Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) can be represented as graphs whose links and vertices iteratively process data and solve tasks sub-optimally. Complex Network Theory (CNT), merging statistical physics with graph theory, provides a method for interpreting neural networks by analysing their weights and neuron structures. However, classic works adapt CNT metrics that only permit a topological analysis as they do not account for the effect of the input data. In addition, CNT metrics have been applied to a limited range of architectures, mainly including Fully Connected neural networks. In this work, we extend the existing CNT metrics with measures that sample from the DNNs' training distribution, shifting from a purely topological analysis to one that connects with the interpretability of deep learning. For the novel metrics, in addition to the existing ones, we provide a mathematical formalisation for Fully Connected, AutoEncoder, Convolutional and Recurrent neural networks, of which we vary the activation functions and the number of hidden layers. We show that these metrics differentiate DNNs based on the architecture, the number of hidden layers, and the activation function. Our contribution provides a method rooted in physics for interpreting DNNs that offers insights beyond the traditional input-output relationship and the CNT topological analysis.
Reasoning about asynchronous plans is challenging since it requires sequential and parallel planning to optimize time costs. Can large language models (LLMs) succeed at this task? Here, we present the first large-scale study investigating this question. We find that a representative set of closed and open-source LLMs, including GPT-4 and LLaMA-2, behave poorly when not supplied with illustrations about the task-solving process in our benchmark AsyncHow. We propose a novel technique called Plan Like a Graph (PLaG) that combines graphs with natural language prompts and achieves state-of-the-art results. We show that although PLaG can boost model performance, LLMs still suffer from drastic degradation when task complexity increases, highlighting the limits of utilizing LLMs for simulating digital devices. We see our study as an exciting step towards using LLMs as efficient autonomous agents.
We investigate the extent to which Large Language Models (LLMs) can simulate the execution of computer code and algorithms. We begin by looking at straight line programs, and show that current LLMs demonstrate poor performance even with such simple programs -- performance rapidly degrades with the length of code. We then investigate the ability of LLMs to simulate programs that contain critical paths and redundant instructions. We also go beyond straight line program simulation with sorting algorithms and nested loops, and we show the computational complexity of a routine directly affects the ability of an LLM to simulate its execution. We observe that LLMs execute instructions sequentially and with a low error margin only for short programs or standard procedures. LLMs' code simulation is in tension with their pattern recognition and memorisation capabilities: on tasks where memorisation is detrimental, we propose a novel prompting method to simulate code execution line by line. Empirically, our new Chain of Simulation (CoSm) method improves on the standard Chain of Thought prompting approach by avoiding the pitfalls of memorisation.
Some of the most powerful language models currently are proprietary systems, accessible only via (typically restrictive) web or software programming interfaces. This is the Language-Models-as-a-Service (LMaaS) paradigm. Contrasting with scenarios where full model access is available, as in the case of open-source models, such closed-off language models create specific challenges for evaluating, benchmarking, and testing them. This paper has two goals: on the one hand, we delineate how the aforementioned challenges act as impediments to the accessibility, replicability, reliability, and trustworthiness (ARRT) of LMaaS. We systematically examine the issues that arise from a lack of information about language models for each of these four aspects. We shed light on current solutions, provide some recommendations, and highlight the directions for future advancements. On the other hand, it serves as a one-stop-shop for the extant knowledge about current, major LMaaS, offering a synthesized overview of the licences and capabilities their interfaces offer.
Recent language models have shown impressive multilingual performance, even when not explicitly trained for it. Despite this, concerns have been raised about the quality of their outputs across different languages. In this paper, we show how disparity in the treatment of different languages arises at the tokenization stage, well before a model is even invoked. The same text translated into different languages can have drastically different tokenization lengths, with differences up to 15 times in some cases. These disparities persist across the 17 tokenizers we evaluate, even if they are intentionally trained for multilingual support. Character-level and byte-level models also exhibit over 4 times the difference in the encoding length for some language pairs. This induces unfair treatment for some language communities in regard to the cost of accessing commercial language services, the processing time and latency, as well as the amount of content that can be provided as context to the models. Therefore, we make the case that we should train future language models using multilingually fair tokenizers.
Large language models (LLMs) have been reported to have strong performance on natural language processing tasks. However, performance metrics such as accuracy do not measure the quality of the model in terms of its ability to robustly represent complex linguistic structure. In this work, we propose a framework to evaluate the robustness of linguistic representations using probing tasks. We leverage recent advances in extracting emergent linguistic constructs from LLMs and apply syntax-preserving perturbations to test the stability of these constructs in order to better understand the representations learned by LLMs. Empirically, we study the performance of four LLMs across six different corpora on the proposed robustness measures. We provide evidence that context-free representation (e.g., GloVe) are in some cases competitive with context-dependent representations from modern LLMs (e.g., BERT), yet equally brittle to syntax-preserving manipulations. Emergent syntactic representations in neural networks are brittle, thus our work poses the attention on the risk of comparing such structures to those that are object of a long lasting debate in linguistics.
Deep Neural Networks are, from a physical perspective, graphs whose `links` and `vertices` iteratively process data and solve tasks sub-optimally. We use Complex Network Theory (CNT) to represents Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) as directed weighted graphs: within this framework, we introduce metrics to study DNNs as dynamical systems, with a granularity that spans from weights to layers, including neurons. CNT discriminates networks that differ in the number of parameters and neurons, the type of hidden layers and activations, and the objective task. We further show that our metrics discriminate low vs. high performing networks. CNT is a comprehensive method to reason about DNNs and a complementary approach to explain a model's behavior that is physically grounded to networks theory and goes beyond the well-studied input-output relation.
There is growing evidence that the classical notion of adversarial robustness originally introduced for images has been adopted as a de facto standard by a large part of the NLP research community. We show that this notion is problematic in the context of NLP as it considers a narrow spectrum of linguistic phenomena. In this paper, we argue for semantic robustness, which is better aligned with the human concept of linguistic fidelity. We characterize semantic robustness in terms of biases that it is expected to induce in a model. We study semantic robustness of a range of vanilla and robustly trained architectures using a template-based generative test bed. We complement the analysis with empirical evidence that, despite being harder to implement, semantic robustness can improve performance %gives guarantees for on complex linguistic phenomena where models robust in the classical sense fail.