Posts in category: Google AI

Posted by Bahare Fatemi, Research Scientist, Google Research, and Bryan Perozzi, Research Scientist, Google Research

Imagine all the things around you — your friends, tools in your kitchen, or even the parts of your bike. They are all connected in different ways. In computer science, the term graph is used to describe connections between objects. Graphs consist of nodes (the objects themselves) and edges (connections between two nodes, indicating a relationship between them). Graphs are everywhere now. The internet itself is a giant graph of websites linked together. Even the knowledge search engines use is organized in a graph-like way.

Furthermore, consider the remarkable advancements in artificial intelligence — such as chatbots that can write stories in seconds, and even software that can interpret medical reports. This exciting progress is largely thanks to large language models (LLMs). New LLM technology is constantly being developed for different uses.

Since graphs are everywhere and LLM technology is on the rise, in “Talk like a Graph: Encoding Graphs for Large Language Models”, presented at ICLR 2024, we present a way to teach powerful LLMs how to better reason with graph information. Graphs are a useful way to organize information, but LLMs are mostly trained on regular text. The objective is to test different techniques to see what works best and gain practical insights. Translating graphs into text that LLMs can understand is a remarkably complex task. The difficulty stems from the inherent complexity of graph structures with multiple nodes and the intricate web of edges that connect them. Our work studies how to take a graph and translate it into a format that an LLM can understand. We also design a benchmark called GraphQA to study different approaches on different graph reasoning problems and show how to phrase a graph-related problem in a way that enables the LLM to solve the graph problem. We show that LLM performance on graph reasoning tasks varies on three fundamental levels: 1) the graph encoding method, 2) the nature of the graph task itself, and 3) interestingly, the very structure of the graph considered. These findings give us clues on how to best represent graphs for LLMs. Picking the right method can make the LLM up to 60% better at graph tasks!

Pictured, the process of encoding a graph as text using two different approaches and feeding the text and a question about the graph to the LLM.

Graphs as text

To be able to systematically find out what is the best way to translate a graph to text, we first design a benchmark called GraphQA. Think of GraphQA as an exam designed to evaluate powerful LLMs on graph-specific problems. We want to see how well LLMs can understand and solve problems that involve graphs in different setups. To create a comprehensive and realistic exam for LLMs, we don’t just use one type of graph, we use a mix of graphs ensuring breadth in the number of connections. This is mainly because different graph types make solving such problems easier or harder. This way, GraphQA can help expose biases in how an LLM thinks about the graphs, and the whole exam gets closer to a realistic setup that LLMs might encounter in the real world.

Overview of our framework for reasoning with graphs using LLMs.

GraphQA focuses on simple tasks related to graphs, like checking if an edge exists, calculating the number of nodes or edges, finding nodes that are connected to a specific node, and checking for cycles in a graph. These tasks might seem basic, but they require understanding the relationships between nodes and edges. By covering different types of challenges, from identifying patterns to creating new connections, GraphQA helps models learn how to analyze graphs effectively. These basic tasks are crucial for more complex reasoning on graphs, like finding the shortest path between nodes, detecting communities, or identifying influential nodes. Additionally, GraphQA includes generating random graphs using various algorithms like Erdős-Rényi, scale-free networks, Barabasi-Albert model, and stochastic block model, as well as simpler graph structures like paths, complete graphs, and star graphs, providing a diverse set of data for training.

When working with graphs, we also need to find ways to ask graph-related questions that LLMs can understand. Prompting heuristics are different strategies for doing this. Let’s break down the common ones:

• Zero-shot: simply describe the task (“Is there a cycle in this graph?”) and tell the LLM to go for it. No examples provided.
• Few-shot: This is like giving the LLM a mini practice test before the real deal. We provide a few example graph questions and their correct answers.
• Chain-of-Thought: Here, we show the LLM how to break down a problem step-by-step with examples. The goal is to teach it to generate its own “thought process” when faced with new graphs.
• Zero-CoT: Similar to CoT, but instead of training examples, we give the LLM a simple prompt, like “Let’s think step-by-step,” to trigger its own problem-solving breakdown.
• BAG (build a graph): This is specifically for graph tasks. We add the phrase “Let’s build a graph…” to the description, helping the LLM focus on the graph structure.

We explored different ways to translate graphs into text that LLMs can work with. Our key questions were:

• Node encoding: How do we represent individual nodes? Options tested include simple integers, common names (people, characters), and letters.
• Edge encoding: How do we describe the relationships between nodes? Methods involved parenthesis notation, phrases like “are friends”, and symbolic representations like arrows.

Various node and edge encodings were combined systematically. This led to functions like the ones in the following figure:

Examples of graph encoding functions used to encode graphs via text.

Analysis and results

We carried out three key experiments: one to test how LLMs handle graph tasks, and two to understand how the size of the LLM and different graph shapes affected performance. We run all our experiments on GraphQA.

How LLMs handle graph tasks

In this experiment, we tested how well pre-trained LLMs tackle graph problems like identifying connections, cycles, and node degrees. Here is what we learned:

• LLMs struggle: On most of these basic tasks, LLMs did not do much better than a random guess.
• Encoding matters significantly: How we represent the graph as text has a great effect on LLM performance. The “incident” encoding excelled for most of the tasks in general.

Our results are summarized in the following chart.

Comparison of various graph encoder functions based on their accuracy on different graph tasks. The main conclusion from this figure is that the graph encoding functions matter significantly.

Bigger is (usually) better

In this experiment, we wanted to see if the size of the LLM (in terms of the number of parameters) affects how well they can handle graph problems. For that, we tested the same graph tasks on the XXS, XS, S, and L sizes of PaLM 2. Here is a summary of our findings:

• In general, bigger models did better on graph reasoning tasks. It seems like the extra parameters gave them space to learn more complex patterns.
• Oddly, size didn’t matter as much for the “edge existence” task (finding out if two nodes in a graph are connected).
• Even the biggest LLM couldn’t consistently beat a simple baseline solution on the cycle check problem (finding out if a graph contains a cycle or not). This shows LLMs still have room to improve with certain graph tasks.

Effect of model capacity on graph reasoning task for PaLM 2-XXS, XS, S, and L.

Do different graph shapes confuse LLMs

We wondered if the “shape” of a graph (how nodes are connected) influences how well LLMs can solve problems on it. Think of the following figure as different examples of graph shapes.

Samples of graphs generated with different graph generators from GraphQA. ER, BA, SBM, and SFN refers to Erdős–Rényi, Barabási–Albert, Stochastic Block Model, and Scale-Free Network respectively.

We found that graph structure has a big impact on LLM performance. For example, in a task asking if a cycle exists, LLMs did great on tightly interconnected graphs (cycles are common there) but struggled on path graphs (where cycles never happen). Interestingly, providing some mixed examples helped it adapt. For instance, for cycle check, we added some examples containing a cycle and some examples with no cycles as few-shot examples in our prompt. Similar patterns occurred with other tasks.

Comparing different graph generators on different graph tasks. The main observation here is that graph structure has a significant impact on the LLM’s performance. ER, BA, SBM, and SFN refers to Erdős–Rényi, Barabási–Albert, Stochastic Block Model, and Scale-Free Network respectively.

Conclusion

In short, we dug deep into how to best represent graphs as text so LLMs can understand them. We found three major factors that make a difference:

• How to translate the graph to text: how we represent the graph as text significantly influences LLM performance. The incident encoding excelled for most of the tasks in general..
• Task type: Certain types of graph questions tend to be harder for LLMs, even with a good translation from graph to text.
• Graph structure: Surprisingly, the “shape” of the graph that on which we do inference (dense with connections, sparse, etc.) influences how well an LLM does.

This study revealed key insights about how to prepare graphs for LLMs. The right encoding techniques can significantly boost an LLM’s accuracy on graph problems (ranging from around 5% to over 60% improvement). Our new benchmark, GraphQA, will help drive further research in this area.

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our gratitude to our co-author, Jonathan Halcrow, for his valuable contributions to this work. We express our sincere gratitude to Anton Tsitsulin, Dustin Zelle, Silvio Lattanzi, Vahab Mirrokni, and the entire graph mining team at Google Research, for their insightful comments, thorough proofreading, and constructive feedback which greatly enhanced the quality of our work. We would also like to extend special thanks to Tom Small for creating the animation used in this post.

Read More

These new tools help developers build immersive and engaging games that players love.Read More

Posted by Zilong Wang, Student Researcher, and Chen-Yu Lee, Research Scientist, Cloud AI Team

People use tables every day to organize and interpret complex information in a structured, easily accessible format. Due to the ubiquity of such tables, reasoning over tabular data has long been a central topic in natural language processing (NLP). Researchers in this field have aimed to leverage language models to help users answer questions, verify statements, and analyze data based on tables. However, language models are trained over large amounts of plain text, so the inherently structured nature of tabular data can be difficult for language models to fully comprehend and utilize.

Recently, large language models (LLMs) have achieved outstanding performance across diverse natural language understanding (NLU) tasks by generating reliable reasoning chains, as shown in works like Chain-of-Thought and Least-to-Most. However, the most suitable way for LLMs to reason over tabular data remains an open question.

In “Chain-of-Table: Evolving Tables in the Reasoning Chain for Table Understanding”, we propose a framework to tackle table understanding tasks, where we train LLMs to outline their reasoning step by step, updating a given table iteratively to reflect each part of a thought process, akin to how people solve the table-based problems. This enables the LLM to transform the table into simpler and more manageable segments so that it can understand and analyze each part of the table in depth. This approach has yielded significant improvements and achieved new state-of-the-art results on the WikiTQ, TabFact, and FeTaQA benchmarks. The figure below shows the high-level overview of the proposed Chain-of-Table and other methods.

Given a complex table where a cyclist’s nationality and name are in the same cell, (a) generic, multi-step reasoning is unable to provide the correct answer (b) program-aided reasoning generates and executes programs (e.g., SQL queries) to deliver the answer, but falls short in accurately addressing the question. In contrast, (c) Chain-of-Table iteratively samples a chain of operations that effectively transform the complex table into a version specifically tailored to the question.

Chain-of-Table

In Chain-of-Table, we guide LLMs using in-context learning to iteratively generate operations and to update the table to represent its reasoning chain over tabular data. This enables LLMs to dynamically plan the next operation based on the results of previous ones. This continuous evolution of the table forms a chain, which provides a more structured and clear representation of the reasoning process for a given problem and enables more accurate and reliable predictions from the LLM.

For example, when asked, “Which actor has the most NAACP image awards?” the Chain-of-Table framework prompts an LLM to generate tabular operations mirroring tabular reasoning processes. It first identifies the relevant columns. Then, it aggregates rows based on shared content. Finally, it reorders the aggregated results to yield a final table that clearly answers the posed question.

These operations transform the table to align with the question presented. To balance performance with computational expense on large tables, we construct the operation chain according to a subset of tabular rows.. Meanwhile, the step-by-step operations reveal the underlying reasoning process through the display of intermediate results from the tabular operations, fostering enhanced interpretability and understanding.

Illustration of the tabular reasoning process in Chain-of-Table. This iterative process involves dynamically planning an operation chain and accurately storing intermediate results in the transformed tables. These intermediate tables serve as a tabular thought process that can guide the LLM to land to the correct answer more reliably.

Chain-of-Table consists of three main stages. In the first stage, it instructs the LLM to dynamically plan the next operation by in-context learning. Specifically, the prompt involves three components as shown in the following figure:

1. The question Q: “Which country had the most cyclists finish in the top 3?”
2. The operation history chain: f_add_col(Country) and f_select_row(1, 2, 3).
3. The latest intermediate table T: the transformed intermediate table.

By providing the triplet (T, Q, chain) in the prompt, the LLM can observe the previous tabular reasoning process and select the next operation from the operation pool to complete the reasoning chain step by step.

Illustration of how Chain-of-Table selects the next operation from the operation pool and generates the arguments for the operation.(a) Chain-of-Table samples the next operation from the operation pool. (b) It takes the selected operation as input and generates its arguments.

After the next operation f is determined, in the second stage, we need to generate the arguments. As above, Chain-of-Table considers three components in the prompt as shown in the figure: (1) the question, (2) the selected operation and its required arguments, and (3) the latest intermediate table.

For instance, when the operation f_group_by is selected, it requires a header name as its argument.

The LLM selects a suitable header within the table. Equipped with the selected operation and the generated arguments, Chain-of-Table executes the operation and constructs a new intermediate table for the following reasoning.

Chain-of-Table iterates the previous two stages to plan the next operation and generate the required arguments. During this process, we create an operation chain acting as a proxy for the tabular reasoning steps. These operations generate intermediate tables presenting the results of each step to the LLM. Consequently, the output table contains comprehensive information about the intermediate phases of tabular reasoning. In our final stage, we employ this output table in formulating the final query and prompt the LLM along with the question for the final answer.

Experimental setup

We use PaLM 2-S and GPT 3.5 as the backbone LLMs and conduct the experiments on three public table understanding benchmarks: WikiTQ, TabFact, and FeTaQA. WikiTQ and FeTaQA are datasets for table-based question answering. TabFact is a table-based fact verification benchmark. In this blogpost, we will focus on the results on WikiTQ and TabFact. We compare Chain-of-Table with the generic reasoning methods (e.g., End-to-End QA, Few-Shot QA, and Chain-of-Thought) and the program-aided methods (e.g., Text-to-SQL, Binder, and Dater).

More accurate answers

Compared to the generic reasoning methods and program-aided reasoning methods, Chain-of-Table achieves better performance across PaLM 2 and GPT 3.5. This is attributed to the dynamically sampled operations and the informative intermediate tables.

Understanding results on WikiTQ and TabFact with PaLM 2 and GPT 3.5 compared with various models.

Better robustness on harder questions

In Chain-of-Table, longer operation chains indicate the higher difficulty and complexity of the questions and their corresponding tables. We categorize the test samples according to their operation lengths in Chain-of-Table. We compare Chain-of-Table with Chain-of-Thought and Dater, as representative generic and program-aided reasoning methods. We illustrate this using results from PaLM 2 on WikiTQ.

Performance of Chain-of-Thought, Dater, and the proposed Chain-of-Table on WikiTQ for questions that require an operation chain of varying lengths. Our proposed atomic operations significantly improve performance over generic and program-aided reasoning counterparts.

Notably, Chain-of-Table consistently surpasses both baseline methods across all operation chain lengths, with a significant margin up to 11.6% compared with Chain-of-Thought, and up to 7.9% compared with Dater. Moreover, the performance of Chain-of-Table declines gracefully with increasing number of operations compared to other baseline methods, exhibiting only a minimal decrease when the number of operations increases from four to five.

Better robustness with larger tables

We categorize the tables from WikiTQ into three groups based on token number: small (<2000 tokens), medium (2000 to 4000 tokens) and large (>4000 tokens). We then compare Chain-of-Table with Dater and Binder, the two latest and strongest baselines.

Performance of Binder, Dater, and the proposed Chain-of-Table on small (<2000 tokens), medium (2000 to 4000 tokens), and large (>4000 tokens) tables from WikiTQ. We observe that the performance decreases with larger input tables while Chain-of-Table diminishes gracefully, achieving significant improvements over competing methods. (As above, underlined text denotes the second-best performance; bold denotes the best performance.)

Performance of Binder, Dater, and the proposed Chain-of-Table on small (<2000 tokens), medium (2000 to 4000 tokens), and large (>4000 tokens) tables from WikiTQ. We observe that the performance decreases with larger input tables while Chain-of-Table diminishes gracefully, achieving significant improvements over competing methods. (As above, underlined text denotes the second-best performance; bold denotes the best performance.)

As anticipated, the performance decreases with larger input tables, as models are required to reason through longer contexts. Nevertheless, the performance of the proposed Chain-of-Table diminishes gracefully, achieving a significant 10+% improvement over the second best competing method when dealing with large tables. This demonstrates the efficacy of the reasoning chain in handling long tabular inputs.

Conclusion

Our proposed Chain-of-Table method enhances the reasoning capability of LLMs by leveraging the tabular structure to express intermediate steps for table-based reasoning. It instructs LLMs to dynamically plan an operation chain according to the input table and its associated question. This evolving table design sheds new light on the understanding of prompting LLMs for table understanding.

Acknowledgements

This research was conducted by Zilong Wang, Hao Zhang, Chun-Liang Li, Julian Martin Eisenschlos, Vincent Perot, Zifeng Wang, Lesly Miculicich, Yasuhisa Fujii, Jingbo Shang, Chen-Yu Lee, Tomas Pfister. Thanks to Chih-Kuan Yeh and Sergey Ioffe for their valuable feedback.

Read More

Posted by Dave Steiner, Clinical Research Scientist, Google Health, and Rory Pilgrim, Product Manager Google Research

There’s a worldwide shortage of access to medical imaging expert interpretation across specialties including radiology, dermatology and pathology. Machine learning (ML) technology can help ease this burden by powering tools that enable doctors to interpret these images more accurately and efficiently. However, the development and implementation of such ML tools are often limited by the availability of high-quality data, ML expertise, and computational resources.

One way to catalyze the use of ML for medical imaging is via domain-specific models that utilize deep learning (DL) to capture the information in medical images as compressed numerical vectors (called embeddings). These embeddings represent a type of pre-learned understanding of the important features in an image. Identifying patterns in the embeddings reduces the amount of data, expertise, and compute needed to train performant models as compared to working with high-dimensional data, such as images, directly. Indeed, these embeddings can be used to perform a variety of downstream tasks within the specialized domain (see animated graphic below). This framework of leveraging pre-learned understanding to solve related tasks is similar to that of a seasoned guitar player quickly learning a new song by ear. Because the guitar player has already built up a foundation of skill and understanding, they can quickly pick up the patterns and groove of a new song.

Path Foundation is used to convert a small dataset of (image, label) pairs into (embedding, label) pairs. These pairs can then be used to train a task-specific classifier using a linear probe, (i.e., a lightweight linear classifier) as represented in this graphic, or other types of models using the embeddings as input.

Once the linear probe is trained, it can be used to make predictions on embeddings from new images. These predictions can be compared to ground truth information in order to evaluate the linear probe’s performance.

In order to make this type of embedding model available and drive further development of ML tools in medical imaging, we are excited to release two domain-specific tools for research use: Derm Foundation and Path Foundation. This follows on the strong response we’ve already received from researchers using the CXR Foundation embedding tool for chest radiographs and represents a portion of our expanding research offerings across multiple medical-specialized modalities. These embedding tools take an image as input and produce a numerical vector (the embedding) that is specialized to the domains of dermatology and digital pathology images, respectively. By running a dataset of chest X-ray, dermatology, or pathology images through the respective embedding tool, researchers can obtain embeddings for their own images, and use these embeddings to quickly develop new models for their applications.

Path Foundation

In “Domain-specific optimization and diverse evaluation of self-supervised models for histopathology”, we showed that self-supervised learning (SSL) models for pathology images outperform traditional pre-training approaches and enable efficient training of classifiers for downstream tasks. This effort focused on hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stained slides, the principal tissue stain in diagnostic pathology that enables pathologists to visualize cellular features under a microscope. The performance of linear classifiers trained using the output of the SSL models matched that of prior DL models trained on orders of magnitude more labeled data.

Due to substantial differences between digital pathology images and “natural image” photos, this work involved several pathology-specific optimizations during model training. One key element is that whole-slide images (WSIs) in pathology can be 100,000 pixels across (thousands of times larger than typical smartphone photos) and are analyzed by experts at multiple magnifications (zoom levels). As such, the WSIs are typically broken down into smaller tiles or patches for computer vision and DL applications. The resulting images are information dense with cells or tissue structures distributed throughout the frame instead of having distinct semantic objects or foreground vs. background variations, thus creating unique challenges for robust SSL and feature extraction. Additionally, physical (e.g., cutting) and chemical (e.g., fixing and staining) processes used to prepare the samples can influence image appearance dramatically.

Taking these important aspects into consideration, pathology-specific SSL optimizations included helping the model learn stain-agnostic features, generalizing the model to patches from multiple magnifications, augmenting the data to mimic scanning and image post processing, and custom data balancing to improve input heterogeneity for SSL training. These approaches were extensively evaluated using a broad set of benchmark tasks involving 17 different tissue types over 12 different tasks.

Utilizing the vision transformer (ViT-S/16) architecture, Path Foundation was selected as the best performing model from the optimization and evaluation process described above (and illustrated in the figure below). This model thus provides an important balance between performance and model size to enable valuable and scalable use in generating embeddings over the many individual image patches of large pathology WSIs.

SSL training with pathology-specific optimizations for Path Foundation.

The value of domain-specific image representations can also be seen in the figure below, which shows the linear probing performance improvement of Path Foundation (as measured by AUROC) compared to traditional pre-training on natural images (ImageNet-21k). This includes evaluation for tasks such as metastatic breast cancer detection in lymph nodes, prostate cancer grading, and breast cancer grading, among others.

Path Foundation embeddings significantly outperform traditional ImageNet embeddings as evaluated by linear probing across multiple evaluation tasks in histopathology.

Derm Foundation

Derm Foundation is an embedding tool derived from our research in applying DL to interpret images of dermatology conditions and includes our recent work that adds improvements to generalize better to new datasets. Due to its dermatology-specific pre-training it has a latent understanding of features present in images of skin conditions and can be used to quickly develop models to classify skin conditions. The model underlying the API is a BiT ResNet-101×3 trained in two stages. The first pre-training stage uses contrastive learning, similar to ConVIRT, to train on a large number of image-text pairs from the internet. In the second stage, the image component of this pre-trained model is then fine-tuned for condition classification using clinical datasets, such as those from teledermatology services.

Unlike histopathology images, dermatology images more closely resemble the real-world images used to train many of today’s computer vision models. However, for specialized dermatology tasks, creating a high-quality model may still require a large dataset. With Derm Foundation, researchers can use their own smaller dataset to retrieve domain-specific embeddings, and use those to build smaller models (e.g., linear classifiers or other small non-linear models) that enable them to validate their research or product ideas. To evaluate this approach, we trained models on a downstream task using teledermatology data. Model training involved varying dataset sizes (12.5%, 25%, 50%, 100%) to compare embedding-based linear classifiers against fine-tuning.

The modeling variants considered were:

• A linear classifier on frozen embeddings from BiT-M (a standard pre-trained image model)
• Fine-tuned version of BiT-M with an extra dense layer for the downstream task
• A linear classifier on frozen embeddings from the Derm Foundation API
• Fine-tuned version of the model underlying the Derm Foundation API with an extra layer for the downstream task

We found that models built on top of the Derm Foundation embeddings for dermatology-related tasks achieved significantly higher quality than those built solely on embeddings or fine tuned from BiT-M. This advantage was found to be most pronounced for smaller training dataset sizes.

These results demonstrate that the Derm Foundation tooI can serve as a useful starting point to accelerate skin-related modeling tasks. We aim to enable other researchers to build on the underlying features and representations of dermatology that the model has learned.

However, there are limitations with this analysis. We’re still exploring how well these embeddings generalize across task types, patient populations, and image settings. Downstream models built using Derm Foundation still require careful evaluation to understand their expected performance in the intended setting.

Access Path and Derm Foundation

We envision that the Derm Foundation and Path Foundation embedding tools will enable a range of use cases, including efficient development of models for diagnostic tasks, quality assurance and pre-analytical workflow improvements, image indexing and curation, and biomarker discovery and validation. We are releasing both tools to the research community so they can explore the utility of the embeddings for their own dermatology and pathology data.

To get access, please sign up to each tool’s terms of service using the following Google Forms.

• Derm Foundation Access Form
• Path Foundation Access Form

After gaining access to each tool, you can use the API to retrieve embeddings from dermatology images or digital pathology images stored in Google Cloud. Approved users who are just curious to see the model and embeddings in action can use the provided example Colab notebooks to train models using public data for classifying six common skin conditions or identifying tumors in histopathology patches. We look forward to seeing the range of use-cases these tools can unlock.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the many collaborators who helped make this work possible including Yun Liu, Can Kirmizi, Fereshteh Mahvar, Bram Sterling, Arman Tajback, Kenneth Philbrik, Arnav Agharwal, Aurora Cheung, Andrew Sellergren, Boris Babenko, Basil Mustafa, Jan Freyberg, Terry Spitz, Yuan Liu, Pinal Bavishi, Ayush Jain, Amit Talreja, Rajeev Rikhye, Abbi Ward, Jeremy Lai, Faruk Ahmed, Supriya Vijay,Tiam Jaroensri, Jessica Loo, Saurabh Vyawahare, Saloni Agarwal, Ellery Wulczyn, Jonathan Krause, Fayaz Jamil, Tom Small, Annisah Um’rani, Lauren Winer, Sami Lachgar, Yossi Matias, Greg Corrado, and Dale Webster.

Read More

For International Women’s day, we’re highlighting AI solutions that can improve early diagnosis, quality and access to care for women’s health worldwide.Read More

Posted by Amirkeivan Mohtashami, Research Intern, and Florian Hartmann, Software Engineer, Google Research

Large language models (LLMs) have significantly improved the state of the art for solving tasks specified using natural language, often reaching performance close to that of people. As these models increasingly enable assistive agents, it could be beneficial for them to learn effectively from each other, much like people do in social settings, which would allow LLM-based agents to improve each other’s performance.

To discuss the learning processes of humans, Bandura and Walters described the concept of social learning in 1977, outlining different models of observational learning used by people. One common method of learning from others is through a verbal instruction (e.g., from a teacher) that describes how to engage in a particular behavior. Alternatively, learning can happen through a live model by mimicking a live example of the behavior.

Given the success of LLMs mimicking human communication, in our paper “Social Learning: Towards Collaborative Learning with Large Language Models”, we investigate whether LLMs are able to learn from each other using social learning. To this end, we outline a framework for social learning in which LLMs share knowledge with each other in a privacy-aware manner using natural language. We evaluate the effectiveness of our framework on various datasets, and propose quantitative methods that measure privacy in this setting. In contrast to previous approaches to collaborative learning, such as common federated learning approaches that often rely on gradients, in our framework, agents teach each other purely using natural language.

Social learning for LLMs

To extend social learning to language models, we consider the scenario where a student LLM should learn to solve a task from multiple teacher entities that already know that task. In our paper, we evaluate the student’s performance on a variety of tasks, such as spam detection in short text messages (SMS), solving grade school math problems, and answering questions based on a given text.

A visualization of the social learning process: A teacher model provides instructions or few-shot examples to a student model without sharing its private data.

Language models have shown a remarkable capacity to perform tasks given only a handful of examples–a process called few-shot learning. With this in mind, we provide human-labeled examples of a task that enables the teacher model to teach it to a student. One of the main use cases of social learning arises when these examples cannot be directly shared with the student due, for example, to privacy concerns.

To illustrate this, let’s look at a hypothetical example for a spam detection task. A teacher model is located on device where some users volunteer to mark incoming messages they receive as either “spam” or “not spam”. This is useful data that could help train a student model to differentiate between spam and not spam, but sharing personal messages with other users is a breach of privacy and should be avoided. To prevent this, a social learning process can transfer the knowledge from the teacher model to the student so it learns what spam messages look like without needing to share the user’s personal text messages.

We investigate the effectiveness of this social learning approach by analogy with the established human social learning theory that we discussed above. In these experiments, we use PaLM 2-S models for both the teacher and the student.

A systems view of social learning: At training time, multiple teachers teach the student. At inference time, the student is using what it learned from the teachers.

Synthetic examples

As a counterpart to the live teaching model described for traditional social learning, we propose a learning method where the teachers generate new synthetic examples for the task and share them with the student. This is motivated by the idea that one can create a new example that is sufficiently different from the original one, but is just as educational. Indeed, we observe that our generated examples are sufficiently different from the real ones to preserve privacy while still enabling performance comparable to that achieved using the original examples.

The 8 generated examples perform as well as the original data for several tasks (see our paper).

We evaluate the efficacy of learning through synthetic examples on our task suite. Especially when the number of examples is high enough, e.g., n = 16, we observe no statistically significant difference between sharing original data and teaching with synthesized data via social learning for the majority of tasks, indicating that the privacy improvement does not have to come at the cost of model quality.

Generating 16 instead of just 8 examples further reduces the performance gap relative to the original examples.

The one exception is spam detection, for which teaching with synthesized data yields lower accuracy. This may be because the training procedure of current models makes them biased to only generate non-spam examples. In the paper, we additionally look into aggregation methods for selecting good subsets of examples to use.

Synthetic instruction

Given the success of language models in following instructions, the verbal instruction model can also be naturally adapted to language models by having the teachers generate an instruction for the task. Our experiments show that providing such a generated instruction effectively improves performance over zero-shot prompting, reaching accuracies comparable to few-shot prompting with original examples. However, we did find that the teacher model may fail on certain tasks to provide a good instruction, for example due to a complicated formatting requirement of the output.

For Lambada, GSM8k, and Random Insertion, providing synthetic examples performs better than providing generated instructions, whereas in the other tasks generated instruction obtains a higher accuracy. This observation suggests that the choice of the teaching model depends on the task at hand, similar to how the most effective method for teaching people varies by task.

Depending on the task, generating instructions can work better than generating new examples.

Memorization of the private examples

We want teachers in social learning to teach the student without revealing specifics from the original data. To quantify how prone this process is to leaking information, we used Secret Sharer, a popular method for quantifying to what extent a model memorizes its training data, and adapted it to the social learning setting. We picked this method since it had previously been used for evaluating memorization in federated learning.

To apply the Secret Sharer method to social learning, we design “canary” data points such that we can concretely measure how much the training process memorized them. These data points are included in the datasets used by teachers to generate new examples. After the social learning process completes, we can then measure how much more confident the student is in the secret data points the teacher used, compared to similar ones that were not shared even with the teachers.

In our analysis, discussed in detail in the paper, we use canary examples that include names and codes. Our results show that the student is only slightly more confident in the canaries the teacher used. In contrast, when the original data points are directly shared with the student, the confidence in the included canaries is much higher than in the held-out set. This supports the conclusion that the teacher does indeed use its data to teach without simply copying it over.

Conclusion and next steps

We introduced a framework for social learning that allows language models with access to private data to transfer knowledge through textual communication while maintaining the privacy of that data. In this framework, we identified sharing examples and sharing instructions as basic models and evaluated them on multiple tasks. Furthermore, we adapted the Secret Sharer metric to our framework, proposing a metric for measuring data leakage.

As next steps, we are looking for ways of improving the teaching process, for example by adding feedback loops and iteration. Furthermore, we want to investigate using social learning for modalities other than text.

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge and thank Matt Sharifi, Sian Gooding, Lukas Zilka, and Blaise Aguera y Arcas, who are all co-authors on the paper. Furthermore, we would like to thank Victor Cărbune, Zachary Garrett, Tautvydas Misiunas, Sofia Neata and John Platt for their feedback, which greatly improved the paper. We’d also like to thank Tom Small for creating the animated figure.

Read More

Posted by Omar Benjelloun, Software Engineer, Google Research, and Peter Mattson, Software Engineer, Google Core ML and President, MLCommons Association

Machine learning (ML) practitioners looking to reuse existing datasets to train an ML model often spend a lot of time understanding the data, making sense of its organization, or figuring out what subset to use as features. So much time, in fact, that progress in the field of ML is hampered by a fundamental obstacle: the wide variety of data representations.

ML datasets cover a broad range of content types, from text and structured data to images, audio, and video. Even within datasets that cover the same types of content, every dataset has a unique ad hoc arrangement of files and data formats. This challenge reduces productivity throughout the entire ML development process, from finding the data to training the model. It also impedes development of badly needed tooling for working with datasets.

There are general purpose metadata formats for datasets such as schema.org and DCAT. However, these formats were designed for data discovery rather than for the specific needs of ML data, such as the ability to extract and combine data from structured and unstructured sources, to include metadata that would enable responsible use of the data, or to describe ML usage characteristics such as defining training, test and validation sets.

Today, we’re introducing Croissant, a new metadata format for ML-ready datasets. Croissant was developed collaboratively by a community from industry and academia, as part of the MLCommons effort. The Croissant format doesn’t change how the actual data is represented (e.g., image or text file formats) — it provides a standard way to describe and organize it. Croissant builds upon schema.org, the de facto standard for publishing structured data on the Web, which is already used by over 40M datasets. Croissant augments it with comprehensive layers for ML relevant metadata, data resources, data organization, and default ML semantics.

In addition, we are announcing support from major tools and repositories: Today, three widely used collections of ML datasets — Kaggle, Hugging Face, and OpenML — will begin supporting the Croissant format for the datasets they host; the Dataset Search tool lets users search for Croissant datasets across the Web; and popular ML frameworks, including TensorFlow, PyTorch, and JAX, can load Croissant datasets easily using the TensorFlow Datasets (TFDS) package.

Croissant

This 1.0 release of Croissant includes a complete specification of the format, a set of example datasets, an open source Python library to validate, consume and generate Croissant metadata, and an open source visual editor to load, inspect and create Croissant dataset descriptions in an intuitive way.

Supporting Responsible AI (RAI) was a key goal of the Croissant effort from the start. We are also releasing the first version of the Croissant RAI vocabulary extension, which augments Croissant with key properties needed to describe important RAI use cases such as data life cycle management, data labeling, participatory data, ML safety and fairness evaluation, explainability, and compliance.

Why a shared format for ML data?

The majority of ML work is actually data work. The training data is the “code” that determines the behavior of a model. Datasets can vary from a collection of text used to train a large language model (LLM) to a collection of driving scenarios (annotated videos) used to train a car’s collision avoidance system. However, the steps to develop an ML model typically follow the same iterative data-centric process: (1) find or collect data, (2) clean and refine the data, (3) train the model on the data, (4) test the model on more data, (5) discover the model does not work, (6) analyze the data to find out why, (7) repeat until a workable model is achieved. Many steps are made harder by the lack of a common format. This “data development burden” is especially heavy for resource-limited research and early-stage entrepreneurial efforts.

The goal of a format like Croissant is to make this entire process easier. For instance, the metadata can be leveraged by search engines and dataset repositories to make it easier to find the right dataset. The data resources and organization information make it easier to develop tools for cleaning, refining, and analyzing data. This information and the default ML semantics make it possible for ML frameworks to use the data to train and test models with a minimum of code. Together, these improvements substantially reduce the data development burden.

Additionally, dataset authors care about the discoverability and ease of use of their datasets. Adopting Croissant improves the value of their datasets, while only requiring a minimal effort, thanks to the available creation tools and support from ML data platforms.

What can Croissant do today?

The Croissant ecosystem: Users can Search for Croissant datasets, download them from major repositories, and easily load them into their favorite ML frameworks. They can create, inspect and modify Croissant metadata using the Croissant editor.

Today, users can find Croissant datasets at:

• Google Dataset Search, which offers a Croissant filter.
• HuggingFace
• Kaggle
• OpenML

With a Croissant dataset, it is possible to:

• Ingest data easily via TensorFlow Datasets for use in popular ML frameworks like TensorFlow, PyTorch, and JAX.
• Inspect and modify the metadata using the Croissant editor UI (github).

To publish a Croissant dataset, users can:

• Use the Croissant editor UI (github) to generate a large portion of Croissant metadata automatically by analyzing the data the user provides, and to fill important metadata fields such as RAI properties.
• Publish the Croissant information as part of their dataset Web page to make it discoverable and reusable.
• Publish their data in one of the repositories that support Croissant, such as Kaggle, HuggingFace and OpenML, and automatically generate Croissant metadata.

Future direction

We are excited about Croissant’s potential to help ML practitioners, but making this format truly useful requires the support of the community. We encourage dataset creators to consider providing Croissant metadata. We encourage platforms hosting datasets to provide Croissant files for download and embed Croissant metadata in dataset Web pages so that they can be made discoverable by dataset search engines. Tools that help users work with ML datasets, such as labeling or data analysis tools should also consider supporting Croissant datasets. Together, we can reduce the data development burden and enable a richer ecosystem of ML research and development.

We encourage the community to join us in contributing to the effort.

Acknowledgements

Croissant was developed by the Dataset Search, Kaggle and TensorFlow Datasets teams from Google, as part of an MLCommons community working group, which also includes contributors from these organizations: Bayer, cTuning Foundation, DANS-KNAW, Dotphoton, Harvard, Hugging Face, Kings College London, LIST, Meta, NASA, North Carolina State University, Open Data Institute, Open University of Catalonia, Sage Bionetworks, and TU Eindhoven.

Read More

Posted by Kate Weber and Shannon Leon, Google Research, Quantum AI Team

Today the 2024 March Meeting of the American Physical Society (APS) kicks off in Minneapolis, MN. A premier conference on topics ranging across physics and related fields, APS 2024 brings together researchers, students, and industry professionals to share their discoveries and build partnerships with the goal of realizing fundamental advances in physics-related sciences and technology.

This year, Google has a strong presence at APS with a booth hosted by the Google Quantum AI team, 50+ talks throughout the conference, and participation in conference organizing activities, special sessions and events. Attending APS 2024 in person? Come visit Google’s Quantum AI booth to learn more about the exciting work we’re doing to solve some of the field’s most interesting challenges. <!–Visit the @GoogleAI X (Twitter) account to find out about Google booth activities (e.g., demos and Q&A sessions). –>

You can learn more about the latest cutting edge work we are presenting at the conference along with our schedule of booth events below (Googlers listed in bold).

Organizing Committee

Booth Activities

Talks

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

^*Work done while at Google

Read More

Posted by Long Zhao, Senior Research Scientist, and Ting Liu, Senior Staff Software Engineer, Google Research

An astounding number of videos are available on the Web, covering a variety of content from everyday moments people share to historical moments to scientific observations, each of which contains a unique record of the world. The right tools could help researchers analyze these videos, transforming how we understand the world around us.

Videos offer dynamic visual content far more rich than static images, capturing movement, changes, and dynamic relationships between entities. Analyzing this complexity, along with the immense diversity of publicly available video data, demands models that go beyond traditional image understanding. Consequently, many of the approaches that best perform on video understanding still rely on specialized models tailor-made for particular tasks. Recently, there has been exciting progress in this area using video foundation models (ViFMs), such as VideoCLIP, InternVideo, VideoCoCa, and UMT). However, building a ViFM that handles the sheer diversity of video data remains a challenge.

With the goal of building a single model for general-purpose video understanding, we introduced “VideoPrism: A Foundational Visual Encoder for Video Understanding”. VideoPrism is a ViFM designed to handle a wide spectrum of video understanding tasks, including classification, localization, retrieval, captioning, and question answering (QA). We propose innovations in both the pre-training data as well as the modeling strategy. We pre-train VideoPrism on a massive and diverse dataset: 36 million high-quality video-text pairs and 582 million video clips with noisy or machine-generated parallel text. Our pre-training approach is designed for this hybrid data, to learn both from video-text pairs and the videos themselves. VideoPrism is incredibly easy to adapt to new video understanding challenges, and achieves state-of-the-art performance using a single frozen model.

Pre-training data

A powerful ViFM needs a very large collection of videos on which to train — similar to other foundation models (FMs), such as those for large language models (LLMs). Ideally, we would want the pre-training data to be a representative sample of all the videos in the world. While naturally most of these videos do not have perfect captions or descriptions, even imperfect text can provide useful information about the semantic content of the video.

To give our model the best possible starting point, we put together a massive pre-training corpus consisting of several public and private datasets, including YT-Temporal-180M, InternVid, VideoCC, WTS-70M, etc. This includes 36 million carefully selected videos with high-quality captions, along with an additional 582 million clips with varying levels of noisy text (like auto-generated transcripts). To our knowledge, this is the largest and most diverse video training corpus of its kind.

Statistics on the video-text pre-training data. The large variations of the CLIP similarity scores (the higher, the better) demonstrate the diverse caption quality of our pre-training data, which is a byproduct of the various ways used to harvest the text.

Two-stage training

The VideoPrism model architecture stems from the standard vision transformer (ViT) with a factorized design that sequentially encodes spatial and temporal information following ViViT. Our training approach leverages both the high-quality video-text data and the video data with noisy text mentioned above. To start, we use contrastive learning (an approach that minimizes the distance between positive video-text pairs while maximizing the distance between negative video-text pairs) to teach our model to match videos with their own text descriptions, including imperfect ones. This builds a foundation for matching semantic language content to visual content.

After video-text contrastive training, we leverage the collection of videos without text descriptions. Here, we build on the masked video modeling framework to predict masked patches in a video, with a few improvements. We train the model to predict both the video-level global embedding and token-wise embeddings from the first-stage model to effectively leverage the knowledge acquired in that stage. We then randomly shuffle the predicted tokens to prevent the model from learning shortcuts.

What is unique about VideoPrism’s setup is that we use two complementary pre-training signals: text descriptions and the visual content within a video. Text descriptions often focus on what things look like, while the video content provides information about movement and visual dynamics. This enables VideoPrism to excel in tasks that demand an understanding of both appearance and motion.

Results

We conducted extensive evaluation on VideoPrism across four broad categories of video understanding tasks, including video classification and localization, video-text retrieval, video captioning, question answering, and scientific video understanding. VideoPrism achieves state-of-the-art performance on 30 out of 33 video understanding benchmarks — all with minimal adaptation of a single, frozen model.

VideoPrism compared to the previous best-performing FMs.

Classification and localization

We evaluate VideoPrism on an existing large-scale video understanding benchmark (VideoGLUE) covering classification and localization tasks. We found that (1) VideoPrism outperforms all of the other state-of-the-art FMs, and (2) no other single model consistently came in second place. This tells us that VideoPrism has learned to effectively pack a variety of video signals into one encoder — from semantics at different granularities to appearance and motion cues — and it works well across a variety of video sources.

VideoPrism outperforms state-of-the-art approaches (including CLIP, VATT, InternVideo, and UMT) on the video understanding benchmark. In this plot, we show the absolute score differences compared with the previous best model to highlight the relative improvements of VideoPrism. On Charades, ActivityNet, AVA, and AVA-K, we use mean average precision (mAP) as the evaluation metric. On the other datasets, we report top-1 accuracy.

Combining with LLMs

We further explore combining VideoPrism with LLMs to unlock its ability to handle various video-language tasks. In particular, when paired with a text encoder (following LiT) or a language decoder (such as PaLM-2), VideoPrism can be utilized for video-text retrieval, video captioning, and video QA tasks. We compare the combined models on a broad and challenging set of vision-language benchmarks. VideoPrism sets the new state of the art on most benchmarks. From the visual results, we find that VideoPrism is capable of understanding complex motions and appearances in videos (e.g., the model can recognize the different colors of spinning objects on the window in the visual examples below). These results demonstrate that VideoPrism is strongly compatible with language models.

VideoPrism achieves competitive results compared with state-of-the-art approaches (including VideoCoCa, UMT and Flamingo) on multiple video-text retrieval (top) and video captioning and video QA (bottom) benchmarks. We also show the absolute score differences compared with the previous best model to highlight the relative improvements of VideoPrism. We report the Recall@1 on MASRVTT, VATEX, and ActivityNet, CIDEr score on MSRVTT-Cap, VATEX-Cap, and YouCook2, top-1 accuracy on MSRVTT-QA and MSVD-QA, and WUPS index on NExT-QA.

Scientific applications

Finally, we tested VideoPrism on datasets used by scientists across domains, including fields such as ethology, behavioral neuroscience, and ecology. These datasets typically require domain expertise to annotate, for which we leverage existing scientific datasets open-sourced by the community including Fly vs. Fly, CalMS21, ChimpACT, and KABR. VideoPrism not only performs exceptionally well, but actually surpasses models designed specifically for those tasks. This suggests tools like VideoPrism have the potential to transform how scientists analyze video data across different fields.

VideoPrism outperforms the domain experts on various scientific benchmarks. We show the absolute score differences to highlight the relative improvements of VideoPrism. We report mean average precision (mAP) for all datasets, except for KABR which uses class-averaged top-1 accuracy.

Conclusion

With VideoPrism, we introduce a powerful and versatile video encoder that sets a new standard for general-purpose video understanding. Our emphasis on both building a massive and varied pre-training dataset and innovative modeling techniques has been validated through our extensive evaluations. Not only does VideoPrism consistently outperform strong baselines, but its unique ability to generalize positions it well for tackling an array of real-world applications. Because of its potential broad use, we are committed to continuing further responsible research in this space, guided by our AI Principles. We hope VideoPrism paves the way for future breakthroughs at the intersection of AI and video analysis, helping to realize the potential of ViFMs across domains such as scientific discovery, education, and healthcare.

Acknowledgements

This blog post is made on behalf of all the VideoPrism authors: Long Zhao, Nitesh B. Gundavarapu, Liangzhe Yuan, Hao Zhou, Shen Yan, Jennifer J. Sun, Luke Friedman, Rui Qian, Tobias Weyand, Yue Zhao, Rachel Hornung, Florian Schroff, Ming-Hsuan Yang, David A. Ross, Huisheng Wang, Hartwig Adam, Mikhail Sirotenko, Ting Liu, and Boqing Gong. We sincerely thank David Hendon for their product management efforts, and Alex Siegman, Ramya Ganeshan, and Victor Gomes for their program and resource management efforts. We also thank Hassan Akbari, Sherry Ben, Yoni Ben-Meshulam, Chun-Te Chu, Sam Clearwater, Yin Cui, Ilya Figotin, Anja Hauth, Sergey Ioffe, Xuhui Jia, Yeqing Li, Lu Jiang, Zu Kim, Dan Kondratyuk, Bill Mark, Arsha Nagrani, Caroline Pantofaru, Sushant Prakash, Cordelia Schmid, Bryan Seybold, Mojtaba Seyedhosseini, Amanda Sadler, Rif A. Saurous, Rachel Stigler, Paul Voigtlaender, Pingmei Xu, Chaochao Yan, Xuan Yang, and Yukun Zhu for the discussions, support, and feedback that greatly contributed to this work. We are grateful to Jay Yagnik, Rahul Sukthankar, and Tomas Izo for their enthusiastic support for this project. Lastly, we thank Tom Small, Jennifer J. Sun, Hao Zhou, Nitesh B. Gundavarapu, Luke Friedman, and Mikhail Sirotenko for the tremendous help with making this blog post.

Read More

New improvements and AI-powered features are coming to Performance Max, including Gemini models for text generation.Read More