IP Library Granted Patent US 12,217,146
Granted Patent B2
US 12,217,146 · App. 17/506,033 · Granted Feb 4, 2025

Generating dual sequence inferences using a neural network model

Inventors: Victor Zhong (Palo Alto, CA); Caiming Xiong (Menlo Park, CA); Richard Socher (Menlo Park, CA)
Assignee: Salesforce, Inc.
G06N3/04G06F16/2462G06F16/93G06N3/006G06N3/044G06N3/045G06N3/08G06N5/04G06N3/048
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 12,217,146
App. No.
17/506,033
Granted
Feb 4, 2025
Kind
B2
Abstract

A computer-implemented method for dual sequence inference using a neural network model includes generating a codependent representation based on a first input representation of a first sequence and a second input representation of a second sequence using an encoder of the neural network model and generating an inference based on the codependent representation using a decoder of the neural network model. The neural network model includes a plurality of model parameters learned according to a machine learning process. The encoder includes a plurality of coattention layers arranged sequentially, each coattention layer being configured to receive a pair of layer input representations and generate one or more summary representations, and an output layer configured to receive the one or more summary representations from a last layer among the plurality of coattention layers and generate the codependent representation.

Claims (60)

1. A computer-implemented method for training a neural network model, the method comprising:

generating, using the neural network model, a series of inferences from a first training sequence and a second training sequence;

generating a mixed learning objective from the series of inferences, wherein the generating further comprises:

determining, using a supervised learning objective, a first loss or a first reward for an inference in the series of inferences independently of other inferences in the series of inferences;

determining, using a reinforcement learning objective, a second loss or a second reward over the series of inferences by:

determining a baseline score using a scoring function, wherein the baseline score is based on baseline start and end positions of an answer span and a ground truth start and end positions of the answer span;

determining a reinforcement learning reward function based on the scoring function and the baseline score, wherein the reinforcement learning reward function is based on the ground truth start and end positions of the answer span and a start and an end positions of an inference answer span; and

determining the second loss or the second reward based on the reinforcement learning reward function; and

combining the supervised learning objective and the reinforcement learning objective into a mixed objective using the first and second loss or the first and second reward; and

updating parameters of the neural network model based on a loss or a reward in the mixed learning objective.

2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , wherein the updating further comprises:

determining a gradient of the mixed learning objective with respect to the parameters; and

updating the parameters based on the gradient.

3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , further comprising:

determining the loss or the reward of the mixed objective based on the series of inferences and a ground truth associated with the first training sequence or the second training sequence.

4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , wherein a differentiable objective function determines the first loss or the first reward.

5. The computer-implemented method of claim 4 , wherein the differentiable objective function is based on the start and the end positions of the inference answer span in an inference to a question in the first training sequence or the second training sequence and the start and the end positions of the ground truth answer span.

6. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , wherein the first training sequence corresponds to a document, the second training sequence corresponds to a question, and the inference corresponds to a span of text in the document that answers the question.

7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , wherein the supervised learning objective is a binary evaluation objective and the reinforcement learning objective is a non-binary objective.

8. A system for training a neural network model, the system comprising:

a memory configured to store the neural network model; and

a processor configured to:

generate, using the neural network model, a series of inferences from a first training sequence and a second training sequence;

generate a mixed learning objective from the series of inferences, wherein to generate the mixed learning objective the processor is further configured to:

determine, using a supervised learning objective, a first loss or a first reward for an inference in the series of inferences independently of other inferences in the series of inferences;

determine, using a reinforcement learning objective, a second loss or a second reward over the series of inferences by:

determine a baseline score using a scoring function, wherein the baseline score is based on baseline start and end positions of an answer span and a ground truth start and end positions of the answer span;

determine a reinforcement learning reward function based on the scoring function and the baseline score, wherein the reinforcement learning reward function is based on the ground truth start and end positions of the answer span and a start and an end positions of an inference answer span; and

determine the second loss or the second reward based on the reinforcement learning reward function; and

combine the supervised learning objective and the reinforcement learning objective into a mixed objective using the first and second loss or the first and second reward; and

update parameters of the neural network model based on the mixed learning objective.

9. The system of claim 8 , wherein to update the parameters, the processor is further configured to:

determine a gradient of the mixed learning objective with respect to the parameters; and

update the parameters based on the gradient.

10. The system of claim 8 , wherein the processor is further configured to:

determine a loss and reward of the mixed objective based on the series of inferences and a ground truth associated with the first training sequence or the second training sequence.

11. The system of claim 8 , wherein a differentiable objective function determines the first loss or the first reward.

12. The system of claim 11 , wherein the differentiable objective function is based on the start and the end positions of the inference answer span in an inference to a question in the first training sequence or the second training sequence and start and end positions of the ground truth answer span.

13. The system of claim 8 , wherein the first training sequence corresponds to a document, the second training sequence corresponds to a question, and the inference corresponds to a span of text in the document that answers the question.

14. The system of claim 8 , wherein the supervised learning objective is a binary evaluation objective and the reinforcement learning objective is a non-binary objective.

15. A non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon, that when executed by a processor cause the processor to perform operations for training a neural network model, the operations comprising:

generating, using the neural network model, a series of inferences from a training sequence;

generating a mixed learning objective from the series of inferences, wherein generating the mixed learning objective further comprises:

determining, using a supervised learning objective, a first loss or a first reward for an inference in the series of inferences independently of other inferences in the series of inferences;

determining, using a reinforcement learning objective, a second loss or a second reward over the series of inferences by:

determining a baseline score using a scoring function, wherein the baseline score is based on baseline start and end positions of an answer span and a ground truth start and end positions of the answer span;

determining a reinforcement learning reward function based on the scoring function and the baseline score, wherein the reinforcement learning reward function is based on the ground truth start and end positions of the answer span and a start and end positions of an inference answer span; and

determining the second loss or the second reward based on the reinforcement learning reward function; and

combining the supervised learning objective and the reinforcement learning objective into a mixed objective using the first and second loss or the first and second reward; and

updating parameters of the neural network model based on the mixed learning objective.

16. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15 , further comprising:

determining a gradient of the mixed learning objective with respect to the parameters; and

updating the parameters based on the gradient.

17. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15 , wherein the updating further comprises:

determining a gradient of the mixed learning objective with respect to the parameters; and

updating the parameters based on the gradient.

18. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15 , further comprising:

determining the loss or the reward of the mixed objective based on the series of inferences and a ground truth associated with the training sequence.

19. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15 , wherein the training sequence corresponds to a document or to a question, and the inference corresponds to a span of text in the document that answers the question.

20. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15 , wherein the supervised learning objective is a binary evaluation objective and the reinforcement learning objective is a non-binary objective.

Assignments (2)
CHANGE OF NAME Recorded Dec 11, 2024
From: SALESFORCE.COM, INC.
To: SALESFORCE, INC.
Reel/Frame 069601/0610 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Feb 11, 2022
From: ZHONG, VICTOR; XIONG, CAIMING; SOCHER, RICHARD
To: SALESFORCE.COM, INC.
Reel/Frame 058993/0162 →
Continuity (3)
Continuation 15881582 · Jan 26, 2018
Provisional Application 62578380 · Oct 27, 2017
Related Publication 20220044093A1 · Feb 10, 2022
References Cited (80)
US 8121367B2 · Socher et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 8355550B2 · Zhang et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 8880388B2 · Ferrucci · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 10282663B2 · Socher et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 10346721B2 · Albright et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 10467274B1 · Ren · 2019 [cited by examiner]
US 20160125291A1 · Eggebraaten · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160350653A1 · Socher et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20170024645A1 · Socher et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170032280A1 · Socher et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170140240A1 · Socher et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20180082171A1 · Merity et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180096219A1 · Socher · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180096267A1 · Masekara et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180121787A1 · Hashimoto et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180121788A1 · Hashimoto et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180121799A1 · Hashimoto et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180129931A1 · Bradbury et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180129937A1 · Bradbury et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180129938A1 · Xiong · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 20180143966A1 · Lu et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180144208A1 · Lu et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180144248A1 · Lu et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180268287A1 · Johansen et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180268298A1 · Johansen et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180300400A1 · Paulus · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20190108432A1 · Lu et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20190108439A1 · Lu et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20190130248A1 · Zhong · 2019 [cited by examiner]
US 20190130896A1 · Zhou et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20190130897A1 · Zhou et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20190149834A1 · Zhou et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20190258939A1 · Min · 2019 [cited by examiner]
US 20210342399A1 · Sisto · 2021 [cited by examiner]
Weston et al., “Dialog-based Language Learning”, In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 829-837. 2016 (Year : 2016). [cited by examiner]
Buck et al., “Ask the Right Questions: Active Question Reformulation with Reinforcement Learning”, arXiv, 2017 (Year: 2017). [cited by examiner]
Wang et al., “Gated Self-Matching Networks for Reading Comprehension and Question Answering”, 2017, pp. 189-198 (Year: 2017). [cited by examiner]
Dzmitry Bahdanau, Kyunghyun Cho, and Yoshua Bengio. “Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate.” In [cited by applicant]
Dzmirry Bahdanau. Philemon BrakEL, Kelvin Xu, Anirudh Goyal, Ryan Lowe, Joelle Pineau, Aaron C. Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. “An actor-critic algorithm for sequence prediction.” Ln [cited by applicant]
Danqi Chen, Adam Fisch, Jason Weston, and Antoine Bordes. “Reading Wikipedia to answer open-domain questions.” In [cited by applicant]
Nina Dethlefs and Heriberto Cuayahuitl. “Combining hierarchical reinforcement learning and bayesian networks for natural language generation in situated dialogue.” [cited by applicant]
Evan Greensmith. Peter L. Bartlett, and Jonathan Baxter. “Variance reduction techniques for gradient estimates in reinforcement learning.” [cited by applicant]
Kazuma Hashimoto, Caiming Xiong. Yoshimasa Tsuruoka, and Richard Socher. “A joint many-task model: Growing a neural network for multiple NLP tasks.” In [cited by applicant]
Kaiming He. Xiangyu ZHang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. “Deep residual learning for image recognition.” [cited by applicant]
Sepp Hochreiter and Jurgen Schmidhuber. “Long short-term memory.” [cited by applicant]
Alex Kendall, Yarin Gal. and Roberto Cipolla. “Multi-task learning using uncertainty to weigh losses for scene geometry and semantics.” [cited by applicant]
Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: “A method for stochastic optimization.” [cited by applicant]
Vijay R Konda and John N. Tsitsiklis. “Actor-critic algorithms.” In [cited by applicant]
Jiwei Li, Will Monroe, Alan Ritter. Michel Galley, Jianfeng Gao, and Dan Jurafsky. “Deep reinforcement learning for dialogue generation.” In [cited by applicant]
Rui Liu, Junjie Hu. Wei Wei, Zi Yang, and Eric Nyberg. “Structural embedding of syntactic trees for machine comprehension.” In [cited by applicant]
Jiasen Lu, Jianwei Yang, Dhruv Batra, and Devi Parikh. “Hierarchical question-image co-attention for visual question answering.” In [cited by applicant]
Christopher D. Manning, Mihai Surdeanu, John Bauer. Jenny Rose Finkel, Steven Bethard, and David McClosky. “The stanford coreNLP natural language processing toolkit.” In [cited by applicant]
Bryan McCann, James Bradbury. Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. “Learned in translation: Contextualized word vectors.” In [cited by applicant]
Microsoft Asia Natural Language Computing Group. “R-net: Machine reading comprehension with self-matching networks.” 2017. [cited by applicant]
Karthik Narasimhan, Tejas D. Kulkarni, and Regina Barzilay. “Language understanding for text-based games using deep reinforcement learning.” In [cited by applicant]
Romain Paulus, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. “A deep reinforced model for abstractive summarization.” [cited by applicant]
Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher D. Manning. “Glove: Global vectors for word representation.” In [cited by applicant]
Pranav Rajpurkar. Jian Zhang. Konstantin Lopyrev, and Percy Liang. “Squad: 100, 000+ questions for machine comprehension of text.” In EMNLP, 2016. [cited by applicant]
John Schulman, Nicolas Heess, Theophane Weber, and Pieter Abbeel. “Gradient estimation using stochastic computation graphs.” In [cited by applicant]
Min Joon Seo, Aniruddha Kembbavi, Ali Farhadi, and Hannaneb Hajishirzi. “Bidirectional attention flow for machine comprehension.” In [cited by applicant]
Noam Sbazeer, Azalia Mirhoseini, Krzysztof Mazi;irz, Andy Davis. Quoc Le, Geoffrey Hinton, and Jeff Dean. “Outrageously large neural networks: The sparsely-gated mixture-of-experts layer.” In [cited by applicant]
Yelong Shen, Po-Sen Huang. Jianfeng Gao, and Weizhu Chen. “ReasoNet: Learning to stop reading in machine comprehension.” In [cited by applicant]
Richard S. Sutton, David A. McAllester, Satinder P. Singh, and Yishay Mansour. “Policy gradient methods for reinforcement learning with function approximation.” In [cited by applicant]
Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser. and Illia Polosukhin. “Attention is all you need.” In [cited by applicant]
Oriol Vinyals, Meire Fortunato, and Navdeep Jaitly. “Pointer networks.” In [cited by applicant]
Shuohang Wang and Jing Jiang. “Machine comprehension using match-lstm and answer pointer.” In [cited by applicant]
Dirk Weissenborn, Georg Wiese, and Laura Seiffe. “Making neural qa as simple as possible but not simpler.” In [cited by applicant]
Yonghui Wu, Mike Schuster, Zhifeng Chen, Quoc V Le, Mohammad Norouzi, Wolfgang Macherey, Maxim KrikuN, Yuan Cao. Qin Gao, Klaus Macherey, et al. “Google's neural machine translation system: Bridging the gap between huma… [cited by applicant]
Caiming Xiong, Victor Zhong, and Richard Socher. “Dynamic coattention networks for question answering.” In [cited by applicant]
Wenhui Wang, Nan Yang, Furu Wei, Baobao Chang, and Ming Zhou. 2017. “Gated self-matching networks for reading comprehension and question answering.” In ACL. (Year: 2017). [cited by applicant]
Buck, C., J. Bulian, M. Ciaramita, A. Gesmundo, N. Houlsby, W. Gajewski, and W. Wang. 2017. “Ask the right questions: Active question reformulation with reinforcement learning”. arXiv preprint arXiv: 1705.07830v1 (Year:… [cited by applicant]
Weston, J. E. “Dialog-based language learning.” In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 829-837, 2016. (Year: 2016). [cited by applicant]
Lu, J.; Yang, J.; Batra, D.; and Parikh, D. 2016. “Hierarchical question-image co-attention for visual question answering.” In NIPS (Year: 2016). [cited by applicant]
Gong et al., “Ruminating Reader: Reasoning with Gated Multi-Hop Attention,” Proceedings of the Workshop on Machine Reading for Question Answering. Melbourne, Australia. Jul. 19, 2018. pp. 1-11. [cited by applicant]
Gu et al., “Stack-Captioning: Coarse-to-Fine Learning for Image Captioning,” 32nd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. New Orleans, Louisiana. Feb. 2-7, 2018. pp. 1-8. [cited by applicant]
Hu et al., “Reinforced Mnemonic Reader for Machine Reading Comprehension,” International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Stockholm, Sweden. Jul. 13-19, 2018. pp. 1-8. [cited by applicant]
Liu et al., “Recognizing Implicit Discourse Relations via Repealed Reading: Neural Networks with Multi-Level Attention,” Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Austin, Texas. Nov. 1-5, 2016. pp.… [cited by applicant]
Xiong et al., “DCN+: Mixed Objective and Deep Residual Coattention for Question Answering,” International Conference on Learning Representation. Vancouver, Canada. Apr. 30-May 3, 2018. pp. 1-10. [cited by applicant]
Zhang et al., “Two-Step Joint Attention Network for Visual Question Answering,” 3rd International Conference on Big Data Computing and Communications. Yonago, Japan. Jul. 10-12, 2018. pp. 1-8. [cited by applicant]
International Search Report and Written Opinion issued by the International Searching Authority on Jan. 30, 2019 for PCT Application No. PCT/US2018/056493. pp. 1-18. [cited by applicant]