Understanding LLMs Requires More Than Statistical Generalization

Overview

• This paper examines the recent progress in deep learning theory, specifically addressing the question of why deep learning models are able to generalize well.
• The authors argue that a shift in perspective is needed, as some desirable qualities of large language models (LLMs) are not a consequence of good statistical generalization and require a separate theoretical explanation.
• The core of the argument is based on the observation that autoregressive (AR) probabilistic models are inherently non-identifiable, meaning that models with zero or near-zero Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence can exhibit markedly different behaviors.

Plain English Explanation

The paper explores why deep learning models, particularly large language models (LLMs), are able to generalize well and perform tasks effectively. The authors suggest that the current perspective on this issue may be incomplete, as some of the beneficial qualities of LLMs cannot be fully explained by good statistical generalization alone.

The key idea is that autoregressive probabilistic models are inherently non-identifiable. This means that different models can have almost the same performance on a test set (i.e., similar KL divergence), yet exhibit very different behaviors in practice. This non-identifiability has important implications for understanding and explaining the capabilities of LLMs.

The authors illustrate this point through three case studies: 1) the non-identifiability of zero-shot rule extrapolation, 2) the approximate non-identifiability of in-context learning, and 3) the non-identifiability of fine-tunability. These examples demonstrate that the desired qualities of LLMs may not be a direct consequence of good statistical generalization, and require a more nuanced theoretical explanation.

Technical Explanation

The paper presents a critical analysis of the current deep learning theory, which has primarily focused on understanding the generalization capabilities of overparametrized models in the interpolation regime. The authors argue that this perspective is incomplete and that another shift in perspective is necessary to fully explain the desirable qualities of LLMs.

The core of the authors' argument is based on the observation that autoregressive probabilistic models are inherently non-identifiable. This means that models with zero or near-zero KL divergence can exhibit markedly different behaviors, even though they have similar test set performance.

The authors support their position with mathematical examples and empirical observations, illustrating the practical relevance of non-identifiability through three case studies:

1. Non-identifiability of zero-shot rule extrapolation: LLMs can sometimes exhibit surprising zero-shot extrapolation capabilities, which may not be a direct consequence of good statistical generalization.

2. Approximate non-identifiability of in-context learning: The ability of LLMs to quickly adapt to new tasks through in-context learning may not be fully explained by the models' generalization properties.

3. Non-identifiability of fine-tunability: The ease with which LLMs can be fine-tuned on downstream tasks may not be solely due to their strong generalization abilities.

The authors review promising research directions that focus on developing LLM-relevant generalization measures, understanding transferability, and investigating the role of inductive biases in these models.

Critical Analysis

The paper raises an important and thought-provoking perspective on the current understanding of deep learning theory and its implications for LLMs. The authors' core argument about the inherent non-identifiability of autoregressive probabilistic models is well-supported and could have significant implications for how we think about the capabilities and limitations of these models.

However, the paper does not delve deeply into the specific mathematical and theoretical underpinnings of this non-identifiability, which could make it challenging for some readers to fully grasp the technical details. Additionally, the authors do not provide a comprehensive solution or alternative framework to address the issues they raise, leaving open questions about how to better understand and harness the strengths of LLMs.

Further research is needed to explore the practical consequences of non-identifiability in LLMs, as well as to develop more robust theoretical frameworks that can account for the nuanced behaviors and capabilities of these models. Examining the robustness of LLM evaluation to distributional assumptions and exploring the true potential of evaluating black-box optimization could be valuable research directions in this regard.

Conclusion

This paper presents a compelling argument that the current understanding of deep learning theory may be insufficient to fully explain the desirable qualities of large language models. The authors' focus on the inherent non-identifiability of autoregressive probabilistic models offers a fresh perspective on the generalization capabilities of these models and highlights the need for a more nuanced theoretical framework.

While the paper raises important questions, it also opens up new avenues for research, such as developing LLM-relevant generalization measures, understanding transferability, and exploring the role of inductive biases. Graph machine learning in the era of large language models and supervised knowledge makes large language models better could provide valuable insights in these areas.

Overall, this paper contributes to the ongoing discussion around the theoretical foundations of deep learning and the unique characteristics of large language models, encouraging the research community to think critically about the assumptions and limitations of current approaches.