Title: ON THE USE OF WORD EMBEDDINGS ALONE TO REPRESENT NATURAL LANGUAGE SEQUENCES

Abstract: To construct representations for natural language sequences, information from two main sources needs to be captured: (i) semantic meaning of individual words, and (ii) their compositionality. These two types of information are usually represented in the form of word embeddings and compositional functions, respectively. For the latter, Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) and Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) have been considered. There has not been a rigorous evaluation regarding the relative importance of each component to different text-representation-based tasks; i.e., how important is the modeling capacity of word embeddings alone, relative to the added value of a compositional function? In this paper, we conduct an extensive comparative study between Simple Word Embeddings-based Models (SWEMs), with no compositional parameters, relative to employing word embeddings within RNN/CNN-based models. Surprisingly, SWEMs exhibit comparable or even superior performance in the majority of cases considered. Moreover, in a new SWEM setup, we propose to employ a max-pooling operation over the learned word-embedding matrix of a given sentence. This approach is demonstrated to extract complementary features relative to the averaging operation standard to SWEMs, while endowing our model with better interpretability. To further validate our observations, we examine the information utilized by different models to make predictions, revealing interesting properties of word embeddings.

1. INTRODUCTION:

Word embeddings, learned from massive unstructured text data, are widely-adopted building blocks for Natural Language Processing (NLP). By representing each word as a fixed-length vector, these embeddings can group semantically similar words, while explicitly encoding rich linguistic regularities and patterns (Bengio et al., 2003; Mikolov et al., 2013; Pennington et al., 2014) . In the spirit of learning distributed representations for natural language, many NLP applications also benefit from encoding word sequences, e.g., a sentence or document, into a fixed-length feature vector. Examples of this are sentence/document classification (Le & Mikolov, 2014; Zhang et al., 2015) , text-sequence matching (Hu et al., 2014; Shen et al., 2017) , machine translation (Bahdanau et al., 2014) , etc. Many architectures have been proposed to model the compositionality in variable-length text, leveraging the word-embedding construct. These methods range from simple operations like addition (Mitchell & Lapata, 2010; Iyyer et al., 2015) to more sophisticated compositional functions such as Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) (Tai et al., 2015; Sutskever et al., 2014) , Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) (Kalchbrenner et al., 2014; Kim, 2014) and recursive neural networks (Socher et al., 2011a) .

Although those models with more expressive compositional functions, e.g., recurrent or convolutional networks, have demonstrated impressive results, they are typically computationally expensive, due to the need to estimate hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of parameters (Parikh et al., 2016) . In constrast, models with simple compositional functions often compute a sentence or document embedding by simply taking the summation, or averaging, over the word embedding of each sequence element obtained via, e.g., word2vec (Mikolov et al., 2013) , or GloVe (Pennington et al., 2014) . Generally, such a Simple Word Embedding-based Model (SWEM) does not explicitly account for word-order information within a text sequence. However, they possess the desirable property of having significantly fewer parameters and much faster training, relative to recurrent-or convolutional-based models. Hence, there is a computation-vs.-expressiveness tradeoff regarding how to model the compositionality of a text sequence. Moreover, it is of interest to examine the practical (empirical) value of the additional expressiveness, on many standard NLP problems.

Recently, several studies suggest that on certain NLP applications much simpler word embeddingbased architectures exhibit comparable or even superior performance, compared with more complicated models using recurrence or convolutions. For instance, Parikh et al. (2016) employed a decomposable attention mechanism operating on the word embedding layer, achieving state-of-theart results on the Stanford Natural Language Inference (SNLI) corpus (Bowman et al., 2015) , with considerably fewer parameters. More recently, Vaswani et al. (2017) developed a network architecture for machine translation solely based on attention, without recurrence or convolutions, that yielded state-of-the-art BLEU scores on the English-to-German translation task. Although complex compositional functions are avoided in these models, additional modules, such as attention layers, are employed on top of the word embedding layer. As a result, the specific role that the word embeddings plays in these models is not emphasized (or explicit), which distracts from understanding how important the word embeddings alone are to the observed superior performance.

More importantly, from the perspective of representing natural language sequences, existing work (Wieting et al., 2015; Arora et al., 2016; Parikh et al., 2016) only compared simple compositional functions with an LSTM (Long Short-Term memory) or CNN on a limited set of tasks, while mostly focusing on fairly short sentences (up to approximately 50 words). However, as indicated in Wieting et al. (2015) , the superiority of recurrent or convolutional compositional architectures is highly dependent on the nature of specific applications, such as text length, task goal, etc.

Our Contribution:

In this paper, we conduct an extensive experimental investigation regarding the ability of word embeddings to represent sentences or (longer) documents. The principal motivation is to understand whether word embeddings themselves already carry sufficient information for the corresponding prediction on a variety of NLP tasks. To emphasize the expressiveness of word embeddings, we compare several simple word embeddings-based models, which have no compositional parameters, with existing recurrent and convolutional networks, in a point-by-point manner. Specifically, we consider three tasks with distinct properties: document classification (Yahoo news, Yelp reviews, etc.), (short) sentence classification (Stanford sentiment treebank, TREC, etc.), and natural language sequence matching (SNLI, WikiQA, etc.). Moreover, we propose to leverage a new maxpooling operation over the word embedding representation of given text, which is demonstrated in our experiments to extract complementary features relative to the averaging operation. As a side benefit, the max-pooling operation also endows our model with better interpretability. Meaningful semantic structures are manifested in the learned word embeddings, that shed light on the prediction process of our models.

To gain better insight into the properties of word embeddings, and SWEM architectures, we further explore the sensitivity of different compositional functions to the size of the training data, by comparing SWEM with CNN and LSTM in cases where only a subset of the original training set samples are available. In order to validate our experimental findings, we conduct additional experiments to understand how much of the word-order information is utilized to make the corresponding prediction on different tasks. We also investigate the dimensionality of word embeddings required for SWEM to be sufficiently expressive.

Limitations Our investigation regarding the modeling capacity of word embeddings also has limitations. First, we examine the most basic, yet representative, forms of one-layer recurrent/convolutional models for comparisons and do not consider other sophisticated model variants. Thus, our conclusions are limited to algorithms explored in this paper. Where available from the literature, we do compare to some deep models, such as the deep CNN construct. Additional modules (such as attention layers) can also be combined with our SWEM to yield better performance, which is not the main goal of this study (as we wish to focus on the word embeddings themselves), and is thus left for future work. Second, our discussion only considers NLP problems defined by the datasets considered, which may not fully capture the difficulty of representing and reasoning over natural language sequences. However, our exploration covers a wide variety of real-world applications (with large-scale datasets) and thus, we hypothesize our conclusions should be representative of the English language in many cases of interest.

Summary of Findings Keeping these limitations in mind, our findings regarding when (and why) word embeddings are enough for text sequence representations are summarized as follows:

• Word embeddings are surprisingly effective at representing longer documents (with hundreds of words), while recurrent/convolutional compositional functions are necessary when constructing representations for short sentences.

• The SWEM architecture performs stronger on topic categorization tasks than on sentiment analysis, due to the different levels of sensitivity to word-order information for the two tasks.

• To match natural language sentences, e.g., textual entailment, answer sentence selection, etc., word embeddings are already sufficiently informative for the corresponding prediction, while adopting complicated compositional functions like LSTM or CNN tends to be substantially less helpful.

• For our SWEM-max model (employing a max pooling within SWEM), each dimension of the word embedding contains interpretable semantic patterns, and groups together words with a common theme or topic.

• SWEMs are much less likely to overfit than an LSTM or CNN, with training data of limited size, exhibiting superior performance even with only hundreds of training observations.

• SWEMs demonstrate competitive results with small word-embedding dimensions, suggesting that word embeddings are efficient at encoding semantic information.

2. RELATED WORK:

A fundamental goal in NLP is to develop expressive, yet computationally efficient compositional functions that can capture the linguistic structure of natural language sequences. A variety of models have been proposed to account for different properties of text sequences, which may be divided into two main categories: (i) simple compositional functions that largely leverage information from the word embeddings to extract semantic features; and (ii) complex compositional functions that construct words into text representations in a recurrent or convolutional manner, and can in principle capture the word-order features either globally or locally. However, several recent studies have shown empirically that the advantages of distinct compositional functions are highly dependent on the specific task (Mitchell & Lapata, 2010; Iyyer et al., 2015; Wieting et al., 2015; Arora et al., 2016; Vaswani et al., 2017; Parikh et al., 2016) . This is intuitively reasonable since different properties of a text sequence may be required, depending on the nature of specific problems. However, previous research only focused on one or two problems at a time, thus a comprehensive study regarding the effectiveness of various compositional functions on distinct NLP tasks, e.g., categorizing short sentence/long documents, matching natural language sentences, has heretofore been absent. Our work seeks to perform a comprehensive comparison with respect to these two types of compositional functions, across a wide range of NLP problems, and reveals some general rules for rationally selecting models to tackle different tasks.

3. MODELS & TRAINING:

Consider a text sequence X (either a sentence or a document), composed of a sequence of words: {w 1 , w 2 , ...., w L }, where L is the number of tokens, i.e., the sentence/document length. Let {v 1 , v 2 , ...., v L } denote the respective word embedding for each token, where v l ∈ R K and K is the dimensionality of the embedding. The compositional function, X → z, aims to combine the word embeddings into a fixed-length sentence/document representation z. In the following, we describe different types of functions to be considered in this work.

3.1. SIMPLE WORD-EMBEDDING BASED MODEL (SWEM):

To investigate the modeling capacity of word embeddings, we consider a type of model with no additional compositional parameters to encode natural language sequences, termed a SWEM. Among them, the simplest strategy is to compute the element-wise average over word vectors for a given sequence (Wieting et al. (2015) ; Adi et al. (2016) ):

EQUATION

The model in (1) averages over each of the K dimensions for all words, resulting in a representation z with the same dimension as word embeddings (termed SWEM-aver). Intuitively, z takes the information of every sequence element into account using the addition operation.

Motivated by the success of employing pooling layers to down-sample representations for image data (Krizhevsky et al. (2012) ), we propose another SWEM variant, that extracts the most salient features from every word embedding dimension, by taking the maximum value along each dimension of the word vectors. This strategy is also similar to the max-over-time pooling operation in convolutional neural networks (Collobert et al., 2011) :

EQUATION

We denote this model variant as SWEM-max. Here the j-th component of z is the maximum element in the set {v 1j , . . . , v Lj }, where v 1j is, for example, the j-th component of v 1 . Considering that SWEM-aver and SWEM-max are complementary, in the sense that they account for different types of information from text sequences, we also propose a third SWEM variant, where the two abstracted features are concatenated together to form the sentence embeddings (denoted as SWEM-concat). It is worth noting that for all SWEM variants, there are no additional compositional parameters to be learned. As a result, models can only exploit intrinsic word embedding information for predictions.

3.2. RECURRENT SEQUENCE ENCODER:

A widely adopted compositional function is defined in a recurrent manner: the model successively takes word vector v t at step t, along with hidden unit h t-1 from the last time step, to update the hidden state via h t = f (v t , h t-1 ), where f (•) is the transition function. To address the issue of learning long-term dependencies, f (•) is often defined as Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) (Hochreiter & Schmidhuber, 1997) , which employs gates (o t , f t and i t , as output, forget and input gates, respectively) to control the information abstracted from a sequence using:

   i t f t o t ct    =    σ σ σ tanh    W • h t-1 v t , c t = f t c t-1 + i t ct , h t = o t c t ,

where stands for element-wise (Hadamard) multiplication. The last hidden state h L or the average over all hidden states, h 1 , . . . , h L , is typically utilized as the final representation z. Intuitively, the LSTM encodes a text sequence considering its word-order information, but yields additional compositional parameters, W , that must be learned.

3.3. CONVOLUTIONAL SEQUENCE ENCODER:

The Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) architecture in Kim 2014; Collobert et al. 2011; Gan et al. 2017 is another strategy extensively employed as the compositional function for encoding text sequences. The convolution operation considers every window of n words within the sequence X, i.e., {w 1:n , w 2:n+1 , ..., w L-n+1:L }. These n-gram text subsequences can be represented by the concatenation of all corresponding word vectors, i.e., {v 1:n , v 2:n+1 , ..., v L-n+1:L }. A filter U ∈ R K×n is then applied to each word window to generate the corresponding feature:

s i = g(U v i:i+n-1 + b) ,

where g(•) is a nonlinear function such as hyperbolic tangent and b is a bias term. The features produced by each word window, s i , are concatenated together as a feature map: s = [s 1 , s 2 , ..., s L-n+1 ]. Subsequently, an aggregation operation such as max-pooling is used on top of the feature maps to abstract the most salient semantic features, resulting in the final representation z. Multiple learned filters are employed, and these may employ different temporal lengths n. For simplicity we have discussed a single-layer CNN text model. Deep CNN text models have also been developed (Conneau et al., 2016) , and we perform empirical comparisons to such models below. 

3.4. PARAMETERS & COMPUTATION COMPARISON:

Model Parameters Complexity Seq. Operations CNN n • K • d O(n • L • K • d) O(1) LSTM 4 • d • (K + d) O(L • d 2 + L • K • d) O(L) SWEM 0 O(L • K) O(1)

4. EXPERIMENTS:

We evaluate different compositional functions on a wide variety of supervised tasks, including document categorization, text sequence matching (given a sentence pair, X 1 , X 2 , predict their relationship, y) as well as (short) sentence classification. We experiment on 15 datasets regarding natural language understanding, with corresponding data statistics summarized in the Supplementary Material. Our code will be released to encourage future research.

We use 300-dimensional GloVe word embeddings (Pennington et al., 2014) as initialization for all our models. Out-Of-Vocabulary (OOV) words are initialized from a uniform distribution with range [-0.01, 0.01]. The GloVe embeddings are employed in two ways for learning the refined word embeddings: (i) directly updating each word embedding during training; and (ii) training a 300-dimensional multilayer perceptron (MLP) layer with ReLU activation, with GloVe embeddings input to the MLP and with output defining the updated word embeddings. This latter approach corresponds to learning an MLP model that transforms GloVe embeddings to the dataset and task of interest. The advantages of these two methods differs from dataset to dataset. We choose the better strategy based on their corresponding performances on the validation set. The final classifier is implemented as an MLP layer with dimension selected from the set [100, 300, 500, 1000], followed by a sigmoid or softmax function depending on the specific task.

Adam (Kingma & Ba, 2014 ) is used to optimize all models, with learning rate selected from the set [1e -3, 3e -4, 2e -4, 1e -5] (with cross-validation used to select the appropriate parameter for a given dataset and task). Dropout regularization (Srivastava et al., 2014) However, for the sentiment analysis tasks, both CNN and LSTM compositional functions perform better than SWEM, suggesting that word-order information may be required for analyzing sentiment orientations. This finding is consistent with Pang et al. (2002) , where they hypothesize that the positional information of a word in text sequences may be beneficial to predict sentiment. This is intuitively reasonable since, for instance, the phrase 'not really good' and 'really not good' convey different levels of negative sentiment, while being different only by their word orderings. Contrary to SWEM, CNN and LSTM models can both capture this type of information via convolutional filters or recurrent transition functions. However, as suggested above, such word-order patterns may be much less useful for predicting the topic of a document. This may be attributed to the fact that word embeddings alone already provide sufficient topic information of a document, at least when the text sequences considered are relatively long.

Although the proposed SWEM-max variant generally performs a bit worse than SWEM-aver, it extracts complementary features from SWEM-aver, and hence in most cases SWEM-concat exhibits the best performance among all SWEM variants. Further, we found that the word embeddings learned from SWEM-max tend to be very sparse. We trained our SWEM-max model on the Yahoo datasets (randomly initialized from a uniform distribution with range [0, 0.001]). With the learned embeddings, we plot the values for each of the word embedding dimensions, for the entire vocabulary. As shown in Figure 1 , most of the embedding values are highly concentrated around zero, indicating that the word embeddings learned are very sparse. By contrast, the GloVe word embeddings, for the same vocabulary, are much more dense than the embeddings learned from SWEM-max. This suggests that the model may only depend on a few key words, among the entire vocabulary, for predictions (since most words do not contribute to the summation or max operation in SWEM). Through the embedding, the model learns the important words for a given task (those words with non-zero embedding components). Moreover, the nature of the max-pooling process gives rise to a more interpretable model. For a document, only the word with largest value in each embedding dimension is employed for the final representation. In this regard, we suspect that semantically similar words may have large values in some shared dimensions. So motivated, after training the SWEM-max model on the Yahoo dataset, we selected five words with the largest values, among the entire vocabulary, for each word embedding dimension (these words are selected preferentially in the corresponding dimension, by the max operation). As shown in Table 3 , the words chosen w.r.t. each embedding dimension are indeed highly relevant and correspond to a common topic (the topics are inferred from words). For example, the words in the first column of Table 3 are all political terms, which could be assigned to the Politics & Government topic. Note that our model can even learn locally interpretable structure that is not explicitly indicated by the label information. For instance, all words in the fifth column are Chemistry-related. However, we do not have a chemistry label in the dataset, and regardless they should belong to the Science topic. Moreover, we summed up all embedding dimensions for each word in the vocabulary and selected 20 words with the largest total value. We assume that these words should be highly predictive since they are more likely to "survive" the max-pooling operation. These words are listed as below:

'askcomputerexpert', 'midfield', 'presario', 'preventdisease', 'dhcp', 'playgolfamerica', 'radeon', 'win32', 'system32', 'colston', 'juventus', 'mayweather', 'murtha', 'hoodia', 'lebron', 'theist', 'billups', cannavaro', 'maldini', 'ronaldhino'. These words can be generally grouped into two categories: the first are the names of sports players/teams (e.g., 'ronaldhino', 'lebron' or 'juventus'), software product/brand (e.g., 'win32', 'radeon') or plants (e.g. 'hoodia'). These words are important since their occurence may already indicate the assigned label. The second are field-specific terms regarding a topic, such as 'askcomputerexpert' to the Computers & Internet topic, 'preventdisease' to the Health topic or 'midfield' to the Sports topic. Again, these words are likely to occur in documents with matching topic.

4.2. TEXT SEQUENCE MATCHING:

To gain a deeper understanding regarding the modeling capacity of word embeddings, we further investigate the problem of sentence matching, including natural language inference, answer sentence selection and paraphrase identification. The corresponding performances are shown in Table 5 . Surprisingly, on most of the datasets considered (except WikiQA), SWEM demonstrates the best results compared with those with CNN or the LSTM encoder. Notably, on SNLI dataset, we observe that SWEM-max performs the best among all SWEM variants, consistent with the findings in Nie & Bansal (2017) ; Conneau et al. (2017) that max-pooling over BiLSTM hidden units outperforms average pooling operation on SNLI dataset. As a result, with only 120K parameters, our SWEM-max achieves a test accuracy of 83.8%, which is very competitive among state-of-theart sentence encoding-based models (in terms of both performance and number of parameter)1 .

The strong results of the SWEM setup on these tasks may stem from the fact that when matching natural language sentences, it is sufficient in most cases to simply model the word-level alignments between two sequences (Parikh et al., 2016) . From this perspective, word-order information becomes much less useful for predicting relationship between sentences. Moreover, considering the simpler model architecture of SWEM, they could be much easier to be optimized than LSTM or CNN-based models, and thus give rise to better empirical results. To explore the robustness of different compositional functions, we consider another application scenario, where we only have a limited number of training data, e.g., when labeled data are expensive to obtain. To investigate this, we re-run the experiments on Yahoo and SNLI datasets, while employing increasing proportions of the original training set. Specifically, we use 0.1%, 0.2%, 0.6%, 1.0%, 10%, 100% for comparison; the corresponding results are shown in Figure 2 . Surprisingly, SWEM consistently outperforms CNN and LSTM models by a large margin, on a wide range of training data proportions. For instance, with 0.1% of the training samples from Yahoo dataset (around 1.4K labeled data), SWEM achieves an accuracy of 56.10%, which is much better than that of models with CNN (25.32%) or LSTM (42.37%). On the SNLI dataset, we also noticed the same trend that the SWEM architecture result in much better accuracies, with a fraction of training data. This observation indicates that overfitting issues in CNN or LSTM-based models on text data mainly stems from over-complicated compositional functions, rather than the word embedding layer. More importantly, SWEM tends to be a far more robust model when only limited data are available for training.

4.3. SHORT SENTENCE CLASSIFICATION:

We now consider sentence-classification tasks (with approximately 20 words on average). We experiment on three sentiment classification datasets, i.e., MR, SST-1, SST-2, as well as subjectivity classification (Subj) and question classification (TREC). The corresponding results are shown in Table 6 . Compared with CNN/LSTM compositional functions, SWEM yields inferior accuracies on sentiment analysis datasets, consistent with our observation in the case of document categorization. However, SWEM exhibits comparable performance on other two tasks, again with much less parameters and faster training. Generally, SWEM is less effective at extracting representations from (short) sentences than from (long) documents. This may be due to the fact that for a shorter text sequence, word-order features tend to be more important since the semantic information provided by word embeddings is relatively limited. Moreover, we note that the results on these relatively small datasets are highly sensitive to model regularization techniques due to the overfitting issues. In this regard, one interesting future direction may be to develop specific regularization strategies for the SWEM setup, and thus make them work better on small sentence classification datasets.

Model:

Negative: Friendly staff and nice selection of vegetarian options . Food is just okay , not great. Makes me wonder why everyone likes food fight so much.

Positive::

The store is small , but it carries specialties that are difficult to find in Pittsburgh. I was particularly excited to find middle eastern chili sauce and chocolate covered turkish delights.

Negative: If you love long lines and only 4 or less lanes open, then this is the place to be. The lines are long and the cashiers are usually old people who take their time with everything. data, but predicts correctly with the original training set. Therefore, word order should be relatively important in these cases for predicting the corresponding sentiment (the first column shows the ground truth labels).

5. PROPERTIES OF WORD EMBEDDINGS:

To further reveal the modeling capacity of word embeddings to represent natural language sequences, we perform additional experiments to answer the following interesting questions: How important is word-order information for distinct tasks? One possible disadvantage of SWEM is that it ignores the word-order information within a text sequence, which could be potentially captured by CNN-or LSTMbased models. However, we empirically found that except for sentiment analysis, SWEM exhibits similar or even superior performances than CNN or LSTM on a variety of tasks. In this regard, one natural question would be: how important are word-order features for these tasks?

To this end, we randomly shuffle the words for every sentence in the training set, while keeping the original word order for samples in the test set. The motivation here is to remove the word-order features from the training set and examine how sensitive the performance on different tasks are to word-oder information. We use LSTM as the model for this purpose since it can captures word-order information from the original training set. The results on three distinct tasks are shown in Table 7 . Somewhat surprisingly, for Yahoo and SNLI datasets, the LSTM model trained on shuffled training set shows comparable accuracies to those trained on the original dataset, indicating that word-order information does not contribute significantly these two problems, i.e., topic categorization and textual entailment. However, on the Yelp polarity dataset, the results drop noticeably, further suggesting that word-order does matter for sentiment analysis (as indicated above from a different perspective).

Notably, the performance of LSTM on the Yelp dataset with a shuffled training set is very close to our results with SWEM, indicating that the main difference between LSTM and SWEM may be due to the ability of the former to capture word-order features. Both observations are in consistent with our experimental results in the previous section.

To understand what type of sentences are sensitive to word-order information, we further show those samples that are mis-predicted because of the shuffling of training data in Table 8 . Taking the first sentence as an example, several words in the review are generally positive, i.e. friendly, nice, okay, great and likes. However, the most vital features for predicting the sentiment of this sentence could be the phrase/sentence 'is just okay', 'not great' or 'makes me wonder why everyone likes', which cannot be captured without considering word-order features. How many word embedding dimensions are needed? Since there are no compositional parameters in SWEM, the component that contains the semantic information of a text sequence is the word embedding. Thus, it is of interest to see how many word embedding dimensions are needed for a SWEM architecture to perform well. To this end, we vary the dimension from 3 to 1000 and train a SWEM-concat model on the Yahoo dataset. For fair comparison, the word embeddings are randomly initialized in this experiment, since there are no pretrained word vectors, such as GloVe (Pennington et al., 2014) , for some dimensions we consider. As shown in Table 9 , the model exhibits higher accuracy with larger word embedding dimensions. This is not surprising since with more embedding dimensions, more semantic features could be potentially encapsulated. However, we also observe that even with only 10 dimensions, SWEM demonstrates comparable results relative to the case with 1000 dimensions, suggesting that word embeddings are very efficient at abstracting semantic information into fixed-length vectors. This property indicates that we may further reduce the number of model parameters with lower-dimensional word embeddings, while still achieving competitive results.

Embedding:



6. CONCLUSION & FUTURE DIRECTIONS:

We have performed a comparative study between SWEM (with parameter-free compositional functions) and CNN or LSTM-based models, to represent text sequences on a wide range of NLP tasks. We further validated our experimental findings through additional exploration, and revealed some interesting properties of word embeddings.

Our study regarding the capacity of word embeddings has several implications for future research:

(i) The SWEM architecture is a simple, yet very effective strategy to encode text sequences for a wide variety of tasks. We suggest that SWEM should be considered as a strong baseline model while developing other (more sophisticated) neural network architectures.

(ii) Additional modules, such as use of an attention mechanism or memory network, could be directly combined with word embeddings to further enhance the model expressiveness, yet preserve the low computational cost (one work along this line could be Parikh et al. ( 2016)).

(iii) Simple manipulation of word embeddings provides new opportunities towards visualizing and rationalizing predictions made by deep learning models.

An important aspect of the SWEM-learned embeddings is that they are very sparse, much more so than the relatively dense embeddings manifested by methods like GloVe. This indicates that only a small fraction of learned key words contribute to the summation and max operations in SWEM-aver and SWEM-max, respectively. These non-zero components also yield interpretable topics that drive model performance. We observed that the CNN-and LSTM-refined word embeddings are also very sparse. This is an insight that has not been widely noted in the literature, and it may suggest an avenue for interpreting and understanding the success of these classes of NLP methods.

:

See leaderboard at https://nlp.stanford.edu/projects/snli/ for details.

Figures and Tables:

Figure 1: The histograms for learned word embeddings (randomly initialized) of SWEMmax and GloVe embeddings for the same vocabulary, trained on Yahoo! Answer dataset.

Figure 2: The test accuracy comparisons between SWEM and CNN/LSTM on (a) Yahoo! Answers dataset and (b) SNLI dataset, with different proportions of training data (ranging from 0.1% to 100%).

Comparisons of CNN, LSTM and SWEM architectures. Columns correspond to the number of compositional parameters, computational complexity and sequential operations, respectively. in practice variable n may be used among the CNN filters). We define d as the dimension of the final sequence representation. Specifically, d represents the dimension of hidden units or the number of filters in LSTM or CNN, respectively. We first examine the number of compositional parameters for each model. As shown in Table1, both the CNN and LSTM have a large number of parameters, to model the semantic compositionality of text sequences, whereas SWEM has no such parameters. Similar toVaswani et al. (2017), we then consider the computational complexity and the minimum number of sequential operations required for each model. SWEM tends to be more efficient than CNN and LSTM in terms of computation complexity. For example, considering the case where K = d, SWEM is faster than CNN or LSTM by a factor of nd or d, respectively. Further, the computations in SWEM are highly parallelizable, unlike LSTM that requires O(L) sequential steps.

Table content: <table><tr><td>We compare CNN, LSTM</td></tr><tr><td>and SWEM w.r.t. their pa-</td></tr><tr><td>rameters and computational</td></tr><tr><td>speed. K denotes the dimen-</td></tr><tr><td>sion of word embeddings, as</td></tr><tr><td>above. For the CNN, we use</td></tr><tr><td>n to denote the filter width</td></tr><tr><td>(assumed the same for all fil-</td></tr><tr><td>ters, for simplicity of analy-</td></tr><tr><td>sis, but</td></tr></table>

is employed on the word embedding layer and final MLP layer, with the dropout rate selected from the set [0.2, 0.5, 0.7]. The batch size is selected from[2, 8, 32, 128, 512]. We follow the data split inZhang et al. (2015) for comparability. These datasets can be generally categorized into three types: topic categorization (represented by Yahoo! Answer and AG Test error rates on (long) document classification tasks, in percentage. Results marked with * are reported inZhang et al. (2015), with † are reported in Dai &Le (2015), and with ‡ are reported inConneau et al. (2016).observe the same trend, that SWEM exhibits comparable or even superior results, compared with CNN or LSTM models.Since there are no compositional parameters in SWEM, our models have an order of magnitude fewer parameters (excluding embeddings) than LSTM or CNN, and are considerably more computationally efficient. As illustrated in Table4, SWEM-concat achieves better results on Yahoo! Answer than CNN/LSTM, with only 61K parameters (one-tenth the number of LSTM parameters, or one-third the number of CNN parameters), while taking a fraction of the training time relative to the CNN or LSTM.

Table content: <table><tr><td>4.1 DOCUMENT CATEGORIZATION</td></tr><tr><td>We begin with the task of categorizing documents (with approximately 100 words in average per</td></tr><tr><td>document).</td></tr></table>

Top

Table content: <table><tr><td>Model</td><td colspan="2">Parameters Speed</td></tr><tr><td>CNN</td><td>541K</td><td>171s</td></tr><tr><td>LSTM</td><td>1.8M</td><td>598s</td></tr><tr><td>SWEM</td><td>61K</td><td>63s</td></tr></table>

Speed & Parameters on Ya-

Table content: <table/>

Performance of different models on matching natural language sentences. Results with * are for Bidirectional LSTM, reported inWilliams et al. (2017). Our reported results on MultiNLI are only trained MultiNLI training set (without training data from SNLI). For MSRP dataset, we follow the setups inHu et al. (2014) and do not use any additional (hand-crafted) features.

Table content: <table><tr><td/><td/><td/><td>MultiNLI</td><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td>Model</td><td colspan="3">SNLI Matched Mismatched</td><td colspan="2">WikiQA</td><td>Quora</td><td colspan="2">MSRP</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Acc.</td><td>Acc.</td><td>Acc.</td><td>MAP</td><td>MRR</td><td>Acc.</td><td>Acc.</td><td>F1</td></tr><tr><td>CNN</td><td>82.1</td><td>65.0</td><td>65.3</td><td colspan="2">0.6752 0.6890</td><td>79.60</td><td colspan="2">69.9 80.9</td></tr><tr><td>LSTM</td><td>80.6</td><td>66.9  *</td><td>66.9  *</td><td colspan="2">0.6820 0.6988</td><td>82.58</td><td colspan="2">70.6 80.5</td></tr><tr><td>SWEM-aver</td><td>82.3</td><td>66.5</td><td>66.2</td><td colspan="2">0.6808 0.6922</td><td>82.68</td><td colspan="2">71.0 81.1</td></tr><tr><td>SWEM-max</td><td>83.8</td><td>68.2</td><td>67.7</td><td colspan="2">0.6613 0.6717</td><td>82.20</td><td colspan="2">70.6 80.8</td></tr><tr><td>SWEM-concat</td><td>83.3</td><td>67.9</td><td>67.6</td><td colspan="2">0.6788 0.6908</td><td>83.03</td><td colspan="2">71.5 81.3</td></tr></table>

Test accuracies with different compositional functions on (short) sentence classifications.

Table content: <table><tr><td/><td colspan="5">MR SST-1 SST-2 Subj TREC</td></tr><tr><td>RAE (Socher et al. (2011b))</td><td>77.7</td><td>43.2</td><td>82.4</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>MV-RNN (Socher et al. (2012))</td><td>79.0</td><td>44.4</td><td>82.9</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>LSTM (Tai et al. (2015))</td><td>-</td><td>46.4</td><td>84.9</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>RNN (Zhao et al. (2015))</td><td>77.2</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>93.7</td><td>90.2</td></tr><tr><td>Dynamic CNN (Kalchbrenner et al. (2014))</td><td>-</td><td>48.5</td><td>86.8</td><td>-</td><td>93.0</td></tr><tr><td>CNN (Kim (2014))</td><td>81.5</td><td>48.0</td><td>88.1</td><td>93.4</td><td>93.6</td></tr><tr><td>SWEM-aver</td><td>77.6</td><td>45.2</td><td>83.9</td><td>92.5</td><td>92.2</td></tr><tr><td>SWEM-max</td><td>76.9</td><td>44.1</td><td>83.6</td><td>91.2</td><td>89.0</td></tr><tr><td>SWEM-concat</td><td>78.2</td><td>46.1</td><td>84.3</td><td>93.0</td><td>91.8</td></tr></table>

The test samples from Yelp Polarity dataset that LSTM gives wrong predictions with shuffled training

Table content: <table/>

Test accuracy for LSTM model trained on original/shuffled training set.

Table content: <table><tr><td>Datasets</td><td colspan="3">Yahoo Yelp P. SNLI</td></tr><tr><td>Original</td><td>72.78</td><td>95.11</td><td>78.02</td></tr><tr><td>Shuffled</td><td>72.89</td><td>93.49</td><td>77.68</td></tr></table>

Test accuracy of SWEM on Yahoo dataset with a wide range of word embedding dimensions.

Table content: <table><tr><td>dim.</td><td>3</td><td>10</td><td>30</td><td>100</td><td>300</td><td>1000</td></tr><tr><td>Yahoo</td><td colspan="6">64.05 72.62 73.13 73.12 73.24 73.31</td></tr></table>

Peer review (iclr2018):
 This paper empirically investigates the differences realized by using compositional functions over word embeddings as compared to directly operating the word embeddings. That is, the authors seek to explore the advantages afforded by RNN/CNN based models that induce intermediate semantic representations of texts, as opposed to simpler (parameter-free) approaches to composing these, like addition. In sum, I think this is exploration is interesting, and suggests that we should perhaps experiment more regularly with simple aggregation methods like SWEM. On the other hand, the differences across the models is relatively modest, and the data resists clear conclusions, so I*m not sure that the work will be very impactful. In my view, then, this work does constitute a contribution, albeit a modest one. I do think the general notion of attempting to simplify models until performance begins to degrade is a fruitful path to explore, as models continue to increase in complexity despite compelling evidence that this is always needed. Strengths --- + This paper does highlight a gap in existing work, as far as I am aware: namely, I am not sure that there are generally known trade-offs associated with different compositional models over token embeddings for NLP. However, it is not clear that we should expect there to be a consistent result to this question across all NLP tasks. + The results are marginally surprising, insofar as I would have expected the CNN/RNN (particularly the former) to dominate the simpler aggregation approaches, and this does not seem borne out by the data. Although this trend is seemingly reversed on the short text data, muddying the story. Weaknesses --- - There are a number of important limitations here, many of which the authors themselves note, which mitigate the implications of the reported results. First, this is a small set of tasks, and results may not hold more generally. It would have been nice to see some work on Seq2Seq tasks, or sequence tagging tasks at least. - I was surprised to see no mention of the "Fixed-Size Ordinally-Forgetting Encoding Method" (FOFE) proposed by Zhang et al. in 2015, which would seem to be a natural point of comparison here, given that it sits in a sweet spot of being simple and efficient while still expressive enough to preserve word-order information. This actually seems like a pretty glaring omission given that it meets many of the desiderata the authors put forward. - The interpretability angle discussed seems underdeveloped. I*m not sure that being able to identify individual words (as the authors have listed) meaningfully constitutes "interpretability" -- standard CNNs, e.g., lend themselves to this as well by tracing back through the filter activations. - Some of the questions addressed seem tangential to the main question of the paper -- e.g., word vector dimensionality seems an orthogonal issue to the composition function, and would influence performance for the more complex architectures as well. Smaller comments --- - On page 1, the authors write "By representing each word as a fixed-length vector, these embeddings can group semantically similar words, while explicitly encoding rich linguistic regularities and patterns", but actually I would say that these *implicitly* encode such regularities, rather than explicitly. - "architecture in Kim 2014; Collobert et al. 2011; Gan et al. 2017" -- citation formatting a bit weird here. *** Update based on author response *** I have read the authors response and thank them for the additional details. Regarding the limited set of problems: of course any given work can only explore so many tasks, but for this to have general implications in NLP I would maintain that a standard (structured) sequence tagging task/dataset should have been considered. This is not about the number of datasets, but rather than diversity of the output spaces therein. I appreciated the additional details regarding FOFE, which as the authors themselves note in their response is essentially a generalization of SWEM. Overall, the response has not changed my opinion on this paper: I think this (exploring simple representations and baselines) is an important direction in NLP, but feel that the paper would greatly benefit from additional work.