Language

Subterms

    Latest story

    113 Shares159 Views

    AI that can learn the patterns of human language

    by

    Human languages are notoriously complex, and linguists have long thought it would be impossible to teach a machine how to analyze speech sounds and word structures in the way human investigators do.

    But researchers at MIT, Cornell University, and McGill University have taken a step in this direction. They have demonstrated an artificial intelligence system that can learn the rules and patterns of human languages on its own.

    When given words and examples of how those words change to express different grammatical functions (like tense, case, or gender) in one language, this machine-learning model comes up with rules that explain why the forms of those words change. For instance, it might learn that the letter “a” must be added to end of a word to make the masculine form feminine in Serbo-Croatian.

    This model can also automatically learn higher-level language patterns that can apply to many languages, enabling it to achieve better results.

    The researchers trained and tested the model using problems from linguistics textbooks that featured 58 different languages. Each problem had a set of words and corresponding word-form changes. The model was able to come up with a correct set of rules to describe those word-form changes for 60 percent of the problems.

    This system could be used to study language hypotheses and investigate subtle similarities in the way diverse languages transform words. It is especially unique because the system discovers models that can be readily understood by humans, and it acquires these models from small amounts of data, such as a few dozen words. And instead of using one massive dataset for a single task, the system utilizes many small datasets, which is closer to how scientists propose hypotheses — they look at multiple related datasets and come up with models to explain phenomena across those datasets.

    “One of the motivations of this work was our desire to study systems that learn models of datasets that is represented in a way that humans can understand. Instead of learning weights, can the model learn expressions or rules? And we wanted to see if we could build this system so it would learn on a whole battery of interrelated datasets, to make the system learn a little bit about how to better model each one,” says Kevin Ellis ’14, PhD ’20, an assistant professor of computer science at Cornell University and lead author of the paper.

    Joining Ellis on the paper are MIT faculty members Adam Albright, a professor of linguistics; Armando Solar-Lezama, a professor and associate director of the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL); and Joshua B. Tenenbaum, the Paul E. Newton Career Development Professor of Cognitive Science and Computation in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences and a member of CSAIL; as well as senior author

    Timothy J. O’Donnell, assistant professor in the Department of Linguistics at McGill University, and Canada CIFAR AI Chair at the Mila – Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute.

    The research is published today in Nature Communications.

    Looking at language 

    In their quest to develop an AI system that could automatically learn a model from multiple related datasets, the researchers chose to explore the interaction of phonology (the study of sound patterns) and morphology (the study of word structure).

    Data from linguistics textbooks offered an ideal testbed because many languages share core features, and textbook problems showcase specific linguistic phenomena. Textbook problems can also be solved by college students in a fairly straightforward way, but those students typically have prior knowledge about phonology from past lessons they use to reason about new problems.

    Ellis, who earned his PhD at MIT and was jointly advised by Tenenbaum and Solar-Lezama, first learned about morphology and phonology in an MIT class co-taught by O’Donnell, who was a postdoc at the time, and Albright.

    “Linguists have thought that in order to really understand the rules of a human language, to empathize with what it is that makes the system tick, you have to be human. We wanted to see if we can emulate the kinds of knowledge and reasoning that humans (linguists) bring to the task,” says Albright.

    To build a model that could learn a set of rules for assembling words, which is called a grammar, the researchers used a machine-learning technique known as Bayesian Program Learning. With this technique, the model solves a problem by writing a computer program.

    In this case, the program is the grammar the model thinks is the most likely explanation of the words and meanings in a linguistics problem. They built the model using Sketch, a popular program synthesizer which was developed at MIT by Solar-Lezama.

    But Sketch can take a lot of time to reason about the most likely program. To get around this, the researchers had the model work one piece at a time, writing a small program to explain some data, then writing a larger program that modifies that small program to cover more data, and so on.

    They also designed the model so it learns what “good” programs tend to look like. For instance, it might learn some general rules on simple Russian problems that it would apply to a more complex problem in Polish because the languages are similar. This makes it easier for the model to solve the Polish problem.

    Tackling textbook problems

    When they tested the model using 70 textbook problems, it was able to find a grammar that matched the entire set of words in the problem in 60 percent of cases, and correctly matched most of the word-form changes in 79 percent of problems.

    The researchers also tried pre-programming the model with some knowledge it “should” have learned if it was taking a linguistics course, and showed that it could solve all problems better.

    “One challenge of this work was figuring out whether what the model was doing was reasonable. This isn’t a situation where there is one number that is the single right answer. There is a range of possible solutions which you might accept as right, close to right, etc.,” Albright says.

    The model often came up with unexpected solutions. In one instance, it discovered the expected answer to a Polish language problem, but also another correct answer that exploited a mistake in the textbook. This shows that the model could “debug” linguistics analyses, Ellis says.

    The researchers also conducted tests that showed the model was able to learn some general templates of phonological rules that could be applied across all problems.

    “One of the things that was most surprising is that we could learn across languages, but it didn’t seem to make a huge difference,” says Ellis. “That suggests two things. Maybe we need better methods for learning across problems. And maybe, if we can’t come up with those methods, this work can help us probe different ideas we have about what knowledge to share across problems.”

    In the future, the researchers want to use their model to find unexpected solutions to problems in other domains. They could also apply the technique to more situations where higher-level knowledge can be applied across interrelated datasets. For instance, perhaps they could develop a system to infer differential equations from datasets on the motion of different objects, says Ellis.

    “This work shows that we have some methods which can, to some extent, learn inductive biases. But I don’t think we’ve quite figured out, even for these textbook problems, the inductive bias that lets a linguist accept the plausible grammars and reject the ridiculous ones,” he adds.

    “This work opens up many exciting venues for future research. I am particularly intrigued by the possibility that the approach explored by Ellis and colleagues (Bayesian Program Learning, BPL) might speak to how infants acquire language,” says T. Florian Jaeger, a professor of brain and cognitive sciences and computer science at the University of Rochester, who was not an author of this paper. “Future work might ask, for example, under what additional induction biases (assumptions about universal grammar) the BPL approach can successfully achieve human-like learning behavior on the type of data infants observe during language acquisition. I think it would be fascinating to see whether inductive biases that are even more abstract than those considered by Ellis and his team — such as biases originating in the limits of human information processing (e.g., memory constraints on dependency length or capacity limits in the amount of information that can be processed per time) — would be sufficient to induce some of the patterns observed in human languages.”

    This work was funded, in part, by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, the Center for Brains, Minds, and Machines, the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab, the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Fonds de Recherche du Québec – Société et Culture, the Canada CIFAR AI Chairs Program, the National Science Foundation (NSF), and an NSF graduate fellowship. More

    More stories

    • 63 Shares189 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      Hallucinating to better text translation

      by

      As babies, we babble and imitate our way to learning languages. We don’t start off reading raw text, which requires fundamental knowledge and understanding about the world, as well as the advanced ability to interpret and infer descriptions and relationships. Rather, humans begin our language journey slowly, by pointing and interacting with our environment, basing our words and perceiving their meaning through the context of the physical and social world. Eventually, we can craft full sentences to communicate complex ideas.

      Similarly, when humans begin learning and translating into another language, the incorporation of other sensory information, like multimedia, paired with the new and unfamiliar words, like flashcards with images, improves language acquisition and retention. Then, with enough practice, humans can accurately translate new, unseen sentences in context without the accompanying media; however, imagining a picture based on the original text helps.

      This is the basis of a new machine learning model, called VALHALLA, by researchers from MIT, IBM, and the University of California at San Diego, in which a trained neural network sees a source sentence in one language, hallucinates an image of what it looks like, and then uses both to translate into a target language. The team found that their method demonstrates improved accuracy of machine translation over text-only translation. Further, it provided an additional boost for cases with long sentences, under-resourced languages, and instances where part of the source sentence is inaccessible to the machine translator.

      As a core task within the AI field of natural language processing (NLP), machine translation is an “eminently practical technology that’s being used by millions of people every day,” says study co-author Yoon Kim, assistant professor in MIT’s Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science with affiliations in the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) and the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab. With recent, significant advances in deep learning, “there’s been an interesting development in how one might use non-text information — for example, images, audio, or other grounding information — to tackle practical tasks involving language” says Kim, because “when humans are performing language processing tasks, we’re doing so within a grounded, situated world.” The pairing of hallucinated images and text during inference, the team postulated, imitates that process, providing context for improved performance over current state-of-the-art techniques, which utilize text-only data.

      This research will be presented at the IEEE / CVF Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference this month. Kim’s co-authors are UC San Diego graduate student Yi Li and Professor Nuno Vasconcelos, along with research staff members Rameswar Panda, Chun-fu “Richard” Chen, Rogerio Feris, and IBM Director David Cox of IBM Research and the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab.

      Learning to hallucinate from images

      When we learn new languages and to translate, we’re often provided with examples and practice before venturing out on our own. The same is true for machine-translation systems; however, if images are used during training, these AI methods also require visual aids for testing, limiting their applicability, says Panda.

      “In real-world scenarios, you might not have an image with respect to the source sentence. So, our motivation was basically: Instead of using an external image during inference as input, can we use visual hallucination — the ability to imagine visual scenes — to improve machine translation systems?” says Panda.

      To do this, the team used an encoder-decoder architecture with two transformers, a type of neural network model that’s suited for sequence-dependent data, like language, that can pay attention key words and semantics of a sentence. One transformer generates a visual hallucination, and the other performs multimodal translation using outputs from the first transformer.

      During training, there are two streams of translation: a source sentence and a ground-truth image that is paired with it, and the same source sentence that is visually hallucinated to make a text-image pair. First the ground-truth image and sentence are tokenized into representations that can be handled by transformers; for the case of the sentence, each word is a token. The source sentence is tokenized again, but this time passed through the visual hallucination transformer, outputting a hallucination, a discrete image representation of the sentence. The researchers incorporated an autoregression that compares the ground-truth and hallucinated representations for congruency — e.g., homonyms: a reference to an animal “bat” isn’t hallucinated as a baseball bat. The hallucination transformer then uses the difference between them to optimize its predictions and visual output, making sure the context is consistent.

      The two sets of tokens are then simultaneously passed through the multimodal translation transformer, each containing the sentence representation and either the hallucinated or ground-truth image. The tokenized text translation outputs are compared with the goal of being similar to each other and to the target sentence in another language. Any differences are then relayed back to the translation transformer for further optimization.

      For testing, the ground-truth image stream drops off, since images likely wouldn’t be available in everyday scenarios.

      “To the best of our knowledge, we haven’t seen any work which actually uses a hallucination transformer jointly with a multimodal translation system to improve machine translation performance,” says Panda.

      Visualizing the target text

      To test their method, the team put VALHALLA up against other state-of-the-art multimodal and text-only translation methods. They used public benchmark datasets containing ground-truth images with source sentences, and a dataset for translating text-only news articles. The researchers measured its performance over 13 tasks, ranging from translation on well-resourced languages (like English, German, and French), under-resourced languages (like English to Romanian) and non-English (like Spanish to French). The group also tested varying transformer model sizes, how accuracy changes with the sentence length, and translation under limited textual context, where portions of the text were hidden from the machine translators.

      The team observed significant improvements over text-only translation methods, improving data efficiency, and that smaller models performed better than the larger base model. As sentences became longer, VALHALLA’s performance over other methods grew, which the researchers attributed to the addition of more ambiguous words. In cases where part of the sentence was masked, VALHALLA could recover and translate the original text, which the team found surprising.

      Further unexpected findings arose: “Where there weren’t as many training [image and] text pairs, [like for under-resourced languages], improvements were more significant, which indicates that grounding in images helps in low-data regimes,” says Kim. “Another thing that was quite surprising to me was this improved performance, even on types of text that aren’t necessarily easily connectable to images. For example, maybe it’s not so surprising if this helps in translating visually salient sentences, like the ‘there is a red car in front of the house.’ [However], even in text-only [news article] domains, the approach was able to improve upon text-only systems.”

      While VALHALLA performs well, the researchers note that it does have limitations, requiring pairs of sentences to be annotated with an image, which could make it more expensive to obtain. It also performs better in its ground domain and not the text-only news articles. Moreover, Kim and Panda note, a technique like VALHALLA is still a black box, with the assumption that hallucinated images are providing helpful information, and the team plans to investigate what and how the model is learning in order to validate their methods.

      In the future, the team plans to explore other means of improving translation. “Here, we only focus on images, but there are other types of a multimodal information — for example, speech, video or touch, or other sensory modalities,” says Panda. “We believe such multimodal grounding can lead to even more efficient machine translation models, potentially benefiting translation across many low-resource languages spoken in the world.”

      This research was supported, in part, by the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab and the National Science Foundation. More

    • 50 Shares189 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      What words can convey

      by

      From search engines to voice assistants, computers are getting better at understanding what we mean. That’s thanks to language-processing programs that make sense of a staggering number of words, without ever being told explicitly what those words mean. Such programs infer meaning instead through statistics — and a new study reveals that this computational approach can assign many kinds of information to a single word, just like the human brain.

      The study, published April 14 in the journal Nature Human Behavior, was co-led by Gabriel Grand, a graduate student in electrical engineering and computer science who is affiliated with MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, and Idan Blank PhD ’16, an assistant professor at the University of California at Los Angeles. The work was supervised by McGovern Institute for Brain Research investigator Ev Fedorenko, a cognitive neuroscientist who studies how the human brain uses and understands language, and Francisco Pereira at the National Institute of Mental Health. Fedorenko says the rich knowledge her team was able to find within computational language models demonstrates just how much can be learned about the world through language alone.

      The research team began its analysis of statistics-based language processing models in 2015, when the approach was new. Such models derive meaning by analyzing how often pairs of words co-occur in texts and using those relationships to assess the similarities of words’ meanings. For example, such a program might conclude that “bread” and “apple” are more similar to one another than they are to “notebook,” because “bread” and “apple” are often found in proximity to words like “eat” or “snack,” whereas “notebook” is not.

      The models were clearly good at measuring words’ overall similarity to one another. But most words carry many kinds of information, and their similarities depend on which qualities are being evaluated. “Humans can come up with all these different mental scales to help organize their understanding of words,” explains Grand, a former undergraduate researcher in the Fedorenko lab. For example, he says, “dolphins and alligators might be similar in size, but one is much more dangerous than the other.”

      Grand and Blank, who was then a graduate student at the McGovern Institute, wanted to know whether the models captured that same nuance. And if they did, how was the information organized?

      To learn how the information in such a model stacked up to humans’ understanding of words, the team first asked human volunteers to score words along many different scales: Were the concepts those words conveyed big or small, safe or dangerous, wet or dry? Then, having mapped where people position different words along these scales, they looked to see whether language processing models did the same.

      Grand explains that distributional semantic models use co-occurrence statistics to organize words into a huge, multidimensional matrix. The more similar words are to one another, the closer they are within that space. The dimensions of the space are vast, and there is no inherent meaning built into its structure. “In these word embeddings, there are hundreds of dimensions, and we have no idea what any dimension means,” he says. “We’re really trying to peer into this black box and say, ‘is there structure in here?’”

      Specifically, they asked whether the semantic scales they had asked their volunteers use were represented in the model. So they looked to see where words in the space lined up along vectors defined by the extremes of those scales. Where did dolphins and tigers fall on line from “big” to “small,” for example? And were they closer together along that line than they were on a line representing danger (“safe” to “dangerous”)?

      Across more than 50 sets of world categories and semantic scales, they found that the model had organized words very much like the human volunteers. Dolphins and tigers were judged to be similar in terms of size, but far apart on scales measuring danger or wetness. The model had organized the words in a way that represented many kinds of meaning — and it had done so based entirely on the words’ co-occurrences.

      That, Fedorenko says, tells us something about the power of language. “The fact that we can recover so much of this rich semantic information from just these simple word co-occurrence statistics suggests that this is one very powerful source of learning about things that you may not even have direct perceptual experience with.” More