CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 14

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Sentence Encoders on STILTs: Supplementary Training on Intermediate Labeled-data Tasks

Phang, Jason, Févry, Thibault, Bowman, Samuel R.·2018·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1811.01088arXiv 1811.01088
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Pretraining sentence encoders with language modeling and related unsupervised tasks has recently been shown to be very effective for language understanding tasks. By supplementing language model-style pretraining with further training on data-rich supervised tasks, such as natural language inference, we obtain additional performance improvements on the GLUE benchmark. Applying supplementary training on BERT (Devlin et al., 2018), we attain a GLUE score of 81.8---the state of the art (as of 02/24/2019) and a 1.4 point improvement over BERT. We also observe reduced variance across random restarts in this setting. Our approach yields similar improvements when applied to ELMo (Peters et al., 2018a) and Radford et al. (2018)'s model. In addition, the benefits of supplementary training are particularly pronounced in data-constrained regimes, as we show in experiments with artificially limited training data.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1811.01088

Cites

7 of 7 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 7 references

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. Joachim Bingel and Anders Søgaard. 2017. Identify- ing beneficial task relations for multi-task learning in deep neural networks. In EACL.
  2. Samuel R. Bowman, Gabor Angeli, Christopher Potts, and Christopher D. Manning. 2015. A large anno- tated corpus for learning natural language inference. In EMNLP.
  3. Samuel R. Bowman, Ellie Pavlick, Edouard Grave, Benjamin Van Durme, Alex Wang, Jan Hula, Patrick Xia, Raghavendra Pappagari, R. Thomas McCoy, Roma Patel, Najoung Kim, Ian Tenney, Yinghui Huang, Katherin Yu, Shuning Jin, and Berlin Chen. 2019. Looking for ELMo's friends: Sentence- level pretraining beyond language modeling. arXiv preprint 1812.10860. · arXiv
  4. Ciprian Chelba, Tomas Mikolov, Mike Schuster, Qi Ge, Thorsten Brants, Phillipp Koehn, and Tony Robin- son. 2013. One billion word benchmark for measur- ing progress in statistical language modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.3005. · arXiv
  5. Alexis Conneau, Douwe Kiela, Holger Schwenk, Loïc Barrault, and Antoine Bordes. 2017. Supervised learning of universal sentence representations from natural language inference data. In EMNLP.
  6. Alexis Conneau, Germán Kruszewski, Guillaume Lample, Loïc Barrault, and Marco Baroni. 2018. What you can cram into a single $&!#* vector: Probing sentence embeddings for linguistic proper- ties. In ACL.
  7. Ido Dagan, Oren Glickman, and Bernardo Magnini. 2006. The PASCAL recognising textual entailment challenge. In Machine learning challenges. evalu- ating predictive uncertainty, visual object classifica- tion, and recognising tectual entailment, pages 177- 190. Springer.
  8. William B. Dolan and Chris Brockett. 2005. Automati- cally constructing a corpus of sentential paraphrases. In Proc. International Workshop on Paraphrasing (IWP).
  9. Manaal Faruqui, Jesse Dodge, Sujay Kumar Jauhar, Chris Dyer, Eduard Hovy, and Noah A. Smith. 2015. Retrofitting word vectors to semantic lexicons. In NAACL.
  10. Emma Kerinec, Chloé Braud, and Anders Søgaard. 2018. When does deep multi-task learning work for loosely related document classification tasks? In Proc. EMNLP Workshop BlackboxNLP.
  11. Hector J Levesque, Ernest Davis, and Leora Morgen- stern. 2011. The Winograd schema challenge. In Aaai spring symposium: Logical formalizations of commonsense reasoning, volume 46, page 47.
  12. Bryan McCann, James Bradbury, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2017. Learned in translation: Con- textualized word vectors. In NIPS.
  13. Matthew Peters, Mark Neumann, Mohit Iyyer, Matt Gardner, Christopher Clark, Kenton Lee, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018a. Deep contextualized word rep- resentations. In NAACL.
  14. Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, Jean Wu, Jason Chuang, Christopher D Manning, Andrew Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2013. Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment tree- bank. In EMNLP.
  15. Sandeep Subramanian, Adam Trischler, Yoshua Ben- gio, and Christopher J. Pal. 2018. Learning gen- eral purpose distributed sentence representations via large scale multi-task learning. In ICLR.
  16. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In NIPS.
  17. Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2018. GLUE: A multi-task benchmark and analysis plat- form for natural language understanding. arXiv preprint 1804.07461. · arXiv
  18. Alex Warstadt, Amanpreet Singh, and Samuel R Bow- man. 2018. Neural network acceptability judg- ments. arXiv preprint 1805.12471. · arXiv
  19. Aaron Steven White, Pushpendre Rastogi, Kevin Duh, and Benjamin Van Durme. 2017. Inference is every- thing: Recasting semantic resources into a unified evaluation framework. In Proc. Eighth International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing.
  20. Kelly Zhang and Samuel R. Bowman. 2018. Language modeling teaches you more syntax than translation does: Lessons learned through auxiliary task analy- sis. arXiv preprint 1809.10040. · arXiv
  21. Yukun Zhu, Ryan Kiros, Richard Zemel, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Raquel Urtasun, Antonio Torralba, and Sanja Fidler. 2015b. Aligning books and movies: Towards story-like visual explanations by watching movies and reading books. In arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.06724. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 14

Metadata

Authors
Phang, J., Févry, T., & Bowman, S. R.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2018
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1811.01088
arXiv
1811.01088
References
7
Type
Preprint
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/

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