user: text: Write a concise one-sentence TLDR summary of the scientific paper content below.

Title: Looking for ELMo's friends: Sentence-Level Pretraining Beyond Language Modeling

Paper content:
Work on the problem of contextualized word representation—the development of reusable neural network components for sentence understanding—has recently seen a  surge of progress centered on the unsupervised pretraining task of language modeling with methods like ELMo (Peters et al., 2018).
This paper contributes the first large-scale systematic study comparing different pretraining tasks in this context, both as complements to language modeling and as potential alternatives.
The primary results of the study support the use of language modeling as a pretraining task and set a new state of the art among comparable models using multitask learning with language models.
However, a closer look at these results reveals worryingly strong baselines and strikingly varied results across target tasks, suggesting that the widely-used paradigm of pretraining and freezing sentence encoders may not be an ideal platform for further work.
InputFigure 1: Our common model design: During pretraining, we train the shared encoder and the task-specific model for each pretraining task.
We then freeze the shared encoder and train the task-specific model anew for each target evaluation task.
Tasks may involve more than one sentence.State-of-the-art models for natural language processing (NLP) tasks like translation, question answering, and parsing include components intended to extract representations for the meaning and contents of each input sentence.
These sentence encoder components are typically trained directly for the target task at hand.
This approach can be effective on data rich tasks and yields human performance on some narrowly-defined benchmarks BID35 BID13 , but it is tenable only for the few NLP tasks with millions of examples of training data.
This has prompted interest in pretraining for sentence encoding: There is good reason to believe it should be possible to exploit outside data and training signals to effectively pretrain these encoders, both because they are intended to primarily capture sentence meaning rather than any task-specific skill, and because we have seen dramatic successes with pretraining in the related domains of word embeddings and image encoders BID46 .More
concretely, four recent papers show that pretrained sentence encoders can yield very strong performance on NLP tasks. First
, McCann et al. (2017) show that a BiLSTM encoder from a neural machine translation (MT) system can be effectively reused elsewhere. BID16
, , and BID33 show that various kinds of encoder pretrained in an unsupervised fashion through generative language modeling (LM) are effective as well. Each
paper uses its own evaluation methods, though, making it unclear which pretraining task is most effective or whether multiple pretraining tasks can be productively combined; in the related setting of sentence-to-vector encoding, multitask learning with multiple labeled datasets has yielded a robust state of the art BID39 . This
paper attempts to systematically address these questions. We train
reusable sentence encoders on 17 different pretraining tasks, several simple baselines, and several combinations of these tasks, all using a single model architecture and procedure for pretraining and transfer, inspired by ELMo. We then
evaluate each of these encoders on the nine target language understanding tasks in the GLUE benchmark BID41 , yielding a total of 40 sentence encoders and 360 total trained models. We then
measure correlation in performance across target tasks and plot learning curves evaluating the effect of training data volume on each pretraining and target tasks.Looking to the results of this experiment, we find that language modeling is the most effective single pretraining task we study, and that multitask learning during pretraining can offer further gains and a new state-of-the-art among fixed sentence encoders. We also
, however, find reasons to worry that ELMo-style pretraining, in which we pretrain a model and use it on target tasks with no further fine-tuning, is brittle and seriously limiting: (i) Trivial
baseline representations do nearly as well as the best pretrained encoders, and the margins between substantially different pretraining tasks can be extremely small. (ii) Different
target tasks differ dramatically on what kinds of pretraining they benefit most from, and multitask pretraining is not sufficient to circumvent this problem and offer general-purpose pretrained encoders.
This paper presents a systematic comparison of tasks and task-combinations for the pretraining of sentence-level BiLSTM encoders like those seen in ELMo and CoVe.
With 40 pretraining tasks and task combinations (not counting many more ruled out early) and nine target tasks, this represents a far more comprehensive study than any seen on this problem to date.Our chief positive results are perhaps unsurprising: Language modeling works well as a pretraining task, and no other single task is consistently better.
Multitask pretraining can produce results better than any single task can, and sets a new state-of-the-art among comparable models.
Target task performance continues to improve with the addition of more language model data, even at large scales, suggesting that further work scaling up language model pretraining is warranted.However, a closer look at our results suggests that the pretrain-and-freeze paradigm that underlies ELMo and CoVe might not be a sound platform for future work: Some trivial baselines do strikingly well, the margins between pretraining tasks are small, and some pretraining configurations (such as MNLI E ) yield better performance with less data.
This suggests that we may be nearing an upper bound on the performance that can be reached with methods like these.In addition, different tasks benefit from different forms of pretraining to a striking degree-with correlations between target tasks often low or negative-and multitask pretraining tasks fail to reliably produce models better than their best individual components.
This suggests that if truly generalpurpose sentence encoders are possible, our current methods cannot produce them.While further work on language modeling seems straightforward and worthwhile, the author(s) of this paper believe that the future of this line of work will require a better understanding of the ways in which neural network target task models can benefit from outside knowledge and data, and new methods for pretraining and transfer learning to allow them to do so.

assistant: text: We compare many tasks and task combinations for pretraining sentence-level BiLSTMs for NLP tasks. Language modeling is the best single pretraining task, but simple baselines also do well.