Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 38 references

A Comparative Analysis of Transformer and LSTM Models for Detecting Suicidal Ideation on Reddit

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Fine-tuned RoBERTa is the most effective model for detecting suicidal ideation in Reddit posts, reaching 93.22% average accuracy and a 93.14% F1 score.

desk verdict The new corpus is a real resource, but the subreddit-sourced labels and topically distant negative class make the 93% accuracy a measure of topic separation, not suicidal-ideation detection. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15404 v1 pith:SMKYSBCC submitted 2024-11-23 cs.LG cs.CLcs.SI

Khalid Hasan , Jamil Saquer This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.CLcs.SI
keywords suicidalideationdetectionReddittransformermodelsRoBERTaLSTMBERTembeddingstextclassificationmentalhealthscreening
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that modern deep-learning language models can reliably separate Reddit posts that express suicidal ideation from ordinary posts, with fine-tuned RoBERTa the most accurate of the five transformers tested. On a self-collected dataset of 37,821 posts — every r/SuicideWatch post labeled suicidal, posts from five other subreddits labeled non-suicidal — RoBERTa reaches 93.22% accuracy and 93.14% F1, while all other transformers stay above 91%. The paper also shows that LSTM models using BERT embeddings nearly match the transformers (best at 92.65% accuracy), but the same LSTM architecture with GloVe or Word2Vec embeddings falls far behind, indicating the embedding choice drives performance. If these results hold, automated screening of social media for suicide risk becomes practical.

What carries the argument

The mechanism that carries the argument is a binary text-classification pipeline trained on a dataset whose labels come from subreddit membership: 18,566 posts from r/SuicideWatch are labeled suicidal and 19,255 posts from five other subreddits are labeled non-suicidal. The models — BERT, RoBERTa, DistilBERT, ALBERT, ELECTRA, and LSTM variants with BERT, GloVe, or Word2Vec embeddings — are fine-tuned and compared under a 5-fold stratified cross-validation with majority voting across folds. To defend the labels, the paper uses LDA topic modeling (which extracts suicidal phrasings like 'ending tonight' and 'want die') and a Cohen's-kappa analysis on a 2% random sample manually annotated by the two authors. The load-bearing hinge is that the subreddit-of-origin label is treated as ground truth.

What would settle it

Have the two authors (or independent annotators) label the 756 held-out posts and compare their labels directly against the subreddit-derived labels; if agreement is below about 0.8 kappa, or if models trained on subreddit labels perform markedly worse on a fully manually-labeled test set than the reported 93% accuracy, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is a performance ranking: fine-tuned RoBERTa is the most effective model, with 93.22% average cross-validation accuracy and 93.14% F1, followed closely by ELECTRA and BERT above 92%, and DistilBERT and ALBERT just above 91%. The second discovery is that a bidirectional LSTM with attention plus BERT embeddings performs nearly as well (92.65% accuracy), whereas identical LSTM models with GloVe or Word2Vec embeddings drop to 77% or lower, and in the Word2Vec case to the mid-50s. The authors take this as evidence that contextual, bidirectional representations are what make suicidal-ideation detection work, and that transformer-based models, in particular, offer a strong foundation for mental-health monitoring tools.

Load-bearing premise

The whole accuracy story depends on the assumption that every r/SuicideWatch post is suicidal and every post from the other five subreddits is not; the manual check on 2% of posts only shows that the two authors label consistently with each other, not that the subreddit-derived labels match the concept.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Automated screening is within reach: a fine-tuned RoBERTa flagging at-risk posts could operate at scale on public Reddit data, with precision and recall both around 93%.
  • The near-tie between RoBERTa and BERT-embedded LSTM suggests that the transformer encoder's contextual embeddings, rather than the fine-tuned classification head, may carry most of the signal.
  • DistilBERT's half training time with only about 1.3 points lower accuracy makes it the pragmatic choice for organizations with limited compute.
  • The released dataset gives the community a shared English Reddit benchmark for suicide-ideation detection, enabling direct comparison of future models.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If subreddit-membership labels are accurate enough, this study demonstrates a low-cost annotation strategy: entire communities serve as weak labels, which could scale to other mental-health conditions (depression, anxiety) and other platforms.
  • A natural stress test is to apply the best model to posts from subreddits not in the training set; if accuracy drops sharply, the model may be learning subreddit style rather than suicidal content.
  • The paper's precision-recall balance (about 91-93% for transformers) means false negatives are roughly as common as false positives in this setting; a deployment would need to decide which error is costlier, something the paper does not address.
  • Adding user-level features (post history, posting frequency) is a testable extension that could either improve accuracy or reveal that the current model already saturates the information in individual posts.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports a binary text-classification study for detecting suicidal ideation in Reddit posts. The authors collect 37,821 posts from six subreddits over three months, label all 18,566 posts from r/SuicideWatch as suicidal and all posts from the other five subreddits as non-suicidal, and compare five transformer models (BERT, RoBERTa, DistilBERT, ALBERT, ELECTRA) with several LSTM variants using BERT, GloVe, and Word2Vec embeddings. Evaluation is by 5-fold stratified cross-validation on 80% of the data with a held-out 20% test set, and the reported headline result is that RoBERTa achieves 93.22% accuracy and 93.14% F1, with a BERT-embedded LSTM with attention close behind at 92.65%/92.69%. The paper also describes linguistic analysis, LDA topic modeling of the positive class, and a manual annotation check on a 2% sample, and it makes the dataset available on request.

Significance. If the labels were valid and the evaluation protocol were clean, the paper would provide a useful comparative benchmark of transformer and LSTM models for a socially important task, and the training-time observation about DistilBERT would be practical. The paper has concrete strengths: a relatively large dataset, a systematic comparison across several transformer and LSTM architectures, explicit hyperparameter settings for the LSTM models, and a held-out test protocol with majority voting across CV folds. However, the central claim that RoBERTa is the most effective model for detecting suicidal ideation is currently not supported by the evidence as presented, because the label-validity check does not validate the subreddit-derived labels and because the negative class is constructed to be topically distant from the positive class. These are load-bearing issues, not presentation defects.

major comments (4)
  1. [IV.A.2 and IV.C.3] The label validation is logically incomplete. The paper states that all r/SuicideWatch posts are suicidal and all posts from the other five subreddits are non-suicidal (Section IV.A.2), and then validates this by reporting Cohen's kappa between two annotators on a random 2% sample (Section IV.C.3). This only measures inter-annotator agreement on the sample; it does not measure agreement between the subreddit-derived labels and manual judgments. The appropriate check would be to compare the automatic subreddit-based labels against the manual labels for the same sample and report the confusion matrix or kappa between the two labeling schemes. As written, even near-perfect annotator agreement is compatible with the subreddit-derived labels being wrong for a large fraction of posts. Additionally, the reported 'both Cohen's kappa values of Author 1, 0.897, and Author 2, 0.854' is incoherent: Cohen's kappa is a single pairwise statistic, not a per-annotator score.
  2. [IV.A.1 and V.A] The construction of the negative class makes the classification task substantially easier than suicidal-ideation detection and undermines the reported accuracies. The negative posts come from r/socialanxiety, r/TrueOffMyChest, r/bipolar, r/confidence, and r/geopolitics, which the authors select because they are 'not related to suicidal factors at all' (Section IV.A.1). In particular, r/geopolitics is topically very distant from r/SuicideWatch, so a model can achieve high accuracy by recognizing topic or community rather than by detecting expressions of suicidal ideation. The validation steps in Sections IV.C.2 and IV.C.3 examine only the suicidal class via LDA topic modeling and measure annotator agreement; they do not test whether negative posts are free of suicidal content or whether positive posts are distinguishable from mental-health-adjacent non-suicidal posts. To support the central claim, the authors need to evaluate on a negative class that includes mental-health-adjacent subreddits (e.g., r/depression) or on manually relabeled data, and report how accuracy changes when the topic confound is removed.
  3. [Table II and Section V.A] The claim that RoBERTa is the most effective model is not supported with statistical evidence. The accuracy differences among RoBERTa (93.22%), ELECTRA (92.57%), BERT (92.39%), and the BERT LSTM variants (around 92.5-92.7%) are small, but the paper reports no confidence intervals, standard deviations across folds, or significance tests. The phrase 'average cross-validation accuracy' is also ambiguous: it is unclear whether Table II reports averages over the five validation folds, performance on the held-out 20% test set after majority voting, or some other aggregation. The authors should state the evaluation protocol precisely and report variability or significance testing before drawing the comparative conclusion.
  4. [IV.A.1 and IV.C.2] The topic-modeling analysis does not provide evidence about label quality for the negative class. LDA is run only on r/SuicideWatch posts (Section IV.C.2), so it can at most show that the positive class is thematically coherent around suicide-related language. It cannot detect suicidal ideation in the negative subreddits, nor can it establish that the positive and negative classes are separated by suicidal content rather than by topic or community. This should be acknowledged, or additional analyses of the negative class should be provided.
minor comments (6)
  1. [II (Related Work)] The acronym 'SVN' appears in the sentence about early work using Support Vector Machines; this should be 'SVM'.
  2. [V.B] The text refers to 'GolVe' embeddings in the sentence about the superiority of BERT embeddings; this should be 'GloVe'.
  3. [IV.C.3] The heading and text use 'Cohens’ Kappa' and 'Both Cohen's kappa values'; the phrasing should be corrected to refer to a single pairwise kappa statistic between the two annotators.
  4. [V (Experiments)] The sentence 'We divided the whole dataset into 20% to test the models’ overall performance' is awkward and should be rephrased for clarity, for example as 'We held out 20% of the dataset for testing...'.
  5. [V (Experiments)] The hyperparameter description covers the LSTM models but does not report batch size, number of epochs, maximum sequence length, or other training details for the transformer models; providing these would improve reproducibility.
  6. [References] Some references are incomplete or inconsistently formatted; for example, the RoBERTa citation gives only an arXiv identifier and the Ray reference is a general website link. A uniform reference style throughout would improve presentation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is an empirical model comparison evaluated on held-out data, and its self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

This paper is an empirical comparative evaluation rather than a derivation chain. The central claim—that RoBERTa achieves 93.22% accuracy and 93.14% F1 (Table II, Section V.A)—is obtained by training classifiers on text and evaluating on a held-out 20% test split under 5-fold stratified cross-validation, so the reported metrics are not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. Hyperparameter tuning is performed on validation folds, and test performance is reported separately, so there is no reduction-by-construction of the test result to the training objective. The dataset labels are derived from subreddit membership, and the manual Cohen's kappa validation is self-referential in that the authors annotate their own sample, but this is an annotation-quality and construct-validity concern rather than a circular derivation: the model's accuracy is computed against the published labels, and no equation or fitted quantity is definitionally equal to the reported 'suicidal ideation detection' performance. The self-citations ([7], [8], [26]) are background and related-work references and do not carry the paper's central comparative claim. Accordingly, no specific circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central comparison stands on the correctness of the subreddit-derived labels. That correctness is assumed, not established, because the reported Cohen's kappa is between the two authors' manual annotations and is not compared to the original labels. The usefulness claim also assumes that a curated Reddit sample generalizes to real-world social media. The hyperparameters (learning rate, weight decay, LSTM units, dropouts, dense size) are free parameters chosen by the authors and could affect which model wins.

free parameters (6)
  • learning_rate = 1e-6
    Grid-searched with Ray-Tune and reported as best for every model in Section V; this value could affect the model ranking.
  • weight_decay = 1e-2
    Grid-searched with Ray-Tune and reported as best for every model in Section V.
  • LSTM_units = 100
    Chosen by hand for all LSTM variants; Section IV.D.
  • dropout_rate = 0.25
    Chosen by hand; Section IV.D.
  • recurrent_dropout = 0.2
    Chosen by hand; Section IV.D.
  • dense_layer_units = 256
    Chosen by hand for the fully connected layer; Section IV.D.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption All posts from r/SuicideWatch are suicidal; all posts from the other five selected subreddits are non-suicidal.
    This is the labeling rule applied to the entire dataset in Section IV.A.2; the paper's validation does not directly test it against manual labels.
  • domain assumption Cohen's kappa between two manual annotators on a 2% sample validates the annotation of the full dataset.
    Section IV.C.3 draws this conclusion, but kappa measures inter-annotator agreement, not agreement with the subreddit-based labels, so the inference is unsupported.
  • domain assumption Fine-tuned transformer and LSTM models trained on this curated Reddit dataset generalize to real-world suicidal-ideation detection.
    The conclusion in Section VI frames the results as a path to mental health monitoring tools, which assumes distributional similarity to live social media streams.
  • domain assumption Pushshift API data from the six selected subreddits is representative of those communities' posts.
    Section IV.A.1 relies on Pushshift for collection; Pushshift has known coverage limitations and is now discontinued, so the representativeness cannot be independently checked.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Comparative Analysis of Transformer and LSTM Models for Detecting Suicidal Ideation on Reddit." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SMKYSBCC

@misc{pith2026241115404,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Comparative Analysis of Transformer and LSTM Models for Detecting Suicidal Ideation on Reddit},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SMKYSBCC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15404}
}
read the original abstract

Suicide is a critical global health problem involving more than 700,000 deaths yearly, particularly among young adults. Many people express their suicidal thoughts on social media platforms such as Reddit. This paper evaluates the effectiveness of the deep learning transformer-based models BERT, RoBERTa, DistilBERT, ALBERT, and ELECTRA and various Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) based models in detecting suicidal ideation from user posts on Reddit. Toward this objective, we curated an extensive dataset from diverse subreddits and conducted linguistic, topic modeling, and statistical analyses to ensure data quality. Our results indicate that each model could reach high accuracy and F1 scores, but among them, RoBERTa emerged as the most effective model with an accuracy of 93.22% and F1 score of 93.14%. An LSTM model that uses attention and BERT embeddings performed as the second best, with an accuracy of 92.65% and an F1 score of 92.69%. Our findings show that transformer-based models have the potential to improve suicide ideation detection, thereby providing a path to develop robust mental health monitoring tools from social media. This research, therefore, underlines the undeniable prospect of advanced techniques in Natural Language Processing (NLP) while improving suicide prevention efforts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15404 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A summary of our research framework As we march forward to solve this problem, we have formulated two research questions, each pointing towards the performance of classifying models. The questions are as follows: 1) How competitive are transformer-based models in iden￾tifying suicidal posts? 2) How is the performance of various LSTM-based models affected by integrating different embeddings (e.g. BERT, GloVe, and Wor… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. demonstrates the result of our LDA topic model with a sample of eight topics. We can see each topic contains suicidal keywords like kill, ending tonight, make stop, and want die. These terms suggest that the primary objective of the shared posts in the subreddit r/SuicideWatch aligns with a similar intention. 3) Judgmental Analysis: On top of topic modeling, we incorporated a human judgmental approach to our dataset… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    W. H. Organization, National suicide prevention strategies: progress, examples, and indicators , 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/ national-suicide-prevention-strategies-progress-examples-and-indicators

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Suicide and suicidal behavior,

    Y . Gvion and A. Apter, “Suicide and suicidal behavior,” Public health reviews, vol. 34, pp. 1–20, 2012

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    W. H. Organization, Suicide, 2018. [Online]. Available: https: //www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/suicide

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Stibich, Top 10 Causes of Death for Americans Ages 20 to 24 , 2024

    M. Stibich, Top 10 Causes of Death for Americans Ages 20 to 24 , 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.verywellhealth.com/ top-causes-of-death-for-ages-15-24-2223960

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Discovering shifts to suicidal ideation from mental health content in social media,

    M. De Choudhury, E. Kiciman, M. Dredze, G. Coppersmith, and M. Kumar, “Discovering shifts to suicidal ideation from mental health content in social media,” in Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems , 2016, pp. 2098–2110

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Utilizing social media data for pharmacovigilance: A review,

    A. Sarker, R. Ginn, A. Nikfarjam, K. O’Connor, K. Smith, S. Jayaraman, T. Upadhaya, and G. Gonzalez, “Utilizing social media data for pharmacovigilance: A review,” Journal of Biomedical Informatics, vol. 54, pp. 202–212, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1532046415000362

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Evaluation of different ma- chine learning and deep learning techniques for hate speech detection,

    N. Shawkat, J. Saquer, and H. Shatnawi, “Evaluation of different ma- chine learning and deep learning techniques for hate speech detection,” in 2024 ACM Southeast Conference (ACMSE 2024), Marietta, GA, USA, 2024, pp. 253–258

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    A survey-based qualitative study to characterize expectations of software developers from five stakeholders,

    K. Hasan, P. Chakraborty, R. Shahriyar, A. Iqbal, and G. Uddin, “A survey-based qualitative study to characterize expectations of software developers from five stakeholders,” in Proceedings of the 15th ACM / IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM) , ser. ESEM ’21. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing ...

    arXiv 2021

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    A survey on text classification: From traditional to deep learning,

    Q. Li, H. Peng, J. Li, C. Xia, R. Yang, L. Sun, P. S. Yu, and L. He, “A survey on text classification: From traditional to deep learning,” ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST) , vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 1–41, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Comparing bert against traditional machine learning text classification,

    S. Gonz ´alez-Carvajal and E. Garrido-Merch ´an, “Comparing bert against traditional machine learning text classification,” Journal of Computa- tional and Cognitive Engineering , vol. 2, 05 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    Limitations of transformers on clinical text classification,

    S. Gao, M. Alawad, M. T. Young, J. Gounley, N. Schaefferkoetter, H. J. Yoon, X.-C. Wu, E. B. Durbin, J. Doherty, A. Stroup et al., “Limitations of transformers on clinical text classification,” IEEE Journal of Biomed- ical and Health Informatics , vol. 25, no. 9, pp. 3596–3607, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    A comparative analysis on suicidal ideation detection using nlp, machine, and deep learning,

    R. Haque, N. Islam, M. Islam, and M. M. Ahsan, “A comparative analysis on suicidal ideation detection using nlp, machine, and deep learning,” Technologies, vol. 10, no. 3, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7080/10/3/57

    2022

  5. [13]

    Predicting depression levels using social media posts,

    M. M. Aldarwish and H. F. Ahmad, “Predicting depression levels using social media posts,” in 2017 IEEE 13th International Symposium on Autonomous Decentralized System (ISADS). IEEE, 2017, pp. 277–280

    2017

  6. [14]

    Predicting depression via social media,

    M. De Choudhury, M. Gamon, S. Counts, and E. Horvitz, “Predicting depression via social media,” in Proceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media , vol. 7, no. 1, 2013, pp. 128–137

    2013

  7. [15]

    Recognizing depression from twitter activity,

    S. Tsugawa, Y . Kikuchi, F. Kishino, K. Nakajima, Y . Itoh, and H. Ohsaki, “Recognizing depression from twitter activity,” in Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems , 2015, pp. 3187–3196

    2015

  8. [16]

    Text classification algorithms: A survey,

    K. Kowsari, K. Jafari Meimandi, M. Heidarysafa, S. Mendu, L. Barnes, and D. Brown, “Text classification algorithms: A survey,” Information, vol. 10, no. 4, p. 150, 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    # suicidal-a multipronged approach to identify and explore suicidal ideation in twitter,

    P. P. Sinha, R. Mishra, R. Sawhney, D. Mahata, R. R. Shah, and H. Liu, “# suicidal-a multipronged approach to identify and explore suicidal ideation in twitter,” in Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, 2019, pp. 941– 950

    2019

  10. [18]

    Hierarchical multiscale recurrent neural networks for detecting suicide notes,

    A. M. Schoene, A. Turner, G. R. De Mel, and N. Dethlefs, “Hierarchical multiscale recurrent neural networks for detecting suicide notes,” IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing , 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,

    J. Devlin, M.-W. Chang, K. Lee, and K. Toutanova, “BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,” in Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologi...

    2019

  12. [20]

    A fine-tuned bert-based transfer learning approach for text classification,

    R. Qasim, W. H. Bangyal, M. A. Alqarni, and A. Ali Almazroi, “A fine-tuned bert-based transfer learning approach for text classification,” Journal of healthcare engineering , vol. 2022, no. 1, p. 3498123, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    A quantitative and qualitative analysis of suicide ideation detection using deep learning,

    S. Long, R. Cabral, J. Poon, and S. C. Han, “A quantitative and qualitative analysis of suicide ideation detection using deep learning,” in Proceedings of the HealTAC 2022: the 5th Healthcare Text Analytics Conference, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Attention- enabled ensemble deep learning models and their validation for de- pression detection: a domain adoption paradigm,

    J. Singh, N. Singh, M. M. Fouda, L. Saba, and J. S. Suri, “Attention- enabled ensemble deep learning models and their validation for de- pression detection: a domain adoption paradigm,” Diagnostics, vol. 13, no. 12, p. 2092, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    TextRank: Bringing order into text,

    R. Mihalcea and P. Tarau, “TextRank: Bringing order into text,” in Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , D. Lin and D. Wu, Eds. Barcelona, Spain: Association for Computational Linguistics, Jul. 2004, pp. 404–411. [Online]. Ava...

    2004

  16. [24]

    Building a large annotated corpus of english: The penn treebank,

    M. Marcus, B. Santorini, and M. A. Marcinkiewicz, “Building a large annotated corpus of english: The penn treebank,” Computational lin- guistics, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 313–330, 1993

    1993

  17. [25]

    La- tent dirichlet allocation (lda) and topic modeling: models, applications, a survey,

    H. Jelodar, Y . Wang, C. Yuan, X. Feng, X. Jiang, Y . Li, and L. Zhao, “La- tent dirichlet allocation (lda) and topic modeling: models, applications, a survey,” Multimedia tools and applications , vol. 78, pp. 15 169–15 211, 2019

    2019

  18. [26]

    Mining developer questions about major nosql databases,

    S. Islam, K. Hasan, and R. Shahriyar, “Mining developer questions about major nosql databases,” Int. J. Comput. Appl , vol. 975, p. 8887, 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    What’s all the talk about? topic modeling in a mental health internet support group,

    B. Carron-Arthur, J. Reynolds, K. Bennett, A. Bennett, and K. M. Griffiths, “What’s all the talk about? topic modeling in a mental health internet support group,” BMC Psychiatry, vol. 16, no. 1, October 2016. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-016-1073-5

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    A comparative study of software development practices in bangladesh, an emerging country,

    P. Chakraborty, K. Hasan, A. Iqbal, G. Uddin, and R. Shahriyar, “A comparative study of software development practices in bangladesh, an emerging country,” International Journal of Software Engineering, Technology and Applications, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 149–187, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data,

    J. R. Landis and G. G. Koch, “The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data,” Biometrics, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 159–174, 1977. [Online]. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2529310

    1977

  22. [30]

    abs/1907.11692, 2019

    RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approach , vol. abs/1907.11692, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar. org/CorpusID:198953378

    1907 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Distilbert, a distilled version of bert: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter,

    V . Sanh, L. Debut, J. Chaumond, and T. Wolf, “Distilbert, a distilled version of bert: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter,” 2020. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.01108

    2020 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Albert: A lite bert for self-supervised learning of language representations,

    Z. Lan, M. Chen, S. Goodman, K. Gimpel, P. Sharma, and R. Soricut, “Albert: A lite bert for self-supervised learning of language representations,” 2020. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1909. 11942

    2020

  25. [33]

    Electra: Pre-training text encoders as discriminators rather than generators,

    K. Clark, M.-T. Luong, Q. V . Le, and C. D. Manning, “Electra: Pre-training text encoders as discriminators rather than generators,” in International Conference on Learning Representations , 2020. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=r1xMH1BtvB

    2020

  26. [34]

    [Online]

    Ray, Effortlessly scale your most complex workloads , 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.ray.io/

    2024

  27. [35]

    Decoupled weight decay regularization,

    I. Loshchilov and F. Hutter, “Decoupled weight decay regularization,” in International Conference on Learning Representations , 2019. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.05101

    2019 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Improving skip-gram embeddings using bert,

    Y . Wang, L. Cui, and Y . Zhang, “Improving skip-gram embeddings using bert,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, vol. 29, pp. 1318–1328, 2021

    2021

  29. [37]

    Ekma, Learning Deep Learning: Theory and Practice of Neural Networks, Computer Vision, Natural Language Processing, and Trans- formers Using TensorFlow

    M. Ekma, Learning Deep Learning: Theory and Practice of Neural Networks, Computer Vision, Natural Language Processing, and Trans- formers Using TensorFlow . Boston, MA, USA: Addison-Wesley Professional, 2021

    2021

  30. [38]

    Comparative analysis of word embeddings for capturing word similarities,

    M. Toshevska, F. Stojanovska, and J. Kalajdjieski, “Comparative analysis of word embeddings for capturing word similarities,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.03812, 2020

    2005 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.