PreprintCited by 146Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesMultimodal Machine Learning Applications

Can ChatGPT Understand Too? A Comparative Study on ChatGPT and Fine-tuned BERT

Open access
Zhong, Qihuang, Ding, Liang, Liu, Juhua, Du, Bo, Tao, Dacheng·2023·arXiv

Abstract

Recently, ChatGPT has attracted great attention, as it can generate fluent and high-quality responses to human inquiries. Several prior studies have shown that ChatGPT attains remarkable generation ability compared with existing models. However, the quantitative analysis of ChatGPT's understanding ability has been given little attention. In this report, we explore the understanding ability of ChatGPT by evaluating it on the most popular GLUE benchmark, and comparing it with 4 representative fine-tuned BERT-style models. We find that: 1) ChatGPT falls short in handling paraphrase and similarity tasks; 2) ChatGPT outperforms all BERT models on inference tasks by a large margin; 3) ChatGPT achieves comparable performance compared with BERT on sentiment analysis and question-answering tasks. Additionally, by combining some advanced prompting strategies, we show that the understanding ability of ChatGPT can be further improved.

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.2302.10198

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

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

Claims other papers make about this one

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

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. Sweta Agrawal, Chunting Zhou, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Marjan Ghazvininejad. 2022. In- context examples selection for machine translation. arXiv preprint.
  2. Yejin Bang, Samuel Cahyawijaya, Nayeon Lee, Wen- liang Dai, Dan Su, Bryan Wilie, Holy Lovenia, Zi- wei Ji, Tiezheng Yu, Willy Chung, et al. 2023. A multitask, multilingual, multimodal evaluation of chatgpt on reasoning, hallucination, and interactiv- ity. arXiv preprint.
  3. Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. NeurIPS.
  4. Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, et al. 2022. Palm: Scaling lan- guage modeling with pathways. arXiv preprint.
  5. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understand- ing. In NAACL.
  6. Danilo Giampiccolo, Bernardo Magnini, Ido Dagan, and William B Dolan. 2007. The third pascal recognizing textual entailment challenge. In ACL- PASCAL.
  7. Pengcheng He, Xiaodong Liu, Jianfeng Gao, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. Deberta: Decoding-enhanced bert with disentangled attention. In ICLR.
  8. Wenxiang Jiao, Wenxuan Wang, Jen-tse Huang, Xing Wang, and Zhaopeng Tu. 2023. Is chatgpt a good translator? a preliminary study. arXiv preprint.
  9. Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yu- taka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. 2022. Large lan- guage models are zero-shot reasoners. In NeurIPS.
  10. 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 ACL.
  11. Pengfei Liu, Weizhe Yuan, Jinlan Fu, Zhengbao Jiang, Hiroaki Hayashi, and Graham Neubig. 2021. Pre- train, prompt, and predict: A systematic survey of prompting methods in natural language processing. ACM Computing Surveys.
  12. 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.
  13. Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Gray, et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instruc- tions with human feedback. In NeurIPS.
  14. Barun Patra, Saksham Singhal, Shaohan Huang, Zewen Chi, Li Dong, Furu Wei, Vishrav Chaudhary, and Xia Song. 2022. Beyond english-centric bitexts for better multilingual language representation learning. arXiv preprint.
  15. Chengwei Qin, Aston Zhang, Zhuosheng Zhang, Jiaao Chen, Michihiro Yasunaga, and Diyi Yang. 2023. Is chatgpt a general-purpose natural language process- ing task solver? arXiv preprint.
  16. Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text trans- former. JMLR.
  17. Pranav Rajpurkar, Jian Zhang, Konstantin Lopyrev, and Percy Liang. 2016. Squad: 100,000+ questions for machine comprehension of text. In EMNLP.
  18. Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Sentence- bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert- networks. In EMNLP.
  19. Shaden Smith, Mostofa Patwary, Brandon Norick, Patrick LeGresley, Samyam Rajbhandari, Jared Casper, Zhun Liu, Shrimai Prabhumoye, George Zerveas, Vijay Korthikanti, et al. 2022. Using deepspeed and megatron to train megatron-turing nlg 530b, a large-scale generative language model. arXiv preprint.
  20. Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, Jean Wu, Jason Chuang, Christopher D Manning, Andrew Y Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2013. Recursive deep mod- els for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In EMNLP.
  21. Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel R Bowman. 2019. Glue: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. In ICLR.
  22. Jiaan Wang, Yunlong Liang, Fandong Meng, Zhixu Li, Jianfeng Qu, and Jie Zhou. 2023. Cross-lingual sum- marization via chatgpt. arXiv preprint.
  23. Wei Wang, Bin Bi, Ming Yan, Chen Wu, Jiangnan Xia, Zuyi Bao, Liwei Peng, and Luo Si. 2020. Structbert: Incorporating language structures into pre-training for deep language understanding. In ICLR.
  24. Alex Warstadt, Amanpreet Singh, and Samuel R Bow- man. 2019. Neural network acceptability judgments. TACL.
  25. Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Rishi Bommasani, Colin Raffel, Barret Zoph, Sebastian Borgeaud, Dani Yogatama, Maarten Bosma, Denny Zhou, Donald Metzler, et al. 2022a. Emergent abilities of large language models. TMLR.
  26. Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed H Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. 2022b. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits rea- soning in large language models. In NeurIPS.
  27. Adina Williams, Nikita Nangia, and Samuel Bowman. 2018. A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sen- tence understanding through inference. In NAACL.
  28. Susan Zhang, Stephen Roller, Naman Goyal, Mikel Artetxe, Moya Chen, Shuohui Chen, Christopher De- wan, Mona Diab, Xian Li, Xi Victoria Lin, et al. 2022. Opt: Open pre-trained transformer language models. arXiv preprint.
  29. Qihuang Zhong, Liang Ding, Juhua Liu, Bo Du, and Dacheng Tao. 2022a. E2s2: Encoding-enhanced sequence-to-sequence pretraining for language un- derstanding and generation. arXiv preprint.
  30. Qihuang Zhong, Liang Ding, Juhua Liu, Bo Du, and Dacheng Tao. 2022b. Panda: Prompt transfer meets knowledge distillation for efficient model adaptation. arXiv preprint.
  31. Qihuang Zhong, Liang Ding, Keqin Peng, Juhua Liu, Bo Du, Yibing Zhan, and Dacheng Tao. 2023. Bag of tricks for effective language model pretraining and downstream adaptation: A case study on glue. arXiv preprint.
  32. Qihuang Zhong, Liang Ding, Li Shen, Peng Mi, Juhua Liu, Bo Du, and Dacheng Tao. 2022c. Improving sharpness-aware minimization with fisher mask for better generalization on language models. In Find- ings of EMNLP.
  33. Qihuang Zhong, Liang Ding, Yibing Zhan, Y. Qiao, Yonggang Wen, Li Shen, Juhua Liu, Baosheng Yu, Bo Du, Yixin Chen, Xinbo Gao, Chun Miao, Xiaoou Tang, and Dacheng Tao. 2022d. Toward efficient language model pretraining and downstream adap- tation via self-evolution: A case study on superglue. arXiv preprint.
  34. Terry Yue Zhuo, Yujin Huang, Chunyang Chen, and Zhenchang Xing. 2023. Exploring ai ethics of chat- gpt: A diagnostic analysis. arXiv preprint.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhong, Q., Ding, L., Liu, J., Du, B., & Tao, D.
Affiliations
The University of Sydney (AU)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4321524280
Cited by
146
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 52 · 2024: 47 · 2023: 44
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • 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 › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
Keywords
ChatGPT, large language models, understanding ability, GLUE benchmark, fine-tuned BERT, sentiment analysis, question answering, prompting strategies, language model comparison

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