ReasoNet: Learning to Stop Reading in Machine Comprehension
Teaching a computer to read a document and answer general questions pertaining to the document is a challenging yet unsolved problem. In this paper, we describe a novel neural network architecture called Reasoning Network ({ReasoNet}) for machine comprehension tasks. ReasoNet makes use of multiple turns to effectively exploit and then reason over the relation among queries, documents, and answers. Different from previous approaches using a fixed number of turns during inference, ReasoNet introduces a termination state to relax this constraint on the reasoning depth. With the use of reinforcement learning, ReasoNet can dynamically determine whether to continue the comprehension process after digesting intermediate results, or to terminate reading when it concludes that existing information is adequate to produce an answer. ReasoNet has achieved state-of-the-art performance in machine comprehension datasets, including unstructured CNN and Daily Mail datasets, and a structured Graph Reachability dataset.
The paper aims to consolidate some recent literature in simple types of *reading comprehension* tasks involving matching questions to answers to be found in a passage, and then to explore the types of structure learned by these models and propose modifications. These reading comprehension datasets such as CNN/Daily Mail are on the simpler side because they do not generally involve chains of reasoning over multiple pieces of supporting evidence as can be found in datasets like MCTest. Many models have been proposed for this task, and the paper breaks down these models into *aggregation readers* and *explicit reference readers.* The authors show that the aggregation readers organize their hidden states into a predicate structure which allows them to mimic the explicit reference readers. The authors then experiment with adding linguistic features, including reference features, to the existing models to improve performance. I appreciate the re-naming and re-writing of the paper to make it more clear that the aggregation readers are specifically learning a predicate structure, as well as the inclusion of results about dimensionality of the symbol space. Further, I think the effort to organize and categorize several different reading comprehension models into broader classes is useful, as the field has been producing many such models and the landscape is unclear. The concerns with this paper are that the predicate structure demonstrated is fairly simple, and it is not clear that it provides insight towards the development of better models in the future, since the *explicit reference readers* need not learn it, and the CNN/Daily Mail dataset has very little headroom left as demonstrated by Chen et al. 2016. The desire for *dramatic improvements in performance* mentioned in the discussion section probably cannot be achieved on these datasets. More complex datasets would probably involve multi-hop inference which this paper does not discuss. Further, the message of the paper is a bit scattered and hard to parse, and could benefit from a bit more focus. I think that with the explosion of various competing neural network models for NLP tasks, contributions like this one which attempt to organize and analyze the landscape are valuable, but that this paper might be better suited for an NLP conference or journal such as TACL.
You are a member of the scientific community tasked with peer review. Review the following paper title and abstract.
### Title + Abstract
ReasoNet: Learning to Stop Reading in Machine Comprehension
Teaching a computer to read a document and answer general questions pertaining to the document is a challenging yet unsolved problem. In this paper, we describe a novel neural network architecture called Reasoning Network ({ReasoNet}) for machine comprehension tasks. ReasoNet makes use of multiple turns to effectively exploit and then reason over the relation among queries, documents, and answers. Different from previous approaches using a fixed number of turns during inference, ReasoNet introduces a termination state to relax this constraint on the reasoning depth. With the use of reinforcement learning, ReasoNet can dynamically determine whether to continue the comprehension process after digesting intermediate results, or to terminate reading when it concludes that existing information is adequate to produce an answer. ReasoNet has achieved state-of-the-art performance in machine comprehension datasets, including unstructured CNN and Daily Mail datasets, and a structured Graph Reachability dataset.
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>



The paper aims to consolidate some recent literature in simple types of *reading comprehension* tasks involving matching questions to answers to be found in a passage, and then to explore the types of structure learned by these models and propose modifications. These reading comprehension datasets such as CNN/Daily Mail are on the simpler side because they do not generally involve chains of reasoning over multiple pieces of supporting evidence as can be found in datasets like MCTest. Many models have been proposed for this task, and the paper breaks down these models into *aggregation readers* and *explicit reference readers.* The authors show that the aggregation readers organize their hidden states into a predicate structure which allows them to mimic the explicit reference readers. The authors then experiment with adding linguistic features, including reference features, to the existing models to improve performance. I appreciate the re-naming and re-writing of the paper to make it more clear that the aggregation readers are specifically learning a predicate structure, as well as the inclusion of results about dimensionality of the symbol space. Further, I think the effort to organize and categorize several different reading comprehension models into broader classes is useful, as the field has been producing many such models and the landscape is unclear. The concerns with this paper are that the predicate structure demonstrated is fairly simple, and it is not clear that it provides insight towards the development of better models in the future, since the *explicit reference readers* need not learn it, and the CNN/Daily Mail dataset has very little headroom left as demonstrated by Chen et al. 2016. The desire for *dramatic improvements in performance* mentioned in the discussion section probably cannot be achieved on these datasets. More complex datasets would probably involve multi-hop inference which this paper does not discuss. Further, the message of the paper is a bit scattered and hard to parse, and could benefit from a bit more focus. I think that with the explosion of various competing neural network models for NLP tasks, contributions like this one which attempt to organize and analyze the landscape are valuable, but that this paper might be better suited for an NLP conference or journal such as TACL.
assistant
The paper aims to consolidate some recent literature in simple types of *reading comprehension* tasks involving matching questions to answers to be found in a passage, and then to explore the types of structure learned by these models and propose modifications. These reading comprehension datasets such as CNN/Daily Mail are on the simpler side because they do not generally involve chains of reasoning over multiple pieces of supporting evidence as can be found in datasets like MCTest. Many models have been proposed for this task, and the paper breaks down these models into *aggregation readers* and *explicit reference readers. * The authors show that the aggregation readers organize their hidden states into a predicate structure which allows them to mimic the explicit reference readers. The authors then experiment with adding linguistic features, including reference features, to the existing models to improve performance. I appreciate the re-naming and re-writing of the paper to make it more clear that the aggregation readers are specifically learning a predicate structure, as well as the inclusion of results about dimensionality of the symbol space. Further, I think the effort to organize and categorize several different reading comprehension models into broader classes is useful, as the field has been producing many such models and the landscape is unclear. The concerns with this paper are that the predicate structure demonstrated is fairly simple, and it is not clear that it provides insight towards the development of better models in the future, since the *explicit reference readers* need not learn it, and the CNN/Daily Mail dataset has very little headroom left as demonstrated by Chen et al. 2016. The desire for *dramatic improvements in performance* mentioned in the discussion section probably cannot be achieved on these datasets. More complex datasets would probably involve multi-hop inference which this paper does not discuss. Further, the message of the paper is a bit scattered and hard to parse, and could benefit from a bit more focus. I think that with the explosion of various competing neural network models for NLP tasks, contributions like this one which attempt to organize and analyze the landscape are valuable, but that this paper might be better suited for an NLP conference or journal such as TACL.