Tag Archives: Natural Language Processing

ML-Enhanced Code Completion Improves Developer Productivity

The increasing complexity of code poses a key challenge to productivity in software engineering. Code completion has been an essential tool that has helped mitigate this complexity in integrated development environments (IDEs). Conventionally, code completion suggestions are implemented with rule-based semantic engines (SEs), which typically have access to the full repository and understand its semantic structure. Recent research has demonstrated that large language models (e.g., Codex and PaLM) enable longer and more complex code suggestions, and as a result, useful products have emerged (e.g., Copilot). However, the question of how code completion powered by machine learning (ML) impacts developer productivity, beyond perceived productivity and accepted suggestions, remains open.

Today we describe how we combined ML and SE to develop a novel Transformer-based hybrid semantic ML code completion, now available to internal Google developers. We discuss how ML and SEs can be combined by (1) re-ranking SE single token suggestions using ML, (2) applying single and multi-line completions using ML and checking for correctness with the SE, or (3) using single and multi-line continuation by ML of single token semantic suggestions. We compare the hybrid semantic ML code completion of 10k+ Googlers (over three months across eight programming languages) to a control group and see a 6% reduction in coding iteration time (time between builds and tests) and a 7% reduction in context switches (i.e., leaving the IDE) when exposed to single-line ML completion. These results demonstrate that the combination of ML and SEs can improve developer productivity. Currently, 3% of new code (measured in characters) is now generated from accepting ML completion suggestions.

Transformers for Completion
A common approach to code completion is to train transformer models, which use a self-attention mechanism for language understanding, to enable code understanding and completion predictions. We treat code similar to language, represented with sub-word tokens and a SentencePiece vocabulary, and use encoder-decoder transformer models running on TPUs to make completion predictions. The input is the code that is surrounding the cursor (~1000-2000 tokens) and the output is a set of suggestions to complete the current or multiple lines. Sequences are generated with a beam search (or tree exploration) on the decoder.

During training on Google’s monorepo, we mask out the remainder of a line and some follow-up lines, to mimic code that is being actively developed. We train a single model on eight languages (C++, Java, Python, Go, Typescript, Proto, Kotlin, and Dart) and observe improved or equal performance across all languages, removing the need for dedicated models. Moreover, we find that a model size of ~0.5B parameters gives a good tradeoff for high prediction accuracy with low latency and resource cost. The model strongly benefits from the quality of the monorepo, which is enforced by guidelines and reviews. For multi-line suggestions, we iteratively apply the single-line model with learned thresholds for deciding whether to start predicting completions for the following line.

Encoder-decoder transformer models are used to predict the remainder of the line or lines of code.

Re-rank Single Token Suggestions with ML
While a user is typing in the IDE, code completions are interactively requested from the ML model and the SE simultaneously in the backend. The SE typically only predicts a single token. The ML models we use predict multiple tokens until the end of the line, but we only consider the first token to match predictions from the SE. We identify the top three ML suggestions that are also contained in the SE suggestions and boost their rank to the top. The re-ranked results are then shown as suggestions for the user in the IDE.

In practice, our SEs are running in the cloud, providing language services (e.g., semantic completion, diagnostics, etc.) with which developers are familiar, and so we collocated the SEs to run on the same locations as the TPUs performing ML inference. The SEs are based on an internal library that offers compiler-like features with low latencies. Due to the design setup, where requests are done in parallel and ML is typically faster to serve (~40 ms median), we do not add any latency to completions. We observe a significant quality improvement in real usage. For 28% of accepted completions, the rank of the completion is higher due to boosting, and in 0.4% of cases it is worse. Additionally, we find that users type >10% fewer characters before accepting a completion suggestion.

Check Single / Multi-line ML Completions for Semantic Correctness
At inference time, ML models are typically unaware of code outside of their input window, and code seen during training might miss recent additions needed for completions in actively changing repositories. This leads to a common drawback of ML-powered code completion whereby the model may suggest code that looks correct, but doesn’t compile. Based on internal user experience research, this issue can lead to the erosion of user trust over time while reducing productivity gains.

We use SEs to perform fast semantic correctness checks within a given latency budget (<100ms for end-to-end completion) and use cached abstract syntax trees to enable a “full” structural understanding. Typical semantic checks include reference resolution (i.e., does this object exist), method invocation checks (e.g., confirming the method was called with a correct number of parameters), and assignability checks (to confirm the type is as expected).

For example, for the coding language Go, ~8% of suggestions contain compilation errors before semantic checks. However, the application of semantic checks filtered out 80% of uncompilable suggestions. The acceptance rate for single-line completions improved by 1.9x over the first six weeks of incorporating the feature, presumably due to increased user trust. As a comparison, for languages where we did not add semantic checking, we only saw a 1.3x increase in acceptance.

Language servers with access to source code and the ML backend are collocated on the cloud. They both perform semantic checking of ML completion suggestions.

Results
With 10k+ Google-internal developers using the completion setup in their IDE, we measured a user acceptance rate of 25-34%. We determined that the transformer-based hybrid semantic ML code completion completes >3% of code, while reducing the coding iteration time for Googlers by 6% (at a 90% confidence level). The size of the shift corresponds to typical effects observed for transformational features (e.g., key framework) that typically affect only a subpopulation, whereas ML has the potential to generalize for most major languages and engineers.

Fraction of all code added by ML 2.6%
Reduction in coding iteration duration 6%
Reduction in number of context switches 7%
Acceptance rate (for suggestions visible for >750ms) 25%
Average characters per accept 21
Key metrics for single-line code completion measured in production for 10k+ Google-internal developers using it in their daily development across eight languages.
Fraction of all code added by ML (with >1 line in suggestion) 0.6%
Average characters per accept 73
Acceptance rate (for suggestions visible for >750ms) 34%
Key metrics for multi-line code completion measured in production for 5k+ Google-internal developers using it in their daily development across eight languages.

Providing Long Completions while Exploring APIs
We also tightly integrated the semantic completion with full line completion. When the dropdown with semantic single token completions appears, we display inline the single-line completions returned from the ML model. The latter represent a continuation of the item that is the focus of the dropdown. For example, if a user looks at possible methods of an API, the inline full line completions show the full method invocation also containing all parameters of the invocation.

Integrated full line completions by ML continuing the semantic dropdown completion that is in focus.
Suggestions of multiple line completions by ML.

Conclusion and Future Work
We demonstrate how the combination of rule-based semantic engines and large language models can be used to significantly improve developer productivity with better code completion. As a next step, we want to utilize SEs further, by providing extra information to ML models at inference time. One example can be for long predictions to go back and forth between the ML and the SE, where the SE iteratively checks correctness and offers all possible continuations to the ML model. When adding new features powered by ML, we want to be mindful to go beyond just “smart” results, but ensure a positive impact on productivity.

Acknowledgements
This research is the outcome of a two-year collaboration between Google Core and Google Research, Brain Team. Special thanks to Marc Rasi, Yurun Shen, Vlad Pchelin, Charles Sutton, Varun Godbole, Jacob Austin, Danny Tarlow, Benjamin Lee, Satish Chandra, Ksenia Korovina, Stanislav Pyatykh, Cristopher Claeys, Petros Maniatis, Evgeny Gryaznov, Pavel Sychev, Chris Gorgolewski, Kristof Molnar, Alberto Elizondo, Ambar Murillo, Dominik Schulz, David Tattersall, Rishabh Singh, Manzil Zaheer, Ted Ying, Juanjo Carin, Alexander Froemmgen and Marcus Revaj for their contributions.


Source: Google AI Blog


Minerva: Solving Quantitative Reasoning Problems with Language Models

Language models have demonstrated remarkable performance on a variety of natural language tasks — indeed, a general lesson from many works, including BERT, GPT-3, Gopher, and PaLM, has been that neural networks trained on diverse data at large scale in an unsupervised way can perform well on a variety of tasks.

Quantitative reasoning is one area in which language models still fall far short of human-level performance. Solving mathematical and scientific questions requires a combination of skills, including correctly parsing a question with natural language and mathematical notation, recalling relevant formulas and constants, and generating step-by-step solutions involving numerical calculations and symbolic manipulation. Due to these challenges, it is often believed that solving quantitative reasoning problems using machine learning will require significant advancements in model architecture and training techniques, granting models access to external tools such as Python interpreters, or possibly a more profound paradigm shift.

In “Solving Quantitative Reasoning Problems With Language Models” (to be released soon on the arXiv), we present Minerva, a language model capable of solving mathematical and scientific questions using step-by-step reasoning. We show that by focusing on collecting training data that is relevant for quantitative reasoning problems, training models at scale, and employing best-in-class inference techniques, we achieve significant performance gains on a variety of difficult quantitative reasoning tasks. Minerva solves such problems by generating solutions that include numerical calculations and symbolic manipulation without relying on external tools such as a calculator. The model parses and answers mathematical questions using a mix of natural language and mathematical notation. Minerva combines several techniques, including few-shot prompting, chain of thought or scratchpad prompting, and majority voting, to achieve state-of-the-art performance on STEM reasoning tasks. You can explore Minerva’s output with our interactive sample explorer!

Solving a multi-step problem: A question from the MATH dataset and Minerva’s solution. The model writes down a line equation, simplifies it, substitutes a variable, and solves for y.

A Model Built for Multi-step Quantitative Reasoning
To promote quantitative reasoning, Minerva builds on the Pathways Language Model (PaLM), with further training on a 118GB dataset of scientific papers from the arXiv preprint server and web pages that contain mathematical expressions using LaTeX, MathJax, or other mathematical typesetting formats. Standard text cleaning procedures often remove symbols and formatting that are essential to the semantic meaning of mathematical expressions. By maintaining this information in the training data, the model learns to converse using standard mathematical notation.

Example questions from the Joint Entrance Examination Main Math 2020 exam taken each year by almost 2M Indian high-school students intended to study engineering and similar fields (left), and the National Math Exam in Poland (May 2022) taken by approximately 270K high-school students every year (right).
A dataset for quantitative reasoning: Careful data processing preserves mathematical information, allowing the model to learn mathematics at a higher level.

Minerva also incorporates recent prompting and evaluation techniques to better solve mathematical questions. These include chain of thought or scratchpad prompting — where Minerva is prompted with several step-by-step solutions to existing questions before being presented with a new question — and majority voting. Like most language models, Minerva assigns probabilities to different possible outputs. When answering a question, rather than taking the single solution Minerva scores as most likely, multiple solutions are generated by sampling stochastically from all possible outputs. These solutions are different (e.g., the steps are not identical), but often arrive at the same final answer. Minerva uses majority voting on these sampled solutions, taking the most common result as the conclusive final answer.

Majority voting: Minerva generates multiple solutions to each question and chooses the most common answer as the solution, improving performance significantly.

Evaluation on STEM Benchmarks
To test Minerva’s quantitative reasoning abilities we evaluated the model on STEM benchmarks ranging in difficulty from grade school level problems to graduate level coursework.

  • MATH: High school math competition level problems
  • MMLU-STEM: A subset of the Massive Multitask Language Understanding benchmark focused on STEM, covering topics such as engineering, chemistry, math, and physics at high school and college level.
  • GSM8k: Grade school level math problems involving basic arithmetic operations that should all be solvable by a talented middle school student.

We also evaluated Minerva on OCWCourses, a collection of college and graduate level problems covering a variety of STEM topics such as solid state chemistry, astronomy, differential equations, and special relativity that we collected from MIT OpenCourseWare.

In all cases, Minerva obtains state-of-the-art results, sometimes by a wide margin.

Evaluation results on MATH and MMLU-STEM, which include high school and college level questions covering a range of STEM topics.
Model   MATH     MMLU-STEM     OCWCourses     GSM8k  
Minerva 50.3% 75% 30.8% 78.5%
Published state of the art    6.9% 55% - 74.4%
Minerva 540B significantly improves state-of-the-art performance on STEM evaluation datasets.

What Minerva Gets Wrong
Minerva still makes its fair share of mistakes. To better identify areas where the model can be improved, we analyzed a sample of questions the model gets wrong, and found that most mistakes are easily interpretable. About half are calculation mistakes, and the other half are reasoning errors, where the solution steps do not follow a logical chain of thought.

It is also possible for the model to arrive at a correct final answer but with faulty reasoning. We call such cases “false positives”, as they erroneously count toward a model’s overall performance score. In our analysis, we find that the rate of false positives is relatively low (Minerva 62B produces less than 8% false positives on MATH).

Below are a couple of example mistakes the model makes.

Calculation mistake: The model incorrectly cancels the square root on both sides of the equation.
Reasoning mistake: The model computes the number of free throws at the fourth practice, but then uses this number as the final answer for the first practice.

Limitations
Our approach to quantitative reasoning is not grounded in formal mathematics. Minerva parses questions and generates answers using a mix of natural language and LaTeX mathematical expressions, with no explicit underlying mathematical structure. This approach has an important limitation, in that the model’s answers cannot be automatically verified. Even when the final answer is known and can be verified, the model can arrive at a correct final answer using incorrect reasoning steps, which cannot be automatically detected. This limitation is not present in formal methods for theorem proving (e.g., see Coq, Isabelle, HOL, Lean, Metamath, and Mizar). On the other hand, an advantage of the informal approach is that it can be applied to a highly diverse set of problems which may not lend themselves to formalization.

Future Directions
While machine learning models have become impressive tools in many scientific disciplines, they are often narrowly scoped to solve specific tasks. We hope that general models capable of solving quantitative reasoning problems will help push the frontiers of science and education. Models capable of quantitative reasoning have many potential applications, including serving as useful aids for researchers, and enabling new learning opportunities for students. We present Minerva as a small step in this direction. To see more samples from Minerva, such as the one below, please visit the interactive sample explorer!

Solving a problem using calculus and trigonoometry: A question from the MATH dataset asking for the speed of a particle in circular motion. Minerva finds a correct step-by-step solution. In the process, Minerva computes a time derivative and applies a trigonometric identity.

Acknowledgements
Minerva was a collaborative effort that spanned multiple teams in Google Research. We would like to thank our coauthors Aitor Lewkowycz, Ambrose Slone, Anders Andreassen, Behnam Neyshabur, Cem Anil, David Dohan, Henryk Michalewski, Imanol Schlag, Theo Gutman-Solo, Vedant Misra, Vinay Ramasesh, and Yuhuai Wu, as well as our collaborators Erik Zelikman and Yasaman Razeghi. Minerva builds upon the work of many others at Google, and we would like to thank the PaLM team, the T5X team, the Flaxformer team, and the JAX team for their efforts. We thank Tom Small for designing the animation in this post. We would also like to especially thank Vedant Misra for developing the Minerva sample explorer.

Source: Google AI Blog


Contextual Rephrasing in Google Assistant

When people converse with one another, context and references play a critical role in driving their conversation more efficiently. For instance, if one asks the question “Who wrote Romeo and Juliet?” and, after receiving an answer, asks “Where was he born?”, it is clear that ‘he’ is referring to William Shakespeare without the need to explicitly mention him. Or if someone mentions “python” in a sentence, one can use the context from the conversation to determine whether they are referring to a type of snake or a computer language. If a virtual assistant cannot robustly handle context and references, users would be required to adapt to the limitation of the technology by repeating previously shared contextual information in their follow-up queries to ensure that the assistant understands their requests and can provide relevant answers.

In this post, we present a technology currently deployed on Google Assistant that allows users to speak in a natural manner when referencing context that was defined in previous queries and answers. The technology, based on the latest machine learning (ML) advances, rephrases a user’s follow-up query to explicitly mention the missing contextual information, thus enabling it to be answered as a stand-alone query. While Assistant considers many types of context for interpreting the user input, in this post we are focusing on short-term conversation history.

Context Handling by Rephrasing
One of the approaches taken by Assistant to understand contextual queries is to detect if an input utterance is referring to previous context and then rephrase it internally to explicitly include the missing information. Following on from the previous example in which the user asked who wrote Romeo and Juliet, one may ask follow-up questions like “When?”. Assistant recognizes that this question is referring to both the subject (Romeo and Juliet) and answer from the previous query (William Shakespeare) and can rephrase “When?” to “When did William Shakespeare write Romeo and Juliet?”

While there are other ways to handle context, for instance, by applying rules directly to symbolic representations of the meaning of queries, like intents and arguments, the advantage of the rephrasing approach is that it operates horizontally at the string level across any query answering, parsing, or action fulfillment module.

Conversation on a smart display device, where Assistant understands multiple contextual follow-up queries, allowing the user to have a more natural conversation. The phrases appearing at the bottom of the display are suggestions for follow-up questions that the user can select. However, the user can still ask different questions.

A Wide Variety of Contextual Queries
The natural language processing field, traditionally, has not put much emphasis on a general approach to context, focusing on the understanding of stand-alone queries that are fully specified. Accurately incorporating context is a challenging problem, especially when considering the large variety of contextual query types. The table below contains example conversations that illustrate query variability and some of the many contextual challenges that Assistant’s rephrasing method can resolve (e.g., differentiating between referential and non-referential cases or identifying what context a query is referencing). We demonstrate how Assistant is now able to rephrase follow-up queries, adding contextual information before providing an answer.

System Architecture
At a high level, the rephrasing system generates rephrasing candidates by using different types of candidate generators. Each rephrasing candidate is then scored based on a number of signals, and the one with the highest score is selected.

High level architecture of Google Assistant contextual rephraser.

Candidate Generation
To generate rephrasing candidates we use a hybrid approach that applies different techniques, which we classify into three categories:

  1. Generators based on the analysis of the linguistic structure of the queries use grammatical and morphological rules to perform specific operations — for instance, the replacement of pronouns or other types of referential phrases with antecedents from the context.
  2. Generators based on query statistics combine key terms from the current query and its context to create candidates that match popular queries from historical data or common query patterns.
  3. Generators based on Transformer technologies, such as MUM, learn to generate sequences of words according to a number of training samples. LaserTagger and FELIX are technologies suitable for tasks with high overlap between the input and output texts, are very fast at inference time, and are not vulnerable to hallucination (i.e., generating text that is not related to the input texts). Once presented with a query and its context, they can generate a sequence of text edits to transform the input queries into a rephrasing candidate by indicating which portions of the context should be preserved and which words should be modified.

Candidate Scoring
We extract a number of signals for each rephrasing candidate and use an ML model to select the most promising candidate. Some of the signals depend only on the current query and its context. For example, is the topic of the current query similar to the topic of the previous query? Or, is the current query a good stand-alone query or does it look incomplete? Other signals depend on the candidate itself: How much of the information of the context does the candidate preserve? Is the candidate well-formed from a linguistic point of view? Etc.

Recently, new signals generated by BERT and MUM models have significantly improved the performance of the ranker, fixing about one-third of the recall headroom while minimizing false positives on query sequences that are not contextual (and therefore do not require a rephrasing).

Example conversation on a phone where Assistant understands a sequence of contextual queries.

Conclusion
The solution described here attempts to resolve contextual queries by rephrasing them in order to make them fully answerable in a stand-alone manner, i.e., without having to relate to other information during the fulfillment phase. The benefit of this approach is that it is agnostic to the mechanisms that would fulfill the query, thus making it usable as a horizontal layer to be deployed before any further processing.

Given the variety of contexts naturally used in human languages, we adopted a hybrid approach that combines linguistic rules, large amounts of historic data through logs, and ML models based on state-of-the-art Transformer approaches. By generating a number of rephrasing candidates for each query and its context, and then scoring and ranking them using a variety of signals, Assistant can rephrase and thus correctly interpret most contextual queries. As Assistant can handle most types of linguistic references, we are empowering users to have more natural conversations. To make such multi-turn conversations even less cumbersome, Assistant users can turn on Continued Conversation mode to enable asking follow-up queries without the need to repeat "Hey Google" between each query. We are also using this technology in other virtual assistant settings, for instance, interpreting context from something shown on a screen or playing on a speaker.

Acknowledgements
This post reflects the combined work of Aliaksei Severyn, André Farias, Cheng-Chun Lee, Florian Thöle, Gabriel Carvajal, Gyorgy Gyepesi, Julien Cretin, Liana Marinescu, Martin Bölle, Patrick Siegler, Sebastian Krause, Victor Ähdel, Victoria Fossum, Vincent Zhao. We also thank Amar Subramanya, Dave Orr, Yury Pinsky for helpful discussions and support.

Source: Google AI Blog


Locked-image Tuning: Adding Language Understanding to Image Models

The ability to classify images into categories has been transformed by deep learning. It has also been significantly accelerated by transfer learning, whereby models are first pre-trained on large datasets, like ImageNet, to learn visual representations that are then transferred via fine-tuning to a new task with less data (e.g., classifying animals). Previous works such as BiT and ViT employed these methods to achieve state-of-the-art performance on a wide range of classification tasks, such as the VTAB benchmark.

However, fine-tuning has some downsides: though pre-training is done only once, fine-tuning is necessary on every new dataset for which task-specific data is needed. Multimodal contrastive learning is an alternative, recently popularized paradigm (e.g., CLIP, ALIGN) that overcomes these issues by instead learning how to match free-form text with images. These models can then solve new tasks by reformulating them as image-text matching problems, without extra data (referred to as “zero-shot” learning). Contrastive learning is flexible and easy to adapt to new tasks, but has its own limitations, namely the need for a lot of paired image-text data and weaker performance than transfer learning approaches.

With those limitations in mind, we propose “LiT: Zero-Shot Transfer with Locked-image Text Tuning”, to appear at CVPR 2022. LiT models learn to match text to an already pre-trained image encoder. This simple yet effective setup provides the best of both worlds: strong image representations from pre-training, plus flexible zero-shot transfer to new tasks via contrastive learning. LiT achieves state-of-the-art zero-shot classification accuracy, significantly closing the gap between the two styles of learning. We think the best way to understand is to try it yourself, so we’ve included a demo of LiT models at the end of this post.

Fine-tuning (left) requires task-specific data and training to adapt a pre-trained model to a new task. An LiT model (right) can be used with any task, without further data or adaptation.

Contrastive Learning on Image-Text Data
Contrastive learning models learn representations from “positive” and “negative” examples, such that representations for "positive" examples are similar to each other but different from "negative" examples.

Multimodal contrastive learning applies this to pairs of images and associated texts. An image encoder computes representations from images, and a text encoder does the same for texts. Each image representation is encouraged to be close to the representation of its associated text (“positive”), but distinct from the representation of other texts ("negatives") in the data, and vice versa. This has typically been done with randomly initialized models (“from scratch”), meaning the encoders have to simultaneously learn representations and how to match them.

Multimodal contrastive learning trains models to produce similar representations for closely matched images and texts.

This training can be done on noisy, loosely aligned pairs of image and text, which naturally occur on the web. This circumvents the need for manual labeling, and makes data scaling easy. Furthermore, the model learns much richer visual concepts — it’s not constrained to what’s defined in the classification label space. Instead of classifying an image as “coffee”, it can understand whether it’s "a small espresso in a white mug” or “a large latte in a red flask”.

Once trained, a model that aligns image and text can be used in many ways. For zero-shot classification, we compare image representations to text representations of the class names. For example, a “wombat vs jaguar” classifier can be built by computing the representations of the texts “jaguar” and “wombat”, and classifying an image as a jaguar if its representation better matches the former. This approach scales to thousands of classes and makes it very easy to solve classification tasks without the extra data necessary for fine-tuning. Another application of contrastive models is image search (a.k.a. image-text retrieval), by finding the image whose representation best matches that of a given text, or vice versa.

The Best of Both Worlds with Locked-image Tuning
As mentioned earlier, transfer learning achieves state-of-the-art accuracy, but requires per-task labels, datasets, and training. On the other hand, contrastive models are flexible, scalable, and easily adaptable to new tasks, but fall short in performance. To compare, at the time of writing, the state of the art on ImageNet classification using transfer learning is 90.94%, but the best contrastive zero-shot models achieve 76.4%.

LiT tuning bridges this gap: we contrastively train a text model to compute representations well aligned with the powerful ones available from a pre-trained image encoder. Importantly, for this to work well, the image encoder should be “locked“, that is: it should not be updated during training. This may be unintuitive since one usually expects the additional information from further training to increase performance, but we find that locking the image encoder consistently leads to better results.

LiT-tuning contrastively trains a text encoder to match a pre-trained image encoder. The text encoder learns to compute representations that align to those from the image encoder.

This can be considered an alternative to the classic fine-tuning stage, where the image encoder is separately adapted to every new classification task; instead we have one stage of LiT-tuning, after which the model can classify any data. LiT-tuned models achieve 84.5% zero-shot accuracy on ImageNet classification, showing significant improvements over previous methods that train models from scratch, and halving the performance gap between fine-tuning and contrastive learning.

Left: LiT-tuning significantly closes the gap between the best contrastive models and the best models fine-tuned with labels. Right: Using a pre-trained image encoder is always helpful, but locking it is surprisingly a key part of the recipe to success; unlocked image models (dashed) yield significantly worse performance.

An impressive benefit of contrastive models is increased robustness — they retain high accuracy on datasets that typically fool fine-tuned models, such as ObjectNet and ImageNet-C. Similarly, LiT-tuned models have high performance across various challenging versions of ImageNet, for example achieving a state-of-the-art 81.1% accuracy on ObjectNet.

LiT-tuning has other advantages. While prior contrastive works require large amounts of data and train for a very long time, the LiT approach is much less data hungry. LiT models trained on 24M publicly available image-text pairs rival the zero-shot classification performance of prior models trained on 400M image-text pairs of private data. The locked image encoder also leads to faster training with a smaller memory footprint. On larger datasets, image representations can be pre-computed; not running the image model during training further improves efficiency and also unlocks much larger batch sizes, which increases the number of “negatives” the model sees and is key to high-performance contrastive learning. The method works well with varied forms of image pre-training (e.g., including self-supervised learning), and with many publicly available image models. We hope that these benefits make LiT a great testbed for researchers.

Conclusion
We present Locked-image Tuning (LiT), which contrastively trains a text encoder to match image representations from a powerful pre-trained image encoder. This simple method is data and compute efficient, and substantially improves zero-shot classification performance compared to existing contrastive learning approaches.

Want to try it yourself?

A preview of the demo: use it to match free-form text descriptions to images and build your own zero-shot classifier!

We have prepared a small interactive demo to try some LiT-tuned models. We also provide a Colab with more advanced use cases and larger models, which are a great way to get started.

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Xiaohua Zhai, Xiao Wang, Daniel Keysers, Alexander Kolesnikov, and Lucas Beyer who have co-authored the LiT paper and been involved in all aspects of its development, as well as the Brain team in Zürich. We also would like to thank Tom Small for creating the animations used in this blogpost.

Source: Google AI Blog


Pathways Language Model (PaLM): Scaling to 540 Billion Parameters for Breakthrough Performance

In recent years, large neural networks trained for language understanding and generation have achieved impressive results across a wide range of tasks. GPT-3 first showed that large language models (LLMs) can be used for few-shot learning and can achieve impressive results without large-scale task-specific data collection or model parameter updating. More recent LLMs, such as GLaM, LaMDA, Gopher, and Megatron-Turing NLG, achieved state-of-the-art few-shot results on many tasks by scaling model size, using sparsely activated modules, and training on larger datasets from more diverse sources. Yet much work remains in understanding the capabilities that emerge with few-shot learning as we push the limits of model scale.

Last year Google Research announced our vision for Pathways, a single model that could generalize across domains and tasks while being highly efficient. An important milestone toward realizing this vision was to develop the new Pathways system to orchestrate distributed computation for accelerators. In “PaLM: Scaling Language Modeling with Pathways”, we introduce the Pathways Language Model (PaLM), a 540-billion parameter, dense decoder-only Transformer model trained with the Pathways system, which enabled us to efficiently train a single model across multiple TPU v4 Pods. We evaluated PaLM on hundreds of language understanding and generation tasks, and found that it achieves state-of-the-art few-shot performance across most tasks, by significant margins in many cases.

As the scale of the model increases, the performance improves across tasks while also unlocking new capabilities.

Training a 540-Billion Parameter Language Model with Pathways
PaLM demonstrates the first large-scale use of the Pathways system to scale training to 6144 chips, the largest TPU-based system configuration used for training to date. The training is scaled using data parallelism at the Pod level across two Cloud TPU v4 Pods, while using standard data and model parallelism within each Pod. This is a significant increase in scale compared to most previous LLMs, which were either trained on a single TPU v3 Pod (e.g., GLaM, LaMDA), used pipeline parallelism to scale to 2240 A100 GPUs across GPU clusters (Megatron-Turing NLG) or used multiple TPU v3 Pods (Gopher) with a maximum scale of 4096 TPU v3 chips.

PaLM achieves a training efficiency of 57.8% hardware FLOPs utilization, the highest yet achieved for LLMs at this scale. This is due to a combination of the parallelism strategy and a reformulation of the Transformer block that allows for attention and feedforward layers to be computed in parallel, enabling speedups from TPU compiler optimizations.

PaLM was trained using a combination of English and multilingual datasets that include high-quality web documents, books, Wikipedia, conversations, and GitHub code. We also created a “lossless” vocabulary that preserves all whitespace (especially important for code), splits out-of-vocabulary Unicode characters into bytes, and splits numbers into individual tokens, one for each digit.

Breakthrough Capabilities on Language, Reasoning, and Code Tasks
PaLM shows breakthrough capabilities on numerous very difficult tasks. We highlight a few examples for language understanding and generation, reasoning, and code-related tasks below.

Language Understanding and Generation
We evaluated PaLM on 29 widely-used English natural language processing (NLP) tasks. PaLM 540B surpassed few-shot performance of prior large models, such as GLaM, GPT-3, Megatron-Turing NLG, Gopher, Chinchilla, and LaMDA, on 28 of 29 of tasks that span question-answering tasks (open-domain closed-book variant), cloze and sentence-completion tasks, Winograd-style tasks, in-context reading comprehension tasks, common-sense reasoning tasks, SuperGLUE tasks, and natural language inference tasks.

PaLM 540B performance improvement over prior state-of-the-art (SOTA) results on 29 English-based NLP tasks.

In addition to English NLP tasks, PaLM also shows strong performance on multilingual NLP benchmarks, including translation, even though only 22% of the training corpus is non-English.

We also probe emerging and future capabilities of PaLM on the Beyond the Imitation Game Benchmark (BIG-bench), a recently released suite of more than 150 new language modeling tasks, and find that PaLM achieves breakthrough performance. We compare the performance of PaLM to Gopher and Chinchilla, averaged across a common subset of 58 of these tasks. Interestingly, we note that PaLM’s performance as a function of scale follows a log-linear behavior similar to prior models, suggesting that performance improvements from scale have not yet plateaued. PaLM 540B 5-shot also does better than the average performance of people asked to solve the same tasks.

Scaling behavior of PaLM on a subset of 58 BIG-bench tasks. 

PaLM demonstrates impressive natural language understanding and generation capabilities on several BIG-bench tasks. For example, the model can distinguish cause and effect, understand conceptual combinations in appropriate contexts, and even guess the movie from an emoji.

Examples that showcase PaLM 540B 1-shot performance on BIG-bench tasks: labeling cause and effect, conceptual understanding, guessing movies from emoji, and finding synonyms and counterfactuals.

Reasoning
By combining model scale with chain-of-thought prompting, PaLM shows breakthrough capabilities on reasoning tasks that require multi-step arithmetic or common-sense reasoning. Prior LLMs, like Gopher, saw less benefit from model scale in improving performance.

Standard prompting versus chain-of-thought prompting for an example grade-school math problem. Chain-of-thought prompting decomposes the prompt for a multi-step reasoning problem into intermediate steps (highlighted in yellow), similar to how a person would approach it.

We observed strong performance from PaLM 540B combined with chain-of-thought prompting on three arithmetic datasets and two commonsense reasoning datasets. For example, with 8-shot prompting, PaLM solves 58% of the problems in GSM8K, a benchmark of thousands of challenging grade school level math questions, outperforming the prior top score of 55% achieved by fine-tuning the GPT-3 175B model with a training set of 7500 problems and combining it with an external calculator and verifier.

This new score is especially interesting, as it approaches the 60% average of problems solved by 9-12 year olds, who are the target audience for the question set. We suspect that separate encoding of digits in the PaLM vocabulary helps enable these performance improvements.

Remarkably, PaLM can even generate explicit explanations for scenarios that require a complex combination of multi-step logical inference, world knowledge, and deep language understanding. For example, it can provide high quality explanations for novel jokes not found on the web.

PaLM explains an original joke with two-shot prompts.

Code Generation
LLMs have also been shown [1, 2, 3, 4] to generalize well to coding tasks, such as writing code given a natural language description (text-to-code), translating code from one language to another, and fixing compilation errors (code-to-code).

PaLM 540B shows strong performance across coding tasks and natural language tasks in a single model, even though it has only 5% code in the pre-training dataset. Its few-shot performance is especially remarkable because it is on par with the fine-tuned Codex 12B while using 50 times less Python code for training. This result reinforces earlier findings that larger models can be more sample efficient than smaller models because they better transfer learning from other programming languages and natural language data.

Examples of a fine-tuned PaLM 540B model on text-to-code tasks, such as GSM8K-Python and HumanEval, and code-to-code tasks, such as Transcoder.

We also see a further increase in performance by fine-tuning PaLM on a Python-only code dataset, which we refer to as PaLM-Coder. For an example code repair task called DeepFix, where the objective is to modify initially broken C programs until they compile successfully, PaLM-Coder 540B demonstrates impressive performance, achieving a compile rate of 82.1%, which outperforms the prior 71.7% state of the art. This opens up opportunities for fixing more complex errors that arise during software development.

An example from the DeepFix Code Repair task. The fine-tuned PaLM-Coder 540B fixes compilation errors (left, in red) to a version of code that compiles (right).

Ethical Considerations
Recent research has highlighted various potential risks associated with LLMs trained on web text. It is crucial to analyze and document such potential undesirable risks through transparent artifacts such as model cards and datasheets, which also include information on intended use and testing. To this end, our paper provides a datasheet, model card and Responsible AI benchmark results, and it reports thorough analyses of the dataset and model outputs for biases and risks. While the analysis helps outline some potential risks of the model, domain- and task-specific analysis is essential to truly calibrate, contextualize, and mitigate possible harms. Further understanding of risks and benefits of these models is a topic of ongoing research, together with developing scalable solutions that can put guardrails against malicious uses of language models.

Conclusion and Future Work
PaLM demonstrates the scaling capability of the Pathways system to thousands of accelerator chips across two TPU v4 Pods by training a 540-billion parameter model efficiently with a well-studied, well-established recipe of a dense decoder-only Transformer model. Pushing the limits of model scale enables breakthrough few-shot performance of PaLM across a variety of natural language processing, reasoning, and code tasks.

PaLM paves the way for even more capable models by combining the scaling capabilities with novel architectural choices and training schemes, and brings us closer to the Pathways vision:

“Enable a single AI system to generalize across thousands or millions of tasks, to understand different types of data, and to do so with remarkable efficiency."

Acknowledgements
PaLM is the result of a large, collaborative effort by many teams within Google Research and across Alphabet. We’d like to thank the entire PaLM team for their contributions: Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, Parker Schuh, Kensen Shi, Sasha Tsvyashchenko, Joshua Maynez, Abhishek Rao, Parker Barnes, Yi Tay, Noam Shazeer, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Emily Reif, Nan Du, Ben Hutchinson, Reiner Pope, James Bradbury, Jacob Austin, Michael Isard, Guy Gur-Ari, Pengcheng Yin, Toju Duke, Anselm Levskaya, Sanjay Ghemawat, Sunipa Dev, Henryk Michalewski, Xavier Garcia, Vedant Misra, Kevin Robinson, Liam Fedus, Denny Zhou, Daphne Ippolito, David Luan, Hyeontaek Lim, Barret Zoph, Alexander Spiridonov, Ryan Sepassi, David Dohan, Shivani Agrawal, Mark Omernick, Andrew Dai, Thanumalayan Sankaranarayana Pillai, Marie Pellat, Aitor Lewkowycz, Erica Moreira, Rewon Child, Oleksandr Polozov, Katherine Lee, Zongwei Zhou, Xuezhi Wang, Brennan Saeta, Mark Diaz, Orhan Firat, Michele Catasta, and Jason Wei. PaLM builds on top of work by many, many teams at Google and we would especially like to recognize the T5X team, the Pathways infrastructure team, the JAX team, the Flaxformer team, the XLA team, the Plaque team, the Borg team, and the Datacenter networking infrastructure team. We’d like to thank our co-authors on this blog post, Alexander Spiridonov and Maysam Moussalem, as well as Josh Newlan and Tom Small for the images and animations in this blog post. Finally, we would like to thank our advisors for the project: Noah Fiedel, Slav Petrov, Jeff Dean, Douglas Eck, and Kathy Meier-Hellstern.

Source: Google AI Blog


Auto-generated Summaries in Google Docs

For many of us, it can be challenging to keep up with the volume of documents that arrive in our inboxes every day: reports, reviews, briefs, policies and the list goes on. When a new document is received, readers often wish it included a brief summary of the main points in order to effectively prioritize it. However, composing a document summary can be cognitively challenging and time-consuming, especially when a document writer is starting from scratch.

To help with this, we recently announced that Google Docs now automatically generates suggestions to aid document writers in creating content summaries, when they are available. Today we describe how this was enabled using a machine learning (ML) model that comprehends document text and, when confident, generates a 1-2 sentence natural language description of the document content. However, the document writer maintains full control — accepting the suggestion as-is, making necessary edits to better capture the document summary or ignoring the suggestion altogether. Readers can also use this section, along with the outline, to understand and navigate the document at a high level. While all users can add summaries, auto-generated suggestions are currently only available to Google Workspace business customers. Building on grammar suggestions, Smart Compose, and autocorrect, we see this as another valuable step toward improving written communication in the workplace.

A blue summary icon appears in the top left corner when a document summary suggestion is available. Document writers can then view, edit, or ignore the suggested document summary.

Model Details
Automatically generated summaries would not be possible without the tremendous advances in ML for natural language understanding (NLU) and natural language generation (NLG) over the past five years, especially with the introduction of Transformer and Pegasus.

Abstractive text summarization, which combines the individually challenging tasks of long document language understanding and generation, has been a long-standing problem in NLU and NLG research. A popular method for combining NLU and NLG is training an ML model using sequence-to-sequence learning, where the inputs are the document words, and the outputs are the summary words. A neural network then learns to map input tokens to output tokens. Early applications of the sequence-to-sequence paradigm used recurrent neural networks (RNNs) for both the encoder and decoder.

The introduction of Transformers provided a promising alternative to RNNs because Transformers use self-attention to provide better modeling of long input and output dependencies, which is critical in document summarization. Still, these models require large amounts of manually labeled data to train sufficiently, so the advent of Transformers alone was not enough to significantly advance the state-of-the-art in document summarization.

The combination of Transformers with self-supervised pre-training (e.g., BERT, GPT, T5) led to a major breakthrough in many NLU tasks for which limited labeled data is available. In self-supervised pre-training, a model uses large amounts of unlabeled text to learn general language understanding and generation capabilities. Then, in a subsequent fine-tuning stage, the model learns to apply these abilities on a specific task, such as summarization or question answering.

The Pegasus work took this idea one step further, by introducing a pre-training objective customized to abstractive summarization. In Pegasus pre-training, also called Gap Sentence Prediction (GSP), full sentences from unlabeled news articles and web documents are masked from the input and the model is required to reconstruct them, conditioned on the remaining unmasked sentences. In particular, GSP attempts to mask sentences that are considered essential to the document through different heuristics. The intuition is to make the pre-training as close as possible to the summarization task. Pegasus achieved state-of-the-art results on a varied set of summarization datasets. However, a number of challenges remained to apply this research advancement into a product.

Applying Recent Research Advances to Google Docs

  • Data

    Self-supervised pre-training results in an ML model that has general language understanding and generation capabilities, but a subsequent fine-tuning stage is critical for the model to adapt to the application domain. We fine-tuned early versions of our model on a corpus of documents with manually-generated summaries that were consistent with typical use cases.

    However, early versions of this corpus suffered from inconsistencies and high variation because they included many types of documents, as well as many ways to write a summary — e.g., academic abstracts are typically long and detailed, while executive summaries are brief and punchy. This led to a model that was easily confused because it had been trained on so many different types of documents and summaries that it struggled to learn the relationships between any of them.

    Fortunately, one of the key findings in the Pegasus work was that an effective pre-training phase required less supervised data in the fine-tuning stage. Some summarization benchmarks required as few as 1,000 fine-tuning examples for Pegasus to match the performance of Transformer baselines that saw 10,000+ supervised examples — suggesting that one could focus on quality rather than quantity.

    We carefully cleaned and filtered the fine-tuning data to contain training examples that were more consistent and represented a coherent definition of summaries. Despite the fact that we reduced the amount of training data, this led to a higher quality model. The key lesson, consistent with recent work in domains like dataset distillation, was that it was better to have a smaller, high quality dataset, than a larger, high-variance dataset.

  • Serving

    Once we trained the high quality model, we turned to the challenge of serving the model in production. While the Transformer version of the encoder-decoder architecture is the dominant approach to train models for sequence-to-sequence tasks like abstractive summarization, it can be inefficient and impractical to serve in real-world applications. The main inefficiency comes from the Transformer decoder where we generate the output summary token by token through autoregressive decoding. The decoding process becomes noticeably slow when summaries get longer since the decoder attends to all previously generated tokens at each step. RNNs are a more efficient architecture for decoding since there is no self-attention with previous tokens as in a Transformer model.

    We used knowledge distillation, which is the process of transferring knowledge from a large model to a smaller more efficient model, to distill the Pegasus model into a hybrid architecture of a Transformer encoder and an RNN decoder. To improve efficiency we also reduced the number of RNN decoder layers. The resulting model had significant improvements in latency and memory footprint while the quality was still on par with the original model. To further improve the latency and user experience, we serve the summarization model using TPUs, which provide significant speed ups and allow more requests to be handled by a single machine.

Ongoing Challenges and Next Steps
While we are excited by the progress so far, there are a few challenges we are continuing to tackle:

  • Document coverage: Developing a set of documents for the fine-tuning stage was difficult due to the tremendous variety that exists among documents, and the same challenge is true at inference time. Some of the documents our users create (e.g., meeting notes, recipes, lesson plans and resumes) are not suitable for summarization or can be difficult to summarize. Currently, our model only suggests a summary for documents where it is most confident, but we hope to continue broadening this set as our model improves.
  • Evaluation: Abstractive summaries need to capture the essence of a document while being fluent and grammatically correct. A specific document may have many summaries that can be considered correct, and different readers may prefer different ones. This makes it hard to evaluate summaries with automatic metrics only, user feedback and usage statistics will be critical for us to understand and keep improving quality.
  • Long documents: Long documents are some of the toughest documents for the model to summarize because it is harder to capture all the points and abstract them in a single summary, and it can also significantly increase memory usage during training and serving. However, long documents are perhaps most useful for the model to automatically summarize because it can help document writers get a head start on this tedious task. We hope we can apply the latest ML advancements to better address this challenge.

Conclusion
Overall, we are thrilled that we can apply recent progress in NLU and NLG to continue assisting users with reading and writing. We hope the automatic suggestions now offered in Google Workspace make it easier for writers to annotate their documents with summaries, and help readers comprehend and navigate documents more easily.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the many people across Google that contributed to this work: AJ Motika, Matt Pearson-Beck, Mia Chen, Mahdis Mahdieh, Halit Erdogan, Benjamin Lee, Ali Abdelhadi, Michelle Danoff, Vishnu Sivaji, Sneha Keshav, Aliya Baptista, Karishma Damani, DJ Lick, Yao Zhao, Peter Liu, Aurko Roy, Yonghui Wu, Shubhi Sareen, Andrew Dai, Mekhola Mukherjee, Yinan Wang, Mike Colagrosso, and Behnoosh Hariri. .

Source: Google AI Blog


Can Robots Follow Instructions for New Tasks?

People can flexibly maneuver objects in their physical surroundings to accomplish various goals. One of the grand challenges in robotics is to successfully train robots to do the same, i.e., to develop a general-purpose robot capable of performing a multitude of tasks based on arbitrary user commands. Robots that are faced with the real world will also inevitably encounter new user instructions and situations that were not seen during training. Therefore, it is imperative for robots to be trained to perform multiple tasks in a variety of situations and, more importantly, to be capable of solving new tasks as requested by human users, even if the robot was not explicitly trained on those tasks.

Existing robotics research has made strides towards allowing robots to generalize to new objects, task descriptions, and goals. However, enabling robots to complete instructions that describe entirely new tasks has largely remained out-of-reach. This problem is remarkably difficult since it requires robots to both decipher the novel instructions and identify how to complete the task without any training data for that task. This goal becomes even more difficult when a robot needs to simultaneously handle other axes of generalization, such as variability in the scene and positions of objects. So, we ask the question: How can we confer noteworthy generalization capabilities onto real robots capable of performing complex manipulation tasks from raw pixels? Furthermore, can the generalization capabilities of language models help support better generalization in other domains, such as visuomotor control of a real robot?

In “BC-Z: Zero-Shot Task Generalization with Robotic Imitation Learning”, published at CoRL 2021, we present new research that studies how robots can generalize to new tasks that they were not trained to do. The system, called BC-Z, comprises two key components: (i) the collection of a large-scale demonstration dataset covering 100 different tasks and (ii) a neural network policy conditioned on a language or video instruction of the task. The resulting system can perform at least 24 novel tasks, including ones that require interaction with pairs of objects that were not previously seen together. We are also excited to release the robot demonstration dataset used to train our policies, along with pre-computed task embeddings.

The BC-Z system allows a robot to complete instructions for new tasks that the robot was not explicitly trained to do. It does so by training the policy to take as input a description of the task along with the robot’s camera image and to predict the correct action.

Collecting Data for 100 Tasks
Generalizing to a new task altogether is substantially harder than generalizing to held-out variations in training tasks. Simply put, we want robots to have more generalization all around, which requires that we train them on large amounts of diverse data.

We collect data by teleoperating the robot with a virtual reality headset. This data collection follows a scheme similar to how one might teach an autonomous car to drive. First, the human operator records complete demonstrations of each task. Then, once the robot has learned an initial policy, this policy is deployed under close supervision where, if the robot starts to make a mistake or gets stuck, the operator intervenes and demonstrates a correction before allowing the robot to resume.

This mixture of demonstrations and interventions has been shown to significantly improve performance by mitigating compounding errors. In our experiments, we see a 2x improvement in performance when using this data collection strategy compared to only using human demonstrations.

Example demonstrations collected for 12 out of the 100 training tasks, visualized from the perspective of the robot and shown at 2x speed.

Training a General-Purpose Policy
For all 100 tasks, we use this data to train a neural network policy to map from camera images to the position and orientation of the robot’s gripper and arm. Crucially, to allow this policy the potential to solve new tasks beyond the 100 training tasks, we also input a description of the task, either in the form of a language command (e.g., “place grapes in red bowl”) or a video of a person doing the task.

To accomplish a variety of tasks, the BC-Z system takes as input either a language command describing the task or a video of a person doing the task, as shown here.

By training the policy on 100 tasks and conditioning the policy on such a description, we unlock the possibility that the neural network will be able to interpret and complete instructions for new tasks. This is a challenge, however, because the neural network needs to correctly interpret the instruction, visually identify relevant objects for that instruction while ignoring other clutter in the scene, and translate the interpreted instruction and perception into the robot’s action space.

Experimental Results
In language models, it is well known that sentence embeddings generalize on compositions of concepts encountered in training data. For instance, if you train a translation model on sentences like “pick up a cup” and “push a bowl”, the model should also translate “push a cup” correctly.

We study the question of whether the compositional generalization capabilities found in language encoders can be transferred to real robots, i.e., being able to compose unseen object-object and task-object pairs.

We test this method by pre-selecting a set of 28 tasks, none of which were among the 100 training tasks. For example, one of these new test tasks is to pick up the grapes and place them into a ceramic bowl, but the training tasks involve doing other things with the grapes and placing other items into the ceramic bowl. The grapes and the ceramic bowl never appeared in the same scene during training.

In our experiments, we see that the robot can complete many tasks that were not included in the training set. Below are a few examples of the robot’s learned policy.

The robot completes three instructions of tasks that were not in its training data, shown at 2x speed.

Quantitatively, we see that the robot can succeed to some degree on a total of 24 out of the 28 held-out tasks, indicating a promising capacity for generalization. Further, we see a notably small gap between the performance on the training tasks and performance on the test tasks. These results indicate that simply improving multi-task visuomotor control could considerably improve performance.

The BC-Z performance on held-out tasks, i.e., tasks that the robot was not trained to perform. The system correctly interprets the language command and translates that into action to complete many of the tasks in our evaluation.

Takeaways
The results of this research show that simple imitation learning approaches can be scaled in a way that enables zero-shot generalization to new tasks. That is, it shows one of the first indications of robots being able to successfully carry out behaviors that were not in the training data. Interestingly, language embeddings pre-trained on ungrounded language corpora make for excellent task conditioners. We demonstrated that natural language models can not only provide a flexible input interface to robots, but that pretrained language representations actually confer new generalization capabilities to the downstream policy, such as composing unseen object pairs together.

In the course of building this system, we confirmed that periodic human interventions are a simple but important technique for achieving good performance. While there is a substantial amount of work to be done in the future, we believe that the zero-shot generalization capabilities of BC-Z are an important advancement towards increasing the generality of robotic learning systems and allowing people to command robots. We have released the teleoperated demonstrations used to train the policy in this paper, which we hope will provide researchers with a valuable resource for future multi-task robotic learning research.

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the co-authors of this research: Alex Irpan, Mohi Khansari, Daniel Kappler, Frederik Ebert, Corey Lynch, and Sergey Levine. This project was a collaboration between Google Research and Everyday Robots. We would like to give special thanks to Noah Brown, Omar Cortes, Armando Fuentes, Kyle Jeffrey, Linda Luu, Sphurti Kirit More, Jornell Quiambao, Jarek Rettinghouse, Diego Reyes, Rosario Jau-regui Ruano, and Clayton Tan for overseeing robot operations and collecting human videos of the tasks, as well as Jeffrey Bingham, Jonathan Weisz, and Kanishka Rao for valuable discussions. We would also like to thank Tom Small for creating animations in this post and Paul Mooney for helping with dataset open-sourcing.

Source: Google AI Blog


LaMDA: Towards Safe, Grounded, and High-Quality Dialog Models for Everything

Language models are becoming more capable than ever before and are helpful in a variety of tasks — translating one language into another, summarizing a long document into a brief highlight, or answering information-seeking questions. Among these, open-domain dialog, where a model needs to be able to converse about any topic, is probably one of the most difficult, with a wide range of potential applications and open challenges. In addition to producing responses that humans judge as sensible, interesting, and specific to the context, dialog models should adhere to Responsible AI practices, and avoid making factual statements that are not supported by external information sources.

Today we’re excited to share recent advances in our “LaMDA: Language Models for Dialog Applications” project. In this post, we’ll give an overview on how we’re making progress towards safe, grounded, and high-quality dialog applications. LaMDA is built by fine-tuning a family of Transformer-based neural language models specialized for dialog, with up to 137B model parameters, and teaching the models to leverage external knowledge sources.

Objectives & Metrics
Defining objectives and metrics is critical to guide training dialog models. LaMDA has three key objectives — Quality, Safety, and Groundedness — each of which we measure using carefully designed metrics:

Quality: We decompose Quality into three dimensions, Sensibleness, Specificity, and Interestingness (SSI), which are evaluated by human raters. Sensibleness refers to whether the model produces responses that make sense in the dialog context (e.g., no common sense mistakes, no absurd responses, and no contradictions with earlier responses). Specificity is measured by judging whether the system's response is specific to the preceding dialog context, and not a generic response that could apply to most contexts (e.g., “ok” or “I don’t know”). Finally, Interestingness measures whether the model produces responses that are also insightful, unexpected or witty, and are therefore more likely to create better dialog.

Safety: We’re also making progress towards addressing important questions related to the development and deployment of Responsible AI. Our Safety metric is composed of an illustrative set of safety objectives that captures the behavior that the model should exhibit in a dialog. These objectives attempt to constrain the model’s output to avoid any unintended results that create risks of harm for the user, and to avoid reinforcing unfair bias. For example, these objectives train the model to avoid producing outputs that contain violent or gory content, promote slurs or hateful stereotypes towards groups of people, or contain profanity. Our research towards developing a practical Safety metric represents very early work, and there is still a great deal of progress for us to make in this area.

Groundedness: The current generation of language models often generate statements that seem plausible, but actually contradict facts established in known external sources. This motivates our study of groundedness in LaMDA. Groundedness is defined as the percentage of responses with claims about the external world that can be supported by authoritative external sources, as a share of all responses containing claims about the external world. A related metric, Informativeness, is defined as the percentage of responses with information about the external world that can be supported by known sources, as a share of all responses. Therefore, casual responses that do not carry any real world information (e.g., “That’s a great idea”), affect Informativeness but not Groundedness. While grounding LaMDA generated responses in known sources does not in itself guarantee factual accuracy, it allows users or external systems to judge the validity of a response based on the reliability of its source.

LaMDA Pre-Training
With the objectives and metrics defined, we describe LaMDA’s two-stage training: pre-training and fine-tuning. In the pre-training stage, we first created a dataset of 1.56T words — nearly 40 times more words than what were used to train previous dialog models — from public dialog data and other public web documents. After tokenizing the dataset into 2.81T SentencePiece tokens, we pre-train the model using GSPMD to predict every next token in a sentence, given the previous tokens. The pre-trained LaMDA model has also been widely used for natural language processing research across Google, including program synthesis, zero-shot learning, style transfer, as well as in the BIG-bench workshop.

LaMDA Fine-Tuning
In the fine-tuning stage, we train LaMDA to perform a mix of generative tasks to generate natural-language responses to given contexts, and classification tasks on whether a response is safe and high-quality, resulting in a single multi-task model that can do both. The LaMDA generator is trained to predict the next token on a dialog dataset restricted to back-and-forth dialog between two authors, while the LaMDA classifiers are trained to predict the Safety and Quality (SSI) ratings for the response in context using annotated data. During a dialog, the LaMDA generator first generates several candidate responses given the current multi-turn dialog context, and the LaMDA classifiers predict the SSI and Safety scores for every response candidate. Candidate responses with low Safety scores are first filtered out. Remaining candidates are re-ranked by their SSI scores, and the top result is selected as the response. We further filter the training data used for the generation task with LaMDA classifiers to increase the density of high-quality response candidates.

LaMDA generates and then scores a response candidate.
LaMDA handles arbitrary user input in a way that is sensible, specific, and interesting. Only LaMDA’s very first statement “Hello, I’m a friendly...” was hard coded to set the purpose of the dialog.

Factual Grounding
While people are capable of checking their facts by using tools and referencing established knowledge bases, many language models draw their knowledge on their internal model parameters only. To improve the groundedness of LaMDA’s original response, we collect a dataset of dialogs between people and LaMDA, which are annotated with information retrieval queries and the retrieved results where applicable. We then fine-tune LaMDA’s generator and classifier on this dataset to learn to call an external information retrieval system during its interaction with the user to improve the groundedness of its responses. While this is very early work, we’re seeing promising results.

Zero-shot domain adaptation: cherry-picked, but real example of LaMDA pretending to be Mount Everest, by simply setting its initial message to be “Hi I’m Mount Everest. What would you like me to know about me?” Everest LaMDA is shown providing educational and factually correct responses.

Evaluation
In order to quantify progress against our key metrics, we collect responses from the pre-trained model, fine-tuned model, and human raters (i.e., human-generated responses) to multi-turn two-author dialogs, and then ask a different set of human raters a series of questions to evaluate these responses against the Quality, Safety, and Groundedness metrics.

We observe that LaMDA significantly outperforms the pre-trained model in every dimension and across all model sizes. Quality metrics (Sensibleness, Specificity, and Interestingness, in the first column below) generally improve with the number of model parameters, with or without fine-tuning. Safety does not seem to benefit from model scaling alone, but it does improve with fine-tuning. Groundedness improves as model size increases, perhaps because larger models have a greater capacity to memorize uncommon knowledge, but fine-tuning allows the model to access external knowledge sources and effectively shift some of the load of remembering knowledge to an external knowledge source. With fine-tuning, the quality gap to human levels can be narrowed, though the model’s performance remains below human levels in safety and groundedness.

Comparing the pre-trained model (PT), fine-tuned model (LaMDA) and human-rater-generated dialogs (Human) across Sensibleness, Specificity, Interestingness, Safety, Groundedness, and Informativeness. The test sets used to measure Safety and Groundedness were designed to be especially difficult.

Future Research & Challenges
LaMDA’s level of Sensibleness, Specificity and Interestingness unlocks new avenues for understanding the benefits and risks of open-ended dialog agents. It also presents encouraging evidence that key challenges with neural language models, such as using a safety metric and improving groundedness, can improve with larger models and fine-tuning with more well-labeled data. However, this is very early work, and there are significant limitations. Exploring new ways to improve our Safety metric and LaMDA's groundedness, aligned with our AI Principles, will continue to be our main areas of focus going forward.

Acknowledgements
We'd to like to thank everyone for contributing to the project and paper, including: Blaise Aguera-Arcas, Javier Alberca, Thushan Amarasiriwardena, Lora Aroyo, Martin Baeuml, Leslie Baker, Rachel Bernstein, Taylor Bos, Maarten Bosma, Jonas Bragagnolo, Alena Butryna, Bill Byrne, Chung-Ching Chang, Zhifeng Chen, Dehao Chen, Heng-Tze Cheng, Ed Chi, Aaron Cohen, Eli Collins, Marian Croak, Claire Cui, Andrew Dai, Dipanjan Das, Daniel De Freitas, Jeff Dean, Rajat Dewan, Mark Diaz, Tulsee Doshi, Yu Du, Toju Duke, Doug Eck, Joe Fenton, Noah Fiedel, Christian Frueh, Harish Ganapathy, Saravanan Ganesh, Amin Ghafouri, Zoubin Ghahramani, Kourosh Gharachorloo, Jamie Hall, Erin Hoffman-John, Sissie Hsiao, Yanping Huang, Ben Hutchinson, Daphne Ippolito, Alicia Jin, Thomas Jurdi, Ashwin Kakarla, Nand Kishore, Maxim Krikun, Karthik Krishnamoorthi, Igor Krivokon, Apoorv Kulshreshtha, Ray Kurzweil, Viktoriya Kuzmina, Vivek Kwatra, Matthew Lamm, Quoc Le, Max Lee, Katherine Lee, Hongrae Lee, Josh Lee, Dmitry Lepikhin, YaGuang Li, Yifeng Lu, David Luan, Daphne Luong, Laichee Man, Jianchang (JC) Mao, Yossi Matias, Kathleen Meier-Hellstern, Marcelo Menegali, Muqthar Mohammad,, Muqthar Mohammad, Alejandra Molina, Erica Moreira, Meredith Ringel Morris, Maysam Moussalem, Jiaqi Mu, Tyler Mullen, Tyler Mullen, Eric Ni, Kristen Olson, Alexander Passos, Fernando Pereira, Slav Petrov, Marc Pickett, Roberto Pieraccini, Christian Plagemann, Sahitya Potluri, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Andy Pratt, James Qin, Ravi Rajakumar, Adam Roberts, Will Rusch, Renelito Delos Santos, Noam Shazeer, RJ Skerry-Ryan, Grigori Somin, Johnny Soraker, Pranesh Srinivasan, Amarnag Subramanya, Mustafa Suleyman, Romal Thoppilan, Song Wang, Sheng Wang, Chris Wassman, Yuanzhong Xu, Yuanzhong Xu, Ni Yan, Ben Zevenbergen, Vincent Zhao, Huaixiu Steven Zheng, Denny Zhou, Hao Zhou, Yanqi Zhou, and more.

Source: Google AI Blog


Learning to Route by Task for Efficient Inference

Scaling large language models has resulted in significant quality improvements natural language understanding (T5), generation (GPT-3) and multilingual neural machine translation (M4). One common approach to building a larger model is to increase the depth (number of layers) and width (layer dimensionality), simply enlarging existing dimensions of the network. Such dense models take an input sequence (divided into smaller components, called tokens) and pass every token through the full network, activating every layer and parameter. While these large, dense models have achieved state-of-the-art results on multiple natural language processing (NLP) tasks, their training cost increases linearly with model size.

An alternative, and increasingly popular, approach is to build sparsely activated models based on a mixture of experts (MoE) (e.g., GShard-M4 or GLaM), where each token passed to the network follows a separate subnetwork by skipping some of the model parameters. The choice of how to distribute the input tokens to each subnetwork (the “experts”) is determined by small router networks that are trained together with the rest of the network. This allows researchers to increase model size (and hence, performance) without a proportional increase in training cost.

While this is an effective strategy at training time, sending tokens of a long sequence to multiple experts, again makes inference computationally expensive because the experts have to be distributed among a large number of accelerators. For example, serving the 1.2T parameter GLaM model requires 256 TPU-v3 chips. Much like dense models, the number of processors needed to serve an MoE model still scales linearly with respect to the model size, increasing compute requirements while also resulting in significant communication overhead and added engineering complexity.

In “Beyond Distillation: Task-level Mixture-of-Experts for Efficient Inference”, we introduce a method called Task-level Mixture-of-Experts (TaskMoE), that takes advantage of the quality gains of model scaling while still being efficient to serve. Our solution is to train a large multi-task model from which we then extract smaller, stand-alone per-task subnetworks suitable for inference with no loss in model quality and with significantly reduced inference latency. We demonstrate the effectiveness of this method for multilingual neural machine translation (NMT) compared to other mixture of experts models and to models compressed using knowledge distillation.

Training Large Sparsely Activated Models with Task Information
We train a sparsely activated model, where router networks learn to send tokens of each task-specific input to different subnetworks of the model associated with the task of interest. For example, in the case of multilingual NMT, every token of a given language is routed to the same subnetwork. This differs from other recent approaches, such as the sparsely gated mixture of expert models (e.g., TokenMoE), where router networks learn to send different tokens in an input to different subnetworks independent of task.

Inference: Bypassing Distillation by Extracting Subnetworks
A consequence of this difference in training between TaskMoE and models like TokenMoE is in how we approach inference. Because TokenMoE follows the practice of distributing tokens of the same task to many experts at both training and inference time, it is still computationally expensive at inference.

For TaskMoE, we dedicate a smaller subnetwork to a single task identity during training and inference. At inference time, we extract subnetworks by discarding unused experts for each task. TaskMoE and its variants enable us to train a single large multi-task network and then use a separate subnetwork at inference time for each task without using any additional compression methods post-training. We illustrate the process of training a TaskMoE network and then extracting per-task subnetworks for inference below.

During training, tokens of the same language are routed to the same expert based on language information (either source, target or both) in task-based MoE. Later, during inference we extract subnetworks for each task and discard unused experts.

To demonstrate this approach, we train models based on the Transformer architecture. Similar to GShard-M4 and GLaM, we replace the feedforward network of every other transformer layer with a Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) layer that consists of multiple identical feedforward networks, the “experts”. For each task, the routing network, trained along with the rest of the model, keeps track of the task identity for all input tokens and chooses a certain number of experts per layer (two in this case) to form the task-specific subnetwork. The baseline dense Transformer model has 143M parameters and 6 layers on both the encoder and decoder. The TaskMoE and TokenMoE that we train are also both 6 layers deep but with 32 experts for every MoE layer and have a total of 533M parameters. We train our models using publicly available WMT datasets, with over 431M sentences across 30 language pairs from different language families and scripts. We point the reader to the full paper for further details.

Results
In order to demonstrate the advantage of using TaskMoE at inference time, we compare the throughput, or the number of tokens decoded per second, for TaskMoE, TokenMoE, and a baseline dense model. Once the subnetwork for each task is extracted, TaskMoE is 7x smaller than the 533M parameter TokenMoE model, and it can be served on a single TPUv3 core, instead of 64 cores required for TokenMoE. We see that TaskMoE has a peak throughput twice as high as that of TokenMoE models. In addition, on inspecting the TokenMoE model, we find that 25% of the inference time has been spent in inter-device communication, while virtually no time is spent in communication by TaskMoE.
Comparing the throughput of TaskMoE with TokenMoE across different batch sizes. The maximum batch size for TokenMoE is 1024 as opposed to 4096 for TaskMoE and the dense baseline model. Here, TokenMoE has one instance distributed across 64 TPUv3 cores, while TaskMoE and the baseline model have one instance on each of the 64 cores.

A popular approach to building a smaller network that still performs well is through knowledge distillation, in which a large teacher model trains a smaller student model with the goal of matching the teacher’s performance. However, this method comes at the cost of additional computation needed to train the student from the teacher. So, we also compare TaskMoE to a baseline TokenMoE model that we compress using knowledge distillation. The compressed TokenMoE model has a size comparable to the per-task subnetwork extracted from TaskMoE.

We find that in addition to being a simpler method that does not need any additional training, TaskMoE improves upon a distilled TokenMoE model by 2.1 BLEU on average across all languages in our multilingual translation model. We note that distillation retains 43% of the performance gains achieved from scaling a dense multilingual model to a TokenMoE, whereas extracting the smaller subnetwork from the TaskMoE model results in no loss of quality.

BLEU scores (higher is better) comparing a distilled TokenMoE model to the TaskMoE and TokenMoE models with 12 layers (6 on the encoder and 6 on the decoder) and 32 experts. While both approaches improve upon a multilingual dense baseline, TaskMoE improves upon the baseline by 3.1 BLEU on average while distilling from TokenMoE improves upon the baseline by 1.0 BLEU on average.

Next Steps
The quality improvements often seen with scaling machine learning models has incentivized the research community to work toward advancing scaling technology to enable efficient training of large models. The emerging need to train models capable of generalizing to multiple tasks and modalities only increases the need for scaling models even further. However, the practicality of serving these large models remains a major challenge. Efficiently deploying large models is an important direction of research, and we believe TaskMoE is a promising step towards more inference friendly algorithms that retain the quality gains of scaling.

Acknowledgements
We would like to first thank our coauthors - Yanping Huang, Ankur Bapna, Maxim Krikun, Dmitry Lepikhin and Minh-Thang Luong. We would also like to thank Wolfgang Macherey, Yuanzhong Xu, Zhifeng Chen and Macduff Richard Hughes for their helpful feedback. Special thanks to the Translate and Brain teams for their useful input and discussions, and the entire GShard development team for their foundational contributions to this project. We would also like to thank Tom Small for creating the animations for the blog post.

Source: Google AI Blog


A Fast WordPiece Tokenization System

Tokenization is a fundamental pre-processing step for most natural language processing (NLP) applications. It involves splitting text into smaller units called tokens (e.g., words or word segments) in order to turn an unstructured input string into a sequence of discrete elements that is suitable for a machine learning (ML) model. ln deep learning–based models (e.g., BERT), each token is mapped to an embedding vector to be fed into the model.

Tokenization in a typical deep learning model, like BERT.

A fundamental tokenization approach is to break text into words. However, using this approach, words that are not included in the vocabulary are treated as “unknown”. Modern NLP models address this issue by tokenizing text into subword units, which often retain linguistic meaning (e.g., morphemes). So, even though a word may be unknown to the model, individual subword tokens may retain enough information for the model to infer the meaning to some extent. One such subword tokenization technique that is commonly used and can be applied to many other NLP models is called WordPiece. Given text, WordPiece first pre-tokenizes the text into words (by splitting on punctuation and whitespaces) and then tokenizes each word into subword units, called wordpieces.

The WordPiece tokenization process with an example sentence.

In “Fast WordPiece Tokenization”, presented at EMNLP 2021, we developed an improved end-to-end WordPiece tokenization system that speeds up the tokenization process, reducing the overall model latency and saving computing resources. In comparison to traditional algorithms that have been used for decades, this approach reduces the complexity of the computation by an order of magnitude, resulting in significantly improved performance, up to 8x faster than standard approaches. The system has been applied successfully in a number of systems at Google and has been publicly released in TensorFlow Text.

Single-Word WordPiece Tokenization
WordPiece uses a greedy longest-match-first strategy to tokenize a single word — i.e., it iteratively picks the longest prefix of the remaining text that matches a word in the model’s vocabulary. This approach is known as maximum matching or MaxMatch, and has also been used for Chinese word segmentation since the 1980s. Yet despite its wide use in NLP for decades, it is still relatively computation intensive, with the commonly adopted MaxMatch approaches’ computation being quadratic with respect to the input word length (n). This is because two pointers are needed to scan over the input: one to mark a start position, and the other to search for the longest substring matching a vocabulary token at that position.

We propose an alternative to the MaxMatch algorithm for WordPiece tokenization, called LinMaxMatch, which has a tokenization time that is strictly linear with respect to n. First, we organize the vocabulary tokens in a trie (also called a prefix tree), where each trie edge is labeled by a character, and a tree path from the root to some node represents a prefix of some token in the vocabulary. In the figure below, nodes are depicted as circles and tree edges are black solid arrows. Given a trie, a vocabulary token can be located to match an input text by traversing from the root and following the trie edges to match the input character by character; this process is referred to as trie matching.

The figure below shows the trie created from the vocabulary consisting of “a”, “abcd”, “##b”, “##bc”, and “##z”. An input text “abcd” can be matched to a vocabulary token by walking from the root (upper left) and following the trie edges with labels “a”, “b”, “c”, “d” one by one. (The leading “##” symbols are special characters used in WordPiece tokenization that are described in more detail below.)

Trie diagram of the vocabulary [“a”, “abcd”, “##b”, “##bc”, “##z”]. Circles and arrows represent nodes and edges along the trie, respectively.

Second, inspired by the Aho-Corasick algorithm, a classical string-searching algorithm invented in 1975, we introduce a method that breaks out of a trie branch that fails to match the given input and skips directly to an alternative branch to continue matching. As in standard trie matching, during tokenization, we follow the trie edges to match the input characters one by one. When trie matching cannot match an input character for a given node, a standard algorithm would backtrack to the last character where a token was matched and then restart the trie matching procedure from there, which results in repetitive and wasteful iterations. Instead of backtracking, our method triggers a failure transition, which is done in two steps: (1) it collects the precomputed tokens stored at that node, which we call failure pops; and (2) it then follows the precomputed failure link to a new node from which the trie matching process continues.

For example, given a model with the vocabulary described above (“a”, “abcd”, “##b”, “##bc”, and “##z”), WordPiece tokenization distinguishes subword tokens matching at the start of the input word from the subword tokens starting in the middle (the latter being marked with two leading hashes “##”). Hence, for input text “abcz”, the expected tokenization output is [“a”, “##bc”, “##z”], where “a” matches at the beginning of the input while “##bc” and “##z” match in the middle. For this example, the figure below shows that, after successfully matching three characters ‘a’, ‘b’, ‘c’, trie matching cannot match the next character ‘z’ because “abcz” is not in the vocabulary. In this situation, LinMaxMatch conducts a failure transition by outputting the first recognized token (using the failure pop token “a”) and following the failure link to a new node to continue the matching process (in this case, node with “##bc” as the failure pop tokens).The process then repeats from the new node.

Trie structure for the same vocabulary as shown in the example above, now illustrating the approach taken by our new Fast WordPiece Tokenizer algorithm. Failure pops are bracketed and shown in purple. Failure links between nodes are indicated with dashed red line arrows.

Since at least n operations are required to read the entire input, the LinMaxMatch algorithm is asymptotically optimal for the MaxMatch problem.

End-to-End WordPiece Tokenization
Whereas the existing systems pre-tokenize the input text (splitting it into words by punctuation and whitespace characters) and then call WordPiece tokenization on each resulting word, we propose an end-to-end WordPiece tokenizer that combines pre-tokenization and WordPiece into a single, linear-time pass. It uses the LinMaxMatch trie matching and failure transitions as much as possible and only checks for punctuation and whitespace characters among the relatively few input characters that are not handled by the loop. It is more efficient as it traverses the input only once, performs fewer punctuation / whitespace checks, and skips the creation of intermediate words.

End-to-End WordPiece Tokenization.

Benchmark Results
We benchmark our method against two widely-adopted WordPiece tokenization implementations, HuggingFace Tokenizers, from the HuggingFace Transformer library, one of the most popular open-source NLP tools, and TensorFlow Text, the official library of text utilities for TensorFlow. We use the WordPiece vocabulary released with the BERT-Base, Multilingual Cased model.

We compared our algorithms with HuggingFace and TensorFlow Text on a large corpus (several million words) and found that the way the strings are split into tokens is identical to other implementations for both single-word and end-to-end tokenization.

To generate the test data, we sample 1,000 sentences from the multilingual Wikipedia dataset, covering 82 languages. On average, each word has four characters, and each sentence has 82 characters or 17 words. We found this dataset large enough because a much larger dataset (consisting of hundreds of thousands of sentences) generated similar results.

We compare the average runtime when tokenizing a single word or general text (end-to-end) for each system. Fast WordPiece tokenizer is 8.2x faster than HuggingFace and 5.1x faster than TensorFlow Text, on average, for general text end-to-end tokenization.

Average runtime of each system. Note that for better visualization, single-word tokenization and end-to-end tokenization are shown in different scales.

We also examine how the runtime grows with respect to the input length for single-word tokenization. Because of its linear-time complexity, the runtime of LinMaxMatch increases at most linearly with the input length, which is much slower than other quadratic-time approaches.

The average runtime of each system with respect to the input length for single-word tokenization.

Conclusion
We proposed LinMaxMatch for single-word WordPiece tokenization, which solves the decades-old MaxMatch problem in the asymptotically-optimal time with respect to the input length. LinMaxMatch extends the Aho-Corasick Algorithm, and the idea can be applied to more string search and transducer challenges. We also proposed an End-to-End WordPiece algorithm that combines pre-tokenization and WordPiece tokenization into a single, linear-time pass for even higher efficiency.

Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge the key contributions and useful advices from other team members and colleagues, including Abbas Bazzi, Alexander Frömmgen, Alex Salcianu, Andrew Hilton, Bradley Green, Ed Chi, Chen Chen, Dave Dopson, Eric Lehman, Fangtao Li, Gabriel Schubiner, Gang Li, Greg Billock, Hong Wang, Jacob Devlin, Jayant Madhavan, JD Chen, Jifan Zhu, Jing Li, John Blitzer, Kirill Borozdin, Kristina Toutanova, Majid Hadian-Jazi, Mark Omernick, Max Gubin, Michael Fields, Michael Kwong, Namrata Godbole, Nathan Lintz, Pandu Nayak, Pew Putthividhya, Pranav Khaitan, Robby Neale, Ryan Doherty, Sameer Panwar, Sundeep Tirumalareddy, Terry Huang, Thomas Strohmann, Tim Herrmann, Tom Small, Tomer Shani, Wenwei Yu, Xiaoxue Zang, Xin Li, Yang Guo, Yang Song, Yiming Xiao, Yuan Shen, and many more.

Source: Google AI Blog