REVIEW 2 cited by
LERT: A Linguistically-motivated Pre-trained Language Model
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
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Pre-trained Language Model (PLM) has become a representative foundation model in the natural language processing field. Most PLMs are trained with linguistic-agnostic pre-training tasks on the surface form of the text, such as the masked language model (MLM). To further empower the PLMs with richer linguistic features, in this paper, we aim to propose a simple but effective way to learn linguistic features for pre-trained language models. We propose LERT, a pre-trained language model that is trained on three types of linguistic features along with the original MLM pre-training task, using a linguistically-informed pre-training (LIP) strategy. We carried out extensive experiments on ten Chinese NLU tasks, and the experimental results show that LERT could bring significant improvements over various comparable baselines. Furthermore, we also conduct analytical experiments in various linguistic aspects, and the results prove that the design of LERT is valid and effective. Resources are available at https://github.com/ymcui/LERT
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
EmotionTalk: An Interactive Chinese Multimodal Emotion Dataset With Rich Annotations
EmotionTalk provides 19,250 utterances from 744 Chinese dyadic dialogues with emotion, sentiment, and speaking-style caption annotations.
-
Learning from Impairment: Leveraging Insights from Clinical Linguistics in Language Modelling Research
Aphasia treatment protocols like CATE offer complexity hierarchies that the paper proposes to reuse for language model evaluation and curriculum learning, without providing empirical evidence.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.