The DOI matches its DataCite record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 3 of the 4 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
DistilBERT, a distilled version of BERT: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter
Open accessAbstract
As Transfer Learning from large-scale pre-trained models becomes more prevalent in Natural Language Processing (NLP), operating these large models in on-the-edge and/or under constrained computational training or inference budgets remains challenging. In this work, we propose a method to pre-train a smaller general-purpose language representation model, called DistilBERT, which can then be fine-tuned with good performances on a wide range of tasks like its larger counterparts. While most prior work investigated the use of distillation for building task-specific models, we leverage knowledge distillation during the pre-training phase and show that it is possible to reduce the size of a BERT model by 40%, while retaining 97% of its language understanding capabilities and being 60% faster. To leverage the inductive biases learned by larger models during pre-training, we introduce a triple loss combining language modeling, distillation and cosine-distance losses. Our smaller, faster and lighter model is cheaper to pre-train and we demonstrate its capabilities for on-device computations in a proof-of-concept experiment and a comparative on-device study.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
DistilBERT is a distilled version of BERT pre-trained with knowledge distillation, reducing parameters by 40% while retaining 97% of BERT’s GLUE performance and running 60% faster at inference. It is presented as a general-purpose, lighter model suitable for constrained and on-device NLP applications.
Key findings
- DistilBERT has 66M parameters vs. BERT-base’s 110M and takes 410s vs. 668s for a CPU inference pass on STS-B, i.e. 40% smaller and 60% faster.
- On GLUE dev sets, DistilBERT scores 77.0 macro-score vs. BERT-base’s 79.5, retaining 97% of performance; it is always on par or improving over the ELMo baseline.
- On IMDb test accuracy, DistilBERT reaches 92.82 vs. BERT-base’s 93.46; on SQuAD v1.1, DistilBERT reaches 77.7/85.8 EM/F1 vs. BERT-base’s 81.2/88.5.
- Ablations show removing the cosine loss costs -2.96 GLUE macro-score, removing distillation loss costs -1.46, removing MLM loss costs -0.31, and random initialization costs -3.69.
Methods
- Knowledge distillation during pre-training: a student with BERT’s architecture but half the layers, no token-type embeddings and no pooler, initialized from every other teacher layer.
- Training objective is a triple loss combining distillation loss \(L_{ce}\), masked language modeling loss \(L_{mlm}\), and cosine embedding loss \(L_{cos}\), using softmax-temperature.
- Trained on English Wikipedia + Toronto Book Corpus with large batches up to 4K examples, dynamic masking, no next-sentence prediction, on 8 16GB V100 GPUs for approximately 90 hours; evaluated on GLUE, IMDb, SQuAD v1.1, CPU inference, and an iPhone 7 Plus on-device proof-of-concept.
Limitations
- The paper does not state an explicit limitations section.
- Evident from the text: evaluation is limited to English benchmarks and a small set of downstream tasks, and the on-device study is described as a proof-of-concept; the model could be further reduced with quantization.
- Evident from the text: the SQuAD second-distillation result is reported inconsistently—the prose says 79.8 F1 and 70.4 EM, while Table 2 lists DistilBERT (D) as 79.1/86.9.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
15 Own result · 6 Own interpretation · 2 Own method · 2 No basis given · 1 Supported · 1 Partly supported · 1 Sources not found · accuracy not yet measured
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we leverage knowledge distillation during the pre-training phase and show that it is possible to reduce the size of a BERT model by 40%, while retaining 97% of its language understanding capabilities and being 60% faster.”
- Also stated in: § Size and inference speed · p. 4 · plain
“DistilBERT has 40% fewer parameters than BERT and is 60% faster than BERT.”
- Also stated in: § 6 Conclusion and future work · p. 5 · plain
“We introduced DistilBERT, a general-purpose pre-trained version of BERT, 40% smaller, 60% faster, that retains 97% of the language understanding capabilities.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Size and inference speed · p. 4 · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we propose a method to pre-train a smaller generalpurpose language representation model, called DistilBERT, which can then be finetuned with good performances on a wide range of tasks like its larger counterparts.”
- Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · p. 2 · plain
“Our general-purpose pre-trained models can be fine-tuned with good performances on several downstream tasks, keeping the flexibility of larger models.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · p. 2 · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Further ablation studies indicate that all the components of the triple loss are important for best performances.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Excluding the tokenization step, DistilBERT is 71% faster than BERT, and the whole model weighs 207 MB (which could be further reduced with quantization).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we leverage knowledge distillation during the pre-training phase and show that it is possible to reduce the size of a BERT model by 40%, while retaining 97% of its language understanding capabilities and being 60% faster.”
- Also stated in: § Size and inference speed · p. 4 · plain
“DistilBERT has 40% fewer parameters than BERT and is 60% faster than BERT.”
- Also stated in: § 6 Conclusion and future work · p. 5 · plain
“We introduced DistilBERT, a general-purpose pre-trained version of BERT, 40% smaller, 60% faster, that retains 97% of the language understanding capabilities.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Inference speed measured on a single GLUE task (STS-B) on CPU is representative of DistilBERT's speed advantage generally.
- Also stated in: § Size and inference speed · p. 4 · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we propose a method to pre-train a smaller generalpurpose language representation model, called DistilBERT”
- Also stated in: § 6 Conclusion and future work · p. 5 · plain
“We introduced DistilBERT, a general-purpose pre-trained version of BERT”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 6 Conclusion and future work · p. 5 · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found it beneficial to add a cosine embedding loss ( L cos ) which will tend to align the directions of the student and teacher hidden states vectors.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On SQuAD, DistilBERT is within 3.9 points of the full BERT.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we leverage knowledge distillation during the pre-training phase and show that it is possible to reduce the size of a BERT model by 40%, while retaining 97% of its language understanding capabilities and being 60% faster.”
- Also stated in: § 4 Experiments · p. 3 · plain
“DistilBERT also compares surprisingly well to BERT, retaining 97% of the performance with 40% fewer parameters.”
- Also stated in: § 6 Conclusion and future work · p. 5 · plain
“We introduced DistilBERT, a general-purpose pre-trained version of BERT, 40% smaller, 60% faster, that retains 97% of the language understanding capabilities.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 4 Experiments · p. 3 · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“removing the Masked Language Modeling loss has little impact while the two distillation losses account for a large portion of the performance.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 7
- It may state two separate claims as one. 2
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“environmental cost of exponentially scaling these models' computational requirements as mentioned in Schwartz et al. [2019], Strubell et al. [2019].”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Schwartz et al., 2019 source
The Abstract (p. 1) says the computations required for deep learning research have been doubling every few months and have a large carbon footprint. Section 2, “Red AI” (p. 4), likewise warns that the environmental cost of increasingly large models will not decrease soon. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Partly supportedcites Strubell et al., 2019 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (page unavailable) says that computationally hungry NLP models require considerable energy and have associated environmental costs. It also says model development can multiply those costs thousands of times, but it does not establish that the models’ computational requirements are scaling exponentially. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“We applied best practices for training BERT model recently proposed in Liu et al. [2019].”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Liu et al., 2019 source
The Introduction (p. 1) says Liu et al. propose an improved recipe for training BERT, and Section 4 (p. 4) evaluates which choices matter for BERT pretraining. The citing authors’ statement that they applied those practices to DistilBERT describes their own work, not a finding attributed to Liu et al. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Among the 9 tasks, DistilBERT is always on par or improving over the ELMo baseline (up to 19 points of accuracy on STS-B).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this case, we were able to reach interesting performances given the size of the model: 79.8 F1 and 70.4 EM, i.e. within 3 points of the full model.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We further demonstrated that DistilBERT is a compelling option for edge applications.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“BERT and DistilBERT results are the medians of 5 runs with different seeds.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“current research 1 on pre-trained models indicates that training even larger models still leads to better performances on downstream tasks.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites MegatronLM
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We report scores on the development sets for each task by fine-tuning DistilBERT without the use of ensembling or multi-tasking scheme for fine-tuning (which are mostly orthogonal to the present work).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While most prior work investigated the use of distillation for building task-specific models, we leverage knowledge distillation during the pre-training phase”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper relies on this without support.
Operating large pre-trained models on-device in real-time is hampered by their growing computational and memory requirements.
“the growing computational and memory requirements of these models may hamper wide adoption.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Near-zero probabilities in a trained model's output distribution reflect its generalization capabilities.
“some of these”
The paper relies on this without support.
Inference speed measured on a single GLUE task (STS-B) on CPU is representative of DistilBERT's speed advantage generally.
“Inference time of a full pass of GLUE task STS-B (sentiment analysis) on CPU with a batch size of 1.”
“DistilBERT has 40% fewer parameters than BERT and is 60% faster than BERT.”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“This idea has been successfully applied to LLMs, where distilled students approximate the generation patterns of larger teachers while retaining much of their performance (Sanh et al., 2019).”
From Vision-Guided Iterative Refinement for Frontend Code Generation (2026) · cites this paper as Sanh et al., 2019
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“even benchmarking is not a reliable estimator of parameter count [12], [15], [28], [29]”
From Hollow-LLM Attack: Computationally Trivial Weights in Zero-Knowledge Verification of LLM Inference (2026) · cites this paper as [29]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“It achieves similar performance to the original BERT model while using fewer resources. The approach leveraged knowledge distillation during the pretraining phase and reduced the size of general BERT by 40%, yet it retained a language understanding capability of 97%.”
From A Review on Deep-Learning-Based Cyberbullying Detection (2023) · cites this paper as [53]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Unlike in many similar circumstances, we do not employ knowledge distillation [56], because we discovered that for our sizes of the models, this technique does not provide any quality improvement.”
From Full Line Code Completion: Bringing AI to Desktop (2024) · cites this paper as [56]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
§ 4.1 Downstream task benchmark · p. 3
“In this case, we were able to reach interesting performances given the size of the model: 79.8 F1 and 70.4 EM, i.e. within 3 points of the full model.”
§ 3 DistilBERT: a distilled version of BERT · p. 3
“| DistilBERT (D) | - | 79.1/86.9 |”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“DistilBERT is always on par or improving over the ELMo baseline (up to 19 points of accuracy on STS-B).”
Reported 19 · recomputed 16.5
Citations
Cites
Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, L., & Polosukhin, I. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1706.03762 · Cited by 120,404
BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding
Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/n19-1423 · Cited by 54,325
RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approach
Liu, Y., Ott, M., Goyal, N., Du, J., Joshi, M., Chen, D., Levy, O., Lewis, M., Zettlemoyer, L., & Stoyanov, V. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1907.11692 · Cited by 16,515
Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Network
Hinton, G., Vinyals, O., & Dean, J. (2015) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1503.02531 · Cited by 14,204
Deep Contextualized Word Representations
Peters, M., Neumann, M., Iyyer, M., Gardner, M., Clark, C., Lee, K., & Zettlemoyer, L. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/n18-1202 · Cited by 11,983
Transformers: State-of-the-Art Natural Language Processing
Wolf, T., Debut, L., Sanh, V., Chaumond, J., Delangue, C., Moi, A., Cistac, P., Rault, T., Louf, R., Funtowicz, M., et al. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-demos.6 · Cited by 8,741
Self-citationSQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Text
Rajpurkar, P., Zhang, J., Lopyrev, K., & Liang, P. (2016) · Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d16-1264 · Cited by 6,208
GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark and Analysis Platform for Natural Language Understanding
Wang, A., Singh, A., Michael, J., Hill, F., Levy, O., & Bowman, S. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 EMNLP Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP · doi:10.18653/v1/w18-5446 · Cited by 4,222
Learning Word Vectors for Sentiment Analysis
Maas, A. L., Daly, R. E., Pham, P. T., Huang, D., Ng, A. Y., & Potts, C. (2011) · Cited by 3,710
Energy and Policy Considerations for Deep Learning in NLP
Strubell, E., Ganesh, A., & McCallum, A. (2019) · Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1355 · Cited by 3,684
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Cristian Bucila, Rich Caruana, and Alexandru Niculescu-Mizil. Model compression. In KDD , 2006.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 2,101–2,200 of 4,692
Sơn, N. H., Yu, H. M., Nguyen, T.-A., & Nguyen, M.-T. (2022) · International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn55064.2022.9892779 · Cited by 8
VWC-BERT: Scaling Vulnerability–Weakness–Exploit Mapping on Modern AI Accelerators
Das, S. S., Halappanavar, M. M., Tumeo, A., Serra, E., Pothen, A., & Al-Shaer, E. S. (2022) · IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData) · doi:10.1109/bigdata55660.2022.10020622 · Cited by 9
Text-based neural networks for question intent recognition
Trewhela, A., & Figueroa, A. (2023) · Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2023.105933 · Cited by 7
An Investigation of Structures Responsible for Gender Bias in BERT and DistilBERT
Leteno, T., Gourru, A., Laclau, C., & Gravier, C. (2023) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-30047-9_20 · Cited by 9
Transformer-based Denoising Adversarial Variational Entity Resolution
Li, S., & Wu, H. (2023) · Journal of Intelligent Information Systems · doi:10.1007/s10844-022-00773-x · Cited by 7
Emotion detection of social data: APIs comparative study
Abu-Salih, B., Alhabashneh, M., Zhu, D., et al. (2023) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e15926 · Cited by 7
Qurashi, A. W., Farhat, Z. A., Holmes, V., & Johnson, A. P. (2023) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2023.3272610 · Cited by 9
Towards Practical Few-shot Federated NLP
Cai, D., Wu, Y., Yuan, H., Wang, S., Lin, F. X., & Xu, M. (2023) · Workshop on Machine Learning and Systems (EuroMLSys) · doi:10.1145/3578356.3592575 · Cited by 12
Khoo, L. S., Bay, J. Q., Yap, M. L. K., Lim, M. K., Chong, C. Y., Yang, Z., & Lo, D. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER) · doi:10.1109/saner56733.2023.00066 · Cited by 7
Propaganda Detection And Challenges Managing Smart Cities Information On Social Media
Ahmad, P. N., & Khan, K. (2023) · EAI Endorsed Transactions on Smart Cities · doi:10.4108/eetsc.v7i2.2925 · Cited by 7
Improved Knowledge Distillation for Pre-trained Language Models via Knowledge Selection
Wang, C., Lu, Y., Mu, Y., Hu, Y., Xiao, T., & Zhu, J. (2022) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.findings-emnlp.464 · Cited by 10
Quadapter: Adapter for GPT-2 Quantization
Park, M., You, J., Nagel, M., & Chang, S. (2022) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.findings-emnlp.185 · Cited by 7
Rethinking Task-Specific Knowledge Distillation: Contextualized Corpus as Better Textbook
Liu, C., Tao, C., Liang, J., Shen, T., Feng, J., Huang, Q., & Zhao, D. (2022) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.729 · Cited by 8
Cost-effective Distillation of Large Language Models
Dasgupta, S., Cohn, T., & Baldwin, T. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.463 · Cited by 10
Numerical Optimizations for Weighted Low-rank Estimation on Language Models
Hua, T., Hsu, Y.-C., Wang, F., Lou, Q., Shen, Y., & Jin, H. (2022) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.91 · Cited by 10
Sparse Mixers: Combining MoE and Mixing to build a more efficient BERT
Lee-Thorp, J., & Ainslie, J. (2022) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.findings-emnlp.5 · Cited by 7
Are Language Models Sensitive to Semantic Attraction? A Study on Surprisal
Cong, Y., Chersoni, E., Hsu, Y.-Y., & Lenci, A. (2023) · Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.starsem-1.13 · Cited by 8
Measuring the impact of COVID-19 on heritage sites in the UK using social media data
Liu, Z., Orr, S. A., Kumar, P., & Grau‐Bové, J. (2023) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-023-02022-0 · Cited by 7
A Fast Attention Network for Joint Intent Detection and Slot Filling on Edge Devices
Huang, L. P., Liang, S., Ye, F., & Gao, N. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tai.2023.3309272 · Cited by 13
Embedding Recycling for Language Models
Saad-Falcon, J., Singh, A., Soldaini, L., D’Arcy, M., Cohan, A., & Downey, D. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EACL · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-eacl.145 · Cited by 10
MApp-IDEA: Monitoring App for Issue Detection and Prioritization
de Lima, V. M. A., Barbosa, J. R., & Marcacini, R. M. (2023) · Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3613372.3613417 · Cited by 7
Preemptively pruning Clever-Hans strategies in deep neural networks
Linhardt, L., Müller, K., & Montavon, G. (2023) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2023.102094 · Cited by 10
Expository Text Generation: Imitate, Retrieve, Paraphrase
Balepur, N., Huang, J., & Chang, K. C. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.729 · Cited by 16
Pre-training LLMs using human-like development data corpus
Bhardwaj, K., Shah, R. S., & Varma, S. (2023) · BabyLM Challenge · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.conll-babylm.30 · Cited by 7
Meta-Learning Online Adaptation of Language Models
Hu, N., Mitchell, E., Manning, C. D., & Finn, C. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.268 · Cited by 25
Ko, D., Lee, J. S., Choi, M., Chu, J., Park, J., & Kim, H. J. (2023) · IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) · doi:10.1109/iccv51070.2023.00288 · Cited by 8
Gopalakrishnan, S., Chen, V. Z., Dou, W., & Zadrozny, W. (2024) · Natural Language Processing Journal · doi:10.1016/j.nlp.2024.100055 · Cited by 10
E2EG: End-to-End Node Classification Using Graph Topology and Text-based Node Attributes
Dinh, T. A., den Boef, J., Cornelisse, J., & Groth, P. (2023) · IEEE ... International Conference on Data Mining workshops · doi:10.1109/icdmw60847.2023.00142 · Cited by 9
Reducing the Energy Dissipation of Large Language Models (LLMs) with Approximate Memories
Gao, Z., Deng, J., Reviriego, P., Liu, S., & Lombardi, F. (2024) · IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems proceedings · doi:10.1109/iscas58744.2024.10558275 · Cited by 7
CraftAssist Instruction Parsing: Semantic Parsing for a Voxel-World Assistant
Srinet, K., Jernite, Y., Gray, J., & Szlam, A. D. (2020) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.427 · Cited by 10
DSC-IIT ISM at WNUT-2020 Task 2: Detection of COVID-19 informative tweets using RoBERTa
Laxmi, S. D., Agarwal, R., & Sinha, A. (2020) · Workshop on Noisy User-generated Text (W-NUT) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.wnut-1.58 · Cited by 11
JURI SAYS: An Automatic Judgement Prediction System for the European Court of Human Rights
Medvedeva, M., Xu, X., Wieling, M. B., & Vols, M. (2020) · Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications · doi:10.3233/faia200883 · Cited by 10
Real-Time Sentiment Analysis for Polish Dialog Systems Using MT as Pivot
Wołk, K. (2021) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics10151813 · Cited by 7
A Stacking Approach for Cross-Domain Argument Identification
Alhamzeh, A., Bouhaouel, M., Egyed‐Zsigmond, E., Mitrović, J., Brunie, L., & Kosch, H. (2021) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-86472-9_33 · Cited by 8
Hatefi, A., Vu, X.-S., Bhuyan, M. H., & Drewes, F. (2021) · ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM) · doi:10.1145/3459637.3482073 · Cited by 7
Clinical de-identification using sub-document analysis and ELECTRA
Catelli, R., Gargiulo, F., Damiano, E., Esposito, M., & Pietro, G. D. (2021) · IEEE International Conference on Digital Health (ICDH) · doi:10.1109/icdh52753.2021.00050 · Cited by 7
Attanasio, G., Nozza, D., & Bianchi, F. (2022) · International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.semeval-1.90 · Cited by 7
Zhu, W., Wang, P., Ni, Y., Xie, G., & Wang, X. (2023) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-industry.48 · Cited by 7
Prior Art Search Using Multi-modal Embedding of Patent Documents
Kang, M., Lee, S., & Lee, W. (2020) · IEEE International Conference on Big Data and Smart Computing (BigComp) · doi:10.1109/bigcomp48618.2020.000-6 · Cited by 7
A Smart System to Generate and Validate Question Answer Pairs for COVID-19 Literature
Bhambhoria, R. V., Feng, L. Y., Sepehr, D., Chen, J., Cowling, C., Koçak, S. A., & Dolatabadi, E. (2020) · Workshop on Scholarly Document Processing (SDP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.sdp-1.4 · Cited by 7
Language Representation Models for Fine-Grained Sentiment ClassificationPreprint
Cheang, B., Wei, B., Kogan, D., Qiu, H., & Ahmed, M. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.13619 · Cited by 10
ValueNet: A Neural Text-to-SQL Architecture Incorporating ValuesPreprint
Brunner, U., & Stockinger, K. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 7
ProtoryNet - Interpretable Text Classification Via Prototype TrajectoriesPreprint
Hong, D., Wang, T., & Baek, S. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2007.01777 · Cited by 16
"Are you home alone?" "Yes" Disclosing Security and Privacy Vulnerabilities in Alexa SkillsPreprint
Su, D., Liu, J., Zhu, S., Wang, X., & Wang, W. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2010.10788 · Cited by 15
Evaluation of Methods for Protein Representation Learning: A Quantitative AnalysisPreprint
Ünsal, S., Ataş, H., Albayrak, M., Turhan, K., Acar, A. C., & Doğan, T. (2020) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2020.10.28.359828 · Cited by 7
Alquist 3.0: Alexa Prize Bot Using Conversational Knowledge Graph
Pichl, J., Marek, P., Konrád, J., Lorenc, P., Ta, V. D., & Šedivý, J. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2011.03261 · Cited by 7
Accelerating Pre-trained Language Models via Calibrated Cascade.Preprint
Li, L., Lin, Y., Ren, S., Chen, D., Ren, X., Li, P., Zhou, J., & Sun, X. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 6
Generating Synthetic Text Data to Evaluate Causal Inference MethodsPreprint
Wood-Doughty, Z., Shpitser, I., & Dredze, M. H. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2102.05638 · Cited by 13
Optimizing Inference Performance of Transformers on CPUsPreprint
Dice, D., & Kogan, A. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2102.06621 · Cited by 15
Combat COVID-19 Infodemic Using Explainable Natural Language Processing ModelsPreprint
Ayoub, J., Yang, X. J., & Zhou, F. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2103.00747 · Cited by 7
Czert – Czech BERT-like Model for Language RepresentationPreprint
Sido, J., Pražák, O., Pribán, P., Pasek, J., Seják, M., & Konopík, M. (2021) · Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2103.13031 · Cited by 48
Generate, Annotate, and Learn: Generative Models Advance Self-Training and Knowledge Distillation.Preprint
He, X., Nassar, I., Kiros, J., Haffari, G., & Norouzi, M. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 7
Magic Pyramid: Accelerating Inference with Early Exiting and Token PruningPreprint
He, X., Keivanloo, I., Xu, Y. T., He, X., Zeng, B., Rajagopalan, S., & Chilimbi, T. M. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2111.00230 · Cited by 12
Incivility Detection in Open Source Code Review and Issue DiscussionsPreprint
Ferreira, I., Rafiq, A., & Cheng, J. (2022) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4156317 · Cited by 7
Transformers Can Outperform Humans in Short Creative Writing TasksPreprint
Marco, G., Gonzalo, J. A., & Rello, L. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4673692 · Cited by 8
Lück, S., Callaghan, M., Borchers, M., Cowie, A., Fuss, S., Geden, O., Gidden, M., Hartmann, J., Kammann, C. I., Keller, D. P., et al. (2024) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4109712/v1 · Cited by 7
Foundation Models for Video Understanding: A SurveyPreprint
Madan, N., Møgelmose, A., Modi, R., Rawat, Y. S., & Moeslund, T. B. (2024) · doi:10.36227/techrxiv.171769139.99464428/v2 · Cited by 11
Haresamudram, H., Beedu, A., Rabbi, M., Saha, S., Essa, I., & Ploetz, T. (2025) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v39i1.32004 · Cited by 8
Review of Recent Trends in the Detection of Hate Speech and Offensive Language on Social Media
Sokolová, Z., Staš, J., & Juhár, J. (2022) · Acta Electrotechnica et Informatica · doi:10.2478/aei-2022-0018 · Cited by 6
Qualitative Code Suggestion: A Human-Centric Approach to Qualitative Coding
Piano, C. S.-D., Rahimi, S. A., & Cheung, J. C. K. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.993 · Cited by 6
Transfer learning approach for identifying negative sentiment in tweets directed to football players
Mullah, N. S., Zainon, W. M. N. W., & Wahab, M. N. A. (2024) · Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2024.108377 · Cited by 7
Fine grain emotion analysis in Spanish using linguistic features and transformers
Salmerón-Ríos, A., García-Díaz, J. A., Pan, R., & Valencia‐García, R. (2024) · PeerJ Computer Science · doi:10.7717/peerj-cs.1992 · Cited by 6
Jing, C., Cui, C., & Wu, Y. H. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security · doi:10.1109/tifs.2024.3407655 · Cited by 6
QuickCharNet: An Efficient URL Classification Framework for Enhanced Search Engine Optimization
Rastakhiz, F., Eftekhari, M., & Vahdati, S. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3484578 · Cited by 7
Jones, D. Z. E., & Chandrasekharan, E. (2024) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3687001 · Cited by 9
EdgeTA: Neuron-Grained Scaling of Foundation Models in Edge-Side Retraining
Zhang, Q., Han, R., Liu, C. H., Wang, G., Guo, S., & Chen, L. Y. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing · doi:10.1109/tmc.2024.3504859 · Cited by 6
Hoang, D. H. V., Quoc, H. V., & Hùng, B. T. (2024) · PeerJ Computer Science · doi:10.7717/peerj-cs.2536 · Cited by 7
EmpatheticExchanges: Toward Understanding the Cues for Empathy in Dyadic Conversations
Montiel-Vázquez, E. C., Cruz, C. A., Uresti, J. A. R., & Gómez, R. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3520000 · Cited by 8
Anggoro, A. W., Corcoran, P., Widt, D. D., & Li, Y. (2024) · Data Technologies and Applications · doi:10.1108/dta-01-2024-0052 · Cited by 9
Clavié, B. (2025) · Journal of Natural Language Processing · doi:10.5715/jnlp.32.176 · Cited by 19
Contrastive Transformer Network for Long Tail Classification
Melsbach, J. W., Haase, F., Stahlmann, S., Hirschmeier, S., & Schoder, D. (2025) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2025.113607 · Cited by 6
Raj, S., Namdeo, V., Singh, P., & Srivastava, A. (2025) · Computers in Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2025.110320 · Cited by 8
Ce‐LLMs: Status and trends of education‐specific large language models developed in China
Xie, T., Zhou, Y., & Yu, J. (2025) · Future in Educational Research · doi:10.1002/fer3.70008 · Cited by 7
Rumor detection and propagation on social networks: A survey
Ziari, M., & Charkari, N. M. (2025) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2025.128798 · Cited by 9
Aboukadri, S., Ouaddah, A., Mezrioui, A., & Asri, I. E. (2025) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3586203 · Cited by 9
PHILDER: Lightweight Framework for Intelligent Phishing Detection on Resource-Limited Devices
Bispo, G. D., de Andrade, C. A. B., Saiki, G. M., Borges, R. V., Serrano, A. L. M., Filho, G. P. R., & Gonçalves, V. P. (2025) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3592541 · Cited by 6
MTAS: A temporal-aware multiview graph attention framework for early rumor detection on social media
Le-Pham, H.-T., Nguyen, T. H., Tran, A.-D., et al. (2025) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2025.103598 · Cited by 6
Comparing Embedding Methods and Classification Algorithms for Fake News Detection
Paul, V. (2024) · International Conference on Communication, Computing, Smart Materials and Devices (ICCCSMD) · doi:10.1109/icccsmd63546.2024.11015211 · Cited by 6
VISGAB: Virtual staining-driven GAN benchmarking for optimizing skin tissue histology
Hussain, M. A., Waris, A., Akram, M. U., Khan, M. J., Asaf, M. Z., Javaid, A., Sahrish, F., Gilani, S. O., & Hazzazi, F. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-26493-0 · Cited by 7
Enhancing Turkish Sentiment Analysis Using Pre-Trained Language Models
Köksal, Ö. (2021) · Signal Processing and Communications Applications Conference (SIU) · doi:10.1109/siu53274.2021.9477908 · Cited by 7
Contextual Sentence Analysis for the Sentiment Prediction on Financial Data
Pontes, E. L., & Benjannet, M. (2021) · IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData) · doi:10.1109/bigdata52589.2021.9672027 · Cited by 7
Ambiguity Detection in Requirements Classification Task using Fine-Tuned Transformation Technique
Alharbi, S. (2022) · doi:10.5121/csit.2022.122105 · Cited by 6
NEAR: Non-supervised Explainability Architecture for Accurate Review-Based Collaborative Filtering
Pugoy, R. A., & Kao, H. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2022.3226189 · Cited by 6
Emotion-enriched word embeddings for Turkish
Uymaz, H. A., & Metın, S. K. (2023) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2023.120011 · Cited by 8
Textless Speech-to-Music Retrieval Using Emotion Similarity
Doh, S., Won, M., Choi, K., & Nam, J. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp49357.2023.10095926 · Cited by 6
Saxena, V., Rethmeier, N., DIJCK, G. V., & Spanakis, G. (2023) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.481 · Cited by 6
Alhamzeh, A., Fonck, R., Versmée, E., et al. (2022) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.finnlp-1.22 · Cited by 6
Multimodal Sarcasm Detection (MSD) in Videos using Deep Learning Models
Pandey, A., & Vishwakarma, D. K. (2023) · International Conference in Advances in Power, Signal, and Information Technology (APSIT) · doi:10.1109/apsit58554.2023.10201731 · Cited by 6
Tamir, A., Salem, M., & Yuan, J. S. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1109/tcbb.2023.3311427 · Cited by 6
Unveiling Black-Boxes: Explainable Deep Learning Models for Patent Classification
Shajalal, M., Denef, S., Karim, M. R., Boden, A., & Stevens, G. (2023) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-44067-0_24 · Cited by 6
A multilingual, multimodal dataset of aggression and bias: the ComMA dataset
Kumar, R., Ratan, S., Singh, S., Nandi, E., Devi, L. N., Bhagat, A., Dawer, Y., Lahiri, B., & Bansal, A. (2023) · Language Resources and Evaluation · doi:10.1007/s10579-023-09696-7 · Cited by 7
The Battleship Approach to the Low Resource Entity Matching Problem
Genossar, B., Gal, A., & Shraga, R. (2023) · Proceedings of the ACM on Management of Data · doi:10.1145/3626711 · Cited by 7
On the use of Pretrained Language Models for Legal Italian Document Classification
Benedetto, I., Sportelli, G., Bertoldo, S., Tarasconi, F., Cagliero, L., & Giacalone, G. (2023) · Procedia Computer Science · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2023.10.215 · Cited by 6
Exploring Transformers as Compact, Data-efficient Language Models
Fields, C., & Kennington, C. (2023) · Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.conll-1.35 · Cited by 6
When Reviewers Lock Horns: Finding Disagreements in Scientific Peer Reviews
Kumar, S., Ghosal, T., & Ekbal, A. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.1038 · Cited by 10
Zhang, B., Chen, T., Li, Q., et al. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems · doi:10.1109/tcss.2023.3333954 · Cited by 6
Fillies, J., Hoffmann, M. P., & Paschke, A. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData) · doi:10.1109/bigdata59044.2023.10386244 · Cited by 7
Huang, D., Zeng, Q., Xiong, Y., Liu, S., Pang, C., Xia, M., Fang, T., Ma, Y., Qiang, C., Zhang, Y., et al. (2024) · Interdisciplinary Sciences Computational Life Sciences · doi:10.1007/s12539-024-00605-2 · Cited by 8
We Need to Talk About Classification Evaluation Metrics in NLP
Vickers, P., Barrault, L., Monti, E., & Αλέτρας, Ν. (2023) · International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing and Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (IJCNLP-AACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.ijcnlp-main.33 · Cited by 6
Metadata
- Authors
- Sanh, V., Debut, L., Chaumond, J., & Wolf, T.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2019
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1910.01108
- OpenAlex
- W2978017171
- Cited by
- 4,653
- References
- 18
- Citations by year
- 2026: 67 · 2025: 443 · 2024: 801 · 2023: 1136 · 2022: 736 · 2021: 968 · 2020: 486 · 2019: 15
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Transactions on Graph Data and Knowledge (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
- Keywords
- DistilBERT, knowledge distillation, BERT, pre-training, model compression, on-device computation, language modeling, transfer learning
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-23, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-23 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
