Beyond Memorization: The Challenge of Random Memory Access in Language Models

Recent developments in Language Models (LMs) have shown their effectiveness in NLP tasks, particularly in knowledge-intensive tasks. However, the mechanisms underlying knowledge storage and memory access within their parameters remain elusive. In this paper, we investigate whether a generative LM (e.g., GPT-2) is able to access its memory sequentially or randomly. Through carefully-designed synthetic tasks, covering the scenarios of full recitation, selective recitation and grounded question answering, we reveal that LMs manage to sequentially access their memory while encountering challenges in randomly accessing memorized content. We find that techniques including recitation and permutation improve the random memory access capability of LMs. Furthermore, by applying this intervention to realistic scenarios of open-domain question answering, we validate that enhancing random access by recitation leads to notable improvements in question answering. The code to reproduce our experiments can be found at https://github.com/sail-sg/lm-random-memory-access.

Translating Natural Language to Planning Goals with Large-Language Models

Recent large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance on a variety of natural language processing (NLP) tasks, leading to intense excitement about their applicability across various domains. Unfortunately, recent work has also shown that LLMs are unable to perform accurate reasoning nor solve planning problems, which may limit their usefulness for robotics-related tasks. In this work, our central question is whether LLMs are able to translate goals specified in natural language to a structured planning language. If so, LLM can act as a natural interface between the planner and human users; the translated goal can be handed to domain-independent AI planners that are very effective at planning. Our empirical results on GPT 3.5 variants show that LLMs are much better suited towards translation rather than planning. We find that LLMs are able to leverage commonsense knowledge and reasoning to furnish missing details from under-specified goals (as is often the case in natural language). However, our experiments also reveal that LLMs can fail to generate goals in tasks that involve numerical or physical (e.g., spatial) reasoning, and that LLMs are sensitive to the prompts used. As such, these models are promising for translation to structured planning languages, but care should be taken in their use.