Tag Archives: NLP

FormNet: Beyond Sequential Modeling for Form-Based Document Understanding

Posted by Chen-Yu Lee and Chun-Liang Li, Research Scientists, Google Research, Cloud AI Team

Form-based document understanding is a growing research topic because of its practical potential for automatically converting unstructured text data into structured information to gain insight about a document’s contents. Recent sequence modeling, which is a self-attention mechanism that directly models relationships between all words in a selection of text, has demonstrated state-of-the-art performance on natural language tasks. A natural approach to handle form document understanding tasks is to first serialize the form documents (usually in a left-to-right, top-to-bottom fashion) and then apply state-of-the-art sequence models to them.

However, form documents often have more complex layouts that contain structured objects, such as tables, columns, and text blocks. Their variety of layout patterns makes serialization difficult, substantially limiting the performance of strict serialization approaches. These unique challenges in form document structural modeling have been largely underexplored in literature.

An illustration of the form document information extraction task using an example from the FUNSD dataset.

In “FormNet: Structural Encoding Beyond Sequential Modeling in Form Document Information Extraction”, presented at ACL 2022, we propose a structure-aware sequence model, called FormNet, to mitigate the sub-optimal serialization of forms for document information extraction. First, we design a Rich Attention (RichAtt) mechanism that leverages the 2D spatial relationship between word tokens for more accurate attention weight calculation. Then, we construct Super-Tokens (tokens that aggregate semantically meaningful information from neighboring tokens) for each word by embedding representations from their neighboring tokens through a graph convolutional network (GCN). Finally, we demonstrate that FormNet outperforms existing methods, while using less pre-training data, and achieves state-of-the-art performance on the CORD, FUNSD, and Payment benchmarks.

FormNet for Information Extraction
Given a form document, we first use the BERT-multilingual vocabulary and optical character recognition (OCR) engine to identify and tokenize words. We then feed the tokens and their corresponding 2D coordinates into a GCN for graph construction and message passing. Next, we use Extended Transformer Construction (ETC) layers with the proposed RichAtt mechanism to continue to process the GCN-encoded structure-aware tokens for schema learning (i.e., semantic entity extraction). Finally, we use the Viterbi algorithm, which finds a sequence that maximizes the posterior probability, to decode and obtain the final entities for output.

Extended Transformer Construction (ETC)
We adopt ETC as the FormNet model backbone. ETC scales to relatively long inputs by replacing standard attention, which has quadratic complexity, with a sparse global-local attention mechanism that distinguishes between global and long input tokens. The global tokens attend to and are attended by all tokens, but the long tokens attend only locally to other long tokens within a specified local radius, reducing the complexity so that it is more manageable for long sequences.

Rich Attention
Our novel architecture, RichAtt, avoids the deficiencies of absolute and relative embeddings by avoiding embeddings entirely. Instead, it computes the order of and log distance between pairs of tokens with respect to the x and y axes on the layout grid, and adjusts the pre-softmax attention scores of each pair as a direct function of these values.

In a traditional attention layer, each token representation is linearly transformed into a Query vector, a Key vector, and a Value vector. A token “looks” for other tokens from which it might want to absorb information (i.e., attend to) by finding the ones with Key vectors that create relatively high scores when matrix-multiplied (called Matmul) by its Query vector and then softmax-normalized. The token then sums together the Value vectors of all other tokens in the sentence, weighted by their score, and passes this up the network, where it will normally be added to the token’s original input vector.

However, other features beyond the Query and Key vectors are often relevant to the decision of how strongly a token should attend to another given token, such as the order they’re in, how many other tokens separate them, or how many pixels apart they are. In order to incorporate these features into the system, we use a trainable parametric function paired with an error network, which takes the observed feature and the output of the parametric function and returns a penalty that reduces the dot product attention score.

The network uses the Query and Key vectors to consider what value some low-level feature (e.g., distance) should take if the tokens are related, and penalizes the attention score based on the error.

At a high level, for each attention head at each layer, FormNet examines each pair of token representations, determines the ideal features the tokens should have if there is a meaningful relationship between them, and penalizes the attention score according to how different the actual features are from the ideal ones. This allows the model to learn constraints on attention using logical implication.

A visualization of how RichAtt might act on a sentence. There are three adjectives that the word “crow” might attend to. “Lazy” is to the right, so it probably does not modify “crow” and its attention edge is penalized. “Sly” is many tokens away, so its attention edge is also penalized. “Cunning” receives no significant penalties, so by process of elimination, it is the best candidate for attention.

Furthermore, if one assumes that the softmax-normalized attention scores represent a probability distribution, and the distributions for the observed features are known, then this algorithm — including the exact choice of parametric functions and error functions — falls out algebraically, meaning FormNet has a mathematical correctness to it that is lacking from many alternatives (including relative embeddings).

Super-Tokens by Graph Learning
The key to sparsifying attention mechanisms in ETC for long sequence modeling is to have every token only attend to tokens that are nearby in the serialized sequence. Although the RichAtt mechanism empowers the transformers by taking the spatial layout structures into account, poor serialization can still block significant attention weight calculation between related word tokens.

To further mitigate the issue, we construct a graph to connect nearby tokens in a form document. We design the edges of the graph based on strong inductive biases so that they have higher probabilities of belonging to the same entity type. For each token, we obtain its Super-Token embedding by applying graph convolutions along these edges to aggregate semantically relevant information from neighboring tokens. We then use these Super-Tokens as an input to the RichAtt ETC architecture. This means that even though an entity may get broken up into multiple segments due to poor serialization, the Super-Tokens learned by the GCN will have retained much of the context of the entity phrase.

An illustration of the word-level graph, with blue edges between tokens, of a FUNSD document.

Key Results
The Figure below shows model size vs. F1 score (the harmonic mean of the precision and recall) for recent approaches on the CORD benchmark. FormNet-A2 outperforms the most recent DocFormer while using a model that is 2.5x smaller. FormNet-A3 achieves state-of-the-art performance with a 97.28% F1 score. For more experimental results, please refer to the paper.

Model Size vs. Entity Extraction F1 Score on CORD benchmark. FormNet significantly outperforms other recent approaches in absolute F1 performance and parameter efficiency.

We study the importance of RichAtt and Super-Token by GCN on the large-scale masked language modeling (MLM) pre-training task across three FormNets. Both RichAtt and GCN components improve upon the ETC baseline on reconstructing the masked tokens by a large margin, showing the effectiveness of their structural encoding capability on form documents. The best performance is obtained when incorporating both RichAtt and GCN.

Performance of the Masked-Language Modeling (MLM) pre-training. Both the proposed RichAtt and Super-Token by GCN components improve upon ETC baseline by a large margin, showing the effectiveness of their structural encoding capability on large-scale form documents.

Using BertViz, we visualize the local-to-local attention scores for specific examples from the CORD dataset for the standard ETC and FormNet models. Qualitatively, we confirm that the tokens attend primarily to other tokens within the same visual block for FormNet. Moreover for that model, specific attention heads are attending to tokens aligned horizontally, which is a strong signal of meaning for form documents. No clear attention pattern emerges for the ETC model, suggesting the RichAtt and Super-Token by GCN enable the model to learn the structural cues and leverage layout information effectively.

The attention scores for ETC and FormNet (ETC+RichAtt+GCN) models. Unlike the ETC model, the FormNet model makes tokens attend to other tokens within the same visual blocks, along with tokens aligned horizontally, thus strongly leveraging structural cues.

Conclusion
We present FormNet, a novel model architecture for form-based document understanding. We determine that the novel RichAtt mechanism and Super-Token components help the ETC transformer excel at form understanding in spite of sub-optimal, noisy serialization. We demonstrate that FormNet recovers local syntactic information that may have been lost during text serialization and achieves state-of-the-art performance on three benchmarks.

Acknowledgements
This research was conducted by Chen-Yu Lee, Chun-Liang Li, Timothy Dozat, Vincent Perot, Guolong Su, Nan Hua, Joshua Ainslie, Renshen Wang, Yasuhisa Fujii, and Tomas Pfister. Thanks to Evan Huang, Shengyang Dai, and Salem Elie Haykal for their valuable feedback, and Tom Small for creating the animation in this post.

Source: Google AI Blog


Guiding Frozen Language Models with Learned Soft Prompts

Posted by Brian Lester, AI Resident and Noah Constant, Senior Staff Software Engineer, Google Research

Large pre-trained language models, which are continuing to grow in size, achieve state-of-art results on many natural language processing (NLP) benchmarks. Since the development of GPT and BERT, standard practice has been to fine-tune models on downstream tasks, which involves adjusting every weight in the network (i.e., model tuning). However, as models become larger, storing and serving a tuned copy of the model for each downstream task becomes impractical.

An appealing alternative is to share across all downstream tasks a single frozen pre-trained language model, in which all weights are fixed. In an exciting development, GPT-3 showed convincingly that a frozen model can be conditioned to perform different tasks through “in-context” learning. With this approach, a user primes the model for a given task through prompt design, i.e., hand-crafting a text prompt with a description or examples of the task at hand. For instance, to condition a model for sentiment analysis, one could attach the prompt, “Is the following movie review positive or negative?” before the input sequence, “This movie was amazing!”

Sharing the same frozen model across tasks greatly simplifies serving and allows for efficient mixed-task inference, but unfortunately, this is at the expense of task performance. Text prompts require manual effort to design, and even well-designed prompts still far underperform compared to model tuning. For instance, the performance of a frozen GPT-3 175B parameter model on the SuperGLUE benchmark is 5 points below a fine-tuned T5 model that uses 800 times fewer parameters.

In “The Power of Scale for Parameter-Efficient Prompt Tuning”, presented at EMNLP 2021, we explore prompt tuning, a more efficient and effective method for conditioning frozen models using tunable soft prompts. Just like engineered text prompts, soft prompts are concatenated to the input text. But rather than selecting from existing vocabulary items, the “tokens” of the soft prompt are learnable vectors. This means a soft prompt can be optimized end-to-end over a training dataset. In addition to removing the need for manual design, this allows the prompt to condense information from datasets containing thousands or millions of examples. By comparison, discrete text prompts are typically limited to under 50 examples due to constraints on model input length. We are also excited to release the code and checkpoints to fully reproduce our experiments.

Prompt tuning retains the strong task performance of model tuning, while keeping the pre-trained model frozen, enabling efficient multitask serving.

Prompt Tuning
To create a soft prompt for a given task, we first initialize the prompt as a fixed-length sequence of vectors (e.g., 20 tokens long). We attach these vectors to the beginning of each embedded input and feed the combined sequence into the model. The model’s prediction is compared to the target to calculate a loss, and the error is back-propagated to calculate gradients, however we only apply these gradient updates to our new learnable vectors — keeping the core model frozen. While soft prompts learned in this way are not immediately interpretable, at an intuitive level, the soft prompt is extracting evidence about how to perform a task from the labeled dataset, performing the same role as a manually written text prompt, but without the need to be constrained to discrete language.

Our codebase, implemented in the new JAX-based T5X framework, makes it easy for anyone to replicate this procedure, and provides practical hyperparameter settings, including a large learning rate (0.3), which we found was important for achieving good results.

Since soft prompts have a small parameter footprint (we train prompts with as few as 512 parameters), one can easily pass the model a different prompt along with each input example. This enables mixed-task inference batches, which can streamline serving by sharing one core model across many tasks.

Left: With model tuning, incoming data are routed to task-specific models. Right: With prompt tuning, examples and prompts from different tasks can flow through a single frozen model in large batches, better utilizing serving resources.

Improvement with Scale
When evaluated on SuperGLUE and using a frozen T5 model, prompt tuning significantly outperforms prompt design using either GPT-3 or T5. Furthermore, as model size increases, prompt tuning catches up to the performance level of model tuning. Intuitively, the larger the pre-trained model, the less of a “push” it needs to perform a specific task, and the more capable it is of being adapted in a parameter-efficient way.

As scale increases, prompt tuning matches model tuning, despite tuning 25,000 times fewer parameters.

The effectiveness of prompt tuning at large model scales is especially important, since serving separate copies of a large model can incur significant computational overhead. In our paper, we demonstrate that larger models can be conditioned successfully even with soft prompts as short as 5 tokens. For T5 XXL, this means tuning just 20 thousand parameters to guide the behavior of an 11 billion parameter model.

Resilience to Domain Shift
Another advantage of prompt tuning is its resilience to domain shift. Since model tuning touches every weight in the network, it has the capacity to easily overfit on the provided fine-tuning data and may not generalize well to variations in the task at inference time. By comparison, our learned soft prompts have a small number of parameters, so the solutions they represent may be more generalizable.

To test generalizability, we train prompt tuning and model tuning solutions on one task, and evaluate zero-shot on a closely related task. For example, when we train on the Quora Question Pairs task (i.e., detecting if two questions are duplicates) and evaluate on MRPC (i.e., detecting if two sentences from news articles are paraphrases), prompt tuning achieves +3.2 points higher accuracy than model tuning.

Train    Eval    Tuning    Accuracy    F1
                  
QQP    MRPC    Model    73.1 ±0.9    81.2 ±2.1
Prompt    76.3 ±0.1    84.3 ±0.3
                  
MRPC    QQP    Model    74.9 ±1.3    70.9 ±1.2
Prompt    75.4 ±0.8   69.7 ±0.3   
On zero-shot domain transfer between two paraphrase detection tasks, prompt tuning matches or outperforms model tuning, depending on the direction of transfer.

Looking Forward
Prompt-based learning is an exciting new area that is quickly evolving. While several similar methods have been proposed — such as Prefix Tuning, WARP, and P-Tuning — we discuss their pros and cons and demonstrate that prompt tuning is the simplest and the most parameter efficient method.

In addition to the Prompt Tuning codebase, we’ve also released our LM-adapted T5 checkpoints, which we found to be better-suited for prompt tuning compared to the original T5. This codebase was used for the prompt tuning experiments in FLAN, and the checkpoints were used as a starting point for training the BigScience T0 model. We hope that the research community continues to leverage and extend prompt tuning in future research.

Acknowledgements
This project was a collaboration between Brian Lester, Rami Al-Rfou and Noah Constant. We are grateful to the following people for feedback, discussion and assistance: Waleed Ammar, Lucas Dixon, Slav Petrov, Colin Raffel, Adam Roberts, Sebastian Ruder, Noam Shazeer, Tu Vu and Linting Xue.

Source: Google AI Blog


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

Posted by Heng-Tze Cheng, Senior Staff Software Engineer and Romal Thoppilan, Senior Software Engineer, Google Research, Brain Team

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


Evaluating Syntactic Abilities of Language Models

Posted by Jason Wei, AI Resident and Dan Garrette, Research Scientist, Google Research

In recent years, pre-trained language models, such as BERT and GPT-3, have seen widespread use in natural language processing (NLP). By training on large volumes of text, language models acquire broad knowledge about the world, achieving strong performance on various NLP benchmarks. These models, however, are often opaque in that it may not be clear why they perform so well, which limits further hypothesis-driven improvement of the models. Hence, a new line of scientific inquiry has arisen: what linguistic knowledge is contained in these models?

While there are many types of linguistic knowledge that one may want to investigate, a topic that provides a strong basis for analysis is the subject–verb agreement grammar rule in English, which requires that the grammatical number of a verb agree with that of the subject. For example, the sentence “The dogs run.” is grammatical because “dogs” and “run” are both plural, but “The dogs runs.” is ungrammatical because “runs” is a singular verb.

One framework for assessing the linguistic knowledge of a language model is targeted syntactic evaluation (TSE), in which minimally different pairs of sentences, one grammatical and one ungrammatical, are shown to a model, and the model must determine which one is grammatical. TSE can be used to test knowledge of the English subject–verb agreement rule by having the model judge between two versions of the same sentence: one where a particular verb is written in its singular form, and the other in which the verb is written in its plural form.

With the above context, in “Frequency Effects on Syntactic Rule-Learning in Transformers”, published at EMNLP 2021, we investigated how a BERT model’s ability to correctly apply the English subject–verb agreement rule is affected by the number of times the words are seen by the model during pre-training. To test specific conditions, we pre-trained BERT models from scratch using carefully controlled datasets. We found that BERT achieves good performance on subject–verb pairs that do not appear together in the pre-training data, which indicates that it does learn to apply subject–verb agreement. However, the model tends to predict the incorrect form when it is much more frequent than the correct form, indicating that BERT does not treat grammatical agreement as a rule that must be followed. These results help us to better understand the strengths and limitations of pre-trained language models.

Prior Work
Previous work used TSE to measure English subject–verb agreement ability in a BERT model. In this setup, BERT performs a fill-in-the-blank task (e.g., “the dog _ across the park”) by assigning probabilities to both the singular and plural forms of a given verb (e.g., “runs” and “run”). If the model has correctly learned to apply the subject–verb agreement rule, then it should consistently assign higher probabilities to the verb forms that make the sentences grammatically correct.

This previous work evaluated BERT using both natural sentences (drawn from Wikipedia) and nonce sentences, which are artificially constructed to be grammatically valid but semantically nonsensical, such as Noam Chomsky’s famous example “colorless green ideas sleep furiously”. Nonce sentences are useful when testing syntactic abilities because the model cannot just fall back on superficial corpus statistics: for example, while “dogs run” is much more common than “dogs runs”, “dogs publish” and “dogs publishes” will both be very rare, so a model is not likely to have simply memorized the fact that one of them is more likely than the other.

BERT achieves an accuracy of more than 80% on nonce sentences (far better than the random-chance baseline of 50%), which was taken as evidence that the model had learned to apply the subject–verb agreement rule. In our paper, we went beyond this previous work by pre-training BERT models under specific data conditions, allowing us to dig deeper into these results to see how certain patterns in the pre-training data affect performance.

Unseen Subject–Verb Pairs
We first looked at how well the model performs on subject–verb pairs that were seen during pre-training, versus examples in which the subject and verb were never seen together in the same sentence:

BERT’s error rate on natural and nonce evaluation sentences, stratified by whether a particular subject–verb (SV) pair was seen in the same sentence during training or not. BERT’s performance on unseen SV pairs is far better than simple heuristics such as picking the more frequent verb or picking the more frequent SV pair.

BERT’s error rate increases slightly for unseen subject–verb (SV) pairs, for both natural and nonce evaluation sentences, but it is still much better than naïve heuristics, such as picking the verb form that occurred more often in the pre-training data or picking the verb form that occurred more frequently with the subject noun. This tells us that BERT is not just reflecting back the things that it sees during pre-training: making decisions based on more than just raw frequencies and generalizing to novel subject–verb pairs are indications that the model has learned to apply some underlying rule concerning subject–verb agreement.

Frequency of Verbs
Next, we went beyond just seen versus unseen, and examined how the frequency of a word affects BERT’s ability to use it correctly with the subject–verb agreement rule. For this study, we chose a set of 60 verbs, and then created several versions of the pre-training data, each engineered to contain the 60 verbs at a specific frequency, ensuring that the singular and plural forms appeared the same number of times. We then trained BERT models from these different datasets and evaluated them on the subject–verb agreement task:

BERT’s ability to follow the subject–verb agreement rule depends on the frequency of verbs in the training set.

These results indicate that although BERT is able to model the subject–verb agreement rule, it needs to see a verb about 100 times before it can reliably use it with the rule.

Relative Frequency Between Verb Forms
Finally, we wanted to understand how the relative frequencies of the singular and plural forms of a verb affect BERT’s predictions. For example, if one form of the verb (e.g., “combat”) appeared in the pre-training data much more frequently than the other verb form (e.g., “combats”), then BERT might be more likely to assign a high probability to the more frequent form, even when it is grammatically incorrect. To evaluate this, we again used the same 60 verbs, but this time we created manipulated versions of the pre-training data where the frequency ratio between verb forms varied from 1:1 to 100:1. The figure below shows BERT’s performance for these varying levels of frequency imbalance:

As the frequency ratio between verb forms in training data becomes more imbalanced, BERT’s ability to use those verbs grammatically decreases.

These results show that BERT achieves good accuracy at predicting the correct verb form when the two forms are seen the same number of times during pre-training, but the results become worse as the imbalance between the frequencies increases. This implies that even though BERT has learned how to apply subject–verb agreement, it does not necessarily use it as a “rule”, instead preferring to predict high-frequency words regardless of whether they violate the subject–verb agreement constraint.

Conclusions
Using TSE to evaluate the performance of BERT reveals its linguistic abilities on syntactic tasks. Moreover, studying its syntactic ability in relation to how often words appear in the training dataset reveals the ways that BERT handles competing priorities — it knows that subjects and verbs should agree and that high frequency words are more likely, but doesn’t understand that agreement is a rule that must be followed and that the frequency is only a preference. We hope this work provides new insight into how language models reflect properties of the datasets on which they are trained.

Acknowledgements
It was a privilege to collaborate with Tal Linzen and Ellie Pavlick on this project.

Source: Google AI Blog


Grammar Correction as You Type, on Pixel 6

Posted by Tony Mak, Software Engineer, Google Research and Simon Tong, Principal Engineer, Google Research, Brain Team

Despite the success and widespread adoption of smartphones, using them to compose longer pieces of text is still quite cumbersome. As one writes, grammatical errors can often creep into the text (especially undesirable in formal situations), and correcting these errors can be time consuming on a small display with limited controls.

To address some of these challenges, we are launching a grammar correction feature that is directly built into Gboard on Pixel 6 that works entirely on-device to preserve privacy, detecting and suggesting corrections for grammatical errors while the user is typing. Building such functionality required addressing a few key obstacles: memory size limitations, latency requirements, and handling partial sentences. Currently, the feature is capable of correcting English sentences (we plan to expand to more languages in the near future) and available on almost any app with Gboard1.

Gboard suggests how to correct an ungrammatical sentence as the user types.

Model Architecture
We trained a sequence-to-sequence neural network to take an input sentence (or a sentence prefix) and output the grammatically correct version — if the original text is already grammatically correct, the output of the model is identical to its input, indicating that no corrections are needed. The model uses a hybrid architecture that combines a Transformer encoder with an LSTM decoder, a combination that provides a good balance of quality and latency.

Overview of the grammatical error correction (GEC) model architecture.

Mobile devices are constrained by limited memory and computational power, which make it more difficult to build a high quality grammar checking system. There are a few techniques we use to build a small, efficient, and capable model.

  • Shared embedding: Because the input and output of the model are structurally similar (e.g., both are text in the same language), we share some of the model weights between the Transformer encoder and the LSTM decoder, which reduces the model file size considerably without unduly affecting accuracy.
  • Factorized embedding: The model splits a sentence into a sequence of predefined tokens. To achieve good quality, we find that it is important to use a large vocabulary of predefined tokens, however, this substantially increases the model size. A factorized embedding separates the size of the hidden layers from the size of the vocabulary embedding. This enables us to have a model with a large vocabulary without significantly increasing the number of total weights.
  • Quantization: To reduce the model size further, we perform post-training quantization, which allows us to store each 32-bit floating point weight using only 8-bits. While this means that each weight is stored with lower fidelity, nevertheless, we find that the quality of the model is not materially affected.

By employing these techniques, the resulting model takes up only 20MB of storage and performs inference on 60 input characters under 22ms on the Google Pixel 6 CPU.

Training the Model
In order to train the model, we needed training data in the form of <original, corrected> text pairs.

One possible approach to generating a small on-device model would be to use the same training data as a large cloud-based grammar model. While this data produces a reasonably high quality on-device model, we found that using a technique called hard distillation to generate training data that is better-matched to the on-device domain yields even better quality results.

Hard distillation works as follows: We first collected hundreds of millions of English sentences from across the public web. We then used the large cloud-based grammar model to generate grammar corrections for those sentences. This training dataset of <original, corrected> sentence pairs is then used to train a smaller on-device model that can correct full sentences. We found that the on-device model built from this training dataset produces significantly higher quality suggestions than a similar-sized on-device model built on the original data used to train the cloud-based model.

Before training the model from this data, however, there is another issue to address. To enable the model to correct grammar as the user types (an important capability of mobile devices) it needs to be able to handle sentence prefixes. While this enables grammar correction when the user has only typed part of a sentence, this capability is particularly useful in messaging apps, where the user often omits the final period in a sentence and presses the send button as soon as they finish typing. If grammar correction is only triggered on complete sentences, it might miss many errors.

This raises the question of how to decide whether a given sentence prefix is grammatically correct. We used a heuristic to solve this — if a given sentence prefix can be completed to form a grammatically correct sentence, we then consider it grammatically correct. If not, it is assumed to be incorrect.

What the user has typed so far       Suggested grammar correction
She puts a lot
She puts a lot of
She puts a lot of effort
She puts a lot of effort yesterday   Replace "puts" with "put in".
GEC on incomplete sentences. There is no correction for valid sentence prefixes.

We created a second dataset suitable for training a large cloud-based model, but this time focusing on sentence prefixes. We generated the data using the aforementioned heuristic by taking the <original, corrected> sentence pairs from the cloud-based model’s training dataset and randomly sampling aligned prefixes from them.

For example, given the <original, corrected> sentence pair:

Original sentence: She puts a lot of effort yesterday afternoon.
Corrected sentence: She put in a lot of effort yesterday afternoon.

We might sample the following prefix pairs:

Original prefix: She puts
Corrected prefix: She put in

Original prefix: She puts a lot of effort yesterday
Corrected prefix: She put in a lot of effort yesterday

We then autocompleted each original prefix to a full sentence using a neural language model (similar in spirit to that used by SmartCompose). If a full-sentence grammar model finds no errors in the full sentence, then that means there is at least one possible way to complete this original prefix without making any grammatical errors, so we consider the original prefix to be correct and output <original prefix, original prefix> as a training example. Otherwise, we output <original prefix, corrected prefix>. We used this training data to train a large cloud-based model that can correct sentence prefixes, then used that model for hard distillation, generating new <original, corrected> sentence prefix pairs that are better-matched to the on-device domain.

Finally, we constructed the final training data for the on-device model by combining these new sentence prefix pairs with the full sentence pairs. The on-device model trained on this combined data is then capable of correcting both full sentences as well as sentence prefixes.

Training data for the on-device model is generated from cloud-based models.

Grammar Correction On-Device
Gboard sends a request to the on-device grammar model whenever the user has typed more than three words, whether the sentence is completed or not. To provide a quality user experience, we underline the grammar mistakes and provide replacement suggestions when the user interacts with them. However, the model outputs only corrected sentences, so those need to be transformed into replacement suggestions. To do this, we align the original sentence and the corrected sentence by minimizing the Levenshtein distance (i.e., the number of edits that are needed to transform the original sentence to the corrected sentence).

Extracting edits by aligning the corrected sentence to the original sentence.

Finally, we transform the insertion edits and deletion edits to be replacement edits. In the above example, we transform the suggested insertion of "in" to be an edit that suggests replacing "puts" with "put in". And we similarly suggest replacing “effort on” with “effort”.

Conclusion
We have built a small high-quality grammar correction model by designing a compact model architecture and leveraging a cloud-based grammar system during training via hard distillation. This compact model enables users to correct their text entirely on their own device without ever needing to send their keystrokes to a remote server.

Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge the key contributions of the other team members, including Abhanshu Sharma, Akshay Kannan, Bharath Mankalale, Chenxi Ni, Felix Stahlberg, Florian Hartmann, Jacek Jurewicz, Jayakumar Hoskere, Jenny Chin, Kohsuke Yatoh, Lukas Zilka, Martin Sundermeyer, Matt Sharifi, Max Gubin, Nick Pezzotti, Nithi Gupta, Olivia Graham, Qi Wang, Sam Jaffee, Sebastian Millius, Shankar Kumar, Sina Hassani, Vishal Kumawat, and Yuanbo Zhang, Yunpeng Li, Yuxin Dai. We would also like to thank Xu Liu and David Petrou for their support.

1The feature will eventually be available in all apps with Gboard, but is currently unavailable for those in WebView. ↩

Source: Google AI Blog


Two New Datasets for Conversational NLP: TimeDial and Disfl-QA

Posted by Aditya Gupta, Software Engineer and Shyam Upadhyay, Research Scientist, Google Assistant

A key challenge in natural language processing (NLP) is building conversational agents that can understand and reason about different language phenomena that are unique to realistic speech. For example, because people do not always premeditate exactly what they are going to say, a natural conversation often includes interruptions to speech, called disfluencies. Such disfluencies can be simple (like interjections, repetitions, restarts, or corrections), which simply break the continuity of a sentence, or more complex semantic disfluencies, in which the underlying meaning of a phrase changes. In addition, understanding a conversation also often requires knowledge of temporal relationships, like whether an event precedes or follows another. However, conversational agents built on today’s NLP models often struggle when confronted with temporal relationships or with disfluencies, and progress on improving their performance has been slow. This is due, in part, to a lack of datasets that involve such interesting conversational and speech phenomena.

To stir interest in this direction within the research community, we are excited to introduce TimeDial, for temporal commonsense reasoning in dialog, and Disfl-QA, which focuses on contextual disfluencies. TimeDial presents a new multiple choice span filling task targeted for temporal understanding, with an annotated test set of over ~1.1k dialogs. Disfl-QA is the first dataset containing contextual disfluencies in an information seeking setting, namely question answering over Wikipedia passages, with ~12k human annotated disfluent questions. These benchmark datasets are the first of their kind and show a significant gap between human performance and current state of the art NLP models.

TimeDial
While people can effortlessly reason about everyday temporal concepts, such as duration, frequency, or relative ordering of events in a dialog, such tasks can be challenging for conversational agents. For example, current NLP models often make a poor selection when tasked with filling in a blank (as shown below) that assumes a basic level of world knowledge for reasoning, or that requires understanding explicit and implicit inter-dependencies between temporal concepts across conversational turns.

It is easy for a person to judge that “half past one” and “quarter to two” are more plausible options to fill in the blank than “half past three” and “half past nine”. However, performing such temporal reasoning in the context of a dialog is not trivial for NLP models, as it requires appealing to world knowledge (i.e., knowing that the participants are not yet late for the meeting) and understanding the temporal relationship between events (“half past one” is before “three o’clock”, while “half past three” is after it). Indeed, current state-of-the-art models like T5 and BERT end up picking the wrong answers — “half past three” (T5) and “half past nine” (BERT).

The TimeDial benchmark dataset (derived from the DailyDialog multi-turn dialog corpus) measures models’ temporal commonsense reasoning abilities within a dialog context. Each of the ~1.5k dialogs in the dataset is presented in a multiple choice setup, in which one temporal span is masked out and the model is asked to find all correct answers from a list of four options to fill in the blank.

In our experiments we found that while people can easily answer these multiple choice questions (at 97.8% accuracy), state-of-the-art pre-trained language models still struggle on this challenge set. We experiment across three different modeling paradigms: (i) classification over the provided 4 options using BERT, (ii) mask filling for the masked span in the dialog using BERT-MLM, (iii) generative methods using T5. We observe that all the models struggle on this challenge set, with the best variant only scoring 73%.

Model   2-best Accuracy
Human   97.8%
BERT - Classification   50.0%
BERT - Mask Filling   68.5%
T5 - Generation   73.0%

Qualitative error analyses show that the pre-trained language models often rely on shallow, spurious features (particularly text matching), instead of truly doing reasoning over the context. It is likely that building NLP models capable of performing the kind of temporal commonsense reasoning needed for TimeDial requires rethinking how temporal objects are represented within general text representations.

Disfl-QA
As disfluency is inherently a speech phenomenon, it is most commonly found in text output from speech recognition systems. Understanding such disfluent text is key to building conversational agents that understand human speech. Unfortunately, research in the NLP and speech community has been impeded by the lack of curated datasets containing such disfluencies, and the datasets that are available, like Switchboard, are limited in scale and complexity. As a result, it’s difficult to stress test NLP models in the presence of disfluencies.

Disfluency   Example
Interjection   “When is, uh, Easter this year?”
Repetition   “When is Eas … Easter this year?”
Correction   “When is Lent, I mean Easter, this year?”
Restart   “How much, no wait, when is Easter this year?”
Different kinds of disfluencies. The reparandum (words intended to be corrected or ignored; in red), interregnum (optional discourse cues; in grey) and repair (the corrected words; in blue).

Disfl-QA is the first dataset containing contextual disfluencies in an information seeking setting, namely question answering over Wikipedia passages from SQuAD. Disfl-QA is a targeted dataset for disfluencies, in which all questions (~12k) contain disfluencies, making for a much larger disfluent test set than prior datasets. Over 90% of the disfluencies in Disfl-QA are corrections or restarts, making it a much more difficult test set for disfluency correction. In addition, compared to earlier disfluency datasets, it contains a wider variety of semantic distractors, i.e., distractors that carry semantic meaning as opposed to simpler speech disfluencies. 

Passage: …The Normans (Norman: Nourmands; French: Normands; Latin: Normanni) were the people who in the 10th and 11th centuries gave their name to Normandy, a region in France. They were descended from Norse ("Norman" comes from "Norseman") raiders and pirates from Denmark, Iceland and Norway who, under their leader Rollo, …
Q1:   In what country is Normandy located? France ✓
DQ1:   In what country is Norse found no wait Normandy not Norse? Denmark X
Q2:   When were the Normans in Normandy? 10th and 11th centuries ✓
DQ2:   From which countries no tell me when were the Normans in Normandy? Denmark, Iceland and Norway X
A passage and questions (Qi) from SQuAD dataset, along with their disfluent versions (DQi), consisting of semantic distractors (like “Norse” and “from which countries”) and predictions from a T5 model.

Here, the first question (Q1) is seeking an answer about the location of Normandy. In the disfluent version (DQ1) Norse is mentioned before the question is corrected. The presence of this correctional disfluency confuses the QA model, which tends to rely on shallow textual cues from the question for making predictions.

Disfl-QA also includes newer phenomena, such as coreference (expression referring to the same entity) between the reparandum and the repair.

SQuAD  Disfl-QA
Who does BSkyB have an operating license from?  Who removed [BSkyB’s] operating license, no scratch that, who do [they] have [their] operating license from?

Experiments show that the performance of existing state-of-the-art language model–based question answering systems degrades significantly when tested on Disfl-QA and heuristic disfluencies (presented in the paper) in a zero-shot setting.

Dataset   F1
SQuAD   89.59
Heuristics   65.27 (-24.32)
Disfl-QA   61.64 (-27.95)

We show that data augmentation methods partially recover the loss in performance and also demonstrate the efficacy of using human-annotated training data for fine-tuning. We argue that researchers need large-scale disfluency datasets in order for NLP models to be robust to disfluencies.

Conclusion
Understanding language phenomena that are unique to human speech, like disfluencies and temporal reasoning, among others, is a key ingredient for enabling more natural human–machine communication in the near future. With TimeDial and Disfl-QA, we aim to fill a major research gap by providing these datasets as testbeds for NLP models, in order to evaluate their robustness to ubiquitous phenomena across different tasks. It is our hope that the broader NLP community will devise generalized few-shot or zero-shot approaches to effectively handle these phenomena, without requiring task-specific human-annotated training datasets, constructed specifically for these challenges.

Acknowledgments
The TimeDial work has been a team effort involving Lianhui Qi, Luheng He, Yenjin Choi, Manaal Faruqui and the authors. The Disfl-QA work has been a collaboration involving Jiacheng Xu, Diyi Yang, Manaal Faruqui.

Source: Google AI Blog


Two New Datasets for Conversational NLP: TimeDial and Disfl-QA

Posted by Aditya Gupta, Software Engineer and Shyam Upadhyay, Research Scientist, Google Assistant

A key challenge in natural language processing (NLP) is building conversational agents that can understand and reason about different language phenomena that are unique to realistic speech. For example, because people do not always premeditate exactly what they are going to say, a natural conversation often includes interruptions to speech, called disfluencies. Such disfluencies can be simple (like interjections, repetitions, restarts, or corrections), which simply break the continuity of a sentence, or more complex semantic disfluencies, in which the underlying meaning of a phrase changes. In addition, understanding a conversation also often requires knowledge of temporal relationships, like whether an event precedes or follows another. However, conversational agents built on today’s NLP models often struggle when confronted with temporal relationships or with disfluencies, and progress on improving their performance has been slow. This is due, in part, to a lack of datasets that involve such interesting conversational and speech phenomena.

To stir interest in this direction within the research community, we are excited to introduce TimeDial, for temporal commonsense reasoning in dialog, and Disfl-QA, which focuses on contextual disfluencies. TimeDial presents a new multiple choice span filling task targeted for temporal understanding, with an annotated test set of over ~1.1k dialogs. Disfl-QA is the first dataset containing contextual disfluencies in an information seeking setting, namely question answering over Wikipedia passages, with ~12k human annotated disfluent questions. These benchmark datasets are the first of their kind and show a significant gap between human performance and current state of the art NLP models.

TimeDial
While people can effortlessly reason about everyday temporal concepts, such as duration, frequency, or relative ordering of events in a dialog, such tasks can be challenging for conversational agents. For example, current NLP models often make a poor selection when tasked with filling in a blank (as shown below) that assumes a basic level of world knowledge for reasoning, or that requires understanding explicit and implicit inter-dependencies between temporal concepts across conversational turns.

It is easy for a person to judge that “half past one” and “quarter to two” are more plausible options to fill in the blank than “half past three” and “half past nine”. However, performing such temporal reasoning in the context of a dialog is not trivial for NLP models, as it requires appealing to world knowledge (i.e., knowing that the participants are not yet late for the meeting) and understanding the temporal relationship between events (“half past one” is before “three o’clock”, while “half past three” is after it). Indeed, current state-of-the-art models like T5 and BERT end up picking the wrong answers — “half past three” (T5) and “half past nine” (BERT).

The TimeDial benchmark dataset (derived from the DailyDialog multi-turn dialog corpus) measures models’ temporal commonsense reasoning abilities within a dialog context. Each of the ~1.5k dialogs in the dataset is presented in a multiple choice setup, in which one temporal span is masked out and the model is asked to find all correct answers from a list of four options to fill in the blank.

In our experiments we found that while people can easily answer these multiple choice questions (at 97.8% accuracy), state-of-the-art pre-trained language models still struggle on this challenge set. We experiment across three different modeling paradigms: (i) classification over the provided 4 options using BERT, (ii) mask filling for the masked span in the dialog using BERT-MLM, (iii) generative methods using T5. We observe that all the models struggle on this challenge set, with the best variant only scoring 73%.

Model   2-best Accuracy
Human   97.8%
BERT - Classification   50.0%
BERT - Mask Filling   68.5%
T5 - Generation   73.0%

Qualitative error analyses show that the pre-trained language models often rely on shallow, spurious features (particularly text matching), instead of truly doing reasoning over the context. It is likely that building NLP models capable of performing the kind of temporal commonsense reasoning needed for TimeDial requires rethinking how temporal objects are represented within general text representations.

Disfl-QA
As disfluency is inherently a speech phenomenon, it is most commonly found in text output from speech recognition systems. Understanding such disfluent text is key to building conversational agents that understand human speech. Unfortunately, research in the NLP and speech community has been impeded by the lack of curated datasets containing such disfluencies, and the datasets that are available, like Switchboard, are limited in scale and complexity. As a result, it’s difficult to stress test NLP models in the presence of disfluencies.

Disfluency   Example
Interjection   “When is, uh, Easter this year?”
Repetition   “When is Eas … Easter this year?”
Correction   “When is Lent, I mean Easter, this year?”
Restart   “How much, no wait, when is Easter this year?”
Different kinds of disfluencies. The reparandum (words intended to be corrected or ignored; in red), interregnum (optional discourse cues; in grey) and repair (the corrected words; in blue).

Disfl-QA is the first dataset containing contextual disfluencies in an information seeking setting, namely question answering over Wikipedia passages from SQuAD. Disfl-QA is a targeted dataset for disfluencies, in which all questions (~12k) contain disfluencies, making for a much larger disfluent test set than prior datasets. Over 90% of the disfluencies in Disfl-QA are corrections or restarts, making it a much more difficult test set for disfluency correction. In addition, compared to earlier disfluency datasets, it contains a wider variety of semantic distractors, i.e., distractors that carry semantic meaning as opposed to simpler speech disfluencies. 

Passage: …The Normans (Norman: Nourmands; French: Normands; Latin: Normanni) were the people who in the 10th and 11th centuries gave their name to Normandy, a region in France. They were descended from Norse ("Norman" comes from "Norseman") raiders and pirates from Denmark, Iceland and Norway who, under their leader Rollo, …
Q1:   In what country is Normandy located? France ✓
DQ1:   In what country is Norse found no wait Normandy not Norse? Denmark X
Q2:   When were the Normans in Normandy? 10th and 11th centuries ✓
DQ2:   From which countries no tell me when were the Normans in Normandy? Denmark, Iceland and Norway X
A passage and questions (Qi) from SQuAD dataset, along with their disfluent versions (DQi), consisting of semantic distractors (like “Norse” and “from which countries”) and predictions from a T5 model.

Here, the first question (Q1) is seeking an answer about the location of Normandy. In the disfluent version (DQ1) Norse is mentioned before the question is corrected. The presence of this correctional disfluency confuses the QA model, which tends to rely on shallow textual cues from the question for making predictions.

Disfl-QA also includes newer phenomena, such as coreference (expression referring to the same entity) between the reparandum and the repair.

SQuAD  Disfl-QA
Who does BSkyB have an operating license from?  Who removed [BSkyB’s] operating license, no scratch that, who do [they] have [their] operating license from?

Experiments show that the performance of existing state-of-the-art language model–based question answering systems degrades significantly when tested on Disfl-QA and heuristic disfluencies (presented in the paper) in a zero-shot setting.

Dataset   F1
SQuAD   89.59
Heuristics   65.27 (-24.32)
Disfl-QA   61.64 (-27.95)

We show that data augmentation methods partially recover the loss in performance and also demonstrate the efficacy of using human-annotated training data for fine-tuning. We argue that researchers need large-scale disfluency datasets in order for NLP models to be robust to disfluencies.

Conclusion
Understanding language phenomena that are unique to human speech, like disfluencies and temporal reasoning, among others, is a key ingredient for enabling more natural human–machine communication in the near future. With TimeDial and Disfl-QA, we aim to fill a major research gap by providing these datasets as testbeds for NLP models, in order to evaluate their robustness to ubiquitous phenomena across different tasks. It is our hope that the broader NLP community will devise generalized few-shot or zero-shot approaches to effectively handle these phenomena, without requiring task-specific human-annotated training datasets, constructed specifically for these challenges.

Acknowledgments
The TimeDial work has been a team effort involving Lianhui Qi, Luheng He, Yenjin Choi, Manaal Faruqui and the authors. The Disfl-QA work has been a collaboration involving Jiacheng Xu, Diyi Yang, Manaal Faruqui.

Source: Google AI Blog


Constructing Transformers For Longer Sequences with Sparse Attention Methods

Posted by Avinava Dubey, Research Scientist, Google Research

Natural language processing (NLP) models based on Transformers, such as BERT, RoBERTa, T5, or GPT3, are successful for a wide variety of tasks and a mainstay of modern NLP research. The versatility and robustness of Transformers are the primary drivers behind their wide-scale adoption, leading them to be easily adapted for a diverse range of sequence-based tasks — as a seq2seq model for translation, summarization, generation, and others, or as a standalone encoder for sentiment analysis, POS tagging, machine reading comprehension, etc. The key innovation in Transformers is the introduction of a self-attention mechanism, which computes similarity scores for all pairs of positions in an input sequence, and can be evaluated in parallel for each token of the input sequence, avoiding the sequential dependency of recurrent neural networks, and enabling Transformers to vastly outperform previous sequence models like LSTM.

A limitation of existing Transformer models and their derivatives, however, is that the full self-attention mechanism has computational and memory requirements that are quadratic with the input sequence length. With commonly available current hardware and model sizes, this typically limits the input sequence to roughly 512 tokens, and prevents Transformers from being directly applicable to tasks that require larger context, like question answering, document summarization or genome fragment classification. Two natural questions arise: 1) Can we achieve the empirical benefits of quadratic full Transformers using sparse models with computational and memory requirements that scale linearly with the input sequence length? 2) Is it possible to show theoretically that these linear Transformers preserve the expressivity and flexibility of the quadratic full Transformers?

We address both of these questions in a recent pair of papers. In “ETC: Encoding Long and Structured Inputs in Transformers”, presented at EMNLP 2020, we present the Extended Transformer Construction (ETC), which is a novel method for sparse attention, in which one uses structural information to limit the number of computed pairs of similarity scores. This reduces the quadratic dependency on input length to linear and yields strong empirical results in the NLP domain. Then, in “Big Bird: Transformers for Longer Sequences”, presented at NeurIPS 2020, we introduce another sparse attention method, called BigBird that extends ETC to more generic scenarios where prerequisite domain knowledge about structure present in the source data may be unavailable. Moreover, we also show that theoretically our proposed sparse attention mechanism preserves the expressivity and flexibility of the quadratic full Transformers. Our proposed methods achieve a new state of the art on challenging long-sequence tasks, including question answering, document summarization and genome fragment classification.

Attention as a Graph
The attention module used in Transformer models computes similarity scores for all pairs of positions in an input sequence. It is useful to think of the attention mechanism as a directed graph, with tokens represented by nodes and the similarity score computed between a pair of tokens represented by an edge. In this view, the full attention model is a complete graph. The core idea behind our approach is to carefully design sparse graphs, such that one only computes a linear number of similarity scores.

Full attention can be viewed as a complete graph.

Extended Transformer Construction (ETC)
On NLP tasks that require long and structured inputs, we propose a structured sparse attention mechanism, which we call Extended Transformer Construction (ETC). To achieve structured sparsification of self attention, we developed the global-local attention mechanism. Here the input to the Transformer is split into two parts: a global input where tokens have unrestricted attention, and a long input where tokens can only attend to either the global input or to a local neighborhood. This achieves linear scaling of attention, which allows ETC to significantly scale input length.

In order to further exploit the structure of long documents, ETC combines additional ideas: representing the positional information of the tokens in a relative way, rather than using their absolute position in the sequence; using an additional training objective beyond the usual masked language model (MLM) used in models like BERT; and flexible masking of tokens to control which tokens can attend to which other tokens. For example, given a long selection of text, a global token is applied to each sentence, which connects to all tokens within the sentence, and a global token is also applied to each paragraph, which connects to all tokens within the same paragraph.

An example of document structure based sparse attention of ETC model. The global variables are denoted by C (in blue) for paragraph, S (yellow) for sentence while the local variables are denoted by X (grey) for tokens corresponding to the long input.

With this approach, we report state-of-the-art results in five challenging NLP datasets requiring long or structured inputs: TriviaQA, Natural Questions (NQ), HotpotQA, WikiHop, and OpenKP.

Test set result on Question Answering. For both verified TriviaQA and WikiHop, using ETC achieved a new state of the art.

BigBird
Extending the work of ETC, we propose BigBird — a sparse attention mechanism that is also linear in the number of tokens and is a generic replacement for the attention mechanism used in Transformers. In contrast to ETC, BigBird doesn’t require any prerequisite knowledge about structure present in the source data. Sparse attention in the BigBird model consists of three main parts:

  • A set of global tokens attending to all parts of the input sequence
  • All tokens attending to a set of local neighboring tokens
  • All tokens attending to a set of random tokens
BigBird sparse attention can be seen as adding few global tokens on Watts-Strogatz graph.

In the BigBird paper, we explain why sparse attention is sufficient to approximate quadratic attention, partially explaining why ETC was successful. A crucial observation is that there is an inherent tension between how few similarity scores one computes and the flow of information between different nodes (i.e., the ability of one token to influence each other). Global tokens serve as a conduit for information flow and we prove that sparse attention mechanisms with global tokens can be as powerful as the full attention model. In particular, we show that BigBird is as expressive as the original Transformer, is computationally universal (following the work of Yun et al. and Perez et al.), and is a universal approximator of continuous functions. Furthermore, our proof suggests that the use of random graphs can further help ease the flow of information — motivating the use of the random attention component.

This design scales to much longer sequence lengths for both structured and unstructured tasks. Further scaling can be achieved by using gradient checkpointing by trading off training time for sequence length. This lets us extend our efficient sparse transformers to include generative tasks that require an encoder and a decoder, such as long document summarization, on which we achieve a new state of the art.

Summarization ROUGE score for long documents. Both for BigPatent and ArXiv datasets, we achieve a new state of the art result.

Moreover, the fact that BigBird is a generic replacement also allows it to be extended to new domains without pre-existing domain knowledge. In particular, we introduce a novel application of Transformer-based models where long contexts are beneficial — extracting contextual representations of genomic sequences (DNA). With longer masked language model pre-training, BigBird achieves state-of-the-art performance on downstream tasks, such as promoter-region prediction and chromatin profile prediction.

On multiple genomics tasks, such as promoter region prediction (PRP), chromatin-profile prediction including transcription factors (TF), histone-mark (HM) and DNase I hypersensitive (DHS) detection, we outperform baselines. Moreover our results show that Transformer models can be applied to multiple genomics tasks that are currently underexplored.

Main Implementation Idea
One of the main impediments to the large scale adoption of sparse attention is the fact that sparse operations are quite inefficient in modern hardware. Behind both ETC and BigBird, one of our key innovations is to make an efficient implementation of the sparse attention mechanism. As modern hardware accelerators like GPUs and TPUs excel using coalesced memory operations, which load blocks of contiguous bytes at once, it is not efficient to have small sporadic look-ups caused by a sliding window (for local attention) or random element queries (random attention). Instead we transform the sparse local and random attention into dense tensor operations to take full advantage of modern single instruction, multiple data (SIMD) hardware.

To do this, we first “blockify” the attention mechanism to better leverage GPUs/TPUs, which are designed to operate on blocks. Then we convert the sparse attention mechanism computation into a dense tensor product through a series of simple matrix operations such as reshape, roll, and gather, as illustrated in the animation below.

Illustration of how sparse window attention is efficiently computed using roll and reshape, and without small sporadic look-ups.

Recently, “Long Range Arena: A Benchmark for Efficient Transformers“ provided a benchmark of six tasks that require longer context, and performed experiments to benchmark all existing long range transformers. The results show that the BigBird model, unlike its counterparts, clearly reduces memory consumption without sacrificing performance.

Conclusion
We show that carefully designed sparse attention can be as expressive and flexible as the original full attention model. Along with theoretical guarantees, we provide a very efficient implementation which allows us to scale to much longer inputs. As a consequence, we achieve state-of-the-art results for question answering, document summarization and genome fragment classification. Given the generic nature of our sparse attention, the approach should be applicable to many other tasks like program synthesis and long form open domain question answering. We have open sourced the code for both ETC (github) and BigBird (github), both of which run efficiently for long sequences on both GPUs and TPUs.

Acknowledgements
This research resulted as a collaboration with Amr Ahmed, Joshua Ainslie, Chris Alberti, Vaclav Cvicek, Avinava Dubey, Zachary Fisher, Guru Guruganesh, Santiago Ontañón, Philip Pham, Anirudh Ravula, Sumit Sanghai, Qifan Wang, Li Yang, Manzil Zaheer, who co-authored EMNLP and NeurIPS papers.

Source: Google AI Blog


Constructing Transformers For Longer Sequences with Sparse Attention Methods

Posted by Avinava Dubey, Research Scientist, Google Research

Natural language processing (NLP) models based on Transformers, such as BERT, RoBERTa, T5, or GPT3, are successful for a wide variety of tasks and a mainstay of modern NLP research. The versatility and robustness of Transformers are the primary drivers behind their wide-scale adoption, leading them to be easily adapted for a diverse range of sequence-based tasks — as a seq2seq model for translation, summarization, generation, and others, or as a standalone encoder for sentiment analysis, POS tagging, machine reading comprehension, etc. The key innovation in Transformers is the introduction of a self-attention mechanism, which computes similarity scores for all pairs of positions in an input sequence, and can be evaluated in parallel for each token of the input sequence, avoiding the sequential dependency of recurrent neural networks, and enabling Transformers to vastly outperform previous sequence models like LSTM.

A limitation of existing Transformer models and their derivatives, however, is that the full self-attention mechanism has computational and memory requirements that are quadratic with the input sequence length. With commonly available current hardware and model sizes, this typically limits the input sequence to roughly 512 tokens, and prevents Transformers from being directly applicable to tasks that require larger context, like question answering, document summarization or genome fragment classification. Two natural questions arise: 1) Can we achieve the empirical benefits of quadratic full Transformers using sparse models with computational and memory requirements that scale linearly with the input sequence length? 2) Is it possible to show theoretically that these linear Transformers preserve the expressivity and flexibility of the quadratic full Transformers?

We address both of these questions in a recent pair of papers. In “ETC: Encoding Long and Structured Inputs in Transformers”, presented at EMNLP 2020, we present the Extended Transformer Construction (ETC), which is a novel method for sparse attention, in which one uses structural information to limit the number of computed pairs of similarity scores. This reduces the quadratic dependency on input length to linear and yields strong empirical results in the NLP domain. Then, in “Big Bird: Transformers for Longer Sequences”, presented at NeurIPS 2020, we introduce another sparse attention method, called BigBird that extends ETC to more generic scenarios where prerequisite domain knowledge about structure present in the source data may be unavailable. Moreover, we also show that theoretically our proposed sparse attention mechanism preserves the expressivity and flexibility of the quadratic full Transformers. Our proposed methods achieve a new state of the art on challenging long-sequence tasks, including question answering, document summarization and genome fragment classification.

Attention as a Graph
The attention module used in Transformer models computes similarity scores for all pairs of positions in an input sequence. It is useful to think of the attention mechanism as a directed graph, with tokens represented by nodes and the similarity score computed between a pair of tokens represented by an edge. In this view, the full attention model is a complete graph. The core idea behind our approach is to carefully design sparse graphs, such that one only computes a linear number of similarity scores.

Full attention can be viewed as a complete graph.

Extended Transformer Construction (ETC)
On NLP tasks that require long and structured inputs, we propose a structured sparse attention mechanism, which we call Extended Transformer Construction (ETC). To achieve structured sparsification of self attention, we developed the global-local attention mechanism. Here the input to the Transformer is split into two parts: a global input where tokens have unrestricted attention, and a long input where tokens can only attend to either the global input or to a local neighborhood. This achieves linear scaling of attention, which allows ETC to significantly scale input length.

In order to further exploit the structure of long documents, ETC combines additional ideas: representing the positional information of the tokens in a relative way, rather than using their absolute position in the sequence; using an additional training objective beyond the usual masked language model (MLM) used in models like BERT; and flexible masking of tokens to control which tokens can attend to which other tokens. For example, given a long selection of text, a global token is applied to each sentence, which connects to all tokens within the sentence, and a global token is also applied to each paragraph, which connects to all tokens within the same paragraph.

An example of document structure based sparse attention of ETC model. The global variables are denoted by C (in blue) for paragraph, S (yellow) for sentence while the local variables are denoted by X (grey) for tokens corresponding to the long input.

With this approach, we report state-of-the-art results in five challenging NLP datasets requiring long or structured inputs: TriviaQA, Natural Questions (NQ), HotpotQA, WikiHop, and OpenKP.

Test set result on Question Answering. For both verified TriviaQA and WikiHop, using ETC achieved a new state of the art.

BigBird
Extending the work of ETC, we propose BigBird — a sparse attention mechanism that is also linear in the number of tokens and is a generic replacement for the attention mechanism used in Transformers. In contrast to ETC, BigBird doesn’t require any prerequisite knowledge about structure present in the source data. Sparse attention in the BigBird model consists of three main parts:

  • A set of global tokens attending to all parts of the input sequence
  • All tokens attending to a set of local neighboring tokens
  • All tokens attending to a set of random tokens
BigBird sparse attention can be seen as adding few global tokens on Watts-Strogatz graph.

In the BigBird paper, we explain why sparse attention is sufficient to approximate quadratic attention, partially explaining why ETC was successful. A crucial observation is that there is an inherent tension between how few similarity scores one computes and the flow of information between different nodes (i.e., the ability of one token to influence each other). Global tokens serve as a conduit for information flow and we prove that sparse attention mechanisms with global tokens can be as powerful as the full attention model. In particular, we show that BigBird is as expressive as the original Transformer, is computationally universal (following the work of Yun et al. and Perez et al.), and is a universal approximator of continuous functions. Furthermore, our proof suggests that the use of random graphs can further help ease the flow of information — motivating the use of the random attention component.

This design scales to much longer sequence lengths for both structured and unstructured tasks. Further scaling can be achieved by using gradient checkpointing by trading off training time for sequence length. This lets us extend our efficient sparse transformers to include generative tasks that require an encoder and a decoder, such as long document summarization, on which we achieve a new state of the art.

Summarization ROUGE score for long documents. Both for BigPatent and ArXiv datasets, we achieve a new state of the art result.

Moreover, the fact that BigBird is a generic replacement also allows it to be extended to new domains without pre-existing domain knowledge. In particular, we introduce a novel application of Transformer-based models where long contexts are beneficial — extracting contextual representations of genomic sequences (DNA). With longer masked language model pre-training, BigBird achieves state-of-the-art performance on downstream tasks, such as promoter-region prediction and chromatin profile prediction.

On multiple genomics tasks, such as promoter region prediction (PRP), chromatin-profile prediction including transcription factors (TF), histone-mark (HM) and DNase I hypersensitive (DHS) detection, we outperform baselines. Moreover our results show that Transformer models can be applied to multiple genomics tasks that are currently underexplored.

Main Implementation Idea
One of the main impediments to the large scale adoption of sparse attention is the fact that sparse operations are quite inefficient in modern hardware. Behind both ETC and BigBird, one of our key innovations is to make an efficient implementation of the sparse attention mechanism. As modern hardware accelerators like GPUs and TPUs excel using coalesced memory operations, which load blocks of contiguous bytes at once, it is not efficient to have small sporadic look-ups caused by a sliding window (for local attention) or random element queries (random attention). Instead we transform the sparse local and random attention into dense tensor operations to take full advantage of modern single instruction, multiple data (SIMD) hardware.

To do this, we first “blockify” the attention mechanism to better leverage GPUs/TPUs, which are designed to operate on blocks. Then we convert the sparse attention mechanism computation into a dense tensor product through a series of simple matrix operations such as reshape, roll, and gather, as illustrated in the animation below.

Illustration of how sparse window attention is efficiently computed using roll and reshape, and without small sporadic look-ups.

Recently, “Long Range Arena: A Benchmark for Efficient Transformers“ provided a benchmark of six tasks that require longer context, and performed experiments to benchmark all existing long range transformers. The results show that the BigBird model, unlike its counterparts, clearly reduces memory consumption without sacrificing performance.

Conclusion
We show that carefully designed sparse attention can be as expressive and flexible as the original full attention model. Along with theoretical guarantees, we provide a very efficient implementation which allows us to scale to much longer inputs. As a consequence, we achieve state-of-the-art results for question answering, document summarization and genome fragment classification. Given the generic nature of our sparse attention, the approach should be applicable to many other tasks like program synthesis and long form open domain question answering. We have open sourced the code for both ETC (github) and BigBird (github), both of which run efficiently for long sequences on both GPUs and TPUs.

Acknowledgements
This research resulted as a collaboration with Amr Ahmed, Joshua Ainslie, Chris Alberti, Vaclav Cvicek, Avinava Dubey, Zachary Fisher, Guru Guruganesh, Santiago Ontañón, Philip Pham, Anirudh Ravula, Sumit Sanghai, Qifan Wang, Li Yang, Manzil Zaheer, who co-authored EMNLP and NeurIPS papers.

Source: Google AI Blog


RxR: A Multilingual Benchmark for Navigation Instruction Following

Posted by Alexander Ku, Software Engineer and Peter Anderson, Research Scientist, Google Research

A core challenge in machine learning (ML) is to build agents that can navigate complex human environments in response to spoken or written commands. While today’s agents, including robots, can often navigate complicated environments, they cannot yet understand navigation goals expressed in natural language, such as, “Go past the brown double doors that are closed to your right and stand behind the chair at the head of the table.”

This challenge, referred to as vision-and-language navigation (VLN), demands a sophisticated understanding of spatial language. For example, the ability to identify the position “behind the chair at the head of the table” requires finding the table, identifying which part of the table is considered to be the “head”, finding the chair closest to the head, identifying the area behind this chair and so on. While people can follow these instructions easily, these challenges cannot be easily solved with current ML-based methods, requiring systems that can better connect language to the physical world it describes.

To help spur progress in this area, we are excited to introduce Room-Across-Room (RxR), a new dataset for VLN. Described in “Room-Across-Room: Multilingual Vision-and-Language Navigation with Dense Spatiotemporal Grounding”, RxR is the first multilingual dataset for VLN, containing 126,069 human-annotated navigation instructions in three typologically diverse languages — English, Hindi and Telugu. Each instruction describes a path through a photorealistic simulator populated with indoor environments from the Matterport3D dataset, which includes 3D captures of homes, offices and public buildings. To track progress on VLN, we are also announcing the RxR Challenge, a competition that encourages the machine learning community to train and evaluate their own instruction following agents on RxR instructions.

Language Instruction
en-US Starting next to the long dining room table, turn so the table is to your right. Walk towards the glass double doors. When you reach the mat before the doors, turn immediately left and walk down the stairs. When you reach the bottom of the stairs, walk through the open doors to your left and continue through the art exhibit with the tub to your right hand side. Down the length of the table until you reach the small step at the end of the room before you reach the tub and stop.
  
hi-IN अभी हमारे बायीं ओर एक बड़ा मेज़ है कुछ कुर्सियाँ हैं और कुछ दीपक मेज़ के ऊपर रखे हैं। उलटी दिशा में घूम जाएँ और सिधा चलें। अभी हमारे दायीं ओर एक गोल मेज़ है वहां से सीधा बढ़ें और सामने एक शीशे का बंद दरवाज़ा है उससे पहले बायीं ओर एक सीढ़ी है उससे निचे उतरें। निचे उतरने के बाद दायीं ओर मुड़े और एक भूरे रंग के दरवाज़े से अंदर प्रवेश करें और सीधा चलें। अभी हमारे दायीं ओर एक बड़ा मेज़ है और दो कुर्सियां राखी हैं सीधा आगे बढ़ें। हमारे सामने एक पानी का कल है और सामने तीन कुर्सियां दिवार के पास रखी हैं यहीं पर ठहर जाएँ।
  
te-IN ఉన్న చోటు నుండి వెనకకు తిరిగి, నేరుగా వెళ్తే, మీ ముందర ఒక బల్ల ఉంటుంది. దాన్ని దాటుకొని ఎడమవైపుకి తిరిగితే, మీ ముందర మెట్లు ఉంటాయి. వాటిని పూర్తిగా దిగండి. ఇప్పుడు మీ ముందర రెండు తెరిచిన ద్వారాలు ఉంటాయి. ఎడమవైపు ఉన్న ద్వారం గుండా బయటకు వెళ్ళి, నేరుగా నడవండి. ఇప్పుడు మీ కుడివైపున పొడవైన బల్ల ఉంటుంది. దాన్ని దాటుకొని ముందరే ఉన్న మెట్ల వద్దకు వెళ్ళి ఆగండి.

Examples of English, Hindi and Telugu navigation instructions from the RxR dataset. Each navigation instruction describes the same path.

Pose Traces
In addition to navigation instructions and paths, RxR also includes a new, more detailed multimodal annotation called a pose trace. Inspired by the mouse traces captured in the Localized Narratives dataset, pose traces provide dense groundings between language, vision and movement in a rich 3D setting. To generate navigation instructions, we ask guide annotators to move along a path in the simulator while narrating the path based on the surroundings. The pose trace is a record of everything the guide sees along the path, time-aligned with the words in the navigation instructions. These traces are then paired with pose traces from follower annotators, who are tasked with following the intended path by listening to the guide’s audio, thereby validating the quality of the navigation instructions. Pose traces implicitly capture notions of landmark selection and visual saliency, and represent a play-by-play account of how to solve the navigation instruction generation task (for guides) and the navigation instruction following task (for followers).

Example English navigation instruction in the RxR dataset. Words in the instruction text (right) are color-coded to align with the pose trace (left) that illustrates the movements and visual percepts of the guide annotator as they move through the environment describing the path.
The same RxR example with words in the navigation instruction aligned to 360° images along the path. The parts of the scene the guide annotator observed are highlighted; parts of the scene ignored by the annotator are faded. Red and yellow boxes highlight some of the close alignments between the textual instructions and the annotator's visual cues. The red cross indicates the next direction the annotator moved.

Scale
In total, RxR contains almost 10 million words, making it around 10 times larger than existing datasets, such as R2R and Touchdown/Retouchdown. This is important because, in comparison to tasks based on static image and text data, language tasks that require learning through movement or interaction with an environment typically suffer from a lack of large-scale training data. RxR also addresses known biases in the construction of the paths that have arisen in other datasets, such as R2R in which all paths have similar lengths and take the shortest route to the goal. In contrast, the paths in RxR are on average longer and less predictable, making them more challenging to follow and encouraging models trained on the dataset to place greater emphasis on the role of language in the task. The size, scope and detail of RxR will expand the frontier for research on grounded language learning while reducing the dominance of high resource languages such as English.

Left: RxR is an order of magnitude larger than similar existing datasets. Right: Compared to R2R, the paths in RxR are typically longer and less predictable, making them more challenging to follow.

Baselines
To better characterize and understand the RxR dataset, we trained a variety of agents on RxR using our open source framework VALAN, and language representations from the multilingual BERT model. We found that results were improved by including follower annotations as well as guide annotations during training, and that independently trained monolingual agents outperformed a single multilingual agent.

Conceptually, evaluation of these agents is straightforward — did the agent follow the intended path? Empirically, we measure the similarity between the path taken by the VLN agent and the reference path using NDTW, a normalized measure of path fidelity that ranges between 100 (perfect correspondence) and 0 (completely wrong). The average score for the follower annotators across all three languages is 79.5, due to natural variation between similar paths. In contrast, the best model (a composite of three independently trained monolingual agents, one for each language) achieved an NDTW score on the RxR test set of 41.5. While this is much better than random (15.4), it remains far below human performance. Although advances in language modeling continue to rapidly erode the headroom for improvement in text-only language understanding benchmarks such as GLUE and SuperGLUE, benchmarks like RxR that connect language to the physical world offer substantial room for improvement.

Results for our multilingual and monolingual instruction following agents on the RxR test-standard split. While performance is much better than a random walk, there remains considerable headroom to reach human performance on this task.

Competition
To encourage further research in this area, we are launching the RxR Challenge, an ongoing competition for the machine learning community to develop computational agents that can follow natural language navigation instructions. To take part, participants upload the navigation paths taken by their agent in response to the provided RxR test instructions. In the most difficult setting (reported here and in the paper), all the test environments are previously unseen. However, we also allow for settings in which the agent is either trained in or explores the test environments in advance. For more details and the latest results please visit the challenge website.

PanGEA
We are also releasing the custom web-based annotation tool that we developed to collect the RxR dataset. The Panoramic Graph Environment Annotation toolkit (PanGEA), is a lightweight and customizable codebase for collecting speech and text annotations in panoramic graph environments, such as Matterport3D and StreetLearn. It includes speech recording and virtual pose tracking, as well as tooling to align the resulting pose trace with a manual transcript. For more details please visit the PanGEA github page.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Roma Patel, Eugene Ie and Jason Baldridge for their contributions to this research. We would also like to thank all the annotators, Sneha Kudugunta for analyzing the Telugu annotations, and Igor Karpov, Ashwin Kakarla and Christina Liu for their tooling and annotation support for this project, Austin Waters and Su Wang for help with image features, and Daphne Luong for executive support for the data collection.

Source: Google AI Blog