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 3,401–3,500 of 4,692
SUSTAINABLESIGNALS: An AI Approach for Inferring Consumer Product Sustainability
Lin, T., Xu, T., Zac, A., & Tomkins, S. (2023) · International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2023/673 · Cited by 3
PREME: Preference-based Meeting Exploration through an Interactive Questionnaire
Arabzadeh, N., Ahmadvand, A., Kiseleva, J., Liu, Y., Awadallah, A. H., Zhong, M., & Shokouhi, M. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EACL · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-eacl.25 · Cited by 5
Player Identification and Next-Move Prediction for Collectible Card Games with Imperfect Information
Fields, L., & Licato, J. (2023) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment · doi:10.1609/aiide.v19i1.27500 · Cited by 2
Measuring Spurious Correlation in Classification: ”Clever Hans” in Translationese
Borah, A., Pylypenko, D., España-Bonet, C., & van Genabith, J. (2023) · International conference Recent advances in natural language processing · doi:10.26615/978-954-452-092-2_022 · Cited by 3
Suicidal Text Detection on Social Media for Suicide Prevention Using Deep Learning Models
Sharma, N., & Karwasra, P. (2023) · IEEE Region 10 Conference (TENCON) · doi:10.1109/tencon58879.2023.10322499 · Cited by 2
Matrix Contrastive Learning for Short Text Clustering
Zhu, Z., Li, J. J., Zhang, X., et al. (2023) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-981-99-8126-7_42 · Cited by 2
DUDetector: Detecting Depressed Users in Twitter Using Deep Learning
Sayadi, A. A., & Aghbari, Z. A. (2023) · International Conference on Emerging Techniques in Computational Intelligence (ICETCI) · doi:10.1109/icetci58599.2023.10331349 · Cited by 2
Enhancing Interpretability Using Human Similarity Judgements to Prune Word Embeddings
Manrique, N. F., Bao, W., Herbelot, A., & Hasson, U. (2023) · BlackboxNLP Workshop on Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP (BlackboxNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.blackboxnlp-1.13 · Cited by 7
Qachfar, F. Z., & Verma, R. M. (2023) · Arabic Natural Language Processing Conference (ArabicNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.arabicnlp-1.54 · Cited by 2
Udagawa, T., Trivedi, A., Merler, M., & Bhattacharjee, B. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-industry.3 · Cited by 3
Multi-word Tokenization for Sequence Compression
Gee, L., Rigutini, L., Ernandes, M., & Zugarini, A. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-industry.58 · Cited by 9
BabyStories: Can Reinforcement Learning Teach Baby Language Models to Write Better Stories?
Zhao, X., Wang, T., Osborn, S., & Rios, A. (2023) · BabyLM Challenge · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.conll-babylm.16 · Cited by 4
Satya Sai Srinath Namburi, G. N. V. V., Sreedhar, M. N., Srinivasan, S., & Sala, F. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.349 · Cited by 7
UPTON: Preventing Authorship Leakage from Public Text Release via Data Poisoning
Wang, Z., Le, T., & Lee, D. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.800 · Cited by 3
Feature-Based Augmentation in Sarcasm Detection Using Reverse Generative Adversarial Network
Suhartono, D., Handoyo, A. T., & Adeta, F. (2023) · Computers, materials & continua/Computers, materials & continua (Print) · doi:10.32604/cmc.2023.045301 · Cited by 2
Just Ask Plus: Using Transcripts for VideoQA
Pirhadi, M. J., Mirzaei, M., & Eetemadi, S. (2023) · IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops (ICCVW) · doi:10.1109/iccvw60793.2023.00332 · Cited by 2
Sexism Detection and Classification Using RoBERTa and Data Augmentation
Rahutami, G. T., & Ruskanda, F. Z. (2023) · International Conference on Advanced Informatics: Concepts, Theory and Applications (ICAICTA) · doi:10.1109/icaicta59291.2023.10390414 · Cited by 2
Hwang, S., Reddy, S., Wainwright, K., Schriver, E., Cappola, A. R., & Mowery, D. L. (2024) · Studies in health technology and informatics · doi:10.3233/shti231038 · Cited by 2
Machine learning at the edge to improve in-field safeguards inspections
Shoman, N., Williams, K., Balsara, B., Ramakrishnan, A., Kakish, Z., Coram, J. L., Honnold, P., Rivas, T., & Smartt, H. A. (2024) · Annals of Nuclear Energy · doi:10.1016/j.anucene.2024.110398 · Cited by 2
Bogacsovics, G., Harangi, B., Beregi-Kovács, M., Kupás, D., Lakatos, R., Serban, N., Tiba, A., & Tóth, J. A. (2024) · IEEE World Symposium on Applied Machine Intelligence and Informatics (SAMI) · doi:10.1109/sami60510.2024.10432795 · Cited by 2
Is a Pretrained Model the Answer to Situational Awareness Detection on Social Media?
Lo, S. L., Lee, K., & Zhang, Y. (2023) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.24251/hicss.2023.263 · Cited by 2
A Comparative Study of Transformers Embeddings for Question Answering in Arabic Private Documents
Daoud, E. A., Samara, G., Daoud, L. A., & Jaidi, M. A. (2023) · IEEE/ACIS International Conference on Big Data, Cloud Computing, and Data Science (BCD) · doi:10.1109/bcd57833.2023.10466308 · Cited by 2
Weak Supervision for Question and Answering Sentiment Analysis
Tomita, V. A. K., Lobato, F. M. F., & Marcacini, R. M. (2023) · International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications · doi:10.1109/icmla58977.2023.00287 · Cited by 3
Mapping Natural Language Intents to User Interfaces through Vision-Language Models
Abukadah, H., Fereidouni, M., & Siddique, A. B. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Semantic Computing (ICSC) · doi:10.1109/icsc59802.2024.00045 · Cited by 3
High-quality distractor generation framework for English reading comprehension
Guo, Z., Wang, H., & Guo, G. (2023) · International Academic Exchange Conference on Science and Technology Innovation (IAECST) · doi:10.1109/iaecst60924.2023.10502585 · Cited by 2
Peters, U., & Quintana, I. O. (2024) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-024-04639-3 · Cited by 1
Wang, J., Liang, Z., Zhang, X., et al. (2024) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn60899.2024.10651310 · Cited by 2
Cybersecurity Defenses: Exploration of CVE Types Through Attack Descriptions
Othman, R., Rossi, B., & Russo, B. (2024) · Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA) · doi:10.1109/seaa64295.2024.00069 · Cited by 3
SDSK2BERT: Explore the Specific Depth with Specific Knowledge to Compress BERT
Ding, L., & Yang, Y. (2020) · IEEE International Conference on Knowledge Graph (ICKG) · doi:10.1109/icbk50248.2020.00066 · Cited by 2
Automatic Induction of Named Entity Classes from Legal Text Corpora.
Bourgonje, P., Breit, A., Khvalchik, M., et al. (2020) · Cited by 2
Language Model CNN-driven Similarity Matching and Classification for HTML-embedded Product Data.
Borst, J., Körner, E., Opasjumruskit, K., & Niekler, A. (2020) · elib (German Aerospace Center) · Cited by 2
JBNU at SemEval-2020 Task 4: BERT and UniLM for Commonsense Validation and Explanation
Na, S., & Lee, J. (2020) · International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.semeval-1.65 · Cited by 2
Das, K., Baruah, A., Barbhuiya, F. A., & Dey, K. (2020) · International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.semeval-1.152 · Cited by 2
UniBO @ KIPoS: Fine-tuning the Italian “BERTology" for PoS-tagging Spoken Data
Tamburini, F. (2020) · Accademia University Press eBooks · doi:10.4000/books.aaccademia.7768 · Cited by 2
Analyzing the Domain Robustness of Pretrained Language Models, Layer by Layer
Kashyap, A. R., Mehnaz, L., Malik, B., Waheed, A., Hazarika, D., Kan, M., & Shah, R. R. (2021) · National University of Singapore · Cited by 2
Data Augmentation for Voice-Assistant NLU using BERT-based Interchangeable Rephrase
Yerukola, A., Bretan, M., & Jin, H. (2021) · Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.eacl-main.159 · Cited by 4
FuzzyBIO: a proposal for fuzzy representation of discontinuous entities
Dirkson, A. R., Verberne, S., Kraaij, W., et al. (2021) · Leiden Repository (Leiden University) · Cited by 2
You, H., Zhu, X., & Stymne, S. (2021) · International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.semeval-1.15 · Cited by 3
Varma, H., Jain, A., Ratadiya, P., & Rathi, A. (2021) · International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.semeval-1.182 · Cited by 2
Information Extraction of Domain-Specific Business Documents with Limited Data
Nguyen, M.-T., Le, L., Le, D. T., Sơn, N. H., Duong, D. H. T., Minh, B. C., & Shojiguchi, A. (2021) · International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn52387.2021.9534328 · Cited by 2
HAHA@IberLEF2021: Humor Analysis using Ensembles of Simple Transformers.
Grover, K., & Goel, T. (2021) · IberLEF@SEPLN · Cited by 2
GiBERT: Enhancing BERT with Linguistic Information using a Lightweight Gated Injection Method
Peinelt, N., Rei, M., & Liakata, M. (2021) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.findings-emnlp.200 · Cited by 2
MT-GAN-BERT: Multi-Task and Generative Adversarial Learning for Sustainable Language Processing.
Breazzano, C., Croce, D., & Basili, R. (2021) · Cited by 2
Democratizing Language Learning using Machine Learning
Gangopadhyay, A., Bardhan, I., Das, A., et al. (2022) · Conference on Information Sciences and Systems · doi:10.1109/ciss53076.2022.9751168 · Cited by 2
Siino, M., Cascia, M. L., & Tinnirello, I. (2022) · International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.semeval-1.55 · Cited by 3
Luo, X., Niu, Y., & Zhu, B. (2022) · International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.semeval-1.170 · Cited by 2
Muttenthaler, L. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2006.08342 · Cited by 2
EmotionGIF-Yankee: A Sentiment Classifier with Robust Model Based Ensemble MethodsPreprint
Wang, W., Chang, K.-S., & Tang, Y.-C. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2007.02259 · Cited by 3
Wang, H., Yeung, W. L. K., Tung, A., Meng, J. T. A., Ryanputera, D., Feng, M., & Arulanadam, S. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2007.03596 · Cited by 3
Model Robustness With Text Classification: Semantic-Preserving Adversarial AttacksPreprint
Singh, R., Joshi, T., Nair, V. N., & Sudjianto, A. (2020) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3677364 · Cited by 3
Pagsusuri ng RNN-based Transfer Learning Technique sa Low-Resource LanguagePreprint
Velasco, D. J. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2010.06447 · Cited by 2
Improved Synthetic Training for Reading ComprehensionPreprint
Chen, Y., Sultan, M. A., & Castelli, V. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2010.12776 · Cited by 3
Detection of COVID-19 informative tweets using RoBERTaPreprint
Dhanalaxmi, S., Agarwal, R., & Sinha, A. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2010.11238 · Cited by 2
Structural and Functional Decomposition for Personality Image Captioning in a Communication GamePreprint
Nguyen, T., Phung, D., Hoai, M., & Nguyen, T. H. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2011.08543 · Cited by 2
A Selective Survey on Versatile Knowledge Distillation Paradigm for Neural Network ModelsPreprint
Ku, J.-H., Oh, J.-H., Lee, Y.-Y., et al. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2011.14554 · Cited by 2
Sentence-Based Model Agnostic NLP Interpretability.Preprint
Rychener, Y., Renard, X., Seddah, D., Frossard, P., & Detyniecki, M. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 2
EmpLite: A Lightweight Sequence Labeling Model for Emphasis Selection of Short TextsPreprint
Agarwal, V., Ghosh, S. K., Chalamalasetti, K., Challa, B., Kumari, S., Harshavardhana, H., & Raja, B. R. K. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2101.03025 · Cited by 2
Lu, W., & Chen, D. L. (2018) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3205116 · Cited by 2
Revisiting Linformer with a modified self-attention with linear complexityPreprint
Verma, M. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.13140/rg.2.2.20172.64644 · Cited by 4
Improved Customer Transaction Classification using Semi-Supervised Knowledge DistillationPreprint
Sukumaran, R. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2102.07635 · Cited by 2
InsertGNN: Can Graph Neural Networks Outperform Humans in TOEFL Sentence Insertion Problem?Preprint
Wu, F., & Li, S. Z. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2103.15066 · Cited by 3
MRCBert: A Machine Reading ComprehensionApproach for Unsupervised SummarizationPreprint
Jain, S., Tang, G., & Chi, L. S. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2105.00239 · Cited by 2
IrEne: Interpretable Energy Prediction for TransformersPreprint
Cao, Q., Lal, Y. K., Trivedi, H. K., Balasubramanian, A., & Balasubramanian, N. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2106.01199 · Cited by 2
Cocktail: Leveraging Ensemble Learning for Optimized Model Serving in Public CloudPreprint
Gunasekaran, J. R., Mishra, C. S., Thinakaran, P., Kandemir, M., & Das, C. R. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2106.05345 · Cited by 3
Leveraging Pre-trained Language Model for Speech Sentiment AnalysisPreprint
Shon, S., Brusco, P., Pan, J. S., Han, K. J., & Watanabe, S. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2106.06598 · Cited by 2
Multi-Label Few-Shot Learning for Aspect Category DetectionPreprint
Hu, M., Zhao, S., Guo, H., et al. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2105.14174 · Cited by 2
Maeoki, S., Mukuta, Y., & Harada, T. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2106.13566 · Cited by 3
Armengol-Estapé, J., Carrino, C. P., Rodriguez-Penagos, C. G., Bonet, O. D. G., Armentano-Oller, C., González-Agirre, A., Melero, M., & Villegas, M. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2107.07903 · Cited by 3
Language Model Evaluation in Open-ended Text GenerationPreprint
Nguyen, A. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2108.03578 · Cited by 5
An Optimized Dataflow for Mitigating Attention Performance BottlenecksPreprint
Kao, S.-C., Subramanian, S., Agrawal, G., & Krishna, T. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 2
Gubelmann, R., Hongler, P., & Handschuh, S. (2021) · Alexandria (UniSG) (University of St.Gallen) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2108.11215 · Cited by 2
Mollá, D., Khanna, U., Galat, D., et al. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2108.12189 · Cited by 2
Establishing Interlingua in Multilingual Language Models.Preprint
Del, M., & Fishel, M. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 2
WALNUT: A Benchmark on Weakly Supervised Learning for Natural Language Understanding.Preprint
Zheng, G., Karamanolakis, G., Shu, K., & Awadallah, A. H. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 2
Sequential Attention Module for Natural Language ProcessingPreprint
Zhou, M., Ma, J., Yang, H., Jiang, L., & Mo, Y. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2109.03009 · Cited by 4
Zero-Shot Open Information Extraction using Question Generation and Reading ComprehensionPreprint
Gupta, H., Badugu, A., Agrawal, T., & Bhatt, H. S. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 2
Born Again Neural Rankers.Preprint
Qin, Z., Yan, L. W., Tay, Y., et al. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 2
Quality Estimation Using Round-trip Translation with Sentence EmbeddingsPreprint
Crone, N., Power, A., & Weldon, J. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2111.00554 · Cited by 2
Dynamic-TinyBERT: Boost TinyBERT's Inference Efficiency by Dynamic Sequence LengthPreprint
Guskin, S., Wasserblat, M., Ding, K., & Kim, G. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2111.09645 · Cited by 5
Detecting Cross-Geographic Biases in Toxicity Modeling on Social MediaPreprint
Ghosh, S., Baker, D., Jurgens, D., & Prabhakaran, V. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2104.06999 · Cited by 2
Färber, M., & Steyer, A. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2112.00160 · Cited by 3
AssistSR: Affordance-centric Question-driven Video Segment RetrievalPreprint
Lei, S. W., Wang, Y., Mao, D., Gao, D., & Shou, M. Z. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 2
Similarity Approximation of Twitter ProfilesPreprint
Shoeibi, N., Shoeibi, N., Shoeibi, N., et al. (2021) · Preprints.org · doi:10.20944/preprints202106.0196.v2 · Cited by 2
A comparative study of deep learning algorithms for hate speech detection on Twitter
Mutanga, R. T. (2021) · doi:10.51415/10321/3776 · Cited by 2
Exploring the Unfairness of DP-SGD Across SettingsPreprint
Noe, F., Herskind, R., & Søgaard, A. (2022) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2202.12058 · Cited by 5
Proceedings of the Fifth Workshop on Teaching NLP
(2021) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.teachingnlp-1 · Cited by 3
Open Voice or Private Message? The Hidden Tug-of-War on Social Media Customer ServicePreprint
He, S., Lee, S., & Rui, H. (2021) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3951591 · Cited by 2
Conditional Topic Allocations for Open-Ended Survey ResponsesPreprint
Wekhof, T. (2022) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4190308 · Cited by 2
Contextualized Vector Embeddings for Malware Detection
Pandya, V. (2022) · doi:10.31979/etd.rjra-9c8m · Cited by 2
Data augmentation for name entity recognition
Tun, K. Z. (2022) · doi:10.32657/10356/161703 · Cited by 2
ON AUTOMATIC GENERATION OF KNOWLEDGE CONNECTIONS
Fraga, F. P. A. (2022) · doi:10.17771/pucrio.acad.61191 · Cited by 3
Advanced Manufacturing, Product Innovations, Productivity and GrowthPreprint
Liu, L., Sojli, E., & Tham, W. W. (2022) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4104903 · Cited by 2
Does Meeting Financial Expectations Boost Employee Satisfaction?Preprint
Hilary, G., Tian, X., & Yu, M. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4420106 · Cited by 2
MVLP: Multi-perspective Vision-Language Pre-training Model for Ethically Aligned Meme DetectionPreprint
Zhang, N., Feng, X., Gu, T., & Chang, L. (2023) · doi:10.36227/techrxiv.23689437 · Cited by 3
Hosseini, E. A., & Fedorenko, E. G. (2023) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2023.11.05.564832 · Cited by 10
Named entity extraction for food safety events monitoring
Lee, Z. H. N. (2023) · doi:10.32657/10356/172106 · Cited by 2
Veytia, D., Airoldi, L., Claudet, J., Cooley, S. R., Magnan, A., Barclay, V. M., Neill, S. P., Sumaila, U. R., Thébaud, O., Voolstra, C. R., et al. (2024) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.pex-2324/v1 · Cited by 2
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
