Pre-Trained Language Models for Text Generation: A Survey
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Text Generation aims to produce plausible and readable text in human language from input data. The resurgence of deep learning has greatly advanced this field, in particular, with the help of neural generation models based on pre-trained language models (PLMs). Text generation based on PLMs is viewed as a promising approach in both academia and industry. In this article, we provide a survey on the utilization of PLMs in text generation. We begin with introducing two key aspects of applying PLMs to text generation: (1) how to design an effective PLM to serve as the generation model; and (2) how to effectively optimize PLMs given the reference text and to ensure that the generated texts satisfy special text properties. Then, we show the major challenges that have arisen in these aspects, as well as possible solutions for them. We also include a summary of various useful resources and typical text generation applications based on PLMs. Finally, we highlight the future research directions which will further improve these PLMs for text generation. This comprehensive survey is intended to help researchers interested in text generation problems to learn the core concepts, the main techniques and the latest developments in this area based on PLMs.
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.
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 | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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 it