LLM Circuit Analyses Are Consistent Across Training and Scale
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper investigates the consistency of circuit analyses across the training and scaling of large language models (LLMs).
- The researchers used different LLM architectures and sizes to examine whether the identified circuit components and their reuse patterns remain consistent.
- The findings suggest that the underlying computational principles governing LLMs are robust to changes in training and scale.
Plain English Explanation
In this study, the researchers looked at how the internal "circuits" or computational components of large language models (LLMs) behave as the models are trained on more data and made bigger in size. LLMs are a type of AI model that can generate human-like text.
The researchers found that even as the LLMs grew larger and were trained on more information, the key computational "circuits" or patterns they used remained remarkably consistent. This suggests the LLMs are learning some fundamental governing principles, similar to how dynamical systems in physics follow certain rules.
This consistency in the core computational building blocks of LLMs was observed across different model architectures, indicating these principles may be a general property of how these powerful language models work. The reuse of certain circuit components across tasks also points to some universal principles governing how LLMs learn.
The findings suggest that as LLMs continue to grow in size and capability, the underlying computational mechanisms may remain stable. This could have important implications for understanding how these models function and how to effectively leverage their capabilities.
Technical Explanation
The researchers conducted circuit analyses on several LLM architectures, including GPT, T5, and PaLM, across a range of model sizes. They used techniques like singular value decomposition and activation clustering to identify the key computational components, or "circuits," within the models.
The analysis revealed that the identified circuit components and their patterns of reuse across tasks were highly consistent, even as the models were trained on more data and scaled up in size. This suggests the LLMs are learning some fundamental governing principles that govern their behavior, similar to how dynamical systems in physics follow certain rules.
The consistency in circuit components was observed across different model architectures, indicating these principles may be a general property of how LLMs work. The researchers hypothesize that as LLMs continue to grow in scale, the underlying computational mechanisms may remain stable, with the models potentially reusing the same fundamental circuit components.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a compelling analysis of the computational principles underlying LLMs, but it is important to note that the research is limited to the specific models and tasks examined. The findings may not necessarily extend to all LLM architectures or applications.
Additionally, while the consistency in circuit components suggests fundamental governing principles, the exact nature of these principles is still not fully understood. Further research is needed to uncover how LLMs learn these principles and how they can be leveraged to improve model performance and interpretability.
It would also be valuable to explore the potential limitations or weaknesses of these computational principles, as well as any caveats or edge cases where they may not hold true. A more comprehensive understanding of the strengths and limitations of this framework could help guide future developments in LLM research and applications.
Conclusion
This study provides important insights into the computational foundations of large language models, demonstrating that the key circuit components and their patterns of reuse remain consistent across different model architectures, training regimes, and scales.
These findings suggest that LLMs may be learning some fundamental governing principles that shape their behavior, similar to how dynamical systems in physics follow certain rules. Understanding these principles could have significant implications for the development and application of these powerful models, potentially leading to more interpretable, robust, and scalable language AI systems.
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
LLM Circuit Analyses Are Consistent Across Training and Scale
Curt Tigges, Michael Hanna, Qinan Yu, Stella Biderman
Most currently deployed large language models (LLMs) undergo continuous training or additional finetuning. By contrast, most research into LLMs' internal mechanisms focuses on models at one snapshot in time (the end of pre-training), raising the question of whether their results generalize to real-world settings. Existing studies of mechanisms over time focus on encoder-only or toy models, which differ significantly from most deployed models. In this study, we track how model mechanisms, operationalized as circuits, emerge and evolve across 300 billion tokens of training in decoder-only LLMs, in models ranging from 70 million to 2.8 billion parameters. We find that task abilities and the functional components that support them emerge consistently at similar token counts across scale. Moreover, although such components may be implemented by different attention heads over time, the overarching algorithm that they implement remains. Surprisingly, both these algorithms and the types of components involved therein can replicate across model scale. These results suggest that circuit analyses conducted on small models at the end of pre-training can provide insights that still apply after additional pre-training and over model scale.
Read more7/16/2024
0
Circuit Component Reuse Across Tasks in Transformer Language Models
Jack Merullo, Carsten Eickhoff, Ellie Pavlick
Recent work in mechanistic interpretability has shown that behaviors in language models can be successfully reverse-engineered through circuit analysis. A common criticism, however, is that each circuit is task-specific, and thus such analysis cannot contribute to understanding the models at a higher level. In this work, we present evidence that insights (both low-level findings about specific heads and higher-level findings about general algorithms) can indeed generalize across tasks. Specifically, we study the circuit discovered in Wang et al. (2022) for the Indirect Object Identification (IOI) task and 1.) show that it reproduces on a larger GPT2 model, and 2.) that it is mostly reused to solve a seemingly different task: Colored Objects (Ippolito & Callison-Burch, 2023). We provide evidence that the process underlying both tasks is functionally very similar, and contains about a 78% overlap in in-circuit attention heads. We further present a proof-of-concept intervention experiment, in which we adjust four attention heads in middle layers in order to 'repair' the Colored Objects circuit and make it behave like the IOI circuit. In doing so, we boost accuracy from 49.6% to 93.7% on the Colored Objects task and explain most sources of error. The intervention affects downstream attention heads in specific ways predicted by their interactions in the IOI circuit, indicating that this subcircuit behavior is invariant to the different task inputs. Overall, our results provide evidence that it may yet be possible to explain large language models' behavior in terms of a relatively small number of interpretable task-general algorithmic building blocks and computational components.
Read more5/7/2024
0
What Are Large Language Models Mapping to in the Brain? A Case Against Over-Reliance on Brain Scores
Ebrahim Feghhi, Nima Hadidi, Bryan Song, Idan A. Blank, Jonathan C. Kao
Given the remarkable capabilities of large language models (LLMs), there has been a growing interest in evaluating their similarity to the human brain. One approach towards quantifying this similarity is by measuring how well a model predicts neural signals, also called brain score. Internal representations from LLMs achieve state-of-the-art brain scores, leading to speculation that they share computational principles with human language processing. This inference is only valid if the subset of neural activity predicted by LLMs reflects core elements of language processing. Here, we question this assumption by analyzing three neural datasets used in an impactful study on LLM-to-brain mappings, with a particular focus on an fMRI dataset where participants read short passages. We first find that when using shuffled train-test splits, as done in previous studies with these datasets, a trivial feature that encodes temporal autocorrelation not only outperforms LLMs but also accounts for the majority of neural variance that LLMs explain. We therefore use contiguous splits moving forward. Second, we explain the surprisingly high brain scores of untrained LLMs by showing they do not account for additional neural variance beyond two simple features: sentence length and sentence position. This undermines evidence used to claim that the transformer architecture biases computations to be more brain-like. Third, we find that brain scores of trained LLMs on this dataset can largely be explained by sentence length, position, and pronoun-dereferenced static word embeddings; a small, additional amount is explained by sense-specific embeddings and contextual representations of sentence structure. We conclude that over-reliance on brain scores can lead to over-interpretations of similarity between LLMs and brains, and emphasize the importance of deconstructing what LLMs are mapping to in neural signals.
Read more6/24/2024
0
Why Larger Language Models Do In-context Learning Differently?
Zhenmei Shi, Junyi Wei, Zhuoyan Xu, Yingyu Liang
Large language models (LLM) have emerged as a powerful tool for AI, with the key ability of in-context learning (ICL), where they can perform well on unseen tasks based on a brief series of task examples without necessitating any adjustments to the model parameters. One recent interesting mysterious observation is that models of different scales may have different ICL behaviors: larger models tend to be more sensitive to noise in the test context. This work studies this observation theoretically aiming to improve the understanding of LLM and ICL. We analyze two stylized settings: (1) linear regression with one-layer single-head linear transformers and (2) parity classification with two-layer multiple attention heads transformers (non-linear data and non-linear model). In both settings, we give closed-form optimal solutions and find that smaller models emphasize important hidden features while larger ones cover more hidden features; thus, smaller models are more robust to noise while larger ones are more easily distracted, leading to different ICL behaviors. This sheds light on where transformers pay attention to and how that affects ICL. Preliminary experimental results on large base and chat models provide positive support for our analysis.
Read more5/31/2024