Our system is currently under heavy load due to increased usage. We're actively working on upgrades to improve performance. Thank you for your patience.
Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Representation Learning for NLP 2018
DOI: 10.18653/v1/w18-3020
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Learning Hierarchical Structures On-The-Fly with a Recurrent-Recursive Model for Sequences

Abstract: We propose a hierarchical model for sequential data that learns a tree on-thefly, i.e. while reading the sequence. In the model, a recurrent network adapts its structure and reuses recurrent weights in a recursive manner. This creates adaptive skip-connections that ease the learning of long-term dependencies. The tree structure can either be inferred without supervision through reinforcement learning, or learned in a supervised manner. We provide preliminary experiments in a novel Math Expression Evaluation (M… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Although this concept can be related to the prioritisation of information in the human visual cortex (Hassabis et al, 2017), it seems contrary to the incremental processing of information in a language context, as for instance recently shown empirically for the understanding of conjunctive generic sentences (Tessler et al, 2019). In machine learning, the idea of incrementality has already played a role in several problem statements, such as inferring the tree structure of a sentence (Jacob et al, 2018), parsing (Köhn and Menzel, 2014), or in other problems that are naturally equipped with time constraints like realtime neural machine translation (Neubig et al, 2017;Dalvi et al, 2018a), and speech recognition (Baumann et al, 2009;Jaitly et al, 2016;Graves, 2012). Other approaches try to encourage incremental behavior implictly by modifying the model architecture or the training objective: Guan et al (2018) introduce an encoder with an incremental self-attention scheme for story generation.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although this concept can be related to the prioritisation of information in the human visual cortex (Hassabis et al, 2017), it seems contrary to the incremental processing of information in a language context, as for instance recently shown empirically for the understanding of conjunctive generic sentences (Tessler et al, 2019). In machine learning, the idea of incrementality has already played a role in several problem statements, such as inferring the tree structure of a sentence (Jacob et al, 2018), parsing (Köhn and Menzel, 2014), or in other problems that are naturally equipped with time constraints like realtime neural machine translation (Neubig et al, 2017;Dalvi et al, 2018a), and speech recognition (Baumann et al, 2009;Jaitly et al, 2016;Graves, 2012). Other approaches try to encourage incremental behavior implictly by modifying the model architecture or the training objective: Guan et al (2018) introduce an encoder with an incremental self-attention scheme for story generation.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We compare CRvNN with Tree-LSTM (Tai et al, 2015), Tree-Cell (Shen et al, 2019a) Tree-RNN (Bowman et al, 2015b), Tranformer (Vaswani et al, 2017), Universal Transformer (Dehghani et al, 2019), LSTM (Hochreiter & Schmidhuber, 1997), RRNet (Jacob et al, 2018), ON-LSTM (Shen et al, 2019b), Ordered Memory (Shen et al, 2019a) (see Table 2).…”
Section: Logical Inferencementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The recursive application of the same composition function is well suited for this task. We also include the result of RRNet (Jacob et al, 2018), which can induce the latent tree structure from downstream tasks. Note that the results may not be comparable, because the hyper-parameters for training were not provided.…”
Section: Logical Inferencementioning
confidence: 99%
“…years (Bowman et al, 2016;Yogatama et al, 2016;Shen et al, 2017;Jacob et al, 2018;Choi et al, 2018;Williams et al, 2018;Shi et al, 2018).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%