Truth-value judgment in language models: belief directions are context sensitive

Overview

• The paper investigates how the latent spaces of large language models (LLMs) contain directions that are predictive of the truth of sentences.
• The researchers look closely at the impact of context on these "belief directions" and probes that measure them.
• They quantify how the probes respond to the presence of supporting or contradicting sentences, and test the consistency of the probes.
• They also perform a causal intervention experiment to see if changing a premise's representation along a belief direction impacts the hypothesis.
• The results show the probes are generally context-sensitive, and that contexts which shouldn't affect truth often still impact the probe outputs.
• The type of errors depend on the layer, model, and data used.
• The findings suggest belief directions are causal mediators in the inference process that incorporates in-context information.

Plain English Explanation

Large language models (LLMs) like GPT-3 have become incredibly sophisticated at understanding and generating human language. Recent research has found that the internal representations (or "latent spaces") of these models contain directions that are linked to whether a sentence is true or false. Researchers have developed "probes" - special machine learning models - that can detect and measure these "belief directions" in the LLM's latent space.

In this paper, the researchers took a closer look at how the context surrounding a sentence impacts these belief directions and probe measurements. They tested how the probes respond when there are sentences that support or contradict the target sentence, and looked at how consistent the probes are. They also did an experiment where they deliberately changed the representation of a premise in the latent space, to see if that impacted the representation of the hypothesis along the same belief direction.

The main finding is that the probes are quite sensitive to the context around the target sentence. Even contexts that shouldn't logically affect the truth value of the sentence often still impact the probe's output. The specific types of errors depend on factors like which layer of the LLM the probe is looking at, the particular model being used, and the data the probe was trained on.

Overall, the results suggest that these belief directions in the LLM's latent space are an important part of how the model understands and reasons about language, incorporating relevant contextual information. But the process is complex, and these belief probes don't always behave as we might expect based on formal logic. There's still a lot to understand about how large language models truly comprehend language and draw inferences.

Technical Explanation

The paper investigates the phenomenon observed in prior work that the latent spaces of large language models (LLMs) contain directions that are predictive of the truth of sentences. Researchers have developed various "probe" models that can identify and measure these "belief directions" in the LLM's latent representations, which are described as accessing the model's underlying "knowledge" or "beliefs."

The key focus of this work is examining the impact of context on these belief probes. The researchers conduct experiments to quantify how responsive the probes are to the presence of sentences that support or contradict the target sentence. They also assess the consistency of the probe outputs. Additionally, they perform a causal intervention study, altering the representation of a premise in the latent space to see if that influences the position of the hypothesis along the same belief direction.

The results show that the belief probes tested are generally sensitive to the surrounding context, even when that context should not logically affect the truth value. The specific nature of the errors depends on factors like the model layer, model architecture, and training data.

Overall, the findings suggest that these belief directions in the LLM's latent space are an important part of how the model performs linguistic inference, incorporating relevant contextual information. However, the process is complex, and the probes do not always behave as expected based on formal logic. The authors conclude that the belief directions appear to be causal mediators in the inference process that incorporates in-context information.

Critical Analysis

The paper provides valuable insights into the inner workings of large language models and how they reason about language and truth. By closely examining the context-sensitivity of the belief probes, the researchers uncover important limitations and complexities in the way LLMs seem to represent and leverage "knowledge" or "beliefs."

One key caveat is that the probes themselves may not be a perfect window into the LLM's true internal representations and reasoning processes. As the authors note, the probes could be capturing artifacts or biases introduced during the probe training process, rather than directly reflecting the model's actual knowledge. Further research may be needed to better understand the relationship between the probes and the LLM's actual internal dynamics.

Additionally, the experiments are limited to specific model architectures, datasets, and probe designs. It's possible that other types of LLMs or alternative probe methodologies could yield different results. Broader investigations of context effects and causal reasoning in language models would help paint a more complete picture.

Overall, though, this paper makes an important contribution by revealing the context-dependent nature of these purported "belief" representations in LLMs. It highlights the need for caution in interpreting the outputs of such models as directly reflecting stable, logical knowledge. As the authors suggest, further causal intervention studies may help unravel the complex interplay between language, context, and reasoning in large language models.

Conclusion

This paper takes a close look at the phenomenon of "belief directions" in the latent spaces of large language models, and how these directional representations are impacted by surrounding context. Through a series of experiments, the researchers demonstrate that the probes used to measure these belief directions are highly sensitive to context, even in cases where the context should not logically affect the truth value.

The findings suggest that these belief directions, while predictive of sentence truth, are part of a complex inference process in LLMs that incorporates relevant contextual information. The results caution against simplistic interpretations of LLM outputs as directly reflecting stable, logical knowledge. Instead, the authors argue that the belief directions appear to be causal mediators in a more nuanced language understanding and reasoning capability.

Overall, this work provides important insights into the inner workings of large language models, and highlights the need for continued research to fully understand how these powerful AI systems comprehend and reason about language and truth.