Tag Archives: Computer Vision

Look and Talk: Natural Conversations with Google Assistant

Posted by Tuan Anh Nguyen, Google Assistant and Sourish Chaudhuri, Google Research

In natural conversations, we don't say people's names every time we speak to each other. Instead, we rely on contextual signaling mechanisms to initiate conversations, and eye contact is often all it takes. Google Assistant, now available in more than 95 countries and over 29 languages, has primarily relied on a hotword mechanism ("Hey Google" or “OK Google”) to help more than 700 million people every month get things done across Assistant devices. As virtual assistants become an integral part of our everyday lives, we're developing ways to initiate conversations more naturally.

At Google I/O 2022, we announced Look and Talk, a major development in our journey to create natural and intuitive ways to interact with Google Assistant-powered home devices. This is the first multimodal, on-device Assistant feature that simultaneously analyzes audio, video, and text to determine when you are speaking to your Nest Hub Max. Using eight machine learning models together, the algorithm can differentiate intentional interactions from passing glances in order to accurately identify a user's intent to engage with Assistant. Once within 5ft of the device, the user may simply look at the screen and talk to start interacting with the Assistant.

We developed Look and Talk in alignment with our AI Principles. It meets our strict audio and video processing requirements, and like our other camera sensing features, video never leaves the device. You can always stop, review and delete your Assistant activity at myactivity.google.com. These added layers of protection enable Look and Talk to work just for those who turn it on, while keeping your data safe.

Google Assistant relies on a number of signals to accurately determine when the user is speaking to it. On the right is a list of signals used with indicators showing when each signal is triggered based on the user's proximity to the device and gaze direction.

Modeling Challenges
The journey of this feature began as a technical prototype built on top of models developed for academic research. Deployment at scale, however, required solving real-world challenges unique to this feature. It had to:

Support a range of demographic characteristics (e.g., age, skin tones).
Adapt to the ambient diversity of the real world, including challenging lighting (e.g., backlighting, shadow patterns) and acoustic conditions (e.g., reverberation, background noise).
Deal with unusual camera perspectives, since smart displays are commonly used as countertop devices and look up at the user(s), unlike the frontal faces typically used in research datasets to train models.
Run in real-time to ensure timely responses while processing video on-device.

The evolution of the algorithm involved experiments with approaches ranging from domain adaptation and personalization to domain-specific dataset development, field-testing and feedback, and repeated tuning of the overall algorithm.

Technology Overview
A Look and Talk interaction has three phases. In the first phase, Assistant uses visual signals to detect when a user is demonstrating an intent to engage with it and then “wakes up” to listen to their utterance. The second phase is designed to further validate and understand the user’s intent using visual and acoustic signals. If any signal in the first or second processing phases indicates that it isn't an Assistant query, Assistant returns to standby mode. These two phases are the core Look and Talk functionality, and are discussed below. The third phase of query fulfillment is typical query flow, and is beyond the scope of this blog.

Phase One: Engaging with Assistant
The first phase of Look and Talk is designed to assess whether an enrolled user is intentionally engaging with Assistant. Look and Talk uses face detection to identify the user’s presence, filters for proximity using the detected face box size to infer distance, and then uses the existing Face Match system to determine whether they are enrolled Look and Talk users.

For an enrolled user within range, an custom eye gaze model determines whether they are looking at the device. This model estimates both the gaze angle and a binary gaze-on-camera confidence from image frames using a multi-tower convolutional neural network architecture, with one tower processing the whole face and another processing patches around the eyes. Since the device screen covers a region underneath the camera that would be natural for a user to look at, we map the gaze angle and binary gaze-on-camera prediction to the device screen area. To ensure that the final prediction is resilient to spurious individual predictions and involuntary eye blinks and saccades, we apply a smoothing function to the individual frame-based predictions to remove spurious individual predictions.

Eye-gaze prediction and post-processing overview.

We enforce stricter attention requirements before informing users that the system is ready for interaction to minimize false triggers, e.g., when a passing user briefly glances at the device. Once the user looking at the device starts speaking, we relax the attention requirement, allowing the user to naturally shift their gaze.

The final signal necessary in this processing phase checks that the Face Matched user is the active speaker. This is provided by a multimodal active speaker detection model that takes as input both video of the user’s face and the audio containing speech, and predicts whether they are speaking. A number of augmentation techniques (including RandAugment, SpecAugment, and augmenting with AudioSet sounds) helps improve prediction quality for the in-home domain, boosting end-feature performance by over 10%.The final deployed model is a quantized, hardware-accelerated TFLite model, which uses five frames of context for the visual input and 0.5 seconds for the audio input.

Active speaker detection model overview: The two-tower audiovisual model provides the “speaking” probability prediction for the face. The visual network auxiliary prediction pushes the visual network to be as good as possible on its own, improving the final multimodal prediction.

Phase Two: Assistant Starts Listening
In phase two, the system starts listening to the content of the user’s query, still entirely on-device, to further assess whether the interaction is intended for Assistant using additional signals. First, Look and Talk uses Voice Match to further ensure that the speaker is enrolled and matches the earlier Face Match signal. Then, it runs a state-of-the-art automatic speech recognition model on-device to transcribe the utterance.

The next critical processing step is the intent understanding algorithm, which predicts whether the user’s utterance was intended to be an Assistant query. This has two parts: 1) a model that analyzes the non-lexical information in the audio (i.e., pitch, speed, hesitation sounds) to determine whether the utterance sounds like an Assistant query, and 2) a text analysis model that determines whether the transcript is an Assistant request. Together, these filter out queries not intended for Assistant. It also uses contextual visual signals to determine the likelihood that the interaction was intended for Assistant.

Overview of the semantic filtering approach to determine if a user utterance is a query intended for the Assistant.

Finally, when the intent understanding model determines that the user utterance was likely meant for Assistant, Look and Talk moves into the fulfillment phase where it communicates with the Assistant server to obtain a response to the user’s intent and query text.

Performance, Personalization and UX
Each model that supports Look and Talk was evaluated and improved in isolation and then tested in the end-to-end Look and Talk system. The huge variety of ambient conditions in which Look and Talk operates necessitates the introduction of personalization parameters for algorithm robustness. By using signals obtained during the user’s hotword-based interactions, the system personalizes parameters to individual users to deliver improvements over the generalized global model. This personalization also runs entirely on-device.

Without a predefined hotword as a proxy for user intent, latency was a significant concern for Look and Talk. Often, a strong enough interaction signal does not occur until well after the user has started speaking, which can add hundreds of milliseconds of latency, and existing models for intent understanding add to this since they require complete, not partial, queries. To bridge this gap, Look and Talk completely forgoes streaming audio to the server, with transcription and intent understanding being on-device. The intent understanding models can work off of partial utterances. This results in an end-to-end latency comparable with current hotword-based systems.

The UI experience is based on user research to provide well-balanced visual feedback with high learnability. This is illustrated in the figure below.

Left: The spatial interaction diagram of a user engaging with Look and Talk. Right: The User Interface (UI) experience.

We developed a diverse video dataset with over 3,000 participants to test the feature across demographic subgroups. Modeling improvements driven by diversity in our training data improved performance for all subgroups.

Conclusion
Look and Talk represents a significant step toward making user engagement with Google Assistant as natural as possible. While this is a key milestone in our journey, we hope this will be the first of many improvements to our interaction paradigms that will continue to reimagine the Google Assistant experience responsibly. Our goal is to make getting help feel natural and easy, ultimately saving time so users can focus on what matters most.

Acknowledgements
This work involved collaborative efforts from a multidisciplinary team of software engineers, researchers, UX, and cross-functional contributors. Key contributors from Google Assistant include Alexey Galata, Alice Chuang‎, Barbara Wang, Britanie Hall, Gabriel Leblanc, Gloria McGee, Hideaki Matsui, James Zanoni, Joanna (Qiong) Huang, Krunal Shah, Kavitha Kandappan, Pedro Silva, Tanya Sinha, Tuan Nguyen, Vishal Desai, Will Truong‎, Yixing Cai‎, Yunfan Ye; from Research including Hao Wu, Joseph Roth, Sagar Savla, Sourish Chaudhuri, Susanna Ricco. Thanks to Yuan Yuan and Caroline Pantofaru for their leadership, and everyone on the Nest, Assistant, and Research teams who provided invaluable input toward the development of Look and Talk.

Source: Google AI Blog

Rewriting Image Captions for Visual Question Answering Data Creation

Posted by Soravit Beer Changpinyo and Doron Kukliansky‎, Senior Software Engineers, Google Research

Visual Question Answering (VQA) is a useful machine learning (ML) task that requires a model to answer a visual question about an image. What makes it challenging is its multi-task and open-ended nature; it involves solving multiple technical research questions in computer vision and natural language understanding simultaneously. Yet, progress on this task would enable a wide range of applications, from assisting the blind and the visually-impaired or communicating with robots to enhancing the user’s visual experience with external knowledge.

Effective and robust VQA systems cannot exist without high-quality, semantically and stylistically diverse large-scale training data of image-question-answer triplets. But, creating such data is time consuming and onerous. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the VQA community has focused more on sophisticated model development rather than scalable data creation.

In “All You May Need for VQA are Image Captions,” published at NAACL 2022, we explore VQA data generation by proposing “Visual Question Generation with Question Answering Validation” (VQ²A), a pipeline that works by rewriting a declarative caption into multiple interrogative question-answer pairs. More specifically, we leverage two existing assets — (i) large-scale image-text data and (ii) large-capacity neural text-to-text models — to achieve automatic VQA data generation. As the field has progressed, the research community has been making these assets larger and stronger in isolation (for general purposes such as learning text-only or image-text representations); together, they can achieve more and we adapt them for VQA data creation purposes. We find our approach can generate question-answer pairs with high precision and that this data can successfully be used for training VQA models to improve performance.

The VQ²A technique enables VQA data generation at scale from image captions by rewriting each caption into multiple question-answer pairs.

VQ²A Overview
The first step of the VQ²A approach is to apply heuristics based on named entity recognition, part-of-speech tagging and manually defined rules to generate answer candidates from the image caption. These generated candidates are small pieces of information that may be relevant subjects about which to ask questions. We also add to this list two default answers, “yes” and “no”, which allow us to generate Boolean questions.

Then, we use a T5 model that was fine-tuned to generate questions for the candidate, resulting in [question, candidate answer] pairs. We then filter for the highest quality pairs using another T5 model (fine-tuned to answer questions) by asking it to answer the question based on the caption. was . That is, we compare the candidate answer to the output of this model and if the two answers are similar enough, we define this question as high quality and keep it. Otherwise, we filter it out.

The idea of using both question answering and question generation models to check each other for their round-trip consistency has been previously explored in other contexts. For instance, Q² uses this idea to evaluate factual consistency in knowledge-grounded dialogues. In the end, the VQ²A approach, as illustrated below, can generate a large number of [image, question, answer] triplets that are high-quality enough to be used as VQA training data.

VQ²A consists of three main steps: (i) candidate answer extraction, (ii) question generation, (iii) question answering and answer validation.

Results
Two examples of our generated VQA data are shown below, one based on human-written COCO Captions (COCO) and the other on automatically-collected Conceptual Captions (CC3M), which we call VQ²A-COCO and VQ²A-CC3M, respectively. We highlight the variety of question types and styles, which are critical for VQA. Overall, the cleaner the captions (i.e., the more closely related they are to their paired image), the more accurate the generated triplets. Based on 800 samples each, 87.3% of VQ²A-COCO and 66.0% VQ²A-CC3M are found by human raters to be valid, suggesting that our approach can generate question-answer pairs with high precision.

Generated question-answer pairs based on COCO Captions (top) and Conceptual Captions (bottom). Grey highlighting denotes questions that do not appear in VQAv2, while green highlighting denotes those that do, indicating that our approach is capable of generating novel questions that an existing VQA dataset does not have.

Finally, we evaluate our generated data by using it to train VQA models (highlights shown below). We observe that our automatically-generated VQA data is competitive with manually-annotated target VQA data. First, our VQA models achieve high performance on target benchmarks “out-of-the-box”, when trained only on our generated data (light blue and light red vs. yellow). Once fine-tuned on target data, our VQA models outperform target-only training slightly on large-scale benchmarks like VQAv2 and GQA, but significantly on the small, knowledge-seeking OK-VQA (dark blue/red vs. light blue/red).

VQA accuracy on popular benchmark datasets.

Conclusion
All we may need for VQA are image captions! This work demonstrates that it is possible to automatically generate high-quality VQA data at scale, serving as an essential building block for VQA and vision-and-language models in general (e.g., ALIGN, CoCa). We hope that our work inspires other work on data-centric VQA.

Acknowledgments
We thank Roee Aharoni, Idan Szpektor, and Radu Soricut for their feedback on this blogpost. We also thank our co-authors: Xi Chen, Nan Ding, Idan Szpektor, and Radu Soricut. We acknowledge contributions from Or Honovich, Hagai Taitelbaum, Roee Aharoni, Sebastian Goodman, Piyush Sharma, Nassim Oufattole, Gal Elidan, Sasha Goldshtein, and Avinatan Hassidim. Finally, we thank the authors of Q², whose pipeline strongly influences this work.

Source: Google AI Blog

Rewriting Image Captions for Visual Question Answering Data Creation

Posted by Soravit Beer Changpinyo and Doron Kukliansky‎, Senior Software Engineers, Google Research

The VQ²A technique enables VQA data generation at scale from image captions by rewriting each caption into multiple question-answer pairs.

VQ²A consists of three main steps: (i) candidate answer extraction, (ii) question generation, (iii) question answering and answer validation.

VQA accuracy on popular benchmark datasets.

Source: Google AI Blog

Revisiting Mask Transformer from a Clustering Perspective

Posted by Qihang Yu, Student Researcher, and Liang-Chieh Chen, Research Scientist, Google Research

Panoptic segmentation is a computer vision problem that serves as a core task for many real-world applications. Due to its complexity, previous work often divides panoptic segmentation into semantic segmentation (assigning semantic labels, such as “person” and “sky”, to every pixel in an image) and instance segmentation (identifying and segmenting only countable objects, such as “pedestrians” and “cars”, in an image), and further divides it into several sub-tasks. Each sub-task is processed individually, and extra modules are applied to merge the results from each sub-task stage. This process is not only complex, but it also introduces many hand-designed priors when processing sub-tasks and when combining the results from different sub-task stages.

Recently, inspired by Transformer and DETR, an end-to-end solution for panoptic segmentation with mask transformers (an extension of the Transformer architecture that is used to generate segmentation masks) was proposed in MaX-DeepLab. This solution adopts a pixel path (consisting of either convolutional neural networks or vision transformers) to extract pixel features, a memory path (consisting of transformer decoder modules) to extract memory features, and a dual-path transformer for interaction between pixel features and memory features. However, the dual-path transformer, which utilizes cross-attention, was originally designed for language tasks, where the input sequence consists of dozens or hundreds of words. Nonetheless, when it comes to vision tasks, specifically segmentation problems, the input sequence consists of tens of thousands of pixels, which not only indicates a much larger magnitude of input scale, but also represents a lower-level embedding compared to language words.

In “CMT-DeepLab: Clustering Mask Transformers for Panoptic Segmentation”, presented at CVPR 2022, and “kMaX-DeepLab: k-means Mask Transformer”, to be presented at ECCV 2022, we propose to reinterpret and redesign cross-attention from a clustering perspective (i.e., grouping pixels with the same semantic labels together), which better adapts to vision tasks. CMT-DeepLab is built upon the previous state-of-the-art method, MaX-DeepLab, and employs a pixel clustering approach to perform cross-attention, leading to a more dense and plausible attention map. kMaX-DeepLab further redesigns cross-attention to be more like a k-means clustering algorithm, with a simple change on the activation function. We demonstrate that CMT-DeepLab achieves significant performance improvements, while kMaX-DeepLab not only simplifies the modification but also further pushes the state-of-the-art by a large margin, without test-time augmentation. We are also excited to announce the open-source release of kMaX-DeepLab, our best performing segmentation model, in the DeepLab2 library.

Overview
Instead of directly applying cross-attention to vision tasks without modifications, we propose to reinterpret it from a clustering perspective. Specifically, we note that the mask Transformer object query can be considered cluster centers (which aim to group pixels with the same semantic labels), and the process of cross-attention is similar to the k-means clustering algorithm, which adopts an iterative process of (1) assigning pixels to cluster centers, where multiple pixels can be assigned to a single cluster center, and some cluster centers may have no assigned pixels, and (2) updating the cluster centers by averaging pixels assigned to the same cluster center, the cluster centers will not be updated if no pixel is assigned to them).

In CMT-DeepLab and kMaX-DeepLab, we reformulate the cross-attention from the clustering perspective, which consists of iterative cluster-assignment and cluster-update steps.

Given the popularity of the k-means clustering algorithm, in CMT-DeepLab we redesign cross-attention so that the spatial-wise softmax operation (i.e., the softmax operation that is applied along the image spatial resolution) that in effect assigns cluster centers to pixels is instead applied along the cluster centers. In kMaX-DeepLab, we further simplify the spatial-wise softmax to cluster-wise argmax (i.e., applying the argmax operation along the cluster centers). We note that the argmax operation is the same as the hard assignment (i.e., a pixel is assigned to only one cluster) used in the k-means clustering algorithm.

Reformulating the cross-attention of the mask transformer from the clustering perspective significantly improves the segmentation performance and simplifies the complex mask transformer pipeline to be more interpretable. First, pixel features are extracted from the input image with an encoder-decoder structure. Then, a set of cluster centers are used to group pixels, which are further updated based on the clustering assignments. Finally, the clustering assignment and update steps are iteratively performed, with the last assignment directly serving as segmentation predictions.

To convert a typical mask Transformer decoder (consisting of cross-attention, multi-head self-attention, and a feed-forward network) into our proposed k-means cross-attention, we simply replace the spatial-wise softmax with cluster-wise argmax.

The meta architecture of our proposed kMaX-DeepLab consists of three components: pixel encoder, enhanced pixel decoder, and kMaX decoder. The pixel encoder is any network backbone, used to extract image features. The enhanced pixel decoder includes transformer encoders to enhance the pixel features, and upsampling layers to generate higher resolution features. The series of kMaX decoders transform cluster centers into (1) mask embedding vectors, which multiply with the pixel features to generate the predicted masks, and (2) class predictions for each mask.

The meta architecture of kMaX-DeepLab.

Results
We evaluate the CMT-DeepLab and kMaX-DeepLab using the panoptic quality (PQ) metric on two of the most challenging panoptic segmentation datasets, COCO and Cityscapes, against MaX-DeepLab and other state-of-the-art methods. CMT-DeepLab achieves significant performance improvement, while kMaX-DeepLab not only simplifies the modification but also further pushes the state-of-the-art by a large margin, with 58.0% PQ on COCO val set, and 68.4% PQ, 44.0% mask Average Precision (mask AP), 83.5% mean Intersection-over-Union (mIoU) on Cityscapes val set, without test-time augmentation or using an external dataset.

Method	PQ
MaX-DeepLab	51.1% (-6.9%)
MaskFormer	52.7% (-5.3%)
K-Net	54.6% (-3.4%)
CMT-DeepLab	55.3% (-2.7%)
kMaX-DeepLab	58.0%


Comparison on COCO val set.

Method	PQ	AP^mask	mIoU
Panoptic-DeepLab	63.0% (-5.4%)	35.3% (-8.7%)	80.5% (-3.0%)
Axial-DeepLab	64.4% (-4.0%)	36.7% (-7.3%)	80.6% (-2.9%)
SWideRNet	66.4% (-2.0%)	40.1% (-3.9%)	82.2% (-1.3%)
kMaX-DeepLab	68.4%	44.0%	83.5%


Comparison on Cityscapes val set.

Designed from a clustering perspective, kMaX-DeepLab not only has a higher performance but also a more plausible visualization of the attention map to understand its working mechanism. In the example below, kMaX-DeepLab iteratively performs clustering assignments and updates, which gradually improves mask quality.

kMaX-DeepLab’s attention map can be directly visualized as a panoptic segmentation, which gives better plausibility for the model working mechanism (image credit: coco_url, and license).

Conclusions
We have demonstrated a way to better design mask transformers for vision tasks. With simple modifications, CMT-DeepLab and kMaX-DeepLab reformulate cross-attention to be more like a clustering algorithm. As a result, the proposed models achieve state-of-the-art performance on the challenging COCO and Cityscapes datasets. We hope that the open-source release of kMaX-DeepLab in the DeepLab2 library will facilitate future research on designing vision-specific transformer architectures.

Acknowledgements
We are thankful to the valuable discussion and support from Huiyu Wang, Dahun Kim, Siyuan Qiao, Maxwell Collins, Yukun Zhu, Florian Schroff, Hartwig Adam, and Alan Yuille.

Source: Google AI Blog

LIMoE: Learning Multiple Modalities with One Sparse Mixture of Experts Model

Posted by Basil Mustafa, Research Software Engineer and Carlos Riquelme, Research Scientist, Google Research, Brain team

Sparse models stand out among the most promising approaches for the future of deep learning. Instead of every part of a model processing every input (“dense” modeling), sparse models employing conditional computation learn to route individual inputs to different “experts” in a potentially huge network. This has many benefits. First, model size can increase while keeping computational cost constant — an effective and environmentally friendlier way to scale models, which is often key to high performance. Sparsity also naturally compartmentalizes neural networks. Dense models that learn many different tasks simultaneously (multitask) or sequentially (continual learning) often suffer negative interference, where too much task variety means it is better to just train one model per task, or catastrophic forgetting, where the model becomes worse at earlier tasks as new ones are added. Sparse models help avoid both these phenomena — by not applying the whole model to all inputs, “experts” in the model can specialize on different tasks or data types while still taking advantage of shared parts of the model.

Research on sparsity has long been pursued at Google Research. Pathways summarizes the research vision of building one single large model that diligently handles thousands of tasks and numerous data modalities. So far there has been considerable progress in sparse unimodal models for language (Switch, Task-MoE, GLaM) and computer vision (Vision MoE). Today, we take another important step towards the Pathways vision by studying large sparse models that simultaneously handle images and text with modality-agnostic routing. A relevant approach is multimodal contrastive learning, which requires a solid understanding of both images and text in order to align pictures with their correct text description. The strongest models that tackle this task to date rely on independent networks for each modality (a “two-tower” approach).

In “Multimodal Contrastive Learning with LIMoE: the Language Image Mixture of Experts”, we present the first large-scale multimodal architecture using a sparse mixture of experts. It simultaneously processes both images and text, but uses sparsely activated experts that naturally specialize. On zero-shot image classification, LIMoE outperforms both comparable dense multimodal models and two-tower approaches. The largest LIMoE achieves 84.1% zero-shot ImageNet accuracy, comparable to more expensive state-of-the-art models. Sparsity enables LIMoE to scale up gracefully and learn to handle very different inputs, addressing the tension between being a jack-of-all-trades generalist and a master-of-one specialist.

The LIMoE architecture contains many “experts” and routers decide which tokens (parts of an image or sentence) go to which experts. After being processed by expert layers (gray) and shared dense layers (brown), a final output layer computes a single vector representation for either an image or a text.

Sparse Mixture of Expert Models
Transformers represent data as a sequence of vectors (or tokens). Though originally developed for text, they can be applied to most things that are representable as a sequence of tokens, e.g., images, videos, and audio. Recent large-scale MoE models add expert layers to the Transformer architecture (e.g., gShard and ST-MoE in natural language processing, and Vision MoE for vision tasks).

A standard Transformer consists of many “blocks”, each containing various different layers. One of these layers is a feed-forward network (FFN). For LIMoE and the works cited above, this single FFN is replaced by an expert layer that contains many parallel FFNs, each of which is an expert. Given a sequence of tokens to process, a simple router learns to predict which experts should handle which tokens. Only a small number of experts are activated per token, meaning although the model capacity is significantly increased by virtue of having so many experts, the actual computational cost is controlled by using them sparsely. If only one expert is activated, the model's cost is roughly equivalent to the standard Transformer model.

LIMoE does precisely that, activating one expert per example, thereby matching the computational cost of the dense baselines. What’s different is that the LIMoE router might see tokens of either image or text data.

A unique failure mode of MoE models occurs when they try to send all tokens to the same expert. Typically this is addressed with auxiliary losses, extra training objectives that encourage balanced expert usage. We found that dealing with multiple modalities interacted with sparsity to cause new failure modes that existing auxiliary losses could not address. To overcome this, we developed new auxiliary losses (more details in the paper) and used routing prioritization (BPR) during training, two innovations that resulted in stable and high performance multimodal models.

The new auxiliary losses (LIMoE aux) and routing prioritization (BPR) stabilized and improved overall performance (left) and increased the success rate of routing behavior (middle and right). A low success rate means the router does not use all the experts available and drops many tokens due to individual expert capacity being reached, which usually indicates the sparse model is not learning well. The combination introduced for LIMoE ensures high routing success rates for both images and text and consequently leads to significantly better performance.

Contrastive Learning with LIMoE
In multimodal contrastive learning, models are trained on paired image-text data (e.g., a photo and its caption). Typically, an image model extracts a representation of images, and a different text model extracts a representation of text. The contrastive learning objective encourages the image and text representations to be close for the same image-text pair and far away for content from different pairs. Such models with aligned representations can be adapted to new tasks without extra training data (“zero-shot”), e.g., an image will be classified as a dog if its representation is closer to the representation of the word “dog” than the word “cat”. This idea scales to thousands of classes and is referred to as zero-shot image classification.

CLIP and ALIGN (both two-tower models) scaled this process to achieve 76.2% and 76.4% zero-shot classification accuracy on the popular ImageNet dataset. We study one-tower models which compute both image and text representations. We find this reduces performance for dense models, likely due to negative interference or insufficient capacity. However, a compute-matched LIMoE not only improves over the one-tower dense model, but also outperforms two-tower dense models. We trained a series of models in a comparable training regimen to CLIP. Our dense L/16 model achieves 73.5% zero-shot accuracy, whereas LIMoE-L/16 gets to 78.6%, even outperforming CLIP’s more expensive, two-tower L/14 model (76.2%). As shown below, LIMoE’s use of sparsity provides a remarkable performance boost over dense models with equivalent cost.

For a given compute cost (x-axis), LIMoE models (circles, solid line) are significantly better than their dense baselines (triangles, dashed line). The architecture indicates the size of the underlying transformer, increasing from left (S/32) to right (L/16). Following standard convention, S (small), B (base), and L (large) refer to model scale. The number refers to the patch size, where smaller patches imply a larger architecture.

LiT and BASIC pushed zero-shot accuracy for dense two-tower models to 84.5% and 85.6% respectively. In addition to scaling, these approaches made use of specialized pre-training methods, repurposing image models that were already of exceptionally high quality. LIMoE-H/14 does not benefit from any pre-training or modality-specific components, but still achieved a comparable 84.1% zero-shot accuracy training from scratch. The scale of these models is also interesting to compare: LiT and BASIC are 2.1B and 3B parameter models. LIMoE-H/14 has 5.6B parameters in total, but via sparsity it only applies 675M parameters per token making it significantly more lightweight.

	Data seen during training
Model	Pre-training	Image-text	Total	Parameters per token	ImageNet accuracy
CLIP	-	12.8B	12.8B	~200M	76.2%
ALIGN	-	19.8B	19.8B	~410M	76.4%
LiT	25.8B	18.2B	44.0B	1.1B	84.5%
BASIC	19.7B	32.8B	52.5B	1.5B	85.6%
LIMoE H/14	-	23.3B	23.3B	675M	84.1%

Understanding LIMoE’s Behavior
LIMoE was motivated by the intuition that sparse conditional computation enables a generalist multimodal model to still develop the specialization needed to excel at understanding each modality. We analyzed LIMoE’s expert layers and uncovered a few interesting phenomena.

First, we see the emergence of modality-specialized experts. In our training setup there are many more image tokens than text tokens, so all experts tend to process at least some images, but some experts process either mostly images, mostly text, or both.

Distributions for an eight expert LIMoE; percentages indicate the amount of image tokens processed by the expert. There are one or two experts clearly specialized on text (shown by the mostly blue experts), usually two to four image specialists (mostly red), and the remainder are somewhere in the middle.

There are also some clear qualitative patterns among the image experts — e.g., in most LIMoE models, there is an expert that processes all image patches that contain text. In the example below, one expert processes fauna and greenery, and another processes human hands.

LIMoE chooses an expert for each token. Here we show which image tokens go to which experts on one of the layers of LIMoE-H/14. Despite not being trained to do so, we observe the emergence of semantic experts that specialize in specific topics such as plants or wheels.

Moving Forward
Multimodal models that handle many tasks are a promising route forward, and there are two key ingredients for success: scale, and the ability to avoid interference between distinct tasks and modalities while taking advantage of synergies. Sparse conditional computation is an excellent way of doing both. It enables performant and efficient generalist models that also have the capacity and flexibility for the specialization necessary to excel at individual tasks, as demonstrated by LIMoE’s solid performance with less compute.

Acknowledgements
We thank our co-authors on this work: Joan Puigcerver, Rodolphe Jenatton and Neil Houlsby. We also thank Andreas Steiner, Xiao Wang and Xiaohua Zhai, who led early explorations into dense single-tower models for contrastive multimodal learning, and also were instrumental in providing data access. We enjoyed useful discussions with André Susano Pinto, Maxim Neumann, Barret Zoph, Liam Fedus, Wei Han and Josip Djolonga. Finally, we would also like to thank and acknowledge Tom Small for the awesome animated figure used in this post.

Source: Google AI Blog

Vector-Quantized Image Modeling with Improved VQGAN

Posted by Jiahui Yu, Senior Research Scientist, and Jing Yu Koh, Research Software Engineer, Google Research

In recent years, natural language processing models have dramatically improved their ability to learn general-purpose representations, which has resulted in significant performance gains for a wide range of natural language generation and natural language understanding tasks. In large part, this has been accomplished through pre-training language models on extensive unlabeled text corpora.

This pre-training formulation does not make assumptions about input signal modality, which can be language, vision, or audio, among others. Several recent papers have exploited this formulation to dramatically improve image generation results through pre-quantizing images into discrete integer codes (represented as natural numbers), and modeling them autoregressively (i.e., predicting sequences one token at a time). In these approaches, a convolutional neural network (CNN) is trained to encode an image into discrete tokens, each corresponding to a small patch of the image. A second stage CNN or Transformer is then trained to model the distribution of encoded latent variables. The second stage can also be applied to autoregressively generate an image after the training. But while such models have achieved strong performance for image generation, few studies have evaluated the learned representation for downstream discriminative tasks (such as image classification).

In “Vector-Quantized Image Modeling with Improved VQGAN”, we propose a two-stage model that reconceives traditional image quantization techniques to yield improved performance on image generation and image understanding tasks. In the first stage, an image quantization model, called VQGAN, encodes an image into lower-dimensional discrete latent codes. Then a Transformer model is trained to model the quantized latent codes of an image. This approach, which we call Vector-quantized Image Modeling (VIM), can be used for both image generation and unsupervised image representation learning. We describe multiple improvements to the image quantizer and show that training a stronger image quantizer is a key component for improving both image generation and image understanding.

Vector-Quantized Image Modeling with ViT-VQGAN
One recent, commonly used model that quantizes images into integer tokens is the Vector-quantized Variational AutoEncoder (VQVAE), a CNN-based auto-encoder whose latent space is a matrix of discrete learnable variables, trained end-to-end. VQGAN is an improved version of this that introduces an adversarial loss to promote high quality reconstruction. VQGAN uses transformer-like elements in the form of non-local attention blocks, which allows it to capture distant interactions using fewer layers.

In our work, we propose taking this approach one step further by replacing both the CNN encoder and decoder with ViT. In addition, we introduce a linear projection from the output of the encoder to a low-dimensional latent variable space for lookup of the integer tokens. Specifically, we reduced the encoder output from a 768-dimension vector to a 32- or 8-dimension vector per code, which we found encourages the decoder to better utilize the token outputs, improving model capacity and efficiency.

Overview of the proposed ViT-VQGAN (left) and VIM (right), which, when working together, is capable of both image generation and image understanding. In the first stage, ViT-VQGAN converts images into discrete integers, which the autoregressive Transformer (Stage 2) then learns to model. Finally, the Stage 1 decoder is applied to these tokens to enable generation of high quality images from scratch.

With our trained ViT-VQGAN, images are encoded into discrete tokens represented by integers, each of which encompasses an 8x8 patch of the input image. Using these tokens, we train a decoder-only Transformer to predict a sequence of image tokens autoregressively. This two-stage model, VIM, is able to perform unconditioned image generation by simply sampling token-by-token from the output softmax distribution of the Transformer model.

VIM is also capable of performing class-conditioned generation, such as synthesizing a specific image of a given class (e.g., a dog or a cat). We extend the unconditional generation to class-conditioned generation by prepending a class-ID token before the image tokens during both training and sampling.

Uncurated set of dog samples from class-conditioned image generation trained on ImageNet. Conditioned classes: Irish terrier, Norfolk terrier, Norwich terrier, Yorkshire terrier, wire-haired fox terrier, Lakeland terrier.

To test the image understanding capabilities of VIM, we also fine-tune a linear projection layer to perform ImageNet classification, a standard benchmark for measuring image understanding abilities. Similar to ImageGPT, we take a layer output at a specific block, average over the sequence of token features (frozen) and insert a softmax layer (learnable) projecting averaged features to class logits. This allows us to capture intermediate features that provide more information useful for representation learning.

Experimental Results
We train all ViT-VQGAN models with a training batch size of 256 distributed across 128 CloudTPUv4 cores. All models are trained with an input image resolution of 256x256. On top of the pre-learned ViT-VQGAN image quantizer, we train Transformer models for unconditional and class-conditioned image synthesis and compare with previous work.

We measure the performance of our proposed methods for class-conditioned image synthesis and unsupervised representation learning on the widely used ImageNet benchmark. In the table below we demonstrate the class-conditioned image synthesis performance measured by the Fréchet Inception Distance (FID). Compared to prior work, VIM improves the FID to 3.07 (lower is better), a relative improvement of 58.6% over the VQGAN model (FID 7.35). VIM also improves the capacity for image understanding, as indicated by the Inception Score (IS), which goes from 188.6 to 227.4, a 20.6% improvement relative to VQGAN.

Model	Acceptance Rate	FID	IS

Validation data	1.0	1.62	235.0

DCTransformer	1.0	36.5	N/A
BigGAN	1.0	7.53	168.6
BigGAN-deep	1.0	6.84	203.6
IDDPM	1.0	12.3	N/A
ADM-G, 1.0 guid.	1.0	4.59	186.7
VQVAE-2	1.0	~31	~45

VQGAN	1.0	17.04	70.6
VQGAN	0.5	10.26	125.5
VQGAN	0.25	7.35	188.6
ViT-VQGAN (Ours)	1.0	4.17	175.1
ViT-VQGAN (Ours)	0.5	3.04	227.4


Fréchet Inception Distance (FID) comparison between different models for class-conditional image synthesis and Inception Score (IS) for image understanding, both on ImageNet with resolution 256x256. The acceptance rate shows results filtered by a ResNet-101 classification model, similar to the process in VQGAN.

After training a generative model, we test the learned image representations by fine-tuning a linear layer to perform ImageNet classification, a standard benchmark for measuring image understanding abilities. Our model outperforms previous generative models on the image understanding task, improving classification accuracy through linear probing (i.e., training a single linear classification layer, while keeping the rest of the model frozen) from 60.3% (iGPT-L) to 73.2%. These results showcase VIM’s strong generation results as well as image representation learning abilities.

Conclusion
We propose Vector-quantized Image Modeling (VIM), which pretrains a Transformer to predict image tokens autoregressively, where discrete image tokens are produced from improved ViT-VQGAN image quantizers. With our proposed improvements on image quantization, we demonstrate superior results on both image generation and understanding. We hope our results can inspire future work towards more unified approaches for image generation and understanding.

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Xin Li, Han Zhang, Ruoming Pang, James Qin, Alexander Ku, Yuanzhong Xu, Jason Baldridge, Yonghui Wu for the preparation of the VIM paper. We thank Wei Han, Yuan Cao, Jiquan Ngiam‎, Vijay Vasudevan, Zhifeng Chen and Claire Cui for helpful discussions and feedback, and others on the Google Research and Brain Team for support throughout this project.

Source: Google AI Blog

Pix2Seq: A New Language Interface for Object Detection

Posted by Ting Chen and David Fleet, Research Scientists, Google Research, Brain Team

Object detection is a long-standing computer vision task that attempts to recognize and localize all objects of interest in an image. The complexity arises when trying to identify or localize all object instances while also avoiding duplication. Existing approaches, like Faster R-CNN and DETR, are carefully designed and highly customized in the choice of architecture and loss function. This specialization of existing systems has created two major barriers: (1) it adds complexity in tuning and training the different parts of the system (e.g., region proposal network, graph matching with GIOU loss, etc.), and (2), it can reduce the ability of a model to generalize, necessitating a redesign of the model for application to other tasks.

In “Pix2Seq: A Language Modeling Framework for Object Detection”, published at ICLR 2022, we present a simple and generic method that tackles object detection from a completely different perspective. Unlike existing approaches that are task-specific, we cast object detection as a language modeling task conditioned on the observed pixel inputs. We demonstrate that Pix2Seq achieves competitive results on the large-scale object detection COCO dataset compared to existing highly-specialized and well-optimized detection algorithms, and its performance can be further improved by pre-training the model on a larger object detection dataset. To encourage further research in this direction, we are also excited to release to the broader research community Pix2Seq’s code and pre-trained models along with an interactive demo.

Pix2Seq Overview
Our approach is based on the intuition that if a neural network knows where and what the objects in an image are, one could simply teach it how to read them out. By learning to “describe” objects, the model can learn to ground the descriptions on pixel observations, leading to useful object representations. Given an image, the Pix2Seq model outputs a sequence of object descriptions, where each object is described using five discrete tokens: the coordinates of the bounding box’s corners [y_min, x_min, y_max, x_max] and a class label.

Pix2Seq framework for object detection. The neural network perceives an image, and generates a sequence of tokens for each object, which correspond to bounding boxes and class labels.

With Pix2Seq, we propose a quantization and serialization scheme that converts bounding boxes and class labels into sequences of discrete tokens (similar to captions), and leverage an encoder-decoder architecture to perceive pixel inputs and generate the sequence of object descriptions. The training objective function is simply the maximum likelihood of tokens conditioned on pixel inputs and the preceding tokens.

Sequence Construction from Object Descriptions
In commonly used object detection datasets, images have variable numbers of objects, represented as sets of bounding boxes and class labels. In Pix2Seq, a single object, defined by a bounding box and class label, is represented as [y_min, x_min, y_max, x_max, class]. However, typical language models are designed to process discrete tokens (or integers) and are unable to comprehend continuous numbers. So, instead of representing image coordinates as continuous numbers, we normalize the coordinates between 0 and 1 and quantize them into one of a few hundred or thousand discrete bins. The coordinates are then converted into discrete tokens as are the object descriptions, similar to image captions, which in turn can then be interpreted by the language model. The quantization process is achieved by multiplying the normalized coordinate (e.g., y_min) by the number of bins minus one, and rounding it to the nearest integer (the detailed process can be found in our paper).

Quantization of the coordinates of the bounding boxes with different numbers of bins on a 480 × 640 image. With a small number of bins/tokens, such as 500 bins (∼1 pixel/bin), it achieves high precision even for small objects.

After quantization, the object annotations provided with each training image are ordered into a sequence of discrete tokens (shown below). Since the order of the objects does not matter for the detection task per se, we randomize the order of objects each time an image is shown during training. We also append an End of Sequence (EOS) token at the end as different images often have different numbers of objects, and hence sequence lengths.

The bounding boxes and class labels for objects detected in the image on the left are represented in the sequences shown on the right. A random object ordering strategy is used in our work but other approaches to ordering could also be used.

The Model Architecture, Objective Function, and Inference
We treat the sequences that we constructed from object descriptions as a “dialect” and address the problem via a powerful and general language model with an image encoder and autoregressive language encoder. Similar to language modeling, Pix2Seq is trained to predict tokens, given an image and preceding tokens, with a maximum likelihood loss. At inference time, we sample tokens from model likelihood. The sampled sequence ends when the EOS token is generated. Once the sequence is generated, we split it into chunks of 5 tokens for extracting and de-quantizing the object descriptions (i.e., obtaining the predicted bounding boxes and class labels). It is worth noting that both the architecture and loss function are task-agnostic in that they don’t assume prior knowledge about object detection (e.g., bounding boxes). We describe how we can incorporate task-specific prior knowledge with a sequence augmentation technique in our paper.

Results
Despite its simplicity, Pix2Seq achieves impressive empirical performance on benchmark datasets. Specifically, we compare our method with well established baselines, Faster R-CNN and DETR, on the widely used COCO dataset and demonstrate that it achieves competitive average precision (AP) results.

Pix2Seq achieves competitive AP results compared to existing systems that require specialization during model design, while being significantly simpler. The best performing Pix2Seq model achieved an AP score of 45.

Since our approach incorporates minimal inductive bias or prior knowledge of the object detection task into the model design, we further explore how pre-training the model using the large-scale object detection COCO dataset can impact its performance. Our results indicate that this training strategy (along with using bigger models) can further boost performance.

The average precision of the Pix2Seq model with pre-training followed by fine-tuning. The best performing Pix2Seq model without pre-training achieved an AP score of 45. When the model is pre-trained, we see an 11% improvement with an AP score of 50.

Pix2Seq can detect objects in densely populated and complex scenes, such as those shown below.

Example complex and densely populated scenes labeled by a trained Pix2Seq model. Try it out here.

Conclusion and Future Work
With Pix2Seq, we cast object detection as a language modeling task conditioned on pixel inputs for which the model architecture and loss function are generic, and have not been engineered specifically for the detection task. One can, therefore, readily extend this framework to different domains or applications, where the output of the system can be represented by a relatively concise sequence of discrete tokens (e.g., keypoint detection, image captioning, visual question answering), or incorporate it into a perceptual system supporting general intelligence, for which it provides a language interface to a wide range of vision and language tasks. We also hope that the release of our Pix2Seq’s code, pre-trained models and interactive demo will inspire further research in this direction.

Acknowledgements
This post reflects the combined work with our co-authors: Saurabh Saxena, Lala Li, Geoffrey Hinton. We would also like to thank Tom Small for the visualization of the Pix2Seq illustration figure.

Source: Google AI Blog

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

Learning to Prompt for Continual Learning

Posted by Zifeng Wang, Student Researcher, and Zizhao Zhang, Software Engineer, Google Research

Supervised learning is a common approach to machine learning (ML) in which the model is trained using data that is labeled appropriately for the task at hand. Ordinary supervised learning trains on independent and identically distributed (IID) data, where all training examples are sampled from a fixed set of classes, and the model has access to these examples throughout the entire training phase. In contrast, continual learning tackles the problem of training a single model on changing data distributions where different classification tasks are presented sequentially. This is particularly important, for example, to enable autonomous agents to process and interpret continuous streams of information in real-world scenarios.

To illustrate the difference between supervised and continual learning, consider two tasks: (1) classify cats vs. dogs and (2) classify pandas vs. koalas. In supervised learning, which uses IID, the model is given training data from both tasks and treats it as a single 4-class classification problem. However, in continual learning, these two tasks arrive sequentially, and the model only has access to the training data of the current task. As a result, such models tend to suffer from performance degradation on the previous tasks, a phenomenon called catastrophic forgetting.

Mainstream solutions try to address catastrophic forgetting by buffering past data in a “rehearsal buffer” and mixing it with current data to train the model. However, the performance of these solutions depends heavily on the size of the buffer and, in some cases, may not be possible at all due to data privacy concerns. Another branch of work designs task-specific components to avoid interference between tasks. But these methods often assume that the task at test time is known, which is not always true, and they require a large number of parameters. The limitations of these approaches raise critical questions for continual learning: (1) Is it possible to have a more effective and compact memory system that goes beyond buffering past data? (2) Can one automatically select relevant knowledge components for an arbitrary sample without knowing its task identity?

In “Learning to Prompt for Continual Learning”, presented at CVPR2022, we attempt to answer these questions. Drawing inspiration from prompting techniques in natural language processing, we propose a novel continual learning framework called Learning to Prompt (L2P). Instead of continually re-learning all the model weights for each sequential task, we instead provide learnable task-relevant “instructions'' (i.e., prompts) to guide pre-trained backbone models through sequential training via a pool of learnable prompt parameters. L2P is applicable to various challenging continual learning settings and outperforms previous state-of-the-art methods consistently on all benchmarks. It achieves competitive results against rehearsal-based methods while also being more memory efficient. Most importantly, L2P is the first to introduce the idea of prompting in the field of continual learning.

Compared with typical methods that adapt entire or partial model weights to tasks sequentially using a rehearsal buffer, L2P uses a single frozen backbone model and learns a prompt pool to conditionally instruct the model. “Model 0” indicates that the backbone model is fixed at the beginning.

Prompt Pool and Instance-Wise Query
Given a pre-trained Transformer model, “prompt-based learning” modifies the original input using a fixed template. Imagine a sentiment analysis task is given the input “I like this cat”. A prompt-based method will transform the input to “I like this cat. It looks X”, where the “X” is an empty slot to be predicted (e.g., “nice”, “cute”, etc.) and “It looks X” is the so-called prompt. By adding prompts to the input, one can condition the pre-trained models to solve many downstream tasks. While designing fixed prompts requires prior knowledge along with trial and error, prompt tuning prepends a set of learnable prompts to the input embedding to instruct the pre-trained backbone to learn a single downstream task, under the transfer learning setting.

In the continual learning scenario, L2P maintains a learnable prompt pool, where prompts can be flexibly grouped as subsets to work jointly. Specifically, each prompt is associated with a key that is learned by reducing the cosine similarity loss between matched input query features. These keys are then utilized by a query function to dynamically look up a subset of task-relevant prompts based on the input features. At test time, inputs are mapped by the query function to the top-N closest keys in the prompt pool, and the associated prompt embeddings are then fed to the rest of the model to generate the output prediction. At training, we optimize the prompt pool and the classification head via the cross-entropy loss.

Illustration of L2P at test time. First, L2P selects a subset of prompts from a key-value paired prompt pool based on our proposed instance-wise query mechanism. Then, L2P prepends the selected prompts to the input tokens. Finally, L2P feeds the extended tokens to the model for prediction.

Intuitively, similar input examples tend to choose similar sets of prompts and vice versa. Thus, prompts that are frequently shared encode more generic knowledge while other prompts encode more task-specific knowledge. Moreover, prompts store high-level instructions and keep lower-level pre-trained representations frozen, thus catastrophic forgetting is mitigated even without the necessity of a rehearsal buffer. The instance-wise query mechanism removes the necessity of knowing the task identity or boundaries, enabling this approach to address the under-investigated challenge of task-agnostic continual learning.

Effectiveness of L2P
We evaluate the effectiveness of L2P in different baseline methods using an ImageNet pre-trained Vision Transformer (ViT) on representative benchmarks. The naïve baseline, called Sequential in the graphs below, refers to training a single model sequentially on all tasks. The EWC model adds a regularization term to mitigate forgetting and the Rehearsal model saves past examples to a buffer for mixed training with current data. To measure the overall continual learning performance, we measure both the accuracy and the average difference between the best accuracy achieved during training and the final accuracy for all tasks (except the last task), which we call forgetting. We find that L2P outperforms the Sequential and EWC methods significantly in both metrics. Notably, L2P even surpasses the Rehearsal approach, which uses an additional buffer to save past data. Because the L2P approach is orthogonal to Rehearsal, its performance could be further improved if it, too, used a rehearsal buffer.

L2P outperforms baseline methods in both accuracy (top) and forgetting (bottom). Accuracy refers to the average accuracy for all tasks and forgetting is defined as the average difference between the best accuracy achieved during training and the final accuracy for all tasks (except the last task).

We also visualize the prompt selection result from our instance-wise query strategy on two different benchmarks, where one has similar tasks and the other has varied tasks. The results indicate that L2P promotes more knowledge sharing between similar tasks by having more shared prompts, and less knowledge sharing between varied tasks by having more task-specific prompts.

Prompt selection histograms for benchmarks of similar tasks (left) and varied tasks (right). The left benchmark has higher intra-task similarity, thus sharing prompts between tasks results in good performance, while the right benchmark favors more task-specific prompts.

Conclusion
In this work, we present L2P to address key challenges in continual learning from a new perspective. L2P does not require a rehearsal buffer or known task identity at test time to achieve high performance. Further, it can handle various complex continual learning scenarios, including the challenging task-agnostic setting. Because large-scale pre-trained models are widely used in the machine learning community for their robust performance on real-world problems, we believe that L2P opens a new learning paradigm towards practical continual learning applications.

Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of other co-authors, including Chen-Yu Lee, Han Zhang, Ruoxi Sun, Xiaoqi Ren, Guolong Su, Vincent Perot, Jennifer Dy, Tomas Pfister. We would also like to thank Chun-Liang Li, Jeremy Martin Kubica, Sayna Ebrahimi, Stratis Ioannidis, Nan Hua, and Emmanouil Koukoumidis, for their valuable discussions and feedback, and Tom Small for figure creation.

Source: Google AI Blog

Locked-image Tuning: Adding Language Understanding to Image Models

Posted by Andreas Steiner and Basil Mustafa, Research Software Engineers at Google Research, Brain team

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Want to try it yourself?

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

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

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

googblogs.com

All Google blogs and Press in one site

Tag Archives: Computer Vision

Look and Talk: Natural Conversations with Google Assistant

Source: Google AI Blog

Rewriting Image Captions for Visual Question Answering Data Creation

Source: Google AI Blog

Rewriting Image Captions for Visual Question Answering Data Creation

Source: Google AI Blog

Revisiting Mask Transformer from a Clustering Perspective

Source: Google AI Blog

LIMoE: Learning Multiple Modalities with One Sparse Mixture of Experts Model

Source: Google AI Blog

Vector-Quantized Image Modeling with Improved VQGAN

Source: Google AI Blog

Pix2Seq: A New Language Interface for Object Detection

Source: Google AI Blog

FormNet: Beyond Sequential Modeling for Form-Based Document Understanding

Source: Google AI Blog

Learning to Prompt for Continual Learning

Source: Google AI Blog

Locked-image Tuning: Adding Language Understanding to Image Models

Source: Google AI Blog