Paper:
Deliberation Networks: Sequence Generation Beyond One-Pass Decoding *
The encoder-decoder framework has achieved promising progress for many sequence generation tasks, including machine translation, text summarization, dialog system, image captioning, etc. Such a framework adopts an one-pass forward process while decoding and generating a sequence, but lacks the deliberation process: A generated sequence is directly used as final output without further polishing. However, deliberation is a common behavior in human's daily life like reading news and writing papers/articles/books. In this work, we introduce the deliberation process into the encoder-decoder framework and propose deliberation networks for sequence generation. A deliberation network has two levels of decoders, where the first-pass decoder generates a raw sequence and the second-pass decoder polishes and refines the raw sentence with deliberation. Since the second-pass deliberation decoder has global information about what the sequence to be generated might be, it has the potential to generate a better sequence by looking into future words in the raw sentence. Experiments on neural machine translation and text summarization demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed deliberation networks. On the WMT 2014 English-to-French translation task, our model establishes a new state-of-the-art BLEU score of 41.5.

Review:
-----
After response: thank you for the thorough response. Two of my major concerns: the weakness of the baseline and the lack of comparison with automatic post-editing have been resolved by the response. I've raised my evaluation with the expectation that these results will be added to the final camera ready version.
With regards to the examples, the reason why I said "cherry-picked?" (with a question mark) was because there was no mention of how the examples were chosen. If they were chosen randomly or some other unbiased method that could be noted in the paper. It's OK to cherry-pick representative examples, of course, and it'd be more clear if this was mentioned as well. Also, if there was some quantitative analysis of which parts of the sentence were getting better this would be useful, as I noted before.
Finally, the explanation that beam search has trouble recovering from search errors at the beginning of the sentence is definitely true. However, the fact that this isn't taken into account at training and test time is less clear. NMT is maximizing the full-sentence likelihood, which treats mistakes at any part of the sentence equally. I think it's important to be accurate here, as this is a major premise of this work.
---------
This paper presents a method to train a network to revise results generated by a first-pass decoder in neural sequence-to-sequence models. The second-level model is trained using a sampling-based method where outputs are sampled from the first-pass model. I think idea in the paper is potentially interesting, but there are a number of concerns that I had about the validity and analysis of the results. It would also be better if the content could be put in better context of prior work.
First, it wasn't entirely clear to me that the reasoning behind the proposed method is sound. There is a nice example in the intro where a poet used the final word of the sentence to determine the first word, but at least according to probabilities, despite the fact that standard neural sequence-to-sequence models are *decoding* from left to right, they are still calculating the joint probability over words in the entire sentence, and indirectly consider the words in the end of the sentence in the earlier decisions because the conditional probability of latter words will be lower if the model makes bad decisions for earlier words. Of course this will not work if greedy decoding is performed, but with beam search it is possible to recover. I think this should be discussed carefully.
Second, regarding validity of the results: it seems that the baselines used in the paper are not very representative of the state of the art for the respective tasks. I don't expect that the every paper has to be improving SOTA numbers, but for MT if "RNNSearch" is the original Bahdanau et al. attentional model, it is likely missing most of the improvements that have been made to neural MT over the past several years, and thus it is hard to tell how these results will transfer to a stronger model. For example, the below paper achieves single-model BLEU scores on the NIST04-06 data sets that are 4-7 BLEU points higher than the proposed model:
> Deep Neural Machine Translation with Linear Associative Unit. Mingxuan Wang, Zhengdong Lu, Jie Zhou, Qun Liu (ACL 2017)
Third, the paper has a nominal amount of qualitative evaluation of (cherry-picked?) examples, but lacks any analysis of why the proposed method is doing better. It would be quite useful if analysis could be done to show whether the improvements are indeed due to the fact that the network has access to future target words in a quantitative fashion. For example, is the proposed method better at generating beginnings of sentences, where standard models are worse at generating words in this more information-impoverished setting.
Finally, there is quite a bit of previous work that either is similar methodologically or attempts to solve similar problems. The closest is automatic post-editing or pre-translation such as the following papers:
> Junczys-Dowmunt, Marcin, and Roman Grundkiewicz. "Log-linear combinations of monolingual and bilingual neural machine translation models for automatic post-editing." WMT2016.
> Niehues, Jan, et al. "Pre-Translation for Neural Machine Translation." COLING2016
This is not trained jointly with the first-past decoder, but even without joint training is quite useful. Also, the following paper attempts to perform globally consistent decoding, and introduces bilingual or bidirectional models that can solve a similar problem:
> Hoang, Cong Duy Vu, Gholamreza Haffari, and Trevor Cohn. "Decoding as Continuous Optimization in Neural Machine Translation." arXiv 2017.