REVIEW 1 cited by
MBR and QE Finetuning: Training-time Distillation of the Best and Most Expensive Decoding Methods
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
MBR and QE Finetuning: Training-time Distillation of the Best and Most Expensive Decoding Methods
read the original abstract
Recent research in decoding methods for Natural Language Generation (NLG) tasks has shown that MAP decoding is not optimal, because model probabilities do not always align with human preferences. Stronger decoding methods, including Quality Estimation (QE) reranking and Minimum Bayes' Risk (MBR) decoding, have since been proposed to mitigate the model-perplexity-vs-quality mismatch. While these decoding methods achieve state-of-the-art performance, they are prohibitively expensive to compute. In this work, we propose MBR finetuning and QE finetuning which distill the quality gains from these decoding methods at training time, while using an efficient decoding algorithm at inference time. Using the canonical NLG task of Neural Machine Translation (NMT), we show that even with self-training, these finetuning methods significantly outperform the base model. Moreover, when using an external LLM as a teacher model, these finetuning methods outperform finetuning on human-generated references. These findings suggest new ways to leverage monolingual data to achieve improvements in model quality that are on par with, or even exceed, improvements from human-curated data, while maintaining maximum efficiency during decoding.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
The Anatomy of the CTC Oracle Gap: Acoustic Exhaustion and Linguistic Recovery
CTC-internal scores saturate for hypothesis selection on LibriSpeech, but RoBERTa-based MBR decoding cuts WER by 0.535 pp while MWER training fails near convergence.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.