Dynamic Scheduled Sampling with Imitation Loss for Neural Text Generation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
State-of-the-art neural text generation models are typically trained to maximize the likelihood of each token in the ground-truth sequence conditioned on the previous target tokens. However, during inference, the model needs to make a prediction conditioned on the tokens generated by itself. This train-test discrepancy is referred to as exposure bias. Scheduled sampling is a curriculum learning strategy that gradually exposes the model to its own predictions during training to mitigate this bias. Most of the proposed approaches design a scheduler based on training steps, which generally requires careful tuning depending on the training setup. In this work, we introduce Dynamic Scheduled Sampling with Imitation Loss (DySI), which maintains the schedule based solely on the training time accuracy, while enhancing the curriculum learning by introducing an imitation loss, which attempts to make the behavior of the decoder indistinguishable from the behavior of a teacher-forced decoder. DySI is universally applicable across training setups with minimal tuning. Extensive experiments and analysis show that DySI not only achieves notable improvements on standard machine translation benchmarks, but also significantly improves the robustness of other text generation models.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 40 of its 58 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 31 Jan 2023.
Builds on
40 of 58 references.
References · 40
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
- 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,266
- 2015Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Networkcited by 10,076
- 2019BART: Denoising Sequence-to-Sequence Pre-training for Natural Language Generation, Translation, and Comprehensioncited by 5,874
- 2014Neural Machine Translation by Jointly Learning to Align and Translatecited by 4,530
- 2016Pointer Sentinel Mixture Modelscited by 2,992
- 2015Neural Machine Translation of Rare Words with Subword Unitscited by 2,898
- 2019The Curious Case of Neural Text Degenerationcited by 2,881
- 2018A Call for Clarity in Reporting BLEU Scorescited by 1,790
- 2020RealToxicityPrompts: Evaluating Neural Toxic Degeneration in Language Modelscited by 1,235
28 more
- 2022LaMDA: Language Models for Dialog Applicationscited by 1,218
- 2020BLEURT: Learning Robust Metrics for Text Generationcited by 1,196
- 2019PEGASUS: Pre-training with Extracted Gap-sentences for Abstractive Summarizationcited by 1,100
- 2020COMET: A Neural Framework for MT Evaluationcited by 1,024
- 2019When Does Label Smoothing Help?cited by 985
- 2017Adversarial Examples for Evaluating Reading Comprehension Systemscited by 568
- 2018Born Again Neural Networkscited by 539
- 2019Neural Text Generation with Unlikelihood Trainingcited by 489
- 2021MAUVE: Measuring the Gap Between Neural Text and Human Text using Divergence Frontierscited by 466
- 2016SeqGAN: Sequence Generative Adversarial Nets with Policy Gradientcited by 375
- 2016Professor Forcing: A New Algorithm for Training Recurrent Networkscited by 214
- 2019Pay Less Attention with Lightweight and Dynamic Convolutionscited by 211
- 2018Scaling Neural Machine Translationcited by 204
- 2018Analyzing Uncertainty in Neural Machine Translationcited by 126
- 2019Bridging the Gap between Training and Inference for Neural Machine Translationcited by 123
- 2022Controllable Natural Language Generation with Contrastive Prefixescited by 75
- 2020Text Generation by Learning from Demonstrationscited by 64
- 2018The price of debiasing automatic metrics in natural language evaluationcited by 60
- 2018MTNT: A Testbed for Machine Translation of Noisy Textcited by 54
- 2017Adversarial Ranking for Language Generationcited by 50
- 2019Scheduled Sampling for Transformerscited by 46
- 2019Exposure Bias versus Self-Recovery: Are Distortions Really Incremental for Autoregressive Text Generation?cited by 33
- 2021Straight to the Gradient: Learning to Use Novel Tokens for Neural Text Generationcited by 19
- 2019Parallel Scheduled Samplingcited by 17
- 2021Scheduled Sampling Based on Decoding Steps for Neural Machine Translationcited by 11
- 2021Confidence-Aware Scheduled Sampling for Neural Machine Translationcited by 10
- 2020TeaForN: Teacher-Forcing with N-gramscited by 9
- 2021Mixed Cross Entropy Loss for Neural Machine Translationcited by 8
Built on by
Not cited yet.