REVIEW 1 cited by
Probing Representations Learned by Multimodal Recurrent and Transformer Models
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Recent literature shows that large-scale language modeling provides excellent reusable sentence representations with both recurrent and self-attentive architectures. However, there has been less clarity on the commonalities and differences in the representational properties induced by the two architectures. It also has been shown that visual information serves as one of the means for grounding sentence representations. In this paper, we present a meta-study assessing the representational quality of models where the training signal is obtained from different modalities, in particular, language modeling, image features prediction, and both textual and multimodal machine translation. We evaluate textual and visual features of sentence representations obtained using predominant approaches on image retrieval and semantic textual similarity. Our experiments reveal that on moderate-sized datasets, a sentence counterpart in a target language or visual modality provides much stronger training signal for sentence representation than language modeling. Importantly, we observe that while the Transformer models achieve superior machine translation quality, representations from the recurrent neural network based models perform significantly better over tasks focused on semantic relevance.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Evaluation of Czech Sentence Embeddings: Semantic Relevance Doesn't Help with MT Evaluation
For English-to-Czech MT evaluation, embeddings that win intrinsic semantic similarity benchmarks (SimCSE) perform worst after fine-tuning, while intrinsically poor models (XLM-R, FERNET) perform best.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.