Language-specific Calibration for Pruning Multilingual Language Models

Recent advances in large language model (LLM) pruning have shown state-of-the-art compression results in post-training and retraining-free settings while maintaining high predictive performance. However, such research mainly considers calibrating pruning using English text, despite the multilingual nature of modern LLMs and their frequent uses in non-English languages. In this paper, we set out to explore effective strategies for calibrating the pruning of multilingual language models. We present the first comprehensive empirical study, comparing different calibration languages for pruning multilingual models across diverse tasks, models, and state-of-the-art pruning techniques. Our results present practical suggestions, for example, calibrating in the target language can efficiently yield lower perplexity, but does not necessarily benefit downstream tasks. Our further analysis experiments unveil that calibration in the target language mainly contributes to preserving language-specific features related to fluency and coherence, but might not contribute to capturing language-agnostic features such as language understanding and reasoning. Last, we provide practical recommendations for future practitioners.

Detecting Edited Knowledge in Language Models

Knowledge editing techniques (KEs) can update language models' obsolete or inaccurate knowledge learned from pre-training. However, KE also faces potential malicious applications, e.g. inserting misinformation and toxic content. Moreover, in the context of responsible AI, it is instructive for end-users to know whether a generated output is driven by edited knowledge or first-hand knowledge from pre-training. To this end, we study detecting edited knowledge in language models by introducing a novel task: given an edited model and a specific piece of knowledge the model generates, our objective is to classify the knowledge as either "non-edited" (based on the pre-training), or ``edited'' (based on subsequent editing). We initiate the task with two state-of-the-art KEs, two language models, and two datasets. We further propose a simple classifier, RepReg, a logistic regression model that takes hidden state representations as input features. Our results reveal that RepReg establishes a strong baseline, achieving a peak accuracy of 99.81%, and 97.79% in out-of-domain settings. Second, RepReg achieves near-optimal performance with a limited training set (200 training samples), and it maintains its performance even in out-of-domain settings. Last, we find it more challenging to separate edited and non-edited knowledge when they contain the same subject or object.

Comparing Explanation Faithfulness between Multilingual and Monolingual Fine-tuned Language Models

In many real natural language processing application scenarios, practitioners not only aim to maximize predictive performance but also seek faithful explanations for the model predictions. Rationales and importance distribution given by feature attribution methods (FAs) provide insights into how different parts of the input contribute to a prediction. Previous studies have explored how different factors affect faithfulness, mainly in the context of monolingual English models. On the other hand, the differences in FA faithfulness between multilingual and monolingual models have yet to be explored. Our extensive experiments, covering five languages and five popular FAs, show that FA faithfulness varies between multilingual and monolingual models. We find that the larger the multilingual model, the less faithful the FAs are compared to its counterpart monolingual models.Our further analysis shows that the faithfulness disparity is potentially driven by the differences between model tokenizers. Our code is available: https://github.com/casszhao/multilingual-faith.

ReAGent: A Model-agnostic Feature Attribution Method for Generative Language Models

Feature attribution methods (FAs), such as gradients and attention, are widely employed approaches to derive the importance of all input features to the model predictions. Existing work in natural language processing has mostly focused on developing and testing FAs for encoder-only language models (LMs) in classification tasks. However, it is unknown if it is faithful to use these FAs for decoder-only models on text generation, due to the inherent differences between model architectures and task settings respectively. Moreover, previous work has demonstrated that there is no `one-wins-all' FA across models and tasks. This makes the selection of a FA computationally expensive for large LMs since input importance derivation often requires multiple forward and backward passes including gradient computations that might be prohibitive even with access to large compute. To address these issues, we present a model-agnostic FA for generative LMs called Recursive Attribution Generator (ReAGent). Our method updates the token importance distribution in a recursive manner. For each update, we compute the difference in the probability distribution over the vocabulary for predicting the next token between using the original input and using a modified version where a part of the input is replaced with RoBERTa predictions. Our intuition is that replacing an important token in the context should have resulted in a larger change in the model's confidence in predicting the token than replacing an unimportant token. Our method can be universally applied to any generative LM without accessing internal model weights or additional training and fine-tuning, as most other FAs require. We extensively compare the faithfulness of ReAGent with seven popular FAs across six decoder-only LMs of various sizes. The results show that our method consistently provides more faithful token importance distributions.

Lighter, yet More Faithful: Investigating Hallucinations in Pruned Large Language Models for Abstractive Summarization

Despite their remarkable performance on abstractive summarization, large language models (LLMs) face two significant challenges: their considerable size and tendency to hallucinate. Hallucinations are concerning because they erode the reliability of LLMs and raise safety issues. Pruning is a technique that reduces model size by removing redundant weights to create sparse models that enable more efficient inference. Pruned models yield comparable performance to their counterpart full-sized models, making them ideal alternatives when operating on a limited budget. However, the effect that pruning has upon hallucinations in abstractive summarization with LLMs has yet to be explored. In this paper, we provide an extensive empirical study on the hallucinations produced by pruned models across three standard summarization tasks, two pruning approaches, three instruction-tuned LLMs, and three hallucination evaluation metrics. Surprisingly, we find that pruned LLMs hallucinate less compared to their full-sized counterparts. Our follow-up analysis suggests that pruned models tend to depend more on the source input and less on their parametric knowledge from pre-training for generation. This greater dependency on the source input leads to a higher lexical overlap between generated content and the source input, which can be a reason for the reduction in hallucinations.

Incorporating Attribution Importance for Improving Faithfulness Metrics

Feature attribution methods (FAs) are popular approaches for providing insights into the model reasoning process of making predictions. The more faithful a FA is, the more accurately it reflects which parts of the input are more important for the prediction. Widely used faithfulness metrics, such as sufficiency and comprehensiveness use a hard erasure criterion, i.e. entirely removing or retaining the top most important tokens ranked by a given FA and observing the changes in predictive likelihood. However, this hard criterion ignores the importance of each individual token, treating them all equally for computing sufficiency and comprehensiveness. In this paper, we propose a simple yet effective soft erasure criterion. Instead of entirely removing or retaining tokens from the input, we randomly mask parts of the token vector representations proportionately to their FA importance. Extensive experiments across various natural language processing tasks and different FAs show that our soft-sufficiency and soft-comprehensiveness metrics consistently prefer more faithful explanations compared to hard sufficiency and comprehensiveness. Our code: https://github.com/casszhao/SoftFaith

On the Impact of Temporal Concept Drift on Model Explanations

Explanation faithfulness of model predictions in natural language processing is typically evaluated on held-out data from the same temporal distribution as the training data (i.e. synchronous settings). While model performance often deteriorates due to temporal variation (i.e. temporal concept drift), it is currently unknown how explanation faithfulness is impacted when the time span of the target data is different from the data used to train the model (i.e. asynchronous settings). For this purpose, we examine the impact of temporal variation on model explanations extracted by eight feature attribution methods and three select-then-predict models across six text classification tasks. Our experiments show that (i)faithfulness is not consistent under temporal variations across feature attribution methods (e.g. it decreases or increases depending on the method), with an attention-based method demonstrating the most robust faithfulness scores across datasets; and (ii) select-then-predict models are mostly robust in asynchronous settings with only small degradation in predictive performance. Finally, feature attribution methods show conflicting behavior when used in FRESH (i.e. a select-and-predict model) and for measuring sufficiency/comprehensiveness (i.e. as post-hoc methods), suggesting that we need more robust metrics to evaluate post-hoc explanation faithfulness.

SS-BERT: Mitigating Identity Terms Bias in Toxic Comment Classification by Utilising the Notion of "Subjectivity" and "Identity Terms"

Toxic comment classification models are often found biased toward identity terms which are terms characterizing a specific group of people such as "Muslim" and "black". Such bias is commonly reflected in false-positive predictions, i.e. non-toxic comments with identity terms. In this work, we propose a novel approach to tackle such bias in toxic comment classification, leveraging the notion of subjectivity level of a comment and the presence of identity terms. We hypothesize that when a comment is made about a group of people that is characterized by an identity term, the likelihood of that comment being toxic is associated with the subjectivity level of the comment, i.e. the extent to which the comment conveys personal feelings and opinions. Building upon the BERT model, we propose a new structure that is able to leverage these features, and thoroughly evaluate our model on 4 datasets of varying sizes and representing different social media platforms. The results show that our model can consistently outperform BERT and a SOTA model devised to address identity term bias in a different way, with a maximum improvement in F1 of 2.43% and 1.91% respectively.