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

Title: Convolutional Sequence Modeling Revisited

Paper content:
This paper revisits the problem of sequence modeling using convolutional
architectures.
Although both convolutional and recurrent architectures have
a
long history in sequence prediction, the current "default" mindset in much of
the deep learning community is that generic sequence modeling is best handled
using recurrent networks.
The goal of this paper is to question this assumption
. 
Specifically, we consider a simple generic temporal convolution network (TCN
),
which adopts features from modern ConvNet architectures such as a dilations and
residual connections.
We show that on a variety of sequence modeling tasks
,
including many frequently used as benchmarks for evaluating recurrent networks
,
the TCN outperforms baseline RNN methods (LSTMs, GRUs, and vanilla RNNs) and
sometimes even highly specialized approaches.
We further show that the
potential "infinite memory" advantage that RNNs have over TCNs is largely
absent in practice: TCNs indeed exhibit longer effective history sizes than their
recurrent counterparts.
As a whole, we argue that it may be time to (re)consider
ConvNets as the default "go to" architecture for sequence modeling.
Since the re-emergence of neural networks to the forefront of machine learning, two types of network architectures have played a pivotal role: the convolutional network, often used for vision and higher-dimensional input data; and the recurrent network, typically used for modeling sequential data.
These two types of architectures have become so ingrained in modern deep learning that they can be viewed as constituting the "pillars" of deep learning approaches.
This paper looks at the problem of sequence modeling, predicting how a sequence will evolve over time.
This is a key problem in domains spanning audio, language modeling, music processing, time series forecasting, and many others.
Although exceptions certainly exist in some domains, the current "default" thinking in the deep learning community is that these sequential tasks are best handled by some type of recurrent network.
Our aim is to revisit this default thinking, and specifically ask whether modern convolutional architectures are in fact just as powerful for sequence modeling.Before making the main claims of our paper, some history of convolutional and recurrent models for sequence modeling is useful.
In the early history of neural networks, convolutional models were specifically proposed as a means of handling sequence data, the idea being that one could slide a 1-D convolutional filter over the data (and stack such layers together) to predict future elements of a sequence from past ones BID20 BID30 .
Thus, the idea of using convolutional models for sequence modeling goes back to the beginning of convolutional architectures themselves.
However, these models were subsequently largely abandoned for many sequence modeling tasks in favor of recurrent networks BID13 .
The reasoning for this appears straightforward: while convolutional architectures have a limited ability to look back in time (i.e., their receptive field is limited by the size and layers of the filters), recurrent networks have no such limitation.
Because recurrent networks propagate forward a hidden state, they are theoretically capable of infinite memory, the ability to make predictions based upon data that occurred arbitrarily long ago in the sequence.
This possibility seems to be realized even moreso for the now-standard architectures of Long ShortTerm Memory networks (LSTMs) BID21 , or recent incarnations such as the Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) ; these architectures aim to avoid the "vanishing gradient" challenge of traditional RNNs and appear to provide a means to actually realize this infinite memory.Given the substantial limitations of convolutional architectures at the time that RNNs/LSTMs were initially proposed (when deep convolutional architectures were difficult to train, and strategies such as dilated convolutions had not reached widespread use), it is no surprise that CNNs fell out of favor to RNNs.
While there have been a few notable examples in recent years of CNNs applied to sequence modeling (e.g., the WaveNet BID40 and PixelCNN BID41 architectures), the general "folk wisdom" of sequence modeling prevails, that the first avenue of attack for these problems should be some form of recurrent network.The fundamental aim of this paper is to revisit this folk wisdom, and thereby make a counterclaim.
We argue that with the tools of modern convolutional architectures at our disposal (namely the ability to train very deep networks via residual connections and other similar mechanisms, plus the ability to increase receptive field size via dilations), in fact convolutional architectures typically outperform recurrent architectures on sequence modeling tasks, especially (and perhaps somewhat surprisingly) on domains where a long effective history length is needed to make proper predictions.
This paper consists of two main contributions.
First, we describe a generic, baseline temporal convolutional network (TCN) architecture, combining best practices in the design of modern convolutional architectures, including residual layers and dilation.
We emphasize that we are not claiming to invent the practice of applying convolutional architectures to sequence prediction, and indeed the TCN architecture here mirrors closely architectures such as WaveNet (in fact TCN is notably simpler in some respects).
We do, however, want to propose a generic modern form of convolutional sequence prediction for subsequent experimentation.
Second, and more importantly, we extensively evaluate the TCN model versus alternative approaches on a wide variety of sequence modeling tasks, spanning many domains and datasets that have typically been the purview of recurrent models, including word-and character-level language modeling, polyphonic music prediction, and other baseline tasks commonly used to evaluate recurrent architectures.
Although our baseline TCN can be outperformed by specialized (and typically highly-tuned) RNNs in some cases, for the majority of problems the TCN performs best, with minimal tuning on the architecture or the optimization.
This paper also analyzes empirically the myth of "infinite memory" in RNNs, and shows that in practice, TCNs of similar size and complexity may actually demonstrate longer effective history sizes.
Our chief claim in this paper is thus an empirical one: rather than presuming that RNNs will be the default best method for sequence modeling tasks, it may be time to (re)consider ConvNets as the "go-to" approach when facing a new dataset or task in sequence modeling.
In this work, we revisited the topic of modeling sequence predictions using convolutional architectures.
We introduced the key components of the TCN and analyzed some vital advantages and disadvantages of using TCN for sequence predictions instead of RNNs.
Further, we compared our generic TCN model to the recurrent architectures on a set of experiments that span a wide range of domains and datasets.
Through these experiments, we have shown that TCN with minimal tuning can outperform LSTM/GRU of the same model size (and with standard regularizations) in most of the tasks.
Further experiments on the copy memory task and LAMBADA task revealed that TCNs actually has a better capability for long-term memory than the comparable recurrent architectures, which are commonly believed to have unlimited memory.It is still important to note that, however, we only presented a generic architecture here, with components all coming from standard modern convolutional networks (e.g., normalization, dropout, residual network).
And indeed, on specific problems, the TCN model can still be beaten by some specialized RNNs that adopt carefully designed optimization strategies.
Nevertheless, we believe the experiment results in Section 4 might be a good signal that instead of considering RNNs as the "default" methodology for sequence modeling, convolutional networks too, can be a promising and powerful toolkit in studying time-series data.

assistant: text: We argue that convolutional networks should be considered the default starting point for sequence modeling tasks.