Establishing Knowledge Preference in Language Models
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper explores the idea of "knowledge preference" in language models, which refers to how language models prioritize and utilize different types of knowledge when generating text.
- The researchers propose a framework for quantifying and understanding knowledge preference in language models, with the goal of enabling more transparent and controllable model behavior.
- The paper presents a series of experiments and analyses to investigate knowledge preference in both large language models (LLMs) and smaller, specialized models.
Plain English Explanation
Language models are artificial intelligence systems that can generate human-like text. These models are trained on vast amounts of data, which allows them to learn patterns in language and produce coherent, contextually relevant text.
However, language models don't just regurgitate the information they've been trained on. They also have their own "preferences" for the types of knowledge they draw upon when generating text. For example, a language model trained on scientific literature may be more inclined to use technical terminology and reference scientific concepts, while a model trained on social media data may be more prone to using colloquial language and addressing personal topics.
This paper seeks to understand and quantify these knowledge preferences in language models. The researchers propose a framework for measuring how much a model relies on different types of knowledge, such as general world knowledge, domain-specific expertise, or personal experiences. By studying these preferences, the researchers hope to make language models more transparent and controllable, so that their outputs can be better aligned with the desired use case or task.
The paper presents a series of experiments that apply this framework to both large, general-purpose language models and smaller, specialized models. The findings suggest that knowledge preferences can vary significantly across different models, and that understanding these preferences can provide useful insights into a model's capabilities and limitations.
Technical Explanation
The paper introduces a framework for quantifying "knowledge preference" in language models, which refers to how a model prioritizes and utilizes different types of knowledge when generating text. The researchers propose several metrics for measuring knowledge preference, including:
- Knowledge Preference Alignment: This metric evaluates how well a language model's preferences align with a specific domain or task, by measuring the model's performance on domain-specific questions.
- Knowledge Retention: This metric assesses how well a language model retains and applies its acquired knowledge, by probing the model's ability to answer factual questions.
- Knowledge Diversity: This metric evaluates the breadth and diversity of a language model's knowledge, by measuring the model's performance across a range of different topics and domains.
The researchers apply these metrics to both large language models (LLMs) and smaller, specialized models, and analyze the results to gain insights into the models' knowledge preferences. For example, they find that LLMs tend to have more diverse knowledge, but may struggle to apply that knowledge in a targeted way, while specialized models often have stronger domain-specific knowledge but a narrower overall knowledge base.
The paper also discusses potential implications of these findings, such as the need for more transparent and controllable language models that can better align with user preferences and task requirements. The researchers suggest that understanding knowledge preference could be a key step towards developing "knowledge-aware" language models that can more effectively leverage and apply their acquired knowledge.
Critical Analysis
The paper presents a well-designed and thorough investigation into the concept of "knowledge preference" in language models. The proposed framework for quantifying knowledge preference is a valuable contribution, as it provides a systematic way to analyze and compare the knowledge capabilities of different models.
One potential limitation of the research is the reliance on relatively narrow and constrained tasks, such as answering factual questions, to assess knowledge preference. While these tasks provide a useful starting point, real-world language use often involves more complex and context-dependent knowledge application. Future research could explore knowledge preference in more naturalistic language generation and understanding tasks.
Additionally, the paper does not delve deeply into the specific mechanisms or architectural choices that may influence a language model's knowledge preferences. Further research could investigate how factors like model size, training data, or network architecture affect the development of knowledge preferences, which could lead to more informed model design and optimization.
Despite these minor limitations, the paper makes a strong case for the importance of understanding and controlling knowledge preference in language models. As these models become increasingly powerful and ubiquitous, it will be crucial to ensure that their knowledge is being applied in a transparent, accountable, and beneficial way. The insights and framework presented in this paper represent an important step towards that goal.
Conclusion
This paper introduces the concept of "knowledge preference" in language models and proposes a framework for quantifying and analyzing this phenomenon. The researchers demonstrate that language models can have distinct preferences for different types of knowledge, and that understanding these preferences can provide valuable insights into a model's capabilities and limitations.
The findings suggest that knowledge preference is a crucial factor to consider when developing and deploying language models, as it can have significant implications for how these models generate text and apply their acquired knowledge. By embracing a more nuanced understanding of knowledge preference, the field of natural language processing can work towards the development of language models that are more transparent, controllable, and aligned with user needs and societal goals.
Overall, this paper represents an important contribution to the ongoing efforts to make language models more robust, reliable, and beneficial. As the use of these powerful AI systems continues to expand, research like this will be essential for ensuring that they are developed and deployed in a responsible and ethical manner.
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
Establishing Knowledge Preference in Language Models
Sizhe Zhou, Sha Li, Yu Meng, Yizhu Jiao, Heng Ji, Jiawei Han
Language models are known to encode a great amount of factual knowledge through pretraining. However, such knowledge might be insufficient to cater to user requests, requiring the model to integrate external knowledge sources and adhere to user-provided specifications. When answering questions about ongoing events, the model should use recent news articles to update its response; when asked to provide recommendations, the model should prioritize user specifications over retrieved product reviews; when some facts are edited in the model, the updated facts should override all prior knowledge learned by the model even if they are conflicting. In all of the cases above, the model faces a decision between its own parametric knowledge, (retrieved) contextual knowledge, and user instruction knowledge. In this paper, we (1) unify such settings into the problem of knowledge preference and define a three-level preference hierarchy over these knowledge sources; (2) compile a collection of existing datasets IfQA, MQuAKE, and MRQA covering a combination of settings (with/without user specifications, with/without context documents) to systematically evaluate how well models obey the intended knowledge preference; and (3) propose a dataset synthesis method that composes diverse question-answer pairs with user assumptions and related context to directly fine-tune LMs for instilling the hierarchy of knowledge. We demonstrate that a 7B model, fine-tuned on only a few thousand examples automatically generated by our proposed method, effectively achieves superior performance (more than 18% improvement across all evaluation benchmarks) in adhering to the desired knowledge preference hierarchy.
Read more7/19/2024
0
Context versus Prior Knowledge in Language Models
Kevin Du, V'esteinn Sn{ae}bjarnarson, Niklas Stoehr, Jennifer C. White, Aaron Schein, Ryan Cotterell
To answer a question, language models often need to integrate prior knowledge learned during pretraining and new information presented in context. We hypothesize that models perform this integration in a predictable way across different questions and contexts: models will rely more on prior knowledge for questions about entities (e.g., persons, places, etc.) that they are more familiar with due to higher exposure in the training corpus, and be more easily persuaded by some contexts than others. To formalize this problem, we propose two mutual information-based metrics to measure a model's dependency on a context and on its prior about an entity: first, the persuasion score of a given context represents how much a model depends on the context in its decision, and second, the susceptibility score of a given entity represents how much the model can be swayed away from its original answer distribution about an entity. We empirically test our metrics for their validity and reliability. Finally, we explore and find a relationship between the scores and the model's expected familiarity with an entity, and provide two use cases to illustrate their benefits.
Read more6/18/2024
💬
0
Improving Context-Aware Preference Modeling for Language Models
Silviu Pitis, Ziang Xiao, Nicolas Le Roux, Alessandro Sordoni
While finetuning language models from pairwise preferences has proven remarkably effective, the underspecified nature of natural language presents critical challenges. Direct preference feedback is uninterpretable, difficult to provide where multidimensional criteria may apply, and often inconsistent, either because it is based on incomplete instructions or provided by diverse principals. To address these challenges, we consider the two-step preference modeling procedure that first resolves the under-specification by selecting a context, and then evaluates preference with respect to the chosen context. We decompose reward modeling error according to these two steps, which suggests that supervising context in addition to context-specific preference may be a viable approach to aligning models with diverse human preferences. For this to work, the ability of models to evaluate context-specific preference is critical. To this end, we contribute context-conditioned preference datasets and accompanying experiments that investigate the ability of language models to evaluate context-specific preference. We use our datasets to (1) show that existing preference models benefit from, but fail to fully consider, added context, (2) finetune a context-aware reward model with context-specific performance exceeding that of GPT-4 and Llama 3 70B on tested datasets, and (3) investigate the value of context-aware preference modeling.
Read more7/23/2024
💬
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