Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Is It Worth the (Environmental) Cost? Limited Evidence for Temporal Adaptation via Continuous 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

arxiv 2210.07365 v2 pith:G77Z7AJN submitted 2022-10-13 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords modelslanguagetemporaladaptationadditionalbenchmarkscontinuouscost
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Language is constantly changing and evolving, leaving language models to become quickly outdated. Consequently, we should continuously update our models with new data to expose them to new events and facts. However, that requires additional computing, which means new carbon emissions. Do any measurable benefits justify this cost? This paper looks for empirical evidence to support continuous training. We reproduce existing benchmarks and extend them to include additional time periods, models, and tasks. Our results show that the downstream task performance of temporally adapted English models for social media data do not improve over time. Pretrained models without temporal adaptation are actually significantly more effective and efficient. However, we also note a lack of suitable temporal benchmarks. Our findings invite a critical reflection on when and how to temporally adapt language models, accounting for sustainability.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Pith tools