RNNs are not Transformers (Yet): The Key Bottleneck on In-context Retrieval
2402.18510
0
0
Abstract
This paper investigates the gap in representation powers of Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) and Transformers in the context of solving algorithmic problems. We focus on understanding whether RNNs, known for their memory efficiency in handling long sequences, can match the performance of Transformers, particularly when enhanced with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting. Our theoretical analysis reveals that CoT improves RNNs but is insufficient to close the gap with Transformers. A key bottleneck lies in the inability of RNNs to perfectly retrieve information from the context, even with CoT: for several tasks that explicitly or implicitly require this capability, such as associative recall and determining if a graph is a tree, we prove that RNNs are not expressive enough to solve the tasks while Transformers can solve them with ease. Conversely, we prove that adopting techniques to enhance the in-context retrieval capability of RNNs, including Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) and adding a single Transformer layer, can elevate RNNs to be capable of solving all polynomial-time solvable problems with CoT, hence closing the representation gap with Transformers.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This paper explores the limitations of Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) compared to Transformer models in the context of in-context retrieval tasks.
- The authors investigate why RNNs struggle to match the performance of Transformers on these tasks, and identify a key bottleneck that constrains RNNs' ability to effectively leverage retrieval.
- The paper presents empirical findings and proposes potential solutions to address the limitations of RNNs in this domain.
Plain English Explanation
In this paper, the researchers are looking at the differences between two types of machine learning models: Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) and Transformers. Specifically, they are interested in how well these models perform on a task called "in-context retrieval," which involves the model finding and using relevant information from previous parts of the text to help with the current task.
The researchers found that Transformer models tend to be much better at this in-context retrieval task compared to RNNs. They wanted to understand why this is the case, and what the key limitations are that are holding RNNs back.
Through their experiments, the researchers identified a crucial bottleneck that constrains RNNs' ability to effectively leverage retrieval. This means there is a key problem or limitation that is preventing RNNs from being as good as Transformers at this specific task.
The paper discusses these findings in detail and also proposes some potential solutions or ways to address the limitations of RNNs when it comes to in-context retrieval. The goal is to help improve the performance of RNNs in this area and better understand the tradeoffs between different types of machine learning models.
Technical Explanation
The paper examines the differences between Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) and Transformer models in the context of in-context retrieval tasks. The authors investigate why RNNs struggle to match the performance of Transformers on these tasks and identify a key bottleneck that constrains RNNs' ability to effectively leverage retrieval.
Through a series of experiments, the researchers find that Transformers significantly outperform RNNs on in-context retrieval tasks. They attribute this gap to a fundamental limitation of RNNs: their inability to efficiently access and incorporate relevant information from distant parts of the input sequence.
In contrast, Transformer models, with their attention mechanism, are able to selectively focus on and integrate salient information from the entire input, which gives them a significant advantage for in-context retrieval. The paper discusses how this architectural difference underpins the performance gap between the two model types.
The authors also explore potential solutions to address the limitations of RNNs, such as augmenting them with retrieval-based components or leveraging reasoning-as-retrieval approaches. These strategies aim to empower RNNs to better access and utilize relevant contextual information, potentially bridging the gap with Transformer models on in-context retrieval tasks.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a well-designed and thorough investigation of the limitations of RNNs compared to Transformers in the context of in-context retrieval. The authors' identification of the key bottleneck constraining RNNs' performance is a valuable insight that could inform future research and model development efforts.
However, the paper does not delve deeply into the potential implications or real-world applications of these findings. It would be helpful to understand how the performance gap between RNNs and Transformers on in-context retrieval might impact the use of these models in practical settings, such as language modeling, image super-resolution, or other domains where in-context information is crucial.
Additionally, the proposed solutions to address RNNs' limitations, while promising, are not thoroughly evaluated in the paper. Further research and empirical validation would be needed to assess the effectiveness of these approaches and their potential to bridge the gap with Transformers.
Conclusion
This paper sheds light on a fundamental limitation of Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) compared to Transformer models in the context of in-context retrieval tasks. The authors identify a key bottleneck that constrains RNNs' ability to effectively leverage relevant information from distant parts of the input sequence, which gives Transformers a significant advantage in this domain.
The findings presented in this paper could have important implications for the design and application of machine learning models, particularly in tasks where the ability to effectively retrieve and integrate contextual information is crucial. While the paper proposes potential solutions to address RNNs' limitations, further research and validation would be needed to fully understand the tradeoffs and implications of these approaches.
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
On Limitation of Transformer for Learning HMMs
Jiachen Hu, Qinghua Liu, Chi Jin
0
0
Despite the remarkable success of Transformer-based architectures in various sequential modeling tasks, such as natural language processing, computer vision, and robotics, their ability to learn basic sequential models, like Hidden Markov Models (HMMs), is still unclear. This paper investigates the performance of Transformers in learning HMMs and their variants through extensive experimentation and compares them to Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs). We show that Transformers consistently underperform RNNs in both training speed and testing accuracy across all tested HMM models. There are even challenging HMM instances where Transformers struggle to learn, while RNNs can successfully do so. Our experiments further reveal the relation between the depth of Transformers and the longest sequence length it can effectively learn, based on the types and the complexity of HMMs. To address the limitation of transformers in modeling HMMs, we demonstrate that a variant of the Chain-of-Thought (CoT), called $textit{block CoT}$ in the training phase, can help transformers to reduce the evaluation error and to learn longer sequences at a cost of increasing the training time. Finally, we complement our empirical findings by theoretical results proving the expressiveness of transformers in approximating HMMs with logarithmic depth.
6/7/2024
Does Transformer Interpretability Transfer to RNNs?
Gonc{c}alo Paulo, Thomas Marshall, Nora Belrose
0
0
Recent advances in recurrent neural network architectures, such as Mamba and RWKV, have enabled RNNs to match or exceed the performance of equal-size transformers in terms of language modeling perplexity and downstream evaluations, suggesting that future systems may be built on completely new architectures. In this paper, we examine if selected interpretability methods originally designed for transformer language models will transfer to these up-and-coming recurrent architectures. Specifically, we focus on steering model outputs via contrastive activation addition, on eliciting latent predictions via the tuned lens, and eliciting latent knowledge from models fine-tuned to produce false outputs under certain conditions. Our results show that most of these techniques are effective when applied to RNNs, and we show that it is possible to improve some of them by taking advantage of RNNs' compressed state.
4/10/2024
Separations in the Representational Capabilities of Transformers and Recurrent Architectures
Satwik Bhattamishra, Michael Hahn, Phil Blunsom, Varun Kanade
0
0
Transformer architectures have been widely adopted in foundation models. Due to their high inference costs, there is renewed interest in exploring the potential of efficient recurrent architectures (RNNs). In this paper, we analyze the differences in the representational capabilities of Transformers and RNNs across several tasks of practical relevance, including index lookup, nearest neighbor, recognizing bounded Dyck languages, and string equality. For the tasks considered, our results show separations based on the size of the model required for different architectures. For example, we show that a one-layer Transformer of logarithmic width can perform index lookup, whereas an RNN requires a hidden state of linear size. Conversely, while constant-size RNNs can recognize bounded Dyck languages, we show that one-layer Transformers require a linear size for this task. Furthermore, we show that two-layer Transformers of logarithmic size can perform decision tasks such as string equality or disjointness, whereas both one-layer Transformers and recurrent models require linear size for these tasks. We also show that a log-size two-layer Transformer can implement the nearest neighbor algorithm in its forward pass; on the other hand recurrent models require linear size. Our constructions are based on the existence of $N$ nearly orthogonal vectors in $O(log N)$ dimensional space and our lower bounds are based on reductions from communication complexity problems. We supplement our theoretical results with experiments that highlight the differences in the performance of these architectures on practical-size sequences.
6/14/2024
🧠
On the Representational Capacity of Neural Language Models with Chain-of-Thought Reasoning
Franz Nowak, Anej Svete, Alexandra Butoi, Ryan Cotterell
0
0
The performance of modern language models (LMs) has been improved by chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning, i.e., the process of generating intermediate results that guide the model towards a final answer. A possible explanation for this improvement is that CoT reasoning extends an LM's computational power, as RNNs and transformers with additional scratch space are known to be Turing complete. Comparing LMs to Turing machines, however, introduces a category error - Turing machines decide language membership, whereas LMs define distributions over strings. To bridge this gap, we formalize CoT reasoning in a probabilistic setting. We present several results on the representational capacity of recurrent and transformer LMs with CoT reasoning, showing that they can represent the same family of distributions over strings as probabilistic Turing machines.
6/21/2024