PreprintCited by 16,515Digital Humanities and ScholarshipComputational and Text Analysis MethodsTopic Modeling

RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approach

Open access
Liu, Yinhan, Ott, Myle, Goyal, Naman, Du, Jingfei, Joshi, Mandar, Chen, Danqi, Levy, Omer, Lewis, Mike +2 more·2019·arXiv

Abstract

Language model pretraining has led to significant performance gains but careful comparison between different approaches is challenging. Training is computationally expensive, often done on private datasets of different sizes, and, as we will show, hyperparameter choices have significant impact on the final results. We present a replication study of BERT pretraining (Devlin et al., 2019) that carefully measures the impact of many key hyperparameters and training data size. We find that BERT was significantly undertrained, and can match or exceed the performance of every model published after it. Our best model achieves state-of-the-art results on GLUE, RACE and SQuAD. These results highlight the importance of previously overlooked design choices, and raise questions about the source of recently reported improvements. We release our models and code.

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.1907.11692

Cites

55 of 55 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?

  • Latent semantic analysis does not fare well in distinguishing Trump senses, whereas ALC performs close to on par with transformer-based RoBERTa embeddings.

    “Latent sematic analysis does not fare well in this task; ALC, on the other hand, performs close to on par with transformer-based RoBERTa embeddings.”

    From Embedding Regression: Models for Context-Specific Description and Inference (2023) · cites this paper as Liu et al. 2019

    Section 2.2 (p. 2) describes the transformer architecture used by the paper, and Section 5 (p. 6) identifies the resulting model as RoBERTa. The paper does not evaluate latent semantic analysis or ALC on distinguishing Trump senses, so it does not support the claimed performance comparison. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • One GPT-2 detector is based on RoBERTa and available as a website called 'GPT-2 Output Detector Demo'.

    “One is based on RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) and available as a website called 'GPT-2 Output Detector Demo.'”
  • RoBERTa was proposed because Liu et al. found BERT was significantly undertrained.

    “Liu et al. found that BERT was significantly undertrained, and they proposed an improved version for training BERT models, namely RoBERTa.”

    From A Review on Deep-Learning-Based Cyberbullying Detection (2023) · cites this paper as [48]

  • Experiments were based on well-established large language models from the general and scientific domain - RoBERTa, BioBERT and SciBERT - with the recommended default hyperparameter settings.

    “Hence, we base our experiments on well-established large language models (LLM) from the general and scientific domain -RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019), BioBERT (Lee et al., 2020) and SciBERT ( Beltagy et al., 2019) -with the recommended default hyperparameter settings.”

    From NLPeer: A Unified Resource for the Computational Study of Peer Review (2023) · cites this paper as Liu et al., 2019

  • 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].”

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: 2

  1. Eneko Agirre, Llu'is M'arquez, and Richard Wicentowski, editors. 2007. Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Semantic Evaluations (SemEval-2007) .
  2. Bryan McCann, James Bradbury, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2017. Learned in translation: Contextualized word vectors. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS) , pages 62976308.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liu, Y., Ott, M., Goyal, N., Du, J., Joshi, M., Chen, D., Levy, O., Lewis, M., Zettlemoyer, L., & Stoyanov, V.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2019
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2965373594
Cited by
16,515
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 437 · 2025: 1521 · 2024: 2366 · 2023: 4159 · 2022: 2861 · 2021: 3287 · 2020: 1704 · 2019: 176 · 2018: 2 · 2013: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1122374)
  • University of Pennsylvania
  • Mirowski Family Foundation
  • National Institutes of Health (MH106933, 1122374)
  • Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (825627)
  • Office of Naval Research (N00014‐19‐1‐2620, N00014)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (P50MH106933)
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (U54HG007963)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (K23NS121520)
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine (T15LM007092)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Digital Humanities and Scholarship
  • Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Computational and Text Analysis Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
combinatorial optimization, Transformer encoder, automated problem solving, sociocultural change

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