Month: June 2023

Posted by Zalán Borsos, Research Software Engineer, and Marco Tagliasacchi, Senior Staff Research Scientist, Google Research

The recent progress in generative AI unlocked the possibility of creating new content in several different domains, including text, vision and audio. These models often rely on the fact that raw data is first converted to a compressed format as a sequence of tokens. In the case of audio, neural audio codecs (e.g., SoundStream or EnCodec) can efficiently compress waveforms to a compact representation, which can be inverted to reconstruct an approximation of the original audio signal. Such a representation consists of a sequence of discrete audio tokens, capturing the local properties of sounds (e.g., phonemes) and their temporal structure (e.g., prosody). By representing audio as a sequence of discrete tokens, audio generation can be performed with Transformer-based sequence-to-sequence models — this has unlocked rapid progress in speech continuation (e.g., with AudioLM), text-to-speech (e.g., with SPEAR-TTS), and general audio and music generation (e.g., AudioGen and MusicLM). Many generative audio models, including AudioLM, rely on auto-regressive decoding, which produces tokens one by one. While this method achieves high acoustic quality, inference (i.e., calculating an output) can be slow, especially when decoding long sequences.

To address this issue, in “SoundStorm: Efficient Parallel Audio Generation”, we propose a new method for efficient and high-quality audio generation. SoundStorm addresses the problem of generating long audio token sequences by relying on two novel elements: 1) an architecture adapted to the specific nature of audio tokens as produced by the SoundStream neural codec, and 2) a decoding scheme inspired by MaskGIT, a recently proposed method for image generation, which is tailored to operate on audio tokens. Compared to the autoregressive decoding approach of AudioLM, SoundStorm is able to generate tokens in parallel, thus decreasing the inference time by 100x for long sequences, and produces audio of the same quality and with higher consistency in voice and acoustic conditions. Moreover, we show that SoundStorm, coupled with the text-to-semantic modeling stage of SPEAR-TTS, can synthesize high-quality, natural dialogues, allowing one to control the spoken content (via transcripts), speaker voices (via short voice prompts) and speaker turns (via transcript annotations), as demonstrated by the examples below:

Input: Text (transcript used to drive the audio generation in bold)		Something really funny happened to me this morning. | Oh wow, what? | Well, uh I woke up as usual. | Uhhuh | Went downstairs to have uh breakfast. | Yeah | Started eating. Then uh 10 minutes later I realized it was the middle of the night. | Oh no way, that’s so funny!		I didn’t sleep well last night. | Oh, no. What happened? | I don’t know. I I just couldn’t seem to uh to fall asleep somehow, I kept tossing and turning all night. | That’s too bad. Maybe you should uh try going to bed earlier tonight or uh maybe you could try reading a book. | Yeah, thanks for the suggestions, I hope you’re right. | No problem. I I hope you get a good night’s sleep
Input: Audio prompt
Output: Audio prompt + generated audio

SoundStorm design

In our previous work on AudioLM, we showed that audio generation can be decomposed into two steps: 1) semantic modeling, which generates semantic tokens from either previous semantic tokens or a conditioning signal (e.g., a transcript as in SPEAR-TTS, or a text prompt as in MusicLM), and 2) acoustic modeling, which generates acoustic tokens from semantic tokens. With SoundStorm we specifically address this second, acoustic modeling step, replacing slower autoregressive decoding with faster parallel decoding.

SoundStorm relies on a bidirectional attention-based Conformer, a model architecture that combines a Transformer with convolutions to capture both local and global structure of a sequence of tokens. Specifically, the model is trained to predict audio tokens produced by SoundStream given a sequence of semantic tokens generated by AudioLM as input. When doing this, it is important to take into account the fact that, at each time step t, SoundStream uses up to Q tokens to represent the audio using a method known as residual vector quantization (RVQ), as illustrated below on the right. The key intuition is that the quality of the reconstructed audio progressively increases as the number of generated tokens at each step goes from 1 to Q.

At inference time, given the semantic tokens as input conditioning signal, SoundStorm starts with all audio tokens masked out, and fills in the masked tokens over multiple iterations, starting from the coarse tokens at RVQ level q = 1 and proceeding level-by-level with finer tokens until reaching level q = Q.

There are two crucial aspects of SoundStorm that enable fast generation: 1) tokens are predicted in parallel during a single iteration within a RVQ level and, 2) the model architecture is designed in such a way that the complexity is only mildly affected by the number of levels Q. To support this inference scheme, during training a carefully designed masking scheme is used to mimic the iterative process used at inference.

SoundStorm model architecture. T denotes the number of time steps and Q the number of RVQ levels used by SoundStream. The semantic tokens used as conditioning are time-aligned with the SoundStream frames.

Measuring SoundStorm performance

We demonstrate that SoundStorm matches the quality of AudioLM’s acoustic generator, replacing both AudioLM’s stage two (coarse acoustic model) and stage three (fine acoustic model). Furthermore, SoundStorm produces audio 100x faster than AudioLM’s hierarchical autoregressive acoustic generator (top half below) with matching quality and improved consistency in terms of speaker identity and acoustic conditions (bottom half below).

Runtimes of SoundStream decoding, SoundStorm and different stages of AudioLM on a TPU-v4.

Acoustic consistency between the prompt and the generated audio. The shaded area represents the inter-quartile range.

Safety and risk mitigation

We acknowledge that the audio samples produced by the model may be influenced by the unfair biases present in the training data, for instance in terms of represented accents and voice characteristics. In our generated samples, we demonstrate that we can reliably and responsibly control speaker characteristics via prompting, with the goal of avoiding unfair biases. A thorough analysis of any training data and its limitations is an area of future work in line with our responsible AI Principles.

In turn, the ability to mimic a voice can have numerous malicious applications, including bypassing biometric identification and using the model for the purpose of impersonation. Thus, it is crucial to put in place safeguards against potential misuse: to this end, we have verified that the audio generated by SoundStorm remains detectable by a dedicated classifier using the same classifier as described in our original AudioLM paper. Hence, as a component of a larger system, we believe that SoundStorm would be unlikely to introduce additional risks to those discussed in our earlier papers on AudioLM and SPEAR-TTS. At the same time, relaxing the memory and computational requirements of AudioLM would make research in the domain of audio generation more accessible to a wider community. In the future, we plan to explore other approaches for detecting synthesized speech, e.g., with the help of audio watermarking, so that any potential product usage of this technology strictly follows our responsible AI Principles.

Conclusion

We have introduced SoundStorm, a model that can efficiently synthesize high-quality audio from discrete conditioning tokens. When compared to the acoustic generator of AudioLM, SoundStorm is two orders of magnitude faster and achieves higher temporal consistency when generating long audio samples. By combining a text-to-semantic token model similar to SPEAR-TTS with SoundStorm, we can scale text-to-speech synthesis to longer contexts and generate natural dialogues with multiple speaker turns, controlling both the voices of the speakers and the generated content. SoundStorm is not limited to generating speech. For example, MusicLM uses SoundStorm to synthesize longer outputs efficiently (as seen at I/O).

Acknowledgments

The work described here was authored by Zalán Borsos, Matt Sharifi, Damien Vincent, Eugene Kharitonov, Neil Zeghidour and Marco Tagliasacchi. We are grateful for all discussions and feedback on this work that we received from our colleagues at Google.

Posted by Jimmy Tobin and Katrin Tomanek, Software Engineers, Google Research, AI for Social Good

Google’s AI for Social Good team consists of researchers, engineers, volunteers, and others with a shared focus on positive social impact. Our mission is to demonstrate AI’s societal benefit by enabling real-world value, with projects spanning work in public health, accessibility, crisis response, climate and energy, and nature and society. We believe that the best way to drive positive change in underserved communities is by partnering with change-makers and the organizations they serve.

In this blog post we discuss work done by Project Euphonia, a team within AI for Social Good, that aims to improve automatic speech recognition (ASR) for people with disordered speech. For people with typical speech, an ASR model’s word error rate (WER) can be less than 10%. But for people with disordered speech patterns, such as stuttering, dysarthria and apraxia, the WER could reach 50% or even 90% depending on the etiology and severity. To help address this problem, we worked with more than 1,000 participants to collect over 1,000 hours of disordered speech samples and used the data to show that ASR personalization is a viable avenue for bridging the performance gap for users with disordered speech. We’ve shown that personalization can be successful with as little as 3-4 minutes of training speech using layer freezing techniques.

This work led to the development of Project Relate for anyone with atypical speech who could benefit from a personalized speech model. Built in partnership with Google’s Speech team, Project Relate enables people who find it hard to be understood by other people and technology to train their own models. People can use these personalized models to communicate more effectively and gain more independence. To make ASR more accessible and usable, we describe how we fine-tuned Google’s Universal Speech Model (USM) to better understand disordered speech out of the box, without personalization, for use with digital assistant technologies, dictation apps, and in conversations.

Addressing the challenges

Working closely with Project Relate users, it became clear that personalized models can be very useful, but for many users, recording dozens or hundreds of examples can be challenging. In addition, the personalized models did not always perform well in freeform conversation.

To address these challenges, Euphonia’s research efforts have been focusing on speaker independent ASR (SI-ASR) to make models work better out of the box for people with disordered speech so that no additional training is necessary.

Prompted Speech dataset for SI-ASR

The first step in building a robust SI-ASR model was to create representative dataset splits. We created the Prompted Speech dataset by splitting the Euphonia corpus into train, validation and test portions, while ensuring that each split spanned a range of speech impairment severity and underlying etiology and that no speakers or phrases appeared in multiple splits. The training portion consists of over 950k speech utterances from over 1,000 speakers with disordered speech. The test set contains around 5,700 utterances from over 350 speakers. Speech-language pathologists manually reviewed all of the utterances in the test set for transcription accuracy and audio quality.

Real Conversation test set

Unprompted or conversational speech differs from prompted speech in several ways. In conversation, people speak faster and enunciate less. They repeat words, repair misspoken words, and use a more expansive vocabulary that is specific and personal to themselves and their community. To improve a model for this use case, we created the Real Conversation test set to benchmark performance.

The Real Conversation test set was created with the help of trusted testers who recorded themselves speaking during conversations. The audio was reviewed, any personally identifiable information (PII) was removed, and then that data was transcribed by speech-language pathologists. The Real Conversation test set contains over 1,500 utterances from 29 speakers.

Adapting USM to disordered speech

We then tuned USM on the training split of the Euphonia Prompted Speech set to improve its performance on disordered speech. Instead of fine-tuning the full model, our tuning was based on residual adapters, a parameter-efficient tuning approach that adds tunable bottleneck layers as residuals between the transformer layers. Only these layers are tuned, while the rest of the model weights are untouched. We have previously shown that this approach works very well to adapt ASR models to disordered speech. Residual adapters were only added to the encoder layers, and the bottleneck dimension was set to 64.

Results

To evaluate the adapted USM, we compared it to older ASR models using the two test sets described above. For each test, we compare adapted USM to the pre-USM model best suited to that task: (1) For short prompted speech, we compare to Google’s production ASR model optimized for short form ASR; (2) for longer Real Conversation speech, we compare to a model trained for long form ASR. USM improvements over pre-USM models can be explained by USM’s relative size increase, 120M to 2B parameters, and other improvements discussed in the USM blog post.

Model word error rates (WER) for each test set (lower is better).

We see that the USM adapted with disordered speech significantly outperforms the other models. The adapted USM’s WER on Real Conversation is 37% better than the pre-USM model, and on the Prompted Speech test set, the adapted USM performs 53% better.

These findings suggest that the adapted USM is significantly more usable for an end user with disordered speech. We can demonstrate this improvement by looking at transcripts of Real Conversation test set recordings from a trusted tester of Euphonia and Project Relate (see below).

Audio1		Ground Truth		Pre-USM ASR		Adapted USM
		I now have an Xbox adaptive controller on my lap.		i now have a lot and that consultant on my mouth		i now had an xbox adapter controller on my lamp.
		I’ve been talking for quite a while now. Let’s see.		quite a while now		i’ve been talking for quite a while now.

Example audio and transcriptions of a trusted tester’s speech from the Real Conversation test set.

A comparison of the Pre-USM and adapted USM transcripts revealed some key advantages:

• The first example shows that Adapted USM is better at recognizing disordered speech patterns. The baseline misses key words like “XBox” and “controller” that are important for a listener to understand what they are trying to say.
• The second example is a good example of how deletions are a primary issue with ASR models that are not trained with disordered speech. Though the baseline model did transcribe a portion correctly, a large part of the utterance was not transcribed, losing the speaker’s intended message.

Conclusion

We believe that this work is an important step towards making speech recognition more accessible to people with disordered speech. We are continuing to work on improving the performance of our models. With the rapid advancements in ASR, we aim to ensure people with disordered speech benefit as well.

Acknowledgements

Key contributors to this project include Fadi Biadsy, Michael Brenner, Julie Cattiau, Richard Cave, Amy Chung-Yu Chou, Dotan Emanuel, Jordan Green, Rus Heywood, Pan-Pan Jiang, Anton Kast, Marilyn Ladewig, Bob MacDonald, Philip Nelson, Katie Seaver, Joel Shor, Jimmy Tobin, Katrin Tomanek, and Subhashini Venugopalan. We gratefully acknowledge the support Project Euphonia received from members of the USM research team including Yu Zhang, Wei Han, Nanxin Chen, and many others. Most importantly, we wanted to say a huge thank you to the 2,200+ participants who recorded speech samples and the many advocacy groups who helped us connect with these participants.

---

¹Audio volume has been adjusted for ease of listening, but the original files would be more consistent with those used in training and would have pauses, silences, variable volume, etc. ^↩

Posted by Trond Andersen and Yuri Lensky, Research Scientists, Google Quantum AI Team

Imagine you’re shown two identical objects and then asked to close your eyes. When you open your eyes, you see the same two objects in the same position. How can you determine if they have been swapped back and forth? Intuition and the laws of quantum mechanics agree: If the objects are truly identical, there is no way to tell.

While this sounds like common sense, it only applies to our familiar three-dimensional world. Researchers have predicted that for a special type of particle, called an anyon, that is restricted to move only in a two-dimensional (2D) plane, quantum mechanics allows for something quite different. Anyons are indistinguishable from one another and some, non-Abelian anyons, have a special property that causes observable differences in the shared quantum state under exchange, making it possible to tell when they have been exchanged, despite being fully indistinguishable from one another. While researchers have managed to detect their relatives, Abelian anyons, whose change under exchange is more subtle and impossible to directly detect, realizing “non-Abelian exchange behavior” has proven more difficult due to challenges with both control and detection.

In “Non-Abelian braiding of graph vertices in a superconducting processor”, published in Nature, we report the observation of this non-Abelian exchange behavior for the first time. Non-Abelian anyons could open a new avenue for quantum computation, in which quantum operations are achieved by swapping particles around one another like strings are swapped around one another to create braids. Realizing this new exchange behavior on our superconducting quantum processor could be an alternate route to so-called topological quantum computation, which benefits from being robust against environmental noise.

Exchange statistics and non-Abelian anyons

In order to understand how this strange non-Abelian behavior can occur, it’s helpful to consider an analogy with the braiding of two strings. Take two identical strings and lay them parallel next to one another. Swap their ends to form a double-helix shape. The strings are identical, but because they wrap around one another when the ends are exchanged, it is very clear when the two ends are swapped.

The exchange of non-Abelian anyons can be visualized in a similar way, where the strings are made from extending the particles’ positions into the time dimension to form “world-lines.” Imagine plotting two particles’ locations vs. time. If the particles stay put, the plot would simply be two parallel lines, representing their constant locations. But if we exchange the locations of the particles, the world lines wrap around one another. Exchange them a second time, and you’ve made a knot.

While a bit difficult to visualize, knots in four dimensions (three spatial plus one time dimension) can always easily be undone. They are trivial — like a shoelace, simply pull one end and it unravels. But when the particles are restricted to two spatial dimensions, the knots are in three total dimensions and — as we know from our everyday 3D lives — cannot always be easily untied. The braiding of the non-Abelian anyons’ world lines can be used as quantum computing operations to transform the state of the particles.

A key aspect of non-Abelian anyons is “degeneracy”: the full state of several separated anyons is not completely specified by local information, allowing the same anyon configuration to represent superpositions of several quantum states. Winding non-Abelian anyons about each other can change the encoded state.

How to make a non-Abelian anyon

So how do we realize non-Abelian braiding with one of Google’s quantum processors? We start with the familiar surface code, which we recently used to achieve a milestone in quantum error correction, where qubits are arranged on the vertices of a checkerboard pattern. Each color square of the checkerboard represents one of two possible joint measurements that can be made of the qubits on the four corners of the square. These so-called “stabilizer measurements” can return a value of either + or – 1. The latter is referred to as a plaquette violation, and can be created and moved diagonally — just like bishops in chess — by applying single-qubit X- and Z-gates. Recently, we showed that these bishop-like plaquette violations are Abelian anyons. In contrast to non-Abelian anyons, the state of Abelian anyons changes only subtly when they are swapped — so subtly that it is impossible to directly detect. While Abelian anyons are interesting, they do not hold the same promise for topological quantum computing that non-Abelian anyons do.

To produce non-Abelian anyons, we need to control the degeneracy (i.e., the number of wavefunctions that causes all stabilizer measurements to be +1). Since a stabilizer measurement returns two possible values, each stabilizer cuts the degeneracy of the system in half, and with sufficiently many stabilizers, only one wave function satisfies the criterion. Hence, a simple way to increase the degeneracy is to merge two stabilizers together. In the process of doing so, we remove one edge in the stabilizer grid, giving rise to two points where only three edges intersect. These points, referred to as “degree-3 vertices” (D3Vs), are predicted to be non-Abelian anyons.

In order to braid the D3Vs, we have to move them, meaning that we have to stretch and squash the stabilizers into new shapes. We accomplish this by implementing two-qubit gates between the anyons and their neighbors (middle and right panels shown below).

Non-Abelian anyons in stabilizer codes. a: Example of a knot made by braiding two anyons’ world lines. b: Single-qubit gates can be used to create and move stabilizers with a value of –1 (red squares). Like bishops in chess, these can only move diagonally and are therefore constrained to one sublattice in the regular surface code. This constraint is broken when D3Vs (yellow triangles) are introduced. c: Process to form and move D3Vs (predicted to be non-Abelian anyons). We start with the surface code, where each square corresponds to a joint measurement of the four qubits on its corners (left panel). We remove an edge separating two neighboring squares, such that there is now a single joint measurement of all six qubits (middle panel). This creates two D3Vs, which are non-Abelian anyons. We move the D3Vs by applying two-qubit gates between neighboring sites (right panel).

Now that we have a way to create and move the non-Abelian anyons, we need to verify their anyonic behavior. For this we examine three characteristics that would be expected of non-Abelian anyons:

1. The “fusion rules” — What happens when non-Abelian anyons collide with each other?
2. Exchange statistics — What happens when they are braided around one another?
3. Topological quantum computing primitives — Can we encode qubits in the non-Abelian anyons and use braiding to perform two-qubit entangling operations?

The fusion rules of non-Abelian anyons

We investigate fusion rules by studying how a pair of D3Vs interact with the bishop-like plaquette violations introduced above. In particular, we create a pair of these and bring one of them around a D3V by applying single-qubit gates.

While the rules of bishops in chess dictate that the plaquette violations can never meet, the dislocation in the checkerboard lattice allows them to break this rule, meet its partner and annihilate with it. The plaquette violations have now disappeared! But bring the non-Abelian anyons back in contact with one another, and the anyons suddenly morph into the missing plaquette violations. As weird as this behavior seems, it is a manifestation of exactly the fusion rules that we expect these entities to obey. This establishes confidence that the D3Vs are, indeed, non-Abelian anyons.

Demonstration of anyonic fusion rules (starting with panel I, in the lower left). We form and separate two D3Vs (yellow triangles), then form two adjacent plaquette violations (red squares) and pass one between the D3Vs. The D3Vs deformation of the “chessboard” changes the bishop rules of the plaquette violations. While they used to lie on adjacent squares, they are now able to move along the same diagonals and collide (as shown by the red lines). When they do collide, they annihilate one another. The D3Vs are brought back together and surprisingly morph into the missing adjacent red plaquette violations.

Observation of non-Abelian exchange statistics

After establishing the fusion rules, we want to see the real smoking gun of non-Abelian anyons: non-Abelian exchange statistics. We create two pairs of non-Abelian anyons, then braid them by wrapping one from each pair around each other (shown below). When we fuse the two pairs back together, two pairs of plaquette violations appear. The simple act of braiding the anyons around one another changed the observables of our system. In other words, if you closed your eyes while the non-Abelian anyons were being exchanged, you would still be able to tell that they had been exchanged once you opened your eyes. This is the hallmark of non-Abelian statistics.

Braiding non-Abelian anyons. We make two pairs of D3Vs (panel II), then bring one from each pair around each other (III-XI). When fusing the two pairs together again in panel XII, two pairs of plaquette violations appear! Braiding the non-Abelian anyons changed the observables of the system from panel I to panel XII; a direct manifestation of non-Abelian exchange statistics.

Topological quantum computing

Finally, after establishing their fusion rules and exchange statistics, we demonstrate how we can use these particles in quantum computations. The non-Abelian anyons can be used to encode information, represented by logical qubits, which should be distinguished from the actual physical qubits used in the experiment. The number of logical qubits encoded in N D3Vs can be shown to be N/2–1, so we use N=8 D3Vs to encode three logical qubits, and perform braiding to entangle them. By studying the resulting state, we find that the braiding has indeed led to the formation of the desired, well-known quantum entangled state called the Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) state.

Using non-Abelian anyons as logical qubits. a, We braid the non-Abelian anyons to entangle three qubits encoded in eight D3Vs. b, Quantum state tomography allows for reconstructing the density matrix, which can be represented in a 3D bar plot and is found to be consistent with the desired highly entangled GHZ-state.

Conclusion

Our experiments show the first observation of non-Abelian exchange statistics, and that braiding of the D3Vs can be used to perform quantum computations. With future additions, including error correction during the braiding procedure, this could be a major step towards topological quantum computation, a long-sought method to endow qubits with intrinsic resilience against fluctuations and noise that would otherwise cause errors in computations.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Katie McCormick, our Quantum Science Communicator, for helping to write this blog post.