Paper:
Deep Character-Level Neural Machine Translation By Learning Morphology
Neural machine translation aims at building a single large neural network that can be trained to maximize translation performance. The encoder-decoder architecture with an attention mechanism achieves a translation performance comparable to the existing phrase-based systems. However, the use of large vocabulary becomes the bottleneck in both training and improving the performance. In this paper, we propose a novel architecture which learns morphology by using two recurrent networks and a hierarchical decoder which translates at character level. This gives rise to a deep character-level model consisting of six recurrent networks. Such a deep model has two major advantages. It avoids the large vocabulary issue radically; at the same time, it is more efficient in training than word-based models and conventional character-based models. Our model obtains a higher BLEU score than the bpe-based model after training for one epoch on En-Fr and En-Cs translation tasks. Moreover, the final BLEU score of our model is comparable to the state-of-the-art systems. Further analyses show that our model is able to learn morphology.
1 Introduction
Neural machine translation (NMT) attempts to build a single large neural network that reads a sentence and outputs a translation (Sutskever et al., 2014). Most of the extant neural machine translations models belong to a family of word-level encoder-decoders (Sutskever et al., 2014; Cho et al., 2014). Recently, Bahdanau et al. (2015) proposed a model with attention mechanism which automati-
cally searches the alignments and greatly improves the performance. However, the use of a large vocabulary seems necessary for the word-level neural machine translation models to improve performance (Sutskever et al., 2014; Cho et al., 2015).
Chung et al. (2016b) listed three reasons behind the wide adoption of word-level modeling: (i) word is a basic unit of a language, (ii) data sparsity, (iii) vanishing gradient of character-level modeling. Consider that a language itself is an evolving system. So it is impossible to cover all words in the language. The problem of rare words that are out of vocabulary (OOV) is a critical issue which can effect the performance of neural machine translation. In particular, using larger vocabulary does improve performance (Sutskever et al., 2014; Cho et al., 2015). However, the training becomes much harder and the vocabulary is often filled with many similar words that share a lexeme but have different morphology.
There are many approaches to dealing with the out-of-vocabulary issue. For example, Gulcehre et al. (2016), Luong et al. (2015) and Cho et al. (2015) proposed to obtain the alignment information of target unknown words, after which simple word dictionary lookup or identity copy can be performed to replace the unknown words in translation. However, these approaches ignore several important properties of languages such as monolinguality and crosslinguality as pointed out by Luong and Manning (2016). Thus, Luong and Manning (2016) proposed a hybrid neural machine translation model which leverages the power of both words and characters to achieve the goal of open vocabulary neural machine translation.
Intuitively, it is elegant to directly model pure characters. However, as the length of sequence grows significantly, character-level translation models have failed to produce competitive results compared with word-based models. In addition, they
2
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
require more memory and computation resource. Especially, it is much difficult to train the attention component. For example, Ling et al. (2015a) proposed a compositional character to word (C2W) model and applied it to machine translation (Ling et al., 2015b). They also used a hierarchical decoder which has been explored before in other context (Serban et al., 2015). However, they found it slow and difficult to train the character-level models, and one has to resort to layer-wise training the neural network and applying supervision for the attention component. In fact, such RNNs often struggle with separating words that have similar morphologies but very different meanings.
In order to address the issues mentioned earlier, we introduce a novel architecture by exploiting the structure of words. It is built on two recurrent neural networks: one for learning the representation of preceding characters and another for learning the weight of this representation of the whole word. Unlike subword-level model based on the byte pair encoding (BPE) algorithm (Sennrich et al., 2016), we learn the subword unit automatically. Compared with the CNN word encoder (Kim et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2016), our model is able to generate a meaningful representation of the word. To decode at character level, we devise a hierarchical decoder which sets the state of the second-level RNN (character-level decoder) to the output of the first-level RNN (word-level decoder), which will generate a character sequence until generating a delimiter. In this way, our model almost keeps the same encoding length for encoder as word-based models but eliminates the use of a large vocabulary. Furthermore, we are able to efficiently train the deep model which consists of six recurrent networks, achieving higher performance.
In summary, we propose a hierarchical architecture (character→ subword→ word→ source sentence → target word → target character) to train a deep character-level neural machine translator. We show that the model achieves a high translation performance which is comparable to the state-ofthe-art neural machine translation model on the task of En-Fr, En-Cs and Cs-En translation. The experiments and analyses further support the statement that our model is able to learn the morphology.
2 Neural Machine Translation
Neural machine translation is often implemented as an encoder-decoder architecture. The encoder
usually uses a recurrent neural network (RNN) or a bidirectional recurrent neural network (BiRNN) (Schuster and Paliwal, 1997) to encode the input sentence x = {x1, . . . , xTx} into a sequence of hidden states h = {h1, . . . ,hTx}:
ht = f1(e(xt),ht−1),
where e(xt) ∈ Rm is an m-dimensional embedding of xt. The decoder, another RNN, is often trained to predict next word yt given previous predicted words {y1, . . . , yt−1} and the context vector ct; that is,
p(yt | {y1, . . . , yt−1}) = g(e(yt−1), st, ct),
where
st = f2(e(yt−1), st−1, ct) (1)
and g is a nonlinear and potentially multi-layered function that computes the probability of yt. The context ct depends on the sequence of {h1, . . . ,hTx}. Sutskever et al. (2014) encoded all information in the source sentence into a fixedlength vector, i.e., ct = hTx . Bahdanau et al. (2015) computed ct by the alignment model which handles the bottleneck that the former approach meets.
The whole model is jointly trained by maximizing the conditional log-probability of the correct translation given a source sentence with respect to the parameters of the model θ:
θ∗ = argmax θ Ty∑ t=1 log p(yt | {y1, . . . , yt−1},x,θ).
For the detailed description of the implementation, we refer the reader to the papers (Sutskever et al., 2014; Bahdanau et al., 2015).
3 Deep Character-Level Neural Machine Translation
We consider two problems in the word-level neural machine translation models. First, how can we map a word to a vector? It is usually done by a lookup table (embedding matrix) where the size of vocabulary is limited. Second, how do we map a vector to a word when predicting? It is usually done via a softmax function. However, the large vocabulary will make the softmax intractable computationally.
We correspondingly devise two novel architectures, a word encoder which utilizes the morphology and a hierarchical decoder which decodes at
3
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
Figure 1: The representation of the word ’anyone.’
character level. Accordingly, we propose a deep character-level neural machine translation model (DCNMT).
3.1 Learning Morphology in a Word Encoder
Many words can be subdivided into smaller meaningful units called morphemes, such as “any-one”, “any-thing” and “every-one.” At the basic level, words are made of morphemes which are recognized as grammatically significant or meaningful. Different combinations of morphemes lead to different meanings. Based on these facts, we introduce a word encoder to learn the morphemes and the rules of how they are combined. Even if the word encoder had never seen “everything” before, with an understanding of English morphology, the word encoder could gather the meaning easily. Thus learning morphology in a word encoder might speedup training.
The word encoder is based on two recurrent neural networks, as illustrated in Figure 1. We compute the representation of the word ‘anyone’ as
ranyone = tanh( 6∑
t=1
wtrt),
where rt is an RNN hidden state at time t, computed by
rt = f(e(xt), rt−1).
Each rt contains information about the preceding characters. The weight wt of each representation rt is computed by
wt = exp(aff(ht)),
where ht is another RNN hidden state at time t and aff() is an affine function which maps ht to a scalar. Here, we use a BiRNN to compute ht as shown in Figure 1. Instead of normalizing it by ∑
t exp(aff(ht)), we use an activation function tanh as it performs best in experiments.
We can regard the weight wi as the energy that determines whether ri is a representation of a morpheme and how it contributes to the representation of the word. Compared with an embedding lookup table, the decoupled RNNs learn the representation of morphemes and the rules of how they are combined respectively, which may be viewed as learning distributed representations of words explicitly. For example, we are able to translate “convenienter” correctly which validates our idea.
After obtaining the representation of the word, we could encode the sentence using a bidirectional RNN as RNNsearch (Bahdanau et al., 2015). The detailed architecture is shown in Figure 2.
3.2 Hierarchical Decoder
To decode at the character level, we introduce a hierarchical decoder. The first-level decoder is similar to RNNsearch which contains the information of the target word. Specifically, st in Eqn. (1) contains the information of target word at time t. Instead of using a multi-layer network following a softmax function to compute the probability of each target word using st, we employ a second-level decoder which generates a character sequence based on st. The second-level decoder either continues the character-level states or resets using word-level states at boundaries. However, it will be intractable or inefficient to conditionally pick outputs from the the first-level decoder when training in batch manner. For example, Luong and Manning (2016) uses two forward passes (one for word-level and another for character-level) in batch training which is less efficient.
In order to decode efficiently, we proposed a variant of the gate recurrent unit (GRU) (Cho et al., 2014; Chung et al., 2014) that used in the secondlevel decoder and we denote it as HGRU (It is possible to use the LSTM (Hochreiter and Schmidhuber, 1997) units instead of the GRU described here). HGRU has a settable state and generates character sequence based on the given state until generating a delimiter. In our model, the state is initialized by the output of the first-level decoder. Once HGRU generates a delimiter, it will
4
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
set the state to the next output of the first-level decoder. Given the previous output character sequence {y0, y1, . . . , yt−1} where y0 is a token representing the start of sentence, and the auxiliary sequence {a0, a1, . . . , at−1} which only contains 0 and 1 to indicate whether yi is a delimiter (a0 is set to 1), HGRU updates the state as follows:
gt−1 = (1− at−1)gt−1 + at−1sit , (2) qjt = σ([Wqe(yt−1)] j + [Uqgt−1] j), (3)
zjt = σ([Wze(yt−1)] j + [Uzgt−1] j), (4) g̃jt = φ([We(yt−1)] j + [U(qt gt−1)]j),
(5)
gjt = z j tg j t−1 + (1− z j t )g̃ j t , (6)
where sit is the output of the first-level decoder which calculated as Eqn. (8). We can compute the probability of each target character yt based on gt with a softmax function:
p(yt | {y1, . . . , yt−1},x) = softmax(gt). (7)
The current problem is that the number of outputs of the first-level decoder is much fewer than the target character sequence. In our model, we use a matrix to unfold the outputs of the first-level decoder, which makes the batch training process more efficient. It is a Ty × T matrix R, where Ty is the number of delimiter (number of words) in the target character sequence and T is the length of the target character sequence. R[i, j1 + 1] to R[i, j2] are set as 1 if j1 is the index of the (i−1)-th delimiter and j2 is the index of the i-th delimiter in the target character sequence. The index of the 0-th delimiter is set as 0. For example, when the target output is “g o ! ” and the output of the first-level decoder is [s1, s2], the unfolding step will be:
[s1, s2] [ 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 ] = [s1, s1, s1, s2, s2],
therefore {si1 , si2 , si3 , si4 , si5} is correspondingly set to {s1, s1, s1, s2, s2} in HGRU iterations. After this procedure, we can compute the probability of each target character by the second-level decoder according to Eqns. (2) to (7).
3.3 Model Architectures
There are totally six recurrent neural networks in our model, which can be divided into four layers as shown in Figure 2. Figure 2 illustrates the training procedure of a basic deep character-level neural
machine translation. It is possible to use multilayer recurrent neural networks to make the model deeper. The first layer is a source word encoder which contains two RNNs as shown in Figure 1. The second layer is a bidirectional RNN sentence encoder which is identical to that of Bahdanau et al. (2015). The third layer is the first-level decoder. It takes the representation of previous target word as a feedback, which is produced by the target word encoder in our model. As the feedback is less important, we use an ordinary RNN to encode the target word. The feedback rYt−1 then combines the previous hidden state ut−1 and the context ct from the sentence encoder to generate the vector st:
st = W1ct +W2rYt−1 +W3ut−1 + b. (8)
With the state of HGRU in the second-level decoder setting to st and the information of previous generated character, the second-level decoder generates the next character until generating an end of sentence token (denoted as 
 in Figure 2). With such a hierarchical architecture, we can train our character-level neural translation model perfectly well in an end-to-end fashion.
3.4 Generation Procedure
We first encode the source sequence as in the training procedure, then we generate the target sequence character by character based on the output st of the first-level decoder. Once we generate a delimiter, we should compute next vector st+1 according to Eqn. (8) by combining feedback rYt from the target word encoder, the context ct+1 from the sentence encoder and the hidden state ut. The generation procedure will terminate once an end of sentence (EOS) token is produced.
4 Experiments
We implement the model using Theano (Bergstra et al., 2010; Bastien et al., 2012) and Blocks (van Merriënboer et al., 2015). We train our model on a single GTX Titan X with 12GB RAM. First we evaluate our model on English-to-French translation task where the languages are morphologically poor. For fair comparison, we use the same dataset as in RNNsearch which is the bilingual, parallel corpora provided by ACL WMT’14. In order to show the strengths of our model, we conduct on the English-to-Czech and Czech-to-English translation tasks where Czech is a morphologically rich language. We use the same dataset as Chung et al.
5
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
Figure 2: Deep character-level neural machine translation. The HGRUs with red border indicate that the state should be set to the output of the first-level decoder.
(2016b) and Lee et al. (2016) which is provided by ACL WMT’151.
4.1 Dataset
We use the parallel corpora for two language pairs from WMT: En-Cs and En-Fr. They consist of 15.8M and 12.1M sentence pairs, respectively. In terms of preprocessing, we only apply the usual tokenization. We choose a list of 120 most frequent characters for each language which coveres nearly 100% of the training data. Those characters not included in the list are mapped to a special token (<unk>). We use newstest2013 (Dev) as the development set and evaluate the models on newstest2015 (Test). We do not use any monolingual corpus.
4.2 Training Details
We follow Bahdanau et al. (2015) to use similar hyperparameters. The bidirectional RNN sentence encoder and the hierarchical decoder both consists of two-layer RNNs, each has 1024 hidden units; We choose 120 most frequent characters for DCNMT and the character embedding dimensionality is 64. The source word is encoded into a 600-dimensional
1http://www.statmt.org/wmt15/translation-task.html
vector. The other GRUs in our model have 512 hidden units.
We use the ADAM optimizer (Kingma and Ba, 2015) with minibatch of 56 sentences to train each model (for En-Fr we use a minibatch of 72 examples). The learning rate is first set to 10−3 and then annealed to 10−4.
We use a beam search to find a translation that approximately maximizes the conditional logprobability which is a commonly used approach in neural machine translation (Sutskever et al., 2014; Bahdanau et al., 2015). In our DCNMT model, it is reasonable to search directly on character level to generate a translation.
5 Result and Analysis
We conduct comparison of quantitative results on the En-Fr, En-Cs and Cs-En translation tasks in Section 5.1. Apart from measuring translation quality, we analyze the efficiency of our model and effects of character-level modeling in more details.
5.1 Quantitative Results
We illustrate the efficiency of the deep characterlevel neural machine translation by comparing with the bpe-based subword model (Sennrich et al.,
6
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
2016) and other character-level models. We measure the performance by BLEU score (Papineni et al., 2002).
In Table 1, “Length” indicates the maximum sentence length in training (based on the number of words or characters), “Size” is the total number of parameters in the models. The only difference between CNMT and DCNMT is CNMT uses an ordinary RNN to encode source words (takes the last hidden state). For each test set, the best scores among the models per language pair are bold-faced. Obviously, character-level models are better than the subword-level models, and our model is comparable to the start-of-the-art character-level models. Note that, the purely character model of (5) (Luong and Manning, 2016) took 3 months to train and yielded +0.5 BLEU points compared to our result. We have analyzed the efficiency of our decoder in Section 3.2. Though our model consists of six RNNs, our model is the simplest and the smallest one in terms of the model size. Thus, our model is efficient to train as shown in Table 1.
5.2 Learning Morphology
In this section, we investigate whether our model could learn morphology.
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 -2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
← notable
← notability
← solvable
← solvability
← reliable
← reliability
← capable
← capability
← flexible ← flexibility
← possible ← possibility
(a) ordinary RNN word encoder
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 -2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
← notable
← notability
← solvable
← solvability
← reliable ← reliability
← capable ← capability
← flexible ← flexibility
← possible ← possibility
(b) our word encoder
Figure 3: Two-dimensional PCA projection of the 600-dimensional representation of the words.
First we want to figure out the difference between an ordinary RNN word encoder and our word encoder. We choose some words with similar meaning but different in morphology as shown in Figure 3. We could find in Figure 3(a) that the words ending with “ability”, which are encoded by the ordinary RNN word encoder, are jammed together. In contrast, the representations produced by our encoder are more reasonable and the words with similar meaning are closer. Compared with the CNN word encoder (Kim et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2016), the RNN word encoder in our model is able to generate a meaningful representation of the word. In order to obtain such meaningful representations of words, we need the explicit segmentation which indicates the boundary of words.
Then we analyze how our word encoder learns morphemes and the rules of how they are combined. We demonstrate the encoding details on “any*” and “every*”. Figure 4(a) shows the energy of each character, more precisely, the energy of preceding characters. We could see that the last character of a morpheme will result a relative large energy (weight) like “any” and “every” in these words. Moreover, even the preceding characters are different, it will produce a similar weight for the same morpheme like “way” in “anyway” and “everyway”. The two-dimensional PCA projection
7
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
Model Size Src Trgt Length Epochs Days Dev Test
E n-
Fr bpe2bpe(1) - bpe bpe 50 50 - - 26.91 29.70
C2W(2) ∼ 54 M char char 300 300 ∼ 2.8 ∼ 27 25.89 27.04 CNMT ∼ 52 M char char 300 300 ∼ 3.8 ∼ 21 28.19 29.38
DCNMT ∼ 54 M char char 300 300 1 ∼ 7 27.02 28.13 ∼ 2.8 ∼ 19 29.31 30.56
E n-
C s
bpe2bpe(1) - bpe bpe 50 50 - - 15.90 13.84 bpe2char(3) ∼ 76 M bpe char 50 500 - - - 16.86
char(5) - char char 600 600 > 4 ∼ 90 - 17.5
DCNMT ∼ 54 M char char 450 450 1 ∼ 5 15.50 14.87 ∼ 2.9 ∼ 15 17.89 16.96
C s-
E n bpe2bpe(1) - bpe bpe 50 50 - - 21.24 20.32 bpe2char(3) ∼ 76 M bpe char 50 500 ∼ 6.1 ∼ 14 23.27 22.42 char2char(4) ∼ 69 M char char 450 450 ∼ 7.9 ∼ 30 23.38 22.46
DCNMT ∼ 54 M char char 450 450 1 ∼ 5 20.50 19.75 ∼ 4.6 ∼ 22 23.24 22.48
Table 1: BLEU scores of different models on three language pairs. We report the BLEU scores of DCNMT when trained after one epoch in the above line and the final scores in the following line. The results of other models are taken from (1) Firat et al. (2016), (3) Chung et al. (2016b), (4) Lee et al. (2016) and (5) Luong and Manning (2016) respectively, except (2) is trained according to Ling et al. (2015b). The training efficiency of each model is compared in terms of training epochs and training days.
in Figure 4(b) further validates our idea. The word encoder may be able to guess the meaning of “everything” even it had never seen “everything” before, thus speedup learning. More interestingly, we find that not only the ending letter has high energy, but also the beginning letter is important. It matches the behavior of human perception (White et al., 2008).
Moreover, we apply our trained word encoder to Penn Treebank Line 1. Unlike Chung et al. (2016a), we are able to detect the boundary of the subword units. As shown in Figure 5, “consumers”, “monday”, “football” and “greatest” are segmented into “consum-er-s”,“mon-day”, “foot-ball” and “greatest” respectively. Since there are no explicit delimiters, it may be more difficult to detect the subword units.
5.3 Benefiting from learning morphology
As analyzed in Section 5.2, learning morphology could speedup learning. This has also been shown in Table 1 (En-Fr and En-Cs task) from which we see that when we train our model just for one epoch, the obtained result even outperforms the final result with bpe baseline.
Another advantage of our model is the ability to translate the misspelled words or the nonce words. The character-level model has a much better chance recovering the original word or sentence. In Table 2, we list some examples where the source sentences are taken from newstest2013 but we change some words to misspelled words or nonce words. We also list the translations from Google translate2 and online demo of neural machine translation by LISA.
As listed in Table 2(a), DCNMT is able to translate out the misspelled words correctly. For a wordbased translator, it is never possible because the misspelled words are mapped into <unk> token before translating. Thus, it will produce an <unk> token or just take the word from source sentence (Gulcehre et al., 2016; Luong et al., 2015). More interestingly, DCNMT could translate “convenienter” correctly as shown in Table 2(b). By concatenating “convenient” and “er”, we get the comparative adjective form of “convenient” which never appears in the training set; however, our model guessed it
2The translations by Google translate were made on February 2, 2017.
8
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
peak
energy c o n s u me r s ma y wa n t t o mo v e t h e i r t e l e p h o n e s a l i t t l e c l o s e r t o t h e t v s e t < u n k > < u n k > wa t c h i n g
peak
energy a b c ' s mo n d a y n i g h t f o o t b a l l c a n n o w v o t e d u r i n g < u n k > f o r t h e g r e a t e s t p l a y i n N y e a r s f r o m
peak
energy a mo n g f o u r o r f i v e < u n k > < u n k > t w o w e e k s a g o v i e w e r s o f s e v e r a l n b c < u n k > c o n s u me r s e g me n t s
Figure 5: Subword-level boundary detected by our word encoder.
(a) Misspelled words
Source For the time being howeve their research is unconclusive.
Reference Leurs recherches ne sont toutefois pas concluantes pour l’instant.
Google translate Pour l’instant, leurs recherches ne sont pas concluantes.
LISA Pour le moment UNK leur recherche est UNK.
DCNMT Pour le moment, cependant, leur recherche n’est pas concluante.
(b) Nonce words (morphological change)
Source Then we will be able to supplement the real world with virtual objects in a much convenienter form .
Reference Ainsi , nous pourrons complter le monde rel par des objets virtuels dans une forme plus pratique .
Google translate Ensuite, nous serons en mesure de complter le monde rel avec des objets virtuels dans une forme beaucoup plus pratique.
LISA Ensuite, nous serons en mesure de complter le vrai monde avec des objets virtuels sous une forme bien UNK.
DCNMT Ensuite, nous serons en mesure de complter le monde rel avec des objets virtuels dans une forme beaucoup plus pratique.
Table 2: Sample translations. The word-level model is unable to recognize the misspelled words. Our model has a much better chance to recover the original word.
correctly based on the morphemes and the rules. More sample translations are provided in the supplementary material.
6 Conclusion
In this paper we have proposed an hierarchical architecture to train the deep character-level neural machine translation model by introducing a novel word encoder and a multi-leveled decoder. We have demonstrated the efficiency of the training process and the effectiveness of the model in comparison with the word-level and other characterlevel models. The BLEU score implies that our deep character-level neural machine translation model likely outperforms the word-level models and is competitive with the state-of-the-art character-based models. It is possible to further improve performance by using deeper recurrent net-
works (Wu et al., 2016), training for more epochs and training with longer sentence pairs.
As a result of the character-level modeling, we have solved the out-of-vocabulary (OOV) issue that word-level models suffer from, and we have obtained a new functionality to translate the misspelled or the nonce words. More importantly, the deep character-level model is able to learn the similar embedding of the words with similar meanings like the word-level models. Finally, it would be potentially possible that the idea behind our approach could be applied to many other tasks such as speech recognition and text summarization.
9
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899

Review:
- Strengths: In general, the paper is well structured and clear. It is possible to follow most of the explanation, the ideas presented are original and the results obtained are quite interesting.  - Weaknesses: I have some doubts about the interpretation of the results. In addition, I think that some of the claims regarding the capability of the method proposed to learn morphology are not propperly backed by scientific evidence.  - General Discussion:  This paper explores a complex architecture for character-level neural machine translation (NMT). The proposed architecture extends a classical encoder-decoder architecture by adding a new deep word-encoding layer capable of encoding the character-level input into sub-word representations of the source-language sentence. In the same way, a deep word-decoding layer is added to the output to transform the target-language sub-word representations into a character sequence as the final output of the NMT system. The objective of such architecture is to take advantage of the benefits of character-level NMT (reduction of the size of the vocabulary and flexibility to deal with unseen words) and, at the same time, improving the performance of the whole system by using an intermediate representation of sub-words to reduce the size of the input sequence of characters. In addition, the authors claim that their deep word-encoding model is able to learn morphology better than other state-of-the-art approaches.  I have some concerns regarding the evaluation. The authors compare their approach to other state-of-the-art systems taking into account two parameters: training time and BLEU score. However, I do not clearly see the advantage of the model proposed (DCNMT) in front of other approaches such as bpe2char. The difference between both approaches as regards BLEU score is very small (0.04 in Cs-En and 0.1 in En-Cs) and it is hard to say if one of them is outperforming the other one without statistical significance information: has statistical significance been evaluated? As regards the training time, it is worth mentioning that the bpe2char for Cs-En takes 8 days less than DCNMT. For En-Cs training time is not provided (why not?) and for En-Fr bpe2char is not evaluated. I think that a more complete comparison with this system should be carried out to prove the advantages of the model proposed.  My second concern is on the 5.2 Section, where authors start claiming that they investigated about the ability of their system to learn morphology. However, the section only contains a examples and some comments on them. Even though these examples are very well chosen and explained in a very didactic way, it is worth noting that no experiments or formal evaluation seem to have been carried out to support the claims of the authors. I would definitely encourage authors to extend this very interesting part of the paper that could even become a different paper itself. On the other hand, this Section does not seem to be a critical point of the paper, so for the current work I may suggest just to move this section to an appendix and soften some of the claims done regarding the capabilities of the system to learn morphology.  Other comments, doubts and suggestions:   - There are many acronyms that are used but are not defined (such as LSTM, HGRU, CNN or PCA) or which are defined after starting to use them (such as RNN or BPE). Even though some of these acronyms are well known in the field of deep learning, I would encourage the authors to defined them to improve clearness.   - The concept of energy is mentioned for the first time in Section 3.1. Even though the explanation provided is enough at that point, it would be nice to refresh the idea of energy in Section 5.2 (where it is used several times) and providing some hints about how to interpret it: a high energy on a character would be indicating that the current morpheme should be split at that point? In addition, the concept of peak (in Figure 5) is not described.   - When the acronym BPE is defined, capital letters are used, but then, for the rest of mentions it is lower cased; is there a reason for this?   - I am not sure if it is necessary to say that no monolingual corpus is used in Section 4.1.   - It seems that there is something wrong with Figure 4a since the colours for the energy values are not shown for every character.   - In Table 1, the results for model (3) (Chung et al. 2016) for Cs-En were not taken from the papers, since they are not reported. If the authors computed these results by themselves (as it seems) they should mention it.   - I would not say that French is morphologically poor, but rather that it is not that rich as Slavic languages such as Czech.   - Why a link is provided for WMT'15 training corpora but not for WMT'14?   - Several references are incomplete  Typos:    -  ..is the bilingual, parallel corpora provided...  to  ..are the bilingual, parallel corpora provided...     -  Luong and Manning (2016) uses  to  Luong and Manning (2016) use     -  HGRU (It is  to  HGRU (it is     -  coveres  to  covers     -  both consists of two-layer RNN, each has 1024  to  both consist of two-layer RNN, each have 1024     -  the only difference between CNMT and DCNMT is CNMT  to  the only difference between CNMT and DCNMT is that CNMT