Facts are subject to contingencies and can be true or false in different circumstances. One such contingency is time, wherein some facts mutate over a given period, e.g., the president of a country or the winner of a championship. Trustworthy language models ideally identify mutable facts as such and process them accordingly. We create MuLan, a benchmark for evaluating the ability of English language models to anticipate time-contingency, covering both 1:1 and 1:N relations. We hypothesize that mutable facts are encoded differently than immutable ones, hence being easier to update. In a detailed evaluation of six popular large language models, we consistently find differences in the LLMs' confidence, representations, and update behavior, depending on the mutability of a fact. Our findings should inform future work on the injection of and induction of time-contingent knowledge to/from LLMs.
Amidst the rapid evolution of LLMs, the significance of evaluation in comprehending and propelling these models forward is increasingly paramount. Evaluations have revealed that factors such as scaling, training types, architectures and other factors profoundly impact the performance of LLMs. However, the extent and nature of these impacts continue to be subjects of debate because most assessments have been restricted to a limited number of models and data points. Clarifying the effects of these factors on performance scores can be more effectively achieved through a statistical lens. Our study embarks on a thorough re-examination of these LLMs, targeting the inadequacies in current evaluation methods. With the advent of a uniform evaluation framework, our research leverages an expansive dataset of evaluation results, introducing a comprehensive statistical methodology. This includes the application of ANOVA, Tukey HSD tests, GAMM, and clustering technique, offering a robust and transparent approach to deciphering LLM performance data. Contrary to prevailing findings, our results challenge assumptions about emergent abilities and the influence of given training types and architectures in LLMs. These findings furnish new perspectives on the characteristics, intrinsic nature, and developmental trajectories of LLMs. By providing straightforward and reliable methods to scrutinize and reassess LLM performance data, this study contributes a nuanced perspective on LLM efficiency and potentials.
Word order is an important concept in natural language, and in this work, we study how word order affects the induction of world knowledge from raw text using language models. We use word analogies to probe for such knowledge. Specifically, in addition to the natural word order, we first respectively extract texts of six fixed word orders from five languages and then pretrain the language models on these texts. Finally, we analyze the experimental results of the fixed word orders on word analogies and show that i) certain fixed word orders consistently outperform or underperform others, though the specifics vary across languages, and ii) the Wov2Lex hypothesis is not hold in pre-trained language models, and the natural word order typically yields mediocre results. The source code will be made publicly available at https://github.com/lshowway/probing_by_analogy.
Rationales in the form of manually annotated input spans usually serve as ground truth when evaluating explainability methods in NLP. They are, however, time-consuming and often biased by the annotation process. In this paper, we debate whether human gaze, in the form of webcam-based eye-tracking recordings, poses a valid alternative when evaluating importance scores. We evaluate the additional information provided by gaze data, such as total reading times, gaze entropy, and decoding accuracy with respect to human rationale annotations. We compare WebQAmGaze, a multilingual dataset for information-seeking QA, with attention and explainability-based importance scores for 4 different multilingual Transformer-based language models (mBERT, distil-mBERT, XLMR, and XLMR-L) and 3 languages (English, Spanish, and German). Our pipeline can easily be applied to other tasks and languages. Our findings suggest that gaze data offers valuable linguistic insights that could be leveraged to infer task difficulty and further show a comparable ranking of explainability methods to that of human rationales.
Creoles represent an under-explored and marginalized group of languages, with few available resources for NLP research. While the genealogical ties between Creoles and other highly-resourced languages imply a significant potential for transfer learning, this potential is hampered due to this lack of annotated data. In this work we present CreoleVal, a collection of benchmark datasets spanning 8 different NLP tasks, covering up to 28 Creole languages; it is an aggregate of brand new development datasets for machine comprehension, relation classification, and machine translation for Creoles, in addition to a practical gateway to a handful of preexisting benchmarks. For each benchmark, we conduct baseline experiments in a zero-shot setting in order to further ascertain the capabilities and limitations of transfer learning for Creoles. Ultimately, the goal of CreoleVal is to empower research on Creoles in NLP and computational linguistics. We hope this resource will contribute to technological inclusion for Creole language users around the globe.
Language models may memorize more than just facts, including entire chunks of texts seen during training. Fair use exemptions to copyright laws typically allow for limited use of copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder, but typically for extraction of information from copyrighted materials, rather than {\em verbatim} reproduction. This work explores the issue of copyright violations and large language models through the lens of verbatim memorization, focusing on possible redistribution of copyrighted text. We present experiments with a range of language models over a collection of popular books and coding problems, providing a conservative characterization of the extent to which language models can redistribute these materials. Overall, this research highlights the need for further examination and the potential impact on future developments in natural language processing to ensure adherence to copyright regulations. Code is at \url{https://github.com/coastalcph/CopyrightLLMs}.
Large language models show human-like performance in knowledge extraction, reasoning and dialogue, but it remains controversial whether this performance is best explained by memorization and pattern matching, or whether it reflects human-like inferential semantics and world knowledge. Knowledge bases such as WikiData provide large-scale, high-quality representations of inferential semantics and world knowledge. We show that large language models learn to organize concepts in ways that are strikingly similar to how concepts are organized in such knowledge bases. Knowledge bases model collective, institutional knowledge, and large language models seem to induce such knowledge from raw text. We show that bigger and better models exhibit more human-like concept organization, across four families of language models and three knowledge graph embeddings.
Language models such as mBERT, XLM-R, and BLOOM aim to achieve multilingual generalization or compression to facilitate transfer to a large number of (potentially unseen) languages. However, these models should ideally also be private, linguistically fair, and transparent, by relating their predictions to training data. Can these requirements be simultaneously satisfied? We show that multilingual compression and linguistic fairness are compatible with differential privacy, but that differential privacy is at odds with training data influence sparsity, an objective for transparency. We further present a series of experiments on two common NLP tasks and evaluate multilingual compression and training data influence sparsity under different privacy guarantees, exploring these trade-offs in more detail. Our results suggest that we need to develop ways to jointly optimize for these objectives in order to find practical trade-offs.
Over the years, many researchers have seemingly made the same observation: Brain and language model activations exhibit some structural similarities, enabling linear partial mappings between features extracted from neural recordings and computational language models. In an attempt to evaluate how much evidence has been accumulated for this observation, we survey over 30 studies spanning 10 datasets and 8 metrics. How much evidence has been accumulated, and what, if anything, is missing before we can draw conclusions? Our analysis of the evaluation methods used in the literature reveals that some of the metrics are less conservative. We also find that the accumulated evidence, for now, remains ambiguous, but correlations with model size and quality provide grounds for cautious optimism.
One of the greatest puzzles of all time is how understanding arises from neural mechanics. Our brains are networks of billions of biological neurons transmitting chemical and electrical signals along their connections. Large language models are networks of millions or billions of digital neurons, implementing functions that read the output of other functions in complex networks. The failure to see how meaning would arise from such mechanics has led many cognitive scientists and philosophers to various forms of dualism -- and many artificial intelligence researchers to dismiss large language models as stochastic parrots or jpeg-like compressions of text corpora. We show that human-like representations arise in large language models. Specifically, the larger neural language models get, the more their representations are structurally similar to neural response measurements from brain imaging.