Papers › An Empirical Comparison on Imitation Learning and Reinforcement Learning for...

An Empirical Comparison on Imitation Learning and Reinforcement Learning for Paraphrase Generation

28 Aug 2019IJCNLP 2019 11arXiv:1908.10835archive 2025-07-28

Wanyu Du, Yangfeng Ji

Generating paraphrases from given sentences involves decoding words step by step from a large vocabulary. To learn a decoder, supervised learning which maximizes the likelihood of tokens always suffers from the exposure bias. Although both reinforcement learning (RL) and imitation learning (IL) have been widely used to alleviate the bias, the lack of direct comparison leads to only a partial image on their benefits. In this work, we present an empirical study on how RL and IL can help boost the performance of generating paraphrases, with the pointer-generator as a base model. Experiments on the benchmark datasets show that (1) imitation learning is constantly better than reinforcement learning; and (2) the pointer-generator models with imitation learning outperform the state-of-the-art methods with a large margin.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

7 samples harvested; 0 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 7 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 0 of the 7 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from ddddwy/Reinforce-Paraphrase-Generation. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections