In this paper we study the problem of answering cloze-style questions over documents. Our model, the Gated-Attention (GA) Reader, integrates a multi-hop architecture with a novel attention mechanism, which is based on multiplicative interactions between the query embedding and the intermediate states of a recurrent neural network document reader. This enables the reader to build query-specific representations of tokens in the document for accurate answer selection. The GA Reader obtains state-of-the-art results on three benchmarks for this task–the CNN & Daily Mail news stories and the Who Did What dataset. The effectiveness of multiplicative interaction is demonstrated by an ablation study, and by comparing to alternative compositional operators for implementing the gated-attention.
1 Introduction
A recent trend to measure progress towards machine reading is to test a system’s ability to answer questions about a document it has to comprehend. Towards this end, several large-scale datasets of cloze-style questions over a context document have been introduced recently, which allow the training of supervised machine learning systems (Hermann et al., 2015; Hill et al., 2015; Onishi et al., 2016). Such datasets can be easily constructed automatically and the unambiguous nature of their queries provides an objective benchmark to measure a system’s performance at text comprehension.
Deep learning models have been shown to outperform traditional shallow approaches on text comprehension tasks (Hermann et al., 2015). The
success of many recent models can be attributed primarily to two factors: (1) Multi-hop architectures allow a (Weston et al., 2014; Sordoni et al., 2016; Shen et al., 2016), model to scan the document and the question iteratively for multiple passes. (2) Attention mechanisms, (Chen et al., 2016; Hermann et al., 2015) borrowed from the machine translation literature (Bahdanau et al., 2014), allow the model to focus on appropriate subparts of the context document. Intuitively, the multi-hop architecture allows the reader to incrementally refine token representations, and the attention mechanism re-weights different parts in the document according to their relevance to the query.
The effectiveness of multi-hop reasoning and attentions have been explored orthogonally so far in the literature. In this paper, we focus on combining both in a complementary manner, by designing a novel attention mechanism which gates the evolving token representations across hops. More specifically, unlike existing models where the query attention is applied either token-wise (Hermann et al., 2015; Kadlec et al., 2016; Chen et al., 2016; Hill et al., 2015) or sentence-wise (Weston et al., 2014; Sukhbaatar et al., 2015) to allow weighted aggregation, the Gated-Attention (GA) module proposed in this work allows the query to directly interact with each dimension of the token embeddings at the semantic-level, and is applied layer-wise as information filters during the multi-hop representation learning process. Such a fine-grained attention enables our model to learn conditional token representations w.r.t. the given question, leading to accurate answer selections.
We show in our experiments that the proposed GA reader, despite its relative simplicity, consistently improves over a variety of strong baselines on three benchmark datasets Our key contribution, the GA module, provides a significant im-
2
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
provement for large datasets. Qualitatively, visualization of the attentions at intermediate layers of the GA reader shows that in each layer the GA reader attends to distinct salient aspects of the query which help in determining the answer.
2 Related Work
The cloze-style QA task involves tuples of the form (d, q, a, C), where d is a document (context), q is a query over the contents of d, in which a phrase is replaced with a placeholder, and a is the answer to q, which comes from a set of candidates C. In this work we consider datasets where each candidate c ∈ C has at least one token which also appears in the document. The task can then be described as: given a document-query pair (d, q), find a ∈ C which answers q. Below we provide an overview of representative neural network architectures which have been applied to this problem.
LSTMs with Attention: Several architectures introduced in (Hermann et al., 2015) employ LSTM units to compute a combined document-query representation g(d, q), which is used to rank the candidate answers. These include the DeepLSTM Reader which performs a single forward pass through the concatenated (document, query) pair to obtain g(d, q); the Attentive Reader which first computes a document vector d(q) by a weighted aggregation of words according to attentions based on q, and then combines d(q) and q to obtain their joint representation g(d(q), q); and the Impatient Reader where the document representation is built incrementally. The architecture of the Attentive Reader has been simplified recently in Stanford Attentive Reader, where shallower recurrent units were used with a bilinear form for the query-document attention (Chen et al., 2016).
Attention Sum: The Attention-Sum (AS) Reader (Kadlec et al., 2016) uses two bidirectional GRU networks (Cho et al., 2014) to encode both d and q into vectors. A probability distribution over the entities in d is obtained by computing dot products between q and the entity embeddings and taking a softmax. Then, an aggregation scheme named pointer-sum attention is further applied to sum the probabilities of the same entity, so that frequent entities the document will be favored compared to rare ones. Building on the AS Reader, the Attention-over-Attention (AoA) Reader (Cui et al., 2016) introduces a two-way attention mechanism where the query and the doc-
ument are mutually attentive to each other. Mulit-hop Architectures: Memory Networks (MemNets) were proposed in (Weston et al., 2014), where each sentence in the document is encoded to a memory by aggregating nearby words. Attention over the memory slots given the query is used to compute an overall memory and to renew the query representation over multiple iterations, allowing certain types of reasoning over the salient facts in the memory and the query. Neural Semantic Encoders (NSE) (Munkhdalai & Yu, 2016a) extended MemNets by introducing a write operation which can evolve the memory over time during the course of reading. Iterative reasoning has been found effective in several more recent models, including the Iterative Attentive Reader (Sordoni et al., 2016) and ReasoNet (Shen et al., 2016). The latter allows dynamic reasoning steps and is trained with reinforcement learning.
Other related works include Dynamic Entity Representation network (DER) (Kobayashi et al., 2016), which builds dynamic representations of the candidate answers while reading the document, and accumulates the information about an entity by max-pooling; EpiReader (Trischler et al., 2016) consists of two networks, where one proposes a small set of candidate answers, and the other reranks the proposed candidates conditioned on the query and the context; Bi-Directional Attention Flow network (BiDAF) (Seo et al., 2016) adopts a multi-stage hierarchical architecture along with a flow-based attention mechanism; (Bajgar et al., 2016) showed a 10% improvement on the CBT corpus (Hill et al., 2015) by training the AS Reader on an augmented training set of about 14 million examples, making a case for the community to exploit data abundance. The focus of this paper, however, is on designing models which exploit the available data efficiently.
3 Gated-Attention Reader
Our proposed GA readers perform multiple hops over the document (context), similar to the Memory Networks architecture (Sukhbaatar et al., 2015). Multi-hop architectures mimic the multistep comprehension process of human readers, and have shown promising results in several recent models for text comprehension (Sordoni et al., 2016; Kumar et al., 2015; Shen et al., 2016). The contextual representations in GA readers, namely the embeddings of words in the document, are it-
3
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
eratively refined across hops until reaching a final attention-sum module (Kadlec et al., 2016) which maps the contextual representations in the last hop to a probability distribution over candidate answers.
The attention mechanism has been introduced recently to model human focus, leading to significant improvement in machine translation and image captioning (Bahdanau et al., 2014; Mnih et al., 2014). In reading comprehension tasks, ideally, the semantic meanings carried by the contextual embeddings should be aware of the query across hops. As an example, human readers are able to keep the question in mind during multiple passes of reading, to successively mask away information irrelevant to the query. However, existing neural network readers are restricted to either attend to tokens (Hermann et al., 2015; Chen et al., 2016) or entire sentences (Weston et al., 2014), with the assumption that certain sub-parts of the document are more important than others. In contrast, we propose a finer-grained model which attends to components of the semantic representation being built up by the GRU. The new attention mechanism, called gated-attention, is implemented via multiplicative interactions between the query and the contextual embeddings, and is applied per hop to act as fine-grained information filters during the multi-step reasoning. The filters weigh individual components of the vector representation of each token in the document separately.
The design of gated-attention layers is motivated by the effectiveness of multiplicative interaction among vector-space representations, e.g., in various types of recurrent units (Hochreiter & Schmidhuber, 1997; Wu et al., 2016) and in relational learning (Yang et al., 2014; Kiros et al., 2014). While other types of compositional operators are possible, such as concatenation or addition (Mitchell & Lapata, 2008), we find that multiplication has strong empirical performance (section 4.3), where query representations naturally serve as information filters across hops.
3.1 Model Details
Several components of the model use a Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) (Cho et al., 2014) which maps an input sequence X = [x1, x2, . . . , xT ] to an
ouput sequence H = [h1, h2, . . . , hT ] as follows:
rt = σ(Wrxt + Urht−1 + br),
zt = σ(Wzxt + Uzht−1 + bz),
h̃t = tanh(Whxt + Uh(rt ht−1) + bh), ht = (1− zt) ht−1 + zt h̃t.
where denotes the Hadamard product or the element-wise multiplication. rt and zt are called the reset and update gates respectively, and h̃t the candidate output. A Bi-directional GRU (BiGRU) processes the sequence in both forward and backward directions to produce two sequences [hf1 , h f 2 , . . . , h f T ] and [h b 1, h b 2, . . . , h b T ], which are concatenated at the output ←→ GRU(X) = [hf1‖h b T , . . . , h f T ‖h b 1] (1)
where ←→ GRU(X) denotes the full output of the Bi-GRU obtained by concatenating each forward state hfi and backward state h b T−i+1 at step i given the inputX . Note ←→ GRU(X) is a matrix in R2nh×T where nh is the number of hidden units in GRU. Let X(0) = [x(0)1 , x (0) 2 , . . . x (0) |D|] denote the token embeddings of the document, which are also inputs at layer 1 for the document reader below, and Y = [y1, y2, . . . y|Q|] denote the token embeddings of the query. Here |D| and |Q| denote the document and query lengths respectively.
3.1.1 Multi-Hop Architecture
Fig. 1 illustrates the Gated-Attention (GA) reader. The model reads the document and the query over K horizontal layers, where layer k receives the contextual embeddings X(k−1) of the document from the previous layer. The document embeddings are transformed by taking the full output of a document Bi-GRU (indicated in blue in Fig. 1):
D(k) = ←→ GRU (k)
D (X (k−1)) (2)
At the same time, a layer-specific query representation is computed as the full output of a separate query Bi-GRU (indicated in green in Figure 1):
Q(k) = ←→ GRU (k)
Q (Y ) (3)
Next, Gated-Attention is applied to D(k) and Q(k) to compute inputs for the next layer X(k).
X(k) = GA(D(k), Q(k)) (4)
where GA is defined in the following subsection.
4
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
Figure 1: Gated-Attention Reader. Dashed lines represent dropout connections.
3.1.2 Gated-Attention Module
For brevity, let us drop the superscript k in this subsection as we are focusing on a particular layer. For each token di in D, the GA module forms a token-specific representation of the query q̃i using soft attention, and then multiplies the query representation element-wise with the document token representation. Specifically, for i = 1, . . . , |D|:
αi = softmax(Q>di) (5)
q̃i = Qαi
xi = di q̃i (6)
In equation (6) we use the multiplication operator to model the interactions between di and q̃i. In the experiments section, we also report results for other choices of gating functions, including addition xi = di + q̃i and concatenation xi = di‖q̃i.
3.1.3 Answer Prediction
Let q(K)` = q f ` ‖q b T−`+1 be an intermediate output of the final layer query Bi-GRU at the location ` of the cloze token in the query, and D(K) = ←→ GRU (K)
D (X (K−1)) be the full output of final layer
document Bi-GRU. To obtain the probability that a particular token in the document answers the query, we take an inner-product between these two, and pass through a softmax layer:
s = softmax((q(K)` ) TD(K)) (7)
where vector s defines a probability distribution over the |D| tokens in the document. The probability of a particular candidate c ∈ C as being the
answer is then computed by aggregating the probabilities of all document tokens which appear in c and renormalizing over the candidates:
Pr(c|d, q) ∝ ∑
i∈I(c,d)
si (8)
where I(c, d) is the set of positions where a token in c appears in the document d. This aggregation operation is the same as the pointer sum attention applied in the AS Reader (Kadlec et al., 2016).
Finally, the candidate with maximum probability is selected as the predicted answer:
a∗ = argmaxc∈C Pr(c|d, q). (9)
During the training phase, model parameters of GA are updated w.r.t. a cross-entropy loss between the predicted probabilities and the true answers.
3.1.4 Further Enhancements
Character-level Embeddings: Given a token w from the document or query, its vector space representation is computed as x = L(w)||C(w). L(w) retrieves the word-embedding forw from a lookup table L ∈ R|V |×nl , whose rows hold a vector for each unique token in the vocabulary. We also utilize a character composition model C(w) which generates an orthographic embedding of the token. Such embeddings have been previously shown to be helpful for tasks like Named Entity Recognition (Yang et al., 2016) and dealing with OOV tokens at test time (Dhingra et al., 2016). The embedding C(w) is generated by taking the final outputs zfnc and zbnc of a Bi-GRU applied to embeddings from
5
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
a lookup table of characters in the token, and applying a linear transformation:
z = zfnc ||z b nc C(w) =Wz + b
Question Evidence Common Word Feature (qecomm): (Li et al., 2016) recently proposed a simple token level indicator feature which significantly boosts reading comprehension performance in some cases. For each token in the document we construct a one-hot vector fi ∈ {0, 1}2 indicating its presence in the query. It can be incorporated into the GA reader by assigning a feature lookup table F ∈ RnF×2 (we use nF = 2), taking the feature embedding ei = fTi F and appending it to the inputs of the last layer document BiGRU as, x(K)i ‖fi for all i. We conducted several experiments both with and without this feature and observed some interesting trends, which are discussed below. Henceforth, we refer to this feature as the qe-comm feature or just feature.
4 Experiments and Results
4.1 Datasets
We evaluate the GA reader on five large-scale datasets recently proposed in the literature. The first two, CNN and Daily Mail news stories1 consist of articles from the popular CNN and Daily Mail websites (Hermann et al., 2015). A query over each article is formed by removing an entity from the short summary which follows the article. Further, entities within each article were anonymized to make the task purely a comprehension one. N-gram statistics, for instance, computed over the entire corpus are no longer useful in such an anonymized corpus.
The next two datasets are formed from two different subsets of the Children’s Book Test (CBT)2 (Hill et al., 2015). Documents consist of 20 contiguous sentences from the body of a popular children’s book, and queries are formed by deleting a token from the 21st sentence. We only focus on subsets where the deleted token is either a common noun (CN) or named entity (NE) since simple language models already give human-level performance on the other types (cf. (Hill et al., 2015)).
The final dataset is Who Did What3 (WDW) (Onishi et al., 2016), constructed from the LDC
1 https://github.com/deepmind/rc-data 2 http://www.thespermwhale.com/jaseweston/babi/
CBTest.tgz 3 https://tticnlp.github.io/who_did_what/
English Gigaword newswire corpus. First, article pairs which appeared around the same time and with overlapping entities are chosen, and then one article forms the document and a cloze query is constructed from the other. Missing tokens are always person named entities. Questions which are easily answered by simple baselines are filtered out, to make the task more challenging. There are two versions of the training set—a small but focused “Strict” version and a large but noisy “Relaxed” version. We report results on both settings which share the same validation and test sets. Statistics of all the datasets used in our experiments are summarized in the Appendix (Table 4).
4.2 Performance Comparison
Tables 1 and 3 show a comparison of the performance of GA Reader with previously published results on WDW and CNN, Daily Mail, CBT datasets respectively. The numbers reported for GA Reader are for single best models, though we compare to both ensembles and single models from prior work. GA Reader-- refers to an earlier version of the model, unpublished but described in a preprint, with the following differences—(1) it does not utilize token-specific attentions within the GA module, as described in equation (5), (2) it does not use a character composition model, (3) it is initialized with word embeddings pretrained on the corpus itself rather than GloVe. A detailed analysis of these differences is studied in the next section. Here we present 4 variants of the latest GA Reader, using combinations of whether the qe-comm feature is used (+feature) or not, and whether the word lookup table L(w) is updated during training or fixed to its initial value. Other hyperparameters are listed in Appendix A.
Interestingly, we observe that feature engineering leads to significant improvements for WDW and CBT datasets, but not for CNN and Daily Mail datasets. We note that anonymization of the latter datasets means that there is already some feature engineering (it adds hints about whether a token is an entity), and these are much larger than the other four. In machine learning it is common to see the effect of feature engineering diminish with increasing data size. Similarly, fixing the word embeddings provides an improvement for the WDW and CBT, but not for CNN and Daily Mail. This is not surprising given that the latter datasets are larger and less prone to overfitting.
6
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
Table 1: Validation/Test accuracy (%) on WDW dataset for both “Strict” and “Relaxed” settings. Results with “†” are cf previously published works.
Model Strict Relaxed
Val Test Val Test
Human † – 84 – –
Attentive Reader † – 53 – 55 AS Reader † – 57 – 59 Stanford AR † – 64 – 65 NSE † 66.5 66.2 67.0 66.7
GA-- † – 57 – 60.0 GA (update L(w)) 67.8 67.0 67.0 66.6 GA (fix L(w)) 68.3 68.0 69.6 69.1 GA (+feature, update L(w)) 70.1 69.5 70.9 71.0 GA (+feature, fix L(w)) 71.6 71.2 72.6 72.6
Comparing with prior work, on the WDW dataset the basic version of the GA Reader outperforms all previously published models when trained on the Strict setting. By adding the qecomm feature the performance increases by 3.2% and 3.5% on the Strict and Relaxed settings respectively to set a new state of the art on this dataset. On the CNN and Daily Mail datasets the GA Reader leads to an improvement of 3.2% and 4.3% respectively over the best previous single models. They also outperform previous ensemble models, setting a new state of that art for both datasets. For CBT-NE, GA Reader with the qecomm feature outperforms all previous single and ensemble models except the AS Reader trained on the much larger BookTest Corpus (Bajgar et al., 2016). Lastly, on CBT-CN the GA Reader with the qe-comm feature outperforms all previously published single models except the NSE, and AS Reader trained on a larger corpus.
4.3 GA Reader Analysis
In this section we do an ablation study to see the effect of Gated Attention. We compare the GA Reader as described here to a model which is exactly the same in all aspects, except that it passes document embeddings D(k) in each layer directly to the inputs of the next layer without using the GA module. In other words X(k) = D(k) for all k > 0. This model ends up using only one query GRU at the output layer for selecting the answer from the document. We compare these two variants both with and without the qe-comm feature on CNN and WDW datasets for three subsets of
the training data - 50%, 75% and 100%. Test set accuracies for these settings are shown in Figure 2. On CNN when tested without feature engineering, we observe that GA provides a significant boost in performance compared to without GA. When tested with the feature it still gives an improvement, but the improvement is significant only with 100% training data. On WDW-Strict, which is a third of the size of CNN, without the feature we see an improvement when using GA versus without using GA, which becomes significant as the training set size increases. When tested with the feature on WDW, for a small data size without GA does better than with GA, but as the dataset size increases they become equivalent. We conclude that GA provides a boost in the absence of feature engineering, or as the training set size increases.
Next we look at the question of how to gate intermediate document reader states from the query, i.e. what operation to use in equation 6. Table 2 (top) shows the performance on WDW dataset for three common choices – sum (x = d + q), concatenate (x = d‖q) and multiply (x = d q). Empirically we find element-wise multiplication does significantly better than the other two, which justifies our motivation to “filter” out document features which are irrelevant to the query.
At the bottom of Table 2 we show the effect of varying the number of hops K of the GA Reader on the final performance. We note that for K = 1, our model is equivalent to the AS Reader without any GA modules. We see a steep and steady rise in accuracy as the number of hops is increased from K = 1 to 3, which remains constant beyond
7
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
Table 3: Validation/Test accuracy (%) on CNN, Daily Mail and CBT. Results marked with “†” are cf previously published works. Results marked with “‡” were obtained by training on a larger training set. Best performance on standard training sets is in bold, and on larger training sets in italics.
Model CNN Daily Mail CBT-NE CBT-CN
Val Test Val Test Val Test Val Test
Humans (query) † – – – – – 52.0 – 64.4 Humans (context + query) † – – – – – 81.6 – 81.6
LSTMs (context + query) † – – – – 51.2 41.8 62.6 56.0 Deep LSTM Reader † 55.0 57.0 63.3 62.2 – – – – Attentive Reader † 61.6 63.0 70.5 69.0 – – – – Impatient Reader † 61.8 63.8 69.0 68.0 – – – – MemNets † 63.4 66.8 – – 70.4 66.6 64.2 63.0 AS Reader † 68.6 69.5 75.0 73.9 73.8 68.6 68.8 63.4 DER Network † 71.3 72.9 – – – – – – Stanford AR (relabeling) † 73.8 73.6 77.6 76.6 – – – – Iterative Attentive Reader † 72.6 73.3 – – 75.2 68.6 72.1 69.2 EpiReader † 73.4 74.0 – – 75.3 69.7 71.5 67.4 AoA Reader † 73.1 74.4 – – 77.8 72.0 72.2 69.4 ReasoNet † 72.9 74.7 77.6 76.6 – – – – NSE † – – – – 78.2 73.2 74.3 71.9 BiDAF † 76.3 76.9 80.3 79.6 – – – –
MemNets (ensemble) † 66.2 69.4 – – – – – – AS Reader (ensemble) † 73.9 75.4 78.7 77.7 76.2 71.0 71.1 68.9 Stanford AR (relabeling,ensemble) † 77.2 77.6 80.2 79.2 – – – – Iterative Attentive Reader (ensemble) † 75.2 76.1 – – 76.9 72.0 74.1 71.0 EpiReader (ensemble) † – – – – 76.6 71.8 73.6 70.6
AS Reader (+BookTest) † ‡ – – – – 80.5 76.2 83.2 80.8 AS Reader (+BookTest,ensemble) † ‡ – – – – 82.3 78.4 85.7 83.7
GA-- 73.0 73.8 76.7 75.7 74.9 69.0 69.0 63.9 GA (update L(w)) 77.9 77.9 81.5 80.9 76.7 70.1 69.8 67.3 GA (fix L(w)) 77.9 77.8 80.4 79.6 77.2 71.4 71.6 68.0 GA (+feature, update L(w)) 77.3 76.9 80.7 80.0 77.2 73.3 73.0 69.8 GA (+feature, fix L(w)) 76.7 77.4 80.0 79.3 78.5 74.9 74.4 70.7
that. This is a common trend in machine learning as model complexity is increased, however we note that a multi-hop architecture is important to achieve a high performance for this task, and provide further evidence for this in the next section.
Lastly, we perform an ablation study for the three components of the GA Reader which were absent in the preprint version (GA Reader--). See Appendix B for more details.
4.4 Attention Visualization
To gain an insight into the reading process employed by the model we analyzed the attention distributions at intermediate layers of the reader. Figure 3 shows an example from the validation set of
WDW dataset (several more are in the Appendix). In each figure, the left and middle plots visualize attention over the query (equation 5) for candidates in the document after layers 1 & 2 respectively. The right plot shows attention over candidates in the document of cloze placeholder (XXX) in the query at the final layer. The full document, query and correct answer are shown at the bottom.
A generic pattern observed in these examples is that in intermediate layers, candidates in the document (shown along rows) tend to pick out salient tokens in the query which provide clues about the cloze, and in the final layer the candidate with the highest match with these tokens is
8
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
Figure 2: Performance in accuracy with and without the Gated-Attention module over different training sizes. p-values for an exact one-sided Mcnemar’s test are given inside the parentheses for each setting.
0.66
0.68
0.7
0.72
0.74
0.76
0.78
50% (<0.01) 75% (<0.01) 100% (<0.01)
CNN (w/o qe-comm feature)
No Gating With Gating
0.66
0.68
0.7
0.72
0.74
0.76
0.78
50% (0.07)
75% (0.13)
100% (<0.01)
CNN (w qe-comm feature)
No Gating With Gating
0.6 0.61 0.62 0.63 0.64 0.65 0.66 0.67 0.68 0.69 0.7
50% (0.28)
75% (<0.01) 100% (<0.01)
WDW (w/o qe-comm feature)
No Gating With Gating
0.6 0.61 0.62 0.63 0.64 0.65 0.66 0.67 0.68 0.69 0.7
50% (<0.01)
75% (0.42)
100% (0.27)
WDW (w qe-comm feature)
No Gating With Gating
selected as the answer. In Figure 3 there is a high attention of the correct answer on financial regulatory standards in the first layer, and on us president in the second layer. The incorrect answer, in contrast, only attends to one of these aspects, and hence receives a lower score in the final layer despite the n-gram overlap it has with the cloze token in the query. Importantly, different layers tend to focus on different tokens in the query, supporting the hypothesis that the multihop architecture of GA Reader is able to combine distinct pieces of information to answer the query.
5 Conclusion
We presented the Gated-Attention reader for answering cloze-style questions over documents. The GA reader features a novel multiplicative gating mechanism, combined with a multi-hop ar-
chitecture. Our model achieves the state-of-theart performance on several large-scale benchmark datasets with more than 4% improvements over competitive baselines. Our model design is backed up by an ablation study showing statistically significant improvements of using Gated Attention as information filters. We also showed empirically that multiplicative gating is superior to addition and concatenation operations for implementing gated-attentions, though a theoretical justification remains part of future research goals. Analysis of document and query attentions in intermediate layers of the reader further reveals that the model iteratively attends to different aspects of the query to arrive at the final answer. In this paper we have focused on text comprehension, but we believe that the Gated-Attention mechanism may benefit other tasks as well where multiple sources of information interact.
9
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
B Ablation Study for Model Components
Table 6 shows accuracy on WDW by removing one component at a time.
Table 6: Ablation study on WDW dataset, without using the qe-comm feature and with fixed L(w). Results marked with † are cf (Onishi et al., 2016).
Model Accuracy
Val Test
GA 68.3 68.0 −char 66.9 66.9 −token-attentions (eq. 5) 65.7 65.0 −glove, +corpus 64.0 62.5
GA--† – 57
The steepest reduction is observed when we replace pretrained GloVe vectors with those pretrained on the corpus itself. GloVe vectors were trained on a large corpus of about 6 billion tokens (Pennington et al., 2014), and provide an important source of prior knowledge for the model. Note that the strongest baseline on WDW, NSE (Munkhdalai & Yu, 2016b), also uses pretrained GloVe vectors, hence the comparison is fair in that respect. Next, we observe a substantial drop when removing token-specific attentions over the query in the GA module, which allow gating individual tokens in the document only by parts of the query relevant to that token rather than the overall query representation. Finally, removing the character embeddings, which were only used for WDW and CBT, leads to a reduction of about 1% in the performance.
C Attention Plots
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
Table 4: Dataset statistics.
CNN Daily Mail CBT-NE CBT-CN WDW-Strict WDW-Relaxed
# train 380,298 879,450 108,719 120,769 127,786 185,978 # validation 3,924 64,835 2,000 2,000 10,000 10,000
# test 3,198 53,182 2,500 2,500 10,000 10,000 # vocab 118,497 208,045 53,063 53,185 347,406 308,602 max doc length 2,000 2,000 1,338 1,338 3,085 3,085
Table 5: Hyperparameter settings for each dataset. dim() indicates hidden state size of GRU.
Hyperparameter CNN Daily Mail CBT-NE CBT-CN WDW-Strict WDW-Relaxed
Dropout 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 dim( ←→ GRU∗) 256 256 128 128 128 128
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
This paper presents a gated attention mechanism for machine reading.  A key idea is to extend Attention Sum Reader (Kadlec et al. 2016) to multi-hop reasoning by fine-grained gated filter.  It's interesting and intuitive for machine reading.  I like the idea along with significant improvement on benchmark datasets, but also have major concerns to get it published in ACL.  - The proposed GA mechanism looks promising, but not enough to convince the importance of this technique over other state-of-the-art systems, because engineering tricks presented 3.1.4 boost a lot on accuracy and are blended in the result.  - Incomplete bibliography: Nearly all published work in reference section refers arxiv preprint version.  This makes me (and future readers) suspicious if this work thoroughly compares with prior work. Please make them complete if the published version is available.   - Result from unpublished work (GA): GA baseline in table 1 and 3 is mentioned as previous work that is unpublished preprint.  I don't think this is necessary at all. Alternately, I would like the author to replace it with vanilla GA (or variant of the proposed model for baseline).  It doesn't make sense that result from the preprint which will end up being the same as this ACL submission is presented in the same manuscript.  For fair blind-review, I didn't search on arvix archive though.  - Conflict on table 1 and 2: GA-- (table 1) is the same as K=1(AS) in table 2, and GA (fix L(w)) is for K=3 in table 2.  Does this mean that GA-- is actually AS Reader?  It's not clear that GA-- is re-implementation of AS.  I assumed K=1 (AS) in table 2 uses also GloVe initialization and token-attention, but it doesn't seem in GA--.   - I wish the proposed method compared with prior work in related work section (i.e. what's differ from related work).  - Fig 2 shows benefit of gated attention (which translates multi-hop architecture), and it's very impressive. It would be great to see any qualitative example with comparison.