Can ChatGPT Understand Too? A Comparative Study on ChatGPT and Fine-tuned BERT

AI-generated keywords: ChatGPT Fine-tuned BERT Understanding Ability GLUE Benchmark Natural Language Processing

AI-generated Key Points

The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the key points are generated using the paper metadata rather than the full article.

  • Study titled "Can ChatGPT Understand Too? A Comparative Study on ChatGPT and Fine-tuned BERT" by Qihuang Zhong, Liang Ding, Juhua Liu, Bo Du, and Dacheng Tao
  • Evaluation of ChatGPT on the GLUE benchmark and comparison with four fine-tuned BERT-style models
  • Findings:
  • ChatGPT struggles with paraphrase and similarity tasks but excels in inference tasks
  • Comparable performance to BERT in sentiment analysis and question answering tasks
  • Highlighted bad cases from inference tasks indicating potential limitations of ChatGPT
  • Comparative analysis provides insights into strengths and weaknesses of ChatGPT compared to fine-tuned BERT models
  • Contributes to understanding language model capabilities and suggests avenues for further exploration in natural language processing technologies
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Authors: Qihuang Zhong, Liang Ding, Juhua Liu, Bo Du, Dacheng Tao

Work in progress

Abstract: Recently, ChatGPT has attracted great attention, as it can generate fluent and high-quality responses to human inquiries. Several prior studies have shown that ChatGPT attains remarkable generation ability compared with existing models. However, the quantitative analysis of ChatGPT's understanding ability has been given little attention. In this report, we explore the understanding ability of ChatGPT by evaluating it on the most popular GLUE benchmark, and comparing it with 4 representative fine-tuned BERT-style models. We find that: 1) ChatGPT falls short in handling paraphrase and similarity tasks; 2) ChatGPT outperforms all BERT models on inference tasks by a large margin; 3) ChatGPT achieves comparable performance compared with BERT on sentiment analysis and question answering tasks. Additionally, several bad cases from inference tasks show the potential limitation of ChatGPT.

Submitted to arXiv on 19 Feb. 2023

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.

AI assistant instructions?

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2302.10198v1

This paper's license doesn't allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing process is here made with the paper's metadata rather than the article.

In their study titled "Can ChatGPT Understand Too? A Comparative Study on ChatGPT and Fine-tuned BERT," authors Qihuang Zhong, Liang Ding, Juhua Liu, Bo Du, and Dacheng Tao delve into the understanding ability of ChatGPT. The study evaluates ChatGPT on the popular GLUE benchmark and compares it with four fine-tuned BERT-style models to provide a quantitative analysis of its understanding capability. <br> Their findings reveal several key insights: Firstly, ChatGPT struggles in handling paraphrase and similarity tasks but excels in inference tasks. It also demonstrates comparable performance to BERT in sentiment analysis and question answering tasks. However, the study highlights some bad cases from inference tasks that showcase potential limitations of ChatGPT. <br> Overall, this comparative analysis provides valuable insights into the strengths and weaknesses of ChatGPT in terms of understanding abilities compared to fine-tuned BERT models. It contributes to a deeper understanding of the capabilities of language models like ChatGPT and opens up avenues for further exploration and improvement in natural language processing technologies.
Created on 06 Mar. 2024

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.

The license of this specific paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing tools will be run using the paper metadata rather than the full article. However, it still does a good job, and you can also try our tools on papers with more open licenses.

Look for similar papers (in beta version)

By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.