Survey of transformers and towards ensemble learning using transformers for natural language processing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The transformer model is a famous natural language processing model proposed by Google in 2017. Now, with the extensive development of deep learning, many natural language processing tasks can be solved by deep learning methods. After the BERT model was proposed, many pre-trained models such as the XLNet model, the RoBERTa model, and the ALBERT model were also proposed in the research community. These models perform very well in various natural language processing tasks. In this paper, we describe and compare these well-known models. In addition, we also apply several types of existing and well-known models which are the BERT model, the XLNet model, the RoBERTa model, the GPT2 model, and the ALBERT model to different existing and well-known natural language processing tasks, and analyze each model based on their performance. There are a few papers that comprehensively compare various transformer models. In our paper, we use six types of well-known tasks, such as sentiment analysis, question answering, text generation, text summarization, name entity recognition, and topic modeling tasks to compare the performance of various transformer models. In addition, using the existing models, we also propose ensemble learning models for the different natural language processing tasks. The results show that our ensemble learning models perform better than a single classifier on specific tasks.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".