Mode recovery in neural autoregressive sequence modeling
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Despite its wide use, recent studies have revealed unexpected and undesirable properties of neural autoregressive sequence models trained with maximum likelihood, such as an unreasonably high affinity to short sequences after training and to infinitely long sequences at decoding time. We propose to study these phenomena by investigating how the modes, or local maxima, of a distribution are maintained throughout the full learning chain of the ground-truth, empirical, learned and decoding-induced distributions, via the newly proposed mode recovery cost. We design a tractable testbed where we build three types of ground-truth distributions: (1) an LSTM based structured distribution, (2) an unstructured distribution where probability of a sequence does not depend on its content, and (3) a product of these two which we call a semi-structured distribution. Our study reveals both expected and unexpected findings. First, starting with data collection, mode recovery cost strongly relies on the ground-truth distribution and is most costly with the semi-structured distribution. Second, after learning, mode recovery cost from the ground-truth distribution may increase or decrease compared to data collection, with the largest cost degradation occurring with the semi-structured ground-truth distribution. Finally, the ability of the decoding-induced distribution to recover modes from the learned distribution is highly impacted by the choices made earlier in the learning chain. We conclude that future research must consider the entire learning chain in order to fully understand the potentials and perils and to further improve neural autoregressive sequence models.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 23 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Jun 2021.
Builds on
20 of 23 references.
References · 20
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
- 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 36,960
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
- 2016Pointer Sentinel Mixture Modelscited by 2,992
- 2019The Curious Case of Neural Text Degenerationcited by 2,881
- 2015Improving Neural Machine Translation Models with Monolingual Datacited by 784
- 2016Sequence-Level Knowledge Distillationcited by 761
- 2020Recipes for building an open-domain chatbotcited by 593
- 2019Neural Text Generation with Unlikelihood Trainingcited by 489
- 2019Massively Multilingual Neural Machine Translationcited by 246
- 2020Is MAP Decoding All You Need? The Inadequacy of the Mode in Neural Machine Translationcited by 137
- 2018Correcting Length Bias in Neural Machine Translationcited by 119
8 more
- 2019On NMT Search Errors and Model Errors: Cat Got Your Tongue?cited by 114
- 2020Residual Energy-Based Models for Text Generationcited by 95
- 2020Consistency of a Recurrent Language Model With Respect to Incomplete Decodingcited by 54
- 2016Globally Normalized Transition-Based Neural Networkscited by 26
- 2020Sparse Text Generationcited by 24
- 2016Length bias in Encoder Decoder Models and a Case for Global Conditioningcited by 14
- 2020Why Neural Machine Translation Prefers Empty Outputscited by 6
- 2020MLE-guided parameter search for task loss minimization in neural sequence modelingcited by 4
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2022: 1.
1 paper.