Since the Scientific Literature Is Multilingual, Our Models Should Be Too
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
English has long been assumed the textitlingua franca of scientific research, and this notion is reflected in the natural language processing (NLP) research involving scientific document representation. In this position piece, we quantitatively show that the literature is largely multilingual and argue that current models and benchmarks should reflect this linguistic diversity. We provide evidence that text-based models fail to create meaningful representations for non-English papers and highlight the negative user-facing impacts of using English-only models non-discriminately across a multilingual domain. We end with suggestions for the NLP community on how to improve performance on non-English documents.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 10 of its 20 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 Mar 2024.
Builds on
10 of 20 references.
References · 10
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,399
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
- 2019Unsupervised Cross-lingual Representation Learning at Scalecited by 3,935
- 2019SciBERT: A Pretrained Language Model for Scientific Textcited by 1,414
- 2020The State and Fate of Linguistic Diversity and Inclusion in the NLP Worldcited by 798
- 2020SPECTER: Document-level Representation Learning using Citation-informed Transformerscited by 430
- 2020TLDR: Extreme Summarization of Scientific Documentscited by 136
- 2023The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platformcited by 118
- 2022Neighborhood Contrastive Learning for Scientific Document Representations with Citation Embeddingscited by 75
- 2022Building Machine Translation Systems for the Next Thousand Languagescited by 69
Built on by
Not cited yet.