Cited by 37Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesSpeech Recognition and Synthesis

Differentiable Scheduled Sampling for Credit Assignment

Open access
Goyal, Kartik, Dyer, Chris, Berg-Kirkpatrick, Taylor·2017·Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers)

Abstract

We demonstrate that a continuous relaxation of the argmax operation can be used to create a differentiable approximation to greedy decoding for sequence-tosequence (seq2seq) models.By incorporating this approximation into the scheduled sampling training procedure (Bengio et al., 2015)-a well-known technique for correcting exposure bias-we introduce a new training objective that is continuous and differentiable everywhere and that can provide informative gradients near points where previous decoding decisions change their value.In addition, by using a related approximation, we demonstrate a similar approach to sampled-based training.Finally, we show that our approach outperforms cross-entropy training and scheduled sampling procedures in two sequence prediction tasks: named entity recognition and machine translation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/p17-2058

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The PersonaChat datasets have accelerated research into persona consistency.

    “The PersonaChat datasets [47, 312] have accelerated research into persona consistency [96, 128, 178, 284, 296, 307, 318].”

    From Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation (2023) · cites this paper as [47]

    The Experimental Setup (Section 5; page unavailable) describes machine-translation and named-entity-recognition datasets, not PersonaChat. Searches for PersonaChat and persona consistency found no passage addressing whether those datasets accelerated research. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 18 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Hal Daumé, John Langford, and Daniel Marcu. 2009. Search-based structured prediction. Machine learn- ing 75(3):297-325.
  2. Chris J Maddison, Andriy Mnih, and Yee Whye Teh. 2017. The concrete distribution: A continuous re- laxation of discrete random variables. In Interna- tional Conference on Learning Representations.
  3. Erik F Tjong Kim Sang and Fien De Meulder. 2003. Introduction to the conll-2003 shared task: Language-independent named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the seventh conference on Natural language learning at HLT-NAACL 2003-Volume 4. Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 142-147.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Goyal, K., Dyer, C., & Berg-Kirkpatrick, T.
Affiliations
  • Amazon (United States) (US)
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers)
Published
2017
Pages
366-371
ISSN
0736-587X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2607593044
Cited by
34
References
18
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3
FWCI
2.62
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech Recognition and Synthesis
Keywords
scheduled sampling, credit assignment, greedy decoding, sequence-to-sequence models, exposure bias, named entity recognition, machine translation, sequence prediction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review