Dan Bikel

h-index3
2papers
63citations

2 Papers

24.5CLApr 14, 2022
Exploring Dual Encoder Architectures for Question Answering

Zhe Dong, Jianmo Ni, Daniel M. Bikel et al.

Dual encoders have been used for question-answering (QA) and information retrieval (IR) tasks with good results. Previous research focuses on two major types of dual encoders, Siamese Dual Encoder (SDE), with parameters shared across two encoders, and Asymmetric Dual Encoder (ADE), with two distinctly parameterized encoders. In this work, we explore different ways in which the dual encoder can be structured, and evaluate how these differences can affect their efficacy in terms of QA retrieval tasks. By evaluating on MS MARCO, open domain NQ and the MultiReQA benchmarks, we show that SDE performs significantly better than ADE. We further propose three different improved versions of ADEs by sharing or freezing parts of the architectures between two encoder towers. We find that sharing parameters in projection layers would enable ADEs to perform competitively with or outperform SDEs. We further explore and explain why parameter sharing in projection layer significantly improves the efficacy of the dual encoders, by directly probing the embedding spaces of the two encoder towers with t-SNE algorithm.

5.0CLOct 31, 2012
Large Scale Language Modeling in Automatic Speech Recognition

Ciprian Chelba, Dan Bikel, Maria Shugrina et al.

Large language models have been proven quite beneficial for a variety of automatic speech recognition tasks in Google. We summarize results on Voice Search and a few YouTube speech transcription tasks to highlight the impact that one can expect from increasing both the amount of training data, and the size of the language model estimated from such data. Depending on the task, availability and amount of training data used, language model size and amount of work and care put into integrating them in the lattice rescoring step we observe reductions in word error rate between 6% and 10% relative, for systems on a wide range of operating points between 17% and 52% word error rate.