Paper:
FRAGE: Frequency-Agnostic Word Representation
Continuous word representation (aka word embedding) is a basic building block in many neural network-based models used in natural language processing tasks. Although it is widely accepted that words with similar semantics should be close to each other in the embedding space, we find that word embeddings learned in several tasks are biased towards word frequency: the embeddings of high-frequency and low-frequency words lie in different subregions of the embedding space, and the embedding of a rare word and a popular word can be far from each other even if they are semantically similar. This makes learned word embeddings ineffective, especially for rare words, and consequently limits the performance of these neural network models. In this paper, we develop FRequency-AGnostic word Embedding (FRAGE) which is a neat, simple yet effective way to learn word representation using adversarial training. We conducted comprehensive studies on ten datasets across four natural language processing tasks, including word similarity, language modeling, machine translation, and text classification. Results show that with FRAGE, we achieve higher performance than the baselines in all tasks.

Review:
*Summary:  This paper presents a simple regularization technique for word embeddings. The core idea is adding an adversarial loss which is recently widely used in many NLP papers as mentioned in this paper submission. The authors define two frequency-based domains: major words and rare words. The proposed approach is easy to use and seems helpful in improving accuracy of several NLP tasks.  *Strengths:  - The frequency-based analysis on word embeddings is interesting and motivates this work well.  - The method is easy to follow, although we have to additionally tune a few hyperparameters (the frequency threshold and the coefficient for the additional loss).  - The method leads to consistent improvements upon the baselines on the NLP tasks used in their experiments.  *Weaknesses:  - Figure 1 and 2 well motive this work, but in the main body of this paper I cannot see what happens to these figures after applying the proposed adversarial training. It is better to put together the images before and after applying your method in the same place. Figure 2 does not say anything about details (we can understand the very brief overview of the positions of the embeddings), and thus these figures could be smaller for better space usage.  - For the LM and NMT models, did you use the technique to share word embedding and output softmax matrices as in [1]? The transformer model would do this, if the transformer implementations are based on the original paper. If so, your method affects not only the input word embeddings, but also the output softmax matrix, which is not a trivial side effect. This important point seems missing and not discussed. If the technique is not used, the strength of the proposed method is not fully realized, because the output word embeddings could still capture simple frequency information.  [1] Inan et al., Tying Word Vectors and Word Classifiers: A Loss Framework for Language Modeling, ICLR 2017.  - There are no significance test or discussions about the significance of the score differences.  - It is not clear how the BLEU improvement comes from the proposed method. Did you inspect whether rare words are more actively selected in the translations? Otherwise, it is not clear whether the expectations of the authors actually happened.  - Line 131: The authors mention standard word embeddings like word2vec-based and glove-based embeddings, but recently subword-based embeddings are also used. For example, fasttex embeddings are aware of internal character n-gram information, which is helpful in capturing information about rare words. By inspecting the character n-grams, it is sometimes easy to understand rare words' brief properties. For example, in the case of "Peking", we can see the words start from a uppercase character and ends by the suffix "ing", etc. It makes this paper more solid to compare the proposed method with such character n-gram-based methods [2, 3].  [2] Bojanowski et al., Enriching Word Vectors with Subword Information, TACL. [3] Hashimoto et al., A Joint Many-Task Model: Growing a Neural Network for Multiple NLP Tasks, EMNLP 2017.  *Minor comments:  - Line 21: I think the statement "Different from classic one-hot representation" is not necessary, because anyway word embeddings are still based on such one-hot representations (i.e., the word indices). An embedding matrix is just a weight matrix for the one-hot representations.  - Line 29: Word2vec is not a model, but a toolkit which implements Skipgram and CBOW with a few training options.  - The results on Table 6 in the supplementary material could be enough to be tested on the dev set. Otherwise, there are too many test set results.   * Additional comments after reading the author response Thank you for your kind reply to my comments and questions. I believe that the draft will be further improved in the camera-ready version. One additional suggestion is that the title seems to be too general. The term "adversarial training" has a wide range of meanings, so it would be better to include your contribution in the title; for example, "Improving Word Embeddings by Frequency-based Adversarial Training" or something.