Syllabification does not seem to improve word-level RNN language modeling quality when compared to character-based segmentation. However, our best syllable-aware language model, achieving performance comparable to the competitive character-aware model, has 18 -33 fewer parameters and is trained 1.2-2.2 times faster.
Much research has been done on subword-level and subword-aware LMs rely on subword-level inputs and make predictions at the level of subwords; LMs also rely on subword-level inputs but make predictions at the level of words. neural language modeling when subwords are characters @cite_25 @cite_6 @cite_5 or morphemes @cite_15 @cite_4 @cite_20 . However, not much work has been done on syllable-level or syllable-aware NLM. show that subword-level language models outperform character-level ones. Not to be confused with character-aware ones, see the previous footnote. They keep the most frequent words untouched and split all other words into syllable-like units. Our approach differs mainly in the following aspects: we make predictions at the word level, use a more linguistically sound syllabification algorithm, and consider a variety of more advanced neural architectures.
@cite_4 @cite_6 @cite_5 @cite_15 @cite_25 @cite_20
1938755728 2951559648 2417736714 1836307405
We describe a simple neural language model that relies only on character-level inputs. Predictions are still made at the word-level. Our model employs a convolutional neural network (CNN) and a highway network over characters, whose output is given to a long short-term memory (LSTM) recurrent neural network language model (RNN-LM). On the English Penn Treebank the model is on par with the existing state-of-the-art despite having 60 fewer parameters. On languages with rich morphology (Arabic, Czech, French, German, Spanish, Russian), the model outperforms word-level morpheme-level LSTM baselines, again with fewer parameters. The results suggest that on many languages, character inputs are sufficient for language modeling. Analysis of word representations obtained from the character composition part of the model reveals that the model is able to encode, from characters only, both semantic and orthographic information. We describe a simple neural language model that relies only on character-level inputs. Predictions are still made at the word-level. Our model employs a convolutional neural network (CNN) and a highway network over characters, whose output is given to a long short-term memory (LSTM) recurrent neural network language model (RNN-LM). On the English Penn Treebank the model is on par with the existing state-of-the-art despite having 60 fewer parameters. On languages with rich morphology (Arabic, Czech, French, German, Spanish, Russian), the model outperforms word-level morpheme-level LSTM baselines, again with fewer parameters. The results suggest that on many languages, character inputs are sufficient for language modeling. Analysis of word representations obtained from the character composition part of the model reveals that the model is able to encode, from characters only, both semantic and orthographic information. We introduce a recurrent neural network language model (RNN-LM) with long short-term memory (LSTM) units that utilizes both character-level and word-level inputs. Our model has a gate that adaptively finds the optimal mixture of the character-level and word-level inputs. The gate creates the final vector representation of a word by combining two distinct representations of the word. The character-level inputs are converted into vector representations of words using a bidirectional LSTM. The word-level inputs are projected into another high-dimensional space by a word lookup table. The final vector representations of words are used in the LSTM language model which predicts the next word given all the preceding words. Our model with the gating mechanism effectively utilizes the character-level inputs for rare and out-of-vocabulary words and outperforms word-level language models on several English corpora. Neural language models (LMs) based on recurrent neural networks (RNN) are some of the most successful word and character-level LMs. Why do they work so well, in particular better than linear neural LMs? Possible explanations are that RNNs have an implicitly better regularization or that RNNs have a higher capacity for storing patterns due to their nonlinearities or both. Here we argue for the first explanation in the limit of little training data and the second explanation for large amounts of text data. We show state-of-the-art performance on the popular and small Penn dataset when RNN LMs are regularized with random dropout. Nonetheless, we show even better performance from a simplified, much less expressive linear RNN model without off-diagonal entries in the recurrent matrix. We call this model an impulse-response LM (IRLM). Using random dropout, column normalization and annealed learning rates, IRLMs develop neurons that keep a memory of up to 50 words in the past and achieve a perplexity of 102.5 on the Penn dataset. On two large datasets however, the same regularization methods are unsuccessful for both models and the RNN's expressivity allows it to overtake the IRLM by 10 and 20 percent perplexity, respectively. Despite the perplexity gap, IRLMs still outperform RNNs on the Microsoft Research Sentence Completion (MRSC) task. We develop a slightly modified IRLM that separates long-context units (LCUs) from short-context units and show that the LCUs alone achieve a state-of-the-art performance on the MRSC task of 60.8 . Our analysis indicates that a fruitful direction of research for neural LMs lies in developing more accessible internal representations, and suggests an optimization regime of very high momentum terms for effectively training such models.