Language Modelling via Learning to Rank
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider language modelling (LM) as a multi-label structured prediction task by re-framing training from solely predicting a single ground-truth word to ranking a set of words which could continue a given context. To avoid annotating top-k ranks, we generate them using pre-trained LMs: GPT-2, BERT, and Born-Again models. This leads to a rank-based form of knowledge distillation (KD). We also develop a method using N-grams to create a non-probabilistic teacher which generates the ranks without the need of a pre-trained LM. We confirm the hypotheses: that we can treat LMing as a ranking task and that we can do so without the use of a pre-trained LM. We show that rank-based KD generally gives a modest improvement to perplexity (PPL) -- though often with statistical significance -- when compared to Kullback–Leibler-based KD. Surprisingly, given the naivety of the method, the N-grams act as competitive teachers and achieve similar performance as using either BERT or a Born-Again model teachers. Unsurprisingly, GPT-2 always acts as the best teacher. Using it and a Transformer-XL student on Wiki-02, rank-based KD reduces a cross-entropy baseline from 65.27 to 55.94 and against a KL-based KD of 56.70.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".