Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
97 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
53 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
44 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
5 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Hard Non-Monotonic Attention for Character-Level Transduction (1808.10024v3)

Published 29 Aug 2018 in cs.CL

Abstract: Character-level string-to-string transduction is an important component of various NLP tasks. The goal is to map an input string to an output string, where the strings may be of different lengths and have characters taken from different alphabets. Recent approaches have used sequence-to-sequence models with an attention mechanism to learn which parts of the input string the model should focus on during the generation of the output string. Both soft attention and hard monotonic attention have been used, but hard non-monotonic attention has only been used in other sequence modeling tasks such as image captioning (Xu et al., 2015), and has required a stochastic approximation to compute the gradient. In this work, we introduce an exact, polynomial-time algorithm for marginalizing over the exponential number of non-monotonic alignments between two strings, showing that hard attention models can be viewed as neural reparameterizations of the classical IBM Model 1. We compare soft and hard non-monotonic attention experimentally and find that the exact algorithm significantly improves performance over the stochastic approximation and outperforms soft attention. Code is available at https://github. com/shijie-wu/neural-transducer.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (31)
  1. Roee Aharoni and Yoav Goldberg. 2017. Morphological inflection generation with hard monotonic attention. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2004–2015, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  2. Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate. In International Conference on Learning Representations, volume abs/1409.0473.
  3. A neural probabilistic language model. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3:1137–1155.
  4. The mathematics of statistical machine translation: Parameter estimation. Computational Linguistics, 19(2):263–311.
  5. Strategies for training large vocabulary neural language models. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1975–1985, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  6. Incorporating structural alignment biases into an attentional neural translation model. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 876–885, San Diego, California. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  7. CoNLL-SIGMORPHON 2017 shared task: Universal morphological reinflection in 52 languages. In Proceedings of the CoNLL SIGMORPHON 2017 Shared Task: Universal Morphological Reinflection, pages 1–30, Vancouver. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  8. Jeffrey L. Elman. 1990. Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science, 14(2):179–211.
  9. Joshua Goodman. 2001. Classes for fast maximum entropy training. In IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing Proceedings, volume 1, pages 561–564. IEEE.
  10. Efficient softmax approximation for GPUs. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 1302–1310.
  11. Michael Gutmann and Aapo Hyvärinen. 2010. Noise-contrastive estimation: A new estimation principle for unnormalized statistical models. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 297–304.
  12. Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 1997. Long short-term memory. Neural Computation, 9(8):1735–1780.
  13. Katharina Kann and Hinrich Schütze. 2016. Single-model encoder-decoder with explicit morphological representation for reinflection. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 555–560, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  14. Diederick P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2015. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In International Conference on Learning Representations.
  15. Philipp Koehn. 2009. Statistical Machine Translation. Cambridge University Press.
  16. Moses: Open source toolkit for statistical machine translation. In Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics Companion Volume Proceedings of the Demo and Poster Sessions, pages 177–180, Prague, Czech Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  17. Effective approaches to attention-based neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1412–1421, Lisbon, Portugal. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  18. Automatic differentiation in PyTorch. In Autodiff Workshop (NeurIPs 2017 Workshop).
  19. Lawrence R. Rabiner. 1989. A tutorial on hidden Markov models and selected applications in speech recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE, 77(2):257–286.
  20. Weighting finite-state transductions with neural context. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 623–633, San Diego, California. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  21. Kenneth L. Rehg and Damian G. Sohl. 1981. Ponapean Reference Grammar. University of Hawaii Press.
  22. Mihaela Rosca and Thomas Breuel. 2016. Sequence-to-sequence neural network models for transliteration. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.09565.
  23. Terrence J. Sejnowski and Charles R. Rosenberg. 1987. Parallel networks that learn to pronounce English text. Complex Systems, 1.
  24. Xing Shi and Kevin Knight. 2017. Speeding up neural machine translation decoding by shrinking run-time vocabulary. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 574–579, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  25. Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing, pages 3104–3112.
  26. HMM-based word alignment in statistical translation. In COLING 1996 Volume 2: The 16th International Conference on Computational Linguistics.
  27. R. L. Weide. 1998. The Carnegie Mellon pronouncing dictionary.
  28. Ronald J. Williams. 1992. Simple statistical gradient-following algorithms for connectionist reinforcement learning. In Reinforcement Learning, pages 5–32. Springer.
  29. Show, attend and tell: Neural image caption generation with visual attention. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 2048–2057.
  30. Kaisheng Yao and Geoffrey Zweig. 2015. Sequence-to-sequence neural net models for grapheme-to-phoneme conversion. In INTERSPEECH, pages 3330–3334, Dresden, Germany.
  31. Whitepaper of NEWS 2015 shared task on machine transliteration. In Proceedings of the Fifth Named Entity Workshop, pages 1–9, Beijing, China. Association for Computational Linguistics.
User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (3)
  1. Shijie Wu (23 papers)
  2. Pamela Shapiro (4 papers)
  3. Ryan Cotterell (226 papers)
Citations (42)

Summary

  • The paper’s main contribution is a dynamic programming algorithm that exactly marginalizes over exponential alignment possibilities to enhance character-level transduction.
  • It demonstrates that hard non-monotonic attention outperforms traditional soft attention with superior word accuracy and lower edit distances across NLP tasks.
  • The method offers clearer alignment visualization and sets the stage for applying deterministic inference in broader neural sequence modeling applications.

Essay on Hard Non-Monotonic Attention for Character-Level Transduction

The paper "Hard Non-Monotonic Attention for Character-Level Transduction" authored by Shijie Wu, Pamela Shapiro, and Ryan Cotterell, presents a novel approach to character-level string-to-string transduction tasks in NLP through a hard non-monotonic attention mechanism. This mechanism introduces an exact, polynomial-time algorithm for marginalizing over the exponential number of potential alignments between two strings, advancing the field by optimizing attention models beyond the stochastic approximations that have traditionally been employed.

Overview

Character-level transduction is a critical component of various NLP tasks such as transliteration, grapheme-to-phoneme conversion, and morphological inflection. Traditional approaches to these tasks often rely on sequence-to-sequence models utilizing soft attention mechanisms. Such mechanisms offer a fuzzy assignment of input to output symbols, lacking the precision numerically necessary for some applications. Hard monotonic attention mechanisms provide more direct symbol-to-symbol mappings but are typically limited to monotonic sequences. The paper distinguishes itself by introducing hard non-monotonic attention, allowing for flexible alignment that captures non-linear symbol relationships without requiring stochastic gradient approximations.

Methodological Insights

Two principal insights are presented in the paper. Firstly, the authors derive a dynamic programming solution to compute the likelihood in neural models with latent hard alignments. This contrasts with the traditional stochastic approximation by providing an efficient polynomial-time algorithm that integrates neatly with neural architectures. Secondly, this model is experimentally compared against soft attention methods, demonstrating superior performance across several character-level transduction tasks, including grapheme-to-phoneme conversion, transliteration, and morphological inflection.

The authors relate the hard attention model to the classical IBM Model 1, framing it as a neural reparameterization with notable improvements in alignment accuracy. The method allows for visualizing alignment distributions more clearly than fuzzy soft attention mechanisms traditionally allowed.

Experimental Results

The empirical evaluations show that models harnessing hard non-monotonic attention outstrip those employing soft attention, with significant improvements in word accuracy and edit distance metrics across multiple languages and tasks. The experiments, designed as controlled comparisons between models with soft attention and hard attention using exact marginalization, underscore the advantages of deterministic inference methods in transduction tasks. Importantly, training with exact marginalization is found to outperform training regimes relying on approximate inference methods such as REINFORCE, highlighting the efficiency and reduced variance benefits of the authors' approach.

Implications and Future Directions

Practically, the results imply that NLP systems tasked with transduction can achieve higher consistency and precision when employing hard non-monotonic attention mechanisms. Theoretically, this work opens new avenues for understanding alignment models within neural sequence architectures, suggesting that future systems could benefit from similar deterministic approaches in applications like machine translation, once computational efficiency barriers are addressed.

The insights reveal potential for extending the methods to richer models akin to IBM Model 2 and the HMM alignment model, offering fertile ground for further research. Future work could explore adaptations of this technique to machine translation tasks, particularly through the development of efficient softmax approximations, given the scalability constraints identified in current models.

In conclusion, the paper provides a sound methodological advancement in the domain of character-level NLP transduction, presenting a compelling case for the adoption of hard non-monotonic attention models. Such models will likely continue to influence future research and system development in NLP, particularly those focusing on tasks requiring precise symbol-level alignment.