Do language models plan ahead for future tokens?

Do transformers "think ahead" during inference at a given position? It is known transformers prepare information in the hidden states of the forward pass at $t$ that is then used in future forward passes $t+\tau$. We posit two explanations for this phenomenon: pre-caching, in which off-diagonal gradient terms present in training result in the model computing features at $t$ irrelevant to the present inference task but useful for the future, and breadcrumbs, in which features most relevant to time step $t$ are already the same as those that would most benefit inference at time $t+\tau$. We test these hypotheses by training language models without propagating gradients to past timesteps, a scheme we formalize as myopic training. In a synthetic data setting, we find clear evidence for pre-caching. In the autoregressive language modeling setting, our experiments are more suggestive of the breadcrumbs hypothesis.

Nomic Embed: Training a Reproducible Long Context Text Embedder

This technical report describes the training of nomic-embed-text-v1, the first fully reproducible, open-source, open-weights, open-data, 8192 context length English text embedding model that outperforms both OpenAI Ada-002 and OpenAI text-embedding-3-small on short and long-context tasks. We release the training code and model weights under an Apache 2 license. In contrast with other open-source models, we release a training data loader with 235 million curated text pairs that allows for the full replication of nomic-embed-text-v1. You can find code and data to replicate the model at https://github.com/nomic-ai/contrastors

Language Model Inversion

Language models produce a distribution over the next token; can we use this information to recover the prompt tokens? We consider the problem of language model inversion and show that next-token probabilities contain a surprising amount of information about the preceding text. Often we can recover the text in cases where it is hidden from the user, motivating a method for recovering unknown prompts given only the model's current distribution output. We consider a variety of model access scenarios, and show how even without predictions for every token in the vocabulary we can recover the probability vector through search. On Llama-2 7b, our inversion method reconstructs prompts with a BLEU of $59$ and token-level F1 of $78$ and recovers $27\%$ of prompts exactly. Code for reproducing all experiments is available at http://github.com/jxmorris12/vec2text.

Tree Prompting: Efficient Task Adaptation without Fine-Tuning

Prompting language models (LMs) is the main interface for applying them to new tasks. However, for smaller LMs, prompting provides low accuracy compared to gradient-based finetuning. Tree Prompting is an approach to prompting which builds a decision tree of prompts, linking multiple LM calls together to solve a task. At inference time, each call to the LM is determined by efficiently routing the outcome of the previous call using the tree. Experiments on classification datasets show that Tree Prompting improves accuracy over competing methods and is competitive with fine-tuning. We also show that variants of Tree Prompting allow inspection of a model's decision-making process.

Text Embeddings Reveal (Almost) As Much As Text

How much private information do text embeddings reveal about the original text? We investigate the problem of embedding \textit{inversion}, reconstructing the full text represented in dense text embeddings. We frame the problem as controlled generation: generating text that, when reembedded, is close to a fixed point in latent space. We find that although a na\"ive model conditioned on the embedding performs poorly, a multi-step method that iteratively corrects and re-embeds text is able to recover $92\%$ of $32\text{-token}$ text inputs exactly. We train our model to decode text embeddings from two state-of-the-art embedding models, and also show that our model can recover important personal information (full names) from a dataset of clinical notes. Our code is available on Github: \href{https://github.com/jxmorris12/vec2text}{github.com/jxmorris12/vec2text}.

Explaining Patterns in Data with Language Models via Interpretable Autoprompting

Large language models (LLMs) have displayed an impressive ability to harness natural language to perform complex tasks. In this work, we explore whether we can leverage this learned ability to find and explain patterns in data. Specifically, given a pre-trained LLM and data examples, we introduce interpretable autoprompting (iPrompt), an algorithm that generates a natural-language string explaining the data. iPrompt iteratively alternates between generating explanations with an LLM and reranking them based on their performance when used as a prompt. Experiments on a wide range of datasets, from synthetic mathematics to natural-language understanding, show that iPrompt can yield meaningful insights by accurately finding groundtruth dataset descriptions. Moreover, the prompts produced by iPrompt are simultaneously human-interpretable and highly effective for generalization: on real-world sentiment classification datasets, iPrompt produces prompts that match or even improve upon human-written prompts for GPT-3. Finally, experiments with an fMRI dataset show the potential for iPrompt to aid in scientific discovery. All code for using the methods and data here is made available on Github.

Searching for a Search Method: Benchmarking Search Algorithms for Generating NLP Adversarial Examples

We study the behavior of several black-box search algorithms used for generating adversarial examples for natural language processing (NLP) tasks. We perform a fine-grained analysis of three elements relevant to search: search algorithm, search space, and search budget. When new search algorithms are proposed in past work, the attack search space is often modified alongside the search algorithm. Without ablation studies benchmarking the search algorithm change with the search space held constant, one cannot tell if an increase in attack success rate is a result of an improved search algorithm or a less restrictive search space. Additionally, many previous studies fail to properly consider the search algorithms' run-time cost, which is essential for downstream tasks like adversarial training. Our experiments provide a reproducible benchmark of search algorithms across a variety of search spaces and query budgets to guide future research in adversarial NLP. Based on our experiments, we recommend greedy attacks with word importance ranking when under a time constraint or attacking long inputs, and either beam search or particle swarm optimization otherwise. Code implementation shared via https://github.com/QData/TextAttack-Search-Benchmark

Second-Order NLP Adversarial Examples

Adversarial example generation methods in NLP rely on models like language models or sentence encoders to determine if potential adversarial examples are valid. In these methods, a valid adversarial example fools the model being attacked, and is determined to be semantically or syntactically valid by a second model. Research to date has counted all such examples as errors by the attacked model. We contend that these adversarial examples may not be flaws in the attacked model, but flaws in the model that determines validity. We term such invalid inputs second-order adversarial examples. We propose the constraint robustness curve and associated metric ACCS as tools for evaluating the robustness of a constraint to second-order adversarial examples. To generate this curve, we design an adversarial attack to run directly on the semantic similarity models. We test on two constraints, the Universal Sentence Encoder (USE) and BERTScore. Our findings indicate that such second-order examples exist, but are typically less common than first-order adversarial examples in state-of-the-art models. They also indicate that USE is effective as constraint on NLP adversarial examples, while BERTScore is nearly ineffectual. Code for running the experiments in this paper is available at https://github.com/jxmorris12/second-order-adversarial-examples.