PreprintCited by 17Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)

The Bottom-up Evolution of Representations in the Transformer: A Study with Machine Translation and Language Modeling Objectives

Open access
Voita, Elena, Sennrich, Rico, Titov, Ivan·2019·arXiv

Abstract

We seek to understand how the representations of individual tokens and the structure of the learned feature space evolve between layers in deep neural networks under different learning objectives. We focus on the Transformers for our analysis as they have been shown effective on various tasks, including machine translation (MT), standard left-to-right language models (LM) and masked language modeling (MLM). Previous work used black-box probing tasks to show that the representations learned by the Transformer differ significantly depending on the objective. In this work, we use canonical correlation analysis and mutual information estimators to study how information flows across Transformer layers and how this process depends on the choice of learning objective. For example, as you go from bottom to top layers, information about the past in left-to-right language models gets vanished and predictions about the future get formed. In contrast, for MLM, representations initially acquire information about the context around the token, partially forgetting the token identity and producing a more generalized token representation. The token identity then gets recreated at the top MLM layers.

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.1909.01380

Cites

2 of 2 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?

  • Using a denoising objective always results in better downstream task performance compared to a language modeling objective.

    “Finally, we confirm the widely-held conception that using a denoising objective always results in better downstream task performance compared to a language modeling objective.”

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

    The Introduction (p. 2) proposes a hypothesis for why masked language modeling (MLM) may be preferable to language modeling (LM) for pretraining, and the Conclusions (p. 9) call it a possible explanation for MLM’s superior performance. The paper does not establish that a denoising objective always produces better downstream-task performance; the claim turns a qualified explanation into a universal result. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 27

  1. Anthony Bau, Yonatan Belinkov, Hassan Sajjad, Nadir Durrani, Fahim Dalvi, and James Glass. 2019. Identifying and controlling important neurons in neural machine translation. In International Conference on Learning Representations , New Orleans.
  2. Yonatan Belinkov, Nadir Durrani, Fahim Dalvi, Hassan Sajjad, and James Glass. 2017a. What do neural machine translation models learn about morphology? In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages 861-872. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  3. Yonatan Belinkov, Lluís Màrquez, Hassan Sajjad, Nadir Durrani, Fahim Dalvi, and James Glass. 2017b. Evaluating layers of representation in neural machine translation on part-of-speech and semantic tagging tasks. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages 1-10. Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing.
  4. Arianna Bisazza and Clara Tump. 2018. The lazy encoder: A fine-grained analysis of the role of morphology in neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages 2871-2876, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  5. Terra Blevins, Omer Levy, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. Deep RNNs encode soft hierarchical syntax. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers) , pages 14-19, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  6. Ondˇ rej Bojar, Christian Federmann, Mark Fishel, Yvette Graham, Barry Haddow, Matthias Huck, Philipp Koehn, and Christof Monz. 2018. Findings of the 2018 conference on machine translation (wmt18). In Proceedings of the Third Conference on Machine Translation, Volume 2: Shared Task Papers , pages 272-307, Belgium, Brussels. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  7. Fahim Dalvi, Nadir Durrani, Hassan Sajjad, Yonatan Belinkov, and Stephan Vogel. 2017. Understanding and improving morphological learning in the neural machine translation decoder. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages 142-151. Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing.
  8. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805 . · arXiv
  9. Felix Hill, Kyunghyun Cho, Sébastien Jean, and Y Bengio. 2017. The representational geometry of word meanings acquired by neural machine translation models. Machine Translation , 31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10590-017-9194-2 · DOI
  10. Guillaume Lample and Alexis Conneau. 2019. Crosslingual language model pretraining. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.07291 . · arXiv
  11. Christopher D. Manning, Mihai Surdeanu, John Bauer, Jenny Finkel, Steven J. Bethard, and David McClosky. 2014. The Stanford CoreNLP natural language processing toolkit. In Proceedings of 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations , pages 55-60, Baltimore, Maryland. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  12. Ari S. Morcos, Maithra Raghu, and Samy Bengio. 2018. Insights on representational similarity in neural networks with canonical correlation. In NeurIPS , Montreal, Canada.
  13. Jan Niehues, Ronaldo Cattoni, Sebastian Stüker, Mauro Cettolo, Marco Turchi, and Marcello Federico. 2018. The IWSLT 2018 Evaluation Campaign. In Proceedings of the 15th International Workshop on Spoken Language Translation , pages 118-123, Bruges, Belgium.
  14. Liam Paninski. 2003. Estimation of entropy and mutual information. Neural computation , 15(6):11911253.
  15. Alessandro Raganato and Jörg Tiedemann. 2018. An analysis of encoder representations in transformerbased machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2018 EMNLP Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP , pages 287-297, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  16. Naomi Saphra and Adam Lopez. 2019. Understanding learning dynamics of language models with SVCCA. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers) , pages 3257-3267, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  17. Rico Sennrich, Barry Haddow, and Alexandra Birch. 2016. Neural machine translation of rare words with subword units. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages 17151725, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  18. Xing Shi, Inkit Padhi, and Kevin Knight. 2016. Does string-based neural mt learn source syntax? In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages 15261534. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  19. Ravid Shwartz-Ziv and Naftali Tishby. 2017. Opening the black box of deep neural networks via information. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.00810 . · arXiv
  20. Ian Tenney, Dipanjan Das, and Ellie Pavlick. 2019a. BERT rediscovers the classical NLP pipeline. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pages 45934601, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  21. Ian Tenney, Patrick Xia, Berlin Chen, Alex Wang, Adam Poliak, R Thomas McCoy, Najoung Kim, Benjamin Van Durme, Samuel R Bowman, Dipanjan Das, et al. 2019b. What do you learn from context? probing for sentence structure in contextualized word representations. In International Conference on Learning Representations .
  22. Naftali Tishby, Fernando C Pereira, and William Bialek. 1999. The information bottleneck method. In Proceedings of the 37-th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control and Computing , pages 368-377.
  23. Naftali Tishby and Noga Zaslavsky. 2015. Deep learning and the information bottleneck principle. 2015 IEEE Information Theory Workshop (ITW) , pages 15.
  24. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30 , pages 5998-6008, Los Angeles.
  25. Elena Voita, David Talbot, Fedor Moiseev, Rico Sennrich, and Ivan Titov. 2019. Analyzing multi-head self-attention: Specialized heads do the heavy lifting, the rest can be pruned. In Proceedings of the
  26. Masashi Yoshikawa, Hiroshi Noji, and Yuji Matsumoto. 2017. A* CCG parsing with a supertag and dependency factored model. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages 277-287, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  27. Kelly Zhang and Samuel Bowman. 2018. Language modeling teaches you more than translation does: Lessons learned through auxiliary syntactic task analysis. In Proceedings of the 2018 EMNLP Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP , pages 359-361, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Voita, E., Sennrich, R., & Titov, I.
Affiliations
  • Yandex (Russia) (RU)
  • University of Zurich (CH)
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2019
OpenAlex
W2971531230
Cited by
17
References
2
Citations by year
2022: 1 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 2
FWCI
1.63
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
  • Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (639.022.518)
  • H2020 European Research Council (678254)
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 › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Keywords
transformer representations, learning objectives, machine translation, masked language modeling, canonical correlation analysis, mutual information estimation, token identity, probing

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