On the Linguistic Representational Power of Neural Machine Translation Models
November 01, 2019 ยท Declared Dead ยท ๐ International Conference on Computational Logic
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Yonatan Belinkov, Nadir Durrani, Fahim Dalvi, Hassan Sajjad, James Glass
arXiv ID
1911.00317
Category
cs.CL: Computation & Language
Citations
75
Venue
International Conference on Computational Logic
Last Checked
4 months ago
Abstract
Despite the recent success of deep neural networks in natural language processing (NLP), their interpretability remains a challenge. We analyze the representations learned by neural machine translation models at various levels of granularity and evaluate their quality through relevant extrinsic properties. In particular, we seek answers to the following questions: (i) How accurately is word-structure captured within the learned representations, an important aspect in translating morphologically-rich languages? (ii) Do the representations capture long-range dependencies, and effectively handle syntactically divergent languages? (iii) Do the representations capture lexical semantics? We conduct a thorough investigation along several parameters: (i) Which layers in the architecture capture each of these linguistic phenomena; (ii) How does the choice of translation unit (word, character, or subword unit) impact the linguistic properties captured by the underlying representations? (iii) Do the encoder and decoder learn differently and independently? (iv) Do the representations learned by multilingual NMT models capture the same amount of linguistic information as their bilingual counterparts? Our data-driven, quantitative evaluation illuminates important aspects in NMT models and their ability to capture various linguistic phenomena. We show that deep NMT models learn a non-trivial amount of linguistic information. Notable findings include: i) Word morphology and part-of-speech information are captured at the lower layers of the model; (ii) In contrast, lexical semantics or non-local syntactic and semantic dependencies are better represented at the higher layers; (iii) Representations learned using characters are more informed about wordmorphology compared to those learned using subword units; and (iv) Representations learned by multilingual models are richer compared to bilingual models.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
๐ Similar Papers
In the same crypt โ Computation & Language
๐
๐
Old Age
๐
๐
Old Age
BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding
๐
๐
Old Age
XLNet: Generalized Autoregressive Pretraining for Language Understanding
๐ฎ
๐ฎ
The Ethereal
Effective Approaches to Attention-based Neural Machine Translation
๐
๐
Old Age
A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference
๐
๐
Old Age
HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence?
Died the same way โ ๐ป Ghosted
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted