CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 1,225Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesMultimodal Machine Learning Applications

Unified Language Model Pre-training for Natural Language Understanding and Generation

Open access
Dong, Li, Yang, Nan, Wang, Wenhui, Wei, Furu, Liu, Xiaodong, Wang, Yu, Gao, Jianfeng, Zhou, Ming +1 more·2019·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1905.03197arXiv 1905.03197
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This paper presents a new Unified pre-trained Language Model (UniLM) that can be fine-tuned for both natural language understanding and generation tasks. The model is pre-trained using three types of language modeling tasks: unidirectional, bidirectional, and sequence-to-sequence prediction. The unified modeling is achieved by employing a shared Transformer network and utilizing specific self-attention masks to control what context the prediction conditions on. UniLM compares favorably with BERT on the GLUE benchmark, and the SQuAD 2.0 and CoQA question answering tasks. Moreover, UniLM achieves new state-of-the-art results on five natural language generation datasets, including improving the CNN/DailyMail abstractive summarization ROUGE-L to 40.51 (2.04 absolute improvement), the Gigaword abstractive summarization ROUGE-L to 35.75 (0.86 absolute improvement), the CoQA generative question answering F1 score to 82.5 (37.1 absolute improvement), the SQuAD question generation BLEU-4 to 22.12 (3.75 absolute improvement), and the DSTC7 document-grounded dialog response generation NIST-4 to 2.67 (human performance is 2.65). The code and pre-trained models are available at https://github.com/microsoft/unilm.

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.1905.03197

Cites

48 of 48 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?

  • UniLM predictions are conditionally independent, whereas BART's are autoregressive.

    “A difference is that UniLM predictions are conditionally independent, whereas BART's are autoregressive.”

    From BART: Denoising Sequence-to-Sequence Pre-training for Natural Language Generation, Translation, and Comprehension (2020) · cites this paper as Dong et al., 2019

    Section 2.3 (p. 4) says UniLM’s sequence-to-sequence target predictions use the source sequence and preceding target tokens as context. It describes the model as having a unidirectional decoder, contrary to the claim that UniLM predictions are conditionally independent. Our copy does not address BART. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    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 Dong et al., 2019

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

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Unsupervised pre-training for NLP has recently been used to obtain state-of-the-art results in many of the most common NLP benchmarks.

    “This approach has recently been used to obtain state-of-the-art results in many of the most common NLP benchmarks (Devlin et al., 2018; Yang et al., 2019; Dong et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2019c; Lan et al., 2019).”

    From Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformer (2019) · cites this paper as Dong et al., 2019

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. [6][6] Zewen Chi, Li Dong, Furu Wei, Wenhui Wang, Xian-Ling Mao, and Heyan Huang. Crosslingual natural language generation via pre-training. ArXiv , abs/1909.10481, 2019. - · arXiv
  2. [7][7] Ido Dagan, Oren Glickman, and Bernardo Magnini. The pascal recognising textual entailment challenge. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Machine Learning Challenges: Evaluating Predictive Uncertainty Visual Object Classification, and Recognizing Textual Entailment , MLCW'05, pages 177-190, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2006. Springer-Verlag. -
  3. [14][14] Michel Galley, Chris Brockett, Xiang Gao, Jianfeng Gao, and Bill Dolan. Grounded response generation task at dstc7. In AAAI Dialog System Technology Challenges Workshop , 2019. -
  4. [17][17] Danilo Giampiccolo, Bernardo Magnini, Ido Dagan, and Bill Dolan. The third PASCAL recognizing textual entailment challenge. In Proceedings of the ACL-PASCAL Workshop on Textual Entailment and Paraphrasing , pages 1-9, Prague, June 2007. Association for Computational Linguistics. -
  5. [22][22] Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations , San Diego, CA, 2015. -
  6. [27][27] Yang Liu. Fine-tune BERT for extractive summarization. CoRR , abs/1903.10318, 2019. - · arXiv
  7. [30][30] Lianhui Qin, Michel Galley, Chris Brockett, Xiaodong Liu, Xiang Gao, Bill Dolan, Yejin Choi, and Jianfeng Gao. Conversing by reading: Contentful neural conversation with ondemand machine reading. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pages 5427-5436, Florence, Italy, July 2019. Association for Computational Linguistics. -
  8. [50][50] Shiyue Zhang and Mohit Bansal. Addressing semantic drift in question generation for semisupervised question answering. CoRR , abs/1909.06356, 2019. - · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Dong, L., Yang, N., Wang, W., Wei, F., Liu, X., Wang, Y., Gao, J., Zhou, M., & Hon, H.-W.
Affiliations
Microsoft (United States) (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2019
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1905.03197
arXiv
1905.03197
OpenAlex
W2945260553
Cited by
1,225
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 61 · 2024: 146 · 2023: 253 · 2022: 206 · 2021: 289 · 2020: 240 · 2019: 28
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • TIB Data Manager
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
Keywords
pre-training, natural language understanding, natural language generation, sequence-to-sequence prediction, abstractive summarization, question answering, question generation, GLUE benchmark, SQuAD

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