LLMs as Function Approximators: Terminology, Taxonomy, and Questions for Evaluation

Overview

• This paper examines how large language models (LLMs) can be viewed as function approximators, and discusses the terminology, taxonomy, and key questions for evaluating their capabilities.

Plain English Explanation

Large language models (LLMs) like GPT-3, BERT, and others have shown impressive abilities in generating human-like text, answering questions, and completing a variety of language-related tasks. However, the inner workings of these models and how they achieve such performance are not always well-understood.

This paper takes a step back and looks at LLMs through the lens of function approximation - the idea that these models are learning to approximate complex, high-dimensional functions that map inputs (like text) to outputs (like responses). By framing LLMs in this way, the authors can explore the key concepts and challenges in understanding these models as function approximators.

The paper defines important terminology, proposes a taxonomy for categorizing different types of function approximation tasks, and lays out a series of questions that researchers should consider when evaluating the capabilities of LLMs. These questions cover aspects like the types of functions LLMs can learn, their sample efficiency, robustness, and interpretability.

Overall, this paper provides a useful framework for thinking about LLMs and their inner workings, which can inform future research and development in this rapidly advancing field of AI.

Technical Explanation

The paper begins by positioning LLMs as function approximators - systems that learn to map input data (like text) to output data (like responses) by approximating complex, high-dimensional functions. This framing allows the authors to draw insights from the field of function approximation and apply them to understanding LLMs.

The authors then propose a taxonomy for categorizing different types of function approximation tasks that LLMs may be used for. This taxonomy includes tasks like interpolation, extrapolation, and composition, each of which poses unique challenges for LLMs.

Next, the paper lays out a series of key questions that the authors argue should guide the evaluation of LLMs as function approximators. These questions cover topics such as:

• The types of functions LLMs can learn to approximate, including their complexity, dimensionality, and smoothness.
• The sample efficiency of LLMs - how much training data they require to learn different types of functions.
• The robustness of LLMs, including their ability to handle distributional shift, noise, and adversarial examples.
• The interpretability of LLMs, and the extent to which their internal representations and decision-making processes can be understood.

By framing LLMs in this way and proposing a set of evaluation criteria, the authors aim to provide a more rigorous and comprehensive framework for assessing the capabilities and limitations of these powerful AI systems.

Critical Analysis

The paper makes a compelling case for viewing LLMs through the lens of function approximation, as this perspective can provide valuable insights into their inner workings and the challenges they face. However, the authors acknowledge that this framing may not capture all aspects of LLM behavior, as these models can also exhibit emergent properties that may not be easily explained by function approximation alone.

Additionally, the authors note that some of the key questions they propose, such as those related to interpretability and robustness, are ongoing challenges in the field of AI that have not yet been fully resolved. Evaluating LLMs against these criteria may require further advancements in areas like model interpretability and adversarial robustness.

It would also be interesting to see the authors explore how the function approximation perspective could inform the development of new LLM architectures, training techniques, or evaluation methodologies that are better suited to specific types of function approximation tasks.

Conclusion

This paper presents a thought-provoking framework for understanding large language models (LLMs) as function approximators. By defining key terminology, proposing a taxonomy of function approximation tasks, and outlining a set of evaluation questions, the authors provide a valuable foundation for further research and development in this rapidly evolving field of AI.

The insights and perspectives offered in this paper can help researchers and practitioners better understand the capabilities and limitations of LLMs, and guide the design of more robust, efficient, and interpretable language models in the future.