## Language Understanding for Text-based Games using Deep Reinforcement Learning

Appeared on the arXiv, June 2015.

The joint work of Karthik Narasimhan, Tejas Kulkarni and Regina Barzilay.

The aim of the paper is to create an autonomous agent that solves quests in text-based adventure games. The agent has no knowledge of the underlying game state, and must decide upon what action to take based only upon the representation of the game state that is afforded by the game. In this sense it seeks to solve a similar problem to that of the now famous Atari deep learning paper. This is also an interesting model for how humans communicate with one another.

There are similarities in approach, moreover, in that both employ reinforcement learning. In contrast, this paper employs a Long-Short Term Memory network.

They use Evennia, a Python framework for building multiplayer online text games (used here in a single player context).

Adriaan S.: Q-learning does not scale well. (This could account for the small vocabulary used.)

## Perpendicularity and dimension

We show below that vectors drawn uniformly at random from the unit sphere are more likely to be orthogonal in higher dimensions.

In information retrieval and other areas besides, it is common to use the dot product of normalised vectors as a measure of their similarity. It can be problematic that the similarity measure depends upon the rank of the representation, as it does here — it means, for example, that similarity thresholds (for relevance in a particular situation) need to be re-calibrated if the underlying vectorisation model is retrained e.g. in a higher dimension.

Question
Does anyone have a solution to this? Is there a (of course, dimension dependent) transformation that can be applied to the dot product values to arrive at some dimension independent measure of similarity?

I asked this question on “Cross Validated”. Unfortunately, it has attracted so little interest that it has earned me the “tumbleweed” badge!

For those interested in the distribution of the dot products, and not just the expectation and the variance derived below, see this answer by whuber on Cross Validated.

## Marginal and Conditional Distributions of the Multivariate Gaussian

This is the standard, elementary arithmetic proof that the marginal and conditional distributions of the multivariate Gaussian are again Gaussian with parameters expressible in terms of the covariance matrix of the original Gaussian. We use the block multiplication of matrices.

I was surprised by how much work is required to show this, and feel moreover that the proof (while correct) fails to offer any intuitive understanding. Is there not a higher-level, co-ordinate free proof of this important result, perhaps one that uses characteristic properties of multivariate Gaussians?

Update: I received an answer to this question on Cross Validated from whuber. He uses a generative definition: the multivariate Gaussians are precisely the affine transformations of tuples of standard (mean zero, unit-variance) one-dimensional Gaussians. Using this definition, it follows quickly that the conditional and marginal distributions must be multivariate Gaussian.

## Word2vec weight initialisation

The initialisation of the weights in word2vec is not what I expected.

• syn1 The weights connecting the hidden- to the output-layer are initialised to zero (in both the hierarchical softmax and the negative sampling cases)
• syn0 The initial values for the weights connecting the input- to the hidden-layer are drawn uniformly and independently from the interval , where is the rank of the hidden layer (i.e. number of hidden units.)

The range of interval from which the syn0 weights are sampled was chosen depends on the rank. I had presumed that this was to account for the dependency of the distribution of the dot product (and in particular the L2-norm) on the rank. However, estimating these distributions empirically, this doesn’t seem to be the case:

According to Mikolov (in a helpful response in the word2vec google group), the initialisation of the weights was chosen empirically, since it seemed to work well.

Questions:

1. I was unable to derive an expression for the distribution of L2-norms mathematically. Can someone help with that?

## PageRank meets vectorial representations – "Ranking on Data Manifolds"

I came across this paper when following up on ideas I had when reading about TextRank for summarising documents. It is short, well written and very interesting, and was authored by Zhou, Weston, Gretton, Bousquet and Schölkopf (all then at the Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tübingen) in 2004. (PDF).

The authors consider the problem of ranking objects by relevancy to one or more query objects in the case where the objects have a vectorial representation. This is done using the PageRank algorithm on a graph in which the vertices represent the objects and the edges weights are computed using e.g. an RBF kernel (or normalised dot-product, if the vectors are non-negative).

One advantage of this approach is that it generalises naturally to multiple query vectors. The query vectors are simply treated as a complete list of possible (re)starting points for the PageRank random walk. This contrasts with the typical PageRank case, where all pages are possible starting points. Note that this list of starting points need not be binary — it can rather be a probability distribution over the objects representing user preference.

The PageRank approach is shown to perform much better than Euclidean nearest neighbours search on real world data sets (MNIST digits and newsgroup posts are considered). In both cases, the datasets have labels. The query data points are chosen from a single class, and the ranking problem is treated as one of binary classification, i.e. finding the distinguishing the objects of the same class from those of all other classes. The ranking is used to calculate a ROC curve, and the area under this curve is used as a performance measure.

The evaluation considers the case of multiple query vectors, as well. The Euclidean nearest neighbours, in the multiple query vector case, are aggregated by taking the minimal distance to a query vector (i.e. “disjunctively”).

The PageRank method is visually contrasted with the Euclidean nearest neighbours case using the MNIST data set. Below are the 99 best ranked results in PageRank case (left) and the Euclidean case (right) (99 = 10 x 10 – 1 query). Not only does the left panel contain no threes, but the twos are more homogeneous.

The graph that the authors construct is not complete. Rather, edges are added, beginning with those most heavily weighted (but excluding self-loops) until the graph is connected. For example, in the case of the two sickle moons:

Hyperparameters
An RBF kernel function is used in some cases to define the edge weighting between nodes (see step 2 of the algorithm). Note that the variance of the RBF kernel needs to be fitted using cross-validation. This is no problem for labelled datasets like MNIST, but would be problematic for e.g. the sickle moons data.

It’s not a random walk
Note that, due to the “symmetric normalisation” that is applied to the affinity matrix (see step 3 of the algorithm), this is not a random walk — the columns of the normalisation do not sum to 1, so the iterative procedure of step 4 will not map probability distributions to probability distributions. Given that we only want to rank the nodes, not derive a probability distribution over them, this is not necessarily a problem.

Why symmetric normalisation? Dengyong was kind to explain the motivation for this (via correspondence). This normalisation was used in order to avoid over-emphasising points in high density regions, and because it is the normalised graph Laplacian (I haven’t looked into this). Dengyong added that these reasons were not strong, and that other alternatives should be investigated.

Corrections to the paper
There are some mistakes in the paper. In particular, there is a problem with Theorem 2, pointed out by begab on reddit when I shared this post. Begab points out that . The problem is larger than this, in fact, since the claim that the steady state of a PageRank random walk on a connected, undirected graph does not hold. There is the following counterexample, for instance.

Questions

1. Who has taken this research further?
2. In both of the cases considered, the vector representations of the objects are rather poor (pixel on/off and tf-idf). How much better is this approach if dimension reduction is first applied to the vectors?

## Block Multiplication of Matrices

(We needed this to derive the conditional distribution of a multivariate Gaussian).

Consider a matrix product . Partition the two outer dimensions (i.e. the rows of and the columns of ) and the one inner dimension (i.e. the columns of and the rows of ) arbitrarily. This defines a “block decomposition” of the product and of the factors such that the blocks of are related to the blocks of and via the familiar formula for components of the product, i.e.

.

Pictorially, we have the following:

Arithmetically, this is easy to prove by considering the formula above for the components of the product. The partitioning of the outer dimensions comes for free, while the partitioning of the inner dimension just corresponds to partitioning the summation:

.

Zooming out to a categorical level, we can see that there is nothing peculiar about this situation. If, in an additive category, we have three objects with biproduct decompositions, and a chain of morphisms:

then this “block decomposition of matrices” finds expression as a formula in using the injection and projection morphisms associated with each biproduct factor.

## TextRank: Bringing Order into Texts

Published in 2004 (PDF) by Rada Mihalcea and Paul Tarau.

I picked this paper up after seeing that it had been integrated into GenSim (see also this article by the contributor to gensim and others). The authors (of the original paper) apply the PageRank algorithm to graphs constructed from text for the purposes of keyword extraction and summarisation. These two approaches they name (somewhat unnecessarily, I feel) TextRank.

You can test how it works yourself e.g. the Python implementation here.

In the case of keyword extraction, the graph has words as vertices (in the best case, only nouns and adjectives) and the (undirected) edges represent co-occurrence within a fixed length window.

In the case of summarisation, the graph has sentences as vertices and the graph is complete. The weight of each edge can be determined by any sentence similarity function. The authors consider the case where sentence similarity is measured by word overlap, normalised by sentence length. If a vectorial representation of the sentences is available, then e.g. the cosine similarity could be used instead. The authors extend the definition of PageRank to deal with weighted graphs.

The advantage of the TextRank approaches is that nothing needs to be learnt — there is no machine learning involved at all. The keyword extraction and summarisation make relatively loose assumptions about the language of the text and apply equally well to documents from unseen domains. TextRank is, however, entirely heuristic. The theory leaves off where the authors begin (that is, with PageRank). The authors do present an interesting application of PageRank, however.

Questions:

• Has anyone tried the summarisation out using a vectorial representation of sentences and the cosine similarity? Other than bag-of-words?
• If we use e.g. the RBF kernel for the edge weight between two vectors , what points does PageRank tend to choose from a (multimodal) data sample? Related is perhaps this article. (See also my summary).

## Document Classification by Inversion of Distributed Language Representations

This is a note on the arxiv by Matt Taddy from April 2015. It reads very clearly and has a simple point to make: language modelling techniques can be used in classification tasks by training a separate language model for each class; documents are assigned to the class of the model where the document has the highest likelihood (hence “inversion”). In our discussion, we assume a uniform prior over the classes.

Taddy considers the particular case of predicting the sentiment of Yelp reviews at different levels of granularity. Different approaches are considered:

• word2vec inversion is inversion in the sense described above where document vectors are taken as the average of the word vectors of the constituent words;
• phrase regression, where separate logistic regression models are trained for each output class, taking as input phrase count vectors;
• doc2vec regression, is as per phrase regression, but taking as input one of:
• doc2vec DBOW
• doc2vec DM
• doc2vec DBOW and DM combined, i.e. in direct sum
• MNIR, the authors own Multinomial Inverse Regression

Three separate classification tasks are considered, labelled “a”, “b” and “c” in the diagram below, representing two-, three- and five-class sentiment classification.

As illustrated in the following figure, only the word2vec inversion technique would do a decent job when the gravity of a misclassification is considered (so penalising less if, e.g. predicted star rating is off by only one star):

Missing from Taddy’s comparison is inversion using the document vectors, though this is certainly the sort of thing his paper suggests might work well. Also missing is regression using the document vectors obtained as aggregates of word vectors.

## Notes on Document Embedding with Paragraph Vectors

Presented at NIPS 2014 (PDF) by Dai, Olah, Le and Corrado.

## Model

The authors consider a modified version of the PV-DBOW paragraph vector model. In previous work, PV-DBOW had distinguished words appearing in the context window from non-appearing words given only the paragraph vector as input. In this modified version, the word vectors and the paragraph vectors take turns playing the role of the input, and word vectors and paragraph vectors are trained together. That is, a gradient update is performed for the paragraph vector in the manner of regular PV-DBOW, then a gradient update is made to the word vectors in the manner of Skipgram, and so on. This is unfortunately less than clear from the paper. The authors were good enough to confirm this via correspondence, however (thanks to Adriaan Schakel for communicating this). For the purposes of the paper, this is the paragraph vector model.

The representations obtained from paragraph vector (using cosine similarity) are compared to those obtained using:

• an average of word embeddings
• LDA, using Hellinger distance (which is proportional to the L2 distance between the component-wise square roots)
• paragraph vector with static, pre-trained word vectors

In the case of the average of word embeddings, the word vectors were not normalised prior to taking the average (confirmed by correspondence).

## Corpora

Two corpora are considered, the arXiv and Wikipedia:

• 4.5M articles from Wikipedia, with a vocabulary of size 915k
• 886k articles from the arXiv, full texts extracted from the PDFs, with a vocabulary of 970k words.

Only unigrams are used. The authors observed that bigrams did not improve the quality of the paragraph vectors. (p3)

## Quantitative Evaluation

Performance was measured against collections of triples, where each triple consisted of a test article, an article relevant to the test article, and an article less relevant to the test article. While not explicitly stated, it is reasonable to assume that the accuracy is then taken to be the rate at which similarity according to the model coincides with relevance, i.e. the rate at which the model says that the relevant article is more similar than the less relevant article to the test article. Different sets of triples were considered, the graph below shows performance of the different methods relative to a set of 172 Wikipedia triples that the authors built by hand (these remain unreleased at the time of writing).

It is curious that, with the exception of the averaged word embeddings, the accuracy does not seem to saturate as the dimension increases for any of the methods. However, as each data point is the accuracy of a single training (confirmed by correspondence), this is likely nothing more than the variability inherent to each method. It might suggest, for example, that the paragraph vectors method has a tendency to get stuck in local minima. This instability in paragraph vector is not apparent, however, when tested on the triples that are automatically generated from Wikipedia (Figure 5). In this latter case, there are many more triples.

Performance on the arXiv is even more curious: accuracy decreases markedly as the dimension increases!

## Implementations

I am not sure there are any publicly available implementations of this modified paragraph vectors method. According to Dai, the implementation of the authors uses Google proprietary code and is unlikely to be released. However it should be simple to modify the word2vec code to train the paragraph vectors, though some extra code will need to be written to infer paragraph vectors after training has finished.

I believe that the gensim implementation provides only the unmodified version of PV-DBOW, not the one considered in this paper.

It is interesting that the paragraph vector is chosen so as to best predict the constituent words, i.e. it is inferred. This is a much better approach from the point of view of word sense disambiguation than obtaining the paragraph vector as a linear image of an average of the word vectors (NMF vs PCA, in their dimension reductions on bag of words, is another example of this difference).

Questions

1. Is there is an implementation available in GenSim? (see e.g. this tutorial).
2. (Tangent) What is the motivation (probabilistic meaning) for the Hellinger distance?

## Expectation-Maximisation and Gaussian Mixture Models

Below are notes from a talk on Expectation Maximisation I gave at our ML-learning group. Gaussian mixture models are considered as an example application.

The exposition follows Bishop section 2.6 and Andrew Ng’s CS229 lecture notes. If you weren’t at the seminar, then it is probably better to read one of these instead.

Another useful reference is likely the 1977 paper by Dempster et al. that made the technique famous (this is something I would have liked to have read, but didn’t).

Questions

1. I still don’t understand how EM manages to (reportedly) work so well, given that the maximisation chooses for the next parameter vector precisely the one that reinforces the “fantasy” completions of the data made by the previous parameter vector. I would not have considered it a good learning strategy. It contrasts greatly with, for example, the learning strategy of a restricted Boltzmann machine, in which, at each iteration, the parameters are adjusted so as to correct the model’s fantasy towards producing the observed data.
2. Can we offer a better argument for why maximisation of the likelihood for latent variable models is difficult?
3. Is the likelihood of an exponential family distribution convex in the parameters? This is certainly the case for e.g. the mean of a Gaussian. Does this explain why the maximisation of the constructed lower bound for the likelihood is easy?