Hui Shi

h-index20
2papers
1,379citations

2 Papers

5.2IRJul 14, 2022Code
Everyone's Preference Changes Differently: Weighted Multi-Interest Retrieval Model

Hui Shi, Yupeng Gu, Yitong Zhou et al.

User embeddings (vectorized representations of a user) are essential in recommendation systems. Numerous approaches have been proposed to construct a representation for the user in order to find similar items for retrieval tasks, and they have been proven effective in industrial recommendation systems as well. Recently people have discovered the power of using multiple embeddings to represent a user, with the hope that each embedding represents the user's interest in a certain topic. With multi-interest representation, it's important to model the user's preference over the different topics and how the preference change with time. However, existing approaches either fail to estimate the user's affinity to each interest or unreasonably assume every interest of every user fades with an equal rate with time, thus hurting the recall of candidate retrieval. In this paper, we propose the Multi-Interest Preference (MIP) model, an approach that not only produces multi-interest for users by using the user's sequential engagement more effectively but also automatically learns a set of weights to represent the preference over each embedding so that the candidates can be retrieved from each interest proportionally. Extensive experiments have been done on various industrial-scale datasets to demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach.

1.2CLDec 16, 2021Code
Learning Bounded Context-Free-Grammar via LSTM and the Transformer:Difference and Explanations

Hui Shi, Sicun Gao, Yuandong Tian et al.

Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) and Transformers are two popular neural architectures used for natural language processing tasks. Theoretical results show that both are Turing-complete and can represent any context-free language (CFL).In practice, it is often observed that Transformer models have better representation power than LSTM. But the reason is barely understood. We study such practical differences between LSTM and Transformer and propose an explanation based on their latent space decomposition patterns. To achieve this goal, we introduce an oracle training paradigm, which forces the decomposition of the latent representation of LSTM and the Transformer and supervises with the transitions of the Pushdown Automaton (PDA) of the corresponding CFL. With the forced decomposition, we show that the performance upper bounds of LSTM and Transformer in learning CFL are close: both of them can simulate a stack and perform stack operation along with state transitions. However, the absence of forced decomposition leads to the failure of LSTM models to capture the stack and stack operations, while having a marginal impact on the Transformer model. Lastly, we connect the experiment on the prototypical PDA to a real-world parsing task to re-verify the conclusions