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.
We have recently come across a concurrent paper @cite_11 where the authors systematically compare different subword units (characters, character trigrams, BPE @cite_7 , morphemes) and different representation models (CNN, Bi-LSTM, summation) on languages with various morphological typology. However, they do not consider syllables, and they experiment with relatively small models on small data sets (0.6M--1.4M tokens).
@cite_7 @cite_11
1816313093 2611767671
Neural machine translation (NMT) models typically operate with a fixed vocabulary, but translation is an open-vocabulary problem. Previous work addresses the translation of out-of-vocabulary words by backing off to a dictionary. In this paper, we introduce a simpler and more effective approach, making the NMT model capable of open-vocabulary translation by encoding rare and unknown words as sequences of subword units. This is based on the intuition that various word classes are translatable via smaller units than words, for instance names (via character copying or transliteration), compounds (via compositional translation), and cognates and loanwords (via phonological and morphological transformations). We discuss the suitability of different word segmentation techniques, including simple character n-gram models and a segmentation based on the byte pair encoding compression algorithm, and empirically show that subword models improve over a back-off dictionary baseline for the WMT 15 translation tasks English-German and English-Russian by 1.1 and 1.3 BLEU, respectively. Words can be represented by composing the representations of subword units such as word segments, characters, and or character n-grams. While such representations are effective and may capture the morphological regularities of words, they have not been systematically compared, and it is not understood how they interact with different morphological typologies. On a language modeling task, we present experiments that systematically vary (1) the basic unit of representation, (2) the composition of these representations, and (3) the morphological typology of the language modeled. Our results extend previous findings that character representations are effective across typologies, and we find that a previously unstudied combination of character trigram representations composed with bi-LSTMs outperforms most others. But we also find room for improvement: none of the character-level models match the predictive accuracy of a model with access to true morphological analyses, even when learned from an order of magnitude more data.