Paper:
Latent Alignment and Variational Attention
Neural attention has become central to many state-of-the-art models in natural language processing and related domains. Attention networks are an easy-to-train and effective method for softly simulating alignment; however, the approach does not marginalize over latent alignments in a probabilistic sense. This property makes it difficult to compare attention to other alignment approaches, to compose it with probabilistic models, and to perform posterior inference conditioned on observed data. A related latent approach, hard attention, fixes these issues, but is generally harder to train and less accurate. This work considers variational attention networks, alternatives to soft and hard attention for learning latent variable alignment models, with tighter approximation bounds based on amortized variational inference. We further propose methods for reducing the variance of gradients to make these approaches computationally feasible. Experiments show that for machine translation and visual question answering, inefficient exact latent variable models outperform standard neural attention, but these gains go away when using hard attention based training. On the other hand, variational attention retains most of the performance gain but with training speed comparable to neural attention.

Review:
Update based on author rebuttal: I believe the authors have addressed the main criticisms of this paper (not clear how it's different from prior work) and have also provided additional experiments. I've raised my score accordingly.  This paper focuses on using variational inference to train models with a "latent" (stochastic) attention mechanism. They consider attention as a categorical or dirichlet random variable, and explore using posterior inference on alignment decisions. They test various approaches on NMT and visual question answering datasets.  Overall, this was an interesting paper exploring some unusual methods for training models with stochastic/discrete attention. As discussed by the paper, the main reasons to explore this approach are 1) the possibility of improved performance and 2) better interpretability.  The paper achieves 1) to a reasonable degree - in both NMT and VQA the latent attention-based models are able to improve over standard softmax attention, though to a limited degree. It's not possible to compare the NMT results to most results in the literature as the experiments were done on IWSLT instead of WMT, but this paper is more structured as an exploration of different ways to train latent attention models rather than an attempt at state-of-the-art. I don't think the paper suitably addresses 2). Only Figure 2 really explores whether the alignments are more interpretable, and only to a limited degree.  In prior work (Xu et al.) it was shown that while hard attention can produce better results, the alignments can actually be *less* interpretable. I would urge the authors to either more rigorously back up their claim that hard attention is more interpretable, or temper their claims somewhat. Finally, in various places in the paper it is pointed out that Ba et al. and Lawson et al. have both previously explored variational inference approaches for training attention-based models, but no direct comparison to those techniques is presented. If any of the methods explored subsume those approaches and I just missed this connection, then I would suggest making the connection stronger and more broadly providing a better comparison of the approaches and results in this paper to those in prior work.  Some minor comments:  - "While more principled..." Is it really more principled (as if there's a definition for "more principled")? I find this statement somewhat objectionable. There are many neural network mechanisms which improve performance or are genuinely useful for reasons separate from whether they can be treated as a latent variable. I think the primary reason people use attention is because it's helpful (probably because of gradient dynamics or otherwise), and it just so happens to be interpretable too. People also use model weights, activations, etc. for interpretability reasons but this doesn't imply it would be more principled (or helpful) to treat them as latent variables.  - "may improve system" -> "may improve systems"  - "Our method uses uses different" -> "Our method uses different"  - "f(x, z) could use z to pick from x" Wouldn't it make more sense to say "f(x, z) could use z to pick from X"?  - "this may does prevent" -> "may prevent"  - "domain structure to for the" -> "domain structure for the"