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

Title: Decoding Decoders: Finding Optimal Representation Spaces for Unsupervised Similarity Tasks

Paper content:
Experimental evidence indicates that simple models outperform complex deep networks on many unsupervised similarity tasks.
Introducing the concept of an optimal representation space, we provide a simple theoretical resolution to this apparent paradox.
In addition, we present a straightforward procedure that, without any retraining or architectural modifications, allows deep recurrent models to perform equally well (and sometimes better) when compared to shallow models.
To validate our analysis, we conduct a set of consistent empirical evaluations and introduce several new sentence embedding models in the process.
Even though this work is presented within the context of natural language processing, the insights are readily applicable to other domains that rely on distributed representations for transfer tasks.
Distributed representations have played a pivotal role in the current success of machine learning.
In contrast with the symbolic representations of classical AI, distributed representation spaces can encode rich notions of semantic similarity in their distance measures, allowing systems to generalise to novel inputs.
Methods to learn these representations have gained significant traction, in particular for modelling words BID30 .
They have since been successfully applied to many other domains, including images BID15 BID39 and graphs BID25 BID17 BID33 .Using
unlabelled data to learn effective representations is at the forefront of modern machine learning research. The Natural
Language Processing (NLP) community in particular, has invested significant efforts in the construction BID30 BID37 BID10 BID21 , evaluation and theoretical analysis BID28 of distributed representations for words.Recently, attention has shifted towards the unsupervised learning of representations for larger pieces of text, such as phrases BID50 BID51 , sentences BID22 BID43 BID19 BID7 , and entire paragraphs BID27 . Some of this
work simply sums or averages constituent word vectors to obtain a sentence representation BID32 BID31 BID48 BID7 , which is surprisingly effective but naturally cannot leverage any contextual information.Another line of research has relied on a sentence-level distributional hypothesis BID38 , originally applied to words BID18 , which is an assumption that sentences which occur in similar contexts have a similar meaning. Such models
often use an encoder-decoder architecture BID12 to predict the adjacent sentences of any given sentence. Examples of
such models include SkipThought , which uses Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) for its encoder and decoders, and FastSent BID19 , which replaces the RNNs with simpler bagof-words (BOW) versions.Models trained in an unsupervised manner on large text corpora are usually applied to supervised transfer tasks, where the representation for a sentence forms the input to a supervised classification problem, or to unsupervised similarity tasks, where the similarity (typically taken to be the cosine similarity) of two inputs is compared with corresponding human judgements of semantic similarity in order to inform some downstream process, such as information retrieval.Interestingly, some researchers have observed that deep complex models like SkipThought tend to do well on supervised transfer tasks but relatively poorly on unsupervised similarity tasks, whereas for shallow log-linear models like FastSent the opposite is true BID19 BID13 . It has been
highlighted that this should be addressed by analysing the geometry of the representation space BID6 BID42 BID19 , however, to the best of our knowledge it has not been systematically attempted 1 .In this work
we attempt to address the observed performance gap on unsupervised similarity tasks between representations produced by simple models and those produced by deep complex models. Our main contributions
are as follows:• We introduce the concept of an optimal representation space, in which the space has a similarity measure that is optimal with respect to the objective function.• We show that models with
log-linear decoders are usually evaluated in their optimal space, while recurrent models are not. This effectively explains
the performance gap on unsupervised similarity tasks.• We show that, when evaluated
in their optimal space, recurrent models close that gap. We also provide a procedure for
extracting this optimal space using the decoder hidden states.• We validate our findings with
a series of consistent empirical evaluations utilising a single publicly available codebase.
In this work, we introduced the concept of an optimal representation space, where semantic similarity directly corresponds to distance in that space, in order to shed light on the performance gap between simple and complex architectures on downstream tasks.
In particular, we studied the space of initial hidden states to BOW and RNN decoders (typically the outputs of some encoder) and how that space relates to the training objective of the model.For BOW decoders, the optimal representation space is precisely the initial hidden state of the decoder equipped with dot product, whereas for RNN decoders it is not.
Noting that it is precisely these spaces that have been used for BOW and RNN decoders has led us to a simple explanation for the observed performance gap between these architectures, namely that the former has been evaluated in its optimal representation space, whereas the latter has not.Furthermore, we showed that any neural network that outputs a probability distribution has an optimal representation space.
Since a RNN does produce a probability distribution, we analysed its objective function which motivated a procedure of unrolling the decoder.
This simple method allowed us to extract representations that are provably optimal under dot product, without needing to retrain the model.We then validated our claims by comparing the empirical performance of different architectures across transfer tasks.
In general, we observed that unrolling even a single state of the decoder always outperforms the raw encoder output with RNN decoder, and almost always outperforms the raw encoder output with BOW decoder for some number of unrolls.
This indicates different vector embeddings can be used for different downstream tasks depending on what type of representation space is most suitable, potentially yielding high performance on a variety of tasks from a single trained model.Although our analysis of decoder architectures was restricted to BOW and RNN, others such as convolutional BID49 and graph BID25 decoders are more appropriate for many tasks.
Similarly, although we focus on Euclidean vector spaces, hyperbolic vector spaces BID34 , complex-valued vector spaces BID44 and spinor spaces BID23 all have beneficial modelling properties.
In each case, although an optimal representation space should exist, it is not clear if the intuitive space and similarity measure is the optimal one.
However, there should at least exist a mapping from the intuitive choice of space to the optimal space using a transformation provided by the network itself, as we showed with the RNN decoder.
Evaluating in this space should further improve performance of these models.
We leave this for future work.Ultimately, a good representation is one that makes a subsequent learning task easier.
For unsupervised similarity tasks, this essentially reduces to how well the model separates objects in the chosen representation space, and how appropriately the similarity measure compares objects in that space.
Our findings lead us to the following practical advice:
i) Use a simple model architecture where the optimal representation space is clear by construction, or
ii) use an arbitrarily complex model architecture and analyse the objective function to reveal, for a chosen vector representation, an appropriate similarity metric.We hope that future work will utilise a careful understanding of what similarity means and how it is linked to the objective function, and that our analysis can be applied to help boost the performance of other complex models.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Number of unroll steps Spearman correlation coefficient Figure 3 : Performance on the STS tasks depending on the number of unrolled hidden states of the decoders, using cosine similarity as the similarity measure.
The top row presents results for the RNN encoder and the bottom row for the BOW encoder.
Red: Raw encoder output with BOW decoder.
Green: Raw encoder output with RNN decoder.
Blue: Unrolled RNN decoder output.
For both RNN and BOW encoders, unrolling the decoder strictly outperforms *-RNN for almost every number of unroll steps, and perform nearly as well as or better than *-BOW.A COMPARISON WITH SKIPTHOUGHT Table 3 : Performance of the SkipThought model, with and without layer normalisation BID8 , compared against the RNN-RNN model used in our experimental setup.
On each task, the highest performing model is highlighted in bold.
For SICK-R, we report the Pearson correlation, and for STS14 we report the Pearson/Spearman correlation with human-provided scores.
For all other tasks, reported values indicate test accuracy.
† indicates results taken from BID13 .
‡ indicates our results from running SentEval on the model downloaded from BID8 's publicly available codebase (https://github.com/ryankiros/layer-norm).
We attribute the discrepancies in performance to differences in experimental setup or implementation.
However, we expect our unrolling procedure to also boost SkipThought's performance on unsupervised similarity tasks, as we show for RNN-RNN in our fair singlecodebase comparisons in the main text.
As discussed in Section 3, the objective function is maximising the dot product between the BOW decoder/unrolled RNN-decoder and the context.
However, as other researchers in the field and the STS tasks specifically use cosine similarity by default, we present the results using cosine similarity in TAB4 and the results for different numbers of unrolled hidden decoder states in Figure 3 .Although
the results in TAB4 are consistent with the dot product results in Table 1 , the overall performance across STS tasks is noticeably lower when dot product is used instead of cosine similarity to determine semantic similarity. Switching
from using cosine similarity to dot product transitions from considering only angle between two vectors, to also considering their length. Empirical
studies have indicated that the length of a word vector corresponds to how sure of its context the model that produces it is. This is related
to how often the model has seen the word, and how many different contexts it appears in (for example, the word vectors for "January" and "February" have similar norms, however, the word vector for "May" is noticeably smaller) BID41 . Using the raw encoder
output (RNN-RNN) achieves the lowest performance across all tasks. Unrolling the RNN decoders
dramatically improves the performance across all tasks compared to using the raw encoder RNN output, validating the theoretical justification presented in Section 3.3. BOW encoder: We do not observe
the same uplift in performance from unrolling the RNN encoder compared to the encoder output. This is consistent with our findings
when using dot product (see Table 1 ). A corollary is that longer sentences
on average have shorter norms, since they contain more words which, in turn, have appeared in more contexts BID0 . During training, the corpus can induce
differences in norms in a way that strongly penalises sentences potentially containing multiple contexts, and consequently will disfavour these sentences as similar to other sentences under the dot product. This induces a noise that potentially
renders the dot product a less useful metric to choose for STS tasks than cosine similarity, which is unaffected by this issue.using dot product as the similarity measure. On each task, the highest performing
setup for each encoder type is highlighted in bold and the highest performing setup overall is underlined.

assistant: text: By introducing the notion of an optimal representation space, we provide a theoretical argument and experimental validation that an unsupervised model for sentences can perform well on both supervised similarity and unsupervised transfer tasks.