, , , ,
This paper presents an empirical analysis of various dropout techniques for language modelling, including Bernoulli dropout, Gaussian dropout, Curriculum Dropout, Variational Dropout, and Concrete Dropout. The authors also propose an extension of variational dropout to concrete dropout and curriculum dropout with varying schedules. The results show that these extensions perform well compared to standard dropout approaches, particularly variational curriculum dropout with a linear schedule. The largest performance improvements are observed when applying dropout on the decoder layer. The study also analyzes where most errors occur at test time to determine if the problem of compounding errors is present and how the proposed methods mitigate this issue for each dataset. This is done by conducting experiments on different neural network architectures (2-hidden layer LSTM, GRU, and Highway network) with embedding dropout, dropout on gated hidden layers, and output projection layer. The results are reported on Penn-TreeBank and WikiText-2 word-level language modelling datasets. Overall, this study provides insights into the effectiveness of different dropout techniques in improving language modelling performance and offers recommendations for regularization settings when training neural language models.
- - Empirical analysis of dropout techniques for language modelling
- - Dropout techniques include Bernoulli dropout, Gaussian dropout, Curriculum Dropout, Variational Dropout, and Concrete Dropout
- - Extension of variational dropout to concrete dropout and curriculum dropout with varying schedules proposed
- - Variational curriculum dropout with a linear schedule performs well compared to standard approaches
- - Largest performance improvements observed when applying dropout on the decoder layer
- - Analysis of errors at test time to determine presence of compounding errors and how proposed methods mitigate this issue for each dataset
- - Experiments conducted on different neural network architectures (2-hidden layer LSTM, GRU, Highway network) with various types of dropout applied
- - Results reported on Penn-TreeBank and WikiText-2 word-level language modelling datasets
- - Study provides insights into effectiveness of different dropout techniques in improving language modelling performance
- - Recommendations for regularization settings when training neural language models offered
The study looked at different ways to make language models better.
Dropout techniques are ways to improve language models, like turning off some parts of the model during training.
They tried new versions of dropout called variational dropout and concrete dropout, and also used a schedule for when to use dropout.
Using variational curriculum dropout with a linear schedule worked well compared to other ways.
The best results came from using dropout on the decoder layer.
Introduction
Dropout has become a popular technique for regularizing neural networks, particularly in the field of natural language processing (NLP). It involves randomly dropping units (neurons) from a neural network during training, which forces the remaining units to learn more robust and generalizable representations. This helps prevent overfitting and improves the performance of neural networks on unseen data.
In this paper, titled "Empirical Analysis of Dropout Techniques for Language Modelling," the authors explore various dropout techniques for language modelling and their effectiveness in improving performance. They also propose extensions to existing dropout methods and analyze their impact on different neural network architectures.
The Importance of Regularization in Language Modelling
Language modelling is a fundamental task in NLP that involves predicting the next word or character in a sequence based on previous words or characters. Neural language models have achieved state-of-the-art results on various datasets, but they are prone to overfitting due to their large number of parameters. Therefore, regularization techniques like dropout are crucial for preventing overfitting and improving generalization.
Methodology
The authors conduct experiments on two commonly used word-level language modelling datasets: Penn-TreeBank (PTB) and WikiText-2. They use three different neural network architectures - 2-hidden layer LSTM, GRU, and Highway network - with embedding dropout, dropout on gated hidden layers, and output projection layer.
They compare five different dropout techniques: Bernoulli dropout, Gaussian dropout, Curriculum Dropout (CD), Variational Dropout (VD), and Concrete Dropout (CDrop). CDrop is an extension of VD that uses concrete distributions instead of Gaussian distributions for sampling weights during training.
To evaluate the effectiveness of these techniques, they measure perplexity scores on both datasets. Perplexity measures how well a model predicts a given sequence by calculating how surprised it is by the next word in the sequence. Lower perplexity scores indicate better performance.
Results
The results show that all dropout techniques improve language modelling performance compared to a baseline model with no dropout. The largest improvements are observed when applying dropout on the decoder layer, which suggests that this is where most overfitting occurs.
Among the five techniques, CDrop and VD perform consistently well across all architectures and datasets. However, CDrop outperforms VD on PTB while VD performs better on WikiText-2. This indicates that different datasets may require different regularization settings for optimal performance.
The study also analyzes where most errors occur at test time to determine if there is a problem of compounding errors (errors building upon each other) and how the proposed methods mitigate this issue for each dataset. They find that CDrop significantly reduces compounding errors compared to other techniques, particularly on PTB.
Extensions to Dropout Techniques
In addition to comparing existing dropout techniques, the authors propose extensions of VD and CD using varying schedules - linear schedule for curriculum learning and exponential schedule for variational inference. These extensions aim to further improve performance by adapting dropout rates during training based on model complexity.
They find that both extensions perform well, with variational curriculum dropout using a linear schedule achieving the best results overall. This suggests that incorporating curriculum learning into variational inference can lead to more effective regularization in language modelling tasks.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this paper presents an empirical analysis of various dropout techniques for language modelling and their effectiveness in improving performance. It also proposes extensions to existing methods and analyzes their impact on different neural network architectures.
The results show that incorporating any form of dropout can significantly improve language modelling performance compared to a baseline model with no regularization. Among the five techniques tested, CDrop and VD perform consistently well across different architectures and datasets. The study also highlights the importance of considering different regularization settings for optimal performance on different datasets.
This research has practical implications for NLP practitioners, providing insights into the effectiveness of different dropout techniques and recommendations for regularization settings when training neural language models. It also opens up avenues for further research in incorporating curriculum learning into variational inference and exploring other extensions to existing dropout methods.