Physics of Language Models: Part 3.1, Knowledge Storage and Extraction

Overview

• Large language models (LLMs) can store vast amounts of knowledge, but it's unclear whether they genuinely learn this knowledge or simply memorize it from their training data
• This paper investigates this issue using a controlled biography dataset, finding a strong correlation between the model's ability to extract knowledge and the diversity of the training data
• The paper provides key recommendations for LLM pretraining, including rewriting the pretraining data to provide knowledge augmentation and incorporating more instruction-finetuning data into the pretraining stage

Plain English Explanation

Large language models, such as GPT-3 or BERT, are incredibly powerful tools that can answer a wide range of questions. For example, they can tell you Abraham Lincoln's birthday. But the researchers behind this paper wanted to understand how these models actually acquire and store this kind of factual knowledge.

Do the models genuinely learn the information, or do they simply "cheat" by remembering the answers to similar questions they were exposed to during training? To investigate this, the researchers used a controlled dataset of biographical information. They found that the models' ability to extract knowledge was strongly connected to how diverse and varied the training data was.

Essentially, if the training data wasn't sufficiently "mixed up" through paraphrasing, sentence shuffling, or translation, the models would just memorize the information rather than truly understanding it. Without this kind of data augmentation, the models would get 0% accuracy on knowledge extraction tasks, even after additional fine-tuning.

To understand why this happens, the researchers used a technique called "linear probing" to analyze how the models were encoding the knowledge internally. They found a strong connection between the observed knowledge extraction performance and how the information was represented in the models' hidden layers - whether it was stored in a straightforward way (like the embeddings for entity names) or distributed across the other text embeddings in a more complex fashion.

Based on these findings, the paper provides several key recommendations for companies and researchers working on large language models. First, they suggest "rewriting" the pretraining data using smaller, auxiliary models to artificially create more diversity and augmentation. Second, they recommend incorporating more instruction-finetuning data into the pretraining stage, before it's too late.

Technical Explanation

The researchers used a controlled biography dataset to investigate whether large language models (LLMs) genuinely learn to extract factual knowledge from their training data, or if they simply memorize the answers to similar questions they were exposed to during pretraining.

They found a strong correlation between the model's ability to extract knowledge and various diversity measures of the training data. Essentially, for knowledge to be reliably extracted, the training data must be sufficiently augmented through techniques like paraphrasing, sentence shuffling, and translation. Without such augmentation, the knowledge may be memorized but not extractable, leading to 0% accuracy, regardless of subsequent instruction fine-tuning.

To understand why this occurs, the researchers employed (nearly) linear probing to demonstrate a strong connection between the observed correlation and how the model internally encodes knowledge. Specifically, they investigated whether the knowledge was linearly encoded in the hidden embeddings of entity names or distributed across other token embeddings in the training text.

Based on these findings, the paper provides 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.

Critical Analysis

The paper provides a thoughtful and well-designed investigation into a critical question surrounding the nature of knowledge acquisition in large language models. By using a controlled dataset and employing linear probing techniques, the researchers were able to shed light on the underlying mechanisms at play and offer concrete recommendations for improving pretraining practices.

One potential limitation of the study is the focus on a single, relatively narrow dataset of biographical information. While this allowed for greater experimental control, it remains to be seen how well the findings generalize to other types of factual knowledge or more diverse datasets. Additionally, the use of (nearly) linear probing, while informative, may not capture the full complexity of how knowledge is represented in the models' internal representations.

Further research could explore the implications of these findings for other aspects of language model performance, such as reasoning, commonsense understanding, or zero-shot learning. It would also be valuable to investigate the practical impacts of the proposed pretraining strategies, both in terms of their effectiveness and any potential tradeoffs or unintended consequences.

Overall, this paper makes a valuable contribution to the ongoing discussion around the knowledge capabilities and limitations of large language models, and provides a solid foundation for future work in this important area.

Conclusion

This paper sheds light on a critical question surrounding the nature of knowledge acquisition in large language models. Through a controlled study using a biography dataset, the researchers found a strong correlation between a model's ability to extract factual knowledge and the diversity of its training data.

Specifically, they determined that for knowledge to be reliably extracted, the training data must be sufficiently augmented through techniques like paraphrasing, sentence shuffling, and translation. Without such augmentation, the knowledge may be memorized but not extractable, leading to poor performance on knowledge-based tasks.

The paper provides several key recommendations for LLM pretraining in industry, including rewriting the pretraining data using auxiliary models to enhance knowledge augmentation, and incorporating more instruction-finetuning data into the pretraining stage. These findings have important implications for the development of large language models that can truly understand and apply knowledge in robust and generalizable ways.