CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 223Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Efficient Large Scale Language Modeling with Mixtures of Experts

Open access
Artetxe, Mikel, Bhosale, Shruti, Goyal, Naman, Mihaylov, Todor, Ott, Myle, Shleifer, Sam, Lin, Xi Victoria, Du, Jingfei, Iyer, Srinivasan, Pasunuru, Ramakanth, Anantharaman, Giri, Li, Xian, Chen, Shuohui, Akin, Halil, Baines, Mandeep, Martin, Louis, Zhou, Xing, Koura, Punit Singh, O'Horo, Brian, Wang, Jeff, Zettlemoyer, Luke, Diab, Mona, Kozareva, Zornitsa, Stoyanov, Ves·2021·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2112.10684arXiv 2112.10684
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Mixture of Experts layers (MoEs) enable efficient scaling of language models through conditional computation. This paper presents a detailed empirical study of how autoregressive MoE language models scale in comparison with dense models in a wide range of settings: in- and out-of-domain language modeling, zero- and few-shot priming, and full-shot fine-tuning. With the exception of fine-tuning, we find MoEs to be substantially more compute efficient. At more modest training budgets, MoEs can match the performance of dense models using $\sim$4 times less compute. This gap narrows at scale, but our largest MoE model (1.1T parameters) consistently outperforms a compute-equivalent dense model (6.7B parameters). Overall, this performance gap varies greatly across tasks and domains, suggesting that MoE and dense models generalize differently in ways that are worthy of future study. We make our code and models publicly available for research use.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2112.10684

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Sparse mixture-of-experts architectures scale up the number of parameters in a model while maintaining constant computational costs for an input.

    “One direction is using sparse mixture-of-experts architectures (Lepikhin et al., 2021; Fedus et al., 2021; Artetxe et al., 2021; Zoph et al., 2022), which scale up the number of parameters in a model while maintaining constant computational costs for an input.”

    From Emergent Abilities of Large Language Models (2022) · cites this paper as Artetxe et al., 2021

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 63

  1. Stephen H Bach, Victor Sanh, Zheng-Xin Yong, Al- bert Webson, Colin Raffel, Nihal V Nayak, Ab- heesht Sharma, Taewoon Kim, M Saiful Bari, Thibault Fevry, et al. 2022. Promptsource: An integrated development environment and repository for natural language prompts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.01279. · arXiv
  2. Alexei Baevski and Michael Auli. 2019. Adaptive in- put representations for neural language modeling. In International Conference on Learning Representa- tions.
  3. Emily M Bender, Timnit Gebru, Angelina McMillan- Major, and Shmargaret Shmitchell. 2021. On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Confer- ence on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pages 610-623.
  4. Emmanuel Bengio, Pierre-Luc Bacon, Joelle Pineau, and Doina Precup. 2015. Conditional computation in neural networks for faster models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.06297. · arXiv
  5. Yoshua Bengio, Nicholas Léonard, and Aaron Courville. 2013. Estimating or propagating gradi- ents through stochastic neurons for conditional com- putation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1308.3432. · arXiv
  6. Yonatan Bisk, Rowan Zellers, Ronan Le bras, Jianfeng Gao, and Yejin Choi. 2020. Piqa: Reasoning about physical commonsense in natural language. Pro- ceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intel- ligence, 34(05):7432-7439. · DOI · Paper page
  7. Su Lin Blodgett, Gilsinia Lopez, Alexandra Olteanu, Robert Sim, and Hanna Wallach. 2021. Stereotyp- ing norwegian salmon: an inventory of pitfalls in fairness benchmark datasets. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Vol- ume 1: Long Papers), pages 1004-1015.
  8. Shikha Bordia and Samuel Bowman. 2019. Identify- ing and reducing gender bias in word-level language models. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Student Research Work- shop, pages 7-15.
  9. Andrew Davis and Itamar Arel. 2013. Low-rank ap- proximations for conditional feedforward compu- tation in deep neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.4461. · arXiv
  10. Daniel de Vassimon Manela, David Errington, Thomas Fisher, Boris van Breugel, and Pasquale Minervini. 2021. Stereotype and skew: Quantifying gender bias in pre-trained and fine-tuned language models. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the Euro- pean Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 2232-2242.
  11. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language under- standing. In North American Association for Com- putational Linguistics (NAACL).
  12. Prafulla Dhariwal, Heewoo Jun, Christine Payne, Jong Wook Kim, Alec Radford, and Ilya Sutskever. 2020. Jukebox: A generative model for music. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.00341. · arXiv
  13. Bradley Efron and Robert J Tibshirani. 1994. An intro- duction to the bootstrap. CRC press.
  14. Angela Fan, Shruti Bhosale, Holger Schwenk, Zhiyi Ma, Ahmed El-Kishky, Siddharth Goyal, Mandeep Baines, Onur Celebi, Guillaume Wenzek, Vishrav Chaudhary, et al. 2021. Beyond english-centric mul- tilingual machine translation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 22(107):1-48.
  15. William Fedus, Barret Zoph, and Noam Shazeer. 2021. Switch transformers: Scaling to trillion parameter models with simple and efficient sparsity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.03961. · arXiv
  16. Leo Gao, Stella Biderman, Sid Black, Laurence Gold- ing, Travis Hoppe, Charles Foster, Jason Phang, Horace He, Anish Thite, Noa Nabeshima, Shawn Presser, and Connor Leahy. 2021. The pile: An 800gb dataset of diverse text for language modeling. CoRR, abs/2101.00027. · arXiv
  17. Udit Gupta, Young Geun Kim, Sylvia Lee, Jordan Tse, Hsien-Hsin S Lee, Gu-Yeon Wei, David Brooks, and Carole-Jean Wu. 2021. Chasing carbon: The elu- sive environmental footprint of computing. IEEE In- ternational Symposium on High-Performance Com- puter Architecture (HPCA 2021).
  18. Dan Hendrycks and Kevin Gimpel. 2016. Gaus- sian error linear units (gelus). arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.08415. · arXiv
  19. Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeff Dean. 2015. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531. · arXiv
  20. Neil Houlsby, Andrei Giurgiu, Stanislaw Jastrzebski, Bruna Morrone, Quentin De Laroussilhe, Andrea Gesmundo, Mona Attariyan, and Sylvain Gelly. 2019. Parameter-efficient transfer learning for nlp. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 2790-2799. PMLR.
  21. Yanping Huang, Youlong Cheng, Ankur Bapna, Orhan Firat, Dehao Chen, Mia Chen, HyoukJoong Lee, Ji- quan Ngiam, Quoc V Le, Yonghui Wu, et al. 2019. Gpipe: Efficient training of giant neural networks using pipeline parallelism. Advances in neural in- formation processing systems, 32:103-112.
  22. Diederik Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2015. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR).
  23. Alex Krizhevsky. 2014. One weird trick for paralleliz- ing convolutional neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1404.5997. · arXiv
  24. Alexandre Lacoste, Alexandra Luccioni, Victor Schmidt, and Thomas Dandres. 2019. Quantifying the carbon emissions of machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.09700. · arXiv
  25. Zhenzhong Lan, Mingda Chen, Sebastian Goodman, Kevin Gimpel, Piyush Sharma, and Radu Soricut. 2020. Albert: A lite bert for self-supervised learning of language representations. In International Con- ference on Learning Representations (ICLR).
  26. Dmitry Lepikhin, HyoukJoong Lee, Yuanzhong Xu, Dehao Chen, Orhan Firat, Yanping Huang, Maxim Krikun, Noam Shazeer, and Zhifeng Chen. 2021. GShard: Scaling giant models with conditional com- putation and automatic sharding. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR).
  27. Brian Lester, Rami Al-Rfou, and Noah Constant. 2021. The power of scale for parameter-efficient prompt tuning. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3045-3059.
  28. Mike Lewis, Shruti Bhosale, Tim Dettmers, Naman Goyal, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2021. Base layers: Simplifying training of large, sparse models. In ICML.
  29. Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Mar- jan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre- training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th An- nual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7871-7880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  30. Xiang Lisa Li and Percy Liang. 2021. Prefix-tuning: Optimizing continuous prompts for generation. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Lan- guage Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4582-4597.
  31. Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Man- dar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining ap- proach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692. · arXiv
  32. Paulius Micikevicius, Sharan Narang, Jonah Alben, Gregory Diamos, Erich Elsen, David Garcia, Boris Ginsburg, Michael Houston, Oleksii Kuchaiev, Ganesh Venkatesh, and Hao Wu. 2018. Mixed preci- sion training. In International Conference on Learn- ing Representations.
  33. Todor Mihaylov, Peter Clark, Tushar Khot, and Ashish Sabharwal. 2018. Can a suit of armor conduct elec- tricity? a new dataset for open book question an- swering. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2381-2391, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  34. Nasrin Mostafazadeh, Nathanael Chambers, Xiaodong He, Devi Parikh, Dhruv Batra, Lucy Vanderwende, Pushmeet Kohli, and James Allen. 2016. A cor- pus and cloze evaluation for deeper understanding of commonsense stories. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 839-849, San Diego, California. Association for Computational Linguis- tics. · DOI · Paper page
  35. Moin Nadeem, Anna Bethke, and Siva Reddy. 2021. StereoSet: Measuring stereotypical bias in pre- trained language models. In Association for Com- putational Linguistics (ACL).
  36. Nikita Nangia, Clara Vania, Rasika Bhalerao, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2020. CrowS-pairs: A chal- lenge dataset for measuring social biases in masked language models. In Proceedings of the 2020 Con- ference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1953-1967, Online. As- sociation for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  37. Deepak Narayanan, Mohammad Shoeybi, Jared Casper, Patrick LeGresley, Mostofa Patwary, Vi- jay Anand Korthikanti, Dmitri Vainbrand, Prethvi Kashinkunti, Julie Bernauer, Bryan Catanzaro, et al. 2021. Efficient large-scale language model training on gpu clusters. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.04473. · arXiv
  38. Eric W Noreen. 1989. Computer-intensive methods for testing hypotheses. Wiley New York.
  39. Myle Ott, Sergey Edunov, Alexei Baevski, Angela Fan, Sam Gross, Nathan Ng, David Grangier, and Michael Auli. 2019. FAIRSEQ: A fast, extensible toolkit for sequence modeling. In North American Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL): System Demonstrations.
  40. Myle Ott, Sergey Edunov, David Grangier, and Michael Auli. 2018. Scaling neural machine trans- lation. In Proceedings of the Third Conference on Machine Translation (WMT).
  41. Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Soumith Chintala, Gregory Chanan, Edward Yang, Zachary DeVito, Zeming Lin, Alban Desmaison, Luca Antiga, and Adam Lerer. 2017. Automatic differentiation in PyTorch. In NIPS Autodiff Workshop.
  42. David Patterson, Joseph Gonzalez, Quoc Le, Chen Liang, Lluis-Miquel Munguia, Daniel Rothchild, David So, Maud Texier, and Jeff Dean. 2021. Car- bon emissions and large neural network training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.10350. · arXiv
  43. Samyam Rajbhandari, Jeff Rasley, Olatunji Ruwase, and Yuxiong He. 2020. Zero: Memory optimiza- tions toward training trillion parameter models. In SC20: International Conference for High Perfor- mance Computing, Networking, Storage and Anal- ysis, pages 1-16. IEEE.
  44. Stephen Roller, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, Arthur Szlam, and Jason Weston. 2021. Hash layers for large sparse models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.04426. · arXiv
  45. Keisuke Sakaguchi, Ronan Le Bras, Chandra Bhaga- vatula, and Yejin Choi. 2020. Winogrande: An ad- versarial winograd schema challenge at scale. Pro- ceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intel- ligence, 34(05):8732-8740. · DOI · Paper page
  46. Timo Schick and Hinrich Schütze. 2021a. Exploiting cloze-questions for few-shot text classification and natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the As- sociation for Computational Linguistics: Main Vol- ume, pages 255-269, Online. Association for Com- putational Linguistics.
  47. Timo Schick and Hinrich Schütze. 2021b. It's not just size that matters: Small language models are also few-shot learners. In Proceedings of the 2021 Con- ference of the North American Chapter of the Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics: Human Lan- guage Technologies, pages 2339-2352.
  48. Roy Schwartz, Jesse Dodge, Noah A Smith, and Oren Etzioni. 2019. Green ai. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.10597. · arXiv
  49. Noam Shazeer, Azalia Mirhoseini, Krzysztof Maziarz, Andy Davis, Quoc Le, Geoffrey Hinton, and Jeff Dean. 2017. Outrageously large neural networks: The sparsely-gated mixture-of-experts layer. arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.06538. · arXiv
  50. Emily Sheng, Kai-Wei Chang, Premkumar Natarajan, and Nanyun Peng. 2019. The woman worked as a babysitter: On biases in language generation. In Pro- ceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Meth- ods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th In- ternational Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP).
  51. Mohammad Shoeybi, Mostofa Patwary, Raul Puri, Patrick LeGresley, Jared Casper, and Bryan Catan- zaro. 2019. Megatron-lm: Training multi-billion pa- rameter language models using model parallelism. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.08053. · arXiv
  52. Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, Jean Wu, Jason Chuang, Christopher D. Manning, Andrew Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2013. Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment tree- bank. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1631-1642, Seattle, Washington, USA. Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics.
  53. Emma Strubell, Ananya Ganesh, and Andrew Mc- Callum. 2019. Energy and policy considera- tions for deep learning in nlp. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.02243. · arXiv
  54. Yi Tay, Mostafa Dehghani, Jinfeng Rao, William Fe- dus, Samira Abnar, Hyung Won Chung, Sharan Narang, Dani Yogatama, Ashish Vaswani, and Don- ald Metzler. 2021. Scale efficiently: Insights from pre-training and fine-tuning transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.10686. · arXiv
  55. Trieu H Trinh and Quoc V Le. 2018. A simple method for commonsense reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.02847. · arXiv
  56. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Advances in neural information pro- cessing systems.
  57. Guillaume Wenzek, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Alexis Con- neau, Vishrav Chaudhary, Francisco Guzmán, Ar- mand Joulin, and Edouard Grave. 2020. CCNet: Extracting high quality monolingual datasets from web crawl data. In Proceedings of the 12th Lan- guage Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 4003-4012, Marseille, France. European Language Resources Association.
  58. Adina Williams, Nikita Nangia, and Samuel Bowman. 2018. A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sen- tence understanding through inference. In Proceed- ings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 1112-1122, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguis- tics. · DOI · Paper page
  59. Carole-Jean Wu, Ramya Raghavendra, Udit Gupta, Bilge Acun, Newsha Ardalani, Kiwan Maeng, Glo- ria Chang, Fiona Aga Behram, James Huang, Charles Bai, et al. 2021. Sustainable ai: Environ- mental implications, challenges and opportunities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.00364. · arXiv
  60. Yuanzhong Xu, HyoukJoong Lee, Dehao Chen, Hongjun Choi, Blake Hechtman, and Shibo Wang. 2020. Automatic cross-replica sharding of weight update in data-parallel training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.13336. · arXiv
  61. Rowan Zellers, Ari Holtzman, Yonatan Bisk, Ali Farhadi, and Yejin Choi. 2019. HellaSwag: Can a machine really finish your sentence? In Pro- ceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics, pages 4791- 4800, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  62. Sheng Zhang, Xiaodong Liu, Jingjing Liu, Jianfeng Gao, Kevin Duh, and Benjamin Van Durme. 2018. ReCoRD: Bridging the gap between human and ma- chine commonsense reading comprehension. arXiv preprint 1810.12885. · arXiv
  63. Yukun Zhu, Ryan Kiros, Richard Zemel, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Raquel Urtasun, Antonio Torralba, and Sanja Fidler. 2019. Aligning books and movies: Towards story-like visual explanations by watch- ing movies and reading books. arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.06724. Dense MoE 125M 355M 1.3B 2.7B 6.7B 13B 15B 52B 207B 1.1T In-domain Validation 20.65 15.14 12.48 10.92 9.82 8.97 12.58 9.58 8.76 6.80 Out-of-domain - (The Pile) ArXiv 15.74 11.42 9.00 8.03 7.29 6.86 10.81 8.79 7.72 6.91 Bibliotik 26.78 19.62 15.75 13.96 12.81 11.96 17.80 14.64 13.29 11.88 BookCorpus 23.60 17.91 14.83 13.36 12.38 11.70 16.54 13.90 12.82 11.57 CommonCrawl 22.49 16.92 13.91 12.47 11.50 10.80 15.17 12.47 11.43 10.02 DM_Mathematics 12.29 9.73 8.51 8.10 7.66 7.41 10.51 8.82 8.28 7.63 Enron_Emails 19.98 15.71 12.32 11.40 10.78 10.09 14.24 12.18 11.08 10.45 EuroParl 27.16 15.80 12.02 9.91 8.63 7.68 12.58 9.47 8.41 6.92 FreeLaw 16.78 11.98 9.44 8.33 7.58 7.08 10.54 8.49 7.68 6.84 Github 8.92 6.55 5.13 4.61 4.30 4.03 6.11 4.93 4.41 3.99 Gutenberg_PG-19 29.15 20.70 16.39 14.37 13.03 12.08 18.85 14.94 13.48 11.90 HackerNews 29.37 22.53 18.11 16.20 14.96 14.08 20.72 17.15 15.67 14.21 NIH_ExPorter 26.78 19.18 15.28 13.55 12.40 11.64 17.08 14.00 12.66 11.42 OpenSubtitles 20.72 16.87 14.16 13.05 12.28 11.61 16.38 13.64 12.64 11.78 OpenWebText2 20.56 14.64 11.88 10.47 9.51 8.79 12.76 10.03 9.03 7.06 PhilPapers 27.60 20.00 15.99 14.07 12.90 12.03 18.77 15.19 13.56 11.91 PubMed_Abstracts 24.16 16.56 12.95 11.38 10.35 9.65 14.46 11.71 10.49 9.36 PubMed_Central 12.19 9.35 7.65 6.89 6.36 6.03 8.74 7.32 6.60 6.02 StackExchange 17.76 12.46 9.65 8.43 7.58 7.04 10.99 8.74 7.73 6.72 USPTO 17.15 12.85 10.43 9.36 8.67 8.18 12.00 9.95 9.01 8.14 Ubuntu_IRC 28.40 21.47 16.16 13.92 12.50 11.48 17.80 14.79 12.85 11.49 Wikipedia_en 20.51 14.61 11.59 10.22 9.22 8.56 12.35 9.68 8.60 6.65 YoutubeSubtitles 19.01 13.51 10.80 9.31 8.38 7.70 12.23 9.88 8.80 7.51 Average 21.23 15.47 12.36 10.97 10.05 9.39 13.97 11.40 10.28 9.11 · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Artetxe, M., Bhosale, S., Goyal, N., Mihaylov, T., Ott, M., Shleifer, S., Lin, X. V., Du, J., Iyer, S., Pasunuru, R., Anantharaman, G., Li, X., Chen, S., Akin, H., Baines, M., Martin, L., Zhou, X., Koura, P. S., O'Horo, B., Wang, J., Zettlemoyer, L., Diab, M., Kozareva, Z., & Stoyanov, V.
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2021
Pages
11699-11732
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2112.10684
arXiv
2112.10684
OpenAlex
W4385567093
Cited by
223
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 41 · 2025: 59 · 2024: 43 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 36
FWCI
19.43
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
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
large language models, mixture of experts, model compression, parameter-efficient inference

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