Do we need Label Regularization to Fine-tune Pre-trained Language Models?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knowledge Distillation (KD) is a prominent neural model compression technique that heavily relies on teacher network predictions to guide the training of a student model. Considering the ever-growing size of pre-trained language models (PLMs), KD is often adopted in many NLP tasks involving PLMs. However, it is evident that in KD, deploying the teacher network during training adds to the memory and computational requirements of training. In the computer vision literature, the necessity of the teacher network is put under scrutiny by showing that KD is a label regularization technique that can be replaced with lighter teacher-free variants such as the label-smoothing technique. However, to the best of our knowledge, this issue is not investigated in NLP. Therefore, this work concerns studying different label regularization techniques and whether we actually need them to improve the fine-tuning of smaller PLM networks on downstream tasks. In this regard, we did a comprehensive set of experiments on different PLMs such as BERT, RoBERTa, and GPT with more than 600 distinct trials and ran each configuration five times. This investigation led to a surprising observation that KD and other label regularization techniques do not play any meaningful role over regular fine-tuning when the student model is pre-trained. We further explore this phenomenon in different settings of NLP and computer vision tasks and demonstrate that pre-training itself acts as a kind of regularization, and additional label regularization is unnecessary.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.007 |
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".