Paper:
Recurrent Neural Networks architectures excel at processing sequences by modelling dependencies over different timescales. The recently introduced Recurrent Weighted Average (RWA) unit captures long term dependencies far better than an LSTM on several challenging tasks. The RWA achieves this by applying attention to each input and computing a weighted average over the full history of its computations. Unfortunately, the RWA cannot change the attention it has assigned to previous timesteps, and so struggles with carrying out consecutive tasks or tasks with changing requirements. We present the Recurrent Discounted Attention (RDA) unit that builds on the RWA by additionally allowing the discounting of the past. We empirically compare our model to RWA, LSTM and GRU units on several challenging tasks. On tasks with a single output the RWA, RDA and GRU units learn much quicker than the LSTM and with better performance. On the multiple sequence copy task our RDA unit learns the task three times as quickly as the LSTM or GRU units while the RWA fails to learn at all. On the Wikipedia character prediction task the LSTM performs best but it followed closely by our RDA unit. Overall our RDA unit performs well and is sample efficient on a large variety of sequence tasks.

Review:
The authors present RDA, the Recurrent Discounted Attention unit, that improves upon RWA, the earlier introduced Recurrent Weighted Average unit, by adding a discount factor. While the RWA was an interesting idea with bad results (far worse than the standard GRU or LSTM with standard attention except for hand-picked tasks), the RDA brings it more on-par with the standard methods.
On the positive side, the paper is clearly written and adding discount to RWA, while a small change, is original. On the negative side, in almost all tasks the RDA is on par or worse than the standard GRU - except for MultiCopy where it trains faster, but not to better results and it looks like the difference is between few and very-few training steps anyway. The most interesting result is language modeling on Hutter Prize Wikipedia, where RDA very significantly improves upon RWA - but again, only matches a standard GRU or LSTM. So the results are not strongly convincing, and the paper lacks any mention of newer work on attention. This year strong improvements over state-of-the-art have been achieved using attention for translation ("Attention is All You Need") and image classification (e.g., Non-local Neural Networks, but also others in ImageNet competition). To make the evaluation convincing enough for acceptance, RDA should be combined with those models and evaluated more competitively on multiple widely-studied tasks.