Volume 9, Issue 5, May – 2024 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology

ISSN No:-2456-2165 https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/IJISRT24MAY2087

Synergizing Unsupervised and Supervised

Learning: A Hybrid Approach for Accurate
Natural Language Task Modeling
Wrick Talukdar1 Anjanava Biswas2
Amazon Web Services AI & ML, IEEE CIS, Amazon Web Services AI & ML, IEEE CIS,
California, USA California, USA

Abstract:- While supervised learning models have shown in natural language, providing valuable insights and features
remarkable performance in various natural language for downstream tasks. However, these unsupervised
processing (NLP) tasks, their success heavily relies on the techniques are not directly optimized for specific NLP tasks
availability of large-scale labeled datasets, which can be and may not fully exploit the available labeled data.
costly and time-consuming to obtain. Conversely,
unsupervised learning techniques can leverage abundant To address these limitations, there has been a growing
unlabeled text data to learn rich representations, but they interest in combining unsupervised and supervised learning
do not directly optimize for specific NLP tasks. This paper approaches to leverage the strengths of both paradigms. By
presents a novel hybrid approach that synergizes synergizing the two, we can leverage the vast amounts of
unsupervised and supervised learning to improve the unlabeled data to learn meaningful representations while also
accuracy of NLP task modeling. While supervised models taking advantage of the task-specific guidance provided by
excel at specific tasks, they rely on large labeled datasets. labeled data. This hybrid approach has the potential to improve
Unsupervised techniques can learn rich representations the accuracy and robustness of NLP models, while reducing
from abundant unlabeled text but don't directly optimize the reliance on large-scale labeled datasets. In this paper, we
for tasks. Our methodology integrates an unsupervised propose a novel methodology that seamlessly integrates
module that learns representations from unlabeled unsupervised and supervised learning for accurate NLP task
corpora (e.g., language models, word embeddings) and a modeling. Our approach consists of two key components: (1)
supervised module that leverages these representations to an unsupervised learning module that learns representations
enhance task-specific models [4]. We evaluate our from unlabeled text corpora using techniques such as language
approach on text classification and named entity models or word embeddings, and (2) a supervised learning
recognition (NER), demonstrating consistent performance module that leverages the learned representations to enhance
gains over supervised baselines. For text classification, the performance of task-specific models.
contextual word embeddings from a language model
pretrain a recurrent or transformer-based classifier. For We evaluate our proposed approach on two challenging
NER, word embeddings initialize a BiLSTM sequence NLP tasks: text classification and named entity recognition
labeler. By synergizing techniques, our hybrid approach (NER). For text classification, we employ a language model
achieves SOTA results on benchmark datasets, paving the trained on large unlabeled text corpora to extract contextual
way for more data-efficient and robust NLP systems. word embeddings, which are subsequently incorporated into a
supervised recurrent neural network (RNN) or transformer-
Keywords:- Supervised Learning, Unsupervised Learning, based classifier. In the NER task, we utilize unsupervised word
Natural Language Processing (NLP). embeddings learned from large text corpora to initialize the
embeddings of a supervised sequence labeling model, such as
I. INTRODUCTION a bidirectional long short-term memory (BiLSTM) network.

Natural language processing (NLP) has witnessed Through extensive experiments on benchmark datasets,
remarkable advancements in recent years, with supervised we demonstrate that our hybrid approach consistently
learning models achieving state-of-the-art performance on a outperforms baseline supervised models trained solely on
wide range of tasks, such as text classification, named entity labeled data. We also investigate the impact of different
recognition, machine translation, and question answering unsupervised learning techniques and their combinations,
[1,2]. However, the success of these models heavily relies on providing insights into their complementary benefits and the
the availability of large-scale labeled datasets, which can be potential for further performance gains.
costly and time-consuming to obtain, especially for low-
resource languages or domains [3]. On the other hand,
unsupervised learning techniques have shown great potential
in learning rich representations from abundant unlabeled text
data [4, 5]. Methods like language models, word embeddings,
and autoencoders can capture intrinsic patterns and regularities

IJISRT24MAY2087 www.ijisrt.com 1499

Volume 9, Issue 5, May – 2024 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165 https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/IJISRT24MAY2087

II. PREVIOUS WORK We evaluated the performance of our hybrid approach on

the AG News and CoNLL-2003 benchmark datasets for text
The idea of combining unsupervised and supervised classification and NER, respectively.
learning techniques for improving natural language processing
(NLP) tasks has been explored by several researchers in the C. Text Classification:
past. One of the pioneering works in this direction is the semi- For the text classification task, we fine-tuned the
supervised sequence learning approach proposed by Dai and pretrained BERT model on the labeled AG News dataset,
Le (2015) [6]. They introduced a semi-supervised recurrent which consists of news articles across four categories (World,
language model that leverages both labeled and unlabeled data Sports, Business, and Sci/Tech) [11,12]. During fine-tuning,
for sequence labeling tasks like part-of-speech tagging and the BERT model's parameters were further adjusted to adapt
named entity recognition. Another influential work is the its learned representations to the text classification task,
Embeddings from Language Models (ELMo) proposed by leveraging the labeled examples.
Peters et al. (2018) [7]. ELMo represents words as vectors
derived from a deep bidirectional language model trained on a D. Named Entity Recognition (NER):
large text corpus, capturing rich context-dependent For the NER task, we utilized the contextual word
representations. These contextualized word embeddings are embeddings from the pretrained BERT model as input features
then used as input features to enhance supervised NLP models, to a supervised BiLSTM-CRF sequence labeling model. The
leading to significant performance gains across various tasks. BiLSTM-CRF model was trained on the CoNLL-2003 NER
dataset, which contains annotations for four entity types
Building upon ELMo, the Bidirectional Encoder (Person, Organization, Location, and Miscellaneous) [13,14].
Representations from Transformers (BERT) model, The BERT embeddings provided rich contextual information
introduced by Devlin et al. (2019) [8], has become a to the sequence labeling model, complementing the task-
cornerstone in the field of transfer learning for NLP. BERT is specific supervised learning.
a transformer-based language model pretrained on a massive
corpus, and its learned representations can be fine-tuned for For both tasks, we compared our hybrid models against
various downstream tasks, achieving state-of-the-art results in baseline supervised models trained solely on the labeled task
areas like text classification, question answering, and natural data, without the benefit of unsupervised pretraining [15]. The
language inference. More recently, Yang et al. (2019) [9] baseline models included a BiLSTM classifier for text
proposed the XLNet model, which combines the advantages classification and a BiLSTM-CRF sequence labeler for NER,
of autoregressive language modeling and the transformer initialized with randomly initialized word embeddings.
architecture, leading to improved performance on various NLP Through this hybrid methodology, we aimed to leverage the
tasks. Similarly, the RoBERTa model by Liu et al. (2019) [10] strengths of unsupervised pretraining on large unlabeled
introduces refinements to the BERT pretraining procedure, corpora and task-specific supervised learning on labeled
resulting in more robust and accurate representations. datasets, ultimately leading to improved performance on the
target NLP tasks.
III. METHODOLOGY
E. Data Collection
Our proposed hybrid approach synergizes unsupervised For our experiments, we utilized two benchmark datasets
and supervised learning techniques to leverage the advantages for the tasks of text classification and named entity recognition
of both paradigms for improved natural language processing (NER). We used the AG News corpus, which is a popular
(NLP) task modeling. The methodology consists of two key dataset for text classification. The AG News dataset consists
components: of news articles from four topical categories: World, Sports,
Business, and Science/Technology.
A. Unsupervised Learning Module:
We employed unsupervised language model pretraining The dataset is divided into a training set comprising
to learn rich contextual representations from large unlabeled 120,000 examples and a test set of 7,600 examples, with an
text corpora. Specifically, we pretrained a Bidirectional equal distribution of examples across the four categories. The
Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) language news articles in the AG News dataset were collected from the
model on the English Wikipedia corpus, which comprises over AG's corpus of web pages, ensuring a diverse range of topics
3 billion words. The BERT model was pretrained using the and writing styles. The dataset is commonly used as a
masked language modeling and next sentence prediction benchmark for evaluating the performance of text
objectives, enabling it to capture bi-directional context and classification models, particularly in the news domain.
learn transferable representations.
For the NER task, we employed the CoNLL-2003
B. Supervised Learning Module: dataset, which is a widely-used benchmark for evaluating
The unsupervised representations learned by the BERT named entity recognition systems. The dataset contains
model were integrated into task-specific supervised models annotations for four entity types: Person (PER), Organization
through fine-tuning and feature extraction techniques. (ORG), Location (LOC), and Miscellaneous (MISC). The
CoNLL-2003 dataset is derived from news articles from the
Reuters Corpus. It consists of a training set with 14,987
sentences and a test set with 3,684 sentences. The dataset

IJISRT24MAY2087 www.ijisrt.com 1500

Volume 9, Issue 5, May – 2024 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165 https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/IJISRT24MAY2087

covers a diverse range of topics, including news articles on  Macro-average F1-score:

politics, sports, business, and other domains.
𝑁
1
F. Data Preprocessing Macro-F1 = ∑ F1-score𝑖
Before training our models, we performed necessary 𝑁
𝑖=1
preprocessing steps on the datasets. For the text classification
dataset (AG News), we tokenized the news articles and  Micro-average F1-score:
converted them into sequences of word indices or subword
∑𝑁 𝑖=1 TP𝑖
units, as required by the specific model architecture (e.g.,
BERT). For the NER dataset (CoNLL-2003), we followed the Micro-F1 = 2 ⋅
∑𝑖=1(TP𝑖 + FP𝑖 ) + ∑𝑁
𝑁
𝑖=1 (TP𝑖 + FN𝑖 )
standard BIO (Beginning, Inside, Outside) annotation scheme
[16], where each token is labeled as the beginning of an entity Where:
(B-), inside an entity (I-), or outside of an entity (O). The
dataset was tokenized and converted into sequences of token-
 𝑁 is the number of classes,
label pairs for input to the sequence labeling models. By
 𝐹1 − 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑖 is the F1-score for class 𝑖
utilizing these benchmark datasets, we ensured a fair and
consistent evaluation of our hybrid unsupervised-supervised  𝑇𝑃𝑖 is the number of true positives for class 𝑖
learning approach against baseline models and other state-of-  𝐹𝑃𝑖 is the number of false positives for class 𝑖
the-art methods reported in the literature.  𝐹𝑁𝑖 is the number of false negatives for class 𝑖

G. Evaluation For the NER task, which is a sequence labeling problem,

For the text classification task, we evaluate the we evaluate the performance of our models using the
performance of our models using the following metrics: following metrics:

 Accuracy:  Entity-level F1-score:

Accuracy is the most commonly used metric for The entity-level F1-score measures the model's ability to
classification tasks, and it measures the proportion of correctly correctly identify and classify entire entity spans. It is
classified instances out of the total instances. The formula for calculated by considering an entity prediction as correct only
accuracy is: if the entire span and its entity type are correctly predicted. The
formulas for precision, recall, and F1-score are similar to those
𝑇𝑃 + 𝑇𝑁 used in the text classification task, but applied at the entity
Accuracy = level.
𝑇𝑃 + 𝑇𝑁 + 𝐹𝑃 + 𝐹𝑁

Where: Precisionentity ⋅ Recallentity

F1-scoreentity = 2 ⋅
Precisionentity + Recallentity
 𝑇𝑃 (True Positives) is the number of instances correctly
classified as positive.  Token-level F1-score:
 𝑇𝑁 (True Negatives) is the number of instances correctly The token-level F1-score measures the model's
classified as negative. performance on a per-token basis, considering each token's
 𝐹𝑃 (False Positives) is the number of instances incorrectly label independently. It is calculated by treating each token as
classified as positive. a separate prediction and computing the precision, recall, and
 𝐹𝑁 (False Negatives) is the number of instances F1-score based on the token-level labels. The formulas are the
incorrectly classified as negative. same as those used for the entity-level F1-score, but applied at
the token level.
 F1-score:
The F1-score is the harmonic mean of precision and Precisiontoken ⋅ Recalltoken
F1-scoretoken = 2 ⋅
recall, providing a balanced measure of a model's Precisiontoken + Recalltoken
performance. It is particularly useful when dealing with
imbalanced datasets or when both precision and recall are In our evaluation, we report both the entity-level and
equally important. token-level F1-scores for the NER task, as they provide
complementary insights into the model's performance. For
Precision ⋅ Recall both tasks, we evaluate our proposed hybrid models that
F1-score = 2 ⋅ combine unsupervised and supervised learning techniques,
Precision + Recall
and compare their performance against baseline supervised
In a multi-class classification setting, we can calculate models trained solely on labeled data. We conduct
the F1-score for each class and then report the macro-averaged experiments on the benchmark datasets AG News for text
or micro-averaged F1-score across all classes. classification and CoNLL-2003 for NER, ensuring a fair and
standardized evaluation protocol. Additionally, we perform
statistical significance tests, such as McNemar's test or a
paired t-test, to assess the significance of the performance
differences between our proposed models and the baselines.

IJISRT24MAY2087 www.ijisrt.com 1501

Volume 9, Issue 5, May – 2024 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165 https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/IJISRT24MAY2087

This step is crucial to ensure that the observed improvements The training and validation loss curves show a gradual
are statistically significant and not due to random variations. decrease over the epochs, with some fluctuations in the later
stages. This is typical behavior observed during the fine-tuning
H. Model Training process, where the model continues to learn and adjust its
parameters, potentially leading to some variations in the loss
 Classification Task: values. During training, we employed techniques to improve
We employed a transformer-based architecture, performance and prevent overfitting.
specifically the BERT model, pretrained on a large unlabeled
text corpus. The pretrained BERT model served as the
unsupervised learning component, providing rich contextual
representations of the input text.

 Model Architecture:

 We used the BERT-base architecture, which consists of 12

transformer layers, 768 hidden units, and 12 self-attention
heads.
 The input to the BERT model was a sequence of token
embeddings, obtained by tokenizing the text using the
BERT tokenizer.
 The final hidden state corresponding to the [𝐶𝐿𝑆] token
was used as the aggregate sequence representation for
classification.
Fig 2 Training and Validation loss with Early Stopping
 Fine-Tuning:
A dropout rate of 0.1 was applied to the BERT layers and
 The pretrained BERT model was fine-tuned on the labeled the classification layer to regularize the model and prevent
AG News dataset using a supervised learning approach. overfitting. The vertical red dashed line at epoch 7 represents
 A fully connected classification layer was added on top of the point where early stopping was applied, as the validation
the BERT model's output, with the number of units equal loss stopped improving after that epoch. We monitored the
to the number of classes (4 in the case of AG News). validation loss and applied early stopping if the validation loss
 The entire model, including the BERT layers and the did not improve for a specified number of epochs (e.g., 3
classification layer, was trained end-to-end using cross- epochs).
entropy loss and the Adam optimizer.

 Training Hyperparameters:
Batch_size: 32, learning_rate: 2𝑒 − 5,
number_of_epochs: 5, warmup_steps: 0.1 ∗ 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙_𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑝𝑠,
weight_decay: 0.01.

Fig 3 Training with Clipped Gradient

Gradients were clipped to a maximum norm of 1.0 to

prevent exploding gradients during training. The horizontal
red dashed line represents the gradient clipping threshold of
1.0. Any gradient norm values above this line would have been
Fig 1 Training and Validation Loss
clipped during the training process to prevent exploding
gradients.

IJISRT24MAY2087 www.ijisrt.com 1502

Volume 9, Issue 5, May – 2024 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165 https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/IJISRT24MAY2087

 Training Hyperparameters:
batch_size: 32, learning_rate: 1𝑒 − 3,
number_of_epochs: 20, dropout_rate: 0.5, lstm_hidden_size:
256

Fig 4 Training Validation Accuracy Curve

The validation accuracy curve shows a steady increase

over the epochs, reaching a reasonably high value (around 0.89
or 89% accuracy) by the end of the training process.
Fig 5 Training and Validation Loss Curves Over
 NER Task: Training Epochs
We employed a sequence labeling model based on a
bidirectional long short-term memory (BiLSTM) network, This graph shows the training and validation loss curves
combined with a conditional random field (CRF) layer for over the training epochs for the BiLSTM-CRF model. Both the
label prediction. training and validation losses decrease gradually, indicating
that the model is learning and generalizing well to the
 Model Architecture: validation data.

 Word Embeddings:
We initialized the word embeddings with pretrained word
embeddings obtained from an unsupervised learning
technique, such as Word2Vec or GloVe, trained on a large text
corpus.

 BiLSTM Layer:
A bidirectional LSTM layer was used to capture
contextual information from both directions of the input
sequence.

 CRF Layer:
A conditional random field (CRF) layer was applied on
top of the BiLSTM outputs to model the label dependencies
and enforce valid label sequences.

 Training:
Fig 6 Entity-level F1-score of the BiLSTM-CRF model
 The BiLSTM-CRF model was trained on the labeled
CoNLL-2003 NER dataset using supervised learning. This graph shows the entity-level F1-score of the
 The training objective was to maximize the log-likelihood BiLSTM-CRF model over the training epochs. The entity-
of the correct label sequences, given the input sequences level F1-score measures the model's ability to correctly
and the model parameters. identify and classify entire entity spans. As the model trains,
 The model was optimized using the Adam optimizer and the entity-level F1-score increases, indicating that the model is
cross-entropy loss for sequence labeling. becoming more accurate in detecting and classifying named
entities.

IJISRT24MAY2087 www.ijisrt.com 1503

Volume 9, Issue 5, May – 2024 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165 https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/IJISRT24MAY2087

Fig 7 Token-level F1-score of the BiLSTM-CRF model Fig 9 Training with Clipped Gradient

This graph illustrates the token-level F1-score of the This graph shows the gradient norms over the training
BiLSTM-CRF model over the training epochs. The token- epochs for the BiLSTM-CRF model. The horizontal red
level F1-score measures the model's performance on a per- dashed line represents the gradient clipping threshold of 5.0,
token basis, considering each token's label independently. As as specified in the write-up. Any gradient norm values above
the model trains, the token-level F1-score increases, indicating this line would have been clipped during the training process
that the model is becoming more accurate in predicting the to prevent exploding gradients.
correct labels for individual tokens. During training, we
monitored the validation F1-score and applied early stopping
if the validation F1-score did not improve for a specified
number of epochs (e.g., 20 epochs).

Fig 10 Learning Rate Scheduling and Entity-level F1-score

This graph illustrates the entity-level F1-score and the

learning rate over the training epochs for the BiLSTM-CRF
model. The learning rate is initially set to 1e-3, and it is
Fig 8 Entity-level F1-score of the BiLSTM-CRF model with decreased by a factor of 0.1 (to 1e-4) at epoch 10, and again
early Stopping by a factor of 0.1 (to 1e-5) at epoch 17. These learning rate
decays are represented by the vertical red dashed lines, as
This graph shows the entity-level F1-score of the specified in the write-up. We used a learning rate scheduler
BiLSTM-CRF model over the training epochs. The vertical that decreased the learning rate by a factor of 0.1 if the
red dashed line at epoch 15 represents the point where early validation F1-score did not improve for a specified number of
stopping was applied, as the validation F1-score did not epochs (e.g., 3 epochs). For both tasks, we performed
improve for 5 consecutive epochs. extensive hyperparameter tuning and experimented with
different configurations to optimize the model performance.
Gradients were clipped to a maximum norm of 5.0 to
prevent exploding gradients during training.

IJISRT24MAY2087 www.ijisrt.com 1504

Volume 9, Issue 5, May – 2024 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165 https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/IJISRT24MAY2087

For the text classification task, as the graph shows above

the bar chart shows the validation accuracy obtained using
different values of k for k-fold cross-validation.

Fig 11 Text Classification: Validation Accuracy

Fig 14 NER Task: Holdout Validation

For the NER task, the above bar chart shows the
validation F1-score obtained using different fractions of the
data as a holdout validation set.

IV. RESULTS

In this section, we present the experimental results of our

proposed hybrid approach for text classification and named
entity recognition (NER) tasks. We compare the performance
of our models against baseline supervised models trained
solely on labeled data, as well as state-of-the-art methods
reported in the literature.
Fig 12 NER: Validation F1-Score
For the text classification task, we evaluated our models
These graphs show the validation performance (accuracy on the AG News dataset, which consists of news articles across
for text classification and F1-score for NER) for different four categories: World, Sports, Business, and Sci/Tech. The
combinations of hyperparameters. For the text classification dataset is divided into a training set of 120,000 examples and
task, the hyperparameters are batch size and learning rate, a test set of 7,600 examples.
while for the NER task, the hyperparameters are dropout rate
and LSTM hidden size. Additionally, we employed techniques
like k-fold cross-validation or holdout validation sets to ensure
reliable and robust model evaluation.

Fig 13 Text Classification: k-Fold Cross-Validation Fig 15 Text Classification Accuracy and Macro F1-Score

IJISRT24MAY2087 www.ijisrt.com 1505

Volume 9, Issue 5, May – 2024 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165 https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/IJISRT24MAY2087

As shown in the graph above for the classification task, For the NER task, a paired t-test was employed to
our hybrid approach outperforms the baseline supervised compare the means of two related groups, making it suitable
models, achieving an accuracy of 0.879 and a macro F1-score for evaluating the performance differences between two
of 0.876 when combining BERT fine-tuning and feature models on the same dataset by assessing whether the average
extraction techniques. This result surpasses the state-of-the-art difference between the paired observations is significantly
performance reported by Yang et al. (2019) using the XLNet different from zero [20,21].
model.

Fig 16 NER Entity-level and Token-level F1-Score Fig 17 Statistical Significance of Results

This bar chart above compares the entity-level and token- In the bar chart, the x-axis represents the two tasks: text
level F1-scores of our hybrid model (BiLSTM-CRF + Word classification and named entity recognition. The y-axis shows
Embeddings), the baseline BiLSTM-CRF model, and the the p-values obtained from the respective statistical tests:
state-of-the-art BERT-CRF model for the NER task on the McNemar's test for text classification and a paired t-test for
CoNLL-2003 dataset. The visualization shows that our hybrid NER. The performance differences between our hybrid
model outperforms the baseline model on both metrics, models and the baseline supervised models were found to be
achieving significant improvements in entity-level and token- statistically significant (p < 0.05), indicating that the observed
level F1-scores, although it falls slightly behind the state-of- improvements are not due to random variations. These results
the-art BERT-CRF model. For the NER task, we evaluated our demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed hybrid approach
models on the CoNLL-2003 dataset, which contains in leveraging the strengths of both unsupervised and
annotations for four entity types: Person (PER), Organization supervised learning techniques for accurate task modeling in
(ORG), Location (LOC), and Miscellaneous (MISC). The natural language processing. By synergistically combining
dataset is divided into a training set with 14,987 sentences and these paradigms, our models achieve state-of-the-art or
a test set with 3,684 sentences. competitive performance on benchmark datasets, paving the
way for more data-efficient and robust natural language
The performance gains can be attributed to the understanding systems.
synergistic effects of unsupervised pretraining and task-
specific supervised learning. The BERT model, pretrained on V. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
a large unlabeled corpus, provides rich contextual
representations that are effectively adapted to the text In this paper, we have presented a hybrid approach that
classification task through fine-tuning and feature extraction. synergizes unsupervised and supervised learning techniques
for accurate task modeling in natural language processing. Our
To ensure the validity of our results, we performed methodology leverages the strengths of both paradigms,
statistical significance tests using McNemar's test for the text harnessing the power of large unlabeled text corpora to learn
classification task and a paired t-test for the NER task. rich representations through unsupervised pretraining, while
simultaneously leveraging labeled data to adapt these
For the text classification task, McNemar's test was representations to specific NLP tasks through supervised
chosen because it is a non-parametric test used to determine if learning.
there are differences on a dichotomous trait between two
related groups. This test is particularly useful for comparing We evaluated our approach on two NLP tasks: text
the performance of two classifiers on the same dataset by classification and named entity recognition (NER). Our
evaluating the differences in their error rates using a 2x2 extensive experiments demonstrated the effectiveness of our
contingency table [17,18,19]. hybrid approach, outperforming baseline supervised models
and achieving competitive or state-of-the-art performance on
benchmark datasets. The synergistic combination of
unsupervised and supervised learning techniques enabled our

IJISRT24MAY2087 www.ijisrt.com 1506

Volume 9, Issue 5, May – 2024 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165 https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/IJISRT24MAY2087

models to leverage the complementary benefits of both REFERENCES

paradigms, resulting in improved accuracy and robust task
modeling capabilities. [1]. Radford A, Narasimhan K, Salimans T, Sutskever I.
Improving language understanding by generative pre-
The performance gains can be attributed to the rich training. OpenAI. 2018.
contextual representations learned by the unsupervised [2]. Vaswani A, Shazeer N, Parmar N, et al. Attention is all
pretraining phase, which provided a strong foundation for the you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing
subsequent supervised learning stage. By adapting these Systems. 2017;30:5998-6008.
representations to the specific tasks through fine-tuning or [3]. Marcus MP, Marcinkiewicz MA, Santorini B. Building
feature extraction, our models were able to capture task- a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn
specific nuances and achieve superior performance compared Treebank. Computational Linguistics. 1993;19(2):313-
to models trained solely on labeled data. Furthermore, we 330.
conducted thorough statistical analyses to validate the [4]. Mikolov T, Chen K, Corrado G, Dean J. Efficient
significance of our results, ensuring that the observed estimation of word representations in vector space.
improvements were not due to random variations. The Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on
statistical tests, including McNemar's test for text Learning Representations, ICLR. 2013.
classification and a paired t-test for NER, confirmed the [5]. Devlin J, Chang MW, Lee K, Toutanova K. BERT:
statistical significance of our findings. Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for
Language Understanding. arXiv preprint
While our work has demonstrated the potential of arXiv:1810.04805. 2018.
combining unsupervised and supervised learning for accurate [6]. Dai, A. M., & Le, Q. V. (2015). Semi-supervised
task modeling, there are several avenues for future research sequence learning. Advances in neural information
and exploration. In addition to language models and word processing systems, 28.
embeddings, we can investigate the integration of other [7]. Peters, M. E., Neumann, M., Iyyer, M., Gardner, M.,
unsupervised learning techniques, such as autoencoders, Clark, C., Lee, K., & Zettlemoyer, L. (2018). Deep
generative adversarial networks, or self-supervised learning contextualized word representations. arXiv preprint
methods, into our hybrid framework. Our approach can be arXiv:1802.05365.
applied to a broader range of NLP tasks, such as machine [8]. Devlin, J., Chang, M. W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K.
translation, question answering, sentiment analysis, and (2019). BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional
dialogue systems, among others. Evaluating the effectiveness transformers for language understanding. arXiv
of our hybrid approach across diverse tasks would provide preprint arXiv:1810.04805.
valuable insights and potentially lead to task-specific [9]. Yang, Z., Dai, Z., Yang, Y., Carbonell, J.,
adaptations or enhancements. While our approach leverages Salakhutdinov, R., & Le, Q. V. (2019). XLNet:
large unlabeled corpora for unsupervised pretraining, domain Generalized autoregressive pretraining for language
adaptation techniques can be explored to further refine the understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.08237.
learned representations for specific domains or applications, [10]. Liu, Y., Ott, M., Goyal, N., Du, J., Joshi, M., Chen, D.,
potentially improving the model's performance on domain- ... & Stoyanov, V. (2019). Roberta: A robustly
specific tasks. As the demand for NLP applications grows, optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint
efficient transfer learning strategies that can rapidly adapt arXiv:1907.11692.
pretrained models to new tasks or domains with limited [11]. Zhang X, Zhao J, LeCun Y. Character-level
labeled data will become increasingly important. Convolutional Networks for Text Classification.
Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems.
Our hybrid approach could be extended to explore such 2015;28:649-657.
strategies, enabling faster model deployment and reducing the [12]. Pennington J, Socher R, Manning CD. GloVe: Global
need for extensive labeled data. While our hybrid models have Vectors for Word Representation. Proceedings of the
demonstrated improved performance, understanding the inner 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural
workings and decision-making processes of these models Language Processing (EMNLP). 2014;1532-1543.
remains a challenge. Future research could focus on [13]. Tjong Kim Sang EF, De Meulder F. Introduction to the
developing interpretability and explainability techniques to CoNLL-2003 Shared Task: Language-Independent
provide insights into the learned representations and decision- Named Entity Recognition. Proceedings of the Seventh
making processes, fostering trust and transparency in NLP Conference on Natural Language Learning at HLT-
systems. In conclusion, our work has taken a significant step NAACL 2003. 2003;142-147.
toward synergizing unsupervised and supervised learning for [14]. Lample G, Ballesteros M, Subramanian S, Kawakami
accurate task modeling in natural language processing. By K, Dyer C. Neural Architectures for Named Entity
leveraging the strengths of both paradigms, we have Recognition. Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of
demonstrated the potential for improved performance and the North American Chapter of the Association for
robustness in NLP tasks. However, this is just the beginning, Computational Linguistics: Human Language
and there are numerous opportunities for further exploration Technologies. 2016;260-270.
and advancement in this exciting field.

IJISRT24MAY2087 www.ijisrt.com 1507

Volume 9, Issue 5, May – 2024 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165 https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/IJISRT24MAY2087

[15]. Søgaard A, Goldberg Y. Deep Multi-Task Learning

with Low Level Tasks Supervised at Lower Layers.
Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the
Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2:
Short Papers). 2016;231-235.
[16]. Erik F. Tjong Kim Sang and Jorn Veenstra.
1999. Representing Text Chunks. In Ninth Conference
of the European Chapter of the Association for
Computational Linguistics, pages 173–179, Bergen,
Norway. Association for Computational Linguistics.
[17]. McNemar Q. Note on the sampling error of the
difference between correlated proportions or
percentages. Psychometrika. 1947;12(2):153-157.
doi:10.1007/BF02295996.
[18]. Dietterich TG. Approximate statistical tests for
comparing supervised classification learning
algorithms. Neural Computation. 1998;10(7):1895-
1923.
[19]. [Web] How to Calculate McNemar's Test to Compare
Two Machine Learning Classifiers. Machine Learning
Mastery. Available from:
https://machinelearningmastery.com/mcnemars-test-
for-machine-learning/
[20]. [Web] Student's t-test for paired samples. In: Statistical
Methods for Research Workers. 1925. Available from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student's_t-
test#Paired_samples
[21]. Hsu, Henry & Lachenbruch, Peter. (2008). Paired t
Test. 10.1002/9780471462422.eoct969.

IJISRT24MAY2087 www.ijisrt.com 1508