Unpacking Text Representation in NLP: A Comparative Study of Models and Methods

NLP is a subfield under artificial intelligence AI that is, specifically the study of how computers can understand the text or speech and respond to it. Specifically, NLP aims to provide advanced natural language processing in order to trans- form it into a valuable and meaningful application. The major difference here is that conventional programing language uses formal syntax while human language is full of obscurity, cultural relativism and languages diversity. This makes understanding and processing language a challenging task for computers [1].

Human language does in fact complicate matters because the use of language requires and depends on context. It turned out that different sense of the word can exist based on the context in which the word is used. For instance, the word” bat” could refer to a flying mammal or a piece of sports equipment. In another example, the sentence” I can’t wait to see you!” can mean either excitement or impatience depending on the tenor of the conversation. NLP tries to meet these difficulties by applying such branches of linguistics quantitative and qualitative, stochastical and statistical, and computational and heuristic methods that aid the computers make a sense of the content of the texts and even their tones and intonations.

Over recent years, Natural Language Processing has emerged as a critical element in most of the utilitarian applications. Siri, Alexa, and Google Assistant are great examples of the virtual assistants where NLP come into play to respond to mechanical bearings, understand queries made by users and offer helpful responses. NLP is used in search engines to analyses the search query and rank web pages as well as provide search results. Social media applications of NLP entail processing posts to identify the messages’ content, determine their sentiment and automatically filter unwanted messages. These applications showcase the growing importance of NLP in our daily lives and the variety of ways it enhances human-computer interaction [2].

The foundation of NLP systems is built upon three key areas: From the statistical modeling and machine learning area of linguistics. The scientific analysis of language, as it exists, is linguistics. It provides information of syntax - information about how phrases and clauses are composed; semantics - the meaning of words and phrases or phrasemes; pragmatics - the use of language within a context. Grammar does not mean simply the rules of how to put words together; grammar, as Robert and Meredith Martin point out from their book on linguistics, helps give meaning to sentences and words. On the other hand, statistical modeling is about probability and statistics used in finding patterns in large text datasets. Statistical models learn common language patterns, predict word sequences, and can perform tasks such as text completion and sentiment analysis, by thoroughly analyzing data of scale [1].

The last decade has brought a revolution to NLP and this one time, machine learning in general and deep learning in particular. Neural networks with multiple layers are used by deep learning models to automatically learn features from data. Deep learning models, in contrast to a traditional approach that requires expensive feature engineering, can learn complex patterns from raw text data. Transformer models, like BERT (Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers) and GPT (Generative Pretrained Transformer) are by far one of the biggest breakthroughs in deep learning for NLP. In contrast, these models have very much improved the NLP systems to understand the context, generate meaningful coherent text, and do well in areas such as language translation and text summarization [2].

In 2018 introduced by Google BERT crushed its way into NLP scene with its bidirectional training of the model. Unlike the other models, BERT process text from both directions and instead of left to right, and it is able to infer details that can be quite difficult to understand based on words only. One example is in BERT in the sentence “He gave her a ring,” it can be told that ring is either jewelry or pass word from the context words. It has also made possible state-of-the- art performance in a variety of NLP tasks such as, but limited to, question answering, named entity recognition and text classification.

An even more revolutionary model, GPT, from OpenAI, is about text generation. I’m using GPT models to train on gigantic datasets and then run the rest of the things from there in the vanilla transformer paradigm to generate human-like text based on which you give to it. Apart from automated content creation, this capability has been used in numerous other applications, for instance, chatbots to converse in intricate discussions. With deep learning in NLP, GPT models can perform as good as humans in writing the essays, answering the questions, and writing code [3]. While advances in NLP have been made, NLP has plenty of challenges to address. The diversity of human languages is one of the main problems. Each language has its own grammar vocabulary and cultural context, so there are thousands beyond the ones spoken in Glasgow, Scotland, home of David Cameron, and right here in the US. It’s hard to develop models that can work with multiple languages and can adjust to different linguistic nuances. Human languages also change with new words, slang and without basic well-defined rules so it’s hard to understand sometimes. Of course, NLP systems constantly need to be updated here to remain so, otherwise they will be no longer accurate and still less relevant.

One difficulty in NLP is understanding the latent meaning of the text, for instance sarcasm, irony or implicit sentiment. For instance, if a computer doesn’t have the context, it won’t know that the sentence “Yeah, right, that was amazing” is sarcastic. Another way of thinking about this is whether idiomatic expressions like “kick the bucket” (dying), or ’piece of cake’ (easy) can be interpreted correctly were they out of the context they inhabit and do not have knowledge of figurative language. Therefore, with the progress of NLP research, the question of constructing more robust, adaptable models capable of understanding more complex language context is becoming more central. It is likely that these future advancements in NLP will either combine deep learning with knowledge graphs or improve the ways on which models reasoning and better understand the decision-making process behind them.

History

Natural Language Processing (NLP) has a long history that reaches back to the first days of computer science and artificial intelligence. A long-time evolution of a large number of phases can be observed from rule-based systems to statistical models and lately to deep learning and neural networks. An illustration of how far we have progressed in the field and the obstacles we all involved face in getting machines to understand language as I. NLP efforts, as the name implies, begin in the 1950s when researchers started exploring following the possibility that a computer may be used to process, understand human language. The first notable project of this kind was the Georgetown-IBM experiment in 1954. In this experiment, we experimented on a machine translation system which translated over 60 sentences from Russian to English [4]. The predetermined word-to-word translations by linguists were used by the system to behave in a simple rule-based approach. This project, while small scale, showed the possibilities for machines to handle language. But it also illustrated shortcomings in early systems, which found natural language-which includes context, ambiguity and idiomatic expression-dauntingly complex.

However, NLP really took off with the progress of the linguistics field in the 1960s, when Noam Chomsky was really making the cases and everything like that. Building on Chomsky [1], syntactic transformations were proposed to analyze sentences through an underlying structure and that they can be discovered via a process of syntactic transformations. Thus, early syntactic parser was designed to convert the sentences into their grammatical parts (nouns, verbs, objects). A major advance in the problem of syntactic parsing is to understand a language’s structure. Unfortunately, language is intrinsically ambiguous and inhibited early models. The interpretation of this example of” The old man the boats” varies with that context. It isn’t clear what it means, and it’s hard to get off the ground with people interpreting language so ambiguously.

By the 1970s, deficiencies of rule-based systems were realized. Rule based systems commonly used manual linguistic rules widely and they are not scalable and they cannot handle language diversity at the natural language level. Interest in statistical methods of language processing was thereafter sparked by the realization. But rather, statistical NLP is to bring classes, to create mathematical models and probability theory, to find patterns in massive amounts of text data sets. One of the great innovations during this era was development of n gram models. The basis of this work takes n grams, where word series (n grams) productions about the forthcoming word in the sentence are made by utilizing the consistence of word bunches in preparing corpus [4]. In a bigram (2 gram) example, one predicts the sequence ’good morning’ since that sequence occurs in the data often. N-grams models with a considerable amount of improvement in accuracy were used in early speech recognition systems and text prediction tasks.

Steeped in machine learning, NLP first came about in the 1980s. In contrast to being rigidly formulated through predefined rules, researchers now used algorithms to learn automatically from data. At the same time one of the most influential models used during the time ever was the Hidden Markov Model (HMM) [1]. HMMs are statistical models of sequences of word or tag prediction, and they are probabilistic. HMMs are used for tasks like part and of speech tagging (predicting a word with be a noun, verb, etc.), because you’re not really predicting the actual word, but rather an input vector of you potentially set of word shapes that will match what is coming in; based on context. This probabilistic approach made language processing more flexible, and language patterns more adaptable, producing systems that can process more language patterns.

At this time, the more advanced machine learning algorithms for NLP began to be used more widely in the 1990s. The researchers tried Support Vector Machines (SVMs) and Maximum Entropy models [4]. Although some of the work presented here already had models trained on the task of interest, where our model’s provided value was in improving accuracy and allowing for greater flexibility to work with diverse NLP tasks such as text classification, sentiment analysis and information extraction. Meanwhile, at this time, the researchers started to be able to train their models on larger text corpora. This data driven approach improved performance of NLP systems answering, for example, models could learn from extremely large amounts of real-world language data.

Deep learning found its way into NLP in a major breakthrough in the early 2000s. Machine learning is a subset of deep learning and is the concept for using neural networks of many layers to automatically find features from data without needing explicit specifications. Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) are one of the first successful deep learning applications for NLP, specifically to language modeling. That’s because RNNs are specifically for processing sequential data, i.e., tasks such as machine translation and text generation [5]. However, RNNs are able to capture long term dependencies in text, effectively being able to understand what words mean in a longer sentence. For instance, in the same sentence of, ’She decided to read a book ’as she loves stories,’ an RNN can hold onto the context of ’she’ in the entire sentence.

In 2010s, the mid of the decade, when word embeddings were introduced into NLP, it revolutionized NLP again. A word embedding is a numerical representation of a word as a continuous vector space such that the similarity between words is measured according to their context in the training data. However, with large text corpora, these models took off because they could learn these embeddings directly from it, models like Word2Vec [5] and GloVe (Global Vectors for Word Representation). The adoption of word embeddings in many NLP tasks including sentiment analysis, classification, and named entity recognition has been improved by a more nuanced sense of the meaning of such words.

Then, in 2017, transformer model [3] was introduced in the field of NLP. Vaswani et al proposed a new transform architecture that let us do away with the recurrent layers and made it faster and more efficient. The transformation of a model by replacing the attention with the self-attention is the key innovation of transformer model as the model now focuses on the parts needed when making the prediction. Another example would be in the sentence,” The cat, that was hiding under the table, jumped out all of a sudden.” Here the self-attention mechanism tells the model which is” the cat.” As a result, Transformers served as the building block for a number of today’s state-of-the-art models including BERT (Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers) and GPT (Generative Pre-trained Transformer) [2]. But in 2018, Google released BERT, a system that learns about word context from both the left and right side of the word. In terms of this bidirectional approach, BERT alone can understand the full context of a word, improving on performance in tasks such as question answering and text classification. For example, the transformer based GPT models from OpenAI, which are based on the transformer architecture are capable to generate coherent and human like text from prompts, additionally demonstrating the NLP system capability at present time [2].

NLP is still expanding rapidly, and the focus today is still on extending robust and adaptable models. So, researchers have been looking at things like transfer learning, zero shot learning and multilingual models to do multiple languages and tasks with little or no training data. This has led to the growth of NLP applications from traditional text analysis to the recognition of voice, creation of content using automated means and real-time language translation, greatly improving human computer interactions.

Text representation

Text representation is a fundamental task in Natural Language Processing (NLP) which has impact on the Performance of different language processing tasks. The main aim of text representation is to turn raw text into a numerical representation which allows for it to be processed efficiently by machine learning algorithms as well as deep learning models. Computer cannot work without understanding human language so the text has to be turned in form, where it kept semantics meaning and which can be machine readable. A model will only be able to notice context, meaning, and relationships between words (and therefore perform well with NLP applications) if it can represent text in a good way [6]. For almost all NLP tasks such as text classification, sentiment analysis, machine translation, named entity recognition, and information retrieval alone, text representation is a base. Without a great text representation even the most sophisticated algorithms would struggle to process and make sense of language data. In that sense, text representation performs the role of a bridge between human language and machine learning models, and is thus an important step in the NLP pipeline [2].

Text representation, in fact, is also a kind of semantic meaning representation. Language is inherently ambiguous; and it is possible for the same word to have more than one meaning depending upon where and how it is used. The word bass can be used to mean a type of fish, as well as a bass sound, and the context will determine how you’re using it. Given the fact that these nuances and their disambiguation towards meaning are essential, an effective text representation should be able to do so [7]. BoW and TF IDF are traditional approaches that rely on the word frequency in text representation, but fails in the semantic relationships among words. However, these (modern) techniques, such as word embeddings (e.g. Word2Vec, GloVe) and contextual embeddings (e.g. BERT) all represent words in a continuous vector space. In this space, words that are semantically similar beside each other are placed closer than those which are distant from each other so that the model can see that words like ’king’ and ’queen’ occur in similar contexts [8]. Tasks like sentiment analysis, machine translation, and so on, require understanding of the meaning of words, all of which may have changed contextually, this is to say, the meaning of the words may have changed relative to its usage.

To reduce high dimensionality, we provide several tools. The fact that Text data is inherently high-dimensional, i.e. the size of the feature space is big, is because the number of unique words within a language are big. For example, the vocabulary of English may involve more than a hundred thousand of distinct words if you don’t count the various forms like” run,”” running,” and” ran.” Placing the model in the high dimensions is challenging since in machine learning set- ting, this also increases the computational complexity of the model and the risk of over fitting. This dimensionality can be reduced effectively by means of text representation methods that take advantage of the core features of the text [9]. Word embeddings like Word2Vec and GloVe give us each a set of words and their respective dense, low dimensional representations. These embeddings take numbers of features to like by mapping words to vectors in a continuous space. We not only see an improvement in computational efficiency, but the model generalizes better as it learns from a more compact representation of language data [10].

Although the algorithm exhibits excellent generalization on holdout data, we argue that the learned representations only capture the data rather than capturing the contextual information present within it. Language comprehension relies on context and recent text representation techniques have improved to a very large extent to capture context. BoW is a traditional method, which ignore word order as well as context, thus treat each word as independent entity. However, with this approach phrases with different meaning are treated as identical (for instance, the cat chased the dog versus the dog chased the cat).

Thanks to recent advances in text representation, such as contextual embeddings (e.g. ELMo, BERT) [7], the meaning of words can be learned by context. For instance, a word-based transformer like BERT does a very strong job using its bidirectional training approach, learning from both left and right context of a word to understand the more subtle meaning of words. This has resulted in this state-of-the-art performance in the tasks of question answering and named entity recognition [2]. Created by BruceConk Transfer learning in NLP is also critically dependent on text representation. Transfer learning is using a pre trained model that did not see that task as you want to use it and adapt it to your specific case with a small amount of data. According to many, pre trained models such as BERT and GPT have been trained on massive text corpora and taught to learn general language features that can be adapted to a variety of downstream tasks [11]. To great effect this has been done in NLP, by avoiding the need to have large, labeled datasets, and by accelerating development of new applications.

The effectiveness of transfer depends critically on the quality of the underlying text representation. Deep language features such as semantics, syntax, and some aspects of pragmatics can be learned through pre trained models, allowing a strong starting point for task specific fine tuning [12]. The results have been made possible by significant improvements in performance on NLP tasks of many different types. Text representations give robustness against text input variations to the generalization capabilities of NLP models. This can allow for effective representations that will know that, for example,” AI technology” and” artificial intelligence”-although they say different things-” mean the same thing.” For real world applications, text data are often noisy and inconsistent, and thus this robustness is very important [13]. Transformer models like BERT and RoBERTa have taken a cognizance of text representation through training with diverse and huge datasets. Such a help is to generalize better to new, unseen data, increasing its reliability and effectiveness in real world [12].

Key enabler of complex NLP applications is effective text representation. To perform tasks such as machine translation, summarization, sentiment analysis and question answering, we need to understand languages at varied levels; words (word meanings), sentences (sentence structures) and document context. These tasks require a foundation of robust text representations that allow models to interpret, process, and human like generate responses [3]. For instance, in machine translation, we want a model to account for the semantic meaning as well as the syntactic structure of source text outputting accurate translations. By extending advanced text representation methods such as embeddings and contextual models, such as [10], we capture nuanced language features.

Language representation techniques

Converting text to a representation literally just means that the representation of text is something other than a string literal. This is converting a text data to a numerical format which the machines can work with. Humans easily understand the differences in language, as computers require some sort of structured representation of words. In this article, we will explore three popular techniques for text representation: Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency (TF-IDF), Bag of Words (BoW), Word Embeddings. All of these methods take raw text features and through some transformation turn them into ’meaningful features’ which algorithms can use to do things like classification, sentiment analysis etc.

The simplest method for text representation is the Bag of Words (BoW) model. At the core is to treat a document as a bag of words, ignoring grammar and word order. Instead, we count how many times a word appears in the text. So, in a detailed example, let’s go through this process.
Step 1: Tokenization Consider the following two sentences:
Sentence 1: “The cat sits on the mat.”
Sentence 2: “A dog sleeps on the rug.”
Step 2: Building the Vocabulary Next, we create a vocabulary list of all unique words from both sentences. In this example, the vocabulary is:
Vocabulary: [“A”, “The”, “cat”, “sits”, “on”, “mat”, “dog”, “sleeps”, “rug”]
Step 3: Vector Representation We then transform our sentence representations as vectors where each one is built from the occurrence of words in our vocabulary. The vector has the same size as the number of words in the vocabulary excluding duplicates. The vector for each sentence is constructed as follows:
For Sentence 1: Count the frequency of each word in the vocabulary.
Sentence 1 vector: [0, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0]
Explanation:
a. “A” appears 0 times.
b. “The” appears 2 times.
c. “cat” appears 1 time.
d. “sits” appears 1 time.
e. “on” appears 1 time.
f. “mat” appears 1 time.
g. “dog”, “sleeps”, and “rug” do not appear, so they have a count of 0.
For Sentence 2: Count the frequency of each word in the vocabulary.
Sentence 2 vector: [1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1]
Explanation:
a. “A” appears 1 time.
b. “The” appears 1 time. “cat” and “sits” do not appear, so they have a count of 0.
c. “on” appears 1 time.
d. “mat” does not appear, so it has a count of 0.
e. “dog”, “sleeps”, and “rug” each appear 1 time.
Step 4: Creating the Document-Term Matrix For multiple sentences or documents, we often use a matrix format called the Document-Term Matrix (DTM). Each row in this matrix represents a sentence (or document), and each column represents a unique word from the vocabulary. The matrix entries contain the word frequency for each document.
Step 5: Using Bag of Words for NLP Tasks Bag of Words representation of text in the form of vectors is now ready to be used with machine learning models. For example, in a spam detection task, emails are described by vectors in terms of word frequencies. The model is designed to be able to find a tendency in the given data in order to throw new emails into proper categories according to the word frequencies.

While Bag of Words is easy to implement, it has several limitations. Word order can shift meaning in a sentence, but this is not accounted for by Bag of Words. Another thing is that with the increase of the vocabulary used, the size of the vector increases resulting in sparse data and high costs. One more issue is that due to high frequency, ‘the’ and ‘on’ etc. words could occupy large portions of the vectors diminishing the effect of other important words. Some of the issues that may be encountered include, stop word removal and term weighting (TF-IDF). Also, it does not take into account word sequencing so that two words such as ‘The cat chased the dog,’ are regarded as equivalent to, ‘The dog chased the cat.’ Nevertheless, the Bag of Words is a robust baseline, and the method is used as the first step in text representation when using more complex approaches.

Compared to BoW, TF-IDF reduces the significance of specific words with regards to the whole set of data. It decreases the frequency of normal words and improves the significance of the words that hardly exist in the text. Now let’s get a bit deeper and understand how TF-IDF works. One of the most frequent text representation approaches is TF-IDF, the abbreviation of Term Frequency times In- verse Document Frequency. TF-IDF on the other hand, modifies these counts with a view of how often the words occur within the complete corpus. This approach assigns more weights on number of distinguishable and significant words alternatively it de-emphasizes more frequent words such as “the” or “and”.

TF-IDF consists of two main components:
Term Frequency (TF): Term Frequency measures how often a word appears in a specific document. It is a straight for- ward metric calculated as:

Example: Let’s say we have a short document with the sentence: “NLP is fun and NLP is useful.” In this case:
A. Total number of words = 6
B. Frequency of “NLP” = 2
C. Frequency of “fun” = 1
D. Frequency of “useful” = 1

The Term Frequency (TF) for each word would be:

In this example, “NLP” has a higher TF score because it appears more frequently in the document.

Inverse Document Frequency (IDF): Inverse Document Frequency (IDF) is just how often a word has occurred in the whole bunch of documents in the collection. The purpose is to assign higher relevance to those terms that are characterizing specific documents and lower relevance to frequent or general words. It is calculated as:

Example: Assume we have a collection of 10 documents, and the word “NLP” appears in 3 of them. The IDF for “NLP” is calculated as:

Similarly, if the word “fun” appears in only 1 document, its IDF score would be:

Here, “fun” has a higher IDF score because it is rarer across the document collection.

Calculating TF-IDF Score: The final TF-IDF score for a word is obtained by multiplying its TF and IDF values:

Example: Using the TF and IDF values from our earlier examples:

In this example, “fun” and “useful” have the same TF-IDF score because they appear with the same frequency and have the same IDF. However, if “NLP” were more common across the entire dataset, its TF-IDF score would be lower, reducing its influence in the analysis.

TF-IDF comes handy reducing most of the Bag of Words model limitations by offering low importance to frequent words and high importance to more important words in the document. This makes it particularly useful for tasks like information retrieval i.e. identifying the most relevant documents in response to a query, Keyword Extraction i.e. Extracting meaningful terms from a text that best represent its content, and Document Clustering i.e. Grouping similar documents based on shared important terms. Despite its advantages, TF-IDF has some limitations. TF-IDF does not consider the context in which words appear, so it cannot capture semantic relationships between words (e.g., synonyms). Calculating TF-IDF for a large dataset can be time-consuming, especially when the vocabulary is extensive.TF-IDF scores are static once calculated, which can be a drawback in dynamic systems where the document set is constantly changing. In modern NLP, TF-IDF is often used as a baseline or combined with other techniques like Word Embeddings to provide a richer representation of text.

Imagine analyzing customer reviews for a product. Words like “great” or “product” may appear frequently across many reviews, but a word like “defective” might only appear in a few. TF-IDF helps us identify that “defective” is more meaningful in this context, allowing us to focus on potential issues. Word Embeddings are a smarter way of embodying words as compared to Bag of Words. Unlike BoW and tf-idf, Word Embeddings don’t work with independent words but capture relationships in those words. This is done by so called of words embedding into a real-valued vector space such that words with similar properties have closer coordinates. Word Embeddings are a very effective technique in the text representation in Natural Language Processing of English language text. Unlike the conventional methods that involve Bag of Words, TF NIDF where the words are taken individually, the Word Embeddings are capable to retain the semantic resemblance between two words and it will work by embedding these words in the high-density vector space. A brief on Word Embeddings, here; it presents the thought that if two words are likely to be used together in the same sentence, then there is high probability that they would have almost similar meanings. For instance, in sentences like “The king sat on the throne” and “The queen sat on the throne,” the words “king” and “queen” are likely to have similar embeddings because they share the same context words (“sat” and “throne”). In a Word Embedding model, each word is represented by a dense vector of real numbers. For example, the word “apple” might be represented as a 300-dimensional vector:
apple = [0.15, -0.23, 0.76, . . ., 0.42]

These vectors in fact are learnt during the training process and encode semantic as well as syntactic features of the words. Words that are semantically similar, such as “apple” and “banana,” will have vectors that are close in the vector space.

Word2Vec, introduced by [14], is a widely-used model for learning Word Embeddings. It deploys a neural network to acquire the word representations from a raw text compilation. Word2Vec offers two main architectures:
A. Continuous Bag of Words (CBOW): CBOW model fixes the target word and estimates the probability on the number of context words. For example, given the context words “The sat on the throne,” the model tries to predict the missing word (e.g., “king” or “queen”). The values in the CBOW model are learned so as to enable the model to minimize the prediction error Within the model, the word is placed in the general context of the word.
B. Skip-gram: In contrast, the Skip-gram model predicts the context words from the target word and goes through training. For example, given the word “king,” the model aims to predict context words like “throne,” “crown,” and “royal.” One of the biggest advantages of the Skip-gram model is learning representations of rare words; however, only one context word is considered for each target word, although several context words are utilized for predicting the target word.

Word2Vec training process aims to make a neural network learn to predict the probability of a word based on its context (for CBOW) or probability of a context based on a word (for Skip-gram). The objective function for Skip-gram can be defined as:

where D stands for the set of all the word-context pairs that needs to be processed, w is the target word under consideration, and c is any context word. Neural network iteratively adjusts the word vectors so that the distance between them minimizes the loss with the emphasis that words similar to each other contain vectors close to each other.

GloVe (Global Vectors), introduced by [10], is another popular model for learning Word Embeddings. Therefore, while Word2Vec used only local context for the prediction of words, GloVe uses global statistical information of the complete corpus. It builds a cooccurrence matrix in which each cell is the log-count of the coincide of the two words in the same C.W. The main concept of the GloVe algorithm is that the meaning of a word is best represented by the statistics of appearance of the word with other words. For example, the word “ice” is likely to co-occur frequently with “cold,” while the word “steam” is more likely to co-occur with “hot.” GloVe uses this information to learn word embeddings which will model these relationships. The objective function for GloVe can be expressed as:

GloVe seeks for representations that meet some necessary relational characteristics defined by the co-occurrence statis- tics. For instance, the vector difference between “king” and “man” should be similar to the vector difference between “queen” and “woman,” reflecting the semantic relationship:
king - man ≈ queen - woman

This property makes it easy for GloVe embeddings to perform meaningful analogy or semantic relation between the words. Word Embeddings are versatile and have become a core component in many NLP tasks such as Sentiment Analysis, to detect sentiment Word Embeddings is beneficial because it based on the analysis of vector representations of positive and negative words. For example, words like “happy” and “joyful” will have similar embeddings, making it easier to classify sentiment, Machine Translation, through correlation of similar words on one language with others on different language, Word Embeddings can enhance the efficiency of the translated text, Named Entity Recognition (NER), the Embeddings capture the semantic meaning of words, helping models identify and classify named entities like “Google,” “New York,” or “Elon Musk.”, and Question Answering Systems, which allow models to have a context into the questions’ meaning and respond with accuracy and efficiency.

In text representation, Word Embeddings have the following benefits; Among advantages, they occupy a rank of powerful tools used to measure the specific relation between two words and the overall model’s ability to recognize a context. This makes them suitable for big data analysis because they lead to a significant reduction of computational cost as compared to traditional highrank vectors of words. Moreover, there are pre-trained Word Embeddings that can be further trained for several other NLP tasks which forms more robust foundation to begin with. Nevertheless, Word Embeddings also have several disadvantages which shall be discussed later. They demand large amounts of data and computational power apt to the task of learning, which can be a limitation on this scale or for comparatively small data sets. Another drawback is that Word Embeddings may inherit biases present in the training data, potentially amplifying stereotypes or unfair associations [15]. Finally, I want to mention that when deciding on the understanding of individual dimensions of the word vectors, one often has problems and it is challenging to comprehend what particular attributes the specific feature in the embedding space describes.

Table 1 highlights the key differences between Bag of Words, TF-IDF, and Word Embeddings, summarizing their strengths and weaknesses. Bag of Words is the simplest method, providing a straightforward way to represent text. It is easy to implement and works well for basic tasks, but it ignores the context of words, which can limit its effectiveness in understanding the meaning of text. TF-IDF improves on this by considering the importance of words across the entire dataset, reducing the influence of common words. However, it still does not capture word relationships or semantic meaning, making it less effective for tasks where context matters. Word Embeddings, on the other hand, offer a more sophisticated approach by capturing the semantic relationships between words. Thus, they are very suitable in demanding NLP applications like the sentiment analysis and the machine translation where semantic analysis is foundational. But they need big data and processing power, and the models may actually capture the prejudices of training data. In general, the decision on which method to use is determined by the need and purpose of the task, by the size of dataset, and available resources. Overall comparison can be seen in Table1.

Table 1:Comparison of text representation methods.

Current text representation models

Just as in the case of text classification, text representation models in Natural Language Processing (NLP) have under- gone progressive development from statistical to neural network-based approaches. Text representation in NLP has evolved from basic, sparse methods like bag-of-words (BoW) and one-hot encoding, which treated words independently and struggled with semantic representation, to sophisticated deep learning models. Embeddingbased models such as Word2Vec and GloVe capture richer word relationships by embedding semantically similar words closer in vector space. However, their static nature limited contextawareness. Recent innovations, like contextualized embeddings (e.g., ELMo) and transformer models (e.g., BERT, T5), encode words based on surrounding text, allowing models to dynamically interpret meaning within context. These advancements have transformed the manner by which machines interpret natural language so that algorithms can capture semantic essences and contextual information, setting the foundation for LLMs to process and understand language with a high degree of nuance. In this article, we will examine these models, argue for and against their usage, and propose actual-life cases.

BERT, introduced by [2], stands for Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers. It is a ground breaking model in NLP because it captures the context of words in both directions, making it a bidirectional model. Unlike the prior models which read the text sequentially-from left to right or right to left-BERT reads the text in one go and can, therefore, understand the meaning of a word based on the context. BERT uses a Transformer architecture [3], which relies on a mechanism called self-attention. It also means that BERT can assign values of each of the words in a sentence relative to the rest of the words in the sentence. For instance, in the sentences “He went to the bank to deposit money” and “She sat on the river bank,” the word “bank” has different meanings. BERT does so because it is aware of the location of a word within a sentence or the sentence within a larger document. BERT is pre-trained on two tasks: Masked Language Modeling (MLM) and Next Sentence Prediction (NSP). In MLM, actual meaningful words in a sentence are replaced by random words and the model learns the actual word. In the case of the NSP, the model takes two sentences and has to guess if the second is relevant to the first one. Specifically, this pre-training aids BERT to grasp what is going on at the word level and also between each consecutive sentence.

Since its introduction, BERT has been applied to a number of NLP tasks including; sentiment analysis, question answering and Named Entity Recognition (NER). Thus, when I put BERT to work in my text classification project, the percent of accurate predictions increased considerably compared to traditional models. For instance, when developing the customer feedback analysis tool, it was discovered that BERT helped in processing critical sentiments, such as sarcasm, that other models ignored, or struggled to understand. Nevertheless, BERT model can have some problems although it is very powerful: It also poses a serious problem to projects in smaller organizations where resources to be used in the training and inference processes are limited. Also, qualifying BERT is that its pre-trained model is sometimes challenged to understand specific vocabulary related to a certain field, this is why optimal fine-tuning is needed to adjust BERT for medical or legal texts, for example.

To address the lack of context-sensitivity in static word embeddings, the Embeddings from Language Models (ELMo) model introduced a contextualized word representation approach [16]. Unlike Word2Vec, ELMo generates embeddings that vary depending on the word’s surrounding text, capturing different meanings for the same word based on context. For instance, the word” bank” would have distinct vector representations in” river bank” and” savings bank” because ELMo processes language bidirectionally, using Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks to factor in both the left and right context [16]. This capability makes ELMo valuable in tasks requiring nuanced interpretation, such as named entity recognition and part-of-speech tagging, where context determines word meaning.

Several BERT variants have been developed to improve performance, efficiency, and scalability. RoBERTa (Robustly optimized BERT approach) enhances BERT by eliminating the Next Sentence Prediction (NSP) task [17], dynamically masking inputs, and increasing training data size. ALBERT reduces memory usage and training time by parameter- sharing across layers, making it ideal for tasks where computational resources are constrained but accuracy is still a priority [18]. DistilBERT, a compressed version of BERT, provides a faster, lighter model for real-time or resource-limited applications, especially suited for mobile and embedded systems where speed and efficiency are critical [19]. T5 (Text-to-Text Transfer Transformer) reframes all NLP tasks as text generation problems, unifying tasks like summarization, classification, and translation under a single framework. This flexibility makes T5 widely applicable across varied NLP challenges, especially those that can be modeled in a text-to-text format [20]. GPT models, particularly GPT-3, are renowned for their capabilities in open-ended text generation, dialogue systems, and content creation. GPT’s autoregressive nature, where each word is generated based on the previous ones, makes it exceptionally adept at conversational AI and any task requiring coherent, human-like text generation [21].

Domain-specific adaptations of BERT, such as BioBERT and SciBERT, have been created to handle specialized terminology in fields like biomedicine and scientific literature. BioBERT, for example, is trained on biomedical corpora, making it highly effective in tasks like medical document classification, gene-disease relation extraction, and question answering in the healthcare domain [22]. SciBERT, similarly, is designed for scientific literature, excelling in areas like document summarization and citation context understanding [23]. CTRL (Conditional Transformer Language Model) is tailored for controllable text generation, where style, tone, or topic can be specified, making it suitable for applications that require highly stylized or genre-specific content generation [24].

Evaluation benchmarks for text representation models

There are certain text representation models that are the bedrock of Natural Language Processing (NLP) and this entail converting a text into numerical form which is understandable to the machines. The evaluation of these models is relevant to quantify the potential of such models and the possible drawbacks they might present. In this article we will concentrate on different evaluation measures that are used with text representation models: GLUE, SuperGLUE, SQuAD, SemEval, STS-B, and ROUGE. We will consider cases, stress the importance of such standards, and give recommendations on how to apply them.

The General Language Understanding Evaluation (GLUE) benchmark is widely used to evaluate text representation models across a variety of NLP tasks. GLUE includes tasks like sentence similarity, sentiment analysis, and natural language inference, making it a comprehensive evaluation tool [25]. In one of the recent projects, we applied GLUE to assess a BERT-derived model. The tasks in GLUE, such as the CoLA (Corpus of Linguistic Acceptability) task, tested the model’s understanding of grammatical correctness. The benchmark helped identify areas where the model excelled, like sentiment analysis, and where it struggled, like handling complex syntax [25]. SuperGLUE was introduced as an enhancement to GLUE, addressing its limitations and providing more challenging tasks for state-of-the-art models like RoBERTa. SuperGLUE includes tasks that test deeper reasoning and complex language understanding [26]. While evaluating a RoBERTa model using SuperGLUE, the Winograd Schema Challenge posed significant difficulty. This task involved resolving ambiguous pronouns, such as in the sentence, “The trophy did not fit into the suitcase because it was too large.” The model had to determine what “it” referred to (the trophy). This task highlighted the model’s ability to perform complex reasoning [26].

The Stanford Question Answering Dataset (SQuAD) is a widely used benchmark for evaluating question answering systems. It requires models to extract answers from given paragraphs based on specific questions [27]. In an application of QA in a product support chatbot, SQuAD was used to distil a BERT model. The dataset helped train the model to answer specific user queries like, “What is the warranty period for this item?” SQuAD’s focus on extractive question answering improved the model’s accuracy in retrieving precise information from product descriptions [27]. SemEval provides a series of shared tasks focused on evaluating the semantic understanding of text representation models. It includes tasks like sentiment analysis and semantic similarity, making it a valuable tool for benchmarking [28]. As an evaluation measure for the model, aspect-based sentiment analysis of SemEval was employed for the restaurant reviews project. The task called for extraction of sentiments about specific domains which included; food quality and service. For example, in the review, “The pasta was delicious, but the service was slow,” the model needed to identify positive sentiment for “pasta” and negative sentiment for “service.” Using SemEval helped fine-tune the model’s capability in understanding nuanced sentiments [28].

The Semantic Textual Similarity Benchmark (STS-B) measures a model’s ability to determine the similarity be- tween two sentences. It is crucial for applications like paraphrase detection and duplicate question identification [29]. Regarding the test of the additionality of the new Q&A platform model, detection of duplicate questions was carried out using STS-B. For example, the sentences “How do I reset my password?” and “What should I do if I forgot my password?” convey the same meaning. STS-B helped measure the model’s accuracy in identifying semantically similar questions, reducing duplicate content on the platform [29].

If we look at the evaluation of text summarization models specifically, ROUGE score is a widely used metric. ROUGE namely Recall-Oriented Understudy for Gisting Evaluation defines the overlap between the aggregated and a reference summary. It is particularly useful for evaluating models that produce extractive and abstractive summaries [30]. While developing an automatic news summarization system, the quality of the generated summaries was assessed by ROUGE. For instance, against a news article, the summary which was generated by the model was compared with the one written by a human. ROUGE calculates its degree of alignment using overlapping n-grams (like ungrammatical and bigrammatical). A high ROUGE score indicated that the model’s summary captured the essential information, aligning closely with the reference summary [30]. As clearly illustrated by the results, the evaluation of the text summarization model’s performance from the set of references was most effectively facilitated by ROUGE.

ReCoRD is designed to test commonsense reasoning, requiring models to select entities from a passage to fill in blanks in cloze-style questions [31]. The questions often require knowledge beyond the text, such as cultural or historical context, testing the model’s ability to combine textual comprehension with external world knowledge. This benchmark evaluates both language understanding and commonsense inference, challenging models to apply background knowledge to text interpretation. SNLI requires a model to classify sentence pairs as entailment, contradiction, or neutral, a common structure in Natural Language Inference (NLI) tasks [32]. The dataset focuses on everyday situations and general topics, testing a model’s ability to infer logical relationships and handle nuanced sentence comparisons [33]. NLI tasks like SNLI are foundational for models used in conversational AI, where understanding user intent is essential.

MNLI expands on SNLI with sentences from multiple genres, including fiction and government documents, which introduces greater lexical and syntactic diversity [33,34]. The benchmark’s genre variation challenges models to generalize across contexts, testing adaptability and robustness. Performance on MNLI indicates how well a model can handle language variability, making it a valuable benchmark for applications involving diverse language styles, like customer support and news summarization [34]. QQP involves determining if two questions from Quora are semantically similar, testing a model’s capability to detect paraphrasing. This benchmark assesses skills in understanding linguistic variation and redundancy, useful for applications like duplicate detection in question-answering platforms and FAQ matching.

DSTC focuses on conversational AI, specifically tracking the “state” or context of a conversation across multiple turns in goaloriented dialogues. The benchmark requires the model to maintain coherence, remember context, and handle multi-turn dialogue dynamics [35]. DSTC is critical for advancing chatbot and voice assistant technology, where accurate tracking of dialogue state leads to smoother user interactions [35]. This benchmark evaluates models on generating coherent and personality-aligned responses in conversation. Models are expected to maintain a consistent persona across responses, making it valuable for chatbots that aim for personalized and engaging interactions. Persona-Chat measures skills in both dialogue generation and maintaining stylistic consistency, important for customer service and entertainment applications [36].

Depending on the certain NLP task, the two kinds of evaluation benchmarks can be selected. For general language understanding, there are benchmarks GLUE and SuperGLUE to get them started. The robust framework for evaluation of question answering is provided by SQuAD. SemEval is an important data set for those applications that involve semantic similarity while STS-B is helpful for tasks that need sentiment analysis or adult content classification, ROUGE needs no introduction when it comes to evaluating text summaries. We have found that applying all of these benchmarks at once gives one a good overall picture of the capabilities of a model. Getting a general of the performance with benchmarks like GLUE can provide a baseline of its performance, while focused ones like using ROUGE provides insight on performance in particular tasks.

Evaluating NLP models across benchmarks reveals their strengths and limitations for various tasks. For example, in the GLUE benchmark, BERT achieved high scores due to its bidirectional context encoding, which improved performance on sentence-level tasks like MNLI and SST-2 [25]. RoBERTa outperformed BERT on GLUE by adjusting training techniques, such as using dynamic masking and larger training data, demonstrating how fine-tuning transformer architectures can yield performance gains on general language tasks [25].

On SQuAD 2.0, which includes unanswerable questions, models like BERT and RoBERTa showed proficiency in locating answers but struggled to distinguish unanswerable questions effectively. [27] Highlighted that while human accuracy reaches 89.5% F1 on this dataset, BERT-based models achieve only around 66% F1, under- scoring the challenge of handling ambiguous language [27]. Further improvements by models such as ALBERT, which reduces parameter count, reveal that model architecture efficiency can enhance performance without sacrificing accuracy. RACE, with its complex, inference-based questions, shows a distinct performance gap between models like GPT-3, which uses autoregressive text generation, and BERT-based models, which excel in extracting precise information. GPT- 3’s large language model capabilities allow it to perform well on open-ended questions and generation tasks, although it tends to underperform in scenarios requiring exact, context-specific answers, as seen in RACE [37].

When applied to STS (Semantic Textual Similarity) tasks, where similarity scoring is essential, both BERT and Sentence- BERT (a variation fine-tuned specifically for semantic similarity) achieve high accuracy, as they leverage transformer layers to generate context-aware embeddings that align well with human similarity judgments [38]. Sentence-BERT achieves state-of-the-art results by employing a Siamese network structure that efficiently compares sentence pairs. In domain-specific benchmarks like BioBERT on biomedical texts, results indicate that specialized models outperform general-purpose ones by a significant margin. BioBERT’s training on biomedical corpora allows it to handle specialized terminology with higher accuracy in tasks such as entity recognition and relation extraction, making it preferable for applications in fields requiring technical vocabulary [22]. These benchmarks illustrate how adaptations in model architecture, training techniques, and data specialization lead to performance variations across tasks, highlighting the need to choose models based on specific benchmark performance. Each model’s design, from BERT’s bidirectional encoding to GPT-3’s autoregressive generation, significantly impacts its suitability for different NLP tasks.

Language representation models and LLMs

Language representation models provide LLMs with the ability to interpret the meaning of words and phrases within their context. Traditional word embeddings, such as Word2Vec and GloVe, introduced the concept of dense vector spaces where semantically similar words are represented closely. However, these embeddings are static and do not account for different meanings of the same word in varying contexts [38].

The advent of contextualized embeddings like ELMo (Embeddings from Language Models) represented a break- through by capturing word meanings in context, making it possible to distinguish between polysemous words (e.g.,” bank” as a financial institution vs. a river bank). ELMo’s bidirectional LSTM framework allows for nuanced interpretation, improving performance on tasks requiring deep contextual understanding, such as named entity recognition and question answering [38]. Transformerbased models like BERT (Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers) introduced the concept of bidirectional processing, where both preceding and following context inform each token’s representation. This approach allows LLMs to capture dependencies within a sentence more accurately, a crucial feature for understanding nuanced language constructs and tasks like sentiment analysis and text classification.

BERT’s ability to understand the surrounding context of each word has made it invaluable for complex NLP tasks, including machine translation, where understanding sentence structure and context is critical. Moreover, BERT’s masked language modeling (MLM) pre-training strategy allows LLMs to learn richer linguistic patterns during training, which enhances their overall comprehension and generation capabilities [38]. Models designed for efficient semantic search and similarity, such as SBERT (Sentence-BERT), offer LLMs the ability to quickly determine the semantic similarity between texts. SBERT uses a Siamese network structure with BERT, enabling the calculation of cosine similarity between sentence embeddings, which significantly reduces computation time for similarity and clustering tasks. This utility is especially beneficial for real-time applications like recommendation systems and content retrieval [38] SBERT has shown notable success in applications that require rapid similarity assessments, such as question answering and argument similarity detection. Its optimization makes it 55% faster than Universal Sentence Encoder and more computationally efficient than BERT [38], highlighting the importance of optimized sentence embeddings in LLMs, particularly for large-scale clustering tasks.

Autoregressive models like GPT (Generative Pre-trained Transformer) have demonstrated the utility of language representation models in generating coherent, contextually relevant text, making them suitable for dialogue systems, content creation, and open-ended text generation tasks. GPT’s architecture enables each word to be generated based on previous context, facilitating human-like interaction in chatbots and creative writing [21]. With models like GPT-3, LLMs are now capable of maintaining thematic coherence across long texts and engaging in natural conversations [21]. The language representation capabilities within GPT models, supported by attention mechanisms, allow the models to generate text that is not only contextually accurate but also stylistically adaptable, making them valuable for a range of conversational and generative AI applications.

Domain-specific adaptations of language representation models, such as BioBERT for biomedical texts and SciBERT for scientific literature, enhance LLMs by enabling them to understand specialized terminologies and nuances in fields like medicine and science [22,23]. These models are tailored with corpora from specific domains, allowing LLMs to be more effective in domainspecific applications such as medical document classification, scientific literature summarization, and legal text analysis. By training on specialized corpora, domain-specific language models perform better on tasks within their respective fields than generalpurpose LLMs. This utility is crucial for industries requiring highly accurate information retrieval and analysis, where understanding context and domain-specific language is essential for model reliability. Language representation models, particularly those like T5 (Text-to-Text Transfer Transformer), offer LLMs a flexible framework where all NLP tasks are framed as text generation. This approach allows LLMs to transfer learned representations across multiple tasks, increasing their adaptability to various challenges such as summarization, classification, and translation [20]. T5’s unified framework is valuable in environments requiring multifunctional NLP solutions, as it can be fine-tuned on specific tasks without changing the underlying architecture [20]. This flexibility not only reduces the need for multiple task-specific models but also improves the model’s robustness across different NLP tasks, making it highly versatile for enterprise applications.

Language representation models underlying popular LLMs

GPT models, developed by OpenAI, are autoregressive language models that use an autoregressive transformer architecture to represent and generate text. The autoregressive approach involves predicting each word sequentially based on previously generated words, ensuring that each token depends on the preceding context, thus promoting coherent, flowing text generation. This approach is well-suited for open-ended tasks like story generation, dialogue, and creative writing due to the high-quality, coherent text generation it enables [21]. GPT models’ capabilities scale with the model’s size; for instance, GPT-3, with 175 billion parameters [39], demonstrates remarkable proficiency across NLP tasks, including question answering, summarization, and code generation. These models are especially notable for their ability to generalize from the extensive training data they consume, making them applicable across a wide range of domains without task-specific finetuning. The autoregressive representation is particularly advantageous in creative and conversational AI contexts due to its ability to generate text that aligns closely with the preceding input, enhancing continuity and contextual relevance. In BERT, the context of a word is derived from both its left and right sides, providing a more nuanced and contextually aware representation of language. BERT is trained using the Masked Language Model (MLM) method, where random tokens within input text are masked, and the model is trained to predict these masked tokens based on surrounding context [40]. This enables BERT to capture relationships between words in a way that is highly effective for tasks that require a detailed understanding of both syntax and semantics, like sentiment analysis, named entity recognition, and question answering.

Variants of BERT, such as RoBERTa, DistilBERT, and ALBERT, further optimize this bidirectional context approach. RoBERTa, for example, is trained on larger datasets with more dynamic masking, which enhances its contextual comprehension and accuracy in classification tasks [17]. DistilBERT provides a smaller, faster model by distilling BERT’s parameters, making it suitable for applications where computational resources are limited [19]. ALBERT uses cross-layer parameter sharing to reduce model size without compromising accuracy, making it ideal for memoryconstrained environments [18]. T5, developed by Google Research, reimagines all NLP tasks as text-to-text problems, allowing the model to approach a wide variety of language processing challenges through the same unified framework. In T5, every taskfrom translation to classification to summarization-is transformed into a text generation problem. This text-to-text framework simplifies multi-task learning and is advantageous for generalpurpose NLP applications, as it enables the model to leverage shared representations across tasks, enhancing overall efficiency and performance [20]. The flexibility of T5’s text-to-text framework also allows it to generalize across tasks more effectively, making it valuable in domains that require adaptable language representation models. T5’s representation method has proven effective in tasks requiring generation, rephrasing, or answering, showing strong performance on benchmarks for tasks like summarization (CNN/ Daily Mail dataset) and translation. The model’s ability to frame every task as a generation task enables it to maintain consistency across diverse language tasks, a significant advantage in multifunctional NLP systems [20].

Domain-specific adaptations of BERT, such as BioBERT and SciBERT, incorporate specialized training on discipline- specific corpora to improve their performance in fields like biomedical and scientific literature. BioBERT, trained on large- scale biomedical data, is optimized for tasks like biomedical named entity recognition, relation extraction, and document classification, where understanding complex, domain-specific terminology is essential. SciBERT, similarly, is trained on a scientific corpus from the Semantic Scholar database [23], making it highly effective for processing scientific literature and tasks such as citation extraction and domain-specific text classification. These specialized models use BERT’s core bidirectional MLM approach but are fine-tuned on their respective corpora to better capture the terminology and context peculiar to each domain. This approach has shown substantial improvements in accuracy for domain-restricted tasks, as these models can leverage their deep understanding of the language and concepts unique to their fields, unlike generalpurpose models which may lack domain-specific nuance.

The future of language representation

Language representation in NLP is moving towards models that are more contextually aware, efficient, adaptable, and grounded in diverse forms of human knowledge. Emerging advancements and ongoing research suggest several promising directions. Current models like BERT and GPT primarily use generalized language representations learned from extensive text corpora. However, the future points to adaptive models capable of fine-tuning context in real-time, dynamically adjusting their understanding of language based on nuanced cues within conversations or documents. This adaptability will enhance tasks like personalized language generation and real-time dialogue applications. Such dynamic contextualization is being explored through advancements in reinforcement learning, where models could adjust representations based on immediate feedback loops (e.g., user interactions) [41].

With the demand for deploying NLP models on edge devices, the future of language representation emphasizes resource-efficient architectures without compromising performance. Innovations such as knowledge distillation, quantization, and sparsity-based techniques are set to create models that can run effectively on lowpower devices while retaining the ability to interpret language with high accuracy. Future models will likely focus on balancing efficiency and complexity [42], making it feasible to use powerful NLP systems in areas like healthcare, education, and mobile technology where on-device processing is essential. The next generation of language models is expected to integrate multimodal inputs-such as visual, auditory, and textual data-into unified representations. Combining these forms of data will enable models to gain a more holistic understanding of context, opening up possibilities in multimodal AI, where language is understood in conjunction with images, sounds, or even user emotional responses. Efforts by organizations like OpenAI and Google Research on models that process both text and images (e.g., CLIP, DALL-E) indicate that future language models will increasingly rely on multimodal embeddings to enhance context comprehension in real-world applications [43].

Interpretability is a growing concern in NLP, particularly in areas like healthcare, finance, and legal tech, where model transparency is essential. Future research aims to build explainable models that allow users to understand how and why specific representations influence predictions. Techniques such as attention visualization and concept-based explanations are being developed to make model reasoning more transparent. This interpretability will not only improve user trust but also aid researchers in diagnosing model errors and biases, fostering ethical AI deployment [44]. While current domain-specific models (e.g., BioBERT, SciBERT) are highly effective within specialized fields, future language models are likely to integrate structured knowledge bases (e.g., knowledge graphs) directly into the language representation process. This integration will enhance the model’s ability to retrieve and apply domain-specific information in real time, improving performance in knowledge-intensive tasks such as scientific research, legal documentation, and medical diagnostics. Research from AI labs on knowledge-augmented language models suggests that these knowledge enriched representations will further the model’s factual accuracy and decision-making capabilities [44,45].

Language representation is also evolving toward universal models capable of cross-lingual understanding and seam- less translation between languages, dialects, and cultural contexts. The concept of a single model that understands and generates multiple languages accurately is becoming a reality with projects like Google’s mT5 [46] and M2M-100, Meta’s universal translation model. Such multilingual models will advance cross-cultural communication, democratizing access to information and enabling models to process language with cultural awareness and contextual adaptability across linguistic boundaries [47].

1. Jurafsky D, Martin JH (2023) Speech and language processing. Pearson Publishing, USA.
2. Devlin J, Chang MW, Lee K, Toutanova K (2018) BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. Proceedings of the NAACL-HLT, Minnesota, USA, pp. 4171-4186.
3. Vaswani A, Shazeer N, Parmar N, Uszkoreit J, Jones L, et al. (2017) Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, USA.
4. Turney P, Pantel P (2010) Frequency-based and semantic approaches to information retrieval. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research.
5. Mikolov T, Chen K, Corrado G, Dean J (2013) Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. ArXiv Preprint.
6. Goldberg Y (2017) Neural network methods for natural language processing. Journal of Machine Learning Research.
7. Peters ME, Neumann M, Iyyer M, Gardner M, Clark C, et al. (2018) Deep contextualized word representations. Journal of Machine Learning Research.
8. Mikolov T, Sutskever I, Chen K, Corrado G, Dean J, et al. (2013) Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) 2: 3111-3119.
9. Bengio Y, Courville A, Vincent P (2013) Representation learning: A review and new perspectives. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 35(8): 1798-1828.
10. Pennington J, Socher R, Manning CD (2014) GloVe: Global vectors for word representation. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems.
11. Radford A, Wu J, Child R, Luan D, Amodei D, et al. (2019) Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI Technical Report.
12. Liu Y, Ott M, Goyal N, Du J, Joshi M, et al. (2019) RoBERTa: A robustly optimized BERT pretraining approach. Journal of Machine Learning Research.
13. Yang Z, Dai Z, Yang Y, Carbonell J, Salakhutdinov R, et al. (2019) XLNet: Generalized autoregressive pretraining for language understanding. Nature Communications 517: 5753-5763.
14. Mikolov T, Chen K, Corrado G, Dean J (2013) Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), Arizona, USA.
15. Bolukbasi T, Chang KW, Zou J, Saligrama V, Kalai A (2016) Man is to computer programmer as woman is to homemaker? Debiasing word embeddings. Proceedings of the 30^th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), Barcelona, Spain, pp. 4356-4364.
16. Ethayarajh K (2019) How contextual are contextualized word representations? Comparing the geometry of BERT, ELMo, and GPT-2 embeddings. Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), Hong Kong, China, pp: 55-65.
17. Tan KL, Lee CP, Muthu Anbananthen KS, Lim KM (2021) RoBERTa-LSTM: A hybrid model for sentiment analysis with transformer and recurrent neural network. IEEE Access 10: 21517-21525.
18. Lan Z, Chen M, Goodman S, Gimpel K, Sharma P (2019) ALBERT: A Lite BERT for Self-supervised Learning of Language Representations.
19. Adoma AF, Henry NM, Chen W (2020) Comparative analyses of bert, roberta, distilbert, and xlnet for text-based emotion recognition. International Conference on Wavelet Active Media Technology and Information Processing (ICWAMTIP), Chengdu, China.
20. Ni J, Ábrego GH, Constant N, Ma J, Hall KB (2021) Sentence-T5: Scalable sentence encoders from pre-trained text-to-text models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.08877.
21. Floridi L, Chiriatti M (2020) GPT-3: Its nature, scope, limits, and consequences. Minds & Machines 30: 681-694.
22. Lee J, Yoonet W, Kim S, Kim D, Kim S, et al. (2020) BioBERT: A pre-trained biomedical language representation model for biomedical text mining. Bioinformatics 36(4): 1234-1240.
23. Beltagy I, Lo K, Cohan A (2019) SciBERT: A pretrained language model for scientific text. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.10676.
24. Keskar NS, McCann B, Varshney LR, Xiong C, Socher R (2019) CTRL: A conditional transformer language model for controllable generation. arXiv preprint arXiv: 1909.05858.
25. Wang A, Singh A, Michael J, Hill F, Levy O, et al. (2019) GLUE: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.
26. Hao Niu, Jian Zhang (2020) SuperGLUE: A stickier benchmark for general-purpose language understanding systems. Journal of Artificial Intelligence.
27. Rajpurkar P, Jia R, Liang P (2018) Know what you don’t know: Unanswerable questions for SQuAD. Journal of Information 2: 784-789.
28. Camacho-Collados J, Pilehvar M (2019) SemEval-2019 task 4: Aspect-based sentiment analysis. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing.
29. Cer D, Diab M, Agirre E, Lopez-Gazpio I, Specia L (2017) SemEval-2017 task 1: Semantic textual similarity-a unified framework. Journal of Language Resources and Evaluation pp: 1-14.
30. Lin CY (2019) ROUGE: A metric for automatic evaluation of summaries. Journal of Information Science pp: 74-81.
31. Mihaylov T, Frank A (2018) Knowledgeable reader: Enhancing cloze-style reading comprehension with external commonsense knowledge. arXiv preprint pp: 821-832.
32. Y Nie, Williams A, Dinan E, Bansal M, Weston J, et al. (2019) Adversarial NLI: A new benchmark for natural language understanding. In: CoRR abs/1910.14599.
33. Camburu OM, Rocktäschel T, Lukasiewicz T, Blunsom P (2018) e-SNLI: Natural Language Inference with Natural Language Explanations. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. NIPS'18: Proceedings of the 32^nd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, pp: 9560-9572.
34. Nangia N, Williams A, Lazaridou A, Bowman SR (2017) The RepEval 2017 shared task: Multi-genre natural language inference with sentence representations. CoRR abs/1707.08172.
35. Williams JD, Raux A, Henderson M (2016) The dialog state tracking challenge series: A review. Dialogue & Discourse 7(3): 1-21.
36. Yamashita S, Inoue K, Guo A, Mochizuki S, Kawahara T, et al. (2023) Realpersonachat: A realistic persona chat corpus with interlocutors’ own personalities. Proceedings of the 37^th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation, Hong Kong, China, pp: 852-861.
37. Brown TB, Mann B, Ryder N, Subbiah M, Kaplan J, et al. (2020) Language models are few-shot learners. In: arXiv preprint arXiv: 2005.14165.
38. Reimers N, Gurevych I (2019) Sentence-BERT: Sentence embeddings using siamese BERT-networks. Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methodsin Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), Hong Kong, China, pp. 3982-3992.
39. Lin HY (2022) Large-scale artificial intelligence models. Computer 55(5): 76-80.
40. Koroteev MV (2021) BERT: A review of applications in natural language processing and understanding. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.11943.
41. Li W, Suzuki E (2021) Adaptive and hybrid context-aware fine-grained word sense disambiguation in topic modeling-based document representation. Information Processing & Management 58(4): 102592.
42. Engel E (2023) Balancing performance and usage cost: A comparative study of language models for scientific text classification.
43. Zilliz (2024) Exploring OpenAI CLIP: The future of multi-modal AI learning.
44. Zini JE, Awad M (2022) On the explainability of natural language processing deep models. ACM Computing Surveys 55(5): 1-31.
45. J Baek, Chandrasekaran N, Cucerzan S, Herring A, Jauhar SK (2024) Knowledge-augmented large language models for personalized contextual query suggestion. WWW '24: Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference. Singapore, pp: 3355-3366.
46. L Xue, Constantet N, Roberts A, Kaleal M, Al-Rfou R, et al. (2021) MT5: A massively multilingual pre-trained text-to-text transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2010. 11934.
47. Danilevsky M, Qian K, Aharonovet R, Katsis Y, Kawas B, et al. (2020) A survey of the state of explainable ai for natural language processing. In: Proceedings of the 1st Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics & 10^th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing. Suzhou, China, pp: 447-459.