Fuse to Forget: Bias Reduction and Selective Memorization through Model Fusion

Model fusion research aims to aggregate the knowledge of multiple models to enhance performance by combining their weights. In this work, we study the inverse, investigating whether and how can model fusion interfere and reduce unwanted knowledge. We delve into the effects of model fusion on the evolution of learned shortcuts, social biases, and memorization capabilities in fine-tuned language models. Through several experiments covering text classification and generation tasks, our analysis highlights that shared knowledge among models is usually enhanced during model fusion, while unshared knowledge is usually lost or forgotten. Based on this observation, we demonstrate the potential of model fusion as a debiasing tool and showcase its efficacy in addressing privacy concerns associated with language models.

Leveraging Multiple Teachers for Test-Time Adaptation of Language-Guided Classifiers

Recent approaches have explored language-guided classifiers capable of classifying examples from novel tasks when provided with task-specific natural language explanations, instructions or prompts (Sanh et al., 2022; R. Menon et al., 2022). While these classifiers can generalize in zero-shot settings, their task performance often varies substantially between different language explanations in unpredictable ways (Lu et al., 2022; Gonen et al., 2022). Also, current approaches fail to leverage unlabeled examples that may be available in many scenarios. Here, we introduce TALC, a framework that uses data programming to adapt a language-guided classifier for a new task during inference when provided with explanations from multiple teachers and unlabeled test examples. Our results show that TALC consistently outperforms a competitive baseline from prior work by an impressive 9.3% (relative improvement). Further, we demonstrate the robustness of TALC to variations in the quality and quantity of provided explanations, highlighting its potential in scenarios where learning from multiple teachers or a crowd is involved. Our code is available at: https://github.com/WeiKangda/TALC.git.

A Comparison of Lexicon-Based and ML-Based Sentiment Analysis: Are There Outlier Words?

Lexicon-based approaches to sentiment analysis of text are based on each word or lexical entry having a pre-defined weight indicating its sentiment polarity. These are usually manually assigned but the accuracy of these when compared against machine leaning based approaches to computing sentiment, are not known. It may be that there are lexical entries whose sentiment values cause a lexicon-based approach to give results which are very different to a machine learning approach. In this paper we compute sentiment for more than 150,000 English language texts drawn from 4 domains using the Hedonometer, a lexicon-based technique and Azure, a contemporary machine-learning based approach which is part of the Azure Cognitive Services family of APIs which is easy to use. We model differences in sentiment scores between approaches for documents in each domain using a regression and analyse the independent variables (Hedonometer lexical entries) as indicators of each word's importance and contribution to the score differences. Our findings are that the importance of a word depends on the domain and there are no standout lexical entries which systematically cause differences in sentiment scores.

Pragmatic Reasoning Unlocks Quantifier Semantics for Foundation Models

Generalized quantifiers (e.g., few, most) are used to indicate the proportions predicates are satisfied (for example, some apples are red). One way to interpret quantifier semantics is to explicitly bind these satisfactions with percentage scopes (e.g., 30%-40% of apples are red). This approach can be helpful for tasks like logic formalization and surface-form quantitative reasoning (Gordon and Schubert, 2010; Roy et al., 2015). However, it remains unclear if recent foundation models possess this ability, as they lack direct training signals. To explore this, we introduce QuRe, a crowd-sourced dataset of human-annotated generalized quantifiers in Wikipedia sentences featuring percentage-equipped predicates. We explore quantifier comprehension in language models using PRESQUE, a framework that combines natural language inference and the Rational Speech Acts framework. Experimental results on the HVD dataset and QuRe illustrate that PRESQUE, employing pragmatic reasoning, performs 20% better than a literal reasoning baseline when predicting quantifier percentage scopes, with no additional training required.

MaNtLE: Model-agnostic Natural Language Explainer

Understanding the internal reasoning behind the predictions of machine learning systems is increasingly vital, given their rising adoption and acceptance. While previous approaches, such as LIME, generate algorithmic explanations by attributing importance to input features for individual examples, recent research indicates that practitioners prefer examining language explanations that explain sub-groups of examples. In this paper, we introduce MaNtLE, a model-agnostic natural language explainer that analyzes multiple classifier predictions and generates faithful natural language explanations of classifier rationale for structured classification tasks. MaNtLE uses multi-task training on thousands of synthetic classification tasks to generate faithful explanations. Simulated user studies indicate that, on average, MaNtLE-generated explanations are at least 11% more faithful compared to LIME and Anchors explanations across three tasks. Human evaluations demonstrate that users can better predict model behavior using explanations from MaNtLE compared to other techniques

Beyond Labels: Empowering Human with Natural Language Explanations through a Novel Active-Learning Architecture

Data annotation is a costly task; thus, researchers have proposed low-scenario learning techniques like Active-Learning (AL) to support human annotators; Yet, existing AL works focus only on the label, but overlook the natural language explanation of a data point, despite that real-world humans (e.g., doctors) often need both the labels and the corresponding explanations at the same time. This work proposes a novel AL architecture to support and reduce human annotations of both labels and explanations in low-resource scenarios. Our AL architecture incorporates an explanation-generation model that can explicitly generate natural language explanations for the prediction model and for assisting humans' decision-making in real-world. For our AL framework, we design a data diversity-based AL data selection strategy that leverages the explanation annotations. The automated AL simulation evaluations demonstrate that our data selection strategy consistently outperforms traditional data diversity-based strategy; furthermore, human evaluation demonstrates that humans prefer our generated explanations to the SOTA explanation-generation system.

Identifying and Manipulating the Personality Traits of Language Models

Psychology research has long explored aspects of human personality such as extroversion, agreeableness and emotional stability. Categorizations like the `Big Five' personality traits are commonly used to assess and diagnose personality types. In this work, we explore the question of whether the perceived personality in language models is exhibited consistently in their language generation. For example, is a language model such as GPT2 likely to respond in a consistent way if asked to go out to a party? We also investigate whether such personality traits can be controlled. We show that when provided different types of contexts (such as personality descriptions, or answers to diagnostic questions about personality traits), language models such as BERT and GPT2 can consistently identify and reflect personality markers in those contexts. This behavior illustrates an ability to be manipulated in a highly predictable way, and frames them as tools for identifying personality traits and controlling personas in applications such as dialog systems. We also contribute a crowd-sourced data-set of personality descriptions of human subjects paired with their `Big Five' personality assessment data, and a data-set of personality descriptions collated from Reddit.

LaSQuE: Improved Zero-Shot Classification from Explanations Through Quantifier Modeling and Curriculum Learning

A hallmark of human intelligence is the ability to learn new concepts purely from language. Several recent approaches have explored training machine learning models via natural language supervision. However, these approaches fall short in leveraging linguistic quantifiers (such as 'always' or 'rarely') and mimicking humans in compositionally learning complex tasks. Here, we present LaSQuE, a method that can learn zero-shot classifiers from language explanations by using three new strategies - (1) modeling the semantics of linguistic quantifiers in explanations (including exploiting ordinal strength relationships, such as 'always' > 'likely'), (2) aggregating information from multiple explanations using an attention-based mechanism, and (3) model training via curriculum learning. With these strategies, LaSQuE outperforms prior work, showing an absolute gain of up to 7% in generalizing to unseen real-world classification tasks.

Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models

Language models demonstrate both quantitative improvement and new qualitative capabilities with increasing scale. Despite their potentially transformative impact, these new capabilities are as yet poorly characterized. In order to inform future research, prepare for disruptive new model capabilities, and ameliorate socially harmful effects, it is vital that we understand the present and near-future capabilities and limitations of language models. To address this challenge, we introduce the Beyond the Imitation Game benchmark (BIG-bench). BIG-bench currently consists of 204 tasks, contributed by 442 authors across 132 institutions. Task topics are diverse, drawing problems from linguistics, childhood development, math, common-sense reasoning, biology, physics, social bias, software development, and beyond. BIG-bench focuses on tasks that are believed to be beyond the capabilities of current language models. We evaluate the behavior of OpenAI's GPT models, Google-internal dense transformer architectures, and Switch-style sparse transformers on BIG-bench, across model sizes spanning millions to hundreds of billions of parameters. In addition, a team of human expert raters performed all tasks in order to provide a strong baseline. Findings include: model performance and calibration both improve with scale, but are poor in absolute terms (and when compared with rater performance); performance is remarkably similar across model classes, though with benefits from sparsity; tasks that improve gradually and predictably commonly involve a large knowledge or memorization component, whereas tasks that exhibit "breakthrough" behavior at a critical scale often involve multiple steps or components, or brittle metrics; social bias typically increases with scale in settings with ambiguous context, but this can be improved with prompting.