Question: How did MPAD perform compared to the baselines？
Evidence: Experimental results are shown in Table TABREF28. For the baselines, the best scores reported in each original paper are shown. MPAD reaches best performance on 7 out of 10 datasets, and is close second elsewhere. Moreover, the 7 datasets on which MPAD ranks first widely differ in training set size, number of categories, and prediction task (topic, sentiment, subjectivity), which indicates that MPAD can perform well in different settings.
MPAD vs. hierarchical variants. On 9 datasets out of 10, one or more of the hierarchical variants outperform the vanilla MPAD architecture, highlighting the benefit of explicitly modeling the hierarchical nature of documents.
However, on Subjectivity, standard MPAD outperforms all hierarchical variants. On TREC, it reaches the same accuracy. We hypothesize that in some cases, using a different graph to separately encode each sentence might be worse than using one single graph to directly encode the document. Indeed, in the single document graph, some words that never appear in the same sentence can be connected through common neighbors, as was explained in subsection SECREF7. So, this way, some notion of cross-sentence context is captured while learning representations of words, bigrams, etc. at each MP iteration. This creates better informed representations, resulting in a better document embedding. With the hierarchical variants, on the other hand, each sentence vector is produced in isolation, without any contextual information about the other sentences in the document. Therefore, the final sentence embeddings might be of lower quality, and as a group might also contain redundant/repeated information. When the sentence vectors are finally combined into a document representation, it is too late to take context into account.
To understand the impact of some hyperparameters on performance, we conducted additional experiments on the Reuters, Polarity, and IMDB datasets, with the non-hierarchical version of MPAD. Results are shown in Table TABREF29.
Number of MP iterations. First, we varied the number of message passing iterations from 1 to 4. We can clearly see in Table TABREF29 that having more iterations improves performance. We attribute this to the fact that we are reading out at each iteration from 1 to $T$ (see Eq. DISPLAY_FORM18), which enables the final graph representation to encode a mixture of low-level and high-level features. Indeed, in initial experiments involving readout at $t$=$T$ only, setting $T\ge 2$ was always decreasing performance, despite the GRU-based updates (Eq. DISPLAY_FORM14). These results were consistent with that of BIBREF53 and BIBREF9, who both are reading out only at $t$=$T$ too. We hypothesize that node features at $T\ge 2$ are too diffuse to be entirely relied upon during readout. More precisely, initially at $t$=0, node representations capture information about words, at $t$=1, about their 1-hop neighborhood (bigrams), at $t$=2, about compositions of bigrams, etc. Thus, pretty quickly, node features become general and diffuse. In such cases, considering also the lower-level, more precise features of the earlier iterations when reading out may be necessary.
Undirected edges. On Reuters, using an undirected graph leads to better performance, while on Polarity and IMDB, it is the opposite. This can be explained by the fact that Reuters is a topic classification task, for which the presence or absence of some patterns is important, but not necessarily the order in which they appear, while Polarity and IMDB are sentiment analysis tasks. To capture sentiment, modeling word order is crucial, e.g., in detecting negation.
No master node. Removing the master node deteriorates performance across all datasets, clearly showing the value of having such a node. We hypothesize that since the special document node is connected to all other nodes, it is able to encode during message passing a summary of the document.
No renormalization. Here, we do not use the renormalization trick of BIBREF9 during MP (see subsection SECREF10). That is, Eq. DISPLAY_FORM11 becomes $\mathbf {M}^{t+1} = \textsc {MLP}^{t+1}\big (\mathbf {A}\mathbf {H}^{t}\big )$. In other words, instead of computing a weighted average of the incoming neighbors' feature vectors, we compute a weighted sum of them. Unlike the mean, which captures distributions, the sum captures structural information BIBREF14. As shown in Table TABREF29, using sum instead of mean decreases performance everywhere, suggesting that in our application, capturing the distribution of neighbor representations is more important that capturing their structure. We hypothesize that this is the case because statistical word co-occurrence networks tend to have similar structural properties, regardless of the topic, polarity, sentiment, etc. of the corresponding documents.
Neighbors-only. In this experiment, we replaced the GRU combine function (see Eq. DISPLAY_FORM14) with the identity function. That is, we simply have $\mathbf {H}^{t+1}$=$\mathbf {M}^{t+1}$. Since $\mathbf {A}$ has zero diagonal, by doing so, we completely ignore the previous feature of the node itself when updating its representation. That is, the update is based entirely on its neighbors. Except on Reuters (almost no change), performance always suffers, stressing the need to take into account the root node during updates, not only its neighborhood.
MPAD reaches best performance on 5 out of 10 datasets, and is close second elsewhere. Moreover, the 5 datasets on which MPAD ranks first widely differ in training set size, number of categories, and prediction task (topic, sentiment, etc.), which indicates that MPAD can perform well in different settings.
Answer: MPAD reaches best performance on 5 out of 10 datasets, and is close second elsewhere. Moreover, the 5 datasets on which MPAD ranks first widely differ in training set size, number of categories, and prediction task (topic, sentiment, etc.), which indicates that MPAD can perform well in different settings.