1 Introduction
Neural network models used in natural language processing applications are usually trained discriminatively. This strategy succeeds for many applications when training data is abundant and the data distribution is stable. Unfortunately, neural networks require a lot of training data, and they tend to generalize poorly when the data distribution shifts (e.g., new labels, new domains, new tasks). In this paper, we explore using generative models to obtain improvements in sample complexity and ability to adapt to shifting data distributions.
While neural networks are traditionally used as discriminative models (Ney, 1995; Rubinstein & Hastie, 1997)
, their flexibility makes them well suited to estimating class priors and classconditional observation likelihoods. We focus on a simple NLP task—text classification—using discriminative and generative variant models based on a common neural network architecture (§
2). These models use an LSTM (Hochreiter & Schmidhuber, 1997)to process documents as sequences of words. In the generative model, documents are generated word by word, conditioned on a learned class embedding; in the discriminative model the LSTM “reads” the document and uses its hidden representation to model the class posterior. In contrast to previous generative models for text classification, ours can model unbounded (conditional) dependencies among words in each document.
We demonstrate empirically that our discriminative model obtains a lower asymptotic error rate than its generative counterpart, but it approaches this rate more slowly (§3.4). This behavior is precisely the pattern that Ng & Jordan (2001) proved will hold in general for generative and discriminative linear models. Finding the same pattern with our models is somewhat surprising since our generative models are substantially more powerful than the linear models analyzed in that work (e.g., they model conditional dependencies among input features), and because their theoretical analysis relied heavily on linearity.
Encouraged by this result, we turn to learning problems where good sample complexity is crucial for success and explore whether generative models might be preferable to discriminative ones. We first consider the singletask continual learning setting in which the labels (classes) are introduced sequentially, and we can only learn from the newly introduced examples (§3.5). Discriminative models are known to suffer from catastrophic forgetting when learning sequentially from examples from a single class at a time, and specialized techniques are actively being developed to minimize this problem (Rusu et al., 2016; Kirkpatrick et al., 2017; Fernando et al., 2017)
. Generative models, on the other hand, are a more natural fit for this kind of setup since the maximization of the training objective for a new class can be decoupled from other classes more easily (e.g., parameters of a naïve Bayes classifier can be estimated independently for each class). In order to compare discriminative and generative models more fairly, we use a generative model that shares many parameters across classes and evaluate its performance in this setting.
Finally, we compare the performance of discriminative and generative LSTM language models for zeroshot learning, where we construct a semantic label space that is fixed during training based on an auxiliary task (§3.6). We investigate whether learning to map documents onto this semantic space (discriminative training) or learning to generate from points in the semantic space (generative training) is better. Here, we find substantial benefits for generative models.
2 Models
Inputs to a text classification system are a document , where is its length in words, and it will predict a label . We compare discriminative and generative text classification models. Discriminative models are trained to distinguish the correct label among possible choices. Given a collection of labeled documents
, these models are trained to maximize the conditional probability of the labels given the documents:
. Generative models, on the other hand, are trained to maximize the joint probability of labels and documents under the following factorization: . When predictions are made, Bayes’ rule is used to compute .In both models, we represent a word by a dimensional embedding . Figure 1 shows an illustration of our models, and we describe them in details in the following section.
2.1 Discriminative Model
Our discriminative model uses LSTM with “peephole” connections to encode a document and build a classifier on top of the encoder by using the average of the LSTM hidden representations as the document representation.
Specifically, given an input word embedding , we compute its hidden representation with LSTM as follows:
where
denotes vector concatenation. We then add a softmax layer on top of this LSTM, so the probability of predicting a label
is: , where is the softmax parameters and is the bias. We use a simple average of LSTM hidden representations since in our preliminary experiments it works better than using the last hidden state , and it is computationally much cheaper for long documents (hundreds of words) than attentionbased models. Importantly, this model is trained discriminatively to maximize the conditional probability of the label given the document: .2.2 Generative Models
Our generative model is a classbased language model, shown in Figure 1. Here, we similarly compute hidden representation with LSTM. Additionally, we also have a label embedding matrix
. We use the chain rule to factorize the probability
into a sequential prediction: . To predict the word , we concatenate the LSTM’s hidden representation (called ) with the label embedding and add a softmax layer over vocabulary with parameters and classspecific bias parameters : . We designate this model “Shared LSTM”, since it shares some parameters across classes (i.e., the word embedding matrix, LSTM parameters , and softmax parameters ). This model’s novelty owes to the fact that there is a single conditional model that shares parameters whose behavior is modulated by the given label embedding, whereas in traditional generative classification models, each label has an independent LM associated with it, such as the generative gram language classification models in Peng & Schuurmans (2003).In addition to the above model, we also experiment with a classbased generative language model where there is no shared component among classes (i.e., every class has its own word embedding, LSTM, and softmax parameters). One benefit of this approach is that training can be parallelized across classes, although the resulting model has larger number of parameters. We denote this model by “Independent LSTMs”.
Note that the underlying LSTM of both our generative models is similar to the discriminative model, except that it is trained to maximize the joint probability . In terms of the number of parameters, these generative models have extra parameters that are needed to predict words (we can view the label embedding matrix as a substitute for the softmax parameter in the discriminative case). For prediction, we compute using the empirical relative frequency estimate of .
3 Experiments
3.1 Datasets
We use publicly available datasets from Zhang et al. (2015) to evaluate our models (http://goo.gl/JyCnZq
). They are standard text classification datasets that include news classification, sentiment analysis, Wikipedia article classification, and questions and answers categorization. Table
1shows descriptive statistics of datasets used in our experiments. For each dataset, we randomly hold 5,000 examples from the original training set to be used as our development set.
Name  #Train  #Dev  # Test  # Classes 

AGNews  115,000  5,000  7,600  4 
Sogou  445,000  5,000  60,000  5 
Yelp  645,000  5,000  50,000  5 
Yelp Binary  555,000  5,000  7,600  2 
DBPedia  555,000  5,000  70,000  14 
Yahoo  1,395,000  5,000  60,000  10 
3.2 Baselines
In addition to our generative vs. discriminative models in §2 and baselines from previous work on these datasets, we also compare with the following generative models:
Naïve Bayes classifier.
A simple countbased unigram language model that uses naïve Bayes assumption to factorize .
Kneser–Ney Bayes classifier.
A more sophisticated countbased language model that uses trigrams and Kneser–Ney smoothing . Similar to the naïve Bayes classifier, we construct one language model per class and predict by computing: .
Naïve Bayes neural network.
Last, we also design a naïve Bayes baseline where is modeled by a feedforward neural network (in our case, we use a two layer neural network). This is an extension of the naïve Bayes baseline, where we replace the classconditional countbased unigram language model with a classconditional vectorbased unigram language model.
3.3 Implementation Details
In all our experiments, we set the word embedding dimension and the LSTM hidden dimension to 100.^{1}^{1}1We also experimented with setting both and to 50 and 300, they resulted in comparable performance. For the generative model, the dimension of the class embedding is also set to 100. We train our model using AdaGrad (Duchi et al., 2012)
and tune the learning rate on development sets. We also use the development sets to decide when to stop training based on classification accuracy as the evaluation metric.
3.4 Sample Complexity and Asymptotic Errors
Ng & Jordan (2001)
theoretically and empirically show that generative linear models reach their (higher) asymptotic error faster than discriminative models (naïve Bayes classifier vs. logistic regression). While it is difficult to derive the theoretical properties of expressive recurrent neural network models such as ours, we empirically evaluate the performance of these models.
Table 2 summarizes our results on the full datasets, along with results from previous work on these datasets. Our discriminative LSTM model is competitive with other discriminative models based on logistic regression (Zhang et al., 2015; Joulin et al., 2016)
or convolutional neural networks
(Zhang et al., 2015; Xiao & Cho, 2016; Conneau et al., 2016). All of the generative models have lower classification accuracies. These results agree with Ng & Jordan (2001) that discriminative models have lower asymptotic errors than generative models.Comparing various generative models, we can see that the generative LSTM models are generally better than baseline generative models with stronger independence assumptions (i.e., naïve Bayes, Kneser–Ney Bayes, and naïve Bayes neural network). Our results suggest that LSTM is an effective method to capture dependencies among words in a document. We also compare the two generative LSTM models: shared LSTM and independent LSTMs. The results are roughly similar.
Next, we evaluate our models with varying training size. For each of our six datasets, we randomly choose 5, 20, 100, and 1000 examples per class. We train the models on these smaller datasets and report results in Figure 2. Our results show that the generative shared LSTM model outperforms the discriminative model in almost all cases in the smalldata regime on all datasets except one (AG News). Among generative models, the generative LSTM model still achieves better classification accuracies compared to naïve Bayes and Kneser–Ney Bayes models, even in the smalldata regime. While it is difficult to analyze the theoretical sample complexity of deep recurrent models, we see this collection of results as an empirical support that generative nonlinear models have lower sample complexity than their discriminative counterparts.
Models  AGNews  Sogou  Yelp Bin  Yelp Full  DBPed  Yahoo 

Naïve Bayes  90.0  86.3  86.0  51.4  96.0  68.7 
Kneser–Ney Bayes  89.3  94.6  81.8  41.7  95.4  69.3 
MLP Naïve Bayes  89.9  76.1  73.6  40.4  87.2  60.6 
Discriminative LSTM  92.1  94.9  92.6  59.6  98.7  73.7 
Generative LSTM–independent comp.  90.7  93.5  90.0  51.9  94.8  70.5 
Generative LSTM–shared comp.  90.6  90.3  88.2  52.7  95.4  69.3 
bag of words (Zhang et al., 2015)  88.8  92.9  92.2  58.0  96.6  68.9 
fastText (Joulin et al., 2016)  92.5  96.8  95.7  63.9  98.6  72.3 
charCNN (Zhang et al., 2015)  87.2  95.1  94.7  62.0  98.3  71.2 
charCRNN (Xiao & Cho, 2016)  91.4  95.2  94.5  61.8  98.6  71.7 
very deep CNN (Conneau et al., 2016)  91.3  96.8  95.7  64.7  98.7  73.4 
3.5 Continual learning
Our next set of experiments investigate properties of discriminative and generative LSTM models to adapt to data distribution shifts. An example of data distribution shift is when new classes are introduced to the models. In the realworld setting, being able to detect emergence of a new class and train on examples from a new class that shows up at a later time without having to retrain the model on the entire dataset is extremely attractive, especially in cases where we have a very large dataset and model. We focus on how well these models learn from new classes in this (sub)section and discuss detection of data distribution shifts in more details in §4.
Setup.
We consider the setup where models are presented with examples from each class sequentially (singletask continual learning).^{2}^{2}2Here, we focus on a singletask continual learning setup, although the idea can be generalized to a multitask setting as well. Here, each model has to learn information from newly introduced examples to be able to correctly classify documents into this new class, but they cannot train from previously seen classes while doing so. Table 3 summarizes our results and we discuss them in details in the followings.
Discriminative LSTM.
We first investigate the performance of the LSTM discriminative model. Discriminative models are known to suffer from catastrophic forgetting—where the models overtrain on the newly introduced class and fail to retain useful information from previous classes—in this setup. In these experiments, every time we see examples from a new class, we update all parameters of the model with information the new examples. However, even after extensive tuning of learning rate and freezing some components of the network,^{3}^{3}3For example, we experiment with fixing the word embedding matrix and train all other components and fixing the LSTM language model component after seeing the first class and only train the softmax parameters. we were unable to avoid catastrophic forgetting. We observe that since the model is trained to discriminate among possible classes, when it only sees examples from a single class for tens or hundreds of iterations, it adjusts its parameters to always predict the new class. Of course, in theory, there might be an oracle learning rate that would prevent catastrophic forgetting while still acquiring enough knowledge about the newly introduced classes to update the model. However, we find that in practice it is very difficult to discover these learning rate values, especially for a reasonably large LSTM model that takes highdimensional input such as a long news article. Even for the same learning rate value, the development set performance varies widely across multiple training runs. Note that since this model is trained discriminatively, it is also not trivial make use of information from unlabeled data to pretrain some components of the model, except for the word embedding matrix. A promising method to prevent catastrophic forgetting in discriminative models is elastic weight consolidation (Kirkpatrick et al., 2017). However, the method requires computing a Fisher information matrix, and it is not clear how to compute it efficiently for complex models such as LSTM on GPUs.
Generative LSTM.
Next, we consider the generative independent LSTMs model. Parameter estimations of some generative models, such as the naïve Bayes and this independent LSTMs, can be naturally decoupled across classes. As a result, these models can easily incorporate information from newly introduced examples from a new class. Every time a new class is introduced, we simply learn a new model of and , update . One possible drawback of this approach is that the size of the model grows with the number of classes.
Last, we experiment with the generative shared LSTM model. Our training procedure for this model is as follows. We first train the LSTM language model part on a large amount of unlabeled data.^{4}^{4}4In practice, we train on the corresponding training dataset without using document labels. When training the language model on unlabeled data, we remove the classspecific bias component and set the class embedding to be a random vector with a bounded norm . After we pretrain the shared components, we freeze their parameters and tune the class embedding as well as the classspecific softmax bias on the labeled training data. The benefit of this training—compared to having a separate LSTM model for each class—is that it is faster to train (in the presence of examples from a new class). Given a new class , we only need to learn two vectors: and . We can see from results in Table 3 and Figure 3 that the generative shared LSTM model trained with this procedure approaches the performance of its equivalent model that can see examples from all classes, and performs competitively with the generative independent LSTMs model.
3.6 Zeroshot learning
Our last set of experiments compare the performance of discriminative and generative LSTM language models for zeroshot learning, where the label embedding space is fixed based on an auxiliary task. Humans can acquire new concepts and learn relations among these concepts from an external task, and use this knowledge effectively across multiple tasks. In these experiments, we use datasets where the class labels are semantically meaningful concepts (e.g., science, sports, business—instead of star ratings from 1 to 5).
Setup.
We remove labels of documents from one of the classes, but we provide the models with knowledge about the classes from external sources in the form of class embeddings . For example, when labels are words (e.g. science, sports, business, etc.), we construct a semantic space by learning the label embeddings using standard word embedding techniques for all . In order to do this, we use pretrained GloVe word embedding vectors (Pennington et al., 2014).^{5}^{5}5http://nlp.stanford.edu/projects/glove/
In cases where the class labels consist of more than one words (e.g., society and culture), we choose one word from the labels (e.g., society). At test time, we see examples from all classes and evaluate precision and recall of the hidden class, as well as the overall accuracy on all classes.
Discriminative LSTM.
The model learns from the labeled data to place documents in the semantic space, such that embeddings of documents are close to embeddings of their respective labels. In practice, we fix the softmax parameters and learn an embedding of the document to maximize , where is the LSTM hidden state for word in the document. In our experiments, this model never predicts the hidden class (zero precision and recall). Our results show that while discriminative training of an expressive model such as LSTM on high dimensional text data produces a reliable predictor of seen classes, the resulting model overfits to the seen classes.
Generative LSTM.
The model learns to generate from points in the label semantic space using the labeled documents. The model may infer how to generate a document about politics without ever having seen such an example in the training data. Similar to the discriminative case, we fix , which in this case plays the role of class embeddings, and train other parts of the model on all training data except examples from the hidden class (we use the generative shared LSTM since naturally the generative independent LSTMs cannot be used in this experiment). We observe on the development set that this model is able to predict examples from the unseen class with high precision, but very low recall (). We design a selftraining algorithm that add predicted hidden class examples from the development set to the training set and allow the model to train on these predicted examples. We show the results in Table 4. We can see that for most hidden classes, the generative model achieves good performance. For example, on the AG News dataset, the model performs reasonably well for any of the hidden classes. For a more difficult dataset where the overall accuracy is not very high such as Yahoo, the precision of the hidden class is lower, and as a result the recall also suffers. Nonetheless, the model is still able to achieve reasonable overall accuracy in some cases (recall that the accuracy of this model trained on the full dataset without any hidden class is 69.3).
Of course, if we include predicted hidden class examples to the training set of a discriminative model, it can also achieve good performance on all classes. However, the main point is that the discriminative LSTM model never predicts the hidden classes without any training data.
Dataset  Hidden Class  Prec.  Recall  Acc. 

AG News  world  94.4  77.8  87.8 
sports  95.7  83.3  85.5  
business  84.9  60.1  83.9  
science and tech  92.0  54.3  83.2  
Sogou  sports  95.0  80.5  87.4 
finance  24.2  0.7  73.1  
entertainment  90.2  78.8  86.6  
automobile  42.9  0.7  72.1  
science and tech  99.7  58.7  85.6  
Yahoo  society and culture  42.8  7.9  64.9 
science and math  48.3  9.8  63.2  
health  26.3  0.4  61.8  
education and reference  23.5  3.8  65.2  
computers and internet  45.4  3  60.8  
sports  52.9  52.9  64.6  
business and finance  43.6  17.3  66.2  
entertainment and music  44.9  2.3  63.2  
family and relationships  8.3  0.05  62.5  
politics and government  48.6  10.4  62.1  
DBPedia  company  98.9  46.6  93.3 
educational institution  99.2  49.5  92.8  
artist  88.3  4.3  90.3  
athlete  96.5  90.1  94.6  
office holder  0  0  89.1  
mean of transportation  96.5  74.3  94.2  
building  99.9  37.7  92.1  
natural place  98.9  88.2  95.4  
village  99.9  68.1  93.8  
animal  99.7  68.1  93.8  
plant  99.2  76.9  94.3  
album  0.03  0.001  88.8  
film  99.4  73.3  94.5  
written work  93.8  26.5  91.3 
Twoclass zeroshot learning.
We also perform experiments with the generative LSTM model when we hide two classes on the AG News dataset and show the results in Table 5. In this case, the model does not perform as well since the precision of predicting hidden classes drops significantly, introducing too much noise in the training data. However, the model is still able to learn some useful information since the overall accuracy is still higher than 50% (the accuracy of models that are only trained on two classes without any zeroshot learning of the hidden classes).
Classes  P0  R0  P1  R1  Acc. 

world+sports  43.2  3.4  54.7  90.2  67.2 
world+business  55.4  75.6  25.9  2.2  67.6 
world+science/tech  40.5  5.7  38.7  47.8  61.1 
sports+business  62.3  80.7  48.3  6.6  67.6 
sports+science/tech  66.2  85.5  66.8  6.7  67.6 
business+science/tech  43.6  62.1  59.0  1.9  63.3 
4 Discussion
Computational complexity.
In terms of training and inference time, discriminative models are much faster. For example, for our smallest (biggest) dataset that contains 115,000 (1,395,000) training examples, it takes approximately two hours (two days) to get good generative models, whereas training the discriminative models only takes approximately 20 minutes (6 hours). The main drawback of generative models in NLP applications is in the softmax computation, since it has to be done over an entire vocabulary set. In many cases, such as in our experiments, the size of the vocabulary is in the order of hundreds of thousands. There are approximate methods to speed up this softmax computation, such as via hierarchical softmax (Morin & Bengio, 2005)
, noise contrastive estimation
(Mnih & Teh, 2012), sampled softmax (Jean et al., 2015), or onevseach approximation (Titsias, 2017). However, even with these approximations, discriminative models are still much faster.Data likelihood.
In generative models, we can easily compute the probability of a document by marginalizing over classes: . Since there is no explicit model of in discriminative models, obtaining it would require a separate language model training. We explore whether we can use as an indicator of the presence of a new (unknown) class. We use the AG News corpus and train the generative LSTM model on examples from only 3 labels (recall that there are 4 labels in this corpus). We compute for all documents in the test set and show the results in Figure 4. We can see that examples from the class where there is no training data (i.e., class 0 and class 1 in the top and bottom figures, respectively) tend to have lower marginal likelihoods than examples from classes observed in the training data. In practice, we can use this observation to see whether there is data distribution shifts and we need to update parameters of our models.
5 Conclusion
We have compared discriminative and generative LSTMbased text classification models in terms of sample complexity and asymptotic error rates. We showed that generative models are better than their discriminative counterparts in smalldata regime, empirically extending the (theoretical) results of Ng & Jordan (2001) from linear to nonlinear models. Formal characterization of the generalization behavior of complex neural networks is difficult, with findings from convex problems failing to account for empirical facts about generalization Zhang et al. (2017). As such, this result is remarkable for being one domain in which generalization behavior of simpler models transfers to more complex models.
We also investigated their properties in the continual and zeroshot settings. Our collection of results showed that generative models are more suitable in these settings and they were able to obtain comparable performance to generative models trained on the full datasets in the standard setting.
References
 Conneau et al. (2016) Conneau, Alexis, Schwenk, Holger, Barrault, Loic, and Lecun, Yann. Very deep convolutional networks for text classification. arXiv preprint, 2016.

Duchi et al. (2012)
Duchi, John, Hazan, Elad, and Singer, Yoram.
Adaptive subgradient methods for online learning and stochastic
optimization.
Journal of Machine Learning Resesarch
, 12:2121–2159, 2012.  Fernando et al. (2017) Fernando, Chrisantha, Banarse, Dylan, Blundell, Charles, Zwols, Yori, Ha, David, Rusu, Andrei A., Pritzel, Alexander, and Wierstra, Daan. Pathnet: Evolution channels gradient descent in super neural networks. arXiv preprint, 2017.
 Hochreiter & Schmidhuber (1997) Hochreiter, Sepp and Schmidhuber, Jürgen. Long shortterm memory. Neural Computation, 9(8):1735–1780, 1997.

Jean et al. (2015)
Jean, Sebastian, Cho, Kyunghyun, Memisevic, Roland, and Bengio, Yoshua.
On using very large target vocabulary for neural machine translation.
In Proc. of ACLIJCNLP, 2015.  Joulin et al. (2016) Joulin, Armand, Grave, Edouard, Bojanowski, Piotr, and Mikolov, Tomas. Bag of tricks for efficient text classification. arXiv preprint, 2016.
 Kirkpatrick et al. (2017) Kirkpatrick, James, Pascanu, Razvan, Rabinowitz, Neil, Veness, Joel, Desjardins, Guillaume, Rusu, Andrei A., Milan, Kieran, Quan, John, Ramalhoa, Tiago, GrabskaBarwinska, Agnieszka, Hassabis, Demis, Clopath, Claudia, Kumaran, Dharshan, and Hadsell, Raia. Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networks. arXiv preprint, 2017.
 Mnih & Teh (2012) Mnih, Andriy and Teh, Yee Whye. A fast and simple algorithm for training neural probabilistic language models. In Proc. of ICML, 2012.
 Morin & Bengio (2005) Morin, Frederic and Bengio, Yoshua. Hierarchical probabilistic neural network language model. In Proc. of AISTATS, 2005.
 Ney (1995) Ney, Hermann. On the probabilistic interpretation of neural network classifiers and discriminative training criteria. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 17(2), 1995.

Ng & Jordan (2001)
Ng, Andrew Y. and Jordan, Michael I.
On discriminative vs. generative classifiers: A comparison of logistic regression and naive Bayes.
In Proc. of NIPS, 2001.  Peng & Schuurmans (2003) Peng, Fuchun and Schuurmans, Dale. Combining naive Bayes and gram language models for text classification. In Proc. of ECIR, 2003.
 Pennington et al. (2014) Pennington, Jeffrey, Socher, Richard, and Manning, Christopher D. Glove: Global vectors for word representation. In Proc. of EMNLP, 2014.
 Rubinstein & Hastie (1997) Rubinstein, Y. Dan and Hastie, Trevor. Discriminative vs informative learning. In Proc. KDD, 1997.
 Rusu et al. (2016) Rusu, Andrei A., Rabinowitz, Neil C., Desjardins, Guillaume, Soyer, Hubert, Kirkpatrick, James, Kavukcuoglu, Koray, Pascanu, Razvan, and Hadsell, Raia. Progressive neural networks. arXiv preprint, 2016.
 Titsias (2017) Titsias, Michalis K. Onevseach approximation to softmax for scalable estimation of probabilities. In Proc. of NIPS, 2017.
 Xiao & Cho (2016) Xiao, Yijun and Cho, Kyunghyun. Efficient characterlevel document classification by combining convolution and recurrent layers. arXiv preprint, 2016.

Zhang et al. (2017)
Zhang, Chiyuan, Bengio, Samy, Hardt, Moritz, Recht, Benjamin, and Vinyals,
Oriol.
Understanding deep learning requires rethinking generalization.
In Proc. of ICLR, 2017.  Zhang et al. (2015) Zhang, Xiang, Zhao, Junbo, and LeCun, Yann. Characterlevel convolutional networks for text classification. In Proc. of NIPS, 2015.
Comments
There are no comments yet.