Phanxuan Phuc

fakerphan

I’m a AI Engineer in Vin Bigdata. And I summarize research papers in these topics:

7 mins read

Published by: Google AI

Google's M4 Model

M4 stands for “Massively Multilingual, Massive Machine Translation” which is a multilingual NMT model that is trained on over 25 billion parallel sentences in 103 languages. This model was proposed by Google AI in 2019 and published in their paper: Massively Multilingual Neural Machine Translation in the Wild: Findings and Challenges.

M4 is a Transformer-big model with a single encoder and decoder shared across all the language pairs. In order to guide the translation with the intended target language, a target language token is prepended to every source sequence to be translated. M4 demonstrates effective transfer learning ability, significantly improving translation quality of low-resource languages, while keeping high-resource language translation quality on-par with competitive bilingual baselines. Up to this point in history, this model is the largest multilingual NMT system in terms of the number of languages considered.

The aim of this paper is to highlight key challenges and open problems on the way to building a real-world massively multilingual translation system. All experiments done in this paper were done using the standard transformer architecture implemented in the Google’s open-source Lingvo framework.

Data

The data used to train M4 is an in-house corpus generated by crawling and extracting parallel sentences from the web. This corpus contains parallel documents for 102 languages, to and from English, containing a total of 25 billion sentence pairs. The following is the full list of all languages used in this dataset:

The following figure illustrates the data distribution across language pairs for all 204 language pairs. The x-axis indicates the language pair index, and the y-axis depicts the number of training examples available per language pair on a logarithmic scale. Dataset sizes range from 35k for the lowest resource language pairs to 2 billion for the largest.

This was the data for training. To minimize the data imbalance on the validation/test sets, they created validation and test sets as multi-way aligned datasets containing more than 3k and 5k sentence pairs respectively for all languages.

Bilingual Baselines

For high-resource language pairs, they used Transformer-Big setup which contains around 375M parameters. For most medium and low resource languages, they used Transformer-Base setup. Also, they used shared source-target sentence-piece model vocabulary with 32k tokens and dropout as a regularizer. All models were trained with Adafactor with momentum factorization, a learning rate schedule of (3.0, 40k), and a per-parameter norm clipping threshold of 1.0. For Transformer Base models, they used a learning rate schedule of (2.0, 8k).

The following figure summarizes BLEU score (y-axis) of individual bilingual models on all 204 supervised language pairs. Languages (x-axis) are arranged in decreasing order of available training data from left to right. Each dot represents the BLEU score of one bilingual model and a trailing average is used to show the trend.

For a more clarified results, the following table shows the average BLEU score of bilingual models over different groups of languages. High 25 refers to the top 25 languages by dataset size (left-most portion of the previous figure), while low 25 refers to the bottom 25 (right-most portion of the previous figure) and mid-52 is the middle 52 languages (the ones in the middle of the previous figure):

Transfer-Inference Tradeoff

In this section, we are going to dicuss the effect of data imbalance across languages through the lens of transfer and interference. Transfer is the ability to use the knowledge learned from high-resource languages to improve the performance over low-resource languages. Inference is the effect of learning new languages over the old ones. Two desired characteristics of any universal machine translation model which are:

  • Maximum positive transfer to low-resource languages.

  • Minimum interference (negative transfer) for high-resource languages.

In the paper, they measured the effect of transfer-inference of M4 against bilingual baselines by training a single Transformer-Big with a shared vocabulary of 64k tokens with 0.1 dropout probability and the same values as the bilingual baselines used for other hyper-parameters. Also, they used a batch-size of 4M tokens and they followed two strategies when sampling:

  1. All the available training data is combined as it is. For a given language pair $l$ with $D_{l}$ parallel sentences, the probability of the sample being from language $l$ using this strategy is:
\[p_{l} = \frac{D_{l}}{\sum_{k}^{}D_{k}}\]
  1. Use temperature sampling to up-sample low-resource languages. For a given language pair $l$ with $D_{l}$ parallel sentences, the probability of the sample being from language $l$ using this strategy is:
\[p_{l} = \left( \frac{D_{l}}{\sum_{k}^{}D_{k}} \right)^{\frac{1}{T}}\]

The following figure shows the effect of sampling strategy on the performance of multilingual models. On the axis, languages are arranged in decreasing order. On the y-axis, BLEU score is reported relative to those of the bilingual baselines. Also, two multilingual models were trained: one to translate from any language to English (Any→En) and the other to translate English to any language (En→Any):

From this graph, we can find out the following:

  • Following temperature sampling (green) maximizes transfer and beats bilingual baselines by large margins, especially in the Any→En direction (right-most portion). However, this also has significantly hurt the performance on high resource languages (left-most portion).

  • On the other hand, sampling based on the true data distribution (strategy (i)) retains more performance on high resource languages, at the cost of sacrificing performance on low resource languages.

  • Also, the transfer-interference tradeoff is more pronounced in the Any→En direction than that for the En→Any direction.

In the paper, they tried different values for the $T$ in the temperature sampling and noticed that $T = 5$ improves performance on the high resource languages for both translation directions compared to $T\ = \ 100$, while also retaining high transfer performance on low resource languages. However, performance on high and medium resource languages still lags behind their bilingual baselines by significant margins:

To highlight the exact effect of interference with increasing multilinguality, they trained three additional multilingual models on a growing subset of 10, 25, and 50 languages. The specific languages were chosen to get a mixed representation of data size, script, morphological complexity and inter-language relatedness.

The following figure shows the effect of different languages on the translation performance of multilingual models with a temperature sampling of $T = 5$. Language were sorted in decreasing order of available training data from left to right. Each point represents a certain language group of 10 languages; for example each blue point represents a certain group of 10 languages.

The figure clearly highlights how performance degrades for all language pairs, especially the high and medium resource ones, as the number of tasks (languages) grows.

Multilinguality

As we have seen in the past experiments, multilinguality has a positive impact on low-resource languages. To understand how multilinguality affects languages when translating to or from English, they inspected three different settings:

  • En→Any model: Translating from English.

  • Any→English model: Translating to English.

  • All→All model: Translating from any language to any language.

They noticed that the Any→En model achieves huge improvements over bilingual baselines for all low-resource languages (rightmost portion of the right figure). On the other hand, the En→Any model has lesser deterioration in the performance on high resource languages (leftmost portion of the left figure), while the performance on low resource languages does not improve by much (rightmost portion of the left figure).

This difference in performance between the transfer for Any→En and En→Any can be explained as the Any→En model can be considered as a multi-domain model where each source language constitutes a separate domain. And the En→Any model can be considered as a multi-task model with each target language representing a separate task. This suggests that multilingual models might be more amenable to transfer across input domains than transfer across tasks.

Another strong indicator of transfer in multilingual models is the quality on zero-shot translations. The following table shows the the zero-shot performance on selected language pairs. As we can see, zero-shot performance for most language pairs increases as we move from the 10 language model to the 102 language model:

Vocabulary

In the paper, they constructed shared vocabulary among all languages using Sentence Piece Model (SPM) to handle out-of-vocabulary tokens and remove complexity that may arise from language specific pre-processing. The following table compares the quality of two models trained using vocabularies of size 32k and 64k:

From the table, we can see that the model with the smaller 32k token vocab does noticeably worse on high resource languages when translating in both directions, and on Any→En translation in all resource settings. On the other hand, the smaller vocab model performs marginally better when translating into low resource languages on En→Any . For other medium resource languages, increased vocabulary size appears to be better on all directions.

Architecture Capacity

The quality of any neural network is largely dependent on its architecture and its capacity. The following figure shows the effect of increasing capacity on the performance of multilingual models. The plots correspond to three different models with temperature sampling of $T = 5$, shared vocabulary of 64k tokens and 4M batch size:

  • Blue: Transformer-Big setup which means 6 layers (400M param), feed-forward hidden dimensions set to 4096, 16 attention heads and an attention hidden dimension set to 1024.

  • Green: 12 layer wide model (1.3B param), feed-forward hidden dimensions set to 16384, 32 attention heads and an attention hidden dimension set to 2048.

  • Red: 24 layer deep model (1.3B param), feed-forward hidden dimensions set to 4096, 16 attention heads and an attention hidden dimension set to 1024.

From the past figure we can find out the following:

  • Bigger models improves performance by significant amounts on the high resource languages, when compared to the Transformer-big baseline (blue curve).

  • The deep model (red curve) beats both, the baseline (blue) and the equivalent capacity wide model, by significant margins on most of the language pairs.

  • Unlike the wide model (green curve), the deep model (red curve) does not overfit in low resource languages and, in fact, significantly enhances transfer to low resource languages on the Any→En translation tasks.

  • The wide model (green curve) while significantly improving performance on the high resource languages, fails to show similar gains in the low resource setting.

  • While the deep model (red curve) shows great performance improvements, it comes bundled with high decoding latency, a significantly larger computational footprint, and trainability concerns including vanishing/exploding gradients, early divergence, ill-conditioned initial conditions etc.