Category: Offsites

Posted by Samuel J. Yang, Research Scientist and Dick Lyon, Principal Scientist, Google Research

For the ~466 million people in the world who are deaf or hard of hearing, the lack of easy access to accessibility services can be a barrier to participating in spoken conversations encountered daily. While hearing aids can help alleviate this, simply amplifying sound is insufficient for many. One additional option that may be available is the cochlear implant (CI), which is an electronic device that is surgically inserted into a part of the inner ear, called the cochlea, and stimulates the auditory nerve electrically via external sound processors. While many individuals with these cochlear implants can learn to interpret these electrical stimulations as audible speech, the listening experience can be quite varied and particularly challenging in noisy environments.

Modern cochlear implants drive electrodes with pulsatile signals (i.e., discrete stimulation pulses) that are computed by external sound processors. The main challenge still facing the CI field is how to best process sounds — to convert sounds to pulses on electrodes — in a way that makes them more intelligible to users. Recently, to stimulate progress on this problem, scientists in industry and academia organized a CI Hackathon to open the problem up to a wider range of ideas.

In this post, we share exploratory research demonstrating that a speech enhancement preprocessor — specifically, a noise suppressor — can be used at the input of a CI’s processor to enhance users’ understanding of speech in noisy environments. We also discuss how we built on this work in our entry for the CI Hackathon and how we will continue developing this work.

Improving CIs with Noise Suppression
In 2019, a small internal project demonstrated the benefits of noise suppression at the input of a CI’s processor. In this project, participants listened to 60 pre-recorded and pre-processed audio samples and ranked them by their listening comfort. CI users listened to the audio using their devices’ existing strategy for generating electrical pulses.

Audio without background noise
Audio with background noise
Audio with background noise + noise suppression

Background audio clip from “IMG_0991.MOV” by Kenny MacCarthy, license: CC-BY 2.0.

As shown below, both listening comfort and intelligibility usually increased, sometimes dramatically, when speech with noise (the lightest bar) was processed with noise suppression.

CI users in an early research study have improved listening comfort — qualitatively scored from “very poor” (0.0) to “OK” (0.5) to “very good” (1.0) — and speech intelligibility (i.e., the fraction of words in a sentence correctly transcribed) when trying to listen to noisy audio samples of speech with noise suppression applied.

For the CI Hackathon, we built on the project above, continuing to leverage our use of a noise suppressor while additionally exploring an approach to compute the pulses too

Overview of the Processing Approach
The hackathon considered a CI with 16 electrodes. Our approach decomposes the audio into 16 overlapping frequency bands, corresponding to the positions of the electrodes in the cochlea. Next, because the dynamic range of sound easily spans multiple orders of magnitude more than what we expect the electrodes to represent, we aggressively compress the dynamic range of the signal by applying “per-channel energy normalization” (PCEN). Finally, the range-compressed signals are used to create the electrodogram (i.e., what the CI displays on the electrodes).

In addition, the hackathon required a submission be evaluated in multiple audio categories, including music, which is an important but notoriously difficult category of sounds for CI users to enjoy. However, the speech enhancement network was trained to suppress non-speech sounds, including both noise and music, so we needed to take extra measures to avoid suppressing instrumental music (note that in general, music suppression might be preferred by some users in certain contexts). To do this, we created a “mix” of the original audio with the noise-suppressed audio so that enough of the music would pass through to remain audible. We varied in real-time the fraction of original audio mixed from 0% to 40% (0% if all of the input is estimated as speech, up to 40% as more of the input is estimated as non-speech) based on the estimate from the open-source YAMNet classifier on every ~1 second window of audio of whether the input is speech or non-speech.

The Conv-TasNet Speech Enhancement Model
To implement a speech enhancement module that suppresses non-speech sounds, such as noise and music, we use the Conv-TasNet model, which can separate different kinds of sounds. To start, the raw audio waveforms are transformed and processed into a form that can be used by a neural network. The model transforms short, 2.5 millisecond frames of input audio with a learnable analysis transform to generate features optimized for sound separation. The network then produces two “masks” from those features: one mask for speech and one mask for noise. These masks indicate the degree to which each feature corresponds to either speech or noise. Separated speech and noise are reconstructed back to the audio domain by multiplying the masks with the analysis features, applying a synthesis transform back to audio-domain frames, and stitching the resulting short frames together. As a final step, the speech and noise estimates are processed by a mixture consistency layer, which improves the quality of the estimated waveforms by ensuring that they sum up to the original input mixture waveform.

Block diagram of the speech enhancement system, which is based on Conv-TasNet.

The model is both causal and low latency: for each 2.5 milliseconds of input audio, the model produces estimates of separated speech and noise, and thus could be used in real-time. For the hackathon, to demonstrate what could be possible with increased compute power in future hardware, we chose to use a model variant with 2.9 million parameters. This model size is too large to be practically implemented in a CI today, but demonstrates what kind of performance would be possible with more capable hardware in the future.

Listening to the Results
As we optimized our models and overall solution, we used the hackathon-provided vocoder (which required a fixed temporal spacing of electrical pulses) to produce audio simulating what CI users might perceive. We then conducted blind A-B listening tests as typical hearing users.

Listening to the vocoder simulations below, the speech in the reconstructed sounds — from the vocoder processing the electrodograms — is reasonably intelligible when the input sound doesn’t contain too much background noise, however there is still room to improve the clarity of the speech. Our submission performed well in the speech-in-noise category and achieved second place overall.

Simulated audio with fixed temporal spacing

Vocoder simulation of what CI users might perceive from audio from an electrodogram with fixed temporal spacing, with background noise and noise suppression applied.

A bottleneck on quality is that the fixed temporal spacing of stimulation pulses sacrifices fine-time structure in the audio. A change to the processing to produce pulses timed to peaks in the filtered sound waveforms captures more information about the pitch and structure of sound than is conventionally represented in implant stimulation patterns.

Simulated audio with adaptive spacing and fine time structure

Vocoder simulation, using the same vocoder as above, but on an electrodogram from the modified processing that synchronizes stimulation pulses to peaks of the sound waveform.

It’s important to note that this second vocoder output is overly optimistic about how well it might sound to a real CI user. For instance, the simple vocoder used here does not model how current spread in the cochlea blurs the stimulus, making it harder to resolve different frequencies. But this at least suggests that preserving fine-time structure is valuable and that the electrodogram itself is not the bottleneck.

Ideally, all processing approaches would be evaluated by a broad range of CI users, with the electrodograms implemented directly on their CIs rather than relying upon vocoder simulations.

Conclusion and a Call to Collaborate
We are planning to follow up on this experience in two main directions. First, we plan to explore the application of noise suppression to other hearing-accessibility modalities, including hearing aids, transcription, and vibrotactile sensory substitution. Second, we’ll take a deeper dive into the creation of electrodogram patterns for cochlear implants, exploiting fine temporal structure that is not accommodated in the usual CIS (continous interleaved sampling) patterns that are standard in the industry. According to Louizou: “It remains a puzzle how some single-channel patients can perform so well given the limited spectral information they receive”. Therefore, using fine temporal structure might be a critical step towards achieving an improved CI experience.

Google is committed to building technology with and for people with disabilities. If you are interested in collaborating to improve the state of the art in cochlear implants (or hearing aids), please reach out to ci-collaborators@googlegroups.com.

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the Cochlear Impact hackathon organizers for giving us this opportunity and partnering with us. The participating team within Google is Samuel J. Yang, Scott Wisdom, Pascal Getreuer, Chet Gnegy, Mihajlo Velimirović, Sagar Savla, and Richard F. Lyon with guidance from Dan Ellis and Manoj Plakal.

Posted by Subhrajit Roy, Research Scientist and Diana Mincu, Research Software Engineer, Google Research

The intensive care unit (ICU) of a hospital looks after the most medically vulnerable patients, many of whom require organ support, such as mechanical ventilation or dialysis. While always critical, the demand on ICU services during the COVID-19 pandemic has further underscored the importance of data-driven decision-making in healthcare. Furthermore, the ability to accurately predict the clinical outcomes of ICU patients has the potential to guide therapy and may inform decisions about most effective care, including staffing and triage support.

Applying machine learning (ML) to electronic health records (EHRs) has shown promise in predicting clinical outcomes. However, many of these ML models are based on single-task learning (ST), where the models are trained only to predict a specific adverse event, such as an organ dysfunction or the need for a life-support intervention. Of greater benefit would be to train multi-task models, which take into account a variety of competing risks along with the interdependencies between organ systems that factor into patient outcomes in a realistic setting.

In “Multi-task prediction of organ dysfunction in the ICU using sequential sub-network routing”, we propose a multi-task learning (MTL) architecture, called Sequential Sub-Network Routing (SeqSNR), that better captures the complexity of a realistic setting. Inspired by a clinician’s holistic approach to diagnosing problems, SeqSNR is designed to use flexible parameter sharing and routing to find related tasks and encourage cross-learning between them. We successfully applied SeqSNR to the task of continuous adverse event prediction in an ICU setting and showed advantages over single-task and naïve multi-tasking, especially in low training data scenarios.

Data and Labels
In this study, we used the freely available, open access, de-identified MIMIC-III EHR dataset, which includes a patient cohort consisting of 36,498 adults across 52,038 critical care admissions at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center between 2001 and 2012. Similar to our previous studies, we employed a version of the MIMIC-III dataset that was mapped to the Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resource (FHIR) standard and used a comprehensive set of features, including a sequence of vital signs, laboratory results, past medications, procedures, diagnoses, and more.

The MIMIC-III database contains multi-modal recordings from ICU patients. Unlike most datasets in ML, the input and targets are often not explicitly defined and must be inferred from the data. So, using a combination of automated rule-based methods and clinical review, we defined a suite of diverse endpoints, including critical care interventions, specific organ dysfunctions, and overall patient outcomes.

The task given to the model was to predict the onset of a selection of adverse events within 24–48 hours for every hour after a patient’s admission into the ICU. The defined adverse events included acute kidney injury (AKI), continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) dialysis, administration of vasopressors and inotropes, mechanical ventilation (MV), mortality, and remaining length of stay (LoS).

The SeqSNR Algorithm
While multi-task learning captures the interdependencies between organ systems and balances competing risks, it can be challenging to implement successfully. In practice, jointly-trained tasks often impair one another, an effect called “negative transfer”. The intuition behind SeqSNR was that modular ‘sub-networks’ would mitigate this issue by automatically optimizing how information is shared across multiple tasks.

SeqSNR is a time series adaptation of the SNR architecture and is a combination of a deep embedding layer followed by stacked recurrent neural network (RNN) layers. Modularisation is achieved by splitting both the embedding layer and the RNN stack into multiple modules connected by routing variables that are learned during the training phase. The routing connections are always created between blocks in one layer and the next. This approach minimizes negative transfer by ensuring that data of low relevance to a particular task layer is filtered out. In essence, this means that each task utilizes a different path through the model.

A high-level overview of the SeqSNR architecture.

Findings
SeqSNR shows a modest improvement in discriminative performance overall relative to single-task and naïve multitasking. However, it’s performance improvement is more significant in scenarios with few training labels.

Because the prevalence of different outcomes varied widely in the dataset (e.g. ~38% of patients had MV, but CRRT dialysis is present for only ~3%), many accuracy metrics are not suitable. Instead, we report the area under the precision recall curve (AU PRC), which is more reliable given imbalanced data. Moreover, we performed the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests to draw statistically significant conclusions for pairwise comparisons of ST learning, shared-bottom (SB) multi-task learning (i.e., naïve multi-task learning), and SeqSNR across bootstrapped samples from the held-out test set. The performance differences between the three architectures were modest, but SeqSNR outperformed both ST and SB in four out of six tasks (p-values are reported in the paper).

Comparison of single task (ST), shared bottom (SB) and SeqSNR performance on the MIMIC-III dataset.

Label Efficiency
We hypothesized that multi-task learning could assist in low-data scenarios by using easy-to-label auxiliary tasks to boost the performance of the main tasks. We formulated prediction tasks with only a portion of the training labels available for the primary prediction task, but kept the entire dataset for the “helper tasks”. The latter are chosen because they are reliably encoded in the EHR and are straightforward to timestamp. An example of such a helper task is length of stay, since the start and end of admissions are accurately timestamped in MIMIC-III. On the other hand, the start and end of mechanical ventilation events are not reliably timestamped. So, we defined a set of rules based on expert-defined heuristics to determine the ventilation times using multiple sources of mechanical ventilator–related settings along with physiological measurements in the EHR dataset that are indicative of MV.

The development of these rules for a new clinical endpoint was time-consuming and involved manual review of the dataset by experts. The difficulty in exhaustively labeling the dataset led us to test the model performance with only 1–10% of the data labeled, which resulted in a decline in model performance. The “helper tasks” are useful in this scenario since they are 100% labeled and can be used with the primary tasks (1–10% labeled) to jointly train the multi-task model for improved overall performance.

We chose AKI, mechanical ventilation, CRRT Dialysis, and vasoactive medications as primary endpoints using 1%, 5%, and 10% of the training labels, along with 100% of labels for the helper tasks — labs and vitals, mortality, and LoS. Performance of both ST and SeqSNR decreased as the percentage of labels for the primary endpoint was reduced, but SeqSNR outperformed ST across all tasks and all training data reduction percentages, with a statistically significant boost in performance for all cases.

Label efficiency results showing the discriminative performance when the training dataset for the primary endpoint is reduced to 1%, 5% and 10% while the helper tasks have access to all training labels.

This is a useful finding, given the difficulties of annotating endpoint labels in EHR datasets, which frequently necessitates human evaluation by doctors. The ability to use numerous endpoints, some of which may be easier to label (like duration of stay or mortality), could lessen the need for manual curation on more difficult endpoints that are annotated differently (like mechanical ventilation).

Subgroup Performance
While the version of the MIMIC-III dataset used contained labels for gender and age, it did not contain information on race and the information on ethnicity was limited. We computed the performance of all selected models across age and gender subgroups. We observed that in the scenarios with few instances in the dataset, the MTL models (both SB models and SeqSNR) often outperform ST. Even though there are exceptions, on average all models seem to be relatively balanced across age and gender subgroups. We invite the reader to refer to the supplemental section of our paper for a detailed performance breakdown.

Next Steps
This work is a proof of concept for SeqSNR on a set of canonical EHR prediction tasks. The code for this architecture is publicly available here. And will hopefully stimulate further research in EHR multi-tasking and other deep learning architectures inspired by clinical reasoning.

In future, it will be important to evaluate the performance of SeqSNR on different combinations of tasks, different time horizons and different datasets. One other area of potential growth in this project is to expand subgroup analysis by including datasets with additional population information, race, ethnicity, etc. Another area we are exploring is expanding subgroup analysis by including datasets with additional population information, such as race, ethnicity, etc. We also emphasize that these are prototype models designed to showcase methodologies, and more rigorous evaluation would be needed to bring these tools into deployment.

Acknowledgements
This work involved collaborative efforts from a multidisciplinary team of researchers, software engineers, clinicians, and cross-functional contributors. We thank our co-authors: Eric Loreaux, Anne Mottram, Ivan Protsyuk, Natalie Harris, Sebastien Baur, Yuan Xue, Jessica Schrouff, Ali Connell, Alan Karthikesalingam, Martin Seneviratne from Google, Nenad Tomasev from Deepmind, and Hugh Montgomery from University College London. We also thank Zhe Zhao from Google Research and Kathryn Rough, Cian Hughes, Megumi Morigami and Doris Wong from Google Health for their input and review, and the MIMIC team for curating this open access dataset for the research community.

Posted by Cat Armato and Jaqui Herman, Program Managers

Groups across Google are actively pursuing research across the field of machine learning, ranging from theory to application. With scalable tools and architectures, we build machine learning systems to solve deep scientific and engineering challenges in areas of language, music, visual processing, and more.

Google is proud to be a Platinum Sponsor of the thirty-eighth International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2021), a premier annual event happening this week. As a leader in machine learning research — with over 100 accepted publications and Googlers participating in workshops — we look forward to our continued partnership with the broader machine learning research community.

Registered for ICML 2021? We hope you’ll visit the Google virtual booth to learn more about the exciting work, creativity, and fun that goes into solving a portion of the field’s most interesting challenges. Take a look below to learn more about the Google research being presented at ICML 2021 (Google affiliations in bold).

Organizing Committee
ICML Board Members include: Corinna Cortes, Hugo Larochelle, Shakir Mohamed
ICML Emeritus Board includes: William Cohen, Andrew McCallum
Tutorial Co-Chair member: Quoc Lee

Publications
Attention Is Not All You Need: Pure Attention Loses Rank Doubly Exponentially with Depth
Yihe Dong, Jean-Baptiste Cordonnier, Andreas Loukas

Scalable Evaluation of Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning with Melting Pot
Joel Z. Leibo, Edgar Duéñez-Guzmán, Alexander Sasha Vezhnevets, John P. Agapiou, Peter Sunehag, Raphael Koster, Jayd Matyas, Charles Beattie, Igor Mordatch, Thore Graepel

On the Optimality of Batch Policy Optimization Algorithms
Chenjun Xiao, Yifan Wu, Tor Lattimore, Bo Dai, Jincheng Mei, Lihong Li*, Csaba Szepesvari, Dale Schuurmans

Low-Rank Sinkhorn Factorization
Meyer Scetbon, Marco Cuturi, Gabriel Peyré

Oops I Took A Gradient: Scalable Sampling for Discrete Distributions
Will Grathwohl, Kevin Swersky, Milad Hashemi, David Duvenaud, Chris J. Maddison

PID Accelerated Value Iteration Algorithm
Amir-Massoud Farahmand, Mohammad Ghavamzadeh

Dueling Convex Optimization
Aadirupa Saha, Tomer Koren, Yishay Mansour

What Are Bayesian Neural Network Posteriors Really Like?
Pavel Izmailov, Sharad Vikram, Matthew D. Hoffman, Andrew Gordon Wilson

Offline Reinforcement Learning with Pseudometric Learning
Robert Dadashi, Shideh Rezaeifar, Nino Vieillard, Léonard Hussenot, Olivier Pietquin, Matthieu Geist

Revisiting Rainbow: Promoting More Insightful and Inclusive Deep Reinforcement Learning Research (see blog post)
Johan S. Obando-Ceron, Pablo Samuel Castro

EMaQ: Expected-Max Q-Learning Operator for Simple Yet Effective Offline and Online RL
Seyed Kamyar Seyed Ghasemipour*, Dale Schuurmans, Shixiang Shane Gu

Variational Data Assimilation with a Learned Inverse Observation Operator
Thomas Frerix, Dmitrii Kochkov, Jamie A. Smith, Daniel Cremers, Michael P. Brenner, Stephan Hoyer

Tilting the Playing Field: Dynamical Loss Functions for Machine Learning
Michael E. Sander, Pierre Ablin, Mathieu Blondel, Gabriel Peyré

Model-Based Reinforcement Learning via Latent-Space Collocation
Oleh Rybkin, Chuning Zhu, Anusha Nagabandi, Kostas Daniilidis, Igor Mordatch, Sergey Levine

Momentum Residual Neural Networks
Michael E. Sander, Pierre Ablin, Mathieu Blondel, Gabriel Peyré

OmniNet: Omnidirectional Representations from Transformers
Yi Tay, Mostafa Dehghani, Vamsi Aribandi, Jai Gupta, Philip Pham, Zhen Qin, Dara Bahri, Da-Cheng Juan, Donald Metzler

Synthesizer: Rethinking Self-Attention for Transformer Models
Yi Tay, Dara Bahri, Donald Metzler, Da-Cheng Juan, Zhe Zhao, Che Zheng

Towards Domain-Agnostic Contrastive Learning
Vikas Verma, Minh-Thang Luong, Kenji Kawaguchi, Hieu Pham, Quoc V. Le

Randomized Entity-wise Factorization for Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning
Shariq Iqbal, Christian A. Schroeder de Witt, Bei Peng, Wendelin Böhmer, Shimon Whiteson, Fei Sha

LIME: Learning Inductive Bias for Primitives of Mathematical Reasoning
Yuhuai Wu, Markus Rabe, Wenda Li, Jimmy Ba, Roger Grosse, Christian Szegedy

Emergent Social Learning via Multi-agent Reinforcement Learning
Kamal Ndousse, Douglas Eck, Sergey Levine, Natasha Jaques

Improved Contrastive Divergence Training of Energy-Based Models
Yilun Du, Shuang Li, Joshua Tenenbaum, Igor Mordatch

Characterizing Structural Regularities of Labeled Data in Overparameterized Models
Ziheng Jiang*, Chiyuan Zhang, Kunal Talwar, Michael Mozer

Actionable Models: Unsupervised Offline Reinforcement Learning of Robotic Skills
Yevgen Chebotar, Karol Hausman, Yao Lu, Ted Xiao, Dmitry Kalashnikov, Jake Varley, Alex Irpan, Benjamin Eysenbach, Ryan Julian, Chelsea Finn, Sergey Levine

PsiPhi-Learning: Reinforcement Learning with Demonstrations using Successor Features and Inverse Temporal Difference Learning
Angelos Filos, Clare Lyle, Yarin Gal, Sergey Levine, Natasha Jaques, Gregory Farquhar

EfficientNetV2: Smaller Models and Faster Training
Mingxing Tan, Quoc V. Le

Unbiased Gradient Estimation in Unrolled Computation Graphs with Persistent Evolution Strategies
Paul Vicol, Luke Metz, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein

Federated Composite Optimization
Honglin Yuan*, Manzil Zaheer, Sashank Reddi

Light RUMs
Flavio Chierichetti, Ravi Kumar, Andrew Tomkins

Catformer: Designing Stable Transformers via Sensitivity Analysis
Jared Quincy Davis, Albert Gu, Krzysztof Choromanski, Tri Dao, Christopher Re, Chelsea Finn, Percy Liang

Representation Matters: Offline Pretraining for Sequential Decision Making
Mengjiao Yang, Ofir Nachum

Variational Empowerment as Representation Learning for Goal-Conditioned Reinforcement Learning
Jongwook Choi*, Archit Sharma*, Honglak Lee, Sergey Levine, Shixiang Shane Gu

Beyond Variance Reduction: Understanding the True Impact of Baselines on Policy Optimization
Wesley Chung, Valentin Thomas, Marlos C. Machado, Nicolas Le Roux

Whitening and Second Order Optimization Both Make Information in the Dataset Unusable During Training, and Can Reduce or Prevent Generalization
Neha S. Wadia, Daniel Duckworth, Samuel S. Schoenholz, Ethan Dyer, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein

Understanding Invariance via Feedforward Inversion of Discriminatively Trained Classifiers
Piotr Teterwak*, Chiyuan Zhang, Dilip Krishnan, Michael C. Mozer

Policy Information Capacity: Information-Theoretic Measure for Task Complexity in Deep Reinforcement Learning
Hiroki Furuta, Tatsuya Matsushima, Tadashi Kozuno, Yutaka Matsuo, Sergey Levine, Ofir Nachum, Shixiang Shane Gu

Hyperparameter Selection for Imitation Learning
Leonard Hussenot, Marcin Andrychowicz, Damien Vincent, Robert Dadashi, Anton Raichuk, Lukasz Stafiniak, Sertan Girgin, Raphael Marinier, Nikola Momchev, Sabela Ramos, Manu Orsini, Olivier Bachem, Matthieu Geist, Olivier Pietquin

Disentangling Sampling and Labeling Bias for Learning in Large-Output Spaces
Ankit Singh Rawat, Aditya Krishna Menon, Wittawat Jitkrittum, Sadeep Jayasumana, Felix X. Yu, Sashank J. Reddi, Sanjiv Kumar

Revenue-Incentive Tradeoffs in Dynamic Reserve Pricing
Yuan Deng, Sebastien Lahaie, Vahab Mirrokni, Song Zuo

Debiasing a First-Order Heuristic for Approximate Bi-Level Optimization
Valerii Likhosherstov, Xingyou Song, Krzysztof Choromanski, Jared Davis, Adrian Weller

Characterizing the Gap Between Actor-Critic and Policy Gradient
Junfeng Wen, Saurabh Kumar, Ramki Gummadi, Dale Schuurmans

Composing Normalizing Flows for Inverse Problems
Jay Whang, Erik Lindgren, Alexandros Dimakis

Online Policy Gradient for Model Free Learning of Linear Quadratic Regulators with √T Regret
Asaf Cassel, Tomer Koren

Learning to Price Against a Moving Target
Renato Paes Leme, Balasubramanian Sivan, Yifeng Teng, Pratik Worah

Fairness and Bias in Online Selection
Jose Correa, Andres Cristi, Paul Duetting, Ashkan Norouzi-Fard

The Impact of Record Linkage on Learning from Feature Partitioned Data
Richard Nock, Stephen Hardy, Wilko Henecka, Hamish Ivey-Law, Jakub Nabaglo, Giorgio Patrini, Guillaume Smith, Brian Thorne

Reserve Price Optimization for First Price Auctions in Display Advertising
Zhe Feng*, Sébastien Lahaie, Jon Schneider, Jinchao Ye

A Regret Minimization Approach to Iterative Learning Control
Naman Agarwal, Elad Hazan, Anirudha Majumdar, Karan Singh

A Statistical Perspective on Distillation
Aditya Krishna Menon, Ankit Singh Rawat, Sashank J. Reddi, Seungyeon Kim, Sanjiv Kumar

Best Model Identification: A Rested Bandit Formulation
Leonardo Cella, Massimiliano Pontil, Claudio Gentile

Generalised Lipschitz Regularisation Equals Distributional Robustness
Zac Cranko, Zhan Shi, Xinhua Zhang, Richard Nock, Simon Kornblith

Stochastic Multi-Armed Bandits with Unrestricted Delay Distributions
Tal Lancewicki, Shahar Segal, Tomer Koren, Yishay Mansour

Regularized Online Allocation Problems: Fairness and Beyond
Santiago Balseiro, Haihao Lu, Vahab Mirrokni

Implicit Rate-Constrained Optimization of Non-decomposable Objectives
Abhishek Kumar, Harikrishna Narasimhan, Andrew Cotter

Leveraging Non-uniformity in First-Order Non-Convex Optimization
Jincheng Mei, Yue Gao, Bo Dai, Csaba Szepesvari, Dale Schuurmans

Dynamic Balancing for Model Selection in Bandits and RL
Ashok Cutkosky, Christoph Dann, Abhimanyu Das, Claudio Gentile, Aldo Pacchiano, Manish Purohit

Adversarial Dueling Bandits
Aadirupa Saha, Tomer Koren, Yishay Mansour

Optimizing Black-Box Metrics with Iterative Example Weighting
Gaurush Hiranandani*, Jatin Mathur, Harikrishna Narasimhan, Mahdi Milani Fard, Oluwasanmi Koyejo

Relative Deviation Margin Bounds
Corinna Cortes, Mehryar Mohri, Ananda Theertha Suresh

MC-LSTM: Mass-Conserving LSTM
Pieter-Jan Hoedt, Frederik Kratzert, Daniel Klotz, Christina Halmich, Markus Holzleitner, Grey Nearing, Sepp Hochreiter, Günter Klambauer

12-Lead ECG Reconstruction via Koopman Operators
Authors:Tomer Golany, Kira Radinsky, Daniel Freedman, Saar Minha

Finding Relevant Information via a Discrete Fourier Expansion
Mohsen Heidari, Jithin Sreedharan, Gil Shamir, Wojciech Szpankowski

LEGO: Latent Execution-Guided Reasoning for Multi-Hop Question Answering on Knowledge Graphs
Hongyu Ren, Hanjun Dai, Bo Dai, Xinyun Chen, Michihiro Yasunaga, Haitian Sun, Dale Schuurmans, Jure Leskovec, Denny Zhou

SpreadsheetCoder: Formula Prediction from Semi-structured Context
Xinyun Chen, Petros Maniatis, Rishabh Singh, Charles Sutton, Hanjun Dai, Max Lin, Denny Zhou

Combinatorial Blocking Bandits with Stochastic Delays
Alexia Atsidakou, Orestis Papadigenopoulos, Soumya Basu, Constantine Caramani, Sanjay Shakkottai

Beyond log2(T) Regret for Decentralized Bandits in Matching Markets
Soumya Basu, Karthik Abinav Sankararaman, Abishek Sankararaman

Robust Pure Exploration in Linear Bandits with Limited Budget
Ayya Alieva, Ashok Cutkosky, Abhimanyu Das

Latent Programmer: Discrete Latent Codes for Program Synthesis
Joey Hong, David Dohan, Rishabh Singh, Charles Sutton, Manzil Zaheer

Scaling Up Visual and Vision-Language Representation Learning With Noisy Text Supervision (see blog post)
Chao Jia, Yinfei Yang, Ye Xia, Yi-Ting Chen, Zarana Parekh, Hieu Pham, Quoc V. Le, Yunhsuan Sung, Zhen Li, Tom Duerig

On Linear Identifiability of Learned Representations
Geoffrey Roeder, Luke Metz, Diederik P. Kingma

Hierarchical Clustering of Data Streams: Scalable Algorithms and Approximation Guarantees
Anand Rajagopalan, Fabio Vitale, Danny Vainstein, Gui Citovsky, Cecilia M Procopiuc, Claudio Gentile

Differentially Private Quantiles
Jennifer Gillenwater, Matthew Joseph, Alex Kulesza

Active Covering
Heinrich Jiang, Afshin Rostamizadeh

Sharf: Shape-Conditioned Radiance Fields from a Single View
Konstantinos Rematas, Ricardo Martin-Brualla, Vittorio Ferrari

Learning a Universal Template for Few-Shot Dataset Generalization
Eleni Triantafillou*, Hugo Larochelle, Richard Zemel, Vincent Dumoulin

Private Alternating Least Squares: Practical Private Matrix Completion with Tighter Rates
Steve Chien, Prateek Jain, Walid Krichene, Steffen Rendle, Shuang Song, Abhradeep Thakurta, Li Zhang

Differentially-Private Clustering of Easy Instances
Edith Cohen, Haim Kaplan, Yishay Mansour, Uri Stemmer, Eliad Tsfadia

Label-Only Membership Inference Attacks
Christopher A. Choquette-Choo, Florian Tramèr, Nicholas Carlini, Nicolas Papernot

Neural Feature Matching in Implicit 3D Representations
Yunlu Chen, Basura Fernando, Hakan Bilen, Thomas Mensink, Efstratios Gavves

Locally Private k-Means in One Round
Alisa Chang, Badih Ghazi, Ravi Kumar, Pasin Manurangsi

Large-Scale Meta-Learning with Continual Trajectory Shifting
Jaewoong Shin, Hae Beom Lee, Boqing Gong, Sung Ju Hwang

Statistical Estimation from Dependent Data
Vardis Kandiros, Yuval Dagan, Nishanth Dikkala, Surbhi Goel, Constantinos Daskalakis

Oneshot Differentially Private Top-k Selection
Gang Qiao, Weijie J. Su, Li Zhang

Unsupervised Part Representation by Flow Capsules
Sara Sabour, Andrea Tagliasacchi, Soroosh Yazdani, Geoffrey E. Hinton, David J. Fleet

Private Stochastic Convex Optimization: Optimal Rates in L1 Geometry
Hilal Asi, Vitaly Feldman, Tomer Koren, Kunal Talwar

Practical and Private (Deep) Learning Without Sampling or Shuffling
Peter Kairouz, Brendan McMahan, Shuang Song, Om Thakkar, Abhradeep Thakurta, Zheng Xu

Differentially Private Aggregation in the Shuffle Model: Almost Central Accuracy in Almost a Single Message
Badih Ghazi, Ravi Kumar, Pasin Manurangsi, Rasmus Pagh, Amer Sinha

Leveraging Public Data for Practical Private Query Release
Terrance Liu, Giuseppe Vietri, Thomas Steinke, Jonathan Ullman, Zhiwei Steven Wu

Meta-Thompson Sampling
Branislav Kveton, Mikhail Konobeev, Manzil Zaheer, Chih-wei Hsu, Martin Mladenov, Craig Boutilier, Csaba Szepesvári

Implicit-PDF: Non-Parametric Representation of Probability Distributions on the Rotation Manifold
Kieran A Murphy, Carlos Esteves, Varun Jampani, Srikumar Ramalingam, Ameesh Makadia

Improving Ultrametrics Embeddings Through Coresets
Vincent Cohen-Addad, Rémi de Joannis de Verclos, Guillaume Lagarde

A Discriminative Technique for Multiple-Source Adaptation
Corinna Cortes, Mehryar Mohri, Ananda Theertha Suresh, Ningshan Zhang

Self-Supervised and Supervised Joint Training for Resource-Rich Machine Translation
Yong Cheng, Wei Wang*, Lu Jiang, Wolfgang Macherey

Correlation Clustering in Constant Many Parallel Rounds
Vincent Cohen-Addad, Silvio Lattanzi, Slobodan Mitrović, Ashkan Norouzi-Fard, Nikos Parotsidis, Jakub Tarnawski

Hierarchical Agglomerative Graph Clustering in Nearly-Linear Time
Laxman Dhulipala, David Eisenstat, Jakub Łącki, Vahab Mirrokni, Jessica Shi

Meta-Learning Bidirectional Update Rules
Mark Sandler, Max Vladymyrov, Andrey Zhmoginov, Nolan Miller, Andrew Jackson, Tom Madams, Blaise Aguera y Arcas

Discretization Drift in Two-Player Games
Mihaela Rosca, Yan Wu, Benoit Dherin, David G.T. Barrett

Reasoning Over Virtual Knowledge Bases With Open Predicate Relations
Haitian Sun*, Pat Verga, Bhuwan Dhingra, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, William W. Cohen

Learn2Hop: Learned Optimization on Rough Landscapes
Amil Merchant, Luke Metz, Samuel Schoenholz, Ekin Cubuk

Locally Adaptive Label Smoothing Improves Predictive Churn
Dara Bahri, Heinrich Jiang

Overcoming Catastrophic Forgetting by Bayesian Generative Regularization
Patrick H. Chen, Wei Wei, Cho-jui Hsieh, Bo Dai

Workshops (only Google affiliations are noted)
LatinX in AI (LXAI) Research at ICML 2021
Hosts: Been Kim, Natasha Jaques

Uncertainty and Robustness in Deep Learning
Organizers: Balaji Lakshminarayanan, Jasper Snoek Invited Speaker: Dustin Tran

Reinforcement Learning for Real Life
Organizers: Minmin Chen, Lihong Li Invited Speaker: Ed Chi

Interpretable Machine Learning in Healthcare
Organizers: Alan Karthikesalingam Invited Speakers: Abhijit Guha Roy, Jim Winkens

The Neglected Assumptions in Causal Inference
Organizer: Alexander D’Amour

ICML Workshop on Algorithmic Recourse
Invited Speakers: Been Kim, Berk Ustun

A Blessing in Disguise: The Prospects and Perils of Adversarial Machine Learning
Invited Speaker: Nicholas Carlini

Overparameterization: Pitfalls and Opportunities
Organizers: Yasaman Bahri, Hanie Sedghi

Information-Theoretic Methods for Rigorous, Responsible, and Reliable Machine Learning (ITR3)
Invited Speaker: Thomas Steinke

Beyond First-Order Methods in Machine Learning Systems
Invited Speaker: Courtney Paquette

ICML 2021 Workshop: Self-Supervised Learning for Reasoning and Perception
Invited Speaker: Chelsea Finn

Workshop on Reinforcement Learning Theory
Invited Speaker: Bo Dai

Tutorials (only Google affiliations are noted)
Responsible AI in Industry: Practical Challenges and Lessons Learned
Organizers: Ben Packer

Online and Non-stochastic Control
Organizers: Elad Hazan

Random Matrix Theory and ML (RMT +ML)
Organizers: Fabian Pedregosa, Jeffrey Pennington, Courntey Paquette Self-Attention for Computer Vision Organizers: Prajit Ramachandran, Ashish Vaswani

* Indicates work done while at Google

Posted by Jonathan Ho, Research Scientist and Chitwan Saharia, Software Engineer, Google Research, Brain Team

Natural image synthesis is a broad class of machine learning (ML) tasks with wide-ranging applications that pose a number of design challenges. One example is image super-resolution, in which a model is trained to transform a low resolution image into a detailed high resolution image (e.g., RAISR). Super-resolution has many applications that can range from restoring old family portraits to improving medical imaging systems. Another such image synthesis task is class-conditional image generation, in which a model is trained to generate a sample image from an input class label. The resulting generated sample images can be used to improve performance of downstream models for image classification, segmentation, and more.

Generally, these image synthesis tasks are performed by deep generative models, such as GANs, VAEs, and autoregressive models. Yet each of these generative models has its downsides when trained to synthesize high quality samples on difficult, high resolution datasets. For example, GANs often suffer from unstable training and mode collapse, and autoregressive models typically suffer from slow synthesis speed.

Alternatively, diffusion models, originally proposed in 2015, have seen a recent revival in interest due to their training stability and their promising sample quality results on image and audio generation. Thus, they offer potentially favorable trade-offs compared to other types of deep generative models. Diffusion models work by corrupting the training data by progressively adding Gaussian noise, slowly wiping out details in the data until it becomes pure noise, and then training a neural network to reverse this corruption process. Running this reversed corruption process synthesizes data from pure noise by gradually denoising it until a clean sample is produced. This synthesis procedure can be interpreted as an optimization algorithm that follows the gradient of the data density to produce likely samples.

Today we present two connected approaches that push the boundaries of the image synthesis quality for diffusion models — Super-Resolution via Repeated Refinements (SR3) and a model for class-conditioned synthesis, called Cascaded Diffusion Models (CDM). We show that by scaling up diffusion models and with carefully selected data augmentation techniques, we can outperform existing approaches. Specifically, SR3 attains strong image super-resolution results that surpass GANs in human evaluations. CDM generates high fidelity ImageNet samples that surpass BigGAN-deep and VQ-VAE2 on both FID score and Classification Accuracy Score by a large margin.

SR3: Image Super-Resolution
SR3 is a super-resolution diffusion model that takes as input a low-resolution image, and builds a corresponding high resolution image from pure noise. The model is trained on an image corruption process in which noise is progressively added to a high-resolution image until only pure noise remains. It then learns to reverse this process, beginning from pure noise and progressively removing noise to reach a target distribution through the guidance of the input low-resolution image..

<!– –>

With large scale training, SR3 achieves strong benchmark results on the super-resolution task for face and natural images when scaling to resolutions 4x–8x that of the input low-resolution image. These super-resolution models can further be cascaded together to increase the effective super-resolution scale factor, e.g., stacking a 64×64 → 256×256 and a 256×256 → 1024×1024 face super-resolution model together in order to perform a 64×64 → 1024×1024 super-resolution task.

We compare SR3 with existing methods using human evaluation study. We conduct a Two-Alternative Forced Choice Experiment where subjects are asked to choose between the reference high resolution image, and the model output when asked the question, “Which image would you guess is from a camera?” We measure the performance of the model through confusion rates (% of time raters choose the model outputs over reference images, where a perfect algorithm would achieve a 50% confusion rate). The results of this study are shown in the figure below.

Above: We achieve close to 50% confusion rate on the task of 16×16 → 128×128 faces, outperforming state-of-the-art face super-resolution methods PULSE and FSRGAN. Below: We also achieve a 40% confusion rate on the much more difficult task of 64×64 → 256×256 natural images, outperforming the regression baseline by a large margin.

CDM: Class-Conditional ImageNet Generation
Having shown the effectiveness of SR3 in performing natural image super-resolution, we go a step further and use these SR3 models for class-conditional image generation. CDM is a class-conditional diffusion model trained on ImageNet data to generate high-resolution natural images. Since ImageNet is a difficult, high-entropy dataset, we built CDM as a cascade of multiple diffusion models. This cascade approach involves chaining together multiple generative models over several spatial resolutions: one diffusion model that generates data at a low resolution, followed by a sequence of SR3 super-resolution diffusion models that gradually increase the resolution of the generated image to the highest resolution. It is well known that cascading improves quality and training speed for high resolution data, as shown by previous studies (for example in autoregressive models and VQ-VAE-2) and in concurrent work for diffusion models. As demonstrated by our quantitative results below, CDM further highlights the effectiveness of cascading in diffusion models for sample quality and usefulness in downstream tasks, such as image classification.

Example of the cascading pipeline that includes a sequence of diffusion models: the first generates a low resolution image, and the rest perform upsampling to the final high resolution image. Here the pipeline is for class-conditional ImageNet generation, which begins with a class-conditional diffusion model at 32×32 resolution, followed by 2x and 4x class-conditional super-resolution using SR3.

Selected generated images from our 256×256 cascaded class-conditional ImageNet model.

Along with including the SR3 model in the cascading pipeline, we also introduce a new data augmentation technique, which we call conditioning augmentation, that further improves the sample quality results of CDM. While the super-resolution models in CDM are trained on original images from the dataset, during generation they need to perform super-resolution on the images generated by a low-resolution base model, which may not be of sufficiently high quality in comparison to the original images. This leads to a train-test mismatch for the super-resolution models. Conditioning augmentation refers to applying data augmentation to the low-resolution input image of each super-resolution model in the cascading pipeline. These augmentations, which in our case include Gaussian noise and Gaussian blur, prevents each super-resolution model from overfitting to its lower resolution conditioning input, eventually leading to better higher resolution sample quality for CDM.

Altogether, CDM generates high fidelity samples superior to BigGAN-deep and VQ-VAE-2 in terms of both FID score and Classification Accuracy Score on class-conditional ImageNet generation. CDM is a pure generative model that does not use a classifier to boost sample quality, unlike other models such as ADM and VQ-VAE-2. See below for quantitative results on sample quality.

Class-conditional ImageNet FID scores at the 256×256 resolution for methods that do not use extra classifiers to boost sample quality. BigGAN-deep is reported at its best truncation value. (Lower is better.)

ImageNet classification accuracy scores at the 256×256 resolution, measuring the validation set accuracy of a classifier trained on generated data. CDM generated data attains significant gains over existing methods, closing the gap in classification accuracy between real and generated data. (Higher is better.)

Conclusion
With SR3 and CDM, we have pushed the performance of diffusion models to state-of-the-art on super-resolution and class-conditional ImageNet generation benchmarks. We are excited to further test the limits of diffusion models for a wide variety of generative modeling problems. For more information on our work, please visit Image Super-Resolution via Iterative Refinement and Cascaded Diffusion Models for High Fidelity Image Generation.

Acknowledgements:
We thank our co-authors William Chan, Mohammad Norouzi, Tim Salimans, and David Fleet, and we are grateful for research discussions and assistance from Ben Poole, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Doug Eck, and the rest of the Google Research, Brain Team.

Posted by C. Daniel Freeman, Senior Software Engineer and Erik Frey, Staff Software Engineer, Google Research

Reinforcement learning (RL) is a popular method for teaching robots to navigate and manipulate the physical world, which itself can be simplified and expressed as interactions between rigid bodies¹ (i.e., solid physical objects that do not deform when a force is applied to them). In order to facilitate the collection of training data in a practical amount of time, RL usually leverages simulation, where approximations of any number of complex objects are composed of many rigid bodies connected by joints and powered by actuators. But this poses a challenge: it frequently takes millions to billions of simulation frames for an RL agent to become proficient at even simple tasks, such as walking, using tools, or assembling toy blocks.

While progress has been made to improve training efficiency by recycling simulation frames, some RL tools instead sidestep this problem by distributing the generation of simulation frames across many simulators. These distributed simulation platforms yield impressive results that train very quickly, but they must run on compute clusters with thousands of CPUs or GPUs which are inaccessible to most researchers.

In “Brax – A Differentiable Physics Engine for Large Scale Rigid Body Simulation”, we present a new physics simulation engine that matches the performance of a large compute cluster with just a single TPU or GPU. The engine is designed to both efficiently run thousands of parallel physics simulations alongside a machine learning (ML) algorithm on a single accelerator and scale millions of simulations seamlessly across pods of interconnected accelerators. We’ve open sourced the engine along with reference RL algorithms and simulation environments that are all accessible via Colab. Using this new platform, we demonstrate 100-1000x faster training compared to a traditional workstation setup.

Three typical RL workflows. The left shows a typical workstation flow: on a single machine, with the environment on CPU, training takes hours or days. The middle shows a typical distributed simulation flow: training takes minutes by farming simulation out to thousands of machines. The right shows the Brax flow: learning and large batch simulation occur side by side on a single CPU/GPU chip.

Physics Simulation Engine Design Opportunities
Rigid body physics are used in video games, robotics, molecular dynamics, biomechanics, graphics and animation, and other domains. In order to accurately model such systems, simulators integrate forces from gravity, motor actuation, joint constraints, object collisions, and others to simulate the motion of a physical system across time.

Simulation of three spherical bodies, a wall, two joints, and one actuator. For each simulation timestep, forces and torques are integrated together to update the positions, rotations, and velocities of each physical body.

Taking a closer look at how most physics simulation engines are designed today, there are a few large opportunities to improve efficiency. As we noted above, a typical robotics learning pipeline places a single learner in a tight feedback with many simulations in parallel, but upon analyzing this architecture, one finds that:

1. This layout imposes an enormous latency bottleneck. Because the data must travel over the network within a datacenter, the learner must wait for 10,000+ nanoseconds to fetch experience from the simulator. Were this experience instead already on the same device as the learner’s neural network, latency would drop to <1 nanosecond.
2. The computation necessary for training the agent (one simulation step, followed by one update of the agent’s neural network) is overshadowed by the computation spent packaging the data (i.e., marshalling data within the engine, then into a wire format such as protobuf, then into TCP buffers, and then undoing all these steps on the learner side).
3. The computations happening within each simulator are remarkably similar, but not exactly the same.

Brax Design
In response to these observations, Brax is designed so that its physics calculations are exactly the same across each of its thousands of parallel environments by ensuring that the simulation is free of branches (i.e., simulation “if” logic that diverges as a result of the environment state). An example of a branch in a physics engine is the application of a contact force between a ball and a wall: different code paths will execute depending on whether the ball is touching the wall. That is, if the ball contacts the wall, separate code for simulating the ball’s bounce off the wall will execute. Brax employs a mix of the following three strategies to avoid branching:

• Replace the discrete branching logic with a continuous function, such as approximating the ball-wall contact force using a signed distance function. This approach results in the most efficiency gains.
• Evaluate the branch during JAX’s just-in-time compile. Many branches based on static properties of the environment, such as whether it’s even possible for two objects to collide, may be evaluated prior to simulation time.
• Run both sides of the branch during simulation but then select only the required results. Because this executes some code that isn’t ultimately used, it wastes operations compared to the above.

Once the calculations are guaranteed to be exactly uniform, the entire training architecture can be reduced in complexity to be executed on a single TPU or GPU. Doing so removes the computational overhead and latency of cross-machine communication. In practice, these changes lower the cost of training by 100x-1000x for comparable workloads.

Brax Environments
Environments are tiny packaged worlds that define a task for an RL agent to learn. Environments contain not only the means to simulate a world, but also functions, such as how to observe the world and the definition of the goal in that world.

A few standard benchmark environments have emerged in recent years for testing new RL algorithms and for evaluating the impact of those algorithms using metrics commonly understood by research scientists. Brax includes four such ready-to-use environments that come from the popular OpenAI gym: Ant, HalfCheetah, Humanoid, and Reacher.

From left to right: Ant, HalfCheetah, Humanoid, and Reacher are popular baseline environments for RL research.

Brax also includes three novel environments: dexterous manipulation of an object (a popular challenge in robotics), generalized locomotion (an agent that goes to a target placed anywhere around it), and a simulation of an industrial robot arm.

Left: Grasp, a claw hand that learns dexterous manipulation. Middle: Fetch, a toy, box-like dog learns a general goal-based locomotion policy. Right: Simulation of UR5e, an industrial robot arm.

Performance Benchmarks
The first step for analyzing Brax’s performance is to measure the speed at which it can simulate large batches of environments, because this is the critical bottleneck to overcome in order for the learner to consume enough experience to learn quickly.

These two graphs below show how many physics steps (updates to the state of the environment) Brax can produce as it is tasked with simulating more and more environments in parallel. The graph on the left shows that Brax scales the number of steps per second linearly with the number of parallel environments, only hitting memory bandwidth bottlenecks at 10,000 environments, which is not only enough for training single agents, but also suitable for training entire populations of agents. The graph on the right shows two things: first, that Brax performs well not only on TPU, but also on high-end GPUs (see the V100 and P100 curves), and second, that by leveraging JAX’s device parallelism primitives, Brax scales seamlessly across multiple devices, reaching hundreds of millions of physics steps per second (see the TPUv3 8×8 curve, which is 64 TPUv3 chips directly connected to each other over a high speed interconnect) .

Left: Scaling of the simulation steps per second for each Brax environment on a 4×2 TPU v3. Right: Scaling of the simulation steps per second for several accelerators on the Ant environment.

Another way to analyze Brax’s performance is to measure its impact on the time it takes to run a reinforcement learning experiment on a single workstation. Here we compare Brax training the popular Ant benchmark environment to its OpenAI counterpart, powered by the MuJoCo physics engine.

In the graph below, the blue line represents a standard workstation setup, where a learner runs on the GPU and the simulator runs on the CPU. We see that the time it takes to train an ant to run with reasonable proficiency (a score of 4000 on the y axis) drops from about 3 hours for the blue line, to about 10 seconds using Brax on accelerator hardware. It’s interesting to note that even on CPU alone (the grey line), Brax performs more than an order of magnitude faster, benefitting from learner and simulator both sitting in the same process.

Brax’s optimized PPO versus a standard GPU-backed PPO learning the MuJoCo-Ant-v2 environment, evaluated for 10 million steps. Note the x-axis is log-wallclock-time in seconds. Shaded region indicates lowest and highest performing seeds over 5 replicas, and solid line indicates mean.

Physics Fidelity
Designing a simulator that matches the behavior of the real world is a known hard problem that this work does not address. Nevertheless, it is useful to compare Brax to a reference simulator to ensure it is producing output that is at least as valid. In this case, we again compare Brax to MuJoCo, which is well-regarded for its simulation quality. We expect to see that, all else being equal, a policy has a similar reward trajectory whether trained in MuJoCo or Brax.

MuJoCo-Ant-v2 vs. Brax Ant, showing the number of environment steps plotted against the average episode score achieved for the environment. Both environments were trained with the same standard implementation of SAC. Shaded region indicates lowest and highest performing seeds over five runs, and solid line indicates the mean.

These curves show that as the reward rises at about the same rate for both simulators, both engines compute physics with a comparable level of complexity or difficulty to solve. And as both curves top out at about the same reward, we have confidence that the same general physical limits apply to agents operating to the best of their ability in either simulation.

We can also measure Brax’s ability to conserve linear momentum, angular momentum, and energy.

Linear momentum (left), angular momentum (middle), and energy (right) non-conservation scaling for Brax as well as several other physics engines. The y-axis indicates drift from the expected calculation (higher is smaller drift, which is better), and the x axis indicates the amount of time being simulated.

This measure of physics simulation quality was first proposed by the authors of MuJoCo as a way to understand how the simulation drifts off course as it is tasked with computing larger and larger time steps. Here, Brax performs similarly as its neighbors.

Conclusion
We invite researchers to perform a more qualitative measure of Brax’s physics fidelity by training their own policies in the Brax Training Colab. The learned trajectories are recognizably similar to those seen in OpenAI Gym.

Our work makes fast, scalable RL and robotics research much more accessible — what was formerly only possible via large compute clusters can now be run on workstations, or for free via hosted Google Colaboratory. Our Github repository includes not only the Brax simulation engine, but also a host of reference RL algorithms for fast training. We can’t wait to see what kind of new research Brax enables.

Acknowledgements
We’d like to thank our paper co-authors: Anton Raichuk, Sertan Girgin, Igor Mordatch, and Olivier Bachem. We also thank Erwin Coumans for advice on building physics engines, Blake Hechtman and James Bradbury for providing optimization help with JAX and XLA, and Luke Metz and Shane Gu for their advice. We’d also like to thank Vijay Sundaram, Wright Bagwell, Matt Leffler, Gavin Dodd, Brad Mckee, and Logan Olson, for helping to incubate this project.

---

¹ Due to the complexity of the real world, there is also ongoing research exploring the physics of deformable bodies. ^↩

The topic of AI fairness metrics is as important to society as it is confusing. Confusing it is due to a number of reasons: terminological proliferation, abundance of formulae, and last not least the impression that everyone else seems to know what they’re talking about. This text hopes to counteract some of that confusion by starting from a common-sense approach of contrasting two basic positions: On the one hand, the assumption that dataset features may be taken as reflecting the underlying concepts ML practitioners are interested in; on the other, that there inevitably is a gap between concept and measurement, a gap that may be bigger or smaller depending on what is being measured. In contrasting these fundamental views, we bring together concepts from ML, legal science, and political philosophy.

Posted by Thang Luong, Staff Research Scientist, Google Research and Jingcao Hu, Senior Staff Software Engineer, Google Search

Supervised learning, the machine learning task of training predictive models using data points with known outcomes (i.e., labeled data), is generally the preferred approach in industry because of its simplicity. However, supervised learning requires accurately labeled data, the collection of which is often labor intensive. In addition, as model efficiency improves with better architectures, algorithms, and hardware (GPUs / TPUs), training large models to achieve better quality becomes more accessible, which, in turn, requires even more labeled data for continued progress.

To mitigate such data acquisition challenges, semi-supervised learning, a machine learning paradigm that combines a small amount of labeled data with a large amount of unlabeled data, has recently seen success with methods such as UDA, SimCLR, and many others. In our previous work, we demonstrated for the first time that a semi-supervised learning approach, Noisy Student, can achieve state-of-the-art performance on ImageNet, a large-scale academic benchmark for image classification, by utilizing many more unlabeled examples.

Inspired by these results, today we are excited to present semi-supervised distillation (SSD), a simplified version of Noisy Student, and demonstrate its successful application to the language domain. We apply SSD to language understanding within the context of Google Search, resulting in high performance gains. This is the first successful instance of semi-supervised learning applied at such a large scale and demonstrates the potential impact of such approaches for production-scale systems.

Noisy Student Training
Prior to our development of Noisy Student, there was a large body of research into semi-supervised learning. In spite of this extensive research, however, such systems typically worked well only in the low-data regime, e.g., CIFAR, SVHN, and 10% ImageNet. When labeled data were abundant, such models were unable to compete with fully supervised learning systems, which prevented semi-supervised approaches from being applied to important applications in production, such as search engines and self-driving cars. This shortcoming motivated our development of Noisy Student Training, a semi-supervised learning approach that worked well in the high-data regime, and at the time achieved state-of-the-art accuracy on ImageNet using 130M additional unlabeled images.

Noisy Student Training has 4 simple steps:

1. Train a classifier (the teacher) on labeled data.
2. The teacher then infers pseudo-labels on a much larger unlabeled dataset.
3. Then, it trains a larger classifier on the combined labeled and pseudo-labeled data, while also adding noise (noisy student).
4. (Optional) Going back to step 2, the student may be used as a new teacher.

An illustration of Noisy Student Training through four simple steps. We use two types of noise: model noise (Dropout, Stochastic Depth) and input noise (data augmentation, such as RandAugment).

One can view Noisy Student as a form of self-training, because the model generates pseudo-labels with which it retrains itself to improve performance. A surprising property of Noisy Student Training is that the trained models work extremely well on robustness test sets for which it was not optimized, including ImageNet-A, ImageNet-C, and ImageNet-P. We hypothesize that the noise added during training not only helps with the learning, but also makes the model more robust.

Examples of images that are classified incorrectly by the baseline model, but correctly by Noisy Student. Left: An unmodified image from ImageNet-A. Middle and Right: Images with noise added, selected from ImageNet-C. For more examples including ImageNet-P, please see the paper.

Connections to Knowledge Distillation
Noisy Student is similar to knowledge distillation, which is a process of transferring knowledge from a large model (i.e., the teacher) to a smaller model (the student). The goal of distillation is to improve speed in order to build a model that is fast to run in production without sacrificing much in quality compared to the teacher. The simplest setup for distillation involves a single teacher and uses the same data, but in practice, one can use multiple teachers or a separate dataset for the student.

Simple illustrations of Noisy Student and knowledge distillation.

Unlike Noisy Student, knowledge distillation does not add noise during training (e.g., data augmentation or model regularization) and typically involves a smaller student model. In contrast, one can think of Noisy Student as the process of “knowledge expansion”.

Semi-Supervised Distillation
Another strategy for training production models is to apply Noisy Student training twice: first to get a larger teacher model T’ and then to derive a smaller student S. This approach produces a model that is better than either training with supervised learning or with Noisy Student training alone. Specifically, when applied to the vision domain for a family of EfficientNet models, ranging from EfficientNet-B0 with 5.3M parameters to EfficientNet-B7 with 66M parameters, this strategy achieves much better performance for each given model size (see Table 9 of the Noisy Student paper for more details).

Noisy Student training needs data augmentation, e.g., RandAugment (for vision) or SpecAugment (for speech), to work well. But in certain applications, e.g., natural language processing, such types of input noise are not readily available. For those applications, Noisy Student Training can be simplified to have no noise. In that case, the above two-stage process becomes a simpler method, which we call Semi-Supervised Distillation (SSD). First, the teacher model infers pseudo-labels on the unlabeled dataset from which we then train a new teacher model (T’) that is of equal-or-larger size than the original teacher model. This step, which is essentially self-training, is then followed by knowledge distillation to produce a smaller student model for production.

An illustration of Semi-Supervised Distillation (SSD), a 2-stage process that self-trains an equal-or-larger teacher (T’) before distilling to a student (S).

Improving Search
Having succeeded in the vision domain, an application in the language understanding domain, like Google Search, is a logical next step with broader user impact. In this case, we focus on an important ranking component in Search, which builds on BERT to better understand languages. This task turns out to be well-suited for SSD. Indeed, applying SSD to the ranking component to better understand the relevance of candidate search results to queries achieved one of the highest performance gains among top launches at Search in 2020. Below is an example of a query where the improved model demonstrates better language understanding.

With the implementation of SSD, Search is able to find documents that are more relevant to user queries.

Future Research & Challenges
We have presented a successful instance of semi-supervised distillation (SSD) in the production scale setting of Search. We believe SSD will continue changing the landscape of machine learning usage in the industry from predominantly supervised learning to semi-supervised learning. While our results are promising, there is still much research needed in how to efficiently utilize unlabeled examples in the real world, which is often noisy, and apply them to various domains.

Acknowledgements
Zhenshuai Ding, Yanping Huang, Elizabeth Tucker, Hai Qian, and Steve He contributed immensely to this successful launch. The project would not have succeeded without contributions from members of both the Brain and Search teams: Shuyuan Zhang, Rohan Anil, Zhifeng Chen, Rigel Swavely, Chris Waterson, Avinash Atreya. Thanks to Qizhe Xie and Zihang Dai for feedback on the work. Also, thanks to Quoc Le, Yonghui Wu, Sundeep Tirumalareddy, Alexander Grushetsky, Pandu Nayak for their leadership support.

Posted by Pablo Samuel Castro, Staff Software Engineer, Google Research

It is widely accepted that the enormous growth of deep reinforcement learning research, which combines traditional reinforcement learning with deep neural networks, began with the publication of the seminal DQN algorithm. This paper demonstrated the potential of this combination, showing that it could produce agents that could play a number of Atari 2600 games very effectively. Since then, there have been several approaches that have built on and improved the original DQN. The popular Rainbow algorithm combined a number of these recent advances to achieve state-of-the-art performance on the ALE benchmark. This advance, however, came at a very high computational cost, which has the unfortunate side effect of widening the gap between those with ample access to computational resources and those without.

In “Revisiting Rainbow: Promoting more Insightful and Inclusive Deep Reinforcement Learning Research”, to be presented at ICML 2021, we revisit this algorithm on a set of small- and medium-sized tasks. We first discuss the computational cost associated with the Rainbow algorithm. We explore how the same conclusions regarding the benefits of combining the various algorithmic components can be reached with smaller-scale experiments, and further generalize that idea to how research done on a smaller computational budget can provide valuable scientific insights.

The Cost of Rainbow
A major reason for the computational cost of Rainbow is that the standards in academic publishing often require evaluating new algorithms on large benchmarks like ALE, which consists of 57 Atari 2600 games that reinforcement learning agents may learn to play. For a typical game, it takes roughly five days to train a model using a Tesla P100 GPU. Furthermore, if one wants to establish meaningful confidence bounds, it is common to perform at least five independent runs. Thus, to train Rainbow on the full suite of 57 games required around 34,200 GPU hours (or 1425 days) in order to provide convincing empirical performance statistics. In other words, such experiments are only feasible if one is able to train on multiple GPUs in parallel, which can be prohibitive for smaller research groups.

Revisiting Rainbow
As in the original Rainbow paper, we evaluate the effect of adding the following components to the original DQN algorithm: double Q-learning, prioritized experience replay, dueling networks, multi-step learning, distributional RL, and noisy nets.

We evaluate on a set of four classic control environments, which can be fully trained in 10-20 minutes (compared to five days for ALE games):

Upper left: In CartPole, the task is to balance a pole on a cart that the agent can move left and right. Upper right: In Acrobot, there are two arms and two joints, where the agent applies force to the joint between the two arms in order to raise the lower arm above a threshold. Lower left: In LunarLander, the agent is meant to land the spaceship between the two flags. Lower right: In MountainCar, the agent must build up momentum between two hills to drive to the top of the rightmost hill.

We investigated the effect of both independently adding each of the components to DQN, as well as removing each from the full Rainbow algorithm. As in the original Rainbow paper, we find that, in aggregate, the addition of each of these algorithms does improve learning over the base DQN. However, we also found some important differences, such as the fact that distributional RL — commonly thought to be a positive addition on its own — does not always yield improvements on its own. Indeed, in contrast to the ALE results in the Rainbow paper, in the classic control environments, distributional RL only yields an improvement when combined with another component.

Each plot shows the training progress when adding the various components to DQN. The x-axis is training steps,the y-axis is performance (higher is better).

Each plot shows the training progress when removing the various components from Rainbow. The x-axis is training steps,the y-axis is performance (higher is better).

We also re-ran the Rainbow experiments on the MinAtar environment, which consists of a set of five miniaturized Atari games, and found qualitatively similar results. The MinAtar games are roughly 10 times faster to train than the regular Atari 2600 games on which the original Rainbow algorithm was evaluated, but still share some interesting aspects, such as game dynamics and having pixel-based inputs to the agent. As such, they provide a challenging mid-level environment, in between the classic control and the full Atari 2600 games.

When viewed in aggregate, we find our results to be consistent with those of the original Rainbow paper — the impact resulting from each algorithmic component can vary from environment to environment. If we were to suggest a single agent that balances the tradeoffs of the different algorithmic components, our version of Rainbow would likely be consistent with the original, in that combining all components produces a better overall agent. However, there are important details in the variations of the different algorithmic components that merit a more thorough investigation.

Beyond the Rainbow
When DQN was introduced, it made use of the Huber loss and the RMSProp Optimizer. It has been common practice for researchers to use these same choices when building on DQN, as most of their effort is spent on other algorithmic design decisions. In the spirit of reassessing these assumptions, we revisited the loss function and optimizer used by DQN on a lower-cost, small-scale classic control and MinAtar environments. We ran some initial experiments using the Adam optimizer, which has lately been the most popular optimizer choice, combined with a simpler loss function, the mean-squared error loss (MSE). Since the selection of optimizer and loss function is often overlooked when developing a new algorithm, we were surprised to see that we observed a dramatic improvement on all the classic control and MinAtar environments.

We thus decided to evaluate the different ways of combining the two optimizers (RMSProp and Adam) with the two losses (Huber and MSE) on the full ALE suite (60 Atari 2600 games). We found that Adam+MSE is a superior combination than RMSProp+Huber.

Measuring the improvement Adam+MSE gives over the default DQN settings (RMSProp + Huber); higher is better.

Additionally, when comparing the various optimizer-loss combinations, we find that when using RMSProp, the Huber loss tends to perform better than MSE (illustrated by the gap between the solid and dotted orange lines).

Normalized scores aggregated over all 60 Atari 2600 games, comparing the different optimizer-loss combinations.

Conclusion
On a limited computational budget we were able to reproduce, at a high-level, the findings of the Rainbow paper and uncover new and interesting phenomena. Evidently it is much easier to revisit something than to discover it in the first place. Our intent with this work, however, was to argue for the relevance and significance of empirical research on small- and medium-scale environments. We believe that these less computationally intensive environments lend themselves well to a more critical and thorough analysis of the performance, behaviors, and intricacies of new algorithms.

We are by no means calling for less emphasis to be placed on large-scale benchmarks. We are simply urging researchers to consider smaller-scale environments as a valuable tool in their investigations, and reviewers to avoid dismissing empirical work that focuses on smaller-scale environments. By doing so, in addition to reducing the environmental impact of our experiments, we will get both a clearer picture of the research landscape and reduce the barriers for researchers from diverse and often underresourced communities, which can only help make our community and scientific advances stronger.

Acknowledgments
Thank you to Johan, the first author of this paper, for his hard work and persistence in seeing this through! We would also like to thank Marlos C. Machado, Sara Hooker, Matthieu Geist, Nino Vieillard, Hado van Hasselt, Eleni Triantafillou, and Brian Tanner for their insightful comments on this work.

We are excited to announce the availability of sparklyr.sedona, a sparklyr extension making geospatial functionalities of the Apache Sedona library easily accessible from R.