-
Deciphering the Factors Influencing the Efficacy of Chain-of-Thought: Probability, Memorization, and Noisy Reasoning
Authors:
Akshara Prabhakar,
Thomas L. Griffiths,
R. Thomas McCoy
Abstract:
Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has been shown to enhance the multi-step reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs). However, debates persist about whether LLMs exhibit abstract generalization or rely on shallow heuristics when given CoT prompts. To understand the factors influencing CoT reasoning we provide a detailed case study of the symbolic reasoning task of decoding shift cipher…
▽ More
Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has been shown to enhance the multi-step reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs). However, debates persist about whether LLMs exhibit abstract generalization or rely on shallow heuristics when given CoT prompts. To understand the factors influencing CoT reasoning we provide a detailed case study of the symbolic reasoning task of decoding shift ciphers, where letters are shifted forward some number of steps in the alphabet. GPT-4 achieves zero accuracy on most shift ciphers with standard prompting, but with CoT its accuracy improves to an average of 32%. By focusing on a single relatively simple task, we are able to identify three factors that systematically affect CoT performance: the probability of the task's expected output (probability), what the model has implicitly learned during pre-training (memorization), and the number of intermediate operations involved in reasoning (noisy reasoning). We show that these factors can drastically influence the task accuracy; e.g., varying the output's probability of occurrence can shift accuracy from 26% to 70%. We also demonstrate that it is essential for the model to explicitly produce intermediate steps as output that can be conditioned on to increase the probability of the correct answer. Our experiments indicate that as long as the model does so, the validity of the demonstrations in the prompt does not matter. Overall, we conclude that CoT prompting performance reflects both memorization and a probabilistic version of genuine reasoning.
△ Less
Submitted 1 July, 2024;
originally announced July 2024.
-
Is In-Context Learning a Type of Gradient-Based Learning? Evidence from the Inverse Frequency Effect in Structural Priming
Authors:
Zhenghao Zhou,
Robert Frank,
R. Thomas McCoy
Abstract:
Large language models (LLMs) have shown the emergent capability of in-context learning (ICL). One line of research has explained ICL as functionally performing gradient descent. In this paper, we introduce a new way of diagnosing whether ICL is functionally equivalent to gradient-based learning. Our approach is based on the inverse frequency effect (IFE) -- a phenomenon in which an error-driven le…
▽ More
Large language models (LLMs) have shown the emergent capability of in-context learning (ICL). One line of research has explained ICL as functionally performing gradient descent. In this paper, we introduce a new way of diagnosing whether ICL is functionally equivalent to gradient-based learning. Our approach is based on the inverse frequency effect (IFE) -- a phenomenon in which an error-driven learner is expected to show larger updates when trained on infrequent examples than frequent ones. The IFE has previously been studied in psycholinguistics because humans show this effect in the context of structural priming (the tendency for people to produce sentence structures they have encountered recently); the IFE has been used as evidence that human structural priming must involve error-driven learning mechanisms. In our experiments, we simulated structural priming within ICL and found that LLMs display the IFE, with the effect being stronger in larger models. We conclude that ICL is indeed a type of gradient-based learning, supporting the hypothesis that a gradient component is implicitly computed in the forward pass during ICL. Our results suggest that both humans and LLMs make use of gradient-based, error-driven processing mechanisms.
△ Less
Submitted 26 June, 2024;
originally announced June 2024.
-
modeLing: A Novel Dataset for Testing Linguistic Reasoning in Language Models
Authors:
Nathan A. Chi,
Teodor Malchev,
Riley Kong,
Ryan A. Chi,
Lucas Huang,
Ethan A. Chi,
R. Thomas McCoy,
Dragomir Radev
Abstract:
We introduce modeLing, a novel benchmark of Linguistics Olympiad-style puzzles which tests few-shot reasoning in AI systems. Solving these puzzles necessitates inferring aspects of a language's grammatical structure from a small number of examples. Such puzzles provide a natural testbed for language models, as they require compositional generalization and few-shot inductive reasoning. Consisting s…
▽ More
We introduce modeLing, a novel benchmark of Linguistics Olympiad-style puzzles which tests few-shot reasoning in AI systems. Solving these puzzles necessitates inferring aspects of a language's grammatical structure from a small number of examples. Such puzzles provide a natural testbed for language models, as they require compositional generalization and few-shot inductive reasoning. Consisting solely of new puzzles written specifically for this work, modeLing has no risk of appearing in the training data of existing AI systems: this ameliorates the risk of data leakage, a potential confounder for many prior evaluations of reasoning. Evaluating several large open source language models and GPT on our benchmark, we observe non-negligible accuracy, demonstrating few-shot emergent reasoning ability which cannot merely be attributed to shallow memorization. However, imperfect model performance suggests that modeLing can be used to measure further progress in linguistic reasoning.
△ Less
Submitted 24 June, 2024;
originally announced June 2024.
-
Distilling Symbolic Priors for Concept Learning into Neural Networks
Authors:
Ioana Marinescu,
R. Thomas McCoy,
Thomas L. Griffiths
Abstract:
Humans can learn new concepts from a small number of examples by drawing on their inductive biases. These inductive biases have previously been captured by using Bayesian models defined over symbolic hypothesis spaces. Is it possible to create a neural network that displays the same inductive biases? We show that inductive biases that enable rapid concept learning can be instantiated in artificial…
▽ More
Humans can learn new concepts from a small number of examples by drawing on their inductive biases. These inductive biases have previously been captured by using Bayesian models defined over symbolic hypothesis spaces. Is it possible to create a neural network that displays the same inductive biases? We show that inductive biases that enable rapid concept learning can be instantiated in artificial neural networks by distilling a prior distribution from a symbolic Bayesian model via meta-learning, an approach for extracting the common structure from a set of tasks. By generating the set of tasks used in meta-learning from the prior distribution of a Bayesian model, we are able to transfer that prior into a neural network. We use this approach to create a neural network with an inductive bias towards concepts expressed as short logical formulas. Analyzing results from previous behavioral experiments in which people learned logical concepts from a few examples, we find that our meta-trained models are highly aligned with human performance.
△ Less
Submitted 10 February, 2024;
originally announced February 2024.
-
Deep de Finetti: Recovering Topic Distributions from Large Language Models
Authors:
Liyi Zhang,
R. Thomas McCoy,
Theodore R. Sumers,
Jian-Qiao Zhu,
Thomas L. Griffiths
Abstract:
Large language models (LLMs) can produce long, coherent passages of text, suggesting that LLMs, although trained on next-word prediction, must represent the latent structure that characterizes a document. Prior work has found that internal representations of LLMs encode one aspect of latent structure, namely syntax; here we investigate a complementary aspect, namely the document's topic structure.…
▽ More
Large language models (LLMs) can produce long, coherent passages of text, suggesting that LLMs, although trained on next-word prediction, must represent the latent structure that characterizes a document. Prior work has found that internal representations of LLMs encode one aspect of latent structure, namely syntax; here we investigate a complementary aspect, namely the document's topic structure. We motivate the hypothesis that LLMs capture topic structure by connecting LLM optimization to implicit Bayesian inference. De Finetti's theorem shows that exchangeable probability distributions can be represented as a mixture with respect to a latent generating distribution. Although text is not exchangeable at the level of syntax, exchangeability is a reasonable starting assumption for topic structure. We thus hypothesize that predicting the next token in text will lead LLMs to recover latent topic distributions. We examine this hypothesis using Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA), an exchangeable probabilistic topic model, as a target, and we show that the representations formed by LLMs encode both the topics used to generate synthetic data and those used to explain natural corpus data.
△ Less
Submitted 21 December, 2023;
originally announced December 2023.
-
Bayes in the age of intelligent machines
Authors:
Thomas L. Griffiths,
Jian-Qiao Zhu,
Erin Grant,
R. Thomas McCoy
Abstract:
The success of methods based on artificial neural networks in creating intelligent machines seems like it might pose a challenge to explanations of human cognition in terms of Bayesian inference. We argue that this is not the case, and that in fact these systems offer new opportunities for Bayesian modeling. Specifically, we argue that Bayesian models of cognition and artificial neural networks li…
▽ More
The success of methods based on artificial neural networks in creating intelligent machines seems like it might pose a challenge to explanations of human cognition in terms of Bayesian inference. We argue that this is not the case, and that in fact these systems offer new opportunities for Bayesian modeling. Specifically, we argue that Bayesian models of cognition and artificial neural networks lie at different levels of analysis and are complementary modeling approaches, together offering a way to understand human cognition that spans these levels. We also argue that the same perspective can be applied to intelligent machines, where a Bayesian approach may be uniquely valuable in understanding the behavior of large, opaque artificial neural networks that are trained on proprietary data.
△ Less
Submitted 16 November, 2023;
originally announced November 2023.
-
Embers of Autoregression: Understanding Large Language Models Through the Problem They are Trained to Solve
Authors:
R. Thomas McCoy,
Shunyu Yao,
Dan Friedman,
Matthew Hardy,
Thomas L. Griffiths
Abstract:
The widespread adoption of large language models (LLMs) makes it important to recognize their strengths and limitations. We argue that in order to develop a holistic understanding of these systems we need to consider the problem that they were trained to solve: next-word prediction over Internet text. By recognizing the pressures that this task exerts we can make predictions about the strategies t…
▽ More
The widespread adoption of large language models (LLMs) makes it important to recognize their strengths and limitations. We argue that in order to develop a holistic understanding of these systems we need to consider the problem that they were trained to solve: next-word prediction over Internet text. By recognizing the pressures that this task exerts we can make predictions about the strategies that LLMs will adopt, allowing us to reason about when they will succeed or fail. This approach - which we call the teleological approach - leads us to identify three factors that we hypothesize will influence LLM accuracy: the probability of the task to be performed, the probability of the target output, and the probability of the provided input. We predict that LLMs will achieve higher accuracy when these probabilities are high than when they are low - even in deterministic settings where probability should not matter. To test our predictions, we evaluate two LLMs (GPT-3.5 and GPT-4) on eleven tasks, and we find robust evidence that LLMs are influenced by probability in the ways that we have hypothesized. In many cases, the experiments reveal surprising failure modes. For instance, GPT-4's accuracy at decoding a simple cipher is 51% when the output is a high-probability word sequence but only 13% when it is low-probability. These results show that AI practitioners should be careful about using LLMs in low-probability situations. More broadly, we conclude that we should not evaluate LLMs as if they are humans but should instead treat them as a distinct type of system - one that has been shaped by its own particular set of pressures.
△ Less
Submitted 24 September, 2023;
originally announced September 2023.
-
Modeling rapid language learning by distilling Bayesian priors into artificial neural networks
Authors:
R. Thomas McCoy,
Thomas L. Griffiths
Abstract:
Humans can learn languages from remarkably little experience. Developing computational models that explain this ability has been a major challenge in cognitive science. Bayesian models that build in strong inductive biases - factors that guide generalization - have been successful at explaining how humans might generalize from few examples in controlled settings but are usually too restrictive to…
▽ More
Humans can learn languages from remarkably little experience. Developing computational models that explain this ability has been a major challenge in cognitive science. Bayesian models that build in strong inductive biases - factors that guide generalization - have been successful at explaining how humans might generalize from few examples in controlled settings but are usually too restrictive to be tractably applied to more naturalistic data. By contrast, neural networks have flexible representations that allow them to learn well from naturalistic data but require many more examples than humans receive. We show that learning from limited naturalistic data is possible with an approach that combines the strong inductive biases of a Bayesian model with the flexible representations of a neural network. This approach works by distilling a Bayesian model's biases into a neural network. Like a Bayesian model, the resulting system can learn formal linguistic patterns from a small number of examples. Like a neural network, it can also learn aspects of English syntax from a corpus of natural language - and it outperforms a standard neural network at acquiring the linguistic phenomena of recursion and priming. Bridging the divide between Bayesian models and neural networks makes it possible to handle a broader range of learning scenarios than either approach can handle on its own.
△ Less
Submitted 24 May, 2023;
originally announced May 2023.
-
How poor is the stimulus? Evaluating hierarchical generalization in neural networks trained on child-directed speech
Authors:
Aditya Yedetore,
Tal Linzen,
Robert Frank,
R. Thomas McCoy
Abstract:
When acquiring syntax, children consistently choose hierarchical rules over competing non-hierarchical possibilities. Is this preference due to a learning bias for hierarchical structure, or due to more general biases that interact with hierarchical cues in children's linguistic input? We explore these possibilities by training LSTMs and Transformers - two types of neural networks without a hierar…
▽ More
When acquiring syntax, children consistently choose hierarchical rules over competing non-hierarchical possibilities. Is this preference due to a learning bias for hierarchical structure, or due to more general biases that interact with hierarchical cues in children's linguistic input? We explore these possibilities by training LSTMs and Transformers - two types of neural networks without a hierarchical bias - on data similar in quantity and content to children's linguistic input: text from the CHILDES corpus. We then evaluate what these models have learned about English yes/no questions, a phenomenon for which hierarchical structure is crucial. We find that, though they perform well at capturing the surface statistics of child-directed speech (as measured by perplexity), both model types generalize in a way more consistent with an incorrect linear rule than the correct hierarchical rule. These results suggest that human-like generalization from text alone requires stronger biases than the general sequence-processing biases of standard neural network architectures.
△ Less
Submitted 6 June, 2023; v1 submitted 26 January, 2023;
originally announced January 2023.
-
Structural Biases for Improving Transformers on Translation into Morphologically Rich Languages
Authors:
Paul Soulos,
Sudha Rao,
Caitlin Smith,
Eric Rosen,
Asli Celikyilmaz,
R. Thomas McCoy,
Yichen Jiang,
Coleman Haley,
Roland Fernandez,
Hamid Palangi,
Jianfeng Gao,
Paul Smolensky
Abstract:
Machine translation has seen rapid progress with the advent of Transformer-based models. These models have no explicit linguistic structure built into them, yet they may still implicitly learn structured relationships by attending to relevant tokens. We hypothesize that this structural learning could be made more robust by explicitly endowing Transformers with a structural bias, and we investigate…
▽ More
Machine translation has seen rapid progress with the advent of Transformer-based models. These models have no explicit linguistic structure built into them, yet they may still implicitly learn structured relationships by attending to relevant tokens. We hypothesize that this structural learning could be made more robust by explicitly endowing Transformers with a structural bias, and we investigate two methods for building in such a bias. One method, the TP-Transformer, augments the traditional Transformer architecture to include an additional component to represent structure. The second method imbues structure at the data level by segmenting the data with morphological tokenization. We test these methods on translating from English into morphologically rich languages, Turkish and Inuktitut, and consider both automatic metrics and human evaluations. We find that each of these two approaches allows the network to achieve better performance, but this improvement is dependent on the size of the dataset. In sum, structural encoding methods make Transformers more sample-efficient, enabling them to perform better from smaller amounts of data.
△ Less
Submitted 11 August, 2022;
originally announced August 2022.
-
Neurocompositional computing: From the Central Paradox of Cognition to a new generation of AI systems
Authors:
Paul Smolensky,
R. Thomas McCoy,
Roland Fernandez,
Matthew Goldrick,
Jianfeng Gao
Abstract:
What explains the dramatic progress from 20th-century to 21st-century AI, and how can the remaining limitations of current AI be overcome? The widely accepted narrative attributes this progress to massive increases in the quantity of computational and data resources available to support statistical learning in deep artificial neural networks. We show that an additional crucial factor is the develo…
▽ More
What explains the dramatic progress from 20th-century to 21st-century AI, and how can the remaining limitations of current AI be overcome? The widely accepted narrative attributes this progress to massive increases in the quantity of computational and data resources available to support statistical learning in deep artificial neural networks. We show that an additional crucial factor is the development of a new type of computation. Neurocompositional computing adopts two principles that must be simultaneously respected to enable human-level cognition: the principles of Compositionality and Continuity. These have seemed irreconcilable until the recent mathematical discovery that compositionality can be realized not only through discrete methods of symbolic computing, but also through novel forms of continuous neural computing. The revolutionary recent progress in AI has resulted from the use of limited forms of neurocompositional computing. New, deeper forms of neurocompositional computing create AI systems that are more robust, accurate, and comprehensible.
△ Less
Submitted 2 May, 2022;
originally announced May 2022.
-
How much do language models copy from their training data? Evaluating linguistic novelty in text generation using RAVEN
Authors:
R. Thomas McCoy,
Paul Smolensky,
Tal Linzen,
Jianfeng Gao,
Asli Celikyilmaz
Abstract:
Current language models can generate high-quality text. Are they simply copying text they have seen before, or have they learned generalizable linguistic abstractions? To tease apart these possibilities, we introduce RAVEN, a suite of analyses for assessing the novelty of generated text, focusing on sequential structure (n-grams) and syntactic structure. We apply these analyses to four neural lang…
▽ More
Current language models can generate high-quality text. Are they simply copying text they have seen before, or have they learned generalizable linguistic abstractions? To tease apart these possibilities, we introduce RAVEN, a suite of analyses for assessing the novelty of generated text, focusing on sequential structure (n-grams) and syntactic structure. We apply these analyses to four neural language models (an LSTM, a Transformer, Transformer-XL, and GPT-2). For local structure - e.g., individual dependencies - model-generated text is substantially less novel than our baseline of human-generated text from each model's test set. For larger-scale structure - e.g., overall sentence structure - model-generated text is as novel or even more novel than the human-generated baseline, but models still sometimes copy substantially, in some cases duplicating passages over 1,000 words long from the training set. We also perform extensive manual analysis showing that GPT-2's novel text is usually well-formed morphologically and syntactically but has reasonably frequent semantic issues (e.g., being self-contradictory).
△ Less
Submitted 17 November, 2021;
originally announced November 2021.
-
Picking BERT's Brain: Probing for Linguistic Dependencies in Contextualized Embeddings Using Representational Similarity Analysis
Authors:
Michael A. Lepori,
R. Thomas McCoy
Abstract:
As the name implies, contextualized representations of language are typically motivated by their ability to encode context. Which aspects of context are captured by such representations? We introduce an approach to address this question using Representational Similarity Analysis (RSA). As case studies, we investigate the degree to which a verb embedding encodes the verb's subject, a pronoun embedd…
▽ More
As the name implies, contextualized representations of language are typically motivated by their ability to encode context. Which aspects of context are captured by such representations? We introduce an approach to address this question using Representational Similarity Analysis (RSA). As case studies, we investigate the degree to which a verb embedding encodes the verb's subject, a pronoun embedding encodes the pronoun's antecedent, and a full-sentence representation encodes the sentence's head word (as determined by a dependency parse). In all cases, we show that BERT's contextualized embeddings reflect the linguistic dependency being studied, and that BERT encodes these dependencies to a greater degree than it encodes less linguistically-salient controls. These results demonstrate the ability of our approach to adjudicate between hypotheses about which aspects of context are encoded in representations of language.
△ Less
Submitted 24 November, 2020;
originally announced November 2020.
-
Universal linguistic inductive biases via meta-learning
Authors:
R. Thomas McCoy,
Erin Grant,
Paul Smolensky,
Thomas L. Griffiths,
Tal Linzen
Abstract:
How do learners acquire languages from the limited data available to them? This process must involve some inductive biases - factors that affect how a learner generalizes - but it is unclear which inductive biases can explain observed patterns in language acquisition. To facilitate computational modeling aimed at addressing this question, we introduce a framework for giving particular linguistic i…
▽ More
How do learners acquire languages from the limited data available to them? This process must involve some inductive biases - factors that affect how a learner generalizes - but it is unclear which inductive biases can explain observed patterns in language acquisition. To facilitate computational modeling aimed at addressing this question, we introduce a framework for giving particular linguistic inductive biases to a neural network model; such a model can then be used to empirically explore the effects of those inductive biases. This framework disentangles universal inductive biases, which are encoded in the initial values of a neural network's parameters, from non-universal factors, which the neural network must learn from data in a given language. The initial state that encodes the inductive biases is found with meta-learning, a technique through which a model discovers how to acquire new languages more easily via exposure to many possible languages. By controlling the properties of the languages that are used during meta-learning, we can control the inductive biases that meta-learning imparts. We demonstrate this framework with a case study based on syllable structure. First, we specify the inductive biases that we intend to give our model, and then we translate those inductive biases into a space of languages from which a model can meta-learn. Finally, using existing analysis techniques, we verify that our approach has imparted the linguistic inductive biases that it was intended to impart.
△ Less
Submitted 29 June, 2020;
originally announced June 2020.
-
Representations of Syntax [MASK] Useful: Effects of Constituency and Dependency Structure in Recursive LSTMs
Authors:
Michael A. Lepori,
Tal Linzen,
R. Thomas McCoy
Abstract:
Sequence-based neural networks show significant sensitivity to syntactic structure, but they still perform less well on syntactic tasks than tree-based networks. Such tree-based networks can be provided with a constituency parse, a dependency parse, or both. We evaluate which of these two representational schemes more effectively introduces biases for syntactic structure that increase performance…
▽ More
Sequence-based neural networks show significant sensitivity to syntactic structure, but they still perform less well on syntactic tasks than tree-based networks. Such tree-based networks can be provided with a constituency parse, a dependency parse, or both. We evaluate which of these two representational schemes more effectively introduces biases for syntactic structure that increase performance on the subject-verb agreement prediction task. We find that a constituency-based network generalizes more robustly than a dependency-based one, and that combining the two types of structure does not yield further improvement. Finally, we show that the syntactic robustness of sequential models can be substantially improved by fine-tuning on a small amount of constructed data, suggesting that data augmentation is a viable alternative to explicit constituency structure for imparting the syntactic biases that sequential models are lacking.
△ Less
Submitted 30 April, 2020;
originally announced May 2020.
-
Syntactic Data Augmentation Increases Robustness to Inference Heuristics
Authors:
Junghyun Min,
R. Thomas McCoy,
Dipanjan Das,
Emily Pitler,
Tal Linzen
Abstract:
Pretrained neural models such as BERT, when fine-tuned to perform natural language inference (NLI), often show high accuracy on standard datasets, but display a surprising lack of sensitivity to word order on controlled challenge sets. We hypothesize that this issue is not primarily caused by the pretrained model's limitations, but rather by the paucity of crowdsourced NLI examples that might conv…
▽ More
Pretrained neural models such as BERT, when fine-tuned to perform natural language inference (NLI), often show high accuracy on standard datasets, but display a surprising lack of sensitivity to word order on controlled challenge sets. We hypothesize that this issue is not primarily caused by the pretrained model's limitations, but rather by the paucity of crowdsourced NLI examples that might convey the importance of syntactic structure at the fine-tuning stage. We explore several methods to augment standard training sets with syntactically informative examples, generated by applying syntactic transformations to sentences from the MNLI corpus. The best-performing augmentation method, subject/object inversion, improved BERT's accuracy on controlled examples that diagnose sensitivity to word order from 0.28 to 0.73, without affecting performance on the MNLI test set. This improvement generalized beyond the particular construction used for data augmentation, suggesting that augmentation causes BERT to recruit abstract syntactic representations.
△ Less
Submitted 24 April, 2020;
originally announced April 2020.
-
Does syntax need to grow on trees? Sources of hierarchical inductive bias in sequence-to-sequence networks
Authors:
R. Thomas McCoy,
Robert Frank,
Tal Linzen
Abstract:
Learners that are exposed to the same training data might generalize differently due to differing inductive biases. In neural network models, inductive biases could in theory arise from any aspect of the model architecture. We investigate which architectural factors affect the generalization behavior of neural sequence-to-sequence models trained on two syntactic tasks, English question formation a…
▽ More
Learners that are exposed to the same training data might generalize differently due to differing inductive biases. In neural network models, inductive biases could in theory arise from any aspect of the model architecture. We investigate which architectural factors affect the generalization behavior of neural sequence-to-sequence models trained on two syntactic tasks, English question formation and English tense reinflection. For both tasks, the training set is consistent with a generalization based on hierarchical structure and a generalization based on linear order. All architectural factors that we investigated qualitatively affected how models generalized, including factors with no clear connection to hierarchical structure. For example, LSTMs and GRUs displayed qualitatively different inductive biases. However, the only factor that consistently contributed a hierarchical bias across tasks was the use of a tree-structured model rather than a model with sequential recurrence, suggesting that human-like syntactic generalization requires architectural syntactic structure.
△ Less
Submitted 10 January, 2020;
originally announced January 2020.
-
BERTs of a feather do not generalize together: Large variability in generalization across models with similar test set performance
Authors:
R. Thomas McCoy,
Junghyun Min,
Tal Linzen
Abstract:
If the same neural network architecture is trained multiple times on the same dataset, will it make similar linguistic generalizations across runs? To study this question, we fine-tuned 100 instances of BERT on the Multi-genre Natural Language Inference (MNLI) dataset and evaluated them on the HANS dataset, which evaluates syntactic generalization in natural language inference. On the MNLI develop…
▽ More
If the same neural network architecture is trained multiple times on the same dataset, will it make similar linguistic generalizations across runs? To study this question, we fine-tuned 100 instances of BERT on the Multi-genre Natural Language Inference (MNLI) dataset and evaluated them on the HANS dataset, which evaluates syntactic generalization in natural language inference. On the MNLI development set, the behavior of all instances was remarkably consistent, with accuracy ranging between 83.6% and 84.8%. In stark contrast, the same models varied widely in their generalization performance. For example, on the simple case of subject-object swap (e.g., determining that "the doctor visited the lawyer" does not entail "the lawyer visited the doctor"), accuracy ranged from 0.00% to 66.2%. Such variation is likely due to the presence of many local minima that are equally attractive to a low-bias learner such as a neural network; decreasing the variability may therefore require models with stronger inductive biases.
△ Less
Submitted 16 November, 2020; v1 submitted 7 November, 2019;
originally announced November 2019.
-
What do you learn from context? Probing for sentence structure in contextualized word representations
Authors:
Ian Tenney,
Patrick Xia,
Berlin Chen,
Alex Wang,
Adam Poliak,
R Thomas McCoy,
Najoung Kim,
Benjamin Van Durme,
Samuel R. Bowman,
Dipanjan Das,
Ellie Pavlick
Abstract:
Contextualized representation models such as ELMo (Peters et al., 2018a) and BERT (Devlin et al., 2018) have recently achieved state-of-the-art results on a diverse array of downstream NLP tasks. Building on recent token-level probing work, we introduce a novel edge probing task design and construct a broad suite of sub-sentence tasks derived from the traditional structured NLP pipeline. We probe…
▽ More
Contextualized representation models such as ELMo (Peters et al., 2018a) and BERT (Devlin et al., 2018) have recently achieved state-of-the-art results on a diverse array of downstream NLP tasks. Building on recent token-level probing work, we introduce a novel edge probing task design and construct a broad suite of sub-sentence tasks derived from the traditional structured NLP pipeline. We probe word-level contextual representations from four recent models and investigate how they encode sentence structure across a range of syntactic, semantic, local, and long-range phenomena. We find that existing models trained on language modeling and translation produce strong representations for syntactic phenomena, but only offer comparably small improvements on semantic tasks over a non-contextual baseline.
△ Less
Submitted 15 May, 2019;
originally announced May 2019.
-
Probing What Different NLP Tasks Teach Machines about Function Word Comprehension
Authors:
Najoung Kim,
Roma Patel,
Adam Poliak,
Alex Wang,
Patrick Xia,
R. Thomas McCoy,
Ian Tenney,
Alexis Ross,
Tal Linzen,
Benjamin Van Durme,
Samuel R. Bowman,
Ellie Pavlick
Abstract:
We introduce a set of nine challenge tasks that test for the understanding of function words. These tasks are created by structurally mutating sentences from existing datasets to target the comprehension of specific types of function words (e.g., prepositions, wh-words). Using these probing tasks, we explore the effects of various pretraining objectives for sentence encoders (e.g., language modeli…
▽ More
We introduce a set of nine challenge tasks that test for the understanding of function words. These tasks are created by structurally mutating sentences from existing datasets to target the comprehension of specific types of function words (e.g., prepositions, wh-words). Using these probing tasks, we explore the effects of various pretraining objectives for sentence encoders (e.g., language modeling, CCG supertagging and natural language inference (NLI)) on the learned representations. Our results show that pretraining on language modeling performs the best on average across our probing tasks, supporting its widespread use for pretraining state-of-the-art NLP models, and CCG supertagging and NLI pretraining perform comparably. Overall, no pretraining objective dominates across the board, and our function word probing tasks highlight several intuitive differences between pretraining objectives, e.g., that NLI helps the comprehension of negation.
△ Less
Submitted 7 August, 2019; v1 submitted 25 April, 2019;
originally announced April 2019.
-
Right for the Wrong Reasons: Diagnosing Syntactic Heuristics in Natural Language Inference
Authors:
R. Thomas McCoy,
Ellie Pavlick,
Tal Linzen
Abstract:
A machine learning system can score well on a given test set by relying on heuristics that are effective for frequent example types but break down in more challenging cases. We study this issue within natural language inference (NLI), the task of determining whether one sentence entails another. We hypothesize that statistical NLI models may adopt three fallible syntactic heuristics: the lexical o…
▽ More
A machine learning system can score well on a given test set by relying on heuristics that are effective for frequent example types but break down in more challenging cases. We study this issue within natural language inference (NLI), the task of determining whether one sentence entails another. We hypothesize that statistical NLI models may adopt three fallible syntactic heuristics: the lexical overlap heuristic, the subsequence heuristic, and the constituent heuristic. To determine whether models have adopted these heuristics, we introduce a controlled evaluation set called HANS (Heuristic Analysis for NLI Systems), which contains many examples where the heuristics fail. We find that models trained on MNLI, including BERT, a state-of-the-art model, perform very poorly on HANS, suggesting that they have indeed adopted these heuristics. We conclude that there is substantial room for improvement in NLI systems, and that the HANS dataset can motivate and measure progress in this area
△ Less
Submitted 24 June, 2019; v1 submitted 3 February, 2019;
originally announced February 2019.
-
Can You Tell Me How to Get Past Sesame Street? Sentence-Level Pretraining Beyond Language Modeling
Authors:
Alex Wang,
Jan Hula,
Patrick Xia,
Raghavendra Pappagari,
R. Thomas McCoy,
Roma Patel,
Najoung Kim,
Ian Tenney,
Yinghui Huang,
Katherin Yu,
Shuning Jin,
Berlin Chen,
Benjamin Van Durme,
Edouard Grave,
Ellie Pavlick,
Samuel R. Bowman
Abstract:
Natural language understanding has recently seen a surge of progress with the use of sentence encoders like ELMo (Peters et al., 2018a) and BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) which are pretrained on variants of language modeling. We conduct the first large-scale systematic study of candidate pretraining tasks, comparing 19 different tasks both as alternatives and complements to language modeling. Our prim…
▽ More
Natural language understanding has recently seen a surge of progress with the use of sentence encoders like ELMo (Peters et al., 2018a) and BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) which are pretrained on variants of language modeling. We conduct the first large-scale systematic study of candidate pretraining tasks, comparing 19 different tasks both as alternatives and complements to language modeling. Our primary results support the use language modeling, especially when combined with pretraining on additional labeled-data tasks. However, our results are mixed across pretraining tasks and show some concerning trends: In ELMo's pretrain-then-freeze paradigm, random baselines are worryingly strong and results vary strikingly across target tasks. In addition, fine-tuning BERT on an intermediate task often negatively impacts downstream transfer. In a more positive trend, we see modest gains from multitask training, suggesting the development of more sophisticated multitask and transfer learning techniques as an avenue for further research.
△ Less
Submitted 22 July, 2019; v1 submitted 27 December, 2018;
originally announced December 2018.
-
RNNs Implicitly Implement Tensor Product Representations
Authors:
R. Thomas McCoy,
Tal Linzen,
Ewan Dunbar,
Paul Smolensky
Abstract:
Recurrent neural networks (RNNs) can learn continuous vector representations of symbolic structures such as sequences and sentences; these representations often exhibit linear regularities (analogies). Such regularities motivate our hypothesis that RNNs that show such regularities implicitly compile symbolic structures into tensor product representations (TPRs; Smolensky, 1990), which additively c…
▽ More
Recurrent neural networks (RNNs) can learn continuous vector representations of symbolic structures such as sequences and sentences; these representations often exhibit linear regularities (analogies). Such regularities motivate our hypothesis that RNNs that show such regularities implicitly compile symbolic structures into tensor product representations (TPRs; Smolensky, 1990), which additively combine tensor products of vectors representing roles (e.g., sequence positions) and vectors representing fillers (e.g., particular words). To test this hypothesis, we introduce Tensor Product Decomposition Networks (TPDNs), which use TPRs to approximate existing vector representations. We demonstrate using synthetic data that TPDNs can successfully approximate linear and tree-based RNN autoencoder representations, suggesting that these representations exhibit interpretable compositional structure; we explore the settings that lead RNNs to induce such structure-sensitive representations. By contrast, further TPDN experiments show that the representations of four models trained to encode naturally-occurring sentences can be largely approximated with a bag of words, with only marginal improvements from more sophisticated structures. We conclude that TPDNs provide a powerful method for interpreting vector representations, and that standard RNNs can induce compositional sequence representations that are remarkably well approximated by TPRs; at the same time, existing training tasks for sentence representation learning may not be sufficient for inducing robust structural representations.
△ Less
Submitted 5 March, 2019; v1 submitted 20 December, 2018;
originally announced December 2018.
-
Non-entailed subsequences as a challenge for natural language inference
Authors:
R. Thomas McCoy,
Tal Linzen
Abstract:
Neural network models have shown great success at natural language inference (NLI), the task of determining whether a premise entails a hypothesis. However, recent studies suggest that these models may rely on fallible heuristics rather than deep language understanding. We introduce a challenge set to test whether NLI systems adopt one such heuristic: assuming that a sentence entails all of its su…
▽ More
Neural network models have shown great success at natural language inference (NLI), the task of determining whether a premise entails a hypothesis. However, recent studies suggest that these models may rely on fallible heuristics rather than deep language understanding. We introduce a challenge set to test whether NLI systems adopt one such heuristic: assuming that a sentence entails all of its subsequences, such as assuming that "Alice believes Mary is lying" entails "Alice believes Mary." We evaluate several competitive NLI models on this challenge set and find strong evidence that they do rely on the subsequence heuristic.
△ Less
Submitted 30 November, 2018; v1 submitted 29 November, 2018;
originally announced November 2018.
-
Revisiting the poverty of the stimulus: hierarchical generalization without a hierarchical bias in recurrent neural networks
Authors:
R. Thomas McCoy,
Robert Frank,
Tal Linzen
Abstract:
Syntactic rules in natural language typically need to make reference to hierarchical sentence structure. However, the simple examples that language learners receive are often equally compatible with linear rules. Children consistently ignore these linear explanations and settle instead on the correct hierarchical one. This fact has motivated the proposal that the learner's hypothesis space is cons…
▽ More
Syntactic rules in natural language typically need to make reference to hierarchical sentence structure. However, the simple examples that language learners receive are often equally compatible with linear rules. Children consistently ignore these linear explanations and settle instead on the correct hierarchical one. This fact has motivated the proposal that the learner's hypothesis space is constrained to include only hierarchical rules. We examine this proposal using recurrent neural networks (RNNs), which are not constrained in such a way. We simulate the acquisition of question formation, a hierarchical transformation, in a fragment of English. We find that some RNN architectures tend to learn the hierarchical rule, suggesting that hierarchical cues within the language, combined with the implicit architectural biases inherent in certain RNNs, may be sufficient to induce hierarchical generalizations. The likelihood of acquiring the hierarchical generalization increased when the language included an additional cue to hierarchy in the form of subject-verb agreement, underscoring the role of cues to hierarchy in the learner's input.
△ Less
Submitted 8 June, 2018; v1 submitted 25 February, 2018;
originally announced February 2018.
