REVIEW 3 cited by
Should You Mask 15% in Masked Language Modeling?
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
Masked language models (MLMs) conventionally mask 15% of tokens due to the belief that more masking would leave insufficient context to learn good representations; this masking rate has been widely used, regardless of model sizes or masking strategies. In this work, we revisit this important choice of MLM pre-training. We first establish that 15% is not universally optimal, and larger models should adopt a higher masking rate. Specifically, we find that masking 40% outperforms 15% for BERT-large size models on GLUE and SQuAD. Interestingly, an extremely high masking rate of 80% can still preserve 95% fine-tuning performance and most of the accuracy in linguistic probing, challenging the conventional wisdom about the role of the masking rate. We then examine the interplay between masking rates and masking strategies and find that uniform masking requires a higher masking rate compared to sophisticated masking strategies such as span or PMI masking. Finally, we argue that increasing the masking rate has two distinct effects: it leads to more corruption, which makes the prediction task more difficult; it also enables more predictions, which benefits optimization. Using this framework, we revisit BERT's 80-10-10 corruption strategy. Together, our results contribute to a better understanding of MLM pre-training.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Relation Geometry in Semantic Space of Language Models
Asymmetric semantic relations form clearer linear regions in LM spaces than symmetric ones, with only moderate encoding of directionality and transitivity and model-dependent reliance on lexical vs contextual cues.
-
ExLM: Rethinking the Impact of [MASK] Tokens in Masked Language Models
Corrupted, ambiguous context semantics, not the presence of [MASK] symbols, drive MLM accuracy loss; expanding each [MASK] into multiple modeled states mitigates this.
-
Delta -- Contrastive Decoding Mitigates Text Hallucinations in Large Language Models
Delta improves context-based question answering by subtracting the word scores of a randomly masked version of the prompt from the word scores of the original prompt during decoding.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.