# Difference between revisions of "distributed Representations of Words and Phrases and their Compositionality"

(→Learning Phrases) |
|||

Line 89: | Line 89: | ||

==Phrase Skip-Gram Results== | ==Phrase Skip-Gram Results== | ||

+ | |||

+ | First, the phrase based training corpus is constructed and then Skip-gram models are trained using different hyperparameters. Table 3 shows the results using vector dimensionality 300 and context size 5. This setting already achieves good performance on the phrase dataset, and allowed us to quickly compare the Negative Sampling and the Hierarchical Softmax, both with and without subsampling of the frequent tokens. The results show that while Negative Sampling achieves a respectable accuracy even with ''k = 5'', using ''k = 15'' achieves considerably better performance. Also, the subsampling can result in faster training and can also improve accuracy, at least in some cases. | ||

+ | |||

+ | <center> | ||

+ | [[File:Tb_3.PNG | frame | center |Table 3. Accuracies of the Skip-gram models on the phrase analogy dataset. The models were trained on approximately one billion words from the news dataset.]] | ||

+ | </center> | ||

+ | |||

+ | |||

+ | The amount of the training data was increased to 33 billion words in order to maximize the accuracy on the phrase analogy task. Hierarchical softmax, dimensionality of 1000, and the entire sentence for the context were used. This resulted in a model that reached an accuracy of 72%. Reducing the size of the training dataset to 6 billion caused lower accuracy (66%), which suggests that large amount of the training data is crucial. To gain further insight into how different the representations learned by different models are, nearest neighbors of infrequent phrases were inspected manually using various models. In Table 4 shows a sample of such comparison. Consistently with the previous results, it seems that the best representations of phrases are learned by a model with the hierarchical softmax and subsampling. | ||

+ | |||

+ | <center> | ||

+ | [[File:Tb_4.PNG | frame | center |Table 4. Examples of the closest entities to the given short phrases, using two different models.]] | ||

+ | </center> |

## Revision as of 14:47, 19 November 2015

## Contents

# Introduction

This paper presents several extensions of the Skip-gram model intriduced by Mikolov et al. [8]. Skip-gram model is an efficient method for learning highquality vector representations of words from large amounts of unstructured text data. The word representations computed using this model are very interesting because the learned vectors explicitly encode many linguistic regularities and patterns. Somewhat surprisingly, many of these patterns can be represented as linear translations. For example, the result of a vector calculation vec(“Madrid”) - vec(“Spain”) + vec(“France”) is closer to vec(“Paris”) than to any other word vector. The authors of this paper show that subsampling of frequent words during training results in a significant speedup and improves accuracy of the representations of less frequent words. In addition, a simplified variant of Noise Contrastive Estimation (NCE) [4] for training the Skip-gram model is presented that results in faster training and better vector representations for frequent words, compared to more complex hierarchical softmax that was used in the prior work [8]. It also shown that a non-obvious degree of language understanding can be obtained by using basic mathematical operations on the word vector representations. For example, vec(“Russia”) + vec(“river”) is close to vec(“Volga River”), and vec(“Germany”) + vec(“capital”) is close to vec(“Berlin”).

# The Skip-gram Model

The training objective of the Skip-gram model is to find word representations that are useful for predicting the surrounding words in a sentence or a document. More formally, given a sequence of training words [math]w_1, w_2,..., w_T[/math] the objective of the Skip-gram model is to maximize the average log probability:

[math]
\frac{1}{T} \sum_{t=1}^{T} \sum_{-c\leq j\leq c} log(p(w_{t+j}|w_t))
[/math]

where [math]c[/math] is the size of the training context (which can be a function of the center word [math]w_t[/math]) and [math]p(w_{t+j}|w_t)[/math] is defined using softmax function:

[math] p(w_O|w_I) = \frac{exp ({v'_{W_O}}^T v_{W_I})}{\sum{w=1}^{W} exp ({v'_{W}}^T v_{W_I})} [/math]

Here, [math]v_w[/math] and [math]v'_w[/math] are the “*input*” and “*output*” vector representations of [math]w[/math], and [math]W[/math] is the number of words in the vocabulary.

## Hierarchical Softmax

Hierarchical Softmax is a computationally efficient approximation of the full softmax [12]. Hierarchical Softmax evaluate only about [math]log_2(W)[/math] output nodes instead of evaluating [math]W[/math] nodes in the neural network to obtain the probability distribution.

The hierarchical softmax uses a binary tree representation of the output layer with the [math]W[/math] words as its leaves and, for each node, explicitly represents the relative probabilities of its child nodes. These define a random walk that assigns probabilities to words.

Let [math]n(w,j)[/math] be the [math]j^{th}[/math] node on the path from the root to [math]w[/math], and let [math]L(w)[/math] be the length of this path, so [math]n(w,1) = root[/math] and [math]n(w,L(w)) = w[/math]. In addition, for any inner node [math]n[/math], let [math]ch(n)[/math] be an arbitrary fixed child of [math]n[/math] and let [math][[x]][/math] be 1 if [math]x[/math] is true and -1 otherwise. Then the hierarchical softmax defines [math]p(w_O|w_I )[/math] as follows:

[math] p(w|w_I) = \prod_{j=1}^{L(w)-1} \sigma ([[n(w,j+1)=ch(n(w,j))]]{v'_{n(w,j)}}^T v_{W_I}) [/math]

where

[math] \sigma (x)=\frac{1}{1+exp(-x)} [/math]

In this paper, a binary Huffman tree is used as the structure for the hierarchical softmax because it assigns short codes to the frequent words which results in fast training. It has been observed before that grouping words together by their frequency works well as a very simple speedup technique for the neural network based language models [5,8].

## Negative Sampling

Noise Contrastive Estimation (NCE) is an alternative to the hierarchical softmax. NCE indicates that a good model should be able to differentiate data from noise by means of logistic regression. While NCE can be shown to approximately maximize the log probability of the softmax, the Skipgram model is only concerned with learning high-quality vector representations, so we are free to simplify NCE as long as the vector representations retain their quality. Negative sampling (NEG) is defined by the objective:

[math] log \sigma ({v'_{W_O}}^T v_{W_I})+\sum_{i=1}^{k} \mathbb{E}_{w_i\sim P_n(w)}[log \sigma ({-v'_{W_i}}^T v_{W_I})] [/math]

The main difference between the Negative sampling and NCE is that NCE needs both samples and the numerical probabilities of the noise distribution, while Negative sampling uses only samples. And while NCE approximatelymaximizes the log probability of the softmax, this property is not important for our application.

Both NCE and NEG have the noise distribution [math]P_n(w)[/math] as a free parameter. We investigated a number of choices for [math]P_n(w)[/math] and found that the unigram distribution [math]U(w)[/math] raised to the 3/4rd power (i.e., [math]U(w)^{3/4}/Z)[/math] outperformed significantly the unigram and the uniform distributions, for both NCE and NEG on every task we tried including language modeling.

## Subsampling of Frequent Words

In very large corpora, the most frequent words can easily occur hundreds of millions of times (e.g., “in”, “the”, and “a”). Such words usually provide less information value than the rare words.

To counter the imbalance between the rare and frequent words, a simple subsampling approach is used. Each word [math]w_i[/math] in the training set is discarded with probability computed by the formula:

[math] P(w_i)=1-\sqrt{\frac{1}{f(w_i)}} [/math]

where [math]f(w_i)[/math] is the frequency of word [math]w_i[/math] and [math]t[/math] is a chosen threshold, typically around [math]10^{−5}[/math].

# Empirical Results

The Hierarchical Softmax (HS), Noise Contrastive Estimation, Negative Sampling, and subsampling of the training words are evaluated with the help of the analogical reasoning task1 [8]. The task consists of analogies such as “Germany” : “Berlin” :: “France” : ?, which are solved by finding a vector *x* such that vec(*x*) is closest to vec(“Berlin”) - vec(“Germany”) + vec(“France”) according to the cosine distance. This specific example is considered to have been answered correctly if *x* is “Paris”. The task has two broad categories: the syntactic analogies (such as “quick” : “quickly” :: “slow” : “slowly”) and the semantic analogies, such as the country to capital city relationship.

For training the Skip-gram models, a large dataset consisting of various news articles is used (an internal Google dataset with one billion words). All words that occurred less than 5 times in the training data were discarded, which resulted in a vocabulary of size 692K. The performance of various Skip-gram models on the word analogy test set is reported in Table 1. The table shows that Negative Sampling outperforms the Hierarchical Softmax on the analogical reasoning task, and has even slightly better performance than the Noise Contrastive Estimation. The subsampling of the frequent words improves the training speed several times and makes the word representations significantly more accurate.

# Learning Phrases

Many phrases have a meaning that is not a simple composition of the meanings of its individual words. To learn vector representation for phrases, we first find words that appear frequently together, and infrequently in other contexts. For example, “*New York Times*” and “*Toronto Maple Leafs*” are replaced by unique tokens in the training data, while a bigram “*this is*” will remain unchanged. This way, we can form many reasonable phrases without greatly increasing the size of the vocabulary; in theory, we can train the Skip-gram model using all n-grams, but that would be too memory intensive. A simple data-driven approach, where phrases are formed based on the unigram and bigram counts is applied to identify the phrases. In this approach, a *score* is calculated as:

[math] score(w_i,w_j)=\frac{count(w_iw_j)-\delta}{count(w_i)count(w_j)} [/math]

The [math]\delta[/math] is used as a discounting coefficient and prevents too many phrases consisting of very infrequent words to be formed. The bigrams with *scores* above the chosen threshold are then used as phrases. The quality of the phrase representations is evaluated using a new analogical reasoning task that involves phrases. Table 2 shows examples of the five categories of analogies used in this task.

## Phrase Skip-Gram Results

First, the phrase based training corpus is constructed and then Skip-gram models are trained using different hyperparameters. Table 3 shows the results using vector dimensionality 300 and context size 5. This setting already achieves good performance on the phrase dataset, and allowed us to quickly compare the Negative Sampling and the Hierarchical Softmax, both with and without subsampling of the frequent tokens. The results show that while Negative Sampling achieves a respectable accuracy even with *k = 5*, using *k = 15* achieves considerably better performance. Also, the subsampling can result in faster training and can also improve accuracy, at least in some cases.

The amount of the training data was increased to 33 billion words in order to maximize the accuracy on the phrase analogy task. Hierarchical softmax, dimensionality of 1000, and the entire sentence for the context were used. This resulted in a model that reached an accuracy of 72%. Reducing the size of the training dataset to 6 billion caused lower accuracy (66%), which suggests that large amount of the training data is crucial. To gain further insight into how different the representations learned by different models are, nearest neighbors of infrequent phrases were inspected manually using various models. In Table 4 shows a sample of such comparison. Consistently with the previous results, it seems that the best representations of phrases are learned by a model with the hierarchical softmax and subsampling.