arXiv subjects

Noah A. Smith

Publications and source records attributed to Noah A. Smith.

At least 91 records · Page 5Linked to original sources

arXiv2024

In-context Pretraining: Language Modeling Beyond Document Boundaries

Large language models (LMs) are currently trained to predict tokens given document prefixes, enabling them to directly perform long-form generation and prompting-style tasks which can be reduced to document completion. Existing pretraining pipelines train LMs by concatenating random sets of short documents to create input contexts but the prior documents provide no signal for predicting the next document. We instead present In-Context Pretraining, a new approach where language models are pretrained on a sequence of related documents, thereby explicitly encouraging them to read and reason across document boundaries. We can do In-Context Pretraining by simply changing the document ordering so that each context contains related documents, and directly applying existing pretraining pipelines. However, this document sorting problem is challenging. There are billions of documents and we would like the sort to maximize contextual similarity for every document without repeating any data. To do this, we introduce approximate algorithms for finding related documents with efficient nearest neighbor search and constructing coherent input contexts with a graph traversal algorithm. Our experiments show In-Context Pretraining offers a simple and scalable approach to significantly enhance LMs'performance: we see notable improvements in tasks that require more complex contextual reasoning, including in-context learning (+8%), reading comprehension (+15%), faithfulness to previous contexts (+16%), long-context reasoning (+5%), and retrieval augmentation (+9%).

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Set the Clock: Temporal Alignment of Pretrained Language Models

Language models (LMs) are trained on web text originating from many points in time and, in general, without any explicit temporal grounding. This work investigates the temporal chaos of pretrained LMs and explores various methods to align their internal knowledge to a target time, which we call "temporal alignment." To do this, we first automatically construct a dataset containing 20K time-sensitive questions and their answers for each year from 2000 to 2023. Based on this dataset, we empirically show that pretrained LMs (e.g., LLaMa2), despite having a recent pretraining cutoff (e.g., 2022), mostly answer questions using earlier knowledge (e.g., in 2019). We then develop several methods, from prompting to finetuning, to align LMs to use their most recent knowledge when answering questions, and investigate various factors in this alignment. Our experiments demonstrate that aligning LLaMa2 to the year 2022 can enhance its performance by up to 62% according to that year's answers. This improvement occurs even without explicitly mentioning time information, indicating the possibility of aligning models' internal sense of time after pretraining. Finally, we find that alignment to a historical time is also possible, with up to 2.8$\times$ the performance of the unaligned LM in 2010 if finetuning models to that year. These findings hint at the sophistication of LMs' internal knowledge organization and the necessity of tuning them properly.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

RewardBench: Evaluating Reward Models for Language Modeling

Reward models (RMs) are at the crux of successfully using RLHF to align pretrained models to human preferences, yet there has been relatively little study that focuses on evaluation of those models. Evaluating reward models presents an opportunity to understand the opaque technologies used for alignment of language models and which values are embedded in them. Resources for reward model training and understanding are sparse in the nascent open-source community around them. To enhance scientific understanding of reward models, we present RewardBench, a benchmark dataset and code-base for evaluation. The RewardBench dataset is a collection of prompt-chosen-rejected trios spanning chat, reasoning, and safety, to benchmark how reward models perform on challenging, structured and out-of-distribution queries. We create specific comparison datasets for RMs that have subtle, but verifiable reasons (e.g. bugs, incorrect facts) why one answer should be preferred to another. On the RewardBench leaderboard, we evaluate reward models trained with a variety of methods, such as the direct MLE training of classifiers and the implicit reward modeling of Direct Preference Optimization (DPO). We present many findings on propensity for refusals, reasoning limitations, and instruction following shortcomings of various reward models towards a better understanding of the RLHF process.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

OLMo: Accelerating the Science of Language Models

Language models (LMs) have become ubiquitous in both NLP research and in commercial product offerings. As their commercial importance has surged, the most powerful models have become closed off, gated behind proprietary interfaces, with important details of their training data, architectures, and development undisclosed. Given the importance of these details in scientifically studying these models, including their biases and potential risks, we believe it is essential for the research community to have access to powerful, truly open LMs. To this end, we have built OLMo, a competitive, truly Open Language Model, to enable the scientific study of language models. Unlike most prior efforts that have only released model weights and inference code, we release OLMo alongside open training data and training and evaluation code. We hope this release will empower the open research community and inspire a new wave of innovation.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Dolma: an Open Corpus of Three Trillion Tokens for Language Model Pretraining Research

Information about pretraining corpora used to train the current best-performing language models is seldom discussed: commercial models rarely detail their data, and even open models are often released without accompanying training data or recipes to reproduce them. As a result, it is challenging to conduct and advance scientific research on language modeling, such as understanding how training data impacts model capabilities and limitations. To facilitate scientific research on language model pretraining, we curate and release Dolma, a three-trillion-token English corpus, built from a diverse mixture of web content, scientific papers, code, public-domain books, social media, and encyclopedic materials. We extensively document Dolma, including its design principles, details about its construction, and a summary of its contents. We present analyses and experimental results on intermediate states of Dolma to share what we have learned about important data curation practices. Finally, we open-source our data curation toolkit to enable reproduction of our work as well as support further research in large-scale data curation.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

What Can Natural Language Processing Do for Peer Review?

The number of scientific articles produced every year is growing rapidly. Providing quality control over them is crucial for scientists and, ultimately, for the public good. In modern science, this process is largely delegated to peer review -- a distributed procedure in which each submission is evaluated by several independent experts in the field. Peer review is widely used, yet it is hard, time-consuming, and prone to error. Since the artifacts involved in peer review -- manuscripts, reviews, discussions -- are largely text-based, Natural Language Processing has great potential to improve reviewing. As the emergence of large language models (LLMs) has enabled NLP assistance for many new tasks, the discussion on machine-assisted peer review is picking up the pace. Yet, where exactly is help needed, where can NLP help, and where should it stand aside? The goal of our paper is to provide a foundation for the future efforts in NLP for peer-reviewing assistance. We discuss peer review as a general process, exemplified by reviewing at AI conferences. We detail each step of the process from manuscript submission to camera-ready revision, and discuss the associated challenges and opportunities for NLP assistance, illustrated by existing work. We then turn to the big challenges in NLP for peer review as a whole, including data acquisition and licensing, operationalization and experimentation, and ethical issues. To help consolidate community efforts, we create a companion repository that aggregates key datasets pertaining to peer review. Finally, we issue a detailed call for action for the scientific community, NLP and AI researchers, policymakers, and funding bodies to help bring the research in NLP for peer review forward. We hope that our work will help set the agenda for research in machine-assisted scientific quality control in the age of AI, within the NLP community and beyond.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

A Taxonomy of Ambiguity Types for NLP

Ambiguity is an critical component of language that allows for more effective communication between speakers, but is often ignored in NLP. Recent work suggests that NLP systems may struggle to grasp certain elements of human language understanding because they may not handle ambiguities at the level that humans naturally do in communication. Additionally, different types of ambiguity may serve different purposes and require different approaches for resolution, and we aim to investigate how language models' abilities vary across types. We propose a taxonomy of ambiguity types as seen in English to facilitate NLP analysis. Our taxonomy can help make meaningful splits in language ambiguity data, allowing for more fine-grained assessments of both datasets and model performance.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Third-Party Language Model Performance Prediction from Instruction

Language model-based instruction-following systems have lately shown increasing performance on many benchmark tasks, demonstrating the capability of adapting to a broad variety of instructions. However, such systems are often not designed to be transparent about their limitations; a user may easily prompt a model with an instruction without any idea of whether the responses should be expected to be accurate, or if the system is even capable of performing the task. We propose a third party performance prediction framework, where a separate model is trained to predict the metric resulting from evaluating an instruction-following system on a task while assuming access only to its inputs and outputs at inference time. We perform this analysis with a variety of both open and closed instruction-following models as well as multiple performance predictors, and examine the effect of various factors such as model size, number of training tasks, and prompt format. Our findings indicate that third-party performance prediction is very challenging, and much work remains in developing predictors that can automatically reveal the limitations of modern instruction-following natural language processing systems.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Know Your Audience: The benefits and pitfalls of generating plain language summaries beyond the "general" audience

Language models (LMs) show promise as tools for communicating science to the general public by simplifying and summarizing complex language. Because models can be prompted to generate text for a specific audience (e.g., college-educated adults), LMs might be used to create multiple versions of plain language summaries for people with different familiarities of scientific topics. However, it is not clear what the benefits and pitfalls of adaptive plain language are. When is simplifying necessary, what are the costs in doing so, and do these costs differ for readers with different background knowledge? Through three within-subjects studies in which we surface summaries for different envisioned audiences to participants of different backgrounds, we found that while simpler text led to the best reading experience for readers with little to no familiarity in a topic, high familiarity readers tended to ignore certain details in overly plain summaries (e.g., study limitations). Our work provides methods and guidance on ways of adapting plain language summaries beyond the single "general" audience.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

What's In My Big Data?

Large text corpora are the backbone of language models. However, we have a limited understanding of the content of these corpora, including general statistics, quality, social factors, and inclusion of evaluation data (contamination). In this work, we propose What's In My Big Data? (WIMBD), a platform and a set of sixteen analyses that allow us to reveal and compare the contents of large text corpora. WIMBD builds on two basic capabilities -- count and search -- at scale, which allows us to analyze more than 35 terabytes on a standard compute node. We apply WIMBD to ten different corpora used to train popular language models, including C4, The Pile, and RedPajama. Our analysis uncovers several surprising and previously undocumented findings about these corpora, including the high prevalence of duplicate, synthetic, and low-quality content, personally identifiable information, toxic language, and benchmark contamination. For instance, we find that about 50% of the documents in RedPajama and LAION-2B-en are duplicates. In addition, several datasets used for benchmarking models trained on such corpora are contaminated with respect to important benchmarks, including the Winograd Schema Challenge and parts of GLUE and SuperGLUE. We open-source WIMBD's code and artifacts to provide a standard set of evaluations for new text-based corpora and to encourage more analyses and transparency around them.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

A Call for Clarity in Beam Search: How It Works and When It Stops

Text generation with beam search has proven successful in a wide range of applications. We point out that, though largely overlooked in the literature, the commonly-used implementation of beam decoding (e.g., Hugging Face Transformers and fairseq) uses a first come, first served heuristic: it keeps a set of already completed sequences over time steps and stops when the size of this set reaches the beam size. Based on this finding, we introduce a patience factor, a simple modification to this beam decoding implementation, that generalizes the stopping criterion and provides flexibility to the depth of search. Empirical results demonstrate that adjusting this patience factor improves decoding performance of strong pretrained models on news text summarization and machine translation over diverse language pairs, with a negligible inference slowdown. Our approach only modifies one line of code and can be thus readily incorporated in any implementation. Further, we find that different versions of beam decoding result in large performance differences in summarization, demonstrating the need for clarity in specifying the beam search implementation in research work. Our code will be available upon publication.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

RealTime QA: What's the Answer Right Now?

We introduce REALTIME QA, a dynamic question answering (QA) platform that announces questions and evaluates systems on a regular basis (weekly in this version). REALTIME QA inquires about the current world, and QA systems need to answer questions about novel events or information. It therefore challenges static, conventional assumptions in open-domain QA datasets and pursues instantaneous applications. We build strong baseline models upon large pretrained language models, including GPT-3 and T5. Our benchmark is an ongoing effort, and this paper presents real-time evaluation results over the past year. Our experimental results show that GPT-3 can often properly update its generation results, based on newly-retrieved documents, highlighting the importance of up-to-date information retrieval. Nonetheless, we find that GPT-3 tends to return outdated answers when retrieved documents do not provide sufficient information to find an answer. This suggests an important avenue for future research: can an open-domain QA system identify such unanswerable cases and communicate with the user or even the retrieval module to modify the retrieval results? We hope that REALTIME QA will spur progress in instantaneous applications of question answering and beyond.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Estimating the Causal Effect of Early ArXiving on Paper Acceptance

What is the effect of releasing a preprint of a paper before it is submitted for peer review? No randomized controlled trial has been conducted, so we turn to observational data to answer this question. We use data from the ICLR conference (2018--2022) and apply methods from causal inference to estimate the effect of arXiving a paper before the reviewing period (early arXiving) on its acceptance to the conference. Adjusting for confounders such as topic, authors, and quality, we may estimate the causal effect. However, since quality is a challenging construct to estimate, we use the negative outcome control method, using paper citation count as a control variable to debias the quality confounding effect. Our results suggest that early arXiving may have a small effect on a paper's chances of acceptance. However, this effect (when existing) does not differ significantly across different groups of authors, as grouped by author citation count and institute rank. This suggests that early arXiving does not provide an advantage to any particular group.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Does Collaborative Human-LM Dialogue Generation Help Information Extraction from Human Dialogues?

The capabilities of pretrained language models have opened opportunities to explore new application areas, but applications involving human-human interaction are limited by the fact that most data is protected from public release for privacy reasons. Problem-solving human dialogues in real applications can be much more complex than existing Wizard-of-Oz collections, preventing successful domain transfer. To support information extraction (IE) for a private call center dataset, we introduce a human-in-the-loop dialogue generation framework capable of synthesizing realistic dialogues. In IE experiments with auto insurance call center dialogues, we observe 25\% relative improvement in $F_1$ after augmenting a small set of real human conversations with synthetic data. We release code and our synthetic dataset to illustrate the complexity of real-world call center conversations and encourage development of complex dialogue datasets that are more representative of natural data.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2023

Time is Encoded in the Weights of Finetuned Language Models

We present time vectors, a simple tool to customize language models to new time periods. Time vectors are created by finetuning a language model on data from a single time (e.g., a year or month), and then subtracting the weights of the original pretrained model. This vector specifies a direction in weight space that, as our experiments show, improves performance on text from that time period. Time vectors specialized to adjacent time periods appear to be positioned closer together in a manifold. Using this structure, we interpolate between time vectors to induce new models that perform better on intervening and future time periods, without any additional training. We demonstrate the consistency of our findings across different tasks, domains, model sizes, and time scales. Our results suggest that time is encoded in the weight space of finetuned models.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2023

Language Models: A Guide for the Perplexed

Given the growing importance of AI literacy, we decided to write this tutorial to help narrow the gap between the discourse among those who study language models -- the core technology underlying ChatGPT and similar products -- and those who are intrigued and want to learn more about them. In short, we believe the perspective of researchers and educators can add some clarity to the public's understanding of the technologies beyond what's currently available, which tends to be either extremely technical or promotional material generated about products by their purveyors. Our approach teases apart the concept of a language model from products built on them, from the behaviors attributed to or desired from those products, and from claims about similarity to human cognition. As a starting point, we (1) offer a scientific viewpoint that focuses on questions amenable to study through experimentation; (2) situate language models as they are today in the context of the research that led to their development; and (3) describe the boundaries of what is known about the models at this writing.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2023

Camels in a Changing Climate: Enhancing LM Adaptation with Tulu 2

Since the release of TÜLU [Wang et al., 2023b], open resources for instruction tuning have developed quickly, from better base models to new finetuning techniques. We test and incorporate a number of these advances into TÜLU, resulting in TÜLU 2, a suite of improved TÜLU models for advancing the understanding and best practices of adapting pretrained language models to downstream tasks and user preferences. Concretely, we release: (1) TÜLU-V2-mix, an improved collection of high-quality instruction datasets; (2) TÜLU 2, LLAMA-2 models finetuned on the V2 mixture; (3) TÜLU 2+DPO, TÜLU 2 models trained with direct preference optimization (DPO), including the largest DPO-trained model to date (TÜLU 2+DPO 70B); (4) CODE TÜLU 2, CODE LLAMA models finetuned on our V2 mix that outperform CODE LLAMA and its instruction-tuned variant, CODE LLAMA-Instruct. Our evaluation from multiple perspectives shows that the TÜLU 2 suite achieves state-of-the-art performance among open models and matches or exceeds the performance of GPT-3.5-turbo-0301 on several benchmarks. We release all the checkpoints, data, training and evaluation code to facilitate future open efforts on adapting large language models.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2023

Fine-Grained Human Feedback Gives Better Rewards for Language Model Training

Language models (LMs) often exhibit undesirable text generation behaviors, including generating false, toxic, or irrelevant outputs. Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) - where human preference judgments on LM outputs are transformed into a learning signal - has recently shown promise in addressing these issues. However, such holistic feedback conveys limited information on long text outputs; it does not indicate which aspects of the outputs influenced user preference; e.g., which parts contain what type(s) of errors. In this paper, we use fine-grained human feedback (e.g., which sentence is false, which sub-sentence is irrelevant) as an explicit training signal. We introduce Fine-Grained RLHF, a framework that enables training and learning from reward functions that are fine-grained in two respects: (1) density, providing a reward after every segment (e.g., a sentence) is generated; and (2) incorporating multiple reward models associated with different feedback types (e.g., factual incorrectness, irrelevance, and information incompleteness). We conduct experiments on detoxification and long-form question answering to illustrate how learning with such reward functions leads to improved performance, supported by both automatic and human evaluation. Additionally, we show that LM behaviors can be customized using different combinations of fine-grained reward models. We release all data, collected human feedback, and codes at https://FineGrainedRLHF.github.io.

cs.CL↗