MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Partially-Random Initialization: A Smoking Gun for Binarization Hypothesis of BERT

2022· article· en· W4385573486 on OpenAlexaff
Arash Ardakani

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsHuawei Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceInitializationEmbeddingEncoderTask (project management)Set (abstract data type)Artificial intelligenceEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionBinary numberEdge deviceMachine learningProgramming languageOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the past few years, pre-trained BERT has become one of the most popular deep-learning language models due to their remarkable performance in natural language processing (NLP) tasks. However, the superior performance of BERT comes at the cost of high computational and memory complexity, hindering its envisioned widespread deployment in edge devices with limited computing resources. Binarization can alleviate these limitations by reducing storage requirements and improving computing performance. However, obtaining a comparable accuracy performance for binary BERT w.r.t. its full-precision counterpart is still a difficult task. We observe that direct binarization of pre-trained BERT provides a poor initialization during the fine-tuning phase, making the model incapable of achieving a decent accuracy on downstream tasks. Based on this observation, we put forward the following hypothesis: partially randomly-initialized BERT with binary weights and activations can reach to a decent accuracy performance by distilling knowledge from the its full-precision counterpart. We show that BERT with pre-trained embedding layer and randomly-initialized encoder is a smoking gun for this hypothesis. We identify the smoking gun through a series of experiments and show that it yields a new set of state-of-the-art results on the GLUE and SQuAD benchmarks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score0.223

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207