1 Introduction
Neural network models have recently contributed towards a great amount of progress in natural language processing. These models typically share a common backbone: recurrent neural networks (RNN), which have proven themselves to be capable of tackling a variety of core natural language processing tasks [Hochreiter and Schmidhuber1997, Elman1990]
. One such task is language modeling, in which we estimate a probability distribution over sequences of tokens that corresponds to observed sentences (§
2). Neural language models, particularly models conditioned on a particular input, have many applications including in machine translation [Bahdanau et al.2016], abstractive summarization [Chopra et al.2016], and speech processing [Graves et al.2013]. Similarly, stateoftheart language models are almost universally based on RNNs, particularly long shortterm memory (LSTM) networks
[Jozefowicz et al.2016, Inan et al.2017, Merity et al.2016].While powerful, LSTM language models usually do not explicitly model many commonlyaccepted linguistic phenomena. As a result, standard models lack linguistically informed inductive biases, potentially limiting their accuracy, particularly in lowdata scenarios [Adams et al.2017, Koehn and Knowles2017]. In this work, we present a novel modification to the standard LSTM language modeling framework that allows us to incorporate some varieties of these linguistic intuitions seamlessly: neural lattice language models (§3.1). Neural lattice language models define a lattice over possible paths through a sentence, and maximize the marginal probability over all paths that lead to generating the reference sentence, as shown in Fig. 1. Depending on how we define these paths, we can incorporate different assumptions about how language should be modeled.
In the particular instantiations of neural lattice language models covered by this paper, we focus on two properties of language that could potentially be of use in language modeling: the existence of multiword lexical units [Zgusta1967] (§4.1) and polysemy [Ravin and Leacock2000] (§4.2). Neural lattice language models allow the model to incorporate these aspects in an endtoend fashion by simply adjusting the structure of the underlying lattices.
We run experiments to explore whether these modifications improve the performance of the model (§5). Additionally, we provide qualitative visualizations of the model to attempt to understand what types of multitoken phrases and polysemous embeddings have been learned.
2 Background
2.1 Language Models
Consider a sequence for which we want to calculate its probability. Assume we have a vocabulary from which we can select a unique list of tokens such that , i.e. the concatenation of the tokens (with an appropriate delimiter). These tokens can be either on the character level [Hwang and Sung2017, Ling et al.2015] or word level [Inan et al.2017, Merity et al.2016]
. Using the chain rule, language models generally factorize
in the following way:(1) 
Note that this factorization is exact only in the case where the segmentation is unique. In characterlevel models, it is easy to see that this property is maintained, because each token is unique and nonoverlapping. In wordlevel models, this also holds, because tokens are delimited by spaces, and no word contains a space.
2.2 Recurrent Neural Networks
Recurrent neural networks have emerged as the stateoftheart approach to approximating . In particular, the LSTM cell [Hochreiter and Schmidhuber1997] is a specific RNN architecture which has been shown to be effective on many tasks, including language modeling [Press and Wolf2017, Jozefowicz et al.2016, Merity et al.2016, Inan et al.2017].^{2}^{2}2In this work, we utilize an LSTM with linked input and forget gates, as proposed by greff2016lstm. LSTM language models recursively calculate the hidden and cell states ( and respectively) given the input embedding corresponding to token :
(2) 
then calculate the probability of the next token given the hidden state, generally by performing an affine transform parameterized by and , followed by a softmax:
(3) 
3 Neural Lattice Language Models
3.1 Language Models with Ambiguous Segmentations
To reiterate, the standard formulation of language modeling in the previous section requires splitting sentence into a unique set of tokens . Our proposed method generalizes the previous formulation to remove the requirement of uniqueness of segmentation, similar to that used in nonneural gram language models such as dupont1997lattice and goldwater2007distributional.
First, we define some terminology. We use the term “token”, designated by , to describe any indivisible item in our vocabulary that has no other vocabulary item as its constituent part. We use the term “chunk”, designated by or , to describe a sequence of one or more tokens that represents a portion of the full string , containing the unit tokens through : . We also refer to the “token vocabulary”, which is the subset of the vocabulary containing only tokens, and to the “chunk vocabulary”, which similarly contains all chunks.
Note that we can factorize the probability of any sequence of chunks using the chain rule, in precisely the same way as sequences of tokens:
(4) 
We can factorize the overall probability of a token list in terms of its chunks by using the chain rule, and marginalizing over all segmentations. For any particular token list , we define a set of valid segmentations , such that for every sequence , . The factorization is:
(5) 
Note that, by definition, there exists a unique segmentation of such that are all tokens, in which case . When only that one unique segmentation is allowed per , contains only that one element, so summation drops out, and therefore for standard characterlevel and wordlevel models, Eq. (3.1) reduces to Eq. (3.1), as desired. However, for models that license multiple segmentations per , computing this marginalization directly is generally intractable. For example, consider segmenting a sentence using a vocabulary containing all words and all 2word expressions. The size of would grow exponentially with the number of words in , meaning we would have to marginalize over trillions of unique segmentations for even modestlysized sentences.
3.2 Lattice Language Models
To avoid this, it is possible to reorganize the computations in a lattice, which allows us to dramatically reduce the number of computations required [Dupont and Rosenfeld1997, Neubig et al.2010].
All segmentations of can be expressed as the edges of paths through a lattice over tokenlevel prefixes of : . The infimum is the empty prefix ; the supremum is ; an edge from prefix to prefix exists if and only if there exists a chunk in our chunk vocabulary such that . Each path through the lattice from to is a segmentation of into the list of tokens on the traversed edges, as seen in Fig. 1.
The probability of a specific prefix is calculated by marginalizing over all segmentations leading up to
(6) 
where by definition . The key insight here that allows us to calculate this efficiently is that this is a recursive formula and that instead of marginalizing over all segmentations, we can marginalize over immediate predecessor edges in the lattice, . Each item in is a location (), which indicates that the edge between prefix and prefix , corresponding to token , exists in the lattice. We can thus calculate as
(7) 
Since is the supremum prefix node, we can use this formula to calculate by setting . In order to do this, we need to calculate the probability of each of its predecessors. Each of those takes up to calculations, meaning that the computation for can be done in O() time. If we can guarantee that each node will have a maximum number of incoming edges so that for all , then this bound can be reduced to O() time.^{3}^{3}3Thus, the standard tokenlevel language model where takes computations.
3.3 Neural Lattice Language Models
There is still one missing piece in our attempt to apply neural language models to lattices. Within our overall probability in Eq. (7), we must calculate the probability of the next segment given the history. However, given that there are potentially an exponential number of paths through the lattice leading to , this is not as straightforward as in the case where only one segmentation is possible. Previous work on latticebased language models [Neubig et al.2010, Dupont and Rosenfeld1997] utilized countbased gram models, which depend on only a limited historical context at each step making it possible to compute the marginal probabilities in an exact and efficient manner through dynamic programming. On the other hand, recurrent neural models depend on the entire context, causing them to lack this ability. Our primary technical contribution is therefore to describe several techniques for incorporating lattices into a neural framework with infinite context, by providing ways to approximate the hidden state of the recurrent neural net.
3.3.1 Direct Approximation
One approach to approximating the hidden state is the TreeLSTM framework described by tai2015improved.^{4}^{4}4This framework has been used before for calculating neural sentence representations involving lattices by DBLP:journals/corr/SuTXL16 and sperber2017neural, but not for the language models that are the target of this paper.
In the TreeLSTM formulation, new states are derived from multiple predecessors by simply summing the individual hidden and cell state vectors of each of them. For each predecessor location
, we first calculate the local hidden state and local cell state by combining the embedding with the hidden state of the LSTM at using the standard LSTM update function as in Eq. (2):We then sum the local hidden and cell states:
This formulation is powerful, but comes at the cost of sacrificing the probabilistic interpretation of which paths are likely. Therefore, even if almost all of the probability mass comes through the “true” segmentation, the hidden state may still be heavily influenced by all of the “bad” segmentations as well.
3.3.2 MonteCarlo Approximation
Another approximation that has been proposed is to sample one predecessor state from all possible predecessors, as seen in chan2016latent. We can calculate the total probability that we reach some prefix , and we know how much of this probability comes from each of its predecessors in the lattice, so we can construct a probability distribution over predecessors in the lattice:
(8) 
Therefore, one way to update the LSTM is to sample one predecessor from the distribution and simply set and . However, sampling is unstable and difficult to train: we found that the model tended to oversample short tokens early on during training, and thus segmented every sentence into unigrams. This is similar to the outcome reported by chan2016latent, who accounted for it by incorporating an encouraging exploration.
3.3.3 Marginal Approximation
In another approach, which allows us to incorporate information from all predecessors while maintaining a probabilistic interpretation, we can utilize the probability distribution to instead calculate the expected value of the hidden state:
3.3.4 GumbelSoftmax Interpolation
The GumbelSoftmax trick, or concrete distribution, described by jang2016categorical and maddison2016concrete, is a technique for incorporating discrete choices into differentiable neural computations. In this case, we can use it to select a predecessor. The GumbelSoftmax trick works by taking advantage of the fact that adding Gumbel noise to the presoftmax predecessor scores and then taking the argmax is equivalent to sampling from the probability distribution. By replacing the argmax with a softmax function scaled by a temperature , we can get this pseudosampled distribution through a fully differentiable computation:
This new distribution can then be used to calculate the hidden state by taking a weighted average of the states of possible predecessors:
When is large, the values of are flattened out; therefore, all the predecessor hidden states are summed with approximately equal weight, equivalent to the direct approximation (§3.3.1). On the other hand, when is small, the output distribution becomes extremely peaky, and one predecessor receives almost all of the weight. Each predecessor has a chance of being selected equal to , which makes it identical to ancestral sampling (§3.3.2). By slowly annealing the value of
, we can smoothly interpolate between these two approaches, and end up with a probabilistic interpretation that avoids the instability of pure samplingbased approaches.
4 Instantiations of Neural Lattice LMs
In this section, we introduce two instantiations of neural lattice languages models aiming to capture features of language: the existence of coherent multitoken chunks, and the existence of polysemy.
4.1 Incorporating MultiToken Phrases
4.1.1 Motivation
Natural language phrases often demonstrate significant noncompositionality: for example, in English, the phrase “rock and roll” is a genre of music, but this meaning is not obtained by viewing the words in isolation. In wordlevel language modeling, the network is given each of these words as input, one at a time; this means it must capture the idiomaticity in its hidden states, which is quite roundabout and potentially a waste of the limited parameters in a neural network model. A straightforward solution is to have an embedding for the entire multitoken phrase, and use this to input the entire phrase to the LSTM in a single timestep. However, it is also important that the model is able to decide whether the noncompositional representation is appropriate given the context: sometimes, “rock” is just a rock.
Additionally, by predicting multiple tokens in a single timestep, we are able to decrease the number of timesteps across which the gradient must travel, making it easier for information to be propagated across the sentence. This is even more useful in nonspacedelimited languages such as Chinese, in which segmentation is nontrivial, but characterlevel modeling leads to many sentences being hundreds of tokens long.
There is also psycholinguistic evidence which supports the fact that humans incorporate multitoken phrases into their mental lexicon. siyanova2011adding show that native speakers of a language have significantly reduced response time when processing idiomatic phrases, whether they are used in an idiomatic sense or not, while bannard2008stored show that children learning a language are better at speaking common phrases than uncommon ones. This evidence lends credence to the idea that multitoken lexical units are a useful tool for language modeling in humans, and so may also be useful in computational models.
4.1.2 Modeling Strategy
The underlying lattices utilized in our multitoken phrase experiments are “dense” lattices: lattices where every edge (below a certain length ) is present (Fig. 2, c). This is for two reasons. First, since every sequence of tokens is given an opportunity to be included in the path, all segmentations are candidates, which will potentially allow us to discover arbitrary types of segmentations without a prejudice towards a particular theory of which multitoken units we should be using. Second, using a dense lattice makes minibatching very straightforward by ensuring that the computation graphs for each sentence are identical. If the lattices were not dense, the lattices of various sentences in a minibatch could be different; it then becomes necessary to either calculate a differentlyshaped graph for every sentence, preventing minibatching and hurting training efficiency, or calculate and then mask out the missing edges, leading to wasted computation. Since only edges of length or less are present, the maximum indegree of any node in the lattice is no greater than , giving us the time bound O().
4.1.3 Token Vocabularies
Storing an embedding for every possible multitoken chunk would require unique embeddings, which is intractable. Therefore, we construct our multitoken embeddings by merging compositional and noncompositional representations.
Noncompositional Representation
We first establish a priori a set of “core” chunklevel tokens that each have a dense embedding. In order to guarantee full coverage of sentences, we first add every unitlevel token to this vocabulary, e.g. every word in the corpus for a wordlevel model. Following this, we also add the most frequent ngrams (where
). This ensures that the vast majority of sentences will have several longer chunks appear within them, and so will be able to take advantage of tokens at larger granularities.Compositional Representation
However, the noncompositional embeddings above only account for a subset of all grams, so we additionally construct compositional embeddings for each chunk by running a BiLSTM encoder over the individual embeddings of each unitlevel token within it [Dyer et al.2016]. In this way, we can create a unique embedding for every sequence of unitlevel tokens.
We use this composition function on chunks regardless of whether they are assigned noncompositional embeddings or not, as even highfrequency chunks may display compositional properties. Thus, for every chunk, we compute the chunk embedding vector by concatenating the compositional embedding with the noncompositional embedding if it exists, or otherwise with an UNK embedding.
Sentinel Mixture Model for Predictions
At each timestep, we want to use our LSTM hidden state to assign some probability mass to every chunk with length less than . To do this, we follow merity2016pointer in creating a new “sentinel” token <s> and adding it to our vocabulary. At each timestep, we first use our neural network to calculate a score for each chunk in our vocabulary, including the sentinel token. We do a softmax across these scores to assign a probability to every chunk in our vocabulary, and also to <s>. For token sequences not represented in our chunk vocabulary, this probability .
Next, the probability mass assigned to the sentinel value, , is distributed across all possible tokens sequences of length less than , using another LSTM with parameters . Similar to jozefowicz2016exploring, this subLSTM is initialized by passing in the hidden state of the main lattice LSTM at that timestep. This gives us a probability for each sequence .
The final formula for calculating the probability mass assigned to a specific chunk is:
4.2 Incorporating Polysemous Tokens
4.2.1 Motivation
A second shortcoming of current language modeling approaches is that each word is associated with only one embedding. For highly polysemous words, a single embedding may be unable to represent all meanings effectively.
There has been past work in word embeddings which has shown that using multiple embeddings for each word is helpful in constructing a useful representation. athiwaratkun2017multimodal represented each word with a multimodal Gaussian distribution and demonstrated that embeddings of this form were able to outperform more standard skipgram embeddings on word similarity and entailment tasks. Similarly, DBLP:journals/corr/ChenQJH15 incorporate standard skipgram training into a Gaussian mixture framework and show that this improves performance on several word similarity benchmarks.
When a polysemous word is represented using only a single embedding in a language modeling task, the multimodal nature of the true embedding distribution may causes the resulting embedding to be both highvariance and skewed from the positions of each of the true modes. Thus, it is likely useful to represent each token with multiple embeddings when doing language modeling.
4.2.2 Modeling Strategy
For our polysemy experiments, the underlying lattices are “multilattices”: lattices which are also multigraphs, and can have any number of edges between any given pair of nodes (Fig. 2, d). Lattices set up in this manner allow us to incorporate multiple embeddings for each word. Within a single sentence, any pair of nodes corresponds to the start and end of a particular subsequence of the full sentence, and is thus associated with a specific token; each edge between them is a unique embedding for that token. While many strategies for choosing the number of embeddings exist in the literature [Neelakantan et al.2014], in this work, we choose a number of embeddings and assign that many embeddings to each word. This ensures that the maximum indegree of any node in the lattice , is no greater than , giving us the time bound O().
In this work, we do not explore models that include both chunk vocabularies and multiple embeddings. However, combining these two techniques, as well as exploring other, more complex lattice structures, is an interesting avenue for future work.
5 Experiments
5.1 Data
We perform experiments on two languages: English and Chinese, which provide an interesting contrast in linguistic features.^{5}^{5}5Code to reproduce datasets and experiments is available at: http://github.com/jbuckman/neurallatticelanguagemodels
In English, the most common benchmark for language modeling recently is the Penn Treebank, specifically the version preprocessed by mikolovptb. However, this corpus is limited by being relatively small, only containing approximately 45,000 sentences, which we found to be insufficient to effectively train lattice language models.^{6}^{6}6
Experiments using multiword units resulted in overfitting, regardless of normalization and hyperparameter settings.
Thus, we instead used the Billion Word Corpus [Chelba et al.2014]. Past experiments on the BWC typically modeled every word without restricting the vocabulary, which results in a number of challenges regarding the modeling of open vocabularies that are orthogonal to this work. Thus, we create a preprocessed version of the data in the same manner as Mikolov, lowercasing the words, replacing numbers with N tokens, and UNKing all words beyond the ten thousand most common. Additionally, we restricted the data set to only include sentences of length 50 or less, ensuring that large minibatches could fit in GPU memory. Our subsampled English corpus contained 29,869,166 sentences, of which 29,276,669 were used for training, 5,000 for validation, and 587,497 for testing. To validate that our methods scale up to larger language modeling scenarios, we also report a smaller set of largescale experiments on the full billion word benchmark in Appendix A.In Chinese, we ran experiments on a subset of the Chinese GigaWord corpus. Chinese is also particularly interesting because unlike English, it does not use spaces to delimit words, so segmentation is nontrivial. Therefore, we used a characterlevel language model for the baseline, and our lattice was composed of multicharacter chunks. We used sentences from Guangming Daily, again UNKing all but the 10,000 most common tokens and restricting the selected sentences to only include sentences of length 150 or less. Our subsampled Chinese corpus included 934,101 sentences for training, 5,000 for validation, and 30,547 for testing.
5.2 Main Experiments
We compare a baseline LSTM model, dense lattices of size 1, 2, and 3, and a multilattice with 2 and 3 embeddings per word.
The implementation of our networks was done in DyNet [Neubig et al.2017].All LSTMs had 2 layers, each with hidden dimension of 200. Variational dropout [Gal and Ghahramani2016] of .2 was used on the Chinese experiments, but hurt performance on the English data, so it was not used. The 10,000 word embeddings each had dimension 256. For lattice models, chunk vocabularies were selected by taking the 10,000 words in the vocabulary and adding the most common 10,000 grams with . The weights on the final layer of the network were tied with the input embeddings, as done by [Press and Wolf2017, Inan et al.2017]. In all lattice models, hidden states were computed using weighted expectation (§3.3.3) unless mentioned otherwise. In multiembedding models, embedding sizes were decreased so as to maintain the same total number of parameters. All models were trained using the Adam optimizer with a learning rate of .01 on a NVIDIA K80 GPU. The results can be seen in Table 1 and Table 2.
In the multitoken phrase experiments, many additional parameters are accrued by the BiLSTM encoder and subLSTM predictive model, making them not strictly comparable to the baseline. To account for this, we include results for , which, like the baseline LSTM approach, fails to leverage multitoken phrases, but includes the same number of parameters as and .
In both the English and Chinese experiments, we see the same trend: increasing the maximum lattice size decreases the perplexity, and for and above, the neural lattice language model outperforms the baseline. Similarly, increasing the number of embeddings per word decreases the perplexity, and for and above, the multipleembedding model outperforms the baseline.
Model  Valid. Perp.  Test Perp. 

Baseline  47.64  48.62 
MultiToken ()  45.69  47.21 
MultiToken ()  44.15  46.12 
MultiToken ()  45.19  46.84 
MultiEmb ()  44.80  46.32 
MultiEmb ()  42.76  43.78 
Model  Valid. Perp.  Test Perp. 

Baseline  41.46  40.72 
MultiToken ()  49.86  50.99 
MultiToken ()  38.61  37.22 
MultiToken ()  33.01  32.19 
MultiEmb ()  40.30  39.28 
MultiEmb ()  45.72  44.40 
5.3 Hidden State Calculation Experiments
We compare the various hiddenstate calculation approaches discussed in Section 3.3 on the English data using a lattice of size and dropout of .2. These results can be seen in Table 3.
For all hidden state calculation techniques, the neural lattice language models outperform the LSTM baseline. The ancestral sampling technique used by chan2016latent is worse than the others, which we found to be due to it getting stuck in a local minimum which represents almost everything as unigrams. There is only a small difference between the perplexities of the other techniques.
5.4 Discussion and Analysis
Neural lattice language models convincingly outperform an LSTM baseline on the task of language modeling. One interesting note is that in English, which is already tokenized into words and highly polysemous, utilizing multiple embeddings per word is more effective than including multiword tokens. In contrast, in the experiments on the Chinese data, increasing the lattice size of the multicharacter tokens is more important than increasing the number of embeddings per character. This corresponds to our intuition; since Chinese is not tokenized to begin with, utilizing models that incorporate segmentation and compositionality of elementary units is very important for effective language modeling.
rock  rock 

…at the unk pop , rock and jazz…  …including hsbc , northern rock and… 
…a little bit unk rock ,…  …pakistan has a unk rock music scene… 
…on light rock and unk stations…  …spokesman for round rock , unk… 
bank  bank 
…being a bank holiday in…  …the bank of england has… 
…all the us bank runs and…  …with the royal bank of scotland… 
…by getting the bank ’s interests…  …development bank of japan and the… 
page  page 
…on page unk of the…  …was it front page news… 
…a source told page six ….  …himself , tony page , the former … 
…on page unk of the…  …sections of the page that discuss… 
profile  profile 
…( unk : quote , profile , research )…  …so unk the profile of the city… 
…( unk : quote , profile , research )…  …the highest profile unk held by… 
…( unk : quote , profile , research )…  …from high i , elite schools ,… 
edition  edition 
… of the second edition of windows…  …of the new york edition . … 
… this month ’s edition ofunk , the …  …of the new york edition . … 
…forthcoming d.c. edition of the hit…  …of the new york edition . … 
rodham  rodham 
…senators hillary rodham clinton and…  
…making hillary rodham clinton his…  
…hillary rodham clinton ’s campaign has… 
To calculate the probability of a sentence, the neural lattice language model implicitly marginalizes across latent segmentations. By inspecting the probabilities assigned to various edges of the lattice, we can visualize these segmentations, as is done in Fig. 3. The model successfully identifies bigrams which correspond to noncompositional compounds, like “prime minister”, and bigrams which correspond to compositional compounds, such as “a quarter”. Interestingly, this does not occur for all highfrequency bigrams; it ignores those that are not inherently meaningful, such as “UNK in”, yielding qualitatively good phrases.
In the multipleembedding experiments, it is possible to see which of the two embeddings of a word was assigned the higher probability for any specific testset sentence. In order to visualize what types of meanings are assigned to each embedding, we select sentences in which one embedding is preferred, and look at the context in which the word is used. Several examples of this can be seen in Table 4; it is clear from looking at these examples that the system does learn distinct embeddings for different senses of the word. What is interesting, however, is that it does not necessarily learn intuitive semantic meanings; instead it tends to group the words by the context in which they appear. In some cases, like profile and edition, one of the two embeddings simply captures an idiosyncrasy of the training data.
Additionally, for some words, such as rodham in Table 4, the system always prefers one embedding. This is promising, because it means that in future work it may be possible to further improve accuracy and training efficiency by assigning more embeddings to polysemous words, instead of assigning the same number of embeddings to all words.
6 Related Work
Past work that utilized lattices in neural models for natural language processing centers around using these lattices in the encoder portion of machine translation. DBLP:journals/corr/SuTXL16 utilized a variation of the Gated Recurrent Unit that operated over lattices, and preprocessed lattices over Chinese characters that allowed it to effectively encode multiple segmentations. Additionally, sperber2017neural proposed a variation of the TreeLSTM with the goal of creating an encoder over speech lattices in speechtotext. Our work tackles language modeling rather than encoding, and thus addresses the issue of marginalization over the lattice.
Another recent work which marginalized over multiple paths through a sentence is ling2016latent. The authors tackle the problem of code generation, where some components of the code can be copied from the input, via a neural network. Our work expands on this by handling multiword tokens as input to the neural network, rather than passing in one token at a time.
Neural lattice language models improve accuracy by helping the gradient flow over smaller paths, preventing vanishing gradients. Many hierarchical neural language models have been proposed with a similar objective koutnik2014clockwork,zhou2017chunk. Our work is distinguished from these by the use of latent tokenlevel segmentations that capture meaning directly, rather than simply being highlevel mechanisms to encourage gradient flow.
chan2016latent propose a model for predicting characters at multiple granularities in the decoder segment of a machine translation system. Our work expands on theirs by considering the entire lattice at once, rather than considering a only a single path through the lattice via ancestral sampling. This allows us to train endtoend without the model collapsing to a local minimum, with no exploration bonus needed. Additionally, we propose a more broad class of models, including those incorporating polysemous words, and apply our model to the task of wordlevel language modeling, rather than characterlevel transcription.
Concurrently to this work, van2017multiscale have proposed a neural language model that can similarly handle multiple scales. Our work is differentiated in that it is more general: utilizing an open multitoken vocabulary, proposing multiple techniques for hidden state calculation, and handling polysemy using multiembedding lattices.
7 Future Work
In the future, we would like to experiment with utilizing neural lattice language models in extrinsic evaluation, such as machine translation and speech recognition. Additionally, in the current model, the noncompositional embeddings must be selected a priori, and may be suboptimal. We are exploring techniques to store fixed embeddings dynamically, so that the noncompositional phrases can be selected as part of the endtoend training.
8 Conclusion
In this work, we have introduced the idea of a neural lattice language model, which allows us to marginalize over all segmentations of a sentence in an endtoend fashion. In our experiments on the Billion Word Corpus and Chinese GigaWord corpus, we demonstrated that the neural lattice language model beats an LSTMbased baseline at the task of language modeling, both when it is used to incorporate multipleword phrases and multipleembedding words. Qualitatively, we observed that the latent segmentations generated by the model correspond well to human intuition about multiword phrases, and that the varying usage of words with multiple embeddings seems to also be sensible.
References
 [Adams et al.2017] Oliver Adams, Adam Makarucha, Graham Neubig, Steven Bird, and Trevor Cohn. 2017. Crosslingual word embeddings for lowresource language modeling. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Volume 1, Long Papers, volume 1, pages 937–947.
 [Athiwaratkun and Wilson2017] Ben Athiwaratkun and Andrew Wilson. 2017. Multimodal word distributions. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), volume 1, pages 1645–1656.
 [Bahdanau et al.2016] Dzmitry Bahdanau, Jan Chorowski, Dmitriy Serdyuk, Philemon Brakel, and Yoshua Bengio. 2016. Endtoend attentionbased largevocabulary speech recognition. In IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, pages 4945–4949. IEEE.
 [Bannard and Matthews2008] Colin Bannard and Danielle Matthews. 2008. Stored word sequences in language learning: The effect of familiarity on children’s repetition of fourword combinations. Psychological Science, 19(3):241–248.
 [Chan et al.2017] William Chan, Yu Zhang, Quoc Le, and Navdeep Jaitly. 2017. Latent sequence decompositions. 5th International Conference on Learning Representations.
 [Chelba et al.2014] Ciprian Chelba, Tomas Mikolov, Mike Schuster, Qi Ge, Thorsten Brants, Phillipp Koehn, and Tony Robinson. 2014. One billion word benchmark for measuring progress in statistical language modeling. Interspeech.
 [Chen et al.2015] Xinchi Chen, Xipeng Qiu, Jingxiang Jiang, and Xuanjing Huang. 2015. Gaussian mixture embeddings for multiple word prototypes. CoRR, abs/1511.06246.
 [Chopra et al.2016] Sumit Chopra, Michael Auli, Alexander M Rush, and SEAS Harvard. 2016. Abstractive sentence summarization with attentive recurrent neural networks. North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 93–98.
 [Dupont and Rosenfeld1997] Pierre Dupont and Ronald Rosenfeld. 1997. Lattice based language models. Technical report, DTIC Document.
 [Dyer et al.2016] Chris Dyer, Adhiguna Kuncoro, Miguel Ballesteros, and Noah A Smith. 2016. Recurrent neural network grammars. North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies.
 [Elman1990] Jeffrey L Elman. 1990. Finding structure in time. Cognitive science, 14(2):179–211.
 [Gal and Ghahramani2016] Yarin Gal and Zoubin Ghahramani. 2016. A theoretically grounded application of dropout in recurrent neural networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 1019–1027.
 [Goldwater et al.2007] Sharon Goldwater, Thomas L Griffiths, Mark Johnson, et al. 2007. Distributional cues to word boundaries: Context is important.
 [Graves et al.2013] Alex Graves, Abdelrahman Mohamed, and Geoffrey Hinton. 2013. Speech recognition with deep recurrent neural networks. In IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, pages 6645–6649. IEEE.
 [Greff et al.2016] Klaus Greff, Rupesh K Srivastava, Jan Koutník, Bas R Steunebrink, and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 2016. Lstm: A search space odyssey. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems.
 [Hochreiter and Schmidhuber1997] Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 1997. Long shortterm memory. Neural Computation, 9(8):1735–1780.
 [Hwang and Sung2017] Kyuyeon Hwang and Wonyong Sung. 2017. Characterlevel language modeling with hierarchical recurrent neural networks. In IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, pages 5720–5724. IEEE.

[Inan et al.2017]
Hakan Inan, Khashayar Khosravi, and Richard Socher.
2017.
Tying word vectors and word classifiers: A loss framework for language modeling.
5th International Conference on Learning Representations.  [Jang et al.2017] Eric Jang, Shixiang Gu, and Ben Poole. 2017. Categorical reparameterization with gumbelsoftmax. 5th International Conference on Learning Representations.
 [Jozefowicz et al.2016] Rafal Jozefowicz, Oriol Vinyals, Mike Schuster, Noam Shazeer, and Yonghui Wu. 2016. Exploring the limits of language modeling.

[Koehn and Knowles2017]
Philipp Koehn and Rebecca Knowles.
2017.
Six challenges for neural machine translation.
In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Neural Machine Translation, pages 28–39. 
[Koutnik et al.2014]
Jan Koutnik, Klaus Greff, Faustino Gomez, and Juergen Schmidhuber.
2014.
A clockwork rnn.
Proceedings of Machine Learning Research
.  [Ling et al.2015] Wang Ling, Isabel Trancoso, Chris Dyer, and Alan W. Black. 2015. Characterbased neural machine translation. CoRR, abs/1511.04586.
 [Ling et al.2016] Wang Ling, Edward Grefenstette, Karl Moritz Hermann, Tomáš Kočiskỳ, Andrew Senior, Fumin Wang, and Phil Blunsom. 2016. Latent predictor networks for code generation. Association for Computational Linguistics.

[Maddison et al.2017]
Chris J Maddison, Andriy Mnih, and Yee Whye Teh.
2017.
The concrete distribution: A continuous relaxation of discrete random variables.
5th International Conference on Learning Representations.  [Merity et al.2016] Stephen Merity, Caiming Xiong, James Bradbury, and Richard Socher. 2016. Pointer sentinel mixture models. 4th International Conference on Learning Representations.
 [Neelakantan et al.2014] Arvind Neelakantan, Jeevan Shankar, Re Passos, and Andrew Mccallum. 2014. Efficient nonparametric estimation of multiple embeddings per word in vector space. In In Proceedings of EMNLP. Citeseer.
 [Neubig et al.2010] Graham Neubig, Masato Mimura, Shinsuke Mori, and Tatsuya Kawahara. 2010. Learning a language model from continuous speech. In INTERSPEECH, pages 1053–1056.
 [Neubig et al.2017] Graham Neubig, Chris Dyer, Yoav Goldberg, Austin Matthews, Waleed Ammar, Antonios Anastasopoulos, Miguel Ballesteros, David Chiang, Daniel Clothiaux, Trevor Cohn, et al. 2017. Dynet: The dynamic neural network toolkit. arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.03980.
 [Press and Wolf2017] Ofir Press and Lior Wolf. 2017. Using the output embedding to improve language models. 5th International Conference on Learning Representations.
 [Ravin and Leacock2000] Yael Ravin and Claudia Leacock. 2000. Polysemy: Theoretical and Computational Approaches. OUP Oxford.
 [Sennrich et al.2015] Rico Sennrich, Barry Haddow, and Alexandra Birch. 2015. Neural machine translation of rare words with subword units. Association for Computational Linguistics.
 [SiyanovaChanturia et al.2011] Anna SiyanovaChanturia, Kathy Conklin, and Norbert Schmitt. 2011. Adding more fuel to the fire: An eyetracking study of idiom processing by native and nonnative speakers. Second Language Research, 27(2):251–272.
 [Sperber et al.2017] Matthias Sperber, Graham Neubig, Jan Niehues, and Alex Waibel. 2017. Neural latticetosequence models for uncertain inputs. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1380–1389.
 [Su et al.2016] Jinsong Su, Zhixing Tan, Deyi Xiong, and Yang Liu. 2016. Latticebased recurrent neural network encoders for neural machine translation. CoRR, abs/1609.07730.
 [Tai et al.2015] Kai Sheng Tai, Richard Socher, and Christopher D Manning. 2015. Improved semantic representations from treestructured long shortterm memory networks. Association for Computational Linguistics.
 [Tomáš Mikolov2010] Lukáš Burget Jan “Honza” Cernock Sanjeev Khudanpur Tomáš Mikolov, Martin Karafiát. 2010. Recurrent neural network based language model. INTERSPEECH.
 [van Merriënboer et al.2017] Bart van Merriënboer, Amartya Sanyal, Hugo Larochelle, and Yoshua Bengio. 2017. Multiscale sequence modeling with a learned dictionary. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.00762.
 [Zgusta1967] Ladislav Zgusta. 1967. Multiword lexical units. Word, 23(13):578–587.
 [Zhou et al.2017] Hao Zhou, Zhaopeng Tu, Shujian Huang, Xiaohua Liu, Hang Li, and Jiajun Chen. 2017. Chunkbased biscale decoder for neural machine translation. Association for Computational Linguistics.
Appendix A LargeScale Experiments
To verify that our findings scale to stateoftheart language models, we also compared a baseline model, dense lattices of size 1 and 2, and a multilattice with 2 embeddings per word on the full bytepair encoded Billion Word Corpus.
In this set of experiments, we take the full Billion Word Corpus, and apply bytepair encoding as described by sennrich2015neural to construct a vocabulary of 10,000 subword tokens. Our model consists of three LSTM layers, each with 1500 hidden units. We train the model for a single epoch over the corpus, using the Adam optimizer with learning rate .0001 on a P100 GPU. We use a batch size of 40, and variational dropout of 0.1. The 10,000 subword embeddings each had dimension 600. For lattice models, chunk vocabularies were selected by taking the 10,000 subwords in the vocabulary and adding the most common 10,000
grams with . The weights on the final layer of the network were tied with the input embeddings, as done by press2016using,inan2016tying. In all lattice models, hidden states were computed using weighted expectation (§3.3.3). In multiembedding models, embedding sizes were decreased so as to maintain the same total number of parameters.Results of these experiments are in Table 5. The performance of the baseline model is roughly on par with that of stateoftheart models on this database; differences can be explained by model size and hyperparameter tuning. The results show the same trend as the results of our main experiments, indicating that the performance gains shown by our smaller neural lattice language models generalize to the much larger datasets used in stateoftheart systems.
Model  Valid.  Test  Sec./ 

Perp.  Perp.  Batch  
Baseline  54.1  37.7  .45 
MultiToken ()  54.2  37.4  .82 
MultiToken ()  53.9  36.4  4.85 
MultiEmb ()  53.8  35.2  2.53 
Appendix B Chunk Vocabulary Size
Model  Valid. Perp.  Test Perp. 

Baseline  64.18  60.67 
10000chunk vocab  58.62  55.06 
20000chunk vocab  57.40  54.15 
We compare a 2lattice with a noncompositional chunk vocabulary of 10,000 phrases with a 2lattice with a noncompositional chunk vocabulary of 20,000 phrases. The results can be seen in Table 6. Doubling the number of noncompositional embeddings present decreases the perplexity, but only by a small amount. This is perhaps to be expected, given that doubling the number of embeddings corresponds to a large increase in the number of model parameters for phrases that may have less data with which to train them.
Comments
There are no comments yet.