CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 697Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesSpeech Recognition and Synthesis

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 28 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Regularizing and Optimizing LSTM Language Models

Open access
Merity, Stephen, Keskar, Nitish Shirish, Socher, Richard·2017·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1708.02182arXiv 1708.02182
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Recurrent neural networks (RNNs), such as long short-term memory networks (LSTMs), serve as a fundamental building block for many sequence learning tasks, including machine translation, language modeling, and question answering. In this paper, we consider the specific problem of word-level language modeling and investigate strategies for regularizing and optimizing LSTM-based models. We propose the weight-dropped LSTM which uses DropConnect on hidden-to-hidden weights as a form of recurrent regularization. Further, we introduce NT-ASGD, a variant of the averaged stochastic gradient method, wherein the averaging trigger is determined using a non-monotonic condition as opposed to being tuned by the user. Using these and other regularization strategies, we achieve state-of-the-art word level perplexities on two data sets: 57.3 on Penn Treebank and 65.8 on WikiText-2. In exploring the effectiveness of a neural cache in conjunction with our proposed model, we achieve an even lower state-of-the-art perplexity of 52.8 on Penn Treebank and 52.0 on WikiText-2.

Overview

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1708.02182

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 31 references

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. Arjovsky, M., Shah, A., and Bengio, Y. Unitary evolution recurrent neural networks. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pp. 1120-1128, 2016.
  2. Ba, J., Kiros, J., and Hinton, G. E. Layer normalization. CoRR , abs/1607.06450, 2016. · arXiv
  3. Cooijmans, T., Ballas, N., Laurent, C., and Courville, A. C. Recurrent batch normalization. CoRR , abs/1603.09025, 2016. · arXiv
  4. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 12(Jul):21212159, 2011.
  5. Gal, Y. and Ghahramani, Z. A theoretically grounded application of dropout in recurrent neural networks. In NIPS , 2016.
  6. Hinton, G. E. Connectionist learning procedures. Artificial intelligence , 40(1-3):185-234, 1989.
  7. Jing, L., Shen, Y., Dubˇ cek, T., Peurifoy, J., Skirlo, S., Tegmark, M., and Soljaˇ ci´ c, M. Tunable Efficient Unitary Neural Networks (EUNN) and their application to RNN. arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.05231 , 2016. · arXiv
  8. Keskar, N. and Saon, G. A nonmonotone learning rate strategy for sgd training of deep neural networks. In Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2015 IEEE International Conference on , pp. 4974-4978. IEEE, 2015.
  9. Kim, Y., Jernite, Y ., Sontag, D., and Rush, A. M. Characteraware neural language models. In Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 2016.
  10. Melis, G., Dyer, C., and Blunsom, P. On the State of the Art of Evaluation in Neural Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.05589 , 2017. · arXiv
  11. Mikolov, T., Karafiát, M., Burget, L., Cernocký, J., and Khudanpur, S. Recurrent neural network based language model. In INTERSPEECH , 2010.
  12. Panageas, I. and Piliouras, G. Gradient descent converges to minimizers: The case of non-isolated critical points. CoRR, abs/1605.00405 , 2016. · arXiv
  13. Polyak, B. and Juditsky, A. Acceleration of stochastic approximation by averaging. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization , 30(4):838-855, 1992.
  14. Semeniuta, S., Severyn, A., and Barth, E. Recurrent dropout without memory loss. In COLING , 2016.
  15. Tieleman, T. and Hinton, G. Lecture 6.5-rmsprop: Divide the gradient by a running average of its recent magnitude. COURSERA: Neural networks for machine learning , 4(2):26-31, 2012.
  16. Wan, L., Zeiler, M., Zhang, S., LeCun, Y, and Fergus, R. Regularization of neural networks using dropconnect. In Proceedings of the 30th international conference on machine learning (ICML-13) , pp. 1058-1066, 2013.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–400 of 695

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Merity, S., Keskar, N. S., & Socher, R.
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2017
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1708.02182
arXiv
1708.02182
OpenAlex
W2743945814
Cited by
697
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 46 · 2022: 74 · 2021: 126 · 2020: 168 · 2019: 150 · 2018: 80 · 2017: 3
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • 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
LSTM language models, DropConnect, perplexity reduction, Penn Treebank, WikiText-2

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