Sida Wang
Department of Computer Science
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305
sidaw@cs.stanford.edu
Christopher D. Manning
Department of Computer Science
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305
manning@cs.stanford.edu
Abstract
Recently, improved classication and regression performance has been achieved
by preventing feature coadaptation, or similarly, by encouraging independent
contribution from different features. In particular, the method proposed in [1],
informally called dropout, did this by randomly dropping out (zeroing) hidden
units and input features for training neural networks. However, sampling a random
subset of input features during training makes training much slower. We rst look
at the implied objective function of the dropout training. Then, instead of doing
a Monte Carlo optimization of this objective as in [1], we show how to optimize
it more directly by integrating a Gaussian approximation justied by the central
limit theorem and empirical evidence, giving a 230 times speedup and more sta
bility. We describe how to do fast dropout training in multilayer neural networks
with several popular types of hidden units and output units, for both classication
and regression. Finally, we empirically compare the performance of this method
to previously published results, and to baselines.
1 Introduction
Recent work [1] has shown that encouraging independent contributions from each input feature, or
equivalently, preventing feature coadaptation is a promising method for regularization. This can
be considered an alternative approach to regularization in addition to the widely used parameter
shrinkage methods and Bayesian averaging. In [1], neural networks are trained while randomly
dropping out (zeroing) hidden units and input dimensions. This process discourages the use of a
feature that is only helpful while other specic features are present.
Similar observations existed in the literature. Naive Bayes, by completely ignoring coadaptation,
performs better than discriminative methods when there is little data [2], and continues to perform
better on certain relatively large datasets [3]. Furthermore, there are several works of a similar spirit.
1) In [4], it is observed that training involves tradeoffs among weights, where the presence of highly
indicative features can cause other useful but weaker features to undertrain. They proposed feature
bagging: training different models on subset of features that are later combined. 2) In [3], each input
feature has an L2 regularization strength that depends on how informative the particular feature is
by itself, so individually uninformative features are strongly regularized, preventing coadaptation.
While the effectiveness of these methods is demonstrated, actually sampling, or training multiple
models, make training much slower. For example, with a dropout rate of p = 0.5, the proportion
of data still not seen after n passes is p
n
(i.e. 5 passes of the data is required to see 95% of it). If
the data is not highly redundant, and if the relevant data is only partially observable at random, then
the task also becomes harder, and the training efciency may reduce further. In this paper, we look
at how to achieve the benet of dropout training without actually sampling, thereby using all the
data efciently. We do this by a Gaussian approximation that is justied by the central limit theorem
1
and empirical evidence. We begin with logistic regression for simplicity, and then extend the idea to
neural networks.
2 The implied objective function, and its fast approximations
To avoid unnecessarily cumbersome notations, we illustrate the main idea with binary logistic re
gression (LR) with a single training vector x, and label y {0, 1}.
2.1 The implied objective function for dropout training
To train LR with dropout on data with dimension m, rst sample z
i
Bernoulli(p
i
) for i = 1...m.
Here p
i
is the probability of not dropping out input x
i
. For neural networks, x is activation of the
previous layer. For LR, x is the data. Typically, p
bias
= 1 and p = 0.1 0.9 for everything else.
After sampling z = {z
i
}
i=1...m
we can compute the stochastic gradient descent (sgd) update as
follows:
w = (y (w
t
D
z
x))D
z
x (1)
where D
z
= diag(z) R
mm
, and (x) = 1/(1 +e
x
) is the logistic function.
This update rule, applied over the training data over multiple passes, can be seen as a Monte Carlo
approximation to the following gradient:
w = E
z;ziBernoulli(pi)
[(y (w
t
D
z
x))D
z
x] (2)
The objective function with the above gradient is the expected conditional loglikelihood of the label
given the data with dropped out dimensions indicated by z, for y Bernoulli((w
t
D
z
x))). This is
the implied objective function for dropout training:
L(w) = E
z
[log(p(yD
z
x; w)] = E
z
[y log((w
t
D
z
x)) + (1 y) log(1 (w
t
D
z
x))] (3)
Since we are just taking an expectation, the objective is still concave provided that the original
loglikelihood is concave, which it is for logistic regression.
Evaluating the expectation in (2) naively by summing over all possible z has complexity O(2
m
m).
We are not sure how much better one can do in general when w
i
x
i
can be anything. One possibility
is to evaluate the rst K moments of
m
i
w
i
x
i
z
i
, which can be computed quickly by considering the
moment generating function, and speeding up the product using Fast Fourier Transform if necessary.
Given the moments, the Taylor series expansion of the function can then be used to compute the
expectation of . A direct application does not work because is not very polynomiallike, and its
radius of convergence increases too slowly for the range we need. Rather than directly computing the
expectation with respect to z, we propose a variable transformation that allows us to approximately
compute the expectation with respect to a simple random variable Y R, instead of z R
m
. In
the following section, we describe an efcient O(m) approximation that is accurate for machine
learning applications where w
i
x
i
usually come from a unimodal or bounded distribution.
2.2 Faster approximations to the dropout objective
We make the observation that evaluating the objective function L(w) involves taking the expectation
with respect to the variable Y (z) = w
t
D
z
x =
m
i
w
i
x
i
z
i
, a weighted sum of Bernoulli random
variables. For most machine learning problems, {w
i
} typically form a unimodal distribution cen
tered at 0, {x
i
} is either unimodal or in a xed interval. In this case, Y can be well approximated by
a normal distribution even for relatively low dimensional data with m = 10. More technically, the
Lyapunov condition is generally satised for a weighted sum of Bernoulli random variables of the
form Y that are weighted by real data [5]. Then, Lyapunovs central limit theorem states that Y (z)
tends to a normal distribution as m . We empirically verify that the approximation is good for
typical datasets of moderate dimensions, except when a couple of dimensions dominate all others.
Finally, let
S = E
z
[Y (z)] +
_
Var[Y (z)] =
S
+
S
(4)
be the approximating Gaussian, where N(0, 1), E
z
[Y (z)] =
m
i
p
i
w
i
x
i
, and Var [Y (z)] =
m
i
p
i
(1 p
i
)(w
i
x
i
)
2
.
2
In the following subsections, based on the Gaussian assumption above, we present several approxi
mations at different tradeoff points between speed and accuracy. In the end, we present experimental
results showing that there is little to no performance loss when using the faster, less accurate approx
imations.
2.2.1 Sampling from the Gaussian
Given good convergence, we note that drawing samples of the approximating Gaussian S of Y (z),
a constant time operation, is much cheaper than drawing samples directly of Y (z), which takes
O(m). This effect is very signicant for high dimensional datasets. So without doing much, we
can already approximate the objective function (3) m times faster by sampling from S instead of
Y (z). Empirically, this approximation is within the variance of the direct MC approximation of (3)
by taking 200 samples of z.
Approximating the gradient introduces a complication while using samples from the Gaussian. The
gradient (2) involves not only Y (z) S, but also D
z
x directly:
L(w) = E
z
[(y (Y (z)))D
z
x] (5)
Let f(Y ) = f(Y (z)) = y (Y (z)) and let g(z) = D
z
x R
m
. Naively approximating
E
z
[f(Y (z))g(z)] by either E
S
[f(S)]E
z
[g(z)], or worse, by f(E
s
[S])E
z
[g(z)] works poorly in
terms of both approximation error and nal performance. Note g(z) is a linear function and there
fore E
z
[g(z)] = g(E
z
[z]) = diag(p)x. A good way to approximate (5) is by analytically taking the
expectation with respect to z
i
and then using a linear approximation to the conditional expectation.
More precisely, consider dimension i of the gradient:
L(w)
w
i
= E
z
[f(Y (z))x
i
z
i
]
=
zi{0,1}
p(z
i
)z
i
x
i
E
zizi
[f(Y (z))]
= p(z
i
= 1)x
i
E
zizi=1
[f(Y (z))]
p
i
x
i
_
E
SN(
S
,
2
S
)
[f(S)] +
i
E
TN(,
2
S
)
[f(T)]
=
S
+
2
i
E
TN(
S
,
2
)
[f(T)]
2
=
2
S
_
= p
i
x
i
((
S
,
2
S
) +
i
(
S
,
2
S
) +
2
i
(
S
,
2
S
)) (6)
where z
i
is the collection of all other zs except z
i
,
S
,
S
is dened in (4),
i
= (1 p
i
)x
i
w
i
,
2
i
= p
i
(1 p
i
)x
2
i
w
2
i
are the changes in
S
,
2
S
due to conditioning on z
i
. Note that the partial
derivatives as well as E
SN(
S
,
2
S
)
[f(S)] only need to be computed once per training case, since
they are independent of i.
, , can be computed by drawing K samples from S and takes time O(K). See A.2 for details.
In practice, using only approximates the derivative to within the variance of successive MC com
putations of the objective L (see gure 2). In our experiments, this is 230 times faster compared
to sampling (see gure 3 and table 2). While MC dropout becomes inefcient quickly with very
high dropout rate (> 0.8), the Gaussian approximation is fairly insensitive because it still gets all
the information from every data point (see 3).
At a slightly higher loss in accuracy, we can get rid of z completely by reparameterizing the problem
in
s
and
s
and taking derivatives with respect to them. So the objective function (3) becomes
L(w) E
Y N(s,s)
[y log((Y )) + (1 y) log(1 (Y ))] (7)
2.2.2 Deterministic approximations
We can further improve the performance by using fast deterministic approximations. With a po
tentially much faster deterministic approximation, randomness harmful to linesearch is removed.
While not faster, we can deterministically sample from S. There is no analog of doing this with
3
the MC dropout method (it would be silly to permanently corrupt predetermined data dimensions).
In addition to taking the expectation as mentioned in 2.2.1, , , are functions of
s
,
2
s
R, and
can be computed by 1d numerical integration as dened in (18), (19), and (20). Simpsons method
on [4, +4] works quite well. One can also integrate the logitnormal distribution parameter
ized by and on [0, 1], but that is less stable numerically due to potentially huge masses at either
end [6]. Doing numerical integration online takes as long as using 200 samples. Because we do
not need that much accuracy in practice, numerical integration is not recommended. For even faster
speed, one can also tabulate , , instead of computing them as needed. The function is smoother
if parameterized by
2
_
x
e
t
2
/2
dt to approximate the logistic function.
It can be shown by parameter differentiation with respect to s and then integrating with respect to s
that
_
(x)N(x, s)dx =
_
2
+s
2
_
(8)
Substituting in (x) (
_
/8x), we get
_
(x)N(x, s
2
)dx
_
_
1 +s
2
/8
_
(9)
This is an approximation that is used for Bayesian prediction when the posterior is approximated by
a Gaussian [8]. As we now have a closedform approximation of , one can also obtain expressions
for and by differentiating.
Furthermore, we can even approximate the objective function (7) in a closedform that is easily
differentiable:
E
Y N(,s
2
)
[log((Y ))] =
_
log((x))N(x, s
2
)dx (10)
_
1 +s
2
/8 log
_
_
1 +s
2
/8
_
(11)
The actual objective as dened in (3) can be obtained from the above by observing that 1 (x) =
(x). The gradient, or Hessian with respect to w can be found by analytically differentiating.
3 Fast dropout for neural networks
Dropout training, as originally proposed, was intended for neural networks where hidden units are
dropped out, instead of the data. Fast dropout is directly applicable to dropping out the nal hidden
layer of neural networks. In this section, we approximately extend our technique to deep neural
networks and show how to do it for several popular types of hidden units and output units.
3.1 The hidden layers
Under dropout training, each hidden unit takes a random variable as input, and produces a random
variable as output. Because of the CLT, we may approximate the inputs as Gaussians and character
ize the outputs by their means and variances. An additional complication is that the inputs to hidden
units have a covariance, which is close to diagonal in practice as shown in gure 1.
Consider any hidden unit in dropout training, we may approximate its input as a Gaussian variable
X N(x, s
2
), which leads to its output mean and variance ,
2
. For the commonly used
sigmoid unit
=
_
(x)N(x, s
2
)dx
_
_
1 +s
2
/8
_
(12)
4
This integral can be evaluated exactly for the rectied linear unit f(x) = max(0, x). Let r = /s,
then
=
_
f(x)N(x, s
2
)dx = (r) +sN(r0, 1) (13)
With dropout training, each hidden unit also has an output variance, which can be approximated
fairly well (see A.4).
20 40
10
20
30
40
50
5
0
5
10
20 40
10
20
30
40
50
0
1
2
3
x 10
3
20 15 10 5
0
1000
2000
3000
0.1 0 0.1 0.2
0
1000
2000
3000
Figure 1: Top: MC dropout covariance matrix of the inputs of 10 random hidden units; Topleft:
trained to convergence; Topright: at random initialization. The covariance is not completely diago
nal once trained to convergence. Bottom: empirical input distribution of the input of a hidden unit.
Bottomleft: trained to convergence; Bottomright: at initialization. We lose almost nothing here.
3.2 Training with backpropagation
The resulting neural network can be trained by backpropagation with an additional set of derivatives.
In normal backpropagation, one only need to keep
L
i
for each hidden unit i with input
i
. For
approximate dropout training, we need
L
s
2
i
as well for input variance s
2
i
. Where
i
= p
j
w
ij
j
and s
i
= p(1 p)
j
2
j
w
2
ij
+p
2
j
w
2
ij
and
i
,
i
are the output mean and variance of the previous
layer.
3.3 The output layer
We still need to dene what the cost function L is, which is task dependent. We outline how to do
approximate dropout for the nal layer for onevsrest logistic units, linear units under squared loss,
and softmax units under their representative cost functions.
Logistic units with the crossentropy loss function that can be wellapproximated using the follow
ing:
E
XN(,s
2
)
[log((X))] =
_
log((x))N(x, s
2
)dx (14)
_
1 +s
2
/8 log
_
_
1 +s
2
/8
_
(15)
Linear units with squared error loss can be computed exactly
E
XN(,s
2
)
[(X t)
2
] =
_
(x t)
2
N(x, s
2
)dx (16)
= s
2
+ ( t)
2
(17)
Since s
2
=
j
w
2
j
x
2
j
, this is L2 regularization.
5
Unfortunately, the best way to compute the crossentropy loss for softmax seems to be sampling
from the input Gaussian directly (See A.3). Sampling can be applied to any output units with any
loss function. Unscented transform can be used in place of random sampling, trading accuracy for
faster speed.
Unlike the best practice in real dropout, the test time procedure for approximate dropout is exactly
the same as the training time procedure, with no weight halving needed. One shortcoming is the
training implementation does become more complicated, mainly in the backpropagation stage, while
the network function is straightforward. In the case when we are not concerned about training time,
we can still apply deterministic dropout at test time, instead of using the weight halving heuristics
that does not exactly match the training objective that is optimized. This alone can give a noticeable
improvement in test performance without much extra work.
4 Relation to Bayesian model selection
Once we make the Gaussian approximation, there is an alternative interpretation of where the vari
ance comes from. In the dropout framework, the variance comes from the dropout variable z. Under
the alternative interpretation where w is a random variable, we can view dropout training as max
imizing a lower bound on the Bayesian marginal likelihood in a class of models M
indexed by
R
m
. Concretely, consider random variables w
i
N(
i
,
2
i
), then the dropout objective
L(w) = E
z;ziBernoulli(pi)
[log p(yw
T
D
z
x)]
E
Y N(E[w
T
Dzx],Var[w
T
Dzx])
[log p(yY )]
= E
v:viN(i,
2
i
)
[log p(yv
T
x)]
log E
v:viN(i,
2
i
)
[p(yv
T
x)]
= log(M
)
where M
=
_
p(Dv)p(v)dv is the Bayesian evidence. p(v
i

i
) = N(v
i

i
,
2
i
) and
p(yv
T
x) = (v
T
x)
y
(1 (v
T
x))
1y
is the logistic model. For dropout training, = w/p
and = (1 p)/p.
Here the variance of v is tied to its magnitude, so a larger weight is only benecial when it is robust
to noise. While can be determined by the dropout process, we are also free to choose and we
nd empirically that using a slightly larger than that determined by dropout often perform slightly
better.
5 Experiments
Figure 2 shows that the quality of the gradient approximation using Gaussian samples are compa
rable to the difference between different MC dropout runs with 200 samples. Figures 3 and 4 show
that, under identical settings, the Gaussian approximation is much faster than MC dropout, and have
very similar training prole. Both the Gaussian approximation and the MC dropout training re
duce validation error rate by about 30% over plain LR when trained to convergence, without ever
overtting.
Method Plain Aprx. Drp. A.D.+Var Prev. SotA
#Errors 182 124 110 150 30
Table 1: Neural network on MNIST: Results on MNIST with 2 hidden layers of 1200 units each.
A.D.+Var is approximate dropout plus more articial variance by increasing . Prev. is the best
previous result without using domain knowledge [1]. SotA is the state of the art result on the test set.
The accuracy and time taken are listed in table 2 for the datasets described in section A.1. The Gaus
sian approximation is generally around 10 times faster than MC dropout and performs comparably
to NBSVM in [3]. Further speedup is possible by using one of the deterministic approximations
instead of sampling. While each iteration of the Gaussian approximation is still slower than LR, it
sometimes reaches a better validation performance in less time.
6
1 0 1 2 3 4 5
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
MC dropout value
A
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
v
a
l
u
e
Naive
Gaussian approx.
MC dropout
Figure 2: Scatterplot of various approximations (yaxis) vs. direct MC dropout: Each point is a
random dimension of the gradient, with its xvalue computed from MC dropout with 200 samples of
z, and its yvalue computed by the method in the legend. MC dropout and Gaussian approximation
used 200 samples. Naive is the approximation dened after (5), by assuming that f(z) and g(z)
are independent. The RMSE for different MC dropout runs is 0.0305, and the RMSE between MC
dropout and Gaussian approximation is 0.0308, showing no difference between our approximation
and MC dropout training. The green line is the reference y = x.
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
seconds spent in training
e
r
r
o
r
r
a
t
e
i
n
t
h
e
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
e
t
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
training iterations
e
r
r
o
r
r
a
t
e
i
n
t
h
e
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
e
t
Plain LR
Gaussian approx.
MC dropout
Figure 3: Validation errors vs. time spent in training (left), and number of iterations (right). trained
using batch gradient descent on the 20newsgroup subtask alt.atheismvs. religion.misc. 100 samples
are used. For MC dropout, z
i
is sampled only for nonzero x
i
, with a dropout rate of 0.5.
For the MPQA dataset that effectively has m = 4, the Gaussian assumption is unjustiable, but the
derived method works empirically anyways (table 2). We trained on bigram features, surprisingly,
even plain LR with good regularization parameters perform better than some previous works.
Experiments using a 2hiddenlayer neural network is shown in table 1 and gure 5.
7
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
seconds spent in training
e
r
r
o
r
r
a
t
e
i
n
t
h
e
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
e
t
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
training iterations
e
r
r
o
r
r
a
t
e
i
n
t
h
e
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
e
t
Plain LR
Gaussian approx.
MC dropout
Figure 4: Same as gure 3 but with a very high dropout rate of 0.7.
5 10 15 20
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04
0.045
0.05
iterations
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
e
r
r
o
r
20 40 60 80
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
iterations
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
e
r
r
o
r
no dropout
fast dropout
Figure 5: Training and validation errors left: training error and right: validation errors on a MNIST
subset with and without dropout with a 2 hidden layers neural network with 500 and 300 hidden
units trained on 1000 examples.
6 Conclusions
We presented a way of getting the benets of dropout training without actually sampling, thereby
speeding up the process by a factor of 230 times. For high dimensional datasets (over a few hun
dred), each iteration of fast dropout is only about 2 times slower than normal training. While the
objective for fast dropout is the same as MC dropout in the long run, because fast dropout is not los
ing any information in individual training cases, it is capable of doing more work in each iteration,
reaching the same validation set performance in a shorter time, and generalizing better.
Acknowledgments
We thank Andrej Karpathy, Charlie Tang and Percy Liang for helpful discussions. Sida Wang was
partially funded by an Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada PGSM schol
arship and a Stanford School of Engineering fellowship.
8
Methods\ Datasets RT2k IMDB RTs subj AthR CR MPQA Average
MC dropout 89.8 91.2 79.2 93.3 86.7 82.0 86.0 86.88
training time 6363 6839 2264 2039 126 582 417 2661
Gaussian approx. 89.7 91.2 79.0 93.4 87.4 82.1 86.1 86.99
training time 240 1071 362 323 6 90 185 325
plain LR 88.2 89.5 77.2 91.3 83.6 80.4 84.6 84.97
training time 145 306 81 68 3 17 22 92
Previous results
TreeCRF[9]   77.3   81.4 86.1 
Vect. Sent.[10] 88.9 88.89  88.13    
RNN[11]   77.7    86.4 
NBSVM[3] 89.45 91.22 79.4 93.2 87.9 81.8 86.3 87.03
{i : x
i
> 0} 788 232 22 25 346 21 4
Table 2: The main table of results. The top section contains the accuracy, and training time (in
seconds) for various datasets. 100 samples are used for both MC dropout and the Gaussian approx
imation. The last row shows the average number of nonsparse dimensions in the dataset.
References
[1] Geoffrey E. Hinton, Nitish Srivastava, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Ruslan Salakhut
dinov. Improving neural networks by preventing coadaptation of feature detectors. In:
CoRR abs/1207.0580 (2012).
[2] Andrew Y. Ng and Michael I. Jordan. On discriminative vs. generative classiers: A compar
ison of logistic regression and naive bayes. In: Proceedings of NIPS. Vol. 2. 2002, pp. 841
848.
[3] Sida Wang and Christopher Manning. Baselines and Bigrams: Simple, Good Sentiment and
Topic Classication. In: Proceedings of the ACL. 2012, pp. 9094.
[4] Charles Sutton, Michael Sindelar, and Andrew McCallum. Reducing Weight Undertraining
in Structured Discriminative Learning. In: Conference on Human Language Technology and
North American Association for Computational Linguistics (HLTNAACL). 2006.
[5] Erich L. Lehmann. Elements of LargeSample Theory. Springer, 1998, p. 101. ISBN:
03873985956.
[6] Patrizio Frederic and Frank Lad. Two Moments of the Logitnormal Distribution. In: Com
munications in Statistics  Simulation and Computation 37.7 (2008), pp. 12631269.
[7] Simon J. Julier and Jeffrey K. Uhlmann. A New Extension of the Kalman Filter to Nonlinear
Systems. In: Proceedings of AeroSense: Simulations and Controls. 1997, pp. 182193.
[8] David J.C. MacKay. The evidence framework applied to classication networks. In: Neural
Computation 5.4 (1992), pp. 720736.
[9] Tetsuji Nakagawa, Kentaro Inui, and Sadao Kurohashi. Dependency treebased sentiment
classication using CRFs with hidden variables. In: Proceedings of ACL:HLT. 2010.
[10] Andrew L. Maas, Raymond E. Daly, Peter T. Pham, Dan Huang, Andrew Y. Ng, and Christo
pher Potts. Learning Word Vectors for Sentiment Analysis. In: Proceedings of the ACL.
2011.
[11] Richard Socher, Jeffrey Pennington, Eric H. Huang, Andrew Y. Ng, and Christopher D. Man
ning. SemiSupervised Recursive Autoencoders for Predicting Sentiment Distributions. In:
Proceedings of EMNLP. 2011.
[12] Bo Pang and Lillian Lee. Seeing stars: Exploiting class relationships for sentiment catego
rization with respect to rating scales. In: Proceedings of the ACL. 2005.
[13] Minqing Hu and Bing Liu. Mining and summarizing customer reviews. In: Proceedings
ACM SIGKDD. 2004, pp. 168177.
[14] Janyce Wiebe, Theresa Wilson, and Claire Cardie. Annotating Expressions of Opinions and
Emotions in Language. In: Language Resources and Evaluation 39.23 (2005), pp. 165210.
[15] Bo Pang and Lillian Lee. A Sentimental Education: Sentiment Analysis Using Subjectivity
Summarization Based on Minimum Cuts. In: Proceedings of the ACL. 2004.
9
A Supplementary Material
A.1 Description of the datasets used
We compare with published results on the these datasets. Detailed statistics are shown in table 3.
RTs: Short movie reviews dataset containing one sentence per review [12]. This is known as the
movie review (MR) dataset in some works.
CR: Customer review dataset [13] processed like in [9].
1
MPQA: Opinion polarity subtask of the MPQA dataset [14].
2
Subj: The subjectivity dataset with subjective reviews and objective plot summaries [15].
IMDB2k (RT2k): The standard 2000 fulllength movie review dataset [15]. We mistakenly ref
ered to this as RT2k in [3], but it actually comes from IMDB.
IMDB: A large movie review dataset with 50k fulllength reviews [10].
3
AthR, XGraph, BbCrypt: Classify pairs of newsgroups in the 20newsgroups dataset with all
headers stripped off (the third (18828) version
4
), namely: alt.atheism vs. religion.misc,
comp.windows.x vs. comp.graphics, and rec.sport.baseball vs. sci.crypt, respectively.
Dataset (N
+
, N
) l CV V 
RTs (5331,5331) 21 10 21K 0.8
CR (2406,1366) 20 10 5713 1.3
MPQA (3316,7308) 3 10 6299 0.8
Subj. (5000,5000) 24 10 24K 0.8
RT2k (1000,1000) 787 10 51K 1.5
IMDB (25k,25k) 231 N 392K 0.4
AthR (799,628) 345 N 22K 2.9
XGraph (980,973) 261 N 32K 1.8
BbCrypt (992,995) 269 N 25K 0.5
Table 3: Dataset statistics. (N
+
, N
2
2
e
(x)
2
2
2
1
1 +e
x
dx (18)
(,
2
) =
(,
2
)
=
_
2
2
e
(x)
2
2
2
x
2
(1 +e
x
)
dx =
2
E
TN(,
2
)
_
T
1 +e
T
_
(19)
(,
2
) =
(,
2
)
2
=
_
2
2
e
(x)
2
2
2
_
(x )
2
2
4
(1 +e
x
)
1
2
2
(1 +e
x
)
_
dx (20)
1
http://www.cs.uic.edu/
liub/FBS/sentimentanalysis.html
2
http://www.cs.pitt.edu/mpqa/
3
http://ai.stanford.edu/
amaas/data/sentiment
4
http://people.csail.mit.edu/jrennie/20Newsgroups
10
A.3 Approximating softmax and crossentropy loss
A.4 Output Variance
For the sigmoid unit
= Var
XN(,s
2
)
[(X)] = E[(X)
2
] E[(X)]
2
(21)
E[(a(X b))] E[(X)]
2
(22)
_
a( b)
_
1 +/8a
2
s
2
_
_
_
1 +/8s
2
_
2
(23)
a,b can be found by matching the values and derivatives. Some reasonable values are a = 4 2
2
and b = log(
2 1).
A.5 Regularization by individual informativeness
While the Gaussian and deterministic approximations are more efcient than the direct MC com
putation, it still does considerably more work than plain LR. We present another procedure that is
in a very similar spirit that is as fast as plain LR, but possibly less robust than dropout. It is a rein
terpretation of the feature transformation described in [3] applied to Support Vector Machines. The
idea can be very easily applied to logistic regression. Let L
0
(w) = log(p(yx, w)) be the negative
loglikelihood. Dene the cost function:
L(w) = L
0
(w) +
i,j
C
ij
w
2
ij
(24)
The only difference from regular logistic regression is that C
ij
depends on how informative x
j
is
for label y = i, so that individually uninformative features are heavily regularized. For sparse
binary features a good choice is
1
Cij
=  log
p(xjy=i)
p(xjy=i)
 + . More generally, one can either bin
the data to make it binary or t a decision stump
ij
R, b
ij
{0, 1} to the data. We can set
1
Cij
=
log(
p(bijxj>ijy=i)
p(bijxj>ijy=i)
+.
11