Improving Neural Language Models with a Continuous Cache
We propose an extension to neural network language models to adapt their prediction to the recent history. Our model is a simplified version of memory augmented networks, which stores past hidden activations as memory and accesses them through a dot product with the current hidden activation. This mechanism is very efficient and scales to very large memory sizes. We also draw a link between the use of external memory in neural network and cache models used with count based language models. We demonstrate on several language model datasets that our approach performs significantly better than recent memory augmented networks.
This paper not only shows that a cache model on top of a pre-trained RNN can improve language modeling, but also illustrates a shortcoming of standard RNN models in that they are unable to capture this information themselves. Regardless of whether this is due to the small BPTT window (35 is standard) or an issue with the capability of the RNN itself, this is a useful insight. This technique is an interesting variation of memory augmented neural networks with a number of advantages to many of the standard memory augmented architectures. They illustrate the neural cache model on not just the Penn Treebank but also WikiText-2 and WikiText-103, two datasets specifically tailored to illustrating long term dependencies with a more realistic vocabulary size. I have not seen the ability to refer up to 2000 words back previously. I recommend this paper be accepted. There is additionally extensive analysis of the hyperparameters on these datasets, providing further insight. I recommend this interesting and well analyzed paper be accepted.
You are a member of the scientific community tasked with peer review. Review the following paper title and abstract.
### Title + Abstract
Improving Neural Language Models with a Continuous Cache
We propose an extension to neural network language models to adapt their prediction to the recent history. Our model is a simplified version of memory augmented networks, which stores past hidden activations as memory and accesses them through a dot product with the current hidden activation. This mechanism is very efficient and scales to very large memory sizes. We also draw a link between the use of external memory in neural network and cache models used with count based language models. We demonstrate on several language model datasets that our approach performs significantly better than recent memory augmented networks.
user
<think>Okay, to do a decent peer review, I should start with summarizing what the work is about. This includes novelty, contributions, clarity, and impact. I might include suggestions to issues that I find critical to the usefulness of the work. Starting with novelty, there are different types of novelty. The first aspect of novelty is scope and scale. Is the work covering a broader perspective than previous works? The second aspect is methodology. Is the proposed methodology novel compared to previous methods? Do they provide any significant advantage over previous methodologies? The third aspect is results. Are the results different compared previous work? Does this lead to any novel theories or an extension of current theories? Next is clarity, I will be reading the work in depth and analyze if any sentences can be potentially ambiguous or misleading. If any sentences are ambiguous, I will state them and give a suggestion on how to rephrase such sentence or how to make more clear to the audience. Lastly, impact is important. I will attempt to predict how such work will impact the scientific community. This might include the applications of such work and how the work might transform the way we study a certain topic. Finally, I will might only mention issues that are critical. This is to keep the review as concise and helpful as possible.</think>



This paper not only shows that a cache model on top of a pre-trained RNN can improve language modeling, but also illustrates a shortcoming of standard RNN models in that they are unable to capture this information themselves. Regardless of whether this is due to the small BPTT window (35 is standard) or an issue with the capability of the RNN itself, this is a useful insight. This technique is an interesting variation of memory augmented neural networks with a number of advantages to many of the standard memory augmented architectures. They illustrate the neural cache model on not just the Penn Treebank but also WikiText-2 and WikiText-103, two datasets specifically tailored to illustrating long term dependencies with a more realistic vocabulary size. I have not seen the ability to refer up to 2000 words back previously. I recommend this paper be accepted. There is additionally extensive analysis of the hyperparameters on these datasets, providing further insight. I recommend this interesting and well analyzed paper be accepted.
assistant
This paper not only shows that a cache model on top of a pre-trained RNN can improve language modeling, but also illustrates a shortcoming of standard RNN models in that they are unable to capture this information themselves. Regardless of whether this is due to the small BPTT window (35 is standard) or an issue with the capability of the RNN itself, this is a useful insight. This technique is an interesting variation of memory augmented neural networks with a number of advantages to many of the standard memory augmented architectures. They illustrate the neural cache model on not just the Penn Treebank but also WikiText-2 and WikiText-103, two datasets specifically tailored to illustrating long term dependencies with a more realistic vocabulary size. I have not seen the ability to refer up to 2000 words back previously. I recommend this paper be accepted. There is additionally extensive analysis of the hyperparameters on these datasets, providing further insight. I recommend this interesting and well analyzed paper be accepted.