The Role of Complex NLP in Transformers for Text Ranking?

Even though term-based methods such as BM25 provide strong baselines in ranking, under certain conditions they are dominated by large pre-trained masked language models (MLMs) such as BERT. To date, the source of their effectiveness remains unclear. Is it their ability to truly understand the meaning through modeling syntactic aspects? We answer this by manipulating the input order and position information in a way that destroys the natural sequence order of query and passage and shows that the model still achieves comparable performance. Overall, our results highlight that syntactic aspects do not play a critical role in the effectiveness of re-ranking with BERT. We point to other mechanisms such as query-passage cross-attention and richer embeddings that capture word meanings based on aggregated context regardless of the word order for being the main attributions for its superior performance.

How Different are Pre-trained Transformers for Text Ranking?

In recent years, large pre-trained transformers have led to substantial gains in performance over traditional retrieval models and feedback approaches. However, these results are primarily based on the MS Marco/TREC Deep Learning Track setup, with its very particular setup, and our understanding of why and how these models work better is fragmented at best. We analyze effective BERT-based cross-encoders versus traditional BM25 ranking for the passage retrieval task where the largest gains have been observed, and investigate two main questions. On the one hand, what is similar? To what extent does the neural ranker already encompass the capacity of traditional rankers? Is the gain in performance due to a better ranking of the same documents (prioritizing precision)? On the other hand, what is different? Can it retrieve effectively documents missed by traditional systems (prioritizing recall)? We discover substantial differences in the notion of relevance identifying strengths and weaknesses of BERT that may inspire research for future improvement. Our results contribute to our understanding of (black-box) neural rankers relative to (well-understood) traditional rankers, help understand the particular experimental setting of MS-Marco-based test collections.

On the Realization of Compositionality in Neural Networks

We present a detailed comparison of two types of sequence to sequence models trained to conduct a compositional task. The models are architecturally identical at inference time, but differ in the way that they are trained: our baseline model is trained with a task-success signal only, while the other model receives additional supervision on its attention mechanism (Attentive Guidance), which has shown to be an effective method for encouraging more compositional solutions (Hupkes et al.,2019). We first confirm that the models with attentive guidance indeed infer more compositional solutions than the baseline, by training them on the lookup table task presented by Li\v{s}ka et al. (2019). We then do an in-depth analysis of the structural differences between the two model types, focusing in particular on the organisation of the parameter space and the hidden layer activations and find noticeable differences in both these aspects. Guided networks focus more on the components of the input rather than the sequence as a whole and develop small functional groups of neurons with specific purposes that use their gates more selectively. Results from parameter heat maps, component swapping and graph analysis also indicate that guided networks exhibit a more modular structure with a small number of specialized, strongly connected neurons.

Point-less: More Abstractive Summarization with Pointer-Generator Networks

The Pointer-Generator architecture has shown to be a big improvement for abstractive summarization seq2seq models. However, the summaries produced by this model are largely extractive as over 30% of the generated sentences are copied from the source text. This work proposes a multihead attention mechanism, pointer dropout, and two new loss functions to promote more abstractive summaries while maintaining similar ROUGE scores. Both the multihead attention and dropout do not improve N-gram novelty, however, the dropout acts as a regularizer which improves the ROUGE score. The new loss function achieves significantly higher novel N-grams and sentences, at the cost of a slightly lower ROUGE score.