Intelligence in Games

Do Massively Pretrained Language Models Make Better Storytellers?

Open access
See, Abigail, Pappu, Aneesh, Saxena, Rohun, Yerukola, Akhila, Manning, Christopher D.·2019·Proceedings of the 23rd Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL)

Abstract

Large neural language models trained on massive amounts of text have emerged as a formidable strategy for Natural Language Understanding tasks.However, the strength of these models as Natural Language Generators is less clear.Though anecdotal evidence suggests that these models generate better quality text, there has been no detailed study characterizing their generation abilities.In this work, we compare the performance of an extensively pretrained model, OpenAI GPT2-117 (Radford et al., 2019), to a state-of-the-art neural story generation model (Fan et al., 2018).By evaluating the generated text across a wide variety of automatic metrics, we characterize the ways in which pretrained models do, and do not, make better storytellers.We find that although GPT2-117 conditions more strongly on context, is more sensitive to ordering of events, and uses more unusual words, it is just as likely to produce repetitive and under-diverse text when using likelihood-maximizing decoding algorithms.

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/k19-1079

Cites

32 of 32 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

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Shlomo Argamon, Moshe Koppel, and Galit Avneri. 1998. Routing documents according to style. In First International workshop on innovative informa- tion systems.
  2. Angela Fan, Mike Lewis, and Yann Dauphin. 2018. Hi- erarchical neural story generation. In Association for Computational Linguistics.
  3. Matthew Peters, Mark Neumann, Mohit Iyyer, Matt Gardner, Christopher Clark, Kenton Lee, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. Deep contextualized word repre- sentations. In North American Chapter of the Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics: Human Lan- guage Technologies.
  4. Melissa Roemmele, Andrew S Gordon, and Reid Swanson. 2017. Evaluating story generation sys- tems using automated linguistic analyses. In KDD Workshop on Machine Learning for Creativity.
  5. Zachary M Ziegler, Luke Melas-Kyriazi, Sebastian Gehrmann, and Alexander M Rush. 2019. Encoder- agnostic adaptation for conditional language gener- ation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.06938. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
See, A., Pappu, A., Saxena, R., Yerukola, A., & Manning, C. D.
Affiliations
Stanford University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 23rd Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL)
Published
2019
Pages
843-861
OpenAlex
W2975003218
Cited by
139
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 2
FWCI
8.89
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Tencent
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
  • Army Research Office (W911NF-15-1-, W911NF, W911NF-15)
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 › Artificial Intelligence in Games
Keywords
story generation, pre-trained language models, GPT-2, natural language generation, text generation quality, automatic evaluation metrics, event ordering, lexical diversity, decoding algorithms, likelihood maximization

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