Not All Neural Embeddings are Born Equal

Neural language models learn word representations that capture rich linguistic and conceptual information. Here we investigate the embeddings learned by neural machine translation models. We show that translation-based embeddings outperform those learned by cutting-edge monolingual models at single-language tasks requiring knowledge of conceptual similarity and/or syntactic role. The findings suggest that, while monolingual models learn information about how concepts are related, neural-translation models better capture their true ontological status. It is well known that word representations can be learned from the distributional patterns in corpora. Originally, such representations were constructed by counting word co-occurrences, so that the features in one word’s representation corresponded to other words [11, 17]. Neural language models, an alternative means to learn word representations, use language data to optimise (latent) features with respect to a language modelling objective. The objective can be to predict either the next word given the initial words of a sentence [4, 14, 8], or simply a nearby word given a single cue word [13, 15]. The representations learned by neural models (sometimes called embeddings) generally outperform those acquired by co-occurrence counting models when applied to NLP tasks [3]. Despite these clear results, it is not well understood how the architecture of neural models affects the information encoded in their embeddings. Here, we explore this question by considering the embeddings learned by architectures with a very different objective function to monolingual language models: neural machine translation models. We show that translation-based embeddings outperform monolingual embeddings on two types of task: those that require knowledge of conceptual similarity (rather than simply association or relatedness), and those that require knowledge of syntactic role. We discuss what the findings indicate about the information content of different embeddings, and suggest how this content might emerge as a consequence of the translation objective. 1 Learning embeddings from language data Both neural language models and translation models learn real-valued embeddings (of specified dimension) for words in some pre-specified vocabulary, V , covering many or all words in their training corpus. At each training step, a ‘score’ for the current training example (or batch) is computed based on the embeddings in their current state. This score is compared to the model’s objective function, and the error is backpropagated to update both the model weights (affecting how the score is computed from the embeddings) and the embedding features. At the end of this process, the embeddings should encode information that enables the model to optimally satisfy its objective. 1.1 Monolingual models In the original neural language model [4] and subsequent variants [8], each training example consists of n subsequent words, of which the model is trained to predict the n-th word given the first n − 1 ar X iv :1 41 0. 07 18 v2 [ cs .C L ] 1 3 N ov 2 01 4 1 words. The model first represents the input as an ordered sequence of embeddings, which it transforms into a single fixed length ‘hidden’ representation by, e.g., concatenation and non-linear projection. Based on this representation, a probability distribution is computed over the vocabulary, from which the model can sample a guess at the next word. The model weights and embeddings are updated to maximise the probability of correct guesses for all sentences in the training corpus. More recent work has shown that high quality word embeddings can be learned via models with no nonlinear hidden layer [13, 15]. Given a single word in the corpus, these models simply predict which other words will occur nearby. For each word w in V , a list of training cases (w, c) : c ∈ V is extracted from the training corpus. For instance, in the skipgram approach [13], for each ‘cue word’ w the ‘context words’ c are sampled from windows either side of tokens of w in the corpus (with c more likely to be sampled if it occurs closer to w).1 For each w in V , the model initialises both a cue-embedding, representing the w when it occurs as a cue-word, and a context-embedding, used when w occurs as a context-word. For a cue word w, the model can use the corresponding cueembedding and all context-embeddings to compute a probability distribution over V that reflects the probability of a word occurring in the context of w. When a training example (w, c) is observed, the model updates both the cue-word embedding of w and the context-word embeddings in order to increase the conditional probability of c. 1.2 Translation-based embeddings Neural translation models generate an appropriate sentence in their target language St given a sentence Ss in their source language [see, e.g., 16, 6]. In doing so, they learn distinct sets of embeddings for the vocabularies Vs and Vt in the source and target languages respectively. Observing a training case (Ss, St), such a model represents Ss as an ordered sequence of embeddings of words from Vs. The sequence for Ss is then encoded into a single representation RS .2 Finally, by referencing the embeddings in Vt, RS and a representation of what has been generated thus far, the model decodes a sentence in the target language word by word. If at any stage the decoded word does not match the corresponding word in the training target St, the error is recorded. The weights and embeddings in the model, which together parameterise the encoding and decoding process, are updated based on the accumulated error once the sentence decoding is complete. Although neural translation models can differ in low-level architecture [7, 2], the translation objective exerts similar pressure on the embeddings in all cases. The source language embeddings must be such that the model can combine them to form single representations for ordered sequences of multiple words (which in turn must enable the decoding process). The target language embeddings must facilitate the process of decoding these representations into correct target-language sentences. 2 Comparing Mono-lingual and Translation-based Embeddings To learn translation-based embeddings, we trained both the RNN encoder-decoder [RNNenc, 7] and the RNN Search architectures [2] on a 300m word corpus of English-French sentence pairs. We conducted all experiments with the resulting (English) source embeddings from these models. For comparison, we trained a monolingual skipgram model [13] and its Glove variant [15] for the same number of epochs on the English half of the bilingual corpus. We also extracted embeddings from a full-sentence language model [CW, 8] trained for several months on a larger 1bn word corpus. As in previous studies [1, 5, 3], we evaluate embeddings by calculating pairwise (cosine) distances and correlating these distances with (gold-standard) human judgements. Table 1 shows the correlations of different model embeddings with three such gold-standard resources, WordSim-353 [1], MEN [5] and SimLex-999 [10]. Interestingly, translation embeddings perform best on SimLex-999, while the two sets of monolingual embeddings perform better on modelling the MEN and WordSim353. To interpret these results, it should be noted that SimLex-999 evaluation quantifies conceptual similarity (dog wolf ), whereas MEN and WordSim-353 (despite its name) quantify more general relatedness (dog collar) [10]. The results seem to indicate that translation-based embeddings better capture similarity, while monolingual embeddings better capture relatedness. 1 Subsequent variants use different algorithms for selecting the (w, c) from the training corpus [9, 12] Alternatively, subsequences (phrases) of Ss may be encoded at this stage in place of the whole sentence [2].