The DOI matches its DataCite record; 48 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
ELECTRA: Pre-training Text Encoders as Discriminators Rather Than Generators
Open accessAbstract
Masked language modeling (MLM) pre-training methods such as BERT corrupt the input by replacing some tokens with [MASK] and then train a model to reconstruct the original tokens. While they produce good results when transferred to downstream NLP tasks, they generally require large amounts of compute to be effective. As an alternative, we propose a more sample-efficient pre-training task called replaced token detection. Instead of masking the input, our approach corrupts it by replacing some tokens with plausible alternatives sampled from a small generator network. Then, instead of training a model that predicts the original identities of the corrupted tokens, we train a discriminative model that predicts whether each token in the corrupted input was replaced by a generator sample or not. Thorough experiments demonstrate this new pre-training task is more efficient than MLM because the task is defined over all input tokens rather than just the small subset that was masked out. As a result, the contextual representations learned by our approach substantially outperform the ones learned by BERT given the same model size, data, and compute. The gains are particularly strong for small models; for example, we train a model on one GPU for 4 days that outperforms GPT (trained using 30x more compute) on the GLUE natural language understanding benchmark. Our approach also works well at scale, where it performs comparably to RoBERTa and XLNet while using less than 1/4 of their compute and outperforms them when using the same amount of compute.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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
“We will use FLOPs, as they allow us to estimate the needed energy relating hardware FLOPS with required FLOPs for a model [Hollemans, 2018, Clark et al., 2020].”
From Trends in AI inference energy consumption: Beyond the performance-vs-parameter laws of deep learning (2023) · cites this paper as Clark et al., 2020
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
“In NLP, they count FLOPs as single mathematical operations and not as a single hardware instructions (like in CV).”
From Trends in AI inference energy consumption: Beyond the performance-vs-parameter laws of deep learning (2023) · cites this paper as Clark et al., 2020
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The authors corrupted the tokens with plausible alternatives sampled from a small generator network that improves the model performance significantly.”
From A Review on Deep-Learning-Based Cyberbullying Detection (2023) · cites this paper as [52]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“but we ultimately found out this information explained in [Clark et al., 2020].”
From Trends in AI inference energy consumption: Beyond the performance-vs-parameter laws of deep learning (2023) · cites this paper as Clark et al., 2020
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
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
Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization
Kingma, D. P., & Ba, J. (2014) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1412.6980 · Cited by 98,946
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
Glove: Global Vectors for Word Representation
Pennington, J., Socher, R., & Manning, C. (2014) · Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.3115/v1/d14-1162 · Cited by 34,071
Self-citationEfficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Space
Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G., & Dean, J. (2013) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1301.3781 · Cited by 26,568
GAN（Generative Adversarial Nets）
淳司, 柴. (2017) · Journal of Japan Society for Fuzzy Theory and Intelligent Informatics · doi:10.3156/jsoft.29.5_177_2 · Cited by 20,507
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
Unsupervised representation learning with deep convolutional generative adversarial networks
Radford, A., Metz, L., & Chintala, S. (2015) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1511.06434 · Cited by 12,235
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
Simple Statistical Gradient-Following Algorithms for Connectionist Reinforcement Learning
Williams, R. J. (1992) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/bf00992696 · Cited by 8,608
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Ian J. Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron C. Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. Generative adversarial nets. In NeurIPS , 2014.
- Zhenzhong Lan, Mingda Chen, Sebastian Goodman, Kevin Gimpel, Piyush Sharma, and Radu Soricut. ALBERT: A lite bert for self-supervised learning of language representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.11942 , 2019. · arXiv
- Robert Parker, David Graff, Junbo Kong, Ke Chen, and Kazuaki Maeda. English gigaword, fifth edition. Technical report, Linguistic Data Consortium, Philadelphia, 2011.
- Zhiqing Sun, Hongkun Yu, Xiaodan Song, Renjie Liu, Yiming Yang, and Denny Zhou. MobileBERT: Task-agnostic compression of bert for resource limited devices, 2019b. URL https: //openreview.net/forum?id=SJxjVaNKwB .
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformer
Raffel, C., Shazeer, N., Roberts, A., Lee, K., Narang, S., Matena, M., Zhou, Y., Li, W., & Liu, P. J. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1910.10683 · Cited by 10,929
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
Liu, Z., Mao, H., Wu, C.-Y., Feichtenhofer, C., Darrell, T., & Xie, S. (2022) · 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr52688.2022.01167 · Cited by 8,494
CodeBERT: A Pre-Trained Model for Programming and Natural Languages
Feng, Z., Guo, D., Tang, D., Duan, N., Feng, X., Gong, M., Shou, L., Qin, B., Liu, T., Jiang, D., et al. (2020) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020 · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.findings-emnlp.139 · Cited by 2,824
Ray, P. P. (2023) · Internet of Things and Cyber-Physical Systems · doi:10.1016/j.iotcps.2023.04.003 · Cited by 2,463
Metadata
- Authors
- Clark, K., Luong, M.-T., Le, Q. V., & Manning, C. D.
- Affiliations
- Stanford University (US)
- Google (United States) (US)
- ORCID
- Le, Quoc V.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2020
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2003.10555
- OpenAlex
- W2996035354
- Cited by
- 1,844
- References
- 48
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 129 · 2024: 240 · 2023: 572 · 2022: 415 · 2021: 375 · 2020: 100
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- International Conference on Learning Representations
- Funders
- Canadian Institute for Advanced Research
- Programa Operacional Regional do Centro (Portugal 2020)
- Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (PT2020, -01-0247-, 00326, UID/CEC/00326/2020)
- European Regional Development Fund (PT2020)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
- Keywords
- Electra, masked language modeling, text encoder, sample efficiency, context representation, natural language understanding
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
