Looking at photos from the past can help people relive some of their most treasured moments. Last December we launched Cinematic photos, a new feature in Google Photos that aims to recapture the sense of immersion felt the moment a photo was taken, simulating camera motion and parallax by inferring 3D representations in an image. In this post, we take a look at the technology behind this process, and demonstrate how Cinematic photos can turn a single 2D photo from the past into a more immersive 3D animation.
To enable Cinematic photos on existing pictures that were not taken in multi-view stereo, we trained a convolutional neural network with encoder-decoder architecture to predict a depth map from just a single RGB image. Using only one view, the model learned to estimate depth using monocular cues, such as the relative sizes of objects, linear perspective, defocus blur, etc.
Because monocular depth estimation datasets are typically designed for domains such as AR, robotics, and self-driving, they tend to emphasize street scenes or indoor room scenes instead of features more common in casual photography, like people, pets, and objects, which have different composition and framing. So, we created our own dataset for training the monocular depth model using photos captured on a custom 5-camera rig as well as another dataset of Portrait photos captured on Pixel 4. Both datasets included ground-truth depth from multi-view stereo that is critical for training a model.
Mixing several datasets in this way exposes the model to a larger variety of scenes and camera hardware, improving its predictions on photos in the wild. However, it also introduces new challenges, because the ground-truth depth from different datasets may differ from each other by an unknown scaling factor and shift. Fortunately, the Cinematic photo effect only needs the relative depths of objects in the scene, not the absolute depths. Thus we can combine datasets by using a scale-and-shift-invariant loss during training and then normalize the output of the model at inference.
The Cinematic photo effect is particularly sensitive to the depth map’s accuracy at person boundaries. An error in the depth map can result in jarring artifacts in the final rendered effect. To mitigate this, we apply median filtering to improve the edges, and also infer segmentation masks of any people in the photo using a DeepLab segmentation model trained on the Open Images dataset. The masks are used to pull forward pixels of the depth map that were incorrectly predicted to be in the background.
Camera Trajectory There can be many degrees of freedom when animating a camera in a 3D scene, and our virtual camera setup is inspired by professional video camera rigs to create cinematic motion. Part of this is identifying the optimal pivot point for the virtual camera’s rotation in order to yield the best results by drawing one’s eye to the subject.
The first step in 3D scene reconstruction is to create a mesh by extruding the RGB image onto the depth map. By doing so, neighboring points in the mesh can have large depth differences. While this is not noticeable from the “face-on” view, the more the virtual camera is moved, the more likely it is to see polygons spanning large changes in depth. In the rendered output video, this will look like the input texture is stretched. The biggest challenge when animating the virtual camera is to find a trajectory that introduces parallax while minimizing these “stretchy” artifacts.
Because of the wide spectrum in user photos and their corresponding 3D reconstructions, it is not possible to share one trajectory across all animations. Instead, we define a loss function that captures how much of the stretchiness can be seen in the final animation, which allows us to optimize the camera parameters for each unique photo. Rather than counting the total number of pixels identified as artifacts, the loss function triggers more heavily in areas with a greater number of connected artifact pixels, which reflects a viewer’s tendency to more easily notice artifacts in these connected areas.
We utilize padded segmentation masks from a human pose network to divide the image into three different regions: head, body and background. The loss function is normalized inside each region before computing the final loss as a weighted sum of the normalized losses. Ideally the generated output video is free from artifacts but in practice, this is rare. Weighting the regions differently biases the optimization process to pick trajectories that prefer artifacts in the background regions, rather than those artifacts near the image subject.
Framing the Scene Generally, the reprojected 3D scene does not neatly fit into a rectangle with portrait orientation, so it was also necessary to frame the output with the correct right aspect ratio while still retaining the key parts of the input image. To accomplish this, we use a deep neural network that predicts per-pixel saliency of the full image. When framing the virtual camera in 3D, the model identifies and captures as many salient regions as possible while ensuring that the rendered mesh fully occupies every output video frame. This sometimes requires the model to shrink the camera's field of view.
Conclusion Through Cinematic photos, we implemented a system of algorithms – with each ML model evaluated for fairness – that work together to allow users to relive their memories in a new way, and we are excited about future research and feature improvements. Now that you know how they are created, keep an eye open for automatically created Cinematic photos that may appear in your recent memories within the Google Photos app!
Acknowledgments Cinematic Photos is the result of a collaboration between Google Research and Google Photos teams. Key contributors also include: Andre Le, Brian Curless, Cassidy Curtis, Ce Liu, Chun-po Wang, Daniel Jenstad, David Salesin, Dominik Kaeser, Gina Reynolds, Hao Xu, Huiwen Chang, Huizhong Chen, Jamie Aspinall, Janne Kontkanen, Matthew DuVall, Michael Kucera, Michael Milne, Mike Krainin, Mike Liu, Navin Sarma, Orly Liba, Peter Hedman, Rocky Cai, Ruirui Jiang, Steven Hickson, Tracy Gu, Tyler Zhu, Varun Jampani, Yuan Hao, Zhongli Ding.
The success of a neural network (NN) often depends on how well it can generalize to various tasks. However, designing NNs that can generalize well is challenging because the research community's understanding of how a neural network generalizes is currently somewhat limited: What does the appropriate neural network look like for a given problem? How deep should it be? Which types of layers should be used? Would LSTMs be enough or would Transformer layers be better? Or maybe a combination of the two? Would ensembling or distillation boost performance? These tricky questions are made even more challenging when considering machine learning (ML) domains where there may exist better intuition and deeper understanding than others.
In recent years, AutoML algorithms have emerged [e.g., 1, 2, 3] to help researchers find the right neural network automatically without the need for manual experimentation. Techniques like neural architecture search (NAS), use algorithms, like reinforcement learning (RL), evolutionary algorithms, and combinatorial search, to build a neural network out of a given search space. With the proper setup, these techniques have demonstrated they are capable of delivering results that are better than the manually designed counterparts. But more often than not, these algorithms are compute heavy, and need thousands of models to train before converging. Moreover, they explore search spaces that are domain specific and incorporate substantial prior human knowledge that does not transfer well across domains. As an example, in image classification, the traditional NAS searches for two good building blocks (convolutional and downsampling blocks), that it arranges following traditional conventions to create the full network.
To overcome these shortcomings and to extend access to AutoML solutions to the broader research community, we are excited to announce the open source release of Model Search, a platform that helps researchers develop the best ML models, efficiently and automatically. Instead of focusing on a specific domain, Model Search is domain agnostic, flexible and is capable of finding the appropriate architecture that best fits a given dataset and problem, while minimizing coding time, effort and compute resources. It is built on Tensorflow, and can run either on a single machine or in a distributed setting.
Overview The Model Search system consists of multiple trainers, a search algorithm, a transfer learning algorithm and a database to store the various evaluated models. The system runs both training and evaluation experiments for various ML models (different architectures and training techniques) in an adaptive, yet asynchronous, fashion. While each trainer conducts experiments independently, all trainers share the knowledge gained from their experiments. At the beginning of every cycle, the search algorithm looks up all the completed trials and uses beam search to decide what to try next. It then invokes mutation over one of the best architectures found thus far and assigns the resulting model back to a trainer.
The system builds a neural network model from a set of predefined blocks, each of which represents a known micro-architecture, like LSTM, ResNet or Transformer layers. By using blocks of pre-existing architectural components, Model Search is able to leverage existing best knowledge from NAS research across domains. This approach is also more efficient, because it explores structures, not their more fundamental and detailed components, therefore reducing the scale of the search space.
Because the Model Search framework is built on Tensorflow, blocks can implement any function that takes a tensor as an input. For example, imagine that one wants to introduce a new search space built with a selection of micro architectures. The framework will take the newly defined blocks and incorporate them into the search process so that algorithms can build the best possible neural network from the components provided. The blocks provided can even be fully defined neural networks that are already known to work for the problem of interest. In that case, Model Search can be configured to simply act as a powerful ensembling machine.
The search algorithms implemented in Model Search are adaptive, greedy and incremental, which makes them converge faster than RL algorithms. They do however imitate the “explore & exploit” nature of RL algorithms by separating the search for a good candidate (explore step), and boosting accuracy by ensembling good candidates that were discovered (exploit step). The main search algorithm adaptively modifies one of the top k performing experiments (where k can be specified by the user) after applying random changes to the architecture or the training technique (e.g., making the architecture deeper).
To further improve efficiency and accuracy, transfer learning is enabled between various internal experiments. Model Search does this in two ways — via knowledge distillation or weight sharing. Knowledge distillation allows one to improve candidates' accuracies by adding a loss term that matches the high performing models’ predictions in addition to the ground truth. Weight sharing, on the other hand, bootstraps some of the parameters (after applying mutation) in the network from previously trained candidates by copying suitable weights from previously trained models and randomly initializing the remaining ones. This enables faster training, which allows opportunities to discover more (and better) architectures.
Experimental Results Model Search improves upon production models with minimal iterations. In a recent paper, we demonstrated the capabilities of Model Search in the speech domain by discovering a model for keyword spotting and language identification. Over fewer than 200 iterations, the resulting model slightly improved upon internal state-of-the-art production models designed by experts in accuracy using ~130K fewer trainable parameters (184K compared to 315K parameters).
We also applied Model Search to find an architecture suitable for image classification on the heavily explored CIFAR-10 imaging dataset. Using a set known convolution blocks, including convolutions, resnet blocks (i.e., two convolutions and a skip connection), NAS-A cells, fully connected layers, etc., we observed that we were able to quickly reach a benchmark accuracy of 91.83 in 209 trials (i.e., exploring only 209 models). In comparison, previous top performers reached the same threshold accuracy in 5807 trials for the NasNet algorithm (RL), and 1160 for PNAS (RL + Progressive).
Conclusion We hope the Model Search code will provide researchers with a flexible, domain-agnostic framework for ML model discovery. By building upon previous knowledge for a given domain, we believe that this framework is powerful enough to build models with the state-of-the-art performance on well studied problems when provided with a search space composed of standard building blocks.
Acknowledgements Special thanks to all code contributors to the open sourcing and the paper: Eugen Ehotaj, Scotty Yak, Malaika Handa, James Preiss, Pai Zhu, Aleks Kracun, Prashant Sridhar, Niranjan Subrahmanya, Ignacio Lopez Moreno, Hyun Jin Park, and Patrick Violette.
Deep reinforcement learning (RL) enables artificial agents to improve their decisions over time. Traditional model-free approaches learn which of the actions are successful in different situations by interacting with the environment through a large amount of trial and error. In contrast, recent advances in deep RL have enabled model-based approaches to learn accurate world models from image inputs and use them for planning. World models can learn from fewer interactions, facilitate generalization from offline data, enable forward-looking exploration, and allow reusing knowledge across multiple tasks.
Despite their intriguing benefits, existing world models (such as SimPLe) have not been accurate enough to compete with the top model-free approaches on the most competitive reinforcement learning benchmarks — to date, the well-established Atari benchmark requires model-free algorithms, such as DQN, IQN, and Rainbow, to reach human-level performance. As a result, many researchers have focused instead on developing task-specific planning methods, such as VPN and MuZero, which learn by predicting sums of expected task rewards. However, these methods are specific to individual tasks and it is unclear how well they would generalize to new tasks or learn from unsupervised datasets. Similar to the recent breakthrough of unsupervised representation learning in computer vision [1, 2], world models aim to learn patterns in the environment that are more general than any particular task to later solve tasks more efficiently.
Today, in collaboration with DeepMind and the University of Toronto, we introduce DreamerV2, the first RL agent based on a world model to achieve human-level performance on the Atari benchmark. It constitutes the second generation of the Dreamer agent that learns behaviors purely within the latent space of a world model trained from pixels. DreamerV2 relies exclusively on general information from the images and accurately predicts future task rewards even when its representations were not influenced by those rewards. Using a single GPU, DreamerV2 outperforms top model-free algorithms with the same compute and sample budget.
An Abstract Model of the World Just like its predecessor, DreamerV2 learns a world model and uses it to train actor-critic behaviors purely from predicted trajectories. The world model automatically learns to compute compact representations of its images that discover useful concepts, such as object positions, and learns how these concepts change in response to different actions. This lets the agent generate abstractions of its images that ignore irrelevant details and enables massively parallel predictions on a single GPU. During 200 million environment steps, DreamerV2 predicts 468 billion compact states for learning its behavior.
DreamerV2 builds upon the Recurrent State-Space Model (RSSM) that we introduced for PlaNet and was also used for DreamerV1. During training, an encoder turns each image into a stochastic representation that is incorporated into the recurrent state of the world model. Because the representations are stochastic, they do not have access to perfect information about the images and instead extract only what is necessary to make predictions, making the agent robust to unseen images. From each state, a decoder reconstructs the corresponding image to learn general representations. Moreover, a small reward network is trained to rank outcomes during planning. To enable planning without generating images, a predictor learns to guess the stochastic representations without access to the images from which they were computed.
Importantly, DreamerV2 introduces two new techniques to RSSM that lead to a substantially more accurate world model for learning successful policies. The first technique is to represent each image with multiple categorical variables instead of the Gaussian variables used by PlaNet, DreamerV1, and many more world models in the literature [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. This leads the world model to reason about the world in terms of discrete concepts and enables more accurate predictions of future representations.
The encoder turns each image into 32 distributions over 32 classes each, the meanings of which are determined automatically as the world model learns. The one-hot vectors sampled from these distributions are concatenated to a sparse representation that is passed on to the recurrent state. To backpropagate through the samples, we use straight-through gradients that are easy to implement using automatic differentiation. Representing images with categorical variables allows the predictor to accurately learn the distribution over the one-hot vectors of the possible next images. In contrast, earlier world models that use Gaussian predictors cannot accurately match the distribution over multiple Gaussian representations for the possible next images.
The second new technique of DreamerV2 is KL balancing. Many previous world models use the ELBO objective that encourages accurate reconstructions while keeping the stochastic representations (posteriors) close to their predictions (priors) to regularize the amount of information extracted from each image and facilitate generalization. Because the objective is optimized end-to-end, the stochastic representations and their predictions can be made more similar by bringing either of the two towards the other. However, bringing the representations towards their predictions can be problematic when the predictor is not yet accurate. KL balancing lets the predictions move faster toward the representations than vice versa. This results in more accurate predictions, a key to successful planning.
Measuring Atari Performance DreamerV2 is the first world model that enables learning successful behaviors with human-level performance on the well-established and competitive Atari benchmark. We select the 55 games that many previous studies have in common and recommend this set of games for future work. Following the standard evaluation protocol, the agents are allowed 200M environment interactions using an action repeat of 4 and sticky actions (25% chance that an action is ignored and the previous action is repeated instead). We compare to the top model-free agents IQN and Rainbow, as well as to the well-known C51 and DQN agents implemented in the Dopamine framework.
Different standards exist for aggregating the scores across the 55 games. Ideally, a new algorithm would perform better under all conditions. For all four aggregation methods, DreamerV2 indeed outperforms all compared model-free algorithms while using the same computational budget.
The first three aggregation methods were previously proposed in the literature. We identify important drawbacks in each and recommend a new aggregation method, the clipped record mean to overcome their drawbacks.
While many current algorithms exceed the human gamer baseline, they are still quite far behind the human world record. As shown in the right-most plot above, DreamerV2 leads by achieving 25% of the human record on average across games. Clipping the scores at the record line lets us focus our efforts on developing methods that come closer to the human world record on all of the games rather than exceeding it on just a few games.
What matters and what doesn't To gain insights into the important components of DreamerV2, we conduct an extensive ablation study. Importantly, we find that categorical representations offer a clear advantage over Gaussian representations despite the fact that Gaussians have been used extensively in prior works. KL balancing provides an even more substantial advantage over the KL regularizer used by most generative models.
By preventing the image reconstruction or reward prediction gradients from shaping the model states, we study their importance for learning successful representations. We find that DreamerV2 relies completely on universal information from the high-dimensional input images and its representations enable accurate reward predictions even when they were not trained using information about the reward. This mirrors the success of unsupervised representation learning in the computer vision community.
Conclusion We show how to learn a powerful world model to achieve human-level performance on the competitive Atari benchmark and outperform the top model-free agents. This result demonstrates that world models are a powerful approach for achieving high performance on reinforcement learning problems and are ready to use for practitioners and researchers. We see this as an indication that the success of unsupervised representation learning in computer vision [1, 2] is now starting to be realized in reinforcement learning in the form of world models. An unofficial implementation of DreamerV2 is available on Github and provides a productive starting point for future research projects. We see world models that leverage large offline datasets, long-term memory, hierarchical planning, and directed exploration as exciting avenues for future research.
Acknowledgements This project is a collaboration with Timothy Lillicrap, Mohammad Norouzi, and Jimmy Ba. We further thank everybody on the Brain Team and beyond who commented on our paper draft and provided feedback at any point throughout the project.
Rearranging objects (such as organizing books on a bookshelf, moving utensils on a dinner table, or pushing piles of coffee beans) is a fundamental skill that can enable robots to physically interact with our diverse and unstructured world. While easy for people, accomplishing such tasks remains an open research challenge for embodied machine learning (ML) systems, as it requires both high-level and low-level perceptual reasoning. For example, when stacking a pile of books, one might consider where the books should be stacked, and in which order, while ensuring that the edges of the books align with each other to form a neat pile.
Across many application areas in ML, simple differences in model architecture can exhibit vastly different generalization properties. Therefore, one might ask whether there are certain deep network architectures that favor simple underlying elements of the rearrangement problem. Convolutional architectures, for example, are common in computer vision as they encode translational invariance, yielding the same response even if an image is shifted, while Transformer architectures are common in language processing because they exploit self-attention to capture long-range contextual dependencies. In robotics applications, one common architectural element is to use object-centric representations such as poses, keypoints, or object descriptors inside learned models, but these representations require additional training data (often manually annotated) and struggle to describe difficult scenarios such as deformables (e.g., playdough), fluids (honey), or piles of stuff (chopped onions).
Today, we present the Transporter Network, a simple model architecture for learning vision-based rearrangement tasks, which appeared as a publication and plenary talk during CoRL 2020. Transporter Nets use a novel approach to 3D spatial understanding that avoids reliance on object-centric representations, making them general for vision-based manipulation but far more sample efficient than benchmarked end-to-end alternatives. As a consequence, they are fast and practical to train on real robots. We are also releasing an accompanying open-source implementation of Transporter Nets together with Ravens, our new simulated benchmark suite of ten vision-based manipulation tasks.
Transporter Networks: Rearranging the Visual World for Robotic Manipulation The key idea behind the Transporter Network architecture is that one can formulate the rearrangement problem as learning how to move a chunk of 3D space. Rather than relying on an explicit definition of objects (which is bound to struggle at capturing all edge cases), 3D space is a much broader definition for what could serve as the atomic units being rearranged, and can broadly encompass an object, part of an object, or multiple objects, etc. Transporter Nets leverage this structure by capturing a deep representation of the 3D visual world, then overlaying parts of it on itself to imagine various possible rearrangements of 3D space. It then chooses the rearrangements that best match those it has seen during training (e.g., from expert demonstrations), and uses them to parameterize robot actions. This formulation allows Transporter Nets to generalize to unseen objects and enables them to better exploit geometric symmetries in the data, so that they can extrapolate to new scene configurations. Transporter Nets are applicable to a wide variety of rearrangement tasks for robotic manipulation, expanding beyond our earlier models, such as affordance-based manipulation and TossingBot, that focus only on grasping and tossing.
Ravens Benchmark To evaluate the performance of Transporter Nets in a consistent environment for fair comparisons to baselines and ablations, we developed Ravens, a benchmark suite of ten simulated vision-based rearrangement tasks. Ravens features a Gym API with a built-in stochastic oracle to evaluate the sample efficiency of imitation learning methods. Ravens avoids assumptions that cannot transfer to a real setup: observation data contains only RGB-D images and camera parameters; actions are end effector poses (transposed into joint positions with inverse kinematics).
Experiments on these ten tasks show that Transporter Nets are orders of magnitude more sample efficient than other end-to-end methods, and are capable of achieving over 90% success on many tasks with just 100 demonstrations, while the baselines struggle to generalize with the same amount of data. In practice, this makes collecting enough demonstrations a more viable option for training these models on real robots (which we show examples of below).
Our new Ravens benchmark includes ten simulated vision-based manipulation tasks, including pushing and pick-and-place, for which experiments show that Transporter Nets are orders of magnitude more sample efficient than other end-to-end methods. Ravens features a Gym API with a built-in stochastic oracle to evaluate the sample efficiency of imitation learning methods.
Highlights Given 10 example demonstrations, Transporter Nets can learn pick and place tasks such as stacking plates (surprisingly easy to misplace!), multimodal tasks like aligning any corner of a box to a marker on the tabletop, or building a pyramid of blocks.
By leveraging closed-loop visual feedback, Transporter Nets have the capacity to learn various multi-step sequential tasks with a modest number of demonstrations: such as moving disks for Tower of Hanoi, palletizing boxes, or assembling kits of new objects not seen during training. These tasks have considerably “long horizons”, meaning that to solve the task the model must correctly sequence many individual choices. Policies also tend to learn emergent recovery behaviors.
One surprising thing about these results was that beyond just perception, the models were starting to learn behaviors that resemble high-level planning. For example, to solve Towers of Hanoi, the models have to pick which disk to move next, which requires recognizing the state of the board based on the current visible disks and their positions. With a box-palletizing task, the models must locate the empty spaces of the pallet, and identify how new boxes can fit into those voids. Such behaviors are exciting because they suggest that with all the baked-in invariances, the model can focus its capacity on learning the more high-level patterns in manipulation.
Transporter Nets can also learn tasks that use any motion primitive defined by two end effector poses, such as pushing piles of small objects into a target set, or reconfiguring a deformable rope to connect the two end-points of a 3-sided square. This suggests that rigid spatial displacements can serve as useful priors for nonrigid ones.
Conclusion Transporter Nets bring a promising approach to learning vision-based manipulation, but are not without limitations. For example, they can be susceptible to noisy 3D data, we have only demonstrated them for sparse waypoint-based control with motion primitives, and it remains unclear how to extend them beyond spatial action spaces to force or torque-based actions. But overall, we are excited about this direction of work, and we hope that it provides inspiration for extensions beyond the applications we’ve discussed. For more details, please check out our paper.
Acknowledgements This research was done by Andy Zeng, Pete Florence, Jonathan Tompson, Stefan Welker, Jonathan Chien, Maria Attarian, Travis Armstrong, Ivan Krasin, Dan Duong, Vikas Sindhwani, and Johnny Lee, with special thanks to Ken Goldberg, Razvan Surdulescu, Daniel Seita, Ayzaan Wahid, Vincent Vanhoucke, Anelia Angelova, Kendra Byrne, for helpful feedback on writing; Sean Snyder, Jonathan Vela, Larry Bisares, Michael Villanueva, Brandon Hurd for operations and hardware support; Robert Baruch for software infrastructure, Jared Braun for UI contributions; Erwin Coumans for PyBullet advice; Laura Graesser for video narration.
The growing ubiquity of 3D sensors (e.g., Lidar, depth sensing cameras and radar) over the last few years has created a need for scene understanding technology that can process the data these devices capture. Such technology can enable machine learning (ML) systems that use these sensors, like autonomous cars and robots, to navigate and operate in the real world, and can create an improved augmented reality experience on mobile devices. The field of computer vision has recently begun making good progress in 3D scene understanding, including models for mobile 3D object detection, transparent object detection, and more, but entry to the field can be challenging due to the limited availability tools and resources that can be applied to 3D data.
In order to further improve 3D scene understanding and reduce barriers to entry for interested researchers, we are releasing TensorFlow 3D (TF 3D), a highly modular and efficient library that is designed to bring 3D deep learning capabilities into TensorFlow. TF 3D provides a set of popular operations, loss functions, data processing tools, models and metrics that enables the broader research community to develop, train and deploy state-of-the-art 3D scene understanding models.
TF 3D contains training and evaluation pipelines for state-of-the-art 3D semantic segmentation, 3D object detection and 3D instance segmentation, with support for distributed training. It also enables other potential applications like 3D object shape prediction, point cloud registration and point cloud densification. In addition, it offers a unified dataset specification and configuration for training and evaluation of the standard 3D scene understanding datasets. It currently supports the Waymo Open, ScanNet, and Rio datasets. However, users can freely convert other popular datasets, such as NuScenes and Kitti, into a similar format and use them in the pre-existing or custom created pipelines, and can leverage TF 3D for a wide variety of 3D deep learning research and applications, from quickly prototyping and trying new ideas to deploying a real-time inference system.
Here, we will present the efficient and configurable sparse convolutional backbone that is provided in TF 3D, which is the key to achieving state-of-the-art results on various 3D scene understanding tasks. Furthermore, we will go over each of the three pipelines that TF 3D currently supports: 3D semantic segmentation, 3D object detection and 3D instance segmentation.
3D Sparse Convolutional Network The 3D data captured by sensors often consists of a scene that contains a set of objects of interest (e.g. cars, pedestrians, etc.) surrounded mostly by open space, which is of limited (or no) interest. As such, 3D data is inherently sparse. In such an environment, standard implementation of convolutions would be computationally intensive and consume a large amount of memory. So, in TF 3D we use submanifold sparse convolution and pooling operations, which are designed to process 3D sparse data more efficiently. Sparse convolutional models are core to the state-of-the-art methods applied in most outdoor self-driving (e.g. Waymo, NuScenes) and indoor benchmarks (e.g. ScanNet).
We also use various CUDA techniques to speed up the computation (e.g., hashing, partitioning / caching the filter in shared memory, and using bit operations). Experiments on the Waymo Open dataset shows that this implementation is around 20x faster than a well-designed implementation with pre-existing TensorFlow operations.
TF 3D then uses the 3D submanifold sparse U-Net architecture to extract a feature for each voxel. The U-Net architecture has proven to be effective by letting the network extract both coarse and fine features and combining them to make the predictions. The U-Net network consists of three modules, an encoder, a bottleneck, and a decoder, each of which consists of a number of sparse convolution blocks with possible pooling or un-pooling operations.
The sparse convolutional network described above is the backbone for the 3D scene understanding pipelines that are offered in TF 3D. Each of the models described below uses this backbone network to extract features for the sparse voxels, and then adds one or multiple additional prediction heads to infer the task of interest. The user can configure the U-Net network by changing the number of encoder / decoder layers and the number of convolutions in each layer, and by modifying the convolution filter sizes, which enables a wide range of speed / accuracy tradeoffs to be explored through the different backbone configurations
3D Semantic Segmentation The 3D semantic segmentation model has only one output head for predicting the per-voxel semantic scores, which are mapped back to points to predict a semantic label per point.
3D Instance Segmentation In 3D instance segmentation, in addition to predicting semantics, the goal is to group the voxels that belong to the same object together. The 3D instance segmentation algorithm used in TF 3D is based on our previous work on 2D image segmentation using deep metric learning. The model predicts a per-voxel instance embedding vector as well as a semantic score for each voxel. The instance embedding vectors map the voxels to an embedding space where voxels that correspond to the same object instance are close together, while those that correspond to different objects are far apart. In this case, the input is a point cloud instead of an image, and it uses a 3D sparse network instead of a 2D image network. At inference time, a greedy algorithm picks one instance seed at a time, and uses the distance between the voxel embeddings to group them into segments.
3D Object Detection The 3D object detection model predicts per-voxel size, center, and rotation matrices and the object semantic scores. At inference time, a box proposal mechanism is used to reduce the hundreds of thousands of per-voxel box predictions into a few accurate box proposals, and then at training time, box prediction and classification losses are applied to per-voxel predictions. We apply a Huber loss on the distance between predicted and the ground-truth box corners. Since the function that estimates the box corners from its size, center and rotation matrix is differentiable, the loss will automatically propagate back to those predicted object properties. We use a dynamic box classification loss that classifies a box that strongly overlaps with the ground-truth as positive and classifies the non-overlapping boxes as negative.
In our recent paper, “DOPS: Learning to Detect 3D Objects and Predict their 3D Shapes”, we describe in detail the single-stage weakly supervised learning algorithm used for object detection in TF 3D. In addition, in a follow up work, we extended the 3D object detection model to leverage temporal information by proposing a sparse LSTM-based multi-frame model. We go on to show that this temporal model outperforms the frame-by-frame approach by 7.5% in the Waymo Open dataset.
Ready to Get Started? We’ve certainly found this codebase to be useful for our 3D computer vision projects, and we hope that you will as well. Contributions to the codebase are welcome and please stay tuned for our own further updates to the framework. To get started please visit our github repository.
Acknowledgements The release of the TensorFlow 3D codebase and model has been the result of widespread collaboration among Google researchers with feedback and testing from product groups. In particular we want to highlight the core contributions by Alireza Fathi and Rui Huang (work performed while at Google), with special additional thanks to Guangda Lai, Abhijit Kundu, Pei Sun, Thomas Funkhouser, David Ross, Caroline Pantofaru, Johanna Wald, Angela Dai and Matthias Niessner.
The performance of machine learning (ML) models depends both on the learning algorithms, as well as the data used for training and evaluation. The role of the algorithms is well studied and the focus of a multitude of challenges, such as SQuAD, GLUE, ImageNet, and many others. In addition, there have been efforts to also improve the data, including a series of workshops addressing issues for ML evaluation. In contrast, research and challenges that focus on the data used for evaluation of ML models are not commonplace. Furthermore, many evaluation datasets contain items that are easy to evaluate, e.g., photos with a subject that is easy to identify, and thus they miss the natural ambiguity of real world context. The absence of ambiguous real-world examples in evaluation undermines the ability to reliably test machine learning performance, which makes ML models prone to develop “weak spots”, i.e., classes of examples that are difficult or impossible for a model to accurately evaluate, because that class of examples is missing from the evaluation set.
To address the problem of identifying these weaknesses in ML models, we recently launched the Crowdsourcing Adverse Test Sets for Machine Learning (CATS4ML) Data Challenge at HCOMP 2020 (open until 30 April, 2021 to researchers and developers worldwide). The goal of the challenge is to raise the bar in ML evaluation sets and to find as many examples as possible that are confusing or otherwise problematic for algorithms to process. CATS4ML relies on people’s abilities and intuition to spot new data examples about which machine learning is confident, but actually misclassifies.
What are ML “Weak Spots”? There are two categories of weak spots: known unknowns and unknown unknowns. Known unknowns are examples for which a model is unsure about the correct classification. The research community continues to study this in a field known as active learning, and has found the solution to be, in very general terms, to interactively solicit new labels from people on uncertain examples. For example, if a model is not certain whether or not the subject of a photo is a cat, a person is asked to verify; but if the system is certain, a person is not asked. While there is room for improvement in this area, what is comforting is that the confidence of the model is correlated with its performance, i.e., one can see what the model doesn’t know.
Unknown unknowns, on the other hand, are examples where a model is confident about its answer, but is actually wrong. Efforts to proactively discover unknown unknowns (e.g., Attenberg 2015 and Crawford 2019) have helped uncover a multitude of unintended machine behaviours. In contrast to such approaches for the discovery of unknown unknowns, generative adversarial networks (GANs) generate unknown unknowns for image recognition models in the form of optical illusions for computers that cause deep learning models to make mistakes beyond human perception. While GANs uncover model exploits in the event of an intentional manipulation, real-world examples can better highlight a model’s failures in its day-to-day performance. These real-world examples are the unknown unknowns of interest to CATS4ML — the challenge aims to gather unmanipulated examples that humans can reliably interpret but on which many ML models would confidently disagree.
First Edition of CATS4ML Data Challenge: Open Images Dataset The CATS4ML Data Challenge focuses on visual recognition, using images and labels from the Open Images Dataset. The target images for the challenge are selected from the Open Images Dataset along with a set of 24 target labels from the same dataset. The challenge participants are invited to invent new and creative ways to explore this existing publicly available dataset and, focussed on a list of pre-selected target labels, discover examples of unknown unknowns for ML models.
CATS4ML is a complementary effort to FAIR’s recently introduced DynaBench research platform for dynamic data collection. Where DynaBench tackles issues with static benchmarks using ML models with humans in the loop, CATS4ML focuses on improving evaluation datasets for ML by encouraging the exploration of existing ML benchmarks for adverse examples that can be unknown unknowns. The results will help detect and avoid future errors, and also will give insights to model explainability.
In this way, CATS4ML aims to raise greater awareness of the problem by providing dataset resources that developers can use to uncover the weak spots of their algorithms. This will also inform researchers on how to create benchmark datasets for machine learning that are more balanced, diverse and socially aware.
Get Involved We invite the global community of ML researchers and practitioners to join us in the effort of discovering interesting, difficult examples from the Open Images Dataset. Register on the challenge website, download the target images and labeled data, contribute the images you discover and join the competition for the winning participant!
To score points in this competition, participants should submit a set of image-label pairs that will be confirmed by human-in-the-loop raters, whose votes should be in disagreement with the average machine score for the label over a number of machine learning models.
The challenge is open until 30 April, 2021 to researchers and developers worldwide. To learn more about CATS4ML and how to join, please visit the challenge website.
Acknowledgements The release of the CATS4ML Data Challenge has been possible thanks to the hard work of a lot of people including, but not limited to, the following (in alphabetical order of last name): Osman Aka, Ken Burke, Tulsee Doshi, Mig Gerard, Victor Gomes, Shahab Kamali, Igor Karpov, Devi Krishna, Daphne Luong, Carey Radebaugh, Jamie Taylor, Nithum Thain, Kenny Wibowo, Ka Wong, and Tong Zhou.
The quality of a machine learning (ML) model’s training data can have a significant impact on its performance. One measure of data quality is the notion of influence, i.e., the degree to which a given training example affects the model and its predictive performance. And while influence is a well-known concept to ML researchers, the complexity behind deep learning models, coupled with their growing size, features and datasets, have made the quantification of influence difficult.
A few methods have been proposed recently to quantify influence. Some rely on changes in accuracy when retraining with one or several data points dropped, and some use established statistical methods, e.g., influence functions that estimate the impact of perturbing input points or representer methods that decompose a prediction into an importance weighted combination of training examples. Still other approaches require use of additional estimators, such as data valuation using reinforcement learning. Though these approaches are theoretically sound, their use in products has been limited by the resources needed to run them at scale or the additional burdens they place on training.
In “Estimating Training Data Influence by Tracing Gradient Descent”, published as a spotlight paper at NeurIPS 2020, we proposed TracIn, a simple scalable approach to tackle this challenge. The idea behind TracIn is straightforward — trace the training process to capture changes in prediction as individual training examples are visited. TracIn is effective in finding mislabeled examples and outliers from a variety of datasets, and is useful in explaining predictions in terms of training examples (as opposed to features) by assigning an influence score to each training example.
The Ideas Underlying TracIn Deep learning algorithms are typically trained using an algorithm called stochastic gradient descent (SGD), or a variant of it. SGD operates by making multiple passes over the data and making modifications to the model parameters that locally reduce the loss (i.e., the model’s objective) with each pass. An example of this is demonstrated for an image classification task in the figure below, where the model’s task is to predict the subject of the test image on the left (“zucchini”). As the model progresses through training, it is exposed to various training examples that affect the loss on the test image, where the loss is a function both of the prediction score and the actual label — the higher the prediction score for zucchini, the lower the loss.
Suppose that the test example is known at training time and that the training process visited each training example one at a time. During the training, visiting a specific training example would change the model’s parameters, and that change would then modify the prediction/loss on the test example. If one could trace the training example through the process, then the change in loss or prediction on the test example could be attributed to the training example in question, where the influence of a training example would be the cumulative attribution across visits to the training example.
There are two types of relevant training examples. Those that reduce loss, like the images of zucchinis above, are called proponents, while those that increase loss, like the images of seatbelts, are called opponents. In the example above, the image labeled “sunglasses” is also a proponent, because it has a seatbelt in the image, but is labeled as “sunglasses,” driving the model to better distinguish between zucchini and seatbelts.
In practice, the test example is unknown at training time, a limitation that can be overcome by using the checkpoints output by the learning algorithm as a sketch of the training process. Another challenge is that the learning algorithm typically visits several points at once, not individually, which requires a method to disentangle the relative contributions of each training example. This can be done by applying pointwise loss gradients. Together, these two strategies capture the TracIn method, which can be reduced to the simple form of the dot product of loss gradients of the test and training examples, weighted by the learning rate, and summed across checkpoints.
Alternatively, one could instead examine the influence on the prediction score, which would be useful if the test example has no label. This form simply requires the substitution of the loss gradient at the test example with the prediction gradient.
Computing Top Influence Examples We illustrate the utility of TracIn by first calculating the loss gradient vector for some training data and a test example for a specific classification — an image of a chameleon — and then leveraging a standard k-nearest neighbors library to retrieve the top proponents and opponents. The top opponents indicate the chameleon’s ability to blend in! For comparison, we also show the k nearest neighbors with embeddings from the penultimate layer. Proponents are images that are not only similar, but also belong to the same class, and opponents are similar images but in a different class. Note that there isn’t an explicit enforcement on whether proponents or opponents belong to the same class.
Clustering The simplistic breakdown of the loss of the test example into training example influences given by TracIn also suggests that the loss (or prediction) from any gradient descent based neural model can be expressed as a sum of similarities in the space of gradients. Recent work has demonstrated that this functional form is similar to that of a kernel, implying that this gradient similarity described here can be applied to other similarity tasks, like clustering.
In this case, TracIn can be used as a similarity function within a clustering algorithm. To bound the similarity metric so that it can be converted to a distance measure (1 - similarity), we normalize the gradient vectors to have unit norm. Below, we apply TracIn clustering on images of zucchini to obtain finer clusters.
Identifying Outliers with Self-Influence Finally, we can also use TracIn to identify outliers that exhibit a high self-influence, i.e., the influence of a training point on its own prediction. This happens either when the example is mislabeled or rare, both of which make it difficult for the model to generalize over the example. Below are some examples with high self-influence.
Applications Having no requirement other than being trained using SGD (or related variants), TracIn is task-independent and applicable to a variety of models. For example, we have used TracIn to study training data for a deep learning model used to parse queries to the Google Assistant, queries of the kind “set my alarm for 7AM”. We were intrigued to see that the top opponent for the query “disable my alarm” with an alarm active on the device, was “disable my timer”, also with an alarm active on the device. This suggests that Assistant users often interchange the words “timer” and “alarm”. TracIn helped us interpret the Assistant data.
More examples can be found in the paper, including a regression task on structured data and a number of text classification tasks.
Conclusion TracIn is a simple, easy-to-implement, scalable way to compute the influence of training data examples on individual predictions or to find rare and mislabeled training examples. For implementation references of the method, you can find a link to code examples for images from the github linked in the paper.
Acknowledgements The NeurIPS paper was jointly co-authored with Satyen Kale and Mukund Sundararajan (corresponding author). A special thanks to Binbin Xiong for providing various conceptual and implementation insights. We also thank Qiqi Yan and Salem Haykal for numerous discussions. Images throughout this post sourced from Getty Images.
One of the key contributors to recent machine learning (ML) advancements is the development of custom accelerators, such as Google TPUs and Edge TPUs, which significantly increase available compute power unlocking various capabilities such as AlphaGo, RankBrain, WaveNets, and Conversational Agents. This increase can lead to improved performance in neural network training and inference, enabling new possibilities in a broad range of applications, such as vision, language, understanding, and self-driving cars.
To sustain these advances, the hardware accelerator ecosystem must continue to innovate in architecture design and acclimate to rapidly evolving ML models and applications. This requires the evaluation of many different accelerator design points, each of which may not only improve the compute power, but also unravel a new capability. These design points are generally parameterized by a variety of hardware and software factors (e.g., memory capacity, number of compute units at different levels, parallelism, interconnection networks, pipelining, software mapping, etc.). This is a daunting optimization task, due to the fact that the search space is exponentially large1 while the objective function (e.g., lower latency and/or higher energy efficiency) is computationally expensive to evaluate through simulations or synthesis, making identification of feasible accelerator configurations challenging .
In “Apollo: Transferable Architecture Exploration”, we present the progress of our research on ML-driven design of custom accelerators. While recent work has demonstrated promising results in leveraging ML to improve the low-level floorplanning process (in which the hardware components are spatially laid out and connected in silicon), in this work we focus on blending ML into the high-level system specification and architectural design stage, a pivotal contributing factor to the overall performance of the chip in which the design elements that control the high-level functionality are established. Our research shows how ML algorithms can facilitate architecture exploration and suggest high-performing architectures across a range of deep neural networks, with domains spanning image classification, object detection, OCR and semantic segmentation.
Architecture Search Space and Workloads The objective in architecture exploration is to discover a set of feasible accelerator parameters for a set of workloads, such that a desired objective function (e.g., the weighted average of runtime) is minimized under an optional set of user-defined constraints. However, the manifold of architecture search generally contains many points for which there is no feasible mapping from software to hardware. Some of these design points are known a priori and can be bypassed by formulating them as optimization constraints by the user (e.g., in the case of an area budget2 constraint, the total memory size must not pass over a predefined limit). However, due to the interplay of the architecture and compiler and the complexity of the search space, some of the constraints may not be properly formulated into the optimization, and so the compiler may not find a feasible software mapping for the target hardware. These infeasible points are not easy to formulate in the optimization problem, and are generally unknown until the whole compiler pass is performed. As such, one of main challenges for architecture exploration is to effectively sidestep the infeasible points for efficient exploration of the search space with a minimum number of cycle-accurate architecture simulations.
The following figure shows the overall architecture search space of a target ML accelerator. The accelerator contains a 2D array of processing elements (PE), each of which performs a set of arithmetic computations in a single instruction multiple data (SIMD) manner. The main architectural components of each PE are processing cores that include multiple compute lanes for SIMD operations. Each PE has shared memory (PE Memory) across all their compute cores, which is mainly used to store model activations, partial results, and outputs, while individual cores feature memory that is mainly used for storing model parameters. Each core has multiple compute lanes with multi-way multiply-accumulate (MAC) units. The results of model computations at each cycle are either stored back in the PE memory for further computation or are offloaded back into the DRAM.
Optimization Strategies In this study, we explored four optimization strategies in the context of architecture exploration:
Accelerator Search Space Embeddings To better visualize the effectiveness of each optimization strategy in navigating the accelerator search space, we use t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding (t-SNE) to map the explored configurations into a two-dimensional space across the optimization horizon. The objective (reward) for all the experiments is defined as the throughput (inference/second) per accelerator area. In the figures below, the x and y axes indicate the t-SNE components (embedding 1 and embedding 2) of the embedding space. The star and circular markers show the infeasible (zero reward) and feasible design points, respectively, with the size of the feasible points corresponding to their reward.
As expected, the random strategy searches the space in a uniformly distributed way and eventually finds very few feasible points in the design space.
Compared to the random sampling approach, the Vizier default optimization strategy strikes a good balance between exploring the search space and finding the design points with higher rewards (1.14 vs. 0.96). However, this approach tends to get stuck in infeasible regions and, while it does find a few points with the maximum reward (indicated by the red cross markers), it finds few feasible points during the last iterations of exploration.
The evolutionary optimization strategy, on the other hand, finds feasible solutions very early in the optimization and assemble clusters of feasible points around them. As such, this approach mostly navigates the feasible regions (the green circles) and efficiently sidesteps the infeasible points. In addition, the evolutionary search is able to find more design options with maximum reward (the red crosses). This diversity in the solutions with high reward provides flexibility to the designer in exploring various architectures with different design trade-offs.
Finally, the population-based optimization method (P3BO) explores the design space in a more targeted way (regions with high reward points) in order to find optimal solutions. The P3BO strategy finds design points with the highest reward in search spaces with tighter constraints (e.g., a larger number of infeasible points), showing its effectiveness in navigating search spaces with large numbers of infeasible points.
Architecture Exploration under Different Design Constraints We also studied the benefits of each optimization strategy under different area budget constraints, 6.8 mm2, 5.8 mm2 and 4.8 mm2. The following violin plots show the full distribution of the maximum achievable reward at the end of optimization (after ten runs each with 4K trials) across the studied optimization strategies. The wider sections represent a higher probability of observing feasible architecture configurations at a particular given reward. This implies that we favor the optimization algorithm that yields increased width at the points with higher reward (higher performance).
The two top-performing optimization strategies for architecture exploration are evolutionary and P3BO, both in terms of delivering solutions with high reward and robustness across multiple runs. Looking into different design constraints, we observe that as one tightens the area budget constraint, the P3BO optimization strategy yields more high performing solutions. For example, when the area budget constraint is set to 5.8 mm2, P3BO finds design points with a reward (throughput / accelerator area) of 1.25 outperforming all the other optimization strategies. The same trend is observed when the area budget constraint is set to 4.8 mm2, a slightly better reward is found with more robustness (less variability) across multiple runs.
Conclusion While Apollo presents the first step towards better understanding of accelerator design space and building more efficient hardware, inventing accelerators with new capabilities is still an uncharted territory and a new frontier. We believe that this research is an exciting path forward to further explore ML-driven techniques for architecture design and co-optimization (e.g., compiler, mapping, and scheduling) across the computing stack to invent efficient accelerators with new capabilities for the next generation of applications.
Acknowledgments This work was performed by Amir Yazdanbakhsh, Christof Angermueller, and Berkin Akin . We would like to also thank Milad Hashemi, Kevin Swersky, James Laudon, Herman Schmit, Cliff Young, Yanqi Zhou, Albin Jones, Satrajit Chatterjee, Ravi Narayanaswami, Ray (I-Jui) Sung, Suyog Gupta, Kiran Seshadri, Suvinay Subramanian, Matthew Denton, and the Vizier team for their help and support.
1 In our target accelerator, the total number of design points is around 5 x 108. ↩
2 The chip area is approximately the sum of total hardware components on the chip, including on-chip storage, processing engines, controllers, I/O pins, and etc. ↩
