CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 207Topic ModelingDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningNatural Language Processing Techniques

Learning General Purpose Distributed Sentence Representations via Large Scale Multi-task Learning

Open access
Subramanian, Sandeep, Trischler, Adam, Bengio, Yoshua, Pal, Christopher J·2018·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1804.00079arXiv 1804.00079
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

A lot of the recent success in natural language processing (NLP) has been driven by distributed vector representations of words trained on large amounts of text in an unsupervised manner. These representations are typically used as general purpose features for words across a range of NLP problems. However, extending this success to learning representations of sequences of words, such as sentences, remains an open problem. Recent work has explored unsupervised as well as supervised learning techniques with different training objectives to learn general purpose fixed-length sentence representations. In this work, we present a simple, effective multi-task learning framework for sentence representations that combines the inductive biases of diverse training objectives in a single model. We train this model on several data sources with multiple training objectives on over 100 million sentences. Extensive experiments demonstrate that sharing a single recurrent sentence encoder across weakly related tasks leads to consistent improvements over previous methods. We present substantial improvements in the context of transfer learning and low-resource settings using our learned general-purpose representations.

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.1804.00079

Cites

5 of 5 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?

  • Early results on transfer learning for text classification tasks advocated fine-tuning only the parameters of a small classifier fed sentence embeddings from a fixed pre-trained model.

    “Early results on transfer learning for text classification tasks advocated fine-tuning only the parameters of a small classifier that was fed sentence embeddings produced by a fixed pre-trained model (Subramanian et al., 2018; Kiros et al., 2015; Logeswaran and Lee, 2018; Hill et al., 2016; Conneau et al., 2017).”

    From Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformer (2019) · cites this paper as Subramanian et al., 2018

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

Research works printed but not linked: 47

  1. Yossi Adi, Einat Kermany, Yonatan Belinkov, Ofer Lavi, and Yoav Goldberg. Fine-grained analysis of sentence embeddings using auxiliary prediction tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.04207 , 2016. · arXiv
  2. Dzmitry Bahdanau, Kyunghyun Cho, and Yoshua Bengio. Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.0473 , 2014. · arXiv
  3. Jonathan Baxter et al. A model of inductive bias learning. J. Artif. Intell. Res.(JAIR) , 12(149-198): 3, 2000.
  4. Yonatan Belinkov, Nadir Durrani, Fahim Dalvi, Hassan Sajjad, and James Glass. What do neural machine translation models learn about morphology? arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.03471 , 2017. · arXiv
  5. Samuel R Bowman, Gabor Angeli, Christopher Potts, and Christopher D Manning. A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:1508.05326 , 2015. · arXiv
  6. Samuel R Bowman, Jon Gauthier, Abhinav Rastogi, Raghav Gupta, Christopher D Manning, and Christopher Potts. A fast unified model for parsing and sentence understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.06021 , 2016. · arXiv
  7. Junyoung Chung, Caglar Gulcehre, KyungHyun Cho, and Yoshua Bengio. Empirical evaluation of gated recurrent neural networks on sequence modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.3555 , 2014. · arXiv
  8. Stephen Clark and Stephen Pulman. Combining symbolic and distributional models of meaning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Quantum Interaction ,Stanford ,CA ,2007 , 2007.
  9. Alexis Conneau, Douwe Kiela, Holger Schwenk, Loic Barrault, and Antoine Bordes. Supervised learning of universal sentence representations from natural language inference data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.02364 , 2017. · arXiv
  10. Daxiang Dong, Hua Wu, Wei He, Dianhai Yu, and Haifeng Wang. Multi-task learning for multiple language translation. In ACL (1) , pp. 1723-1732, 2015.
  11. David Eigen and Rob Fergus. Predicting depth, surface normals and semantic labels with a common multi-scale convolutional architecture. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision , pp. 2650-2658, 2015.
  12. Zhe Gan, Yunchen Pu, Ricardo Henao, Chunyuan Li, Xiaodong He, and Lawrence Carin. Unsupervised learning of sentence representations using convolutional neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.07897 , 2016. · arXiv
  13. Kazuma Hashimoto, Caiming Xiong, Yoshimasa Tsuruoka, and Richard Socher. A joint many-task model: Growing a neural network for multiple nlp tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.01587 , 2016. · arXiv
  14. Felix Hill, Kyunghyun Cho, and Anna Korhonen. Learning distributed representations of sentences from unlabelled data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.03483 , 2016. · arXiv
  15. Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. Long short-term memory. Neural computation , 9(8): 1735-1780, 1997.
  16. Stanisław Jastrzebski, Damian Le´ sniak, and Wojciech Marian Czarnecki. How to evaluate word embeddings? on importance of data efficiency and simple supervised tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.02170 , 2017. · arXiv
  17. Yacine Jernite, Samuel R Bowman, and David Sontag. Discourse-based objectives for fast unsupervised sentence representation learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.00557 , 2017. · arXiv
  18. Ryan Kiros, Yukun Zhu, Ruslan R Salakhutdinov, Richard Zemel, Raquel Urtasun, Antonio Torralba, and Sanja Fidler. Skip-thought vectors. In Advances in neural information processing systems , pp. 3294-3302, 2015.
  19. Iasonas Kokkinos. Ubernet: Training auniversal'convolutional neural network for low-, mid-, and high-level vision using diverse datasets and limited memory. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02132 , 2016. · arXiv
  20. Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey E Hinton. Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. In Advances in neural information processing systems , pp. 1097-1105, 2012.
  21. Guillaume Lample, Miguel Ballesteros, Sandeep Subramanian, Kazuya Kawakami, and Chris Dyer. Neural architectures for named entity recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.01360 , 2016. · arXiv
  22. Minh-Thang Luong, Quoc V Le, Ilya Sutskever, Oriol Vinyals, and Lukasz Kaiser. Multi-task sequence to sequence learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.06114 , 2015. · arXiv
  23. Bryan McCann, James Bradbury, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. Learned in translation: Contextualized word vectors. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.00107 , 2017. · arXiv
  24. Tomas Mikolov, Ilya Sutskever, Kai Chen, Greg S Corrado, and Jeff Dean. Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In Advances in neural information processing systems , pp. 3111-3119, 2013.
  25. Jeff Mitchell and Mirella Lapata. Vector-based models of semantic composition. In ACL , pp. 236244, 2008.
  26. Nikola Mrkši´ c, Ivan Vuli´ c, Diarmuid Ó Séaghdha, Ira Leviant, Roi Reichart, Milica Gaši´ c, Anna Korhonen, and Steve Young. Semantic specialisation of distributional word vector spaces using monolingual and cross-lingual constraints. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.00374 , 2017. · arXiv
  27. Tsendsuren Munkhdalai and Hong Yu. Neural semantic encoders. In Proceedings of the conference. Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting , volume 1, pp. 397. NIH Public Access, 2017.
  28. Anh Nguyen, Jason Yosinski, Yoshua Bengio, Alexey Dosovitskiy, and Jeff Clune. Plug & play generative networks: Conditional iterative generation of images in latent space. arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.00005 , 2016. · arXiv
  29. Allen Nie, Erin D Bennett, and Noah D Goodman. Dissent: Sentence representation learning from explicit discourse relations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.04334 , 2017. · arXiv
  30. Matteo Pagliardini, Prakhar Gupta, and Martin Jaggi. Unsupervised learning of sentence embeddings using compositional n-gram features. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.02507 , 2017. · arXiv
  31. Ankur P Parikh, Oscar Täckström, Dipanjan Das, and Jakob Uszkoreit. A decomposable attention model for natural language inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.01933 , 2016. · arXiv
  32. Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher D Manning. Glove: Global vectors for word representation. In EMNLP , volume 14, pp. 1532-1543, 2014.
  33. Dinghan Shen, Yizhe Zhang, Ricardo Henao, Qinliang Su, and Lawrence Carin. Deconvolutional latent-variable model for text sequence matching. arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.07109 , 2017. · arXiv
  34. Xing Shi, Inkit Padhi, and Kevin Knight. Does string-based neural mt learn source syntax? In EMNLP , pp. 1526-1534, 2016.
  35. Karen Simonyan and Andrew Zisserman. Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556 , 2014. · arXiv
  36. Nitish Srivastava, Geoffrey E Hinton, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. Dropout: a simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting. Journal of machine learning research , 15(1):1929-1958, 2014.
  37. Ilya Sutskever, Oriol Vinyals, and Quoc V Le. Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks. In Advances in neural information processing systems , pp. 3104-3112, 2014.
  38. Shuai Tang, Hailin Jin, Chen Fang, Zhaowen Wang, and Virginia R de Sa. Rethinking skip-thought: A neighborhood based approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.03146 , 2017. · arXiv
  39. Gaurav Singh Tomar, Thyago Duque, Oscar Täckström, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Dipanjan Das. Neural paraphrase identification of questions with noisy pretraining. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.04565 , 2017. · arXiv
  40. Oriol Vinyals, Łukasz Kaiser, Terry Koo, Slav Petrov, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey Hinton. Grammar as a foreign language. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pp. 27732781, 2015.
  41. Zhiguo Wang, Wael Hamza, and Radu Florian. Bilateral multi-perspective matching for natural language sentences. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.03814 , 2017. · arXiv
  42. John Wieting, Mohit Bansal, Kevin Gimpel, and Karen Livescu. Towards universal paraphrastic sentence embeddings. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.08198 , 2015. · arXiv
  43. John Wieting, Mohit Bansal, Kevin Gimpel, and Karen Livescu. Charagram: Embedding words and sentences via character n-grams. arXiv preprint arXiv:1607.02789 , 2016. · arXiv
  44. Adina Williams, Nikita Nangia, and Samuel R Bowman. A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sentence understanding through inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.05426 , 2017. · arXiv
  45. Kelvin Xu, Jimmy Ba, Ryan Kiros, Kyunghyun Cho, Aaron Courville, Ruslan Salakhudinov, Rich Zemel, and Yoshua Bengio. Show, attend and tell: Neural image caption generation with visual attention. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pp. 2048-2057, 2015.
  46. Xiang Zhang, Junbo Zhao, and Yann LeCun. Character-level convolutional networks for text classification. In Advances in neural information processing systems , pp. 649-657, 2015.
  47. Peng Zhou, Zhenyu Qi, Suncong Zheng, Jiaming Xu, Hongyun Bao, and Bo Xu. Text classification improved by integrating bidirectional lstm with two-dimensional max pooling. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.06639 , 2016. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Subramanian, S., Trischler, A., Bengio, Y., & Pal, C. J.
Affiliations
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
  • Microsoft (United States) (US)
  • Université de Montréal (CA)
  • Mila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute (CA)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2018
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1804.00079
arXiv
1804.00079
OpenAlex
W2786685006
Cited by
207
References
5
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 52 · 2019: 48 · 2018: 30
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • PolyPublie (École Polytechnique de Montréal) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • International Conference on Learning Representations
Funders
Nvidia
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
sentence representation, multi-task learning, transfer learning, resource-limited settings, inductive bias, training objectives

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