TY - GEN
T1 - Comparing Pre-trained Human Language Models
T2 - 14th Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity, Sentiment, and Social Media Analysis, WASSA 2024
AU - Soni, Nikita
AU - Balasubramanian, Niranjan
AU - Schwartz, H. Andrew
AU - Hovy, Dirk
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 Association for Computational Linguistics.
PY - 2024
Y1 - 2024
N2 - Pre-trained language models consider the context of neighboring words and documents but lack any author context of the human generating the text. However, language depends on the author’s states, traits, social, situational, and environmental attributes, collectively referred to as human context (Soni et al., 2024). Human-centered natural language processing requires incorporating human context into language models. Currently, two methods exist: pre-training with 1) group-wise attributes (e.g., over-45-year-olds) or 2) individual traits. Group attributes are simple but coarse — not all 45-year-olds write the same way — while individual traits allow for more personalized representations, but require more complex modeling and data. It is unclear which approach benefits what tasks. We compare pre-training models with human context via 1) group attributes, 2) individual users, and 3) a combined approach on five user- and document-level tasks. Our results show that there is no best approach, but that human-centered language modeling holds avenues for different methods.
AB - Pre-trained language models consider the context of neighboring words and documents but lack any author context of the human generating the text. However, language depends on the author’s states, traits, social, situational, and environmental attributes, collectively referred to as human context (Soni et al., 2024). Human-centered natural language processing requires incorporating human context into language models. Currently, two methods exist: pre-training with 1) group-wise attributes (e.g., over-45-year-olds) or 2) individual traits. Group attributes are simple but coarse — not all 45-year-olds write the same way — while individual traits allow for more personalized representations, but require more complex modeling and data. It is unclear which approach benefits what tasks. We compare pre-training models with human context via 1) group attributes, 2) individual users, and 3) a combined approach on five user- and document-level tasks. Our results show that there is no best approach, but that human-centered language modeling holds avenues for different methods.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85204886911
U2 - 10.18653/v1/2024.wassa-1.26
DO - 10.18653/v1/2024.wassa-1.26
M3 - Conference contribution
AN - SCOPUS:85204886911
T3 - WASSA 2024 - 14th Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity, Sentiment, and Social Media Analysis, Proceedings of the Workshop
SP - 316
EP - 328
BT - WASSA 2024 - 14th Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity, Sentiment, and Social Media Analysis, Proceedings of the Workshop
A2 - De Clercq, Orphee
A2 - Barriere, Valentin
A2 - Barnes, Jeremy
A2 - Klinger, Roman
A2 - Sedoc, Joao
A2 - Tafreshi, Shabnam
PB - Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL)
Y2 - 15 August 2024
ER -