PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

Minimum Edit Distance Training for Conditional Language Generation Models

Munhak Lee, Joon-Hyuk Chang

general MLConditional language generation modelspeech recognitionneural machine translationcalibrationexposure bias
39.50100
Fused
band ≈ ±14 pct pts (from σ = 0.29)
37.50100
Mimo
band ≈ ±20 pct pts (from σ = 0.41)
46.60100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±21 pct pts (from σ = 0.41)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

TL;DR — We propose a loss function between a pair of sequences of different lengths using edit distance. Through this, exposure bias and calibration error of the conditional language model are alleviated and generalization performance is improved.

Abstract

The utilization of attention-based encoder-decoder (AED) structures, including transformers, has further advanced the capabilities of conditional language generation (CLG) models. However, the conventional AED model training approach which aims to maximize the likelihood conditioned on the prefix of reference label sequence, introduces exposure bias and possesses limitations in that it uses different evaluation metrics in the training and inference stages. In this study, we introduce a novel AED model training technique focused on minimizing the Levenshtein distance between the reference and inferred label sequences. The proposed method effectively mitigates exposure bias and improves the generalization performance of neural machine translation and automatic speech recognition models. Furthermore, we demonstrate that a post-hoc calibration function trained with the proposed objective function significantly reduces the calibration error of the ASR model, resulting in notable performance improvements.

Author context

Most prolific author: 2 submissions (credibility 1.00).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Battle history — 34 comparisons

Ranked above opponent in 42% of matchups.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 34)