REVIEW 1 cited by
Feature Engineering vs BERT on Twitter Data
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Feature Engineering vs BERT on Twitter Data
read the original abstract
In this paper, we compare the performances of traditional machine learning models using feature engineering and word vectors and the state-of-the-art language model BERT using word embeddings on three datasets. We also consider the time and cost efficiency of feature engineering compared to BERT. From our results we conclude that the use of the BERT model was only worth the time and cost trade-off for one of the three datasets we used for comparison, where the BERT model significantly outperformed any kind of traditional classifier that uses feature vectors, instead of embeddings. Using the BERT model for the other datasets only achieved an increase of 0.03 and 0.05 of accuracy and F1 score respectively, which could be argued makes its use not worth the time and cost of GPU.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Measuring and Evaluating the Performance of Generative AI Models for Scam Detection
A new benchmark of 2,742 real scam messages shows top LLMs reach about 64-65% micro-F1 and generalize to an unseen 59,991-sample proprietary set better than a fine-tuned BERT.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.