1 / 34

Random Forests for Language Modeling

Random Forests for Language Modeling. Peng Xu and Frederick Jelinek IPAM: January 24, 2006. What Is a Language Model?. A probability distribution over word sequences Based on conditional probability distributions: probability of a word given its history (past words). A. W*.

bluma
Download Presentation

Random Forests for Language Modeling

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Random Forests for Language Modeling Peng Xu and Frederick Jelinek IPAM: January 24, 2006 CLSP, The Johns Hopkins University

  2. What Is a Language Model? • A probability distribution over word sequences • Based on conditional probability distributions: probability of a word given its history (past words) CLSP, The Johns Hopkins University

  3. A W* • Source-channel model W A What Is a Language Model for? • Speech recognition CLSP, The Johns Hopkins University

  4. n-gram Language Models • A simple yet powerful solution to LM • (n-1) items in history: n-gram model • Maximum Likelihood (ML) estimate: • Sparseness Problem: training and test mismatch, most n-grams are never seen; need for smoothing CLSP, The Johns Hopkins University

  5. Sparseness Problem Example: Upenn Treebank portion of WSJ, 1 million words training data, 82 thousand words test data, 10-thousand-word open vocabulary Sparseness makes language modeling a difficult regression problem: an n-gram model needs at least |V|n words to cover all n-grams CLSP, The Johns Hopkins University

  6. More Data • More data  solution to data sparseness • The web has “everything”: web data is noisy. • The web does NOT have everything: language models using web data still have data sparseness problem. • [Zhu & Rosenfeld, 2001] In 24 random web news sentences, 46 out of 453 trigrams were not covered by Altavista. • In domain training data is not always easy to get. CLSP, The Johns Hopkins University

  7. Dealing With Sparseness in n-gram • Smoothing: take out some probability mass from seen n-grams and distribute among unseen n-grams • Interpolated Kneser-Ney: consistently the best performance [Chen & Goodman, 1998] CLSP, The Johns Hopkins University

  8. Our Approach • Extend the appealing idea of history to clustering via decision trees. • Overcome problems in decision tree construction … by using Random Forests! CLSP, The Johns Hopkins University

  9. Decision Tree Language Models • Decision trees: equivalence classification of histories • Each leaf is specified by the answers to a series of questions (posed to “history”) which lead to the leaf from the root. • Each leaf corresponds to a subset of the histories. Thus histories are partitioned (i.e.,classified). CLSP, The Johns Hopkins University

  10. {ab,ac,bc,bb,ad} a:3 b:2 {ab,ac,ad} a:3 b:0 {bc,bb} a:0 b:2 Decision Tree Language Models: An Example Training data: aba, aca, bcb, bbb, ada New event ‘cba’ in test: Stuck! Is the first word in {a}? Is the first word in {b}? New event ‘adb’ in test New event ‘bdb’ in test CLSP, The Johns Hopkins University

  11. Decision Tree Language Models: An Example • Example: trigrams (w-2,w-1,w0) • Questions about positions: “Is w-i2S?” and “Is w-i2Sc?” There are two history positions for trigram. • Each pair, S and Sc, defines a possible split of a node, and therefore, training data. • S and Sc are complements with respect to training data • A node gets less data than its ancestors. • (S, Sc) are obtained by an exchange algorithm. CLSP, The Johns Hopkins University

  12. Construction of Decision Trees • Data Driven: decision trees are constructed on the basis of training data • The construction requires: • The set of possible questions • A criterion evaluating the desirability of questions • A construction stopping rule or post-pruning rule CLSP, The Johns Hopkins University

  13. Construction of Decision Trees: Our Approach • Grow a decision tree until maximum depth using training data • Use training data likelihood to evaluate questions • Perform no smoothing during growing • Prune fully grown decision tree to maximize heldout data likelihood • Incorporate KN smoothing during pruning CLSP, The Johns Hopkins University

  14. Smoothing Decision Trees • Using similar ideas as interpolated Kneser-Ney smoothing: • Note: • All histories in one node are not smoothed in the same way. • Only leaves are used as equivalence classes. CLSP, The Johns Hopkins University

  15. Problems with Decision Trees • Training data fragmentation: • As tree is developed, the questions are selected on the basis of less and less data. • Lack of optimality: • The exchange algorithm is a greedy algorithm. • So is the tree growing algorithm • Overtraining and undertraining: • Deep trees: fit the training data well, will not generalize well to new test data. • Shallow trees: not sufficiently refined. CLSP, The Johns Hopkins University

  16. Amelioration: Random Forests • Breiman applied the idea of random forests to relatively small problems. [Breiman 2001] • Using different random samples of data and randomly chosen subsets of questions, construct K decision trees. • Apply test datum x to all the different decision trees. • Produce classes y1,y2,…,yK. • Accept plurality decision: CLSP, The Johns Hopkins University

  17. Example of a Random Forest T1 T2 T3 a a a a a     a  An example x will be classified as a according to this random forest. CLSP, The Johns Hopkins University

  18. Random Forests for Language Modeling • Two kinds of randomness: • Selection of positions to ask about • Alternatives: position 1 or 2 or the better of the two. • Random initialization of the exchange algorithm • 100 decision trees: ithtree estimates • PDT(i)(w0|w-2,w-1) • The final estimate is the average of all trees CLSP, The Johns Hopkins University

  19. Experiments • Perplexity (PPL): • UPenn Treebank part of WSJ: about 1 million words for training and heldout (90%/10%), 82 thousand words for test CLSP, The Johns Hopkins University

  20. Experiments: trigram Baseline: KN-trigram No randomization: DT-trigram 100 random DTs: RF-trigram CLSP, The Johns Hopkins University

  21. Experiments: Aggregating • Considerable improvement already with 10 trees! CLSP, The Johns Hopkins University

  22. Experiments: Analysis • seen event: • KN-trigram: in training data • DT-trigram: in training data Analyze test data events by number of times seen in 100 DTs CLSP, The Johns Hopkins University

  23. Experiments: Stability PPL results of different realizations varies, but differences are small. CLSP, The Johns Hopkins University

  24. Aggregation: • Weighted average: Estimate weights so as to maximize heldout data log-likelihood Experiments: Aggregation v.s. Interpolation CLSP, The Johns Hopkins University

  25. Optimal interpolation gains almost nothing! Experiments: Aggregation v.s. Interpolation CLSP, The Johns Hopkins University

  26. Experiments: High Order n-grams Models • Baseline: KN n-gram • 100 random DTs: RF n-gram CLSP, The Johns Hopkins University

  27. Using Random Forests to Other Models: SLM • Structured Language Model (SLM): [Chelba & Jelinek, 2000] • Approximation: use tree triples CLSP, The Johns Hopkins University

  28. Speech Recognition Experiments (I) • Word Error Rate (WER) by N-best Rescoring: • WSJ text: 20 or 40 million words training • WSJ DARPA’93 HUB1 test data: 213 utterances, 3446 words • N-best rescoring: baseline WER is 13.7% • N-best lists were generated by a trigram baseline using Katz backoff smoothing. • The baseline trigram used 40 million words for training. • Oracle error rate is around 6%. CLSP, The Johns Hopkins University

  29. Speech Recognition Experiments (I) Baseline: KN smoothing 100 random DTs for RF 3-gram 100 random DTs for the PREDICTOR in SLM Approximation in SLM CLSP, The Johns Hopkins University

  30. Speech Recognition Experiments (II) • Word Error Rate by Lattice Rescoring • IBM 2004 Conversational Telephony System for Rich Transcription: 1st place in RT-04 evaluation • Fisher data: 22 million words • WEB data: 525 million words, using frequent Fisher n-grams as queries • Other data: Switchboard, Broadcast News, etc. • Lattice language model: 4-gram with interpolated Kneser-Ney smoothing, pruned to have 3.2 million unique n-grams, WER is 14.4% • Test set: DEV04, 37,834 words CLSP, The Johns Hopkins University

  31. Speech Recognition Experiments (II) Baseline: KN 4-gram 110 random DTs for EB-RF 4-gram Sampling data without replacement Fisher and WEB models are interpolated CLSP, The Johns Hopkins University

  32. Practical Limitations of the RF Approach • Memory: • Decision tree construction uses much more memory. • Little performance gain when training data is really large. • Because we have 100 trees, the final model becomes too large to fit into memory. • Effective language model compression or pruning remains an open question. CLSP, The Johns Hopkins University

  33. Conclusions: Random Forests New RF language modeling approach More general LM: RF  DT  n-gram Randomized history clustering Good generalization: better n-gram coverage, less biased to training data Extension of Brieman’s random forests for data sparseness problem CLSP, The Johns Hopkins University

  34. Conclusions: Random Forests • Improvements in perplexity and/or word error rate over interpolated Kneser-Ney smoothing for different models: • n-gram (up to n=6) • Class-based trigram • Structured Language Model • Significant improvements in the best performing large vocabulary conversational telephony speech recognition system CLSP, The Johns Hopkins University

More Related