Abstract
Pretraining strategies significantly impact the quality of language models, yet existing comparisons of Masked Language Modeling (MLM), Whole Word Masking (WWM), and MacBERT-style replacement have focused primarily on base-scale models (>=110M parameters). This paper presents a controlled comparison of these three strategies on a tiny-scale Chinese BERT model (4 layers, 256 hidden dimensions, 8.7M parameters). Under identical architecture, corpus (1.29M sentences from Chinese Wikipedia), and hyperparameters, we train three models from scratch and evaluate them across five intrinsic dimensions: perplexity, MLM hit rate, semantic discrimination, grammatical judgment, and contextual sensitivity. At tiny scale, MLM achieves the best overall intrinsic performance (winning 3 of 5 dimensions), while WWM excels in both perplexity (1.27 vs. 2.10, a 39.5% improvement) and MLM hit rate (22% vs. 16%). Notably, MacBERT under a severely limited synonym dictionary (222 entries, 3.3% coverage) exhibits severe perplexity degradation (47.23, 22x higher than MLM), yielding a ranking (MLM > WWM >> MacBERT) that differs markedly from the established base-scale conclusion (MacBERT > WWM > MLM). We further identify a critical evaluation pitfall: MacBERT achieves the lowest training loss (2.17) yet the highest perplexity (47.23), revealing that training loss alone is unreliable under mixed replacement strategies. All models and corpus are publicly available at this https URL.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.08879
