Cited by 127Natural Language Processing TechniquesTopic ModelingSpeech and dialogue systems

The LAMBADA dataset: Word prediction requiring a broad discourse context

Open access
Paperno, Denis, Kruszewski, Germán, Lazaridou, Angeliki, Pham, Ngoc Quan, Bernardi, Raffaella, Pezzelle, Sandro, Baroni, Marco, Boleda, Gemma +1 more·2016·Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)

Abstract

Denis Paperno, Germán Kruszewski, Angeliki Lazaridou, Ngoc Quan Pham, Raffaella Bernardi, Sandro Pezzelle, Marco Baroni, Gemma Boleda, Raquel Fernández. Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2016.

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/p16-1144

Cites

15 of 15 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?

  • There is no 'ground-truth' implementation from the original benchmark authors for many popular benchmarks that have been retrofitted for compatibility with autoregressive LMs.

    “There is no 'ground-truth' implementation from the original benchmark authors, and many popular benchmarks (Paperno et al., 2016; Clark et al., 2018; Zellers et al., 2019) that have been 'retrofitted' for compatibility with autoregressive LMs.”

    From Lessons from the Trenches on Reproducible Evaluation of Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as Paperno et al., 2016

    Section 4 (Modeling experiments; page unavailable) establishes that Paperno et al. introduced LAMBADA as a benchmark and evaluated language-model baselines on it. Our copy does not say that LAMBADA was later retrofitted for autoregressive LMs or that its authors provided no ‘ground-truth’ implementation for such use. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The downstream tasks LAMBADA, HellaSwag, PIQA, ARC-challenge, ARC-easy, and WinoGrande measure common sense reasoning.

    “for evaluating the following tasks that measure common sense reasoning: LAMBADA (OpenAI version in LM Evaluation Harness) (Paperno et al., 2016), HellaSwag (Zellers et al., 2019), PIQA (Bisk et al., 2020), ARC-challenge, ARC-easy (Clark et al., 2018), WinoGrande (Sakaguchi et al., 2021).”

    From xLSTM: Extended Long Short-Term Memory (2024) · cites this paper as Paperno et al., 2016

    The Conclusion identifies LAMBADA as a benchmark for predicting a word using broad discourse context, and §3.3 describes items requiring inference about familiar events and general reasoning. This supports a reasoning component, but the paper does not characterize LAMBADA specifically as a measure of common-sense reasoning. The Paperno et al. citation is attached to LAMBADA, not to the other listed tasks. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In contrast to LAMBADA and GSM8K, which test skills not directly applicable to software engineering, the SWAA set represents actions needed in both software engineering work and the longer tasks studied.

    “In contrast to other simple benchmarks like LAMBADA [44] or GSM8K [45], which test skills not directly applicable to software engineering, the SWAA set represents actions that are needed in both software engineering work and the longer tasks we study.”

    From Measuring AI Ability to Complete Long Software Tasks (2025) · cites this paper as [44]

  • On LAMBADA, Chinchilla achieves 77.4% accuracy, compared to 74.5% from Gopher and 76.6% from MT-NLG 530B.

    “On the final word prediction dataset LAMBADA (Paperno et al., 2016), Chinchilla achieves 77.4% accuracy, compared to 74.5% accuracy from Gopher and 76.6% from MT-NLG 530B (see Table 7).”

    From Training Compute-Optimal Large Language Models (2022) · cites this paper as Paperno et al., 2016

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: 8

  1. Karl Moritz Hermann, Tomáš Kočiský, Edward Grefenstette, Lasse Espeholt, Will Kay, Mustafa Suleyman, and Phil Blunsom. 2015. Teaching machines to read and comprehend. In Proceed- ings of NIPS, Montreal, Canada. Published online: https://papers.nips.cc/book/ advances-in-neural-information- processing-systems-28-2015.
  2. Tomas Mikolov, Stefan Kombrink, Anoop Deoras, Lukar Burget, and Jan Honza Cernocky. 2011. Rnnlm -recurrent neural network language. In Pro- ceedings of ASRU. IEEE Automatic Speech Recog- nition and Understanding Workshop.
  3. Tomas Mikolov. 2014. Using neural net- works for modelling and representing nat- ural languages. Slides presented at COL- ING, online at http://www.coling- 2014.org/COLING\2014\Tutorial- fix\-\TomasMikolov.pdf.
  4. Tim Rocktäschel, Edward Grefenstette, Karl Moritz Hermann, Tomáš Kočiský, and Phil Blunsom. 2016. Reasoning about entailment with neural attention. In Proceedings of ICLR Conference Track, San Juan, Puerto Rico. Published online: http://www. iclr.cc/doku.php?id=iclr2016:main.
  5. Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, Arthur Szlam, Jason Weston, and Rob Fergus. 2015. End-to-end memory networks. http://arxiv.org/abs/1503. 08895.
  6. Oriol Vinyals and Quoc Le. 2015. A neural conver- sational model. In Proceedings of the ICML Deep Learning Workshop, Lille, France. Published on- line: https://sites.google.com/site/ deeplearning2015/accepted-papers.
  7. Tian Wang and Kyunghyun Cho. 2015. Larger- context language modelling. http://arxiv. org/abs/1511.03729.
  8. Wenpeng Yin and Hinrich Schütze. 2015. Multi- GranCNN: An architecture for general matching of text chunks on multiple levels of granularity. In Pro- ceedings of ACL, pages 63-73, Beijing, China.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Paperno, D., Kruszewski, G., Lazaridou, A., Pham, N. Q., Bernardi, R., Pezzelle, S., Baroni, M., Boleda, G., & Fernandez, R.
Affiliations
University of Trento (IT)
Venue
Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)
Published
2016
Pages
1525-1534
ISSN
0736-587X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2473344385
Cited by
87
References
15
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 2
FWCI
5.93
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)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Institutional Research Information System (Università degli Studi di Trento) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Open Research (University of Surrey) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Nvidia
  • European Commission (655577, 283554, HORIZON2020)
  • Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (276-89-008)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
Keywords
word prediction, discourse context, language models, discourse coherence, next sentence prediction

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