We investigate the potential of large language models (LLMs) to distill text: to remove the textual traces of an undesired forbidden variable. We employ a range of LLMs with varying architectures and training approaches to distill text by identifying and removing information about the target variable while preserving other relevant signals. Our findings shed light on the strengths and limitations of LLMs in addressing the distillation and provide insights into the strategies for leveraging these models in computational social science investigations involving text data. In particular, we show that in the strong test of removing sentiment, the statistical association between the processed text and sentiment is still clearly detectable to machine learning classifiers post-LLM-distillation. Furthermore, we find that human annotators also struggle to distill sentiment while preserving other semantic content. This suggests there may be limited separability between concept variables in some text contexts, highlighting limitations of methods relying on text-level transformations and also raising questions about the robustness of distillation methods that achieve statistical independence in representation space if this is difficult for human coders operating on raw text to attain.
We investigate the behavior of methods that use linear projections to remove information about a concept from a language representation, and we consider the question of what happens to a dataset transformed by such a method. A theoretical analysis and experiments on real-world and synthetic data show that these methods inject strong statistical dependencies into the transformed datasets. After applying such a method, the representation space is highly structured: in the transformed space, an instance tends to be located near instances of the opposite label. As a consequence, the original labeling can in some cases be reconstructed by applying an anti-clustering method.
Large Language Models (LLMs) make natural interfaces to factual knowledge, but their usefulness is limited by their tendency to deliver inconsistent answers to semantically equivalent questions. For example, a model might predict both "Anne Redpath passed away in Edinburgh." and "Anne Redpath's life ended in London." In this work, we identify potential causes of inconsistency and evaluate the effectiveness of two mitigation strategies: up-scaling and augmenting the LM with a retrieval corpus. Our results on the LLaMA and Atlas models show that both strategies reduce inconsistency while retrieval augmentation is considerably more efficient. We further consider and disentangle the consistency contributions of different components of Atlas. For all LMs evaluated we find that syntactical form and other evaluation task artifacts impact consistency. Taken together, our results provide a better understanding of the factors affecting the factual consistency of language models.
Augmenting language models with a retrieval mechanism has been shown to significantly improve their performance while keeping the number of parameters low. Retrieval-augmented models commonly rely on a semantic retrieval mechanism based on the similarity between dense representations of the query chunk and potential neighbors. In this paper, we study the state-of-the-art Retro model and observe that its performance gain is better explained by surface-level similarities, such as token overlap. Inspired by this, we replace the semantic retrieval in Retro with a surface-level method based on BM25, obtaining a significant reduction in perplexity. As full BM25 retrieval can be computationally costly for large datasets, we also apply it in a re-ranking scenario, gaining part of the perplexity reduction with minimal computational overhead.
Autoregressive models used to generate responses in open-domain dialogue systems often struggle to take long-term context into account and to maintain consistency over a dialogue. Previous research in open-domain dialogue generation has shown that the use of \emph{auxiliary tasks} can introduce inductive biases that encourage the model to improve these qualities. However, most previous research has focused on encoder-only or encoder/decoder models, while the use of auxiliary tasks in \emph{decoder-only} autoregressive models is under-explored. This paper describes an investigation where four different auxiliary tasks are added to small and medium-sized GPT-2 models fine-tuned on the PersonaChat and DailyDialog datasets. The results show that the introduction of the new auxiliary tasks leads to small but consistent improvement in evaluations of the investigated models.
Recent work on the Retrieval-Enhanced Transformer (RETRO) model has shown that off-loading memory from trainable weights to a retrieval database can significantly improve language modeling and match the performance of non-retrieval models that are an order of magnitude larger in size. It has been suggested that at least some of this performance gain is due to non-trivial generalization based on both model weights and retrieval. In this paper, we try to better understand the relative contributions of these two components. We find that the performance gains from retrieval largely originate from overlapping tokens between the database and the test data, suggesting less non-trivial generalization than previously assumed. More generally, our results point to the challenges of evaluating the generalization of retrieval-augmented language models such as RETRO, as even limited token overlap may significantly decrease test-time loss. We release our code and model at https://github.com/TobiasNorlund/retro
We propose a methodology and design two benchmark sets for measuring to what extent language-and-vision language models use the visual signal in the presence or absence of stereotypes. The first benchmark is designed to test for stereotypical colors of common objects, while the second benchmark considers gender stereotypes. The key idea is to compare predictions when the image conforms to the stereotype to predictions when it does not. Our results show that there is significant variation among multimodal models: the recent Transformer-based FLAVA seems to be more sensitive to the choice of image and less affected by stereotypes than older CNN-based models such as VisualBERT and LXMERT. This effect is more discernible in this type of controlled setting than in traditional evaluations where we do not know whether the model relied on the stereotype or the visual signal.
Current language models have been criticised for learning language from text alone without connection between words and their meaning. Consequently, multimodal training has been proposed as a way for creating models with better language understanding by providing the lacking connection. We focus on pre-trained multimodal vision-and-language (VL) models for which there already are some results on their language understanding capabilities. An unresolved issue with evaluating the linguistic skills of these models, however, is that there is no established method for adapting them to text-only input without out-of-distribution uncertainty. To find the best approach, we investigate and compare seven possible methods for adapting three different pre-trained VL models to text-only input. Our evaluations on both GLUE and Visual Property Norms (VPN) show that care should be put into adapting VL models to zero-shot text-only tasks, while the models are less sensitive to how we adapt them to non-zero-shot tasks. We also find that the adaptation methods perform differently for different models and that unimodal model counterparts perform on par with the VL models regardless of adaptation, indicating that current VL models do not necessarily gain better language understanding from their multimodal training.
There are limitations in learning language from text alone. Therefore, recent focus has been on developing multimodal models. However, few benchmarks exist that can measure what language models learn about language from multimodal training. We hypothesize that training on a visual modality should improve on the visual commonsense knowledge in language models. Therefore, we introduce two evaluation tasks for measuring visual commonsense knowledge in language models and use them to evaluate different multimodal models and unimodal baselines. Primarily, we find that the visual commonsense knowledge is not significantly different between the multimodal models and unimodal baseline models trained on visual text data.
Causal inference methods that control for text-based confounders are becoming increasingly important in the social sciences and other disciplines where text is readily available. However, these methods rely on a critical assumption that there is no treatment leakage: that is, the text only contains information about the confounder and no information about treatment assignment. When this assumption does not hold, methods that control for text to adjust for confounders face the problem of post-treatment (collider) bias. However, the assumption that there is no treatment leakage may be unrealistic in real-world situations involving text, as human language is rich and flexible. Language appearing in a public policy document or health records may refer to the future and the past simultaneously, and thereby reveal information about the treatment assignment. In this article, we define the treatment-leakage problem, and discuss the identification as well as the estimation challenges it raises. Second, we delineate the conditions under which leakage can be addressed by removing the treatment-related signal from the text in a pre-processing step we define as text distillation. Lastly, using simulation, we show how treatment leakage introduces a bias in estimates of the average treatment effect (ATE) and how text distillation can mitigate this bias.