DataBloom

Posted by Jonathan Mallinson and Aliaksei Severyn, Research Scientists, Google Research

Sequence-to-sequence (seq2seq) models have become a favoured approach for tackling natural language generation tasks, with applications ranging from machine translation to monolingual generation tasks, such as summarization, sentence fusion, text simplification, and machine translation post-editing. However these models appear to be a suboptimal choice for many monolingual tasks, as the desired output text often represents a minor rewrite of the input text. When accomplishing such tasks, seq2seq models are both slower because they generate the output one word at a time (i.e., autoregressively), and wasteful because most of the input tokens are simply copied into the output.

Instead, text-editing models have recently received a surge of interest as they propose to predict edit operations – such as word deletion, insertion, or replacement – that are applied to the input to reconstruct the output. However, previous text-editing approaches have limitations. They are either fast (being non-autoregressive), but not flexible, because they use a limited number of edit operations, or they are flexible, supporting all possible edit operations, but slow (autoregressive). In either case, they have not focused on modeling large structural (syntactic) transformations, for example switching from active voice, “They ate steak for dinner,” to passive, “Steak was eaten for dinner.” Instead, they’ve focused on local transformations, deleting or replacing short phrases. When a large structural transformation needs to occur, they either can’t produce it or insert a large amount of new text, which is slow.

In “FELIX: Flexible Text Editing Through Tagging and Insertion”, we introduce FELIX, a fast and flexible text-editing system that models large structural changes and achieves a 90x speed-up compared to seq2seq approaches whilst achieving impressive results on four monolingual generation tasks. Compared to traditional seq2seq methods, FELIX has the following three key advantages:

• Sample efficiency: Training a high precision text generation model typically requires large amounts of high-quality supervised data. FELIX uses three techniques to minimize the amount of required data: (1) fine-tuning pre-trained checkpoints, (2) a tagging model that learns a small number of edit operations, and (3) a text insertion task that is very similar to the pre-training task.
• Fast inference time: FELIX is fully non-autoregressive, avoiding slow inference times caused by an autoregressive decoder.
• Flexible text editing: FELIX strikes a balance between the complexity of learned edit operations and flexibility in the transformations it models.

In short, FELIX is designed to derive the maximum benefit from self-supervised pre-training, being efficient in low-resource settings, with little training data.

Overview
To achieve the above, FELIX decomposes the text-editing task into two sub-tasks: tagging to decide on the subset of input words and their order in the output text, and insertion, where words that are not present in the input are inserted. The tagging model employs a novel pointer mechanism, which supports structural transformations, while the insertion model is based on a Masked Language Model. Both of these models are non-autoregressive, ensuring the model is fast. A diagram of FELIX can be seen below.

An example of FELIX trained on data for a text simplification task. Input words are first tagged as KEEP (K), DELETE (D) or KEEP and INSERT (I). After tagging, the input is reordered. This reordered input is then fed to a masked language model.

The Tagging Model
The first step in FELIX is the tagging model, which consists of two components. First the tagger determines which words should be kept or deleted and where new words should be inserted. When the tagger predicts an insertion, a special MASK token is added to the output. After tagging, there is a reordering step where the pointer reorders the input to form the output, by which it is able to reuse parts of the input instead of inserting new text. The reordering step supports arbitrary rewrites, which enables modeling large changes. The pointer network is trained such that each word in the input points to the next word as it will appear in the output, as shown below.

Realization of the pointing mechanism to transform “There are 3 layers in the walls of the heart” into “the heart MASK 3 layers”.

The Insertion Model
The output of the tagging model is the reordered input text with deleted words and MASK tokens predicted by the insertion tag. The insertion model must predict the content of MASK tokens. Because FELIX’s insertion model is very similar to the pretraining objective of BERT, it can take direct advantage of the pre-training, which is particularly advantageous when data is limited.

Example of the insertion model, where the tagger predicts two words will be inserted and the insertion model predicts the content of the MASK tokens.

Results
We evaluated FELIX on sentence fusion, text simplification, abstractive summarization, and machine translation post-editing. These tasks vary significantly in the types of edits required and dataset sizes under which they operate. Below are the results on the sentence fusion task (i.e., merging two sentences into one), comparing FELIX against a large pre-trained seq2seq model (BERT2BERT) and a text-editing model (LaserTager), under a range of dataset sizes. We see that FELIX outperforms LaserTagger and can be trained on as little as a few hundred training examples. For the full dataset, the autoregressive BERT2BERT outperforms FELIX. However, during inference, this model takes significantly longer.

A comparison of different training dataset sizes on the DiscoFuse dataset. We compare FELIX (using the best performing model) against BERT2BERT and LaserTagger.

Latency in milliseconds for a batch of 32 on a Nvidia Tesla P100.

Conclusion
We have presented FELIX, which is fully non-autoregressive, providing even faster inference times, while achieving state-of-the-art results. FELIX also minimizes the amount of required training data with three techniques — fine-tuning pre-trained checkpoints, learning a small number of edit operations, and an insertion task that mimics masked language model task from the pre-training. Lastly, FELIX strikes a balance between the complexity of learned edit operations and the percentage of input-output transformations it can handle. We have open-sourced the code for FELIX and hope it will provide researchers with a faster, more efficient, and more flexible text-editing model.

Acknowledgements
This research was conducted by Jonathan Mallinson, Aliaksei Severyn (equal contribution), Eric Malmi, Guillermo Garrido. We would like to thank Aleksandr Chuklin, Daniil Mirylenka, Ryan McDonald, and Sebastian Krause for useful discussions, running early experiments and paper suggestions.

Posted by Thao Nguyen, AI Resident, Google Research

A common practice to improve a neural network’s performance and tailor it to available computational resources is to adjust the architecture depth and width. Indeed, popular families of neural networks, including EfficientNet, ResNet and Transformers, consist of a set of architectures of flexible depths and widths. However, beyond the effect on accuracy, there is limited understanding of how these fundamental choices of architecture design affect the model, such as the impact on its internal representations.

In “Do Wide and Deep Networks Learn the Same Things? Uncovering How Neural Network Representations Vary with Width and Depth”, we perform a systematic study of the similarity between wide and deep networks from the same architectural family through the lens of their hidden representations and final outputs. In very wide or very deep models, we find a characteristic block structure in their internal representations, and establish a connection between this phenomenon and model overparameterization. Comparisons across models demonstrate that those without the block structure show significant similarity between representations in corresponding layers, but those containing the block structure exhibit highly dissimilar representations. These properties of the internal representations in turn translate to systematically different errors at the class and example levels for wide and deep models when they are evaluated on the same test set.

Comparing Representation Similarity with CKA
We extended prior work on analyzing representations by leveraging our previously developed Centered Kernel Alignment (CKA) technique, which provides a robust, scalable way to determine the similarity between the representations learned by any pair of neural network layers. CKA takes as input the representations (i.e., the activation matrices) from two layers, and outputs a similarity score between 0 (not at all similar) and 1 (identical representations).

We apply CKA to a family of ResNets of varying depths and widths, trained on common benchmark datasets (CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100 and ImageNet), and use representation heatmaps to illustrate the results. The x and y axes of each heatmap index the layers of the model(s) in consideration, going from input to output, and each entry (i, j) is the CKA similarity score between layer i and layer j.

We use CKA to compute the representation similarity for all pairs of layers within a single model (i.e., when network 1 and network 2 are identical), and across models (i.e., when network 1 and network 2 are trained with different random initializations, or have different architectures altogether).

Below is an example of the resulting heatmap when we compare representations of each layer to every other layer within a single ResNet of depth 26 and width multiplier 1. In the design convention used here, the stated depth only refers to the number of convolutional layers in the network, but we analyze all layers present, and the width multiplier applies to the number of filters in each convolution. Notice the checkerboard pattern in the heatmap, which is caused by skip connections (shortcuts between layers) in the architecture.

The Emergence of the Block Structure
What stands out from the representation heatmaps of deeper or wider networks is the emergence of a large set of consecutive layers with highly similar representations, which appears in the heatmaps as a yellow square (i.e., a region with high CKA scores). This phenomenon, which we call the block structure, suggests that the underlying layers may not be as efficient at progressively refining the network’s representations as we expect. Indeed, we show that the task performance becomes stagnant inside the block structure, and that it is possible to prune some underlying layers without affecting the final performance.

Block structure — a large, contiguous set of layers with highly similar representations — emerges with increasing width or depth. Each heatmap panel shows the CKA similarity between all pairs of layers within a single neural network. While its size and position can vary across different training runs, the block structure is a robust phenomenon that arises consistently in larger models.

With additional experiments, we show that the block structure has less to do with the absolute model size, than with the size of the model relative to the size of the training dataset. As we reduce the training dataset size, the block structure starts to appear in shallower and narrower networks:

With increasing network width (towards the right along each row) and decreasing dataset size (down each column), the relative model capacity (with respect to a given task) is effectively inflated, and the block structure begins to appear in smaller models.

Through further analysis, we are also able to demonstrate that the block structure arises from preserving and propagating the dominant principal components of its underlying representations. Refer to our paper for more details.

Comparing Representations Across Models
Going further, we study the implications of depth and width on representations across models of different random initializations and different architectures, and find that the presence of block structure makes a significant difference in this context as well. Despite having different architectures, wide and deep models without the block structure do exhibit representation similarity with each other, with corresponding layers broadly being of the same proportional depth in the model. However, when the block structure is present, its representations are unique to each model. This suggests that despite having similar overall performance, each wide or deep model with the block structure picks up a unique mapping from the input to the output.

For smaller models (e.g., ResNet-38 1×), CKA across different initializations (off the diagonal) closely resembles CKA within a single model (on the diagonal). In contrast, representations within the block structure of wider and deeper models (e.g., ResNet-38 10×, ResNet-164 1×) are highly dissimilar across training runs.

Error Analysis of Wide and Deep Models
Having explored the properties of the learned representations of wide and deep models, we next turn to understanding how they influence the diversity of the output predictions. We train populations of networks of different architectures and determine on which test set examples each architecture configuration tends to make errors.

On both CIFAR-10 and ImageNet datasets, wide and deep models that have the same average accuracy still demonstrate statistically significant differences in example-level predictions. The same observation holds for class-level errors on ImageNet, with wide models exhibiting a small advantage in identifying classes corresponding to scenes, and deep networks being relatively more accurate on consumer goods.

Per-class differences on ImageNet between models with increased width (y-axis) or depth (x-axis). Orange dots reflect differences between two sets of 50 different random initializations of ResNet-83 (1×).

Conclusions
In studying the effects of depth and width on internal representations, we uncover a block structure phenomenon, and demonstrate its connection to model capacity. We also show that wide and deep models exhibit systematic output differences at class and example levels. Check out the paper for full details on these results and additional insights! We’re excited about the many interesting open questions these findings suggest, such as how the block structure arises during training, whether the phenomenon occurs in domains beyond image classification, and ways these insights on internal representations can inform model efficiency and generalization.

Acknowledgements
This is a joint work with Maithra Raghu and Simon Kornblith. We would like to thank Tom Small for the visualizations of the representation heatmap.