Posts in category: Google AI

Today we’re publishing information on Google’s AI Red Team for the first timeRead More

Posted by Daniel McDuff, Staff Research Scientist, and Yuzhe Yang, Student Researcher, Google

Learning from periodic data (signals that repeat, such as a heart beat or the daily temperature changes on Earth’s surface) is crucial for many real-world applications, from monitoring weather systems to detecting vital signs. For example, in the environmental remote sensing domain, periodic learning is often needed to enable nowcasting of environmental changes, such as precipitation patterns or land surface temperature. In the health domain, learning from video measurement has shown to extract (quasi-)periodic vital signs such as atrial fibrillation and sleep apnea episodes.

Approaches like RepNet highlight the importance of these types of tasks, and present a solution that recognizes repetitive activities within a single video. However, these are supervised approaches that require a significant amount of data to capture repetitive activities, all labeled to indicate the number of times an action was repeated. Labeling such data is often challenging and resource-intensive, requiring researchers to manually capture gold-standard temporal measurements that are synchronized with the modality of interest (e.g., video or satellite imagery).

Alternatively, self-supervised learning (SSL) methods (e.g., SimCLR and MoCo v2), which leverage a large amount of unlabeled data to learn representations that capture periodic or quasi-periodic temporal dynamics, have demonstrated success in solving classification tasks. However, they overlook the intrinsic periodicity (i.e., the ability to identify if a frame is part of a periodic process) in data and fail to learn robust representations that capture periodic or frequency attributes. This is because periodic learning exhibits characteristics that are distinct from prevailing learning tasks.

Feature similarity is different in the context of periodic representations as compared to static features (e.g., images). For example, videos that are offset by short time delays or are reversed should be similar to the original sample, whereas videos that have been upsampled or downsampled by a factor x should be different from the original sample by a factor of x.

To address these challenges, in “SimPer: Simple Self-Supervised Learning of Periodic Targets”, published at the eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR 2023), we introduced a self-supervised contrastive framework for learning periodic information in data. Specifically, SimPer leverages the temporal properties of periodic targets using temporal self-contrastive learning, where positive and negative samples are obtained through periodicity-invariant and periodicity-variant augmentations from the same input instance. We propose periodic feature similarity that explicitly defines how to measure similarity in the context of periodic learning. Moreover, we design a generalized contrastive loss that extends the classic InfoNCE loss to a soft regression variant that enables contrasting over continuous labels (frequency). Next, we demonstrate that SimPer effectively learns period feature representations compared to state-of-the-art SSL methods, highlighting its intriguing properties including better data efficiency, robustness to spurious correlations, and generalization to distribution shifts. Finally, we are excited to release the SimPer code repo with the research community.

The SimPer framework

SimPer introduces a temporal self-contrastive learning framework. Positive and negative samples are obtained through periodicity-invariant and periodicity-variant augmentations from the same input instance. For temporal video examples, periodicity-invariant changes are cropping, rotation or flipping, whereas periodicity-variant changes involve increasing or decreasing the speed of a video.

To explicitly define how to measure similarity in the context of periodic learning, SimPer proposes periodic feature similarity. This construction allows us to formulate training as a contrastive learning task. A model can be trained with data without any labels and then fine-tuned if necessary to map the learned features to specific frequency values.

Given an input sequence x, we know there’s an underlying associated periodic signal. We then transform x to create a series of speed or frequency altered samples, which changes the underlying periodic target, thus creating different negative views. Although the original frequency is unknown, we effectively devise pseudo- speed or frequency labels for the unlabeled input x.

Conventional similarity measures such as cosine similarity emphasize strict proximity between two feature vectors, and are sensitive to index shifted features (which represent different time stamps), reversed features, and features with changed frequencies. In contrast, periodic feature similarity should be high for samples with small temporal shifts and or reversed indexes, while capturing a continuous similarity change when the feature frequency varies. This can be achieved via a similarity metric in the frequency domain, such as the distance between two Fourier transforms.

To harness the intrinsic continuity of augmented samples in the frequency domain, SimPer designs a generalized contrastive loss that extends the classic InfoNCE loss to a soft regression variant that enables contrasting over continuous labels (frequency). This makes it suitable for regression tasks, where the goal is to recover a continuous signal, such as a heart beat.

SimPer constructs negative views of data through transformations in the frequency domain. The input sequence x has an underlying associated periodic signal. SimPer transforms x to create a series of speed or frequency altered samples, which changes the underlying periodic target, thus creating different negative views. Although the original frequency is unknown, we effectively devise pseudo speed or frequency labels for unlabeled input x (periodicity-variant augmentations τ). SimPer takes transformations that do not change the identity of the input and defines these as periodicity-invariant augmentations σ, thus creating different positive views of the sample. Then, it sends these augmented views to the encoder f, which extracts corresponding features.

Results

To evaluate SimPer’s performance, we benchmarked it against state-of-the-art SSL schemes (e.g., SimCLR, MoCo v2, BYOL, CVRL) on a set of six diverse periodic learning datasets for common real-world tasks in human behavior analysis, environmental remote sensing, and healthcare. Specifically, below we present results on heart rate measurement and exercise repetition counting from video. The results show that SimPer outperforms the state-of-the-art SSL schemes across all six datasets, highlighting its superior performance in terms of data efficiency, robustness to spurious correlations, and generalization to unseen targets.

Here we show quantitative results on two representative datasets using SimPer pre-trained using various SSL methods and fine-tuned on the labeled data. First, we pre-train SimPer using the Univ. Bourgogne Franche-Comté Remote PhotoPlethysmoGraphy (UBFC) dataset, a human photoplethysmography and heart rate prediction dataset, and compare its performance to state-of-the-art SSL methods. We observe that SimPer outperforms SimCLR, MoCo v2, BYOL, and CVRL methods. The results on the human action counting dataset, Countix, further confirm the benefits of SimPer over others methods as it notably outperforms the supervised baseline. For the feature evaluation results and performance on other datasets, please refer to the paper.

Results of SimCLR, MoCo v2, BYOL, CVRL and SimPer on the Univ. Bourgogne Franche-Comté Remote PhotoPlethysmoGraphy (UBFC) and Countix datasets. Heart rate and repetition count performance is reported as mean absolute error (MAE).

Conclusion and applications

We present SimPer, a self-supervised contrastive framework for learning periodic information in data. We demonstrate that by combining a temporal self-contrastive learning framework, periodicity-invariant and periodicity-variant augmentations, and continuous periodic feature similarity, SimPer provides an intuitive and flexible approach for learning strong feature representations for periodic signals. Moreover, SimPer can be applied to various fields, ranging from environmental remote sensing to healthcare.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Yuzhe Yang, Xin Liu, Ming-Zher Poh, Jiang Wu, Silviu Borac, and Dina Katabi for their contributions to this work.

Read More

We worked with TONL, a stock image company, to create more representative datasets to help teams build more inclusive products.Read More

A new $5 million grant aims to help Woodwell Climate Research Center track Arctic permafrost thaw in near real-time.Read More

Homenajeamos a Eunice Newton Foot, científica pionera de la ciencia climática, y a 6 organizaciones beneficiarias de Google.org dirigidas por mujeres que construyen un f…Read More

We’re celebrating climate science pioneer Eunice Newton Foote and six women-led Google.org grantees building a more sustainable future.Read More

Posted by Jerry Wei, Student Researcher, and Denny Zhou, Principal Scientist, Google Research

A key feature of human intelligence is that humans can learn to perform new tasks by reasoning using only a few examples. Scaling up language models has unlocked a range of new applications and paradigms in machine learning, including the ability to perform challenging reasoning tasks via in-context learning. Language models, however, are still sensitive to the way that prompts are given, indicating that they are not reasoning in a robust manner. For instance, language models often require heavy prompt engineering or phrasing tasks as instructions, and they exhibit unexpected behaviors such as performance on tasks being unaffected even when shown incorrect labels.

In “Symbol tuning improves in-context learning in language models”, we propose a simple fine-tuning procedure that we call symbol tuning, which can improve in-context learning by emphasizing input–label mappings. We experiment with symbol tuning across Flan-PaLM models and observe benefits across various settings.

• Symbol tuning boosts performance on unseen in-context learning tasks and is much more robust to underspecified prompts, such as those without instructions or without natural language labels.
• Symbol-tuned models are much stronger at algorithmic reasoning tasks.
• Finally, symbol-tuned models show large improvements in following flipped-labels presented in-context, meaning that they are more capable of using in-context information to override prior knowledge.

An overview of symbol tuning, where models are fine-tuned on tasks where natural language labels are replaced with arbitrary symbols. Symbol tuning relies on the intuition that when instruction and relevant labels are not available, models must use in-context examples to learn the task.

Motivation

Instruction tuning is a common fine-tuning method that has been shown to improve performance and allow models to better follow in-context examples. One shortcoming, however, is that models are not forced to learn to use the examples because the task is redundantly defined in the evaluation example via instructions and natural language labels. For example, on the left in the figure above, although the examples can help the model understand the task (sentiment analysis), they are not strictly necessary since the model could ignore the examples and just read the instruction that indicates what the task is.

In symbol tuning, the model is fine-tuned on examples where the instructions are removed and natural language labels are replaced with semantically-unrelated labels (e.g., “Foo,” “Bar,” etc.). In this setup, the task is unclear without looking at the in-context examples. For example, on the right in the figure above, multiple in-context examples would be needed to figure out the task. Because symbol tuning teaches the model to reason over the in-context examples, symbol-tuned models should have better performance on tasks that require reasoning between in-context examples and their labels.

Datasets and task types used for symbol tuning.

Symbol-tuning procedure

We selected 22 publicly-available natural language processing (NLP) datasets that we use for our symbol-tuning procedure. These tasks have been widely used in the past, and we only chose classification-type tasks since our method requires discrete labels. We then remap labels to a random label from a set of ~30K arbitrary labels selected from one of three categories: integers, character combinations, and words.

For our experiments, we symbol tune Flan-PaLM, the instruction-tuned variants of PaLM. We use three different sizes of Flan-PaLM models: Flan-PaLM-8B, Flan-PaLM-62B, and Flan-PaLM-540B. We also tested Flan-cont-PaLM-62B (Flan-PaLM-62B at 1.3T tokens instead of 780B tokens), which we abbreviate as 62B-c.

We use a set of ∼300K arbitrary symbols from three categories (integers, character combinations, and words). ∼30K symbols are used during tuning and the rest are held out for evaluation.

Experimental setup

We want to evaluate a model’s ability to perform unseen tasks, so we cannot evaluate on tasks used in symbol tuning (22 datasets) or used during instruction tuning (1.8K tasks). Hence, we choose 11 NLP datasets that were not used during fine-tuning.

In-context learning

In the symbol-tuning procedure, models must learn to reason with in-context examples in order to successfully perform tasks because prompts are modified to ensure that tasks cannot simply be learned from relevant labels or instructions. Symbol-tuned models should perform better in settings where tasks are unclear and require reasoning between in-context examples and their labels. To explore these settings, we define four in-context learning settings that vary the amount of reasoning required between inputs and labels in order to learn the task (based on the availability of instructions/relevant labels)

Depending on the availability of instructions and relevant natural language labels, models may need to do varying amounts of reasoning with in-context examples. When these features are not available, models must reason with the given in-context examples to successfully perform the task.

Symbol tuning improves performance across all settings for models 62B and larger, with small improvements in settings with relevant natural language labels (+0.8% to +4.2%) and substantial improvements in settings without relevant natural language labels (+5.5% to +15.5%). Strikingly, when relevant labels are unavailable, symbol-tuned Flan-PaLM-8B outperforms FlanPaLM-62B, and symbol-tuned Flan-PaLM-62B outperforms Flan-PaLM-540B. This performance difference suggests that symbol tuning can allow much smaller models to perform as well as large models on these tasks (effectively saving ∼10X inference compute).

Large-enough symbol-tuned models are better at in-context learning than baselines, especially in settings where relevant labels are not available. Performance is shown as average model accuracy (%) across eleven tasks.

Algorithmic reasoning

We also experiment on algorithmic reasoning tasks from BIG-Bench. There are two main groups of tasks: 1) List functions — identify a transformation function (e.g., remove the last element in a list) between input and output lists containing non-negative integers; and 2) simple turing concepts — reason with binary strings to learn the concept that maps an input to an output (e.g., swapping 0s and 1s in a string).

On the list function and simple turing concept tasks, symbol tuning results in an average performance improvement of 18.2% and 15.3%, respectively. Additionally, Flan-cont-PaLM-62B with symbol tuning outperforms Flan-PaLM-540B on the list function tasks on average, which is equivalent to a ∼10x reduction in inference compute. These improvements suggest that symbol tuning strengthens the model’s ability to learn in-context for unseen task types, as symbol tuning did not include any algorithmic data.

Symbol-tuned models achieve higher performance on list function tasks and simple turing concept tasks. (A–E): categories of list functions tasks. (F): simple turing concepts task.

Flipped labels

In the flipped-label experiment, labels of in-context and evaluation examples are flipped, meaning that prior knowledge and input-label mappings disagree (e.g., sentences containing positive sentiment labeled as “negative sentiment”), thereby allowing us to study whether models can override prior knowledge. Previous work has shown that while pre-trained models (without instruction tuning) can, to some extent, follow flipped labels presented in-context, instruction tuning degraded this ability.

We see that there is a similar trend across all model sizes — symbol-tuned models are much more capable of following flipped labels than instruction-tuned models. We found that after symbol tuning, Flan-PaLM-8B sees an average improvement across all datasets of 26.5%, Flan-PaLM-62B sees an improvement of 33.7%, and Flan-PaLM-540B sees an improvement of 34.0%. Additionally, symbol-tuned models achieve similar or better than average performance as pre-training–only models.

Symbol-tuned models are much better at following flipped labels presented in-context than instruction-tuned models are.

Conclusion

We presented symbol tuning, a new method of tuning models on tasks where natural language labels are remapped to arbitrary symbols. Symbol tuning is based off of the intuition that when models cannot use instructions or relevant labels to determine a presented task, it must do so by instead learning from in-context examples. We tuned four language models using our symbol-tuning procedure, utilizing a tuning mixture of 22 datasets and approximately 30K arbitrary symbols as labels.

We first showed that symbol tuning improves performance on unseen in-context learning tasks, especially when prompts do not contain instructions or relevant labels. We also found that symbol-tuned models were much better at algorithmic reasoning tasks, despite the lack of numerical or algorithmic data in the symbol-tuning procedure. Finally, in an in-context learning setting where inputs have flipped labels, symbol tuning (for some datasets) restores the ability to follow flipped labels that was lost during instruction tuning.

Future work

Through symbol tuning, we aim to increase the degree to which models can examine and learn from input–label mappings during in-context learning. We hope that our results encourage further work towards improving language models’ ability to reason over symbols presented in-context.

Acknowledgements

The authors of this post are now part of Google DeepMind. This work was conducted by Jerry Wei, Le Hou, Andrew Lampinen, Xiangning Chen, Da Huang, Yi Tay, Xinyun Chen, Yifeng Lu, Denny Zhou, Tengyu Ma, and Quoc V. Le. We would like to thank our colleagues at Google Research and Google DeepMind for their advice and helpful discussions.

Read More

Posted by Amir Yazdanbakhsh, Research Scientist, and Vijay Janapa Reddi, Visiting Researcher, Google Research

Computer Architecture research has a long history of developing simulators and tools to evaluate and shape the design of computer systems. For example, the SimpleScalar simulator was introduced in the late 1990s and allowed researchers to explore various microarchitectural ideas. Computer architecture simulators and tools, such as gem5, DRAMSys, and many more have played a significant role in advancing computer architecture research. Since then, these shared resources and infrastructure have benefited industry and academia and have enabled researchers to systematically build on each other’s work, leading to significant advances in the field.

Nonetheless, computer architecture research is evolving, with industry and academia turning towards machine learning (ML) optimization to meet stringent domain-specific requirements, such as ML for computer architecture, ML for TinyML acceleration, DNN accelerator datapath, memory controllers, power consumption, security, and privacy. Although prior work has demonstrated the benefits of ML in design optimization, the lack of strong, reproducible baselines hinders fair and objective comparison across different methods and poses several challenges to their deployment. To ensure steady progress, it is imperative to understand and tackle these challenges collectively.

To alleviate these challenges, in “ArchGym: An Open-Source Gymnasium for Machine Learning Assisted Architecture Design”, accepted at ISCA 2023, we introduced ArchGym, which includes a variety of computer architecture simulators and ML algorithms. Enabled by ArchGym, our results indicate that with a sufficiently large number of samples, any of a diverse collection of ML algorithms are capable of finding the optimal set of architecture design parameters for each target problem; no one solution is necessarily better than another. These results further indicate that selecting the optimal hyperparameters for a given ML algorithm is essential for finding the optimal architecture design, but choosing them is non-trivial. We release the code and dataset across multiple computer architecture simulations and ML algorithms.

Challenges in ML-assisted architecture research

ML-assisted architecture research poses several challenges, including:

1. For a specific ML-assisted computer architecture problem (e.g., finding an optimal solution for a DRAM controller) there is no systematic way to identify optimal ML algorithms or hyperparameters (e.g., learning rate, warm-up steps, etc.). There is a wider range of ML and heuristic methods, from random walk to reinforcement learning (RL), that can be employed for design space exploration (DSE). While these methods have shown noticeable performance improvement over their choice of baselines, it is not evident whether the improvements are because of the choice of optimization algorithms or hyperparameters.

   Thus, to ensure reproducibility and facilitate widespread adoption of ML-aided architecture DSE, it is necessary to outline a systematic benchmarking methodology.

2. While computer architecture simulators have been the backbone of architectural innovations, there is an emerging need to address the trade-offs between accuracy, speed, and cost in architecture exploration. The accuracy and speed of performance estimation widely varies from one simulator to another, depending on the underlying modeling details (e.g., cycle–accurate vs. ML–based proxy models). While analytical or ML-based proxy models are nimble by virtue of discarding low-level details, they generally suffer from high prediction error. Also, due to commercial licensing, there can be strict limits on the number of runs collected from a simulator. Overall, these constraints exhibit distinct performance vs. sample efficiency trade-offs, affecting the choice of optimization algorithm for architecture exploration.

   It is challenging to delineate how to systematically compare the effectiveness of various ML algorithms under these constraints.

3. Finally, the landscape of ML algorithms is rapidly evolving and some ML algorithms need data to be useful. Additionally, rendering the outcome of DSE into meaningful artifacts such as datasets is critical for drawing insights about the design space.

   In this rapidly evolving ecosystem, it is consequential to ensure how to amortize the overhead of search algorithms for architecture exploration. It is not apparent, nor systematically studied how to leverage exploration data while being agnostic to the underlying search algorithm.

ArchGym design

ArchGym addresses these challenges by providing a unified framework for evaluating different ML-based search algorithms fairly. It comprises two main components: 1) the ArchGym environment and 2) the ArchGym agent. The environment is an encapsulation of the architecture cost model — which includes latency, throughput, area, energy, etc., to determine the computational cost of running the workload, given a set of architectural parameters — paired with the target workload(s). The ArchGym agent is an encapsulation of the ML algorithm used for the search and consists of hyperparameters and a guiding policy. The hyperparameters are intrinsic to the algorithm for which the model is to be optimized and can significantly influence performance. The policy, on the other hand, determines how the agent selects a parameter iteratively to optimize the target objective.

Notably, ArchGym also includes a standardized interface that connects these two components, while also saving the exploration data as the ArchGym Dataset. At its core, the interface entails three main signals: hardware state, hardware parameters, and metrics. These signals are the bare minimum to establish a meaningful communication channel between the environment and the agent. Using these signals, the agent observes the state of the hardware and suggests a set of hardware parameters to iteratively optimize a (user-defined) reward. The reward is a function of hardware performance metrics, such as performance, energy consumption, etc. 

ArchGym comprises two main components: the ArchGym environment and the ArchGym agent. The ArchGym environment encapsulates the cost model and the agent is an abstraction of a policy and hyperparameters. With a standardized interface that connects these two components, ArchGym provides a unified framework for evaluating different ML-based search algorithms fairly while also saving the exploration data as the ArchGym Dataset.

ML algorithms could be equally favorable to meet user-defined target specifications

Using ArchGym, we empirically demonstrate that across different optimization objectives and DSE problems, at least one set of hyperparameters exists that results in the same hardware performance as other ML algorithms. A poorly selected (random selection) hyperparameter for the ML algorithm or its baseline can lead to a misleading conclusion that a particular family of ML algorithms is better than another. We show that with sufficient hyperparameter tuning, different search algorithms, even random walk (RW), are able to identify the best possible normalized reward. However, note that finding the right set of hyperparameters may require exhaustive search or even luck to make it competitive.

With a sufficient number of samples, there exists at least one set of hyperparameters that results in the same performance across a range of search algorithms. Here the dashed line represents the maximum normalized reward. Cloud-1, cloud-2, stream, and random indicate four different memory traces for DRAMSys (DRAM subsystem design space exploration framework).

Dataset construction and high-fidelity proxy model training

Creating a unified interface using ArchGym also enables the creation of datasets that can be used to design better data-driven ML-based proxy architecture cost models to improve the speed of architecture simulation. To evaluate the benefits of datasets in building an ML model to approximate architecture cost, we leverage ArchGym’s ability to log the data from each run from DRAMSys to create four dataset variants, each with a different number of data points. For each variant, we create two categories: (a) Diverse Dataset (DD), which represents the data collected from different agents (ACO, GA, RW, and BO), and (b) ACO only, which shows the data collected exclusively from the ACO agent, both of which are released along with ArchGym. We train a proxy model on each dataset using random forest regression with the objective to predict the latency of designs for a DRAM simulator. Our results show that:

1. As we increase the dataset size, the average normalized root mean squared error (RMSE) slightly decreases.
2. However, as we introduce diversity in the dataset (e.g., collecting data from different agents), we observe 9× to 42× lower RMSE across different dataset sizes.

Diverse dataset collection across different agents using ArchGym interface.

The impact of a diverse dataset and dataset size on the normalized RMSE.

The need for a community-driven ecosystem for ML-assisted architecture research

While, ArchGym is an initial effort towards creating an open-source ecosystem that (1) connects a broad range of search algorithms to computer architecture simulators in an unified and easy-to-extend manner, (2) facilitates research in ML-assisted computer architecture, and (3) forms the scaffold to develop reproducible baselines, there are a lot of open challenges that need community-wide support. Below we outline some of the open challenges in ML-assisted architecture design. Addressing these challenges requires a well coordinated effort and a community driven ecosystem.

Key challenges in ML-assisted architecture design.

We call this ecosystem Architecture 2.0. We outline the key challenges and a vision for building an inclusive ecosystem of interdisciplinary researchers to tackle the long-standing open problems in applying ML for computer architecture research. If you are interested in helping shape this ecosystem, please fill out the interest survey.

Conclusion

ArchGym is an open source gymnasium for ML architecture DSE and enables an standardized interface that can be readily extended to suit different use cases. Additionally, ArchGym enables fair and reproducible comparison between different ML algorithms and helps to establish stronger baselines for computer architecture research problems.

We invite the computer architecture community as well as the ML community to actively participate in the development of ArchGym. We believe that the creation of a gymnasium-type environment for computer architecture research would be a significant step forward in the field and provide a platform for researchers to use ML to accelerate research and lead to new and innovative designs.

Acknowledgements

This blogpost is based on joint work with several co-authors at Google and Harvard University. We would like to acknowledge and highlight Srivatsan Krishnan (Harvard) who contributed several ideas to this project in collaboration with Shvetank Prakash (Harvard), Jason Jabbour (Harvard), Ikechukwu Uchendu (Harvard), Susobhan Ghosh (Harvard), Behzad Boroujerdian (Harvard), Daniel Richins (Harvard), Devashree Tripathy (Harvard), and Thierry Thambe (Harvard).  In addition, we would also like to thank James Laudon, Douglas Eck, Cliff Young, and Aleksandra Faust for their support, feedback, and motivation for this work. We would also like to thank John Guilyard for the animated figure used in this post. Amir Yazdanbakhsh is now a Research Scientist at Google DeepMind and Vijay Janapa Reddi is an Associate Professor at Harvard.

Read More

Posted by Malaya Jules, Program Manager, Google

This week, the 61st annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), a premier conference covering a broad spectrum of research areas that are concerned with computational approaches to natural language, is taking place online.

As a leader in natural language processing and understanding, and a Diamond Level sponsor of ACL 2023, Google will showcase the latest research in the field with over 50 publications, and active involvement in a variety of workshops and tutorials.

If you’re registered for ACL 2023, we hope that you’ll visit the Google booth to learn more about the projects at Google that go into solving interesting problems for billions of people. You can also learn more about Google’s participation below (Google affiliations in bold).

Board and Organizing Committee

Spotlight papers

Papers

Industry Track papers

ACL Findings papers

Tutorials

Workshops

* Work done while at Google

Read More