Attention mechanisms have become a popular component in deep neural networks, yet there has been little examination of how different influencing factors and methods for computing attention from these factors affect performance. Toward a better general understanding of attention mechanisms, we present an empirical study that ablates various spatial attention elements within a generalized attention formulation, encompassing the dominant Transformer attention as well as the prevalent deformable convolution and dynamic convolution modules. Conducted on a variety of applications, the study yields significant findings about spatial attention in deep networks, some of which run counter to conventional understanding. For example, we find that the query and key content comparison in Transformer attention is negligible for self-attention, but vital for encoder-decoder attention. A proper combination of deformable convolution with key content only saliency achieves the best accuracy-efficiency tradeoff in self-attention. Our results suggest that there exists much room for improvement in the design of attention mechanisms.
@cite_18: In this paper, we propose an effective way for biasing the attention mechanism of a sequence-to-sequence neural machine translation (NMT) model towards the well-studied statistical word alignment models. We show that our novel guided alignment training approach improves translation quality on real-life e-commerce texts consisting of product titles and descriptions, overcoming the problems posed by many unknown words and a large type token ratio. We also show that meta-data associated with input texts such as topic or category information can significantly improve translation quality when used as an additional signal to the decoder part of the network. With both novel features, the BLEU score of the NMT system on a product title set improves from 18.6 to 21.3 . Even larger MT quality gains are obtained through domain adaptation of a general domain NMT system to e-commerce data. The developed NMT system also performs well on the IWSLT speech translation task, where an ensemble of four variant systems outperforms the phrase-based baseline by 2.1 BLEU absolute.
@cite_36: Neural encoder-decoder models of machine translation have achieved impressive results, rivalling traditional translation models. However their modelling formulation is overly simplistic, and omits several key inductive biases built into traditional models. In this paper we extend the attentional neural translation model to include structural biases from word based alignment models, including positional bias, Markov conditioning, fertility and agreement over translation directions. We show improvements over a baseline attentional model and standard phrase-based model over several language pairs, evaluating on difficult languages in a low resource setting.
@cite_32: Attention in neural machine translation provides the possibility to encode relevant parts of the source sentence at each translation step. As a result, attention is considered to be an alignment model as well. However, there is no work that specifically studies attention and provides analysis of what is being learned by attention models. Thus, the question still remains that how attention is similar or different from the traditional alignment. In this paper, we provide detailed analysis of attention and compare it to traditional alignment. We answer the question of whether attention is only capable of modelling translational equivalent or it captures more information. We show that attention is different from alignment in some cases and is capturing useful information other than alignments.
@cite_3: Recent work has shown that the encoder-decoder attention mechanisms in neural machine translation (NMT) are different from the word alignment in statistical machine translation. In this paper, we focus on analyzing encoder-decoder attention mechanisms, in the case of word sense disambiguation (WSD) in NMT models. We hypothesize that attention mechanisms pay more attention to context tokens when translating ambiguous words. We explore the attention distribution patterns when translating ambiguous nouns. Counter-intuitively, we find that attention mechanisms are likely to distribute more attention to the ambiguous noun itself rather than context tokens, in comparison to other nouns. We conclude that attention mechanism is not the main mechanism used by NMT models to incorporate contextual information for WSD. The experimental results suggest that NMT models learn to encode contextual information necessary for WSD in the encoder hidden states. For the attention mechanism in Transformer models, we reveal that the first few layers gradually learn to "align" source and target tokens and the last few layers learn to extract features from the related but unaligned context tokens.
@cite_52: The attention mechanisim is appealing for neural machine translation, since it is able to dynam- ically encode a source sentence by generating a alignment between a target word and source words. Unfortunately, it has been proved to be worse than conventional alignment models in aligment accuracy. In this paper, we analyze and explain this issue from the point view of re- ordering, and propose a supervised attention which is learned with guidance from conventional alignment models. Experiments on two Chinese-to-English translation tasks show that the super- vised attention mechanism yields better alignments leading to substantial gains over the standard attention based NMT.
@cite_27: Deep learning models have achieved remarkable success in natural language inference (NLI) tasks. While these models are widely explored, they are hard to interpret and it is often unclear how and why they actually work. In this paper, we take a step toward explaining such deep learning based models through a case study on a popular neural model for NLI. In particular, we propose to interpret the intermediate layers of NLI models by visualizing the saliency of attention and LSTM gating signals. We present several examples for which our methods are able to reveal interesting insights and identify the critical information contributing to the model decisions.
@cite_10: 
@cite_25: Attention mechanisms have seen wide adoption in neural NLP models. In addition to improving predictive performance, these are often touted as affording transparency: models equipped with attention provide a distribution over attended-to input units, and this is often presented (at least implicitly) as communicating the relative importance of inputs. However, it is unclear what relationship exists between attention weights and model outputs. In this work, we perform extensive experiments across a variety of NLP tasks that aim to assess the degree to which attention weights provide meaningful explanations' for predictions. We find that they largely do not. For example, learned attention weights are frequently uncorrelated with gradient-based measures of feature importance, and one can identify very different attention distributions that nonetheless yield equivalent predictions. Our findings show that standard attention modules do not provide meaningful explanations and should not be treated as though they do. Code for all experiments is available at this https URL.
There exists relatively little analysis of spatial attention mechanisms despite their prevalence in deep networks. This research has largely been conducted by visualizing or analyzing the learned attention weights of a whole attention module on only NLP tasks @cite_32 @cite_3 @cite_27 @cite_25 . Many works @cite_32 @cite_3 @cite_27 suggest that attention weight assignment in encoder-decoder attention plays a role similar to word alignment in traditional approaches @cite_10 @cite_36 @cite_52 @cite_18 . The implicit underlying assumption in these works is that the input elements accorded high attention weights are responsible for the model outputs. However, recent research casts doubt on this assumption @cite_25 , finding that attention weights do not correlate well with feature importance measures, and that counterfactual attention weight configurations do not yield corresponding changes in prediction.