mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Cross-Model Comparative Loss for Enhancing Neuronal Utility in Language Understanding

arXiv 2301.03765 ↗First posted 10 Jan 2023cs.CL cs.IR cs.LGcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Current natural language understanding (NLU) models have been continuously scaling up, both in terms of model size and input context, introducing more hidden and input neurons. While this generally improves performance on average, the extra neurons do not yield a consistent improvement for all instances. This is because some hidden neurons are redundant, and the noise mixed in input neurons tends to distract the model. Previous work mainly focuses on extrinsically reducing low-utility neurons by additional post- or pre-processing, such as network pruning and context selection, to avoid this problem. Beyond that, can we make the model reduce redundant parameters and suppress input noise by intrinsically enhancing the utility of each neuron? If a model can efficiently utilize neurons, no matter which neurons are ablated (disabled), the ablated submodel should perform no better than the original full model. Based on such a comparison principle between models, we propose a cross-model comparative loss for a broad range of tasks. Comparative loss is essentially a ranking loss on top of the task-specific losses of the full and ablated models, with the expectation that the task-specific loss of the full model is minimal. We demonstrate the universal effectiveness of comparative loss through extensive experiments on 14 datasets from 3 distinct NLU tasks based on 5 widely used pretrained language models and find it particularly superior for models with few parameters or long input.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 55 of its 85 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Jan 2023.

Builds on

55 of 85 references.

References · 55

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
  2. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,399
  3. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
  4. 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,599
  5. 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,372
  6. 2020A Simple Framework for Contrastive Learning of Visual Representationscited by 12,049
  7. 2020Scaling Laws for Neural Language Modelscited by 6,586
  8. 2018GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark and Analysis Platform for Natural Language Understandingcited by 4,899
  9. 2016SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Textcited by 4,148
  10. 2020Dense Passage Retrieval for Open-Domain Question Answeringcited by 3,824
  11. 2018HotpotQA: A Dataset for Diverse, Explainable Multi-hop Question Answeringcited by 3,754
  12. 2016Gaussian Error Linear Units (GELUs)cited by 3,502
38 more
  1. 2020Longformer: The Long-Document Transformercited by 3,413
  2. 2019ALBERT: A Lite BERT for Self-supervised Learning of Language Representationscited by 2,790
  3. 2017A Broad-Coverage Challenge Corpus for Sentence Understanding through Inferencecited by 2,682
  4. 2021SimCSE: Simple Contrastive Learning of Sentence Embeddingscited by 2,173
  5. 2015Learning both Weights and Connections for Efficient Neural Networkscited by 2,031
  6. 2018Know What You Don't Know: Unanswerable Questions for SQuADcited by 1,554
  7. 2020Understanding Contrastive Representation Learning through Alignment and Uniformity on the Hyperspherecited by 1,405
  8. 2021Improving language models by retrieving from trillions of tokenscited by 1,293
  9. 2017SemEval-2017 Task 1: Semantic Textual Similarity - Multilingual and Cross-lingual Focused Evaluationcited by 1,001
  10. 2018Neural Network Acceptability Judgmentscited by 958
  11. 2022Atlas: Few-shot Learning with Retrieval Augmented Language Modelscited by 952
  12. 2020Approximate Nearest Neighbor Negative Contrastive Learning for Dense Text Retrievalcited by 849
  13. 2017Learning Efficient Convolutional Networks through Network Slimmingcited by 676
  14. 2020What is the State of Neural Network Pruning?cited by 583
  15. 2015Variational Dropout and the Local Reparameterization Trickcited by 490
  16. 2020Keystroke Dynamics as Part of Lifeloggingcited by 334
  17. 2020Overview of the TREC 2019 deep learning trackcited by 286
  18. 2021R-Drop: Regularized Dropout for Neural Networkscited by 202
  19. 2021Overview of the TREC 2020 deep learning trackcited by 196
  20. 2017Simple and Effective Multi-Paragraph Reading Comprehensioncited by 120
  21. 2021Vision-and-Language or Vision-for-Language? On Cross-Modal Influence in Multimodal Transformerscited by 72
  22. 2021A Few Brief Notes on DeepImpact, COIL, and a Conceptual Framework for Information Retrieval Techniquescited by 69
  23. 2022Training Data is More Valuable than You Think: A Simple and Effective Method by Retrieving from Training Datacited by 61
  24. 2019Ablation Studies in Artificial Neural Networkscited by 60
  25. 2016Text Matching as Image Recognitioncited by 59
  26. 2019Select, Answer and Explain: Interpretable Multi-hop Reading Comprehension over Multiple Documentscited by 57
  27. 2019The Generalization-Stability Tradeoff In Neural Network Pruningcited by 54
  28. 2019SetRank: Learning a Permutation-Invariant Ranking Model for Information Retrievalcited by 48
  29. 2021Improving Query Representations for Dense Retrieval with Pseudo Relevance Feedbackcited by 47
  30. 2019Survey of Dropout Methods for Deep Neural Networkscited by 44
  31. 2020BERT-QE: Contextualized Query Expansion for Document Re-rankingcited by 40
  32. 2021Are Larger Pretrained Language Models Uniformly Better? Comparing Performance at the Instance Levelcited by 34
  33. 2021Adaptive Information Seeking for Open-Domain Question Answeringcited by 29
  34. 2018Efficient and Robust Question Answering from Minimal Context over Documentscited by 26
  35. 2021How Deep is your Learning: the DL-HARD Annotated Deep Learning Datasetcited by 18
  36. 2017Fraternal Dropoutcited by 14
  37. 2022Match-Prompt: Improving Multi-task Generalization Ability for Neural Text Matching via Prompt Learningcited by 10
  38. 2016Dropout with Expectation-linear Regularizationcited by 9

50 most cited of 55 All 55 (JSON)

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2024: 1.

1 paper.