Masked Language Modeling
Also known as MLM
Overview
Masked language modeling (MLM) trains a model to predict hidden tokens from their surrounding context, giving it bidirectional representations useful for classification, retrieval, and specialized applications. Researchers vary which tokens are masked, using strategies such as whole-word and span masking, uncertainty-based selection, and domain-informed masking for proteins or biological sequences. Other approaches combine token reconstruction with causal or latent-prediction objectives, or use efficient state-space and hybrid encoders. A central challenge is that lower masking loss does not always mean better downstream performance: the best objectives and masking patterns can differ by task, language, model size, and domain.
Latest papers
47 papers10 papers in the last four weeks, up 150% on the four weeks before. 0.1% of all new papers.
Mixing Times of Glauber Dynamics on Masked Language Models
ProteinJEPA: Latent prediction improves protein language model pretraining
The Pre-Training Study of Expanded-SPLADE Models on Web Document Titles
A New Semisupervised Technique for Polarity Analysis using Masked Language Models
On the Trainability of Masked Diffusion Language Models via Blockwise Locality
In Search of Lost DNA Sequence Pretraining
Predict and Reconstruct: Joint Objectives for Self-Supervised Language Representation Learning
Winner-Take-All Spiking Transformer for Language Modeling
Combining Masked Language Modeling and Cross-Modal Contrastive Learning for Prosody-Aware TTS
BERTology of Molecular Property Prediction
The Illusion of Latent Generalization: Bi-directionality and the Reversal Curse
$A > B$'' but failing on ''). Recent work shows that objectives with bidirectional supervision (e.g., bidirectional attention or masking-based reconstruction for decoder-only models) can mitigate the reversal curse. We extend this evaluation to include a vanilla masked language modeling (MLM) objective and compare it to decoder-only masking-based training across four reversal benchmarks and then provide a minimal mechanistic study of how these objectives succeed. We show that reversal accuracy requires training signal that explicitly makes the source entity a prediction target, and we find little evidence that success corresponds to a single direction-agnostic representation of a fact. Instead, representation distances and linear probes are consistent with storing forward and reverse directions as distinct entries, with different indexing geometry for MLM versus decoder-only masking-based training. Our results caution that objective-level ``fixes'' can improve reversal behavior without necessarily inducing the kind of latent generalization one might expect from a unified concept.