Command Palette
Search for a command to run...
Yinhan Liu; Myle Ott; Naman Goyal; Jingfei Du; Mandar Joshi; Danqi Chen; Omer Levy; Mike Lewis; Luke Zettlemoyer; Veselin Stoyanov

Abstract
Language model pretraining has led to significant performance gains but careful comparison between different approaches is challenging. Training is computationally expensive, often done on private datasets of different sizes, and, as we will show, hyperparameter choices have significant impact on the final results. We present a replication study of BERT pretraining (Devlin et al., 2019) that carefully measures the impact of many key hyperparameters and training data size. We find that BERT was significantly undertrained, and can match or exceed the performance of every model published after it. Our best model achieves state-of-the-art results on GLUE, RACE and SQuAD. These results highlight the importance of previously overlooked design choices, and raise questions about the source of recently reported improvements. We release our models and code.
Code Repositories
Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Methodology | Metrics |
|---|---|---|
| common-sense-reasoning-on-commonsenseqa | RoBERTa-Large 355M | Accuracy: 72.1 |
| common-sense-reasoning-on-swag | RoBERTa | Test: 89.9 |
| document-image-classification-on-rvl-cdip | Roberta base | Accuracy: 90.06 Parameters: 125M |
| linguistic-acceptability-on-cola | RoBERTa (ensemble) | Accuracy: 67.8% |
| multi-task-language-understanding-on-mmlu | RoBERTa-base 125M (fine-tuned) | Average (%): 27.9 |
| natural-language-inference-on-anli-test | RoBERTa (Large) | A1: 72.4 A2: 49.8 A3: 44.4 |
| natural-language-inference-on-multinli | RoBERTa | Matched: 90.8 |
| natural-language-inference-on-multinli | RoBERTa (ensemble) | Mismatched: 90.2 |
| natural-language-inference-on-qnli | RoBERTa (ensemble) | Accuracy: 98.9% |
| natural-language-inference-on-rte | RoBERTa | Accuracy: 88.2% |
| natural-language-inference-on-rte | RoBERTa (ensemble) | Accuracy: 88.2% |
| natural-language-inference-on-wnli | RoBERTa (ensemble) | Accuracy: 89 |
| question-answering-on-piqa | RoBERTa-Large 355M | Accuracy: 79.4 |
| question-answering-on-quora-question-pairs | RoBERTa (ensemble) | Accuracy: 90.2% |
| question-answering-on-social-iqa | RoBERTa-Large 355M (fine-tuned) | Accuracy: 76.7 |
| question-answering-on-squad20 | RoBERTa (single model) | EM: 86.820 F1: 89.795 |
| question-answering-on-squad20-dev | RoBERTa (no data aug) | EM: 86.5 F1: 89.4 |
| reading-comprehension-on-race | RoBERTa | Accuracy: 83.2 Accuracy (High): 81.3 Accuracy (Middle): 86.5 |
| semantic-textual-similarity-on-mrpc | RoBERTa (ensemble) | Accuracy: 92.3% |
| semantic-textual-similarity-on-sts-benchmark | RoBERTa | Pearson Correlation: 0.922 |
| sentiment-analysis-on-sst-2-binary | RoBERTa (ensemble) | Accuracy: 96.7 |
| stock-market-prediction-on-astock | RoBERTa WWM Ext (News+Factors) | Accuray: 62.49 F1-score: 62.54 Precision: 62.59 Recall: 62.51 |
| stock-market-prediction-on-astock | RoBERTa WWM Ext (News) | Accuray: 61.34 F1-score: 61.48 Precision: 61.97 Recall: 61.32 |
| task-1-grouping-on-ocw | RoBERTa (LARGE) | # Correct Groups: 29 ± 3 # Solved Walls: 0 ± 0 Adjusted Mutual Information (AMI): 9.4 ± .4 Adjusted Rand Index (ARI): 8.4 ± .3 Fowlkes Mallows Score (FMS): 26.7 ± .2 Wasserstein Distance (WD): 88.4 ± .4 |
| text-classification-on-arxiv-10 | RoBERTa | Accuracy: 0.779 |
| type-prediction-on-manytypes4typescript | RoBERTa | Average Accuracy: 59.84 Average F1: 57.54 Average Precision: 57.45 Average Recall: 57.62 |
Build AI with AI
From idea to launch — accelerate your AI development with free AI co-coding, out-of-the-box environment and best price of GPUs.