Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ ZENODOarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
ZENODO
Report
Data sources: ZENODO
addClaim

Performance Comparison of Multilingual vs. Monolingual Intermediate-Task Training on Adversarial XTREME-R Subsets in Zero-Shot

Authors: Assignee Research;

Performance Comparison of Multilingual vs. Monolingual Intermediate-Task Training on Adversarial XTREME-R Subsets in Zero-Shot

Abstract

Intermediate-task training---fine-tuning a pretrained model on an intermediate task before fine-tuning again on the target task---often improves model performance substantially on language understanding tasks in monolingual English settings. We investigate whether English intermediate-task training is still helpful on non-English target tasks. Using nine intermediate language-understanding tasks, we evaluate intermediate-task transfer in a zero-shot cross-lingual setting on the XTREME benchmark. We see large improvements from intermediate training on the BUCC and Tatoeba sentence retrieval tasResearch goal: How does the performance of multilingual intermediate-task training compare to monolingual English intermediate-task training on adversarial subsets of XTREME-R when evaluated with F1 scores in a zero-shot cross-lingual setting?Autonomous synthesis report generated by Assignee Research. Tribunal consensus score: 9.2/10.

Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback