Does Knowledge Localization Hold True? Surprising Differences Between Entity and Relation Perspectives in Language Models
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Examines how language models store and represent knowledge from different perspectives: entity-centric vs. relation-centric
- Finds surprising differences in how models handle entities vs. relations, challenging the assumption of "knowledge localization"
- Highlights the importance of considering both entity and relational knowledge perspectives when analyzing and improving language models
Plain English Explanation
The paper looks at how large language models store and represent different types of knowledge. Specifically, it compares an "entity-centric" perspective, where the model focuses on individual concepts or things, versus a "relation-centric" perspective, which looks at how those concepts are connected.
The researchers found some surprising differences between how the model handles these two types of knowledge. This challenges the idea of "knowledge localization" - the assumption that all the model's knowledge is neatly organized and contained in specific parts of the network.
Instead, the results suggest the model represents entity and relational knowledge in quite different ways. This has important implications for how we analyze and improve large language models - we need to consider both the entity and relational perspectives, not just one or the other.
Technical Explanation
The paper examines the differences between an entity-centric and a relation-centric perspective on the knowledge stored in large language models.
In the entity-centric view, the focus is on how the model represents individual concepts or entities. The researchers probed this by testing the model's ability to identify and reason about specific entities.
In contrast, the relation-centric view looks at how the model captures the connections and relationships between entities. The team evaluated this by testing the model's handling of relational prompts and concepts.
Their experiments revealed significant differences between the entity and relation perspectives. For example, the model showed much stronger performance on entity-focused tasks compared to relation-focused ones. This challenges the idea of "knowledge localization" - the assumption that all the model's knowledge is neatly organized and contained in specific parts of the network.
Instead, the results suggest the model represents entity and relational knowledge in fundamentally different ways. This has important implications for how we analyze and manipulate the knowledge in large language models, as we need to consider both perspectives, not just one or the other.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides valuable insights, but also raises some important caveats and areas for further research:
-
The experiments were performed on a single model (GPT-3), so it's unclear how generalizable the findings are to other large language models. Testing a broader range of architectures would strengthen the conclusions.
-
The relation-centric tasks may have been more challenging or sensitive to model limitations in ways that aren't fully explained. More investigation is needed to understand the underlying factors driving the performance gaps.
-
The paper does not address potential societal impacts or ethical considerations around the differential representation of entities vs. relations in language models. These issues deserve greater attention.
Overall, the work highlights the importance of going beyond simplistic notions of "knowledge localization" and carefully examining the multifaceted ways large language models store and leverage different types of knowledge. Continued research in this direction can lead to more robust and transparent AI systems.
Conclusion
This paper presents a thought-provoking analysis of the differences between entity-centric and relation-centric perspectives on the knowledge stored in large language models. The key finding is that these two knowledge representations exhibit surprising divergences, challenging the assumption of neat and tidy "knowledge localization."
These results have significant implications for how we analyze, manipulate, and improve large language models. Considering both entity and relational knowledge perspectives is crucial for developing a more comprehensive understanding of these powerful AI systems and unlocking their full potential in a responsible manner.
The work also points to important areas for future research, such as exploring the generalizability of the findings, the underlying factors driving the performance gaps, and the potential societal impacts. Continued advancements in this direction can lead to language models that better capture the nuanced and interconnected nature of human knowledge.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
Does Knowledge Localization Hold True? Surprising Differences Between Entity and Relation Perspectives in Language Models
Yifan Wei, Xiaoyan Yu, Yixuan Weng, Huanhuan Ma, Yuanzhe Zhang, Jun Zhao, Kang Liu
Large language models encapsulate knowledge and have demonstrated superior performance on various natural language processing tasks. Recent studies have localized this knowledge to specific model parameters, such as the MLP weights in intermediate layers. This study investigates the differences between entity and relational knowledge through knowledge editing. Our findings reveal that entity and relational knowledge cannot be directly transferred or mapped to each other. This result is unexpected, as logically, modifying the entity or the relation within the same knowledge triplet should yield equivalent outcomes. To further elucidate the differences between entity and relational knowledge, we employ causal analysis to investigate how relational knowledge is stored in pre-trained models. Contrary to prior research suggesting that knowledge is stored in MLP weights, our experiments demonstrate that relational knowledge is also significantly encoded in attention modules. This insight highlights the multifaceted nature of knowledge storage in language models, underscoring the complexity of manipulating specific types of knowledge within these models.
Read more9/4/2024
💬
0
Physics of Language Models: Part 3.1, Knowledge Storage and Extraction
Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li
Large language models (LLMs) can store a vast amount of world knowledge, often extractable via question-answering (e.g., What is Abraham Lincoln's birthday?). However, do they answer such questions based on exposure to similar questions during training (i.e., cheating), or by genuinely learning to extract knowledge from sources like Wikipedia? In this paper, we investigate this issue using a controlled biography dataset. We find a strong correlation between the model's ability to extract knowledge and various diversity measures of the training data. $textbf{Essentially}$, for knowledge to be reliably extracted, it must be sufficiently augmented (e.g., through paraphrasing, sentence shuffling, translations) $textit{during pretraining}$. Without such augmentation, knowledge may be memorized but not extractable, leading to 0% accuracy, regardless of subsequent instruction fine-tuning. To understand why this occurs, we employ (nearly) linear probing to demonstrate a strong connection between the observed correlation and how the model internally encodes knowledge -- whether it is linearly encoded in the hidden embeddings of entity names or distributed across other token embeddings in the training text. This paper provides $textbf{several key recommendations for LLM pretraining in the industry}$: (1) rewrite the pretraining data -- using small, auxiliary models -- to provide knowledge augmentation, and (2) incorporate more instruction-finetuning data into the pretraining stage before it becomes too late.
Read more7/17/2024
0
Physics of Language Models: Part 3.2, Knowledge Manipulation
Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li
Language models can store vast factual knowledge, yet their ability to flexibly use this knowledge for downstream tasks (e.g., via instruction finetuning) remains questionable. This paper investigates four fundamental knowledge manipulation tasks: retrieval (e.g., What is person A's attribute X?), classification (e.g., Is A's attribute X even or odd?), comparison (e.g., Is A greater than B in attribute X?), and inverse search (e.g., Which person's attribute X equals T?). We show that language models excel in knowledge retrieval but struggle even in the simplest classification or comparison tasks unless Chain of Thoughts (CoTs) are employed during both training and inference. Moreover, their performance in inverse knowledge search is virtually 0%, regardless of the prompts. Our primary contribution is a controlled, synthetic experiment that confirms these weaknesses are inherent to language models: they cannot efficiently manipulate knowledge from pre-training data, even when such knowledge is perfectly stored in the models, despite adequate training and sufficient model size. Our findings also apply to modern pretrained language models such as GPT-4, thus giving rise to many Turing tests to distinguish Humans from contemporary AIs.
Read more7/17/2024
📶
0
Knowledge Localization: Mission Not Accomplished? Enter Query Localization!
Yuheng Chen, Pengfei Cao, Yubo Chen, Kang Liu, Jun Zhao
Large language models (LLMs) store extensive factual knowledge, but the mechanisms behind how they store and express this knowledge remain unclear. The Knowledge Neuron (KN) thesis is a prominent theory for explaining these mechanisms. This theory is based on the knowledge localization (KL) assumption, which suggests that a fact can be localized to a few knowledge storage units, namely knowledge neurons. However, this assumption may be overly strong regarding knowledge storage and neglects knowledge expression mechanisms. Thus, we re-examine the KL assumption and confirm the existence of facts that do not adhere to it from both statistical and knowledge modification perspectives. Furthermore, we propose the Query Localization (QL) assumption. (1) Query-KN Mapping: The localization results are associated with the query rather than the fact. (2) Dynamic KN Selection: The attention module contributes to the selection of KNs for answering a query. Based on this, we further propose the Consistency-Aware KN modification method, which improves the performance of knowledge modification. We conduct 39 sets of experiments, along with additional visualization experiments, to rigorously validate our conclusions.
Read more5/24/2024