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

Title: What Is in a Translation Unit?  Comparing Character and Subword Representations Beyond Translation

Paper content:
Recent work has shown that contextualized word representations derived from neural machine translation (NMT) are a viable alternative to such from simple word predictions tasks.
This is because the internal understanding that needs to be built in order to be able to translate from one language to another is much more comprehensive.
Unfortunately, computational and memory limitations as of present prevent NMT models from using large word vocabularies, and thus alternatives such as subword units (BPE and morphological segmentations) and characters have been used.
Here we study the impact of using different kinds of units on the quality of the resulting representations when used to model syntax, semantics, and morphology.
We found that while representations derived from subwords are slightly better for modeling syntax, character-based representations are superior for modeling morphology and are also more robust to noisy input.
Recent years have seen the rise of deep neural networks and the subsequent rise of representation learning based on network-internal activations.
Such representations have been shown useful when addressing various problems from fields such as image recognition , speech recognition BID2 , and natural language processing (NLP) BID30 .
The central idea is that the internal representations trained to solve an NLP task could be useful for other tasks as well.
For example, word embeddings learned for a simple word prediction task in context, word2vec-style BID31 , have now become almost obligatory in state-ofthe-art NLP models.
One issue with such word embeddings is that the resulting representation is context-independent.
Recently, it has been shown that huge performance gains can be achieved by contextualizing the representations, so that the same word could have a different embedding in different contexts.
This is best achieved by changing the auxiliary task, e.g., the ElMo model learns contextualized word embeddings from a language modeling task, using LSTMs BID37 .More
recently, it has been shown that complex tasks such as neural machine translation can yield superior representations BID29 . This
is because the internal understanding of the input language that needs to be built by the network in order to be able to translate from one language to another needs to be much more comprehensive compared to what would be needed for a simple word prediction task. Such
representations have yielded state-of-the-art results for tasks such as sentiment analysis, textual entailment, and question answering.Unfortunately, computational and memory limitations as of present prevent neural machine translation (NMT) models from using large-scale vocabularies, typically limiting them to 30-50k words . This
is a severe limitation, as most NLP applications need to handle vocabularies of millions of words, e.g., word2vec BID31 , GloVe BID36 and FastText BID32 offer pre-trained embeddings for 3M, 2M, and 2.5M words/phrases, respectively. The
problem is typically addressed using byte-pair encoding (BPE), where words are segmented into pseudo-word character sequences based on frequency BID43 . A somewhat
less popular solution is to use characters as the basic unit of representation BID8 . In the case
of morphologically complex languages, another alternative is to reduce the vocabulary by using unsupervised morpheme segmentation BID6 ).The impact of
using different units of representation in NMT models has been studied in previous work BID27 BID10 BID8 Lee et al., 2017, among others) , but the focus has been exclusively on the quality of the resulting translation output. However, it remains
unclear what input and output units should be chosen if we are primarily interested in representation learning. Here, we aim at bridging
this gap by evaluating the quality of NMT-derived embeddings originating from units of different granularity when used for modeling morphology, syntax, and semantics (as opposed to end tasks such as sentiment analysis and question answering). Our contributions can be
summarized as follows:• We study the impact of using words vs. characters vs. BPE units vs. morphological segments on the quality of representations learned by NMT models when used to model morphology, syntax, and semantics.• We further study the robustness
of these representations with respect to noise.• We make practical recommendations
based on our results.We found that while representations derived from morphological segments are better for modeling syntax, character-based ones are superior for morphology and are also more robust to noise.
Comparing Performance Across Tasks Character-based representations outperformed in the case of morphological tagging; BPE-based representations performed better than others in the semantic tagging task for German (and about the same in English); and Morfessor performed slightly better than others for syntax.
Syntactic tagging requires knowledge of the complete sentence.
Splitting a sentence into characters substantially increases the length (from 50 words in a sentence to 250 characters on average) of the sentence.
The character-based models lack in capturing long distance dependencies, which could be a reason for their low performance in this task.
Similarly, in case of morphological tagging, the information about the morphology of a word is dependent on the surrounding words plus internal information (root, morphemes etc.) presents in the word.
The character-based system has access to all of this information which results in high tagging performance.
Morfessor performed better than BPE in the morphological tagging task because its segments are linguistically motivated units (segmented into root + morphemes), making the information about the word morphology explicit in the representation.
In comparison, BPE solely focuses on the frequency of characters occurring together in the corpus and can yield linguistically incorrect units.
TAB3 summarizes the translation performance of each system.
In most of the cases, the subword-based systems perform better than the word-based and character-based systems.
However, this is not true in the case of using their representations as feature in the core NLP tasks.
For example, we found that character-based representations perform better than others in the morphological tagging task.
On an additional note, BPE-based representations although perform better for some tasks, are sensitive to noise.
Their ability to segment any unknown words into two known subwords result in less reliable systems.
Notably, the translation performance of the BPE-based system falls below the character-based system even with 10% noise only.
We studied the impact of using different representation units -words, characters, BPE units, and morphological segments on the representations learned by NMT.
Unlike previous work, which targeted end tasks such as sentiment analysis and question answering, here we focused on modeling morphology, syntax and semantics.
We found that
(i) while representations derived from subwords units are slightly better for modeling syntax,
(ii) character representations are distinctly better for modeling morphology, and
(iii) are also more robust to noise in contrast to subword representations,
(iv) and that using all representations together works best.
Based on our findings, we conjecture that although BPE segmentation is a de-facto standard in building state-of-the-art NMT systems, the underlying representations it yields are suboptimal for external tasks.
Character-based representations provide a more viable and robust alternative in this regard, followed by morphological segmentation.
In future work, we plan to explore specialized character-based architectures for NMT.
We further want to study how different units affect representation quality in non-recurrent models such as the Transformer BID48 and in convolutional architectures BID14 .A
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL

assistant: text: We study the impact of using different kinds of subword units on the quality of the resulting representations when used to model syntax, semantics, and morphology.