Visual-Semantic Embeddings: some thoughts on Language

1. 1 @graphiﬁc Roelof Pieters Visual-‐Seman3c Embeddings:  Some Thoughts on Language 23 January 2015   KTH FEEDA www.csc.kth.se/~roelof/ roelof@kth.se

2. Language Understanding 2

3. Can we understand Language ? 1. Language is ambiguous:  Every sentence has many possible interpretations. 2. Language is productive:  We will always encounter new words or new constructions 3. Language is culturally speciﬁc Some of the challenges in Language Understanding: 3

4. Can we understand Language ? 1. Language is ambiguous:  Every sentence has many possible interpretations. 2. Language is productive:  We will always encounter new words or new constructions • plays well with others VB ADV P NN NN NN P DT • fruit ﬂies like a banana NN NN VB DT NN NN VB P DT NN NN NN P DT NN NN VB VB DT NN • the students went to class DT NN VB P NN 4 Some of the challenges in Language Understanding:

5. Can we understand Language ? 1. Language is ambiguous:  Every sentence has many possible interpretations. 2. Language is productive:  We will always encounter new words or new constructions 5 Some of the challenges in Language Understanding:

6. [Karlgren 2014, NLP Sthlm Meetup]6

7. Can we understand Language ? 1. Language is ambiguous:  Every sentence has many possible interpretations. 2. Language is productive:  We will always encounter new words or new constructions 3. Language is culturally speciﬁc Some of the challenges in Language Understanding: 7

8. ML: Traditional Approach 1. Gather as much LABELED data as you can get 2. Throw some algorithms at it (mainly put in an SVM and keep it at that) 3. If you actually have tried more algos: Pick the best 4. Spend hours hand engineering some features / feature selection / dimensionality reduction (PCA, SVD, etc) 5. Repeat… For each new problem/question:: 8

9. Machine Learning for NLP Data Classic Approach: Data is fed into a learning algorithm: Learning   Algorithm 9

10. Machine Learning for NLP some of the (many) treebank datasets source: http://www-nlp.stanford.edu/links/statnlp.html#Treebanks ! 10

11. Penn Treebank That’s a lot of “manual” work: 11

12. • the students went to class DT NN VB P NN • plays well with others VB ADV P NN NN NN P DT • fruit ﬂies like a banana NN NN VB DT NN NN VB P DT NN NN NN P DT NN NN VB VB DT NN With a lot of issues: Penn Treebank 12

13. Machine Learning for NLP Learning   Algorithm Data “Features” Prediction Prediction/  Classiﬁer train set test set 13

14. Machine Learning for NLP Learning   Algorithm “Features” Prediction Prediction/  Classiﬁer train set test set 14

15. Deep Learning: Why for NLP ? Beat state of the art at: • Language Modeling (Mikolov et al. 2011) [WSJ AR task] • Speech Recognition (Dahl et al. 2012, Seide et al 2011; following Mohammed et al. 2011) • Sentiment Classiﬁcation (Socher et al. 2011) and we already know for some longer time it works well for Computer Vision of course: • MNIST hand-written digit recognition (Ciresan et al. 2010) • Image Recognition (Krizhevsky et al. 2012) [ImageNet] 15

16. One Model rules them all ?    DL approaches have been successfully applied to: Deep Learning: Why for NLP ? Automatic summarization Coreference resolution Discourse analysis Machine translation Morphological segmentation Named entity recognition (NER) Natural language generation Natural language understanding Optical character recognition (OCR) Part-of-speech tagging Parsing Question answering Relationship extraction sentence boundary disambiguation Sentiment analysis Speech recognition Speech segmentation Topic segmentation and recognition Word segmentation Word sense disambiguation Information retrieval (IR) Information extraction (IE) Speech processing 16

17. • What is the meaning of a word?  (Lexical semantics) • What is the meaning of a sentence?  ([Compositional] semantics) • What is the meaning of a longer piece of text? (Discourse semantics) Semantics: Meaning 17

18. • NLP treats words mainly (rule-based/statistical approaches at least) as atomic symbols:  • or in vector space:  • also known as “one hot” representation. • Its problem ? Word Representation Love Candy Store [0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 …] Candy [0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 …] AND Store [0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 …] = 0 ! 18

19. • Structure corresponds to meaning: Structure and Meaning 19

20. • Semantics • Syntax 20 NLP: what can we work with?

21. • Language models deﬁne probability distributions over (natural language) strings or sentences • Joint and Conditional Probability Language Model 21

22. • Language models deﬁne probability distributions over (natural language) strings or sentences Language Model 22

23. • Language models deﬁne probability distributions over (natural language) strings or sentences Language Model 23

24. Word senses What is the meaning of words? • Most words have many different senses:  dog = animal or sausage? How are the meanings of different words related? • - Specific relations between senses:  Animal is more general than dog. • - Semantic fields:  money is related to bank 24

25. Word senses Polysemy: • A lexeme is polysemous if it has different related senses • bank = financial institution or building Homonyms: • Two lexemes are homonyms if their senses are unrelated, but they happen to have the same spelling and pronunciation • bank = (financial) bank or (river) bank 25

26. Word senses: relations Symmetric relations: • Synonyms: couch/sofa  Two lemmas with the same sense • Antonyms: cold/hot, rise/fall, in/out  Two lemmas with the opposite sense Hierarchical relations: • Hypernyms and hyponyms: pet/dog  The hyponym (dog) is more speciﬁc than the hypernym (pet) • Holonyms and meronyms: car/wheel  The meronym (wheel) is a part of the holonym (car) 26

27. Distributional representations “You shall know a word by the company it keeps”  (J. R. Firth 1957) One of the most successful ideas of modern statistical NLP! these words represent banking • Hard (class based) clustering models • Soft clustering models 27

28. Distributional hypothesis He ﬁlled the wampimuk, passed it around and we all drunk some We found a little, hairy wampimuk sleeping behind the tree (McDonald & Ramscar 2001) 28

29. Distributional semantics Landauer and Dumais (1997), Turney and Pantel (2010), … 29

30. Distributional semantics Distributional meaning as co-occurrence vector: 30

31. Distributional representations • Taking it further: • Continuous word embeddings • Combine vector space semantics with the prediction of probabilistic models • Words are represented as a dense vector: Candy = 31

32. Word Embeddings: SocherVector Space Model adapted rom Bengio, “Representation Learning and Deep Learning”, July, 2012, UCLA In a perfect world: 32

33. Word Embeddings: SocherVector Space Model adapted rom Bengio, “Representation Learning and Deep Learning”, July, 2012, UCLA In a perfect world: the country of my birth the place where I was born 33

34. • Can theoretically (given enough units) approximate “any” function • and fit to “any” kind of data • Efficient for NLP: hidden layers can be used as word lookup tables • Dense distributed word vectors + efficient NN training algorithms: • Can scale to billions of words ! Why Neural Networks for NLP? 34

35. • Representation of words as continuous vectors has a long history (Hinton et al. 1986; Rumelhart et al. 1986; Elman 1990) • First neural network language model: NNLM (Bengio et al. 2001; Bengio et al. 2003) based on earlier ideas of distributed representations for symbols (Hinton 1986) How? 35

36. Word Embeddings: SocherVector Space Model Figure (edited) from Bengio, “Representation Learning and Deep Learning”, July, 2012, UCLA In a perfect world: the country of my birth the place where I was born ? … 36

37. Compositionality Principle of compositionality: the “meaning (vector) of a complex expression (sentence) is determined by: — Gottlob Frege   (1848 - 1925) - the meanings of its constituent expressions (words) and - the rules (grammar) used to combine them” 37

38. • How do we handle the compositionality of language in our models? 38 Compositionality

39. • How do we handle the compositionality of language in our models? • Recursion :  the same operator (same parameters) is applied repeatedly on diﬀerent components 39 Compositionality

40. • How do we handle the compositionality of language in our models? • Option 1: Recurrent Neural Networks (RNN) 40 RNN 1: Recurrent Neural Networks

41. • How do we handle the compositionality of language in our models? • Option 2: Recursive Neural Networks (also sometimes called RNN) 41 RNN 2: Recursive Neural Networks

42. • achieved SOTA in 2011 on Language Modeling (WSJ AR task) (Mikolov et al., INTERSPEECH 2011): • and again at ASRU 2011: 42 Recurrent Neural Networks “Comparison to other LMs shows that RNN LMs are state of the art by a large margin. Improvements inrease with more training data.” “[ RNN LM trained on a] single core on 400M words in a few days, with 1% absolute improvement in WER on state of the art setup” Mikolov, T., Karaﬁat, M., Burget, L., Cernock, J.H., Khudanpur, S. (2011)  Recurrent neural network based language model

43. 43 Recurrent Neural Networks (simple recurrent   neural network for LM) input hidden layer(s) output layer + sigmoid activation function + softmax function: Mikolov, T., Karaﬁat, M., Burget, L., Cernock, J.H., Khudanpur, S. (2011)  Recurrent neural network based language model

44. 44 Recurrent Neural Networks backpropagation through time

45. 45 Recurrent Neural Networks backpropagation through time class based recurrent NN [code (Mikolov’s RNNLM Toolkit) and more info: http://rnnlm.org/ ]

46. • Recursive Neural Network for LM (Socher et al. 2011; Socher 2014) • achieved SOTA on new Stanford Sentiment Treebank dataset (but comparing it to many other models): Recursive Neural Network 46 Socher, R., Perelygin,, A., Wu, J.Y., Chuang, J., Manning, C.D., Ng, A.Y., Potts, C. (2013)  Recursive Deep Models for Semantic Compositionality Over a Sentiment Treebank info & code: http://nlp.stanford.edu/sentiment/

47. Recursive Neural Tensor Network 47 code & info: http://www.socher.org/index.php/Main/ ParsingNaturalScenesAndNaturalLanguageWithRecursiveNeuralNetworks Socher, R., Liu, C.C., NG, A.Y., Manning, C.D. (2011)   Parsing Natural Scenes and Natural Language with Recursive Neural Networks

48. Recursive Neural Tensor Network 48

49. • RNN (Socher et al. 2011a) Recursive Neural Network 49 Socher, R., Perelygin,, A., Wu, J.Y., Chuang, J., Manning, C.D., Ng, A.Y., Potts, C. (2013)  Recursive Deep Models for Semantic Compositionality Over a Sentiment Treebank info & code: http://nlp.stanford.edu/sentiment/

50. • RNN (Socher et al. 2011a) • Matrix-Vector RNN (MV-RNN) (Socher et al., 2012) Recursive Neural Network 50 Socher, R., Perelygin,, A., Wu, J.Y., Chuang, J., Manning, C.D., Ng, A.Y., Potts, C. (2013)  Recursive Deep Models for Semantic Compositionality Over a Sentiment Treebank info & code: http://nlp.stanford.edu/sentiment/

51. • RNN (Socher et al. 2011a) • Matrix-Vector RNN (MV-RNN) (Socher et al., 2012) • Recursive Neural Tensor Network (RNTN) (Socher et al. 2013) Recursive Neural Network 51

52. • negation detection: Recursive Neural Network 52 Socher, R., Perelygin,, A., Wu, J.Y., Chuang, J., Manning, C.D., Ng, A.Y., Potts, C. (2013)  Recursive Deep Models for Semantic Compositionality Over a Sentiment Treebank info & code: http://nlp.stanford.edu/sentiment/

53. NP PP/IN NP DT NN PRP$ NN Parse Tree Recurrent NN for Vector Space 53

54. NP PP/IN NP DT NN PRP$ NN Parse Tree INDT NN PRP NN Compositionality 54 Recurrent NN: CompositionalityRecurrent NN for Vector Space

55. NP IN NP PRP NN Parse Tree DT NN Compositionality 55 Recurrent NN: CompositionalityRecurrent NN for Vector Space

56. NP IN NP DT NN PRP NN PP NP (S / ROOT) “rules” “meanings” Compositionality 56 Recurrent NN: CompositionalityRecurrent NN for Vector Space

57. Vector Space + Word Embeddings: Socher 57 Recurrent NN: CompositionalityRecurrent NN for Vector Space

58. Vector Space + Word Embeddings: Socher 58 Recurrent NN for Vector Space

59. Word Embeddings: Turian (2010) Turian, J., Ratinov, L., Bengio, Y. (2010). Word representations: A simple and general method for semi-supervised learning code & info: http://metaoptimize.com/projects/wordreprs/59

60. Word Embeddings: Turian (2010) Turian, J., Ratinov, L., Bengio, Y. (2010). Word representations: A simple and general method for semi-supervised learning code & info: http://metaoptimize.com/projects/wordreprs/ 60

61. Word Embeddings: Collobert & Weston (2011) Collobert, R., Weston, J., Bottou, L., Karlen, M., Kavukcuoglu, K., Kuksa, P. (2011) . Natural Language Processing (almost) from Scratch 61

62. Multi-embeddings: Stanford (2012) Eric H. Huang, Richard Socher, Christopher D. Manning, Andrew Y. Ng (2012)  Improving Word Representations via Global Context and Multiple Word Prototypes 62

63. Linguistic Regularities: Mikolov (2013) code & info: https://code.google.com/p/word2vec/ Mikolov, T., Yih, W., & Zweig, G. (2013). Linguistic Regularities in Continuous Space Word Representations 63

64. Word Embeddings for MT: Mikolov (2013) Mikolov, T., Le, V. L., Sutskever, I. (2013) .   Exploiting Similarities among Languages for Machine Translation 64

65. Recursive Deep Models & Sentiment: Socher (2013) Socher, R., Perelygin, A., Wu, J., Chuang, J.,Manning, C., Ng, A., Potts, C. (2013)   Recursive Deep Models for Semantic Compositionality Over a Sentiment Treebank. code & demo: http://nlp.stanford.edu/sentiment/index.html 65

66. Paragraph Vectors: Le & Mikolov (2014) Le, Q., Mikolov,. T. (2014) Distributed Representations of Sentences and Documents 66 • add context (sentence, paragraph, document) to word vectors during training ! Results on Stanford Sentiment   Treebank dataset:

67. Global Vectors, GloVe: Stanford (2014) Pennington, P., Socher, R., Manning,. D.M. (2014).   GloVe: Global Vectors for Word Representation code & demo: http://nlp.stanford.edu/projects/glove/ vs results on the word analogy task “similar accuracy” 67

68. Dependency-based Embeddings: Levy & Goldberg (2014) Levy, O., Goldberg, Y. (2014). Dependency-Based Word Embeddings code & demo: https://levyomer.wordpress.com/2014/04/25/dependency-based-word- embeddings/ - Syntactic Dependency Context Australian scientist discovers star with telescope - Bag of Words (BoW) Context 0.3$ 0.4$ 0.5$ 0.6$ 0.7$ 0.8$ 0.9$ 1$ 0$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 0.3$ 0.4$ 0.5$ 0.6$ 0.7$ 0.8$ 0.9$ 1$ Precision$ Recall$ “Dependency-based embeddings have more functional similarities” 68

69. Joint Image-Word Embeddings 69

70. 1. Multimodal representation learning 2. Generating descriptions of images 3. Ranking images and captions (“image-sentence ranking”) 4. Evaluation Methods? Some Current Approaches 70

71. • Learning joint image-word embeddings in a low- dimension embedding space (Weston et al 2010; Frome et al. 2013) • Embedding images and sentences into a common space (Socher et al. TACL 2014; Karpathy et al. NIPS 2014) • also: deep Boltzmann machines (Srivastava&Salakhutdinov NIPS 2012), log-bilinear neural language models (Kiros et al. ICML 2014), autoencoders (Ngiam ICML 2011), recurrent neural networks (m-RNN: Mao et al. 2014) and topic-models (Jia ICCV 2011) 1. Multimodal representation learning 71

72. • Neural network methods • Composition-based methods. • Template-based methods. 2. Generating descriptions of images 72

73. • Bi-directional approaches (Hockenmaier group): kernel CCA (Hodosh et al. JAIR 2013), normalized CCA (Gong et al. EECV 2014) • Dependency tree recursive networks (Stanford) (Socher et al. TACL 2014) 3. Ranking images and captions 73

74. • Current evaluation methods unreliable and don’t match with human judgements • Bleu • Rouge • Perplexity?? • Ranking as proxy for generation / scoring function 4. Evaluation? 74

75. • unsupervised pre-training on many images • in parallel train a neural network Language Model • train linear mapping between image representations and word embeddings, representing the diﬀerent “classes” 75 Zero-shot Learning

76. DeViSE model (Frome et al. 2013) • skip-gram text model on wikipedia corpus of 5.7 million documents (5.4 billion words) - approach from (Mikolov et al. ICLR 2013) 76 Frome, A., Corrado, G.S., Shlens, J., Bengio, S., Dean, J., Mikolov, T., Ranzato, M.A. (2013)   Devise: A deep visual-semantic embedding model

77. Encoder: A deep convolutional network (CNN) and long short- term memory recurrent network (LSTM) for learning a joint image-sentence embedding. Decoder: A new neural language model that combines structure and content vectors for generating words one at a time in sequence. Encoder-Decoder pipeline (Kiros et al 2014) 77 Kiros, R., Salakhutdinov, R., Zemerl, R. S. (2014)   Unifying Visual-Semantic Embeddings with Multimodal Neural Language Models

78. Kiros, R., Salakhutdinov, R., Zemerl, R. S. (2014)   Unifying Visual-Semantic Embeddings with Multimodal Neural Language Models • matches state-of-the-art performance on Flickr8K and Flickr30K without using object detections • new best results when using the 19-layer Oxford convolutional network. • linear encoders: learned embedding space captures multimodal regularities (e.g. *image of a blue car* - "blue" + "red" is near images of red cars) Encoder-Decoder pipeline (Kiros et al 2014) 78

79. demo time  (code adapted from: https://github.com/karpathy/ neuraltalk) 79

80. • Theano - CPU/GPU symbolic expression compiler in python (from LISA lab at University of Montreal). http:// deeplearning.net/software/theano/ • Pylearn2 - library designed to make machine learning research easy. http://deeplearning.net/software/pylearn2/ • Torch - Matlab-like environment for state-of-the-art machine learning algorithms in lua (from Ronan Collobert, Clement Farabet and Koray Kavukcuoglu) http://torch.ch/ • more info: http://deeplearning.net/software links/ Wanna Play ? Wanna Play ? General Deep Learning 80

81. • RNNLM (Mikolov)  http://rnnlm.org • NB-SVM  https://github.com/mesnilgr/nbsvm • Word2Vec (skipgrams/cbow)  https://code.google.com/p/word2vec/ (original)  http://radimrehurek.com/gensim/models/word2vec.html (python) • GloVe  http://nlp.stanford.edu/projects/glove/ (original)  https://github.com/maciejkula/glove-python (python) • Socher et al / Stanford RNN Sentiment code:  http://nlp.stanford.edu/sentiment/code.html • Deep Learning without Magic Tutorial:  http://nlp.stanford.edu/courses/NAACL2013/ Wanna Play ? NLP 81

82. • cuda-convnet2 (Alex Krizhevsky, Toronto) (c++/ CUDA, optimized for GTX 580)   https://code.google.com/p/cuda-convnet2/ • Caﬀe (Berkeley) (Cuda/OpenCL, Theano, Python)  http://caﬀe.berkeleyvision.org/ • OverFeat (NYU)   http://cilvr.nyu.edu/doku.php?id=code:start Wanna Play ? Computer Vision 82

83. as PhD candidate KTH/CSC: “Always interested in discussing Machine Learning, Deep Architectures, Graphs, and Language Technology” In touch! roelof@kth.se www.csc.kth.se/~roelof/ Internship / EntrepeneurshipAcademic/Research as CIO/CTO Feeda: “Always looking for additions to our   brand new R&D team”    [Internships upcoming on   KTH exjobb website…] roelof@feeda.com www.feeda.com Feeda 83

84. Were Hiring! roelof@feeda.com www.feeda.com Feeda • Dev Ops • Software Developers • Data Scientists 84

Visual-Semantic Embeddings: some thoughts on Language

You are reading a preview.

Check these out next

Visual-Semantic Embeddings: some thoughts on Language

More Related Content

Slideshows for you (20)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Visual-Semantic Embeddings: some thoughts on Language (20)

More from Roelof Pieters (13)

Recently uploaded (20)