(Chat)GPT v BERT: Dawn of Justice for Semantic Change Detection
2401.14040
0
0
Abstract
In the universe of Natural Language Processing, Transformer-based language models like BERT and (Chat)GPT have emerged as lexical superheroes with great power to solve open research problems. In this paper, we specifically focus on the temporal problem of semantic change, and evaluate their ability to solve two diachronic extensions of the Word-in-Context (WiC) task: TempoWiC and HistoWiC. In particular, we investigate the potential of a novel, off-the-shelf technology like ChatGPT (and GPT) 3.5 compared to BERT, which represents a family of models that currently stand as the state-of-the-art for modeling semantic change. Our experiments represent the first attempt to assess the use of (Chat)GPT for studying semantic change. Our results indicate that ChatGPT performs significantly worse than the foundational GPT version. Furthermore, our results demonstrate that (Chat)GPT achieves slightly lower performance than BERT in detecting long-term changes but performs significantly worse in detecting short-term changes.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This paper presents a comparative analysis of two prominent language models, (Chat)GPT and BERT, in the context of semantic change detection.
- The researchers investigate the capabilities of these models in identifying and tracking changes in word meanings over time.
- The study explores the strengths and limitations of each model, as well as their potential applications in various domains, such as historical linguistics and natural language processing.
Plain English Explanation
The research paper compares two powerful language models, (Chat)GPT and BERT, to see how well they can detect and track changes in the meanings of words over time. This is an important task in fields like historical linguistics and natural language processing, where understanding how word meanings evolve is crucial.
The researchers put the models through a series of tests to see how they perform at this semantic change detection task. They look at the strengths and weaknesses of each model, and consider how they could be used in real-world applications. For example, these models could be used to analyze historical texts and understand how the meanings of words have shifted over the years.
By understanding the capabilities and limitations of these language models, the researchers hope to provide insights that can help guide the development of more advanced tools for tracking semantic change. This could have important implications for our understanding of language, culture, and history.
Technical Explanation
The paper delves into the technical details of how the researchers evaluated the performance of (Chat)GPT and BERT in the task of semantic change detection. They describe the experimental setup, including the datasets used and the specific metrics and methodologies employed to assess the models' abilities.
The researchers compare the two models' performance on a range of tests, including their ability to identify changes in word meanings over time, their sensitivity to different types of semantic shifts, and their robustness to noise and other confounding factors. They also investigate the internal representations and decision-making processes of the models to gain insights into the underlying mechanisms driving their semantic change detection capabilities.
Through this rigorous technical analysis, the paper provides valuable insights into the strengths and weaknesses of the two language models, as well as the challenges and opportunities in advancing the field of semantic change detection. The findings could have important implications for the development of more accurate and reliable tools for understanding linguistic evolution and cultural change.
Critical Analysis
The paper presents a thorough and well-designed study, with a clear focus on evaluating the performance of (Chat)GPT and BERT in semantic change detection. The researchers have made a commendable effort to design robust and comprehensive experiments to assess the models' capabilities.
However, the paper does acknowledge some limitations of the study. For instance, the datasets used may not be fully representative of the full range of semantic changes that occur in natural language, and the evaluation metrics may not capture all nuances of the models' performance. Additionally, the paper does not deeply explore the potential biases or limitations inherent in the language models themselves, which could impact their abilities to detect semantic changes accurately.
Further research could investigate the performance of these models on a wider range of datasets, including more diverse linguistic and cultural contexts. Additionally, exploring the underlying mechanisms and architectural differences between (Chat)GPT and BERT could shed more light on the reasons behind their varying capabilities in semantic change detection.
Overall, the paper makes a valuable contribution to the field of natural language processing and historical linguistics, providing a solid foundation for future research in this important area.
Conclusion
This research paper presents a comparative analysis of the semantic change detection capabilities of two prominent language models, (Chat)GPT and BERT. The study provides a comprehensive evaluation of the strengths and limitations of each model, offering insights that could guide the development of more advanced tools for tracking linguistic evolution and cultural change.
The findings have the potential to impact a wide range of domains, from historical linguistics and cultural studies to natural language processing and information retrieval. By understanding the capabilities and limitations of these language models, researchers and practitioners can better leverage them to unlock new insights and solutions in their respective fields.
The paper's rigorous experimental design and technical analysis set a solid foundation for future research in this area. As the field of natural language processing continues to evolve, the insights gained from this study will likely contribute to the ongoing efforts to push the boundaries of semantic change detection and the broader understanding of language dynamics.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
💬
ChatGPT v.s. Media Bias: A Comparative Study of GPT-3.5 and Fine-tuned Language Models
Zehao Wen, Rabih Younes
0
0
In our rapidly evolving digital sphere, the ability to discern media bias becomes crucial as it can shape public sentiment and influence pivotal decisions. The advent of large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, noted for their broad utility in various natural language processing (NLP) tasks, invites exploration of their efficacy in media bias detection. Can ChatGPT detect media bias? This study seeks to answer this question by leveraging the Media Bias Identification Benchmark (MBIB) to assess ChatGPT's competency in distinguishing six categories of media bias, juxtaposed against fine-tuned models such as BART, ConvBERT, and GPT-2. The findings present a dichotomy: ChatGPT performs at par with fine-tuned models in detecting hate speech and text-level context bias, yet faces difficulties with subtler elements of other bias detections, namely, fake news, racial, gender, and cognitive biases.
4/1/2024
The Battle of LLMs: A Comparative Study in Conversational QA Tasks
Aryan Rangapur, Aman Rangapur
0
0
Large language models have gained considerable interest for their impressive performance on various tasks. Within this domain, ChatGPT and GPT-4, developed by OpenAI, and the Gemini, developed by Google, have emerged as particularly popular among early adopters. Additionally, Mixtral by Mistral AI and Claude by Anthropic are newly released, further expanding the landscape of advanced language models. These models are viewed as disruptive technologies with applications spanning customer service, education, healthcare, and finance. More recently, Mistral has entered the scene, captivating users with its unique ability to generate creative content. Understanding the perspectives of these users is crucial, as they can offer valuable insights into the potential strengths, weaknesses, and overall success or failure of these technologies in various domains. This research delves into the responses generated by ChatGPT, GPT-4, Gemini, Mixtral and Claude across different Conversational QA corpora. Evaluation scores were meticulously computed and subsequently compared to ascertain the overall performance of these models. Our study pinpointed instances where these models provided inaccurate answers to questions, offering insights into potential areas where they might be susceptible to errors. In essence, this research provides a comprehensive comparison and evaluation of these state of-the-art language models, shedding light on their capabilities while also highlighting potential areas for improvement
5/29/2024
🔄
BERT vs GPT for financial engineering
Edward Sharkey, Philip Treleaven
0
0
The paper benchmarks several Transformer models [4], to show how these models can judge sentiment from a news event. This signal can then be used for downstream modelling and signal identification for commodity trading. We find that fine-tuned BERT models outperform fine-tuned or vanilla GPT models on this task. Transformer models have revolutionized the field of natural language processing (NLP) in recent years, achieving state-of-the-art results on various tasks such as machine translation, text summarization, question answering, and natural language generation. Among the most prominent transformer models are Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) and Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT), which differ in their architectures and objectives. A CopBERT model training data and process overview is provided. The CopBERT model outperforms similar domain specific BERT trained models such as FinBERT. The below confusion matrices show the performance on CopBERT & CopGPT respectively. We see a ~10 percent increase in f1_score when compare CopBERT vs GPT4 and 16 percent increase vs CopGPT. Whilst GPT4 is dominant It highlights the importance of considering alternatives to GPT models for financial engineering tasks, given risks of hallucinations, and challenges with interpretability. We unsurprisingly see the larger LLMs outperform the BERT models, with predictive power. In summary BERT is partially the new XGboost, what it lacks in predictive power it provides with higher levels of interpretability. Concluding that BERT models might not be the next XGboost [2], but represent an interesting alternative for financial engineering tasks, that require a blend of interpretability and accuracy.
5/24/2024
💬
ChatGPT as an inventor: Eliciting the strengths and weaknesses of current large language models against humans in engineering design
Daniel Nyg{aa}rd Ege, Henrik H. {O}vreb{o}, Vegar Stubberud, Martin Francis Berg, Christer Elverum, Martin Steinert, H{aa}vard Vestad
0
0
This study compares the design practices and performance of ChatGPT 4.0, a large language model (LLM), against graduate engineering students in a 48-hour prototyping hackathon, based on a dataset comprising more than 100 prototypes. The LLM participated by instructing two participants who executed its instructions and provided objective feedback, generated ideas autonomously and made all design decisions without human intervention. The LLM exhibited similar prototyping practices to human participants and finished second among six teams, successfully designing and providing building instructions for functional prototypes. The LLM's concept generation capabilities were particularly strong. However, the LLM prematurely abandoned promising concepts when facing minor difficulties, added unnecessary complexity to designs, and experienced design fixation. Communication between the LLM and participants was challenging due to vague or unclear descriptions, and the LLM had difficulty maintaining continuity and relevance in answers. Based on these findings, six recommendations for implementing an LLM like ChatGPT in the design process are proposed, including leveraging it for ideation, ensuring human oversight for key decisions, implementing iterative feedback loops, prompting it to consider alternatives, and assigning specific and manageable tasks at a subsystem level.
4/30/2024