Preprint

BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding

Devlin, Jacob, Chang, Ming-Wei, Lee, Kenton, Toutanova, Kristina·2018·arXiv

Abstract

We introduce a new language representation model called BERT, which stands for Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers. Unlike recent language representation models, BERT is designed to pre-train deep bidirectional representations from unlabeled text by jointly conditioning on both left and right context in all layers. As a result, the pre-trained BERT model can be fine-tuned with just one additional output layer to create state-of-the-art models for a wide range of tasks, such as question answering and language inference, without substantial task-specific architecture modifications. BERT is conceptually simple and empirically powerful. It obtains new state-of-the-art results on eleven natural language processing tasks, including pushing the GLUE score to 80.5% (7.7% point absolute improvement), MultiNLI accuracy to 86.7% (4.6% absolute improvement), SQuAD v1.1 question answering Test F1 to 93.2 (1.5 point absolute improvement) and SQuAD v2.0 Test F1 to 83.1 (5.1 point absolute improvement).

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1810.04805

Cites

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?

  • Statistics-based machine learning models such as BERT have strong dependencies on the linguistic characteristics of the pre-training data.

    “Particularly, statistics-based machine learning models such as BERT [24] have strong dependencies on the linguistic characteristics of the pre-training data.”

    From Synthetic Lies: Understanding AI-Generated Misinformation and Evaluating Algorithmic and Human Solutions (2023) · cites this paper as [24]

    Section 3.1 (p. 5) says BERT's pre-training critically requires a document-level corpus to preserve long contiguous sequences, supporting a dependence on one characteristic of the training text. It does not establish the broader claim that statistics-based models such as BERT have strong dependencies on the linguistic characteristics of pre-training data generally. (LLM, conf=0.79)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Transformer architectures and the underlying attention mechanism have greatly improved the ability of autoregressive self-supervised language models to handle long-range dependencies in natural-language texts.

    “One key development in the area is the use of transformer architectures [2, 3] and the underlying attention mechanism [4], which have greatly improved the ability of autoregressive 1 self-supervised 2 language models to handle longrange dependencies in natural-language texts.”

    From ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education (2023) · cites this paper as [2]

    Section 3 (p. 3) identifies BERT as a Transformer using self-attention, so the paper supports the citation as an example of a Transformer architecture. But Section 3.1 (p. 4) says BERT uses masked-language-model pre-training rather than a left-to-right autoregressive objective; the cited passages do not establish the claimed improvement in autoregressive models’ handling of long-range dependencies. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Within the past five years, NLP advancements have achieved huge gains in accuracy on standard datasets, with state-of-the-art accuracy as high as 99% for certain tasks.

    “Within the past five years, advancements in NLP have achieved huge gains in accuracy when tested against standard datasets [8, 18, 34, 56, 58, 60, 63], with state-ofthe-art accuracy in natural language processing models as high as 99% for certain tasks [8, 34].”

    From A Mixed-Methods Approach to Understanding User Trust after Voice Assistant Failures (2023) · cites this paper as [18]

    Section 4.1 (p. 6) reports substantial accuracy gains over prior state of the art on GLUE tasks, supporting the claim about improvements on standard datasets. It does not report 99% accuracy for a task or establish the claim’s five-year timeframe; searches for 99% accuracy found no such result in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Multi-head attention over 12 or 24 layers is applied and the output is passed to a simple regression function to derive the final label.

    “Multi-head attention over 12 (base-model) or 24 layers (large-model) is applied and the output is passed to a simple regression function to derive the final label.”

    From Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks (2019) · cites this paper as Devlin et al., 2018

    Section 3 (p. 3) identifies BERTBASE as having 12 Transformer layers and BERTLARGE as having 24, with multiple self-attention heads. But §§3.2 and 5.3 (pp. 5, 9) describe task-specific output or classification layers, not a general regression function that derives the final label. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • This integration leverages the linguistic capabilities of Llama 3, utilizing both its textual output and intermediate embeddings at the token rate to enhance the prediction of prosody features, thus reducing the lookahead required by the model.

    “This integration leverages the linguistic capabilities of Llama 3, utilizing both its textual output and intermediate embeddings at the token rate (Devlin et al., 2018; Dong et al., 2019; Raffel et al., 2020; Guo et al., 2023) to enhance the prediction of prosody features, thus reducing the lookahead required by the model.”

    From The Llama 3 Herd of Models (2024) · cites this paper as Devlin et al., 2018

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    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.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. Alan Akbik, Duncan Blythe, and Roland Vollgraf. 2018. Contextual string embeddings for sequence labeling. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics , pages 1638-1649.
  2. Rie Kubota Ando and Tong Zhang. 2005. A framework for learning predictive structures from multiple tasks and unlabeled data. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 6(Nov):1817-1853.
  3. Peter F Brown, Peter V Desouza, Robert L Mercer, Vincent J Della Pietra, and Jenifer C Lai. 1992. Class-based n-gram models of natural language. Computational linguistics , 18(4):467-479.
  4. Andrew M Dai and Quoc V Le. 2015. Semi-supervised sequence learning. In Advances in neural information processing systems , pages 3079-3087.
  5. William B Dolan and Chris Brockett. 2005. Automatically constructing a corpus of sentential paraphrases. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Paraphrasing (IWP2005) .
  6. Minghao Hu, Yuxing Peng, Zhen Huang, Xipeng Qiu, Furu Wei, and Ming Zhou. 2018. Reinforced mnemonic reader for machine reading comprehension. In IJCAI .
  7. Ryan Kiros, Yukun Zhu, Ruslan R Salakhutdinov, Richard Zemel, Raquel Urtasun, Antonio Torralba, and Sanja Fidler. 2015. Skip-thought vectors. In Advances in neural information processing systems , pages 3294-3302.
  8. Quoc Le and Tomas Mikolov. 2014. Distributed representations of sentences and documents. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 1188-1196.
  9. Hector J Levesque, Ernest Davis, and Leora Morgenstern. 2011. The winograd schema challenge. In Aaai spring symposium: Logical formalizations of commonsense reasoning , volume 46, page 47.
  10. Lajanugen Logeswaran and Honglak Lee. 2018. An efficient framework for learning sentence representations. In International Conference on Learning Representations .
  11. Bryan McCann, James Bradbury, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2017. Learned in translation: Contextualized word vectors. In NIPS .
  12. Tomas Mikolov, Ilya Sutskever, Kai Chen, Greg S Corrado, and Jeff Dean. 2013. Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 26 , pages 3111-3119. Curran Associates, Inc.
  13. Andriy Mnih and Geoffrey E Hinton. 2009. A scalable hierarchical distributed language model. In D. Koller, D. Schuurmans, Y. Bengio, and L. Bottou, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 21 , pages 1081-1088. Curran Associates, Inc.
  14. Minjoon Seo, Aniruddha Kembhavi, Ali Farhadi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2017. Bidirectional attention flow for machine comprehension. In ICLR .
  15. Joseph Turian, Lev Ratinov, and Yoshua Bengio. 2010. Word representations: A simple and general method for semi-supervised learning. In Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , ACL '10, pages 384-394.
  16. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages 6000-6010.
  17. Adams Wei Yu, David Dohan, Minh-Thang Luong, Rui Zhao, Kai Chen, Mohammad Norouzi, and Quoc V Le. 2018. QANet: Combining local convolution with global self-attention for reading comprehension. In ICLR .

Authors
Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2018
Type
Preprint

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