user: text: Write a concise one-sentence TLDR summary of the scientific paper content below.

Title: RNNs implicitly implement tensor-product representations

Paper content:
Recurrent neural networks (RNNs) can learn continuous vector representations of symbolic structures such as sequences and sentences; these representations often exhibit linear regularities (analogies).
Such regularities motivate our hypothesis that RNNs that show such regularities implicitly compile symbolic structures into tensor product representations (TPRs; Smolensky, 1990), which additively combine tensor products of vectors representing roles (e.g.,  sequence positions) and vectors representing fillers (e.g., particular words)
. To test this hypothesis, we introduce Tensor Product Decomposition Networks (TPDNs), which use TPRs to approximate existing vector representations
. We demonstrate using synthetic data that TPDNs can successfully approximate linear and tree-based RNN autoencoder representations, suggesting that these representations exhibit interpretable compositional structure; we explore the settings that lead RNNs to induce such structure-sensitive representations
.  By contrast, further TPDN experiments show that the representations of four models trained to encode naturally-occurring sentences can be largely approximated with a bag of words, with only marginal improvements from more sophisticated structures
. We conclude that TPDNs provide a powerful method for interpreting vector representations, and that standard RNNs can induce compositional sequence representations that are remarkably well approximated byTPRs; at the same time, existing training tasks for sentence representation learning may not be sufficient for inducing robust structural representations
Compositional symbolic representations are widely held to be necessary for intelligence BID8 Fodor & Pylyshyn, 1988) , particularly in the domain of language BID7 .
However, neural networks have shown great success in natural language processing despite using continuous vector representations rather than explicit symbolic structures.
How can these continuous representations yield such success in a domain traditionally believed to require symbol manipulation?One
possible answer is that neural network representations implicitly encode compositional structure. This
hypothesis is supported by the spatial relationships between such vector representations, which have been argued to display geometric regularities that parallel plausible symbolic structures of the elements being represented (Mikolov et al. 2013 ; see Figure 1 ).Analogical
relationships such as those in Figure 1 are special cases of linearity properties shared by several methods developed in the 1990s for designing compositional vector embeddings of symbolic structures. The most general
of these is tensor product representations (TPRs; BID22 . Symbolic structures
are first decomposed into filler-role bindings; for example, to represent the sequence [5, 2, 4] , the filler 5 may be bound to the role of first element, the filler 2 may be bound to the role of second element, and so on. Each filler f i and
-crucially -each role r i has a vector embedding; these two vectors are combined using their tensor product f i ⊗ r i , and these tensor products are summed to produce the representation of the sequence: f i ⊗ r i . This linear combination
can predict the linear relations between sequence representations illustrated in Figure 1 . (a) (b) (c) Figure 1 :
Plots
of
the first two principal components of (a) word embeddings BID14
, (b) digit-sequence embeddings
learned by an autoencoder (Section 2), and (c) sentences (InferSent: Conneau
et al. 2017) . All demonstrate systematicity in
the learned vector spaces.In this article, we test the hypothesis that vector representations of sequences can be approximated as a sum of filler-role bindings, as in TPRs. We introduce the Tensor Product
Decomposition Network (TPDN) which takes a set of continuous vector representations to be analyzed and learns filler and role embeddings that best predict those vectors, given a particular hypothesis for the relevant set of roles (e.g., sequence indexes or structural positions in a parse tree).To derive structure-sensitive representations
, in Section 2 we look at a task driven by structure, not content: autoencoding of sequences of meaningless symbols, denoted by digits. The focus here is on sequential structure, although
we also devise a version of the task that uses tree structure. For the representations learned by these autoencoders
, TPDNs find excellent approximations that are TPRs.In Section 3, we turn to sentence-embedding models from the contemporary literature.It is an open question how structure-sensitive these representations are; to the degree that they are structuresensitive, our hypothesis is that they can be approximated by TPRs. Here, TPDNs find less accurate approximations, but they
also show that a TPR equivalent to a bag-of-words already provides a reasonable approximation; these results suggest that these sentence representations are not robustly structure-sensitive. We therefore return to synthetic data in Section 4, exploring
which architectures and training tasks are likely to lead RNNs to induce structure-sensitive representations.To summarize the contributions of this work, TPDNs provide a powerful method for interpreting vector representations, shedding light on hard-to-understand neural architectures. We show that standard RNNs can induce compositional representations
that are remarkably well approximated by TPRs and that the nature of these representations depends, in intrepretable ways, on the architecture and training task. Combined with our finding that standard sentence encoders do not seem
to learn robust representations of structure, these findings suggest that more structured architectures or more structure-dependent training tasks could improve the compositional capabilities of existing models.
What kind of internal representations could allow simple sequence-to-sequence models to perform the remarkable feats they do, including tasks previously thought to require compositional, symbolic representations (e.g., translation)?
Our experiments show that, in heavily structure-sensitive tasks, sequence-to-sequence models learn representations that are extremely well approximated by tensorproduct representations (TPRs), distributed embeddings of symbol structures that enable powerful symbolic computation to be performed with neural operations BID23 .
We demonstrated this by approximating learned representations via TPRs using the proposed tensor-product decomposition network (TPDN).
Variations in architecture and task were shown to induce different types and degrees of structure-sensitivity in representations, with the decoder playing a greater role than the encoder in determining the structure of the learned representation.
TPDNs applied to mainstream sentence-embedding models reveal that unstructured bag-of-words models provide a respectable approximation; nonetheless, this experiment also provides evidence for a moderate degree of structuresensitivity.
The presence of structure-sensitivity is corroborated by targeted analogy tests motivated by the linearity of TPRs.
A limitation of the current TPDN architecture is that it requires a hypothesis about the representations to be selected in advance.
A fruitful future research direction would be to automatically explore hypotheses about the nature of the TPR encoded by a network.

assistant: text: RNNs implicitly implement tensor-product representations, a principled and interpretable method for representing symbolic structures in continuous space.