From Good to Best: Two-Stage Training for Cross-Lingual Machine Reading Comprehension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cross-lingual Machine Reading Comprehension (xMRC) is a challenging task due to the lack of training data in low-resource languages. Recent approaches use training data only in a resource-rich language (such as English) to fine-tune large-scale cross-lingual pre-trained language models, which transfer knowledge from resource-rich languages (source) to low-resource languages (target). Due to the big difference between languages, the model fine-tuned only by the source language may not perform well for target languages. In our study, we make an interesting observation that while the top 1 result predicted by the previous approaches may often fail to hit the ground-truth answer, there are still good chances for the correct answer to be contained in the set of top k predicted results. Intuitively, the previous approaches have empowered the model certain level of capability to roughly distinguish good answers from bad ones. However, without sufficient training data, it is not powerful enough to capture the nuances between the accurate answer and those approximate ones. Based on this observation, we develop a two-stage approach to enhance the model performance. The first stage targets at recall; we design a hard-learning (HL) algorithm to maximize the likelihood that the top k predictions contain the accurate answer. The second stage focuses on precision, where an answer-aware contrastive learning (AA-CL) mechanism is developed to learn the minute difference between the accurate answer and other candidates. Extensive experiments show that our model significantly outperforms strong baselines on two cross-lingual MRC benchmark datasets.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".