Introduction
Deep learning has achieved great success in recent years, especially in sequencetosequence applications like machine translation [Bahdanau, Cho, and Bengio2014, Cho et al.2014], image captioning [Xu et al.2015, Rennie et al.2017], abstractive summarization [Rush, Chopra, and Weston2015, Paulus, Xiong, and Socher2017] and speech recognition [Wu et al.2016a, Lu et al.2015], etc. The most common approaches are based on neural networks which employ very large parameter set to learn a transductive function between the input space and the target space.
The key problem faced by neural sequencetosequence model is how to learn a robust transductive function in such a highdimensional space with rather sparse humanannotated data pairs. For example, machine translation takes the input sequence which lies in the space of to output sequence in another space, where denote the vocabulary sizes and denote the sequence lengths. In the largescale problem, the input and output space become so large that any amount of annotated dataset appears to be sparse. Such data sparsity problem poses great challenges for the model to understand both the input and output diversity. It’s worth noting that our claimed data sparsity problem is specific to sequencetosequence scenario, which is slightly different from curse of dimensionality^{1}^{1}1The curse of dimensionality problem happens when the feature dimension is too high for the limited data to fit while our claimed data sparsity happens when the data space is too large for the limited data to cover.. In general, our method runs parallel with the methods which prevent model overfitting like l1/2 regularization, dropout [Srivastava et al.2014], and etc.
In order to resolve the specific data sparsity problem in sequencetosequence learning, different data augmentation approaches [Sennrich, Haddow, and Birch2016, Ma et al.2017, Norouzi et al.2016, He et al.2016, Chen et al.2018] have been proposed. These methods are mainly focused on “augmenting” pseudoparallel data to fully explore the data space, their main weaknesses can be mainly summarized into the following aspects: 1) BackTranslation [Sennrich, Haddow, and Birch2016] are specific to certain task like NMT; 2) RewardAugmented Training [Ma et al.2017, Norouzi et al.2016] fail to consider source side diversity; 3) Dual Learning [He et al.2016] requires duality property and additional resources.
In this paper, we are devoted to design a generalpurpose sequencetosequence learning algorithm to alleviate data sparsity problem without relying on any external resources. We first assume every example in the dataset actually represents an unknown latent distribution, which we need to approximate. In the language domain, the latent distribution could be viewed as a set of paraphrases, while in the image domain, the latent distribution could be thought of as a set of similar pictures. The current prevalent heuristics for approximating the latent distribution
[Norouzi et al.2016] are mainly based on tokenlevel replacement, which are known to suffer from the following problems: 1) Inconsistency: RAML [Norouzi et al.2016] does not retain the fidelity to original data pairs and breaks the pairwise correspondence^{2}^{2}2RAML could turn an English sentence from “a girl is going to school” into “a girl is going to kitchen” while a German translation from “ein(a) Mädchen(girl) gehe(goes) …” to “ein(a) Junge(boy) gehe(goes) …”.. 2) Broken Structure: paraphrasing potentially breaks the structure of the sequence and causes unnecessary errors^{3}^{3}3Heuristic replacement could turn a source sentence from “a girl is going to school” into “a girl plans to school”.. 3) Discreteness: these methods are merely used for a sequence with discrete tokens, not suitable for a sequence with continuous vector scenario.
In order to defeat these issues to augment fluent and wellcorresponded sourcetarget pairs, we design our system to meet the following three criterion: 1) generability: we employ the generative model (augmenter) to generate new sequences rather than using hard replacements, which can avoid broken structure and be applicable to continuous variable scenarios; 2) fidelity: we restrict the augmented pair to follow their original prototype by maximizing their likelihood computed by the sequence model; 3) diversity: we encourage the augmenters to output more unseen samples to cover the large data space. These designs can enable the augmenters to better approximate the latent distributions, which then enhances the robustness of sequencetosequence learning. A pedagogical illustration is shown in Figure 1, where we learn the latent distribution and then employ the sequence model to align them. The testing error can be reduced by fully exploring the data space.
In conclusion, the major contributions of our paper are described as follows:

[noitemsep,topsep=0pt]

we are the first to view sequencetosequence learning as a distribution matching problem.

we have successfully applied our algorithm into two largescale reallife tasks and design corresponding architectures for them.

we have empirically demonstrated that our method can remarkably outperform the existing algorithms like MLE, RL, and RAML.
Related Literature
Neural Sequence Model
A major recent development in machine learning community is the adoption of neural networks. Neural network models promise better sharing of statistical evidence between similar words and inclusion of rich context. Since
[Bahdanau, Cho, and Bengio2014, Cho et al.2014] proposed the sequencetosequence model, it has been widely adopted in the industries and academia. Later on, many followup works on machine translation like [Chen et al.2016, Wu et al.2016b] and visual captioning [Xu et al.2015, Rennie et al.2017, Chen, Lucchi, and Hofmann2016] have been proposed to achieve stateoftheart performance.Reinforcement Learning
Exposure bias and traintest loss discrepancy are two major issues in the training of sequence prediction models in neural machine translation or image captioning. Many research works
[Bahdanau, Cho, and Bengio2014, Ranzato et al.2015, Xu et al.2015, Rennie et al.2017] have attempted to tackle these issues by exposing the model to its own distribution and directly maximizing tasklevel rewards. These methods are reported to achieve significant improvements in many applications like machine translation, image captioning and summarization, etc. These works are able to encourage the sequence model to exploit the target space better by driving it with a humancrafted reward signal, our method can also encourage the sequence model to exploit the source and target space with a sophisticated modelbased reward signal.Reward Augmented Training
One successful approach for data augmentation in neural machine translation system is RAML [Norouzi et al.2016], which proposes a novel payoff distribution to augment training samples based on tasklevel reward (BLEU, Edit Distance, etc). In order to sample from this intractable distribution, they further stratify the sampling process as first sampling an edit distance, then performing random substitution/deletion operations. In order to combat the unnecessary noises introduced by the random replacement strategy, our method considers semantic and syntactic context to perform paraphrase generation.
Preliminary
Here we first introduce the sequencetosequence model proposed in [Cho et al.2014, Bahdanau, Cho, and Bengio2014], which applies two recurrent neural networks [Mikolov et al.2010] to separately understand input sequence and generate output sequence. This framework has been widely applied in various sequence generation tasks due to its simplicity and endtoend nature, which successfully avoids expensive humancrafted features. The sequence model receives the feedback and form a distribution
over the output space according to chain rule as follows:
(1) 
where are the recurrent units, is a global attention function to compute the attention weights over the input information . For generality, the sequence element could be a discrete integer or a realvalue vector depending on the distribution . In language related task, lies in the discrete space , where the most frequently used is the Multinomial distribution:
(2) 
where is the output of function .
In contrast, in visual captioning, can be seen as the representation of image lying in the continuous ddimensional space
, where the most popular option is multivariate Gaussian distribution:
(3) 
where are the Gaussian mean and deviation obtained from functions . We will cover these two cases in the following sections.
Model
Overview
Here we demonstrate our philosophy using a pedagogical illustration in Figure 1, the example demonstrates how our distributionmatching framework works in combating data sparsity problem to improve model’s ability to understand the diversity in both sides. Our framework first introduces the parallel augmenter, which views the sourcetarget pairs from the dataset as a prototype and aims at augmenting them simultaneously to output synthetic pairs . Specifically, we parameterize the source side and target side augmenters as and , which are also implemented with recurrent neural networks. Then we elaborate the above mentioned constraints (see introduction) into two objective functions:

Matching loss: the transformed source distribution should match its corresponding local latent distribution in the target domain.
(4) where we use to denote the marginal likelihood . However, we found that such KLdivergence can degenerate into Maximum Likelihood Estimation by setting to Kroneckerdelta function . Such scenario will violate the diversity constraint, therefore, we leverage an entropy regularization term in the source side to avert that. The matching loss can hence be expressed as follows:
(5) 
Fidelity Loss: the randomly drawn samples should remain fidelity to its own ground truth.
(6) where denotes the similarity score (e.g. BLEU, METEROR in discrete case, or other distance measure in continuous case).
With the above two loss function, we propose to sum them as the combined loss function as follows:
(7) 
Here we draw a pedagogical illustration of our proposed objective function in Figure 2
. During optimization, we will optimize the joint loss function directly with stochastic gradient descent.
Optimization
Formally, we first write gradient of matching loss with respect to two augmenters and the sequence model as follows:
(8) 
Here we adopt MonteCarlo algorithm to approximate the gradients as follows: 1) sample N source sequence samples and N target sequence samples from augmenters. 2) estimate with . 3) use the sampled source and target sequences to estimate the gradients as follows:
Then we write gradient of fidelity loss with respect to two augmenters as follows:
(9) 
Since the augmenters and sequence model are mutually dependent, we adopt an alternate iterative training algorithm to update these terms as described in Algorithm 1.
Experiments
In order to evaluate our distribution matching frameworks on different sequencetosequence applications, we select the most popular machine translation and image captioning as our benchmark. We compare our method against stateoftheart approaches as well as MLE, RAML and RL methods. Here we design two types of augmenters as described in Figure 3 to handle two different scenarios for machine translation and visual captioning. Our method is abbreviated as S2SDM in the following sections. For comparability, we follow the existing papers [Bahdanau, Cho, and Bengio2014, Xu et al.2015] to adopt same network architecture, and we also apply learning rate annealing strategy described in [Wu et al.2016b] to further boost our system performance. We trained all our models on Titan X GPU, the experiments for both machine translation and visual captioning take within 3 days (excluding pretraining) to achieve the reported score. For machine translation, the performance is reported with the standard measure BLEU4, while for image captioning, the performance is reported with CIDEr, METEOR and BLEU4 to measure different aspects of the generated captions.
Baseline systems
In both experiments, we specifically compare with the following three baselines:

MLE: The maximum likelihood estimation is the de facto algorithm to train sequencetosequence model, here we follow [Bahdanau, Cho, and Bengio2014] to train attentionbased sequencetosequence model.

RL: REINFORCE [Williams1992] has been frequently used in sequence training to maximize the tasklevel metrics like [Ranzato et al.2015, Bahdanau et al.2016], etc. Here we design use delta BLEU as the reward function and use policy gradient to update the sequence model.

RAML: We follow [Norouzi et al.2016] to select the best temperature in all experiments. In order to sample from the intractable payoff distribution, we adopt a stratified sampling technique described in [Norouzi et al.2016]. Given a ground truth , we first sample an edit distance , and then randomly select positions to replace the original labels. For each sentence, we randomly sample four candidates to perform RAML training.
Task 1: Machine Translation
In the machine translation experiments, we follow [Bahdanau, Cho, and Bengio2014, Chung et al.2014] to design our seqtoseq translation model. The two augmenters are also implemented with the same architecture, but they take the groundtruth tokens as their inputs. The goal of augmenters is to approximate the latent distribution with a Multinomial distribution (depicted in Figure 3):
where is the recurrent state obtained by transition function in each step and as the softmax parameters, is the distribution over the whole vocabulary, where is an summarization vector from the ground truth sequence . Here we write the derivatives as follows:
We use to denote the whole parameter sets in layer and RNN transition function .
IWSLT2014 GermanEnglish Dataset
This corpus contains 153K sentences while the validation dataset contains 6,969 sentences pairs. The test set comprises dev2010, dev2012, tst2010, tst2011 and tst2012, and the total amount is 6,750 sentences. We adopt 512 as the length of RNN hidden stats and 256 as embedding size. We use the bidirectional encoder and initialize both its own decoder states and coach’s hidden state with the learner’s last hidden state. We pretrained the model using MLE using a batch size of 128, we stop the pretraining stage when the dev set score converges. Then we start pretraining the augmenter using selfreconstruction, which maximizes the objective function , such pretraining procedure makes sure that the augmenter has a high initial fidelity. Finally, we train the three models jointly with distribution matching loss function. We use BLEU4 [Papineni et al.2002]
as the evaluation metrics throughout the experiments.
Experimental Results
The experimental results for IWSLT2014 GermanEnglish and EnglishGerman Translation Task are summarized in Table 1, where we compare with MLE, RL, RAML, and many other popular competing algorithms like the reinforcementbased (MIXER and AC), augmentationbased method (SoftmaxQ) and stateoftheart method (Transformer). From the table, we can observe that our distribution matching method outperforms all these methods and brings significant gains in both translation directions.
Model  DE2EN  EN2DE 
MIXER [Ranzato et al.2015]  21.81   
BSO [Wiseman and Rush2016]  26.36   
AC [Bahdanau et al.2016]  28.53   
SoftmaxQ [Ma et al.2017]  28.77   
Transformer [Vaswani et al.2017]  30.21  25.02 
MLE  29.10  24.40 
RL  29.70  24.75 
RAML  29.47  24.86 
S2SDM  30.92  25.54 
Task 2: Image Captioning
In the image captioning experiments, we follow [Rennie et al.2017, Xu et al.2015] to design our seqtoseq captioning model as depicted in Figure 4. The two augmenters are also based on similar architecture (depicted in Figure 3), but the source augmenter takes the visual representation as input while the target augmenter takes the groundtruth tokens as inputs (same as MT augmenter). For source augmenter, we use the reparameterization trick to denote the continuous visual representation as a multivariate Gaussian distribution
. By assuming independence between dimensions, we can simplify the standard deviate
as. Hence, the output probability distribution can be written as follows:
We here adopt reparameterization trick and use an RNN to predict the deviate at each time step with and . The noise is sampled from isotropic Gaussian and the RNN hidden state is obtained from transition function . We use to denote the individual dimension and formally write its derivatives as follows:
where represents the multivariate Gaussian dimension, and represents the length of the sequence. We use to denote the whole parameter sets in both and RNN .
MSCOCO Dataset
We evaluate the performance of our model on MSCOCO captioning dataset [Lin et al.2014]. The MSCOCO dataset contains 123,287 images for training and validation, 40775 images for testing. Here we use the standard split described by Karpathy^{4}^{4}4https://github.com/karpathy/neuraltalk2
for which 5000 images were used for both validation and testing and the rest for training. We pretrain the model on this data using a batch size of 256 and validate on an outofdomain heldout set, this stage is ended when the validation score converges or the maximum number of epochs is reached. After pretraining, we continue distribution matching training on the original paired dataset. The LSTM hidden, image, word and attention embeddings dimension are fixed to 512 for all of the models discussed herein. We initialize all models by training the model under the crossentropy objective with a learning rate of
. We anneal the learning rate by a factor of 0.8 every three epochs. At test time, we do beam search with a beam size of 4 to decode words until the end sentence symbol is reached. We use different standard evaluation metrics described in [Chen et al.2015], including BLEU@N [Papineni et al.2002], METEOR, and CIDEr to measure different aspects of generated captions.Model  CIDEr  BLEU  MET 
Neuraltalk2  66.0  23.0  19.5 
SoftAttention [Xu et al.2015]  66.7  24.3  23.9 
Att2in SCST [Rennie et al.2017]  111.4  33.3  26.3 
Att2in MLE [Rennie et al.2017]  101.3  31.3  26.0 
Att2in RL [Rennie et al.2017]  109.8  32.8  26.0 
Att2in RAML  98.5  31.2  26.0 
S2SDM  112.8  33.9  26.4 

Reference  taihsi natives seeking work … being hired, and later their colleagues maintain …  
Sample  taihsi natives seeking work … being employed, and later their colleagues maintain …  
Simplification  Reference  i once took mr tung … that a narrow alley could have accommodated so many people.  
Sample  i once took mr tung … that a narrow alley have a lot of people.  
ReOrdering  Reference  he and I went to the theater yesterday to see a film.  
Sample  I and he went to the theater yesterday to see a film.  
Repetition/Missing  Reference  and i had recently discovered a bomb shelter …  
Sample  i have discovered a place place … 
Experimental Results
We summarize the experimental results in Table 2, where we mainly compare with MLE, RL, and RAML. We implement our Att2in RAML and S2SDM based on the open repository^{5}^{5}5https://github.com/ruotianluo/selfcritical.pytorch. As can be seen, our method achieves remarkable gains across different metrics over RL, MLE and RAML, besides, our single model best results also slightly outperform SCST training algorithm [Rennie et al.2017]. These results have consistently demonstrated the advantage of distribution matching algorithm under continuous sequence scenarios, which can be potentially extended to more visionrelated sequencetosequence tasks.
Results Analysis
From the above results, we can observe limited improvements yielded by the RAML algorithm on most tasks and even causes performance degradation in some tasks (LDC ChineseEnglish, Image Captioning). We conjecture that it’s caused by the heuristic strategic replacement strategy which breaks both the semantic and structure information. Especially in image captioning, there already exist five references for the target side, further augmenting the target site receives very little gain. For reinforcement learning, it only focuses on enhancing the targetside decision process, while our method to augment the source sequence is able to expose the model to more unseen sourceside sequences. Such advantage makes our model better in handling unseen visual representation and generalizing test cases. We empirically verify the effectiveness of S2SDM algorithm on augmenting both the discrete and continuous sequence data pairs.
Learning Curves
Here we showcase the learning curves of the sequencetosequence model for both the IWSLT machine translation task and image captioning task separately in Figure 5 and Figure 6. We can observe very stable improvements of our distribution matching algorithm over the pretrained model. In machine translation task, RL and RAML can both boost the model by 0.50.8 BLEU, while distribution matching can boost roughly 1.5 BLEU. In image captioning, RAML does not benefit the training evidently, while RL and distribution matching both improve the performance remarkably in terms of CIDErD.
Case Studies
In order to give a more intuitive view of latent distribution approximated by our augmenters, we here draw some highprobability samples from the augmenters. We can observe that most of the sample pairs remain their fidelity to the original pair, their modifications against the original ground truth are mainly classified into four types, which we demonstrate in
Table 3. Though the augmenter introduces some noises into the references, these noises are still under control, and the most frequent noises are missing and repetition. Further, we also demonstrate a few image captioning examples in Figure 7 to showcase the advantage of our distributionmatching framework. As can be seen, the generated samples adopt a more vivid and diverse language expression. More detailed descriptions about the objects in the picture are included.Conclusion
In this paper, we propose a new endtoend training algorithm to resolve the data sparsity problem in sequencetosequence applications. We have verified the capability of our model in two popular applications (machine translation and image captioning) to understand more diverse inputs and generate more complicated outputs. We look forward to testing our algorithms on more sequencetosequence applications to verify its generality.
References
 [Bahdanau et al.2016] Bahdanau, D.; Brakel, P.; Xu, K.; Goyal, A.; Lowe, R.; Pineau, J.; Courville, A.; and Bengio, Y. 2016. An actorcritic algorithm for sequence prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:1607.07086.
 [Bahdanau, Cho, and Bengio2014] Bahdanau, D.; Cho, K.; and Bengio, Y. 2014. Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.0473.
 [Chen et al.2015] Chen, X.; Fang, H.; Lin, T.Y.; Vedantam, R.; Gupta, S.; Dollár, P.; and Zitnick, C. L. 2015. Microsoft coco captions: Data collection and evaluation server. arXiv preprint arXiv:1504.00325.
 [Chen et al.2016] Chen, W.; Matusov, E.; Khadivi, S.; and Peter, J.T. 2016. Guided alignment training for topicaware neural machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1607.01628.
 [Chen et al.2018] Chen, W.; Li, G.; Ren, S.; Liu, S.; Zhang, Z.; Li, M.; and Zhou, M. 2018. Generative bridging network for neural sequence prediction. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), volume 1, 1706–1715.
 [Chen, Lucchi, and Hofmann2016] Chen, W.; Lucchi, A.; and Hofmann, T. 2016. Bootstrap, review, decode: Using outofdomain textual data to improve image captioning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.05321.
 [Cho et al.2014] Cho, K.; Van Merriënboer, B.; Gulcehre, C.; Bahdanau, D.; Bougares, F.; Schwenk, H.; and Bengio, Y. 2014. Learning phrase representations using rnn encoderdecoder for statistical machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.1078.
 [Chung et al.2014] Chung, J.; Gulcehre, C.; Cho, K.; and Bengio, Y. 2014. Empirical evaluation of gated recurrent neural networks on sequence modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.3555.
 [He et al.2016] He, D.; Xia, Y.; Qin, T.; Wang, L.; Yu, N.; Liu, T.; and Ma, W.Y. 2016. Dual learning for machine translation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 820–828.

[Lin et al.2014]
Lin, T.Y.; Maire, M.; Belongie, S.; Hays, J.; Perona, P.; Ramanan, D.;
Dollár, P.; and Zitnick, C. L.
2014.
Microsoft coco: Common objects in context.
In
European Conference on Computer Vision
, 740–755. Springer.  [Lu et al.2015] Lu, L.; Zhang, X.; Cho, K.; and Renals, S. 2015. A study of the recurrent neural network encoderdecoder for large vocabulary speech recognition. In Sixteenth Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association.
 [Ma et al.2017] Ma, X.; Yin, P.; Liu, J.; Neubig, G.; and Hovy, E. 2017. Softmax qdistribution estimation for structured prediction: A theoretical interpretation for raml. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.07136.
 [Mikolov et al.2010] Mikolov, T.; Karafiát, M.; Burget, L.; Cernockỳ, J.; and Khudanpur, S. 2010. Recurrent neural network based language model. In Interspeech, volume 2, 3.
 [Norouzi et al.2016] Norouzi, M.; Bengio, S.; Jaitly, N.; Schuster, M.; Wu, Y.; Schuurmans, D.; et al. 2016. Reward augmented maximum likelihood for neural structured prediction. In Advances In Neural Information Processing Systems, 1723–1731.
 [Papineni et al.2002] Papineni, K.; Roukos, S.; Ward, T.; and Zhu, W.J. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting on association for computational linguistics, 311–318. Association for Computational Linguistics.
 [Paulus, Xiong, and Socher2017] Paulus, R.; Xiong, C.; and Socher, R. 2017. A deep reinforced model for abstractive summarization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.04304.
 [Ranzato et al.2015] Ranzato, M.; Chopra, S.; Auli, M.; and Zaremba, W. 2015. Sequence level training with recurrent neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.06732.

[Rennie et al.2017]
Rennie, S. J.; Marcheret, E.; Mroueh, Y.; Ross, J.; and Goel, V.
2017.
Selfcritical sequence training for image captioning.
In
2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2017, Honolulu, HI, USA, July 2126, 2017
, 1179–1195. 
[Rush, Chopra, and
Weston2015]
Rush, A. M.; Chopra, S.; and Weston, J.
2015.
A neural attention model for abstractive sentence summarization.
InProceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2015, Lisbon, Portugal, September 1721, 2015
, 379–389.  [Sennrich, Haddow, and Birch2016] Sennrich, R.; Haddow, B.; and Birch, A. 2016. Improving neural machine translation models with monolingual data. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2016, August 712, 2016, Berlin, Germany, Volume 1: Long Papers.
 [Srivastava et al.2014] Srivastava, N.; Hinton, G.; Krizhevsky, A.; Sutskever, I.; and Salakhutdinov, R. 2014. Dropout: A simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting. The Journal of Machine Learning Research 15(1):1929–1958.
 [Vaswani et al.2017] Vaswani, A.; Shazeer, N.; Parmar, N.; Uszkoreit, J.; Jones, L.; Gomez, A. N.; Kaiser, Ł.; and Polosukhin, I. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 5998–6008.
 [Williams1992] Williams, R. J. 1992. Simple statistical gradientfollowing algorithms for connectionist reinforcement learning. Machine learning 8(34):229–256.
 [Wiseman and Rush2016] Wiseman, S., and Rush, A. M. 2016. Sequencetosequence learning as beamsearch optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.02960.
 [Wu et al.2016a] Wu, C.; Karanasou, P.; Gales, M. J.; and Sim, K. C. 2016a. Stimulated deep neural network for speech recognition. Technical report, University of Cambridge Cambridge.
 [Wu et al.2016b] Wu, Y.; Schuster, M.; Chen, Z.; Le, Q. V.; Norouzi, M.; Macherey, W.; Krikun, M.; Cao, Y.; Gao, Q.; Macherey, K.; et al. 2016b. Google’s neural machine translation system: Bridging the gap between human and machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.08144.
 [Xu et al.2015] Xu, K.; Ba, J.; Kiros, R.; Cho, K.; Courville, A.; Salakhudinov, R.; Zemel, R.; and Bengio, Y. 2015. Show, attend and tell: Neural image caption generation with visual attention. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2048–2057.
Appendix A Supplementary Material
LDC ChineseEnglish Dataset
The LDC ChineseEnglish training corpus consists of 1.25M parallel sentence, 27.9M Chinese words and 34.5M English words. We choose NIST 2003 as our development set and evaluate our results on NIST 2005, NIST2006. We adopt a similar setting as IWSLT GermanEnglish translation task, we use 512 as hidden size for GRU cell and 256 as embedding size. The experimental results for LDC ChineseEnglish translation task are listed in Table 4.
Model 



MLE  39.0 / 37.1 / 39.1  17.57 / 16.38 / 17.31  
RL  41.0 / 39.2 / 39.3  18.44 / 16.98 / 17.80  
RAML  40.2 / 37.3 / 37.2  17.83 / 16.52 / 16.79  
S2SDM  41.8 / 39.3 / 39.5  18.92 / 17.36 / 17.88 
Augmenter Results Visualization
Such observation has confirmed our intuition to build a semantic/syntactic preserving cluster around the ground truth. We here showcase the paired augmentation samples in Figure 8.