REVIEW 1 cited by
On the Role of Bidirectionality in Language Model Pre-Training
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
Prior work on language model pre-training has explored different architectures and learning objectives, but differences in data, hyperparameters and evaluation make a principled comparison difficult. In this work, we focus on bidirectionality as a key factor that differentiates existing approaches, and present a comprehensive study of its role in next token prediction, text infilling, zero-shot priming and fine-tuning. We propose a new framework that generalizes prior approaches, including fully unidirectional models like GPT, fully bidirectional models like BERT, and hybrid models like CM3 and prefix LM. Our framework distinguishes between two notions of bidirectionality (bidirectional context and bidirectional attention) and allows us to control each of them separately. We find that the optimal configuration is largely application-dependent (e.g., bidirectional attention is beneficial for fine-tuning and infilling, but harmful for next token prediction and zero-shot priming). We train models with up to 6.7B parameters, and find differences to remain consistent at scale. While prior work on scaling has focused on left-to-right autoregressive models, our results suggest that this approach comes with some trade-offs, and it might be worthwhile to develop very large bidirectional models.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
LLM-Assisted Question-Answering on Technical Documents Using Structured Data-Aware Retrieval Augmented Generation
A RAG pipeline with OCR, table and image to text conversion, and a RAFT-tuned reranker reports high QA scores, but its 50-question evaluation overlaps with its training manuals and its baseline comparison uses only 5 ...
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.