Why are Sensitive Functions Hard for Transformers?

Read original: arXiv:2402.09963 - Published 5/28/2024 by Michael Hahn, Mark Rofin
Total Score

0

šŸ”Ž

Sign in to get full access

or

If you already have an account, we'll log you in

Overview

  • Researchers have found that transformers, a type of machine learning model, have limitations in learning certain simple formal languages and tend to favor low-degree functions.
  • However, the theoretical understanding of these biases and limitations is still limited.
  • This paper presents a theory that explains these empirical observations by studying the loss landscape of transformers.

Plain English Explanation

The paper discusses the learning abilities and biases of transformers, a widely used type of machine learning model. Previous research has shown that transformers struggle to learn certain simple mathematical patterns, like the PARITY function, and tend to favor simpler, low-degree functions.

The authors of this paper wanted to understand why transformers have these limitations. They discovered that it has to do with the way transformers are designed - the sensitivity of the model's output to different parts of the input. Transformers whose output is sensitive to many parts of the input string exist in isolated points in the parameter space, making it hard for the model to generalize well.

In other words, transformers are biased towards learning functions that don't rely on many parts of the input. This explains why they struggle with tasks like PARITY, which require the model to consider the entire input string, and why they tend to favor simpler, low-degree functions.

The researchers show that this sensitivity-based theory can explain a wide range of empirical observations about transformer learning, including their generalization biases and their difficulty in learning certain types of patterns.

Technical Explanation

The paper presents a theory that explains the learning biases and limitations of transformers by analyzing the loss landscape of these models. The key insight is that transformers whose output is sensitive to many parts of the input string exist in isolated points in the parameter space, leading to a low-sensitivity bias in generalization.

The authors first review the existing empirical studies that have identified various learnability biases and limitations of transformers, such as their difficulty in learning simple formal languages like PARITY and their bias towards low-degree functions.

They then present a theoretical analysis showing that the constrained loss landscape of transformers, due to their input-space sensitivity, can explain these empirical observations. Transformers that are sensitive to many parts of the input string occupy isolated points in the parameter space, making it hard for the model to generalize to new examples.

The paper provides both theoretical and empirical evidence to support this theory. The authors show that this input-sensitivity-based theory can unify a broad array of empirical findings about transformer learning, including their generalization bias towards low-sensitivity and low-degree functions, as well as their difficulty in length generalization for PARITY.

Critical Analysis

The paper provides a compelling theoretical framework for understanding the learning biases and limitations of transformers. By focusing on the loss landscape and input-space sensitivity of these models, the authors are able to offer a unified explanation for a range of empirical observations that have been reported in the literature.

However, the paper does not address some potential limitations or caveats of this theory. For example, it's unclear how the input-sensitivity bias might interact with other architectural choices or training techniques used in transformer models. Additionally, the theory may not fully capture the role of inductive biases introduced by the transformer's attention mechanism or other architectural components.

Further research is needed to fully validate and extend this theory, such as exploring its implications for other types of neural networks or investigating how it might inform the design of more expressive and generalizable transformer-based models.

Conclusion

This paper presents a novel theory that explains the learning biases and limitations of transformer models by studying the constraints of their loss landscape. The key insight is that transformers whose output is sensitive to many parts of the input string exist in isolated points in the parameter space, leading to a bias towards low-sensitivity and low-degree functions.

The authors demonstrate that this input-sensitivity-based theory can unify a broad range of empirical observations about transformer learning, including their difficulty in learning simple formal languages and their generalization biases. This work highlights the importance of considering not just the in-principle expressivity of a model, but also the structure of its loss landscape, when studying its learning capabilities and limitations.

As transformer models continue to play a central role in many AI applications, understanding their inductive biases and developing techniques to overcome them will be crucial for advancing the field of machine learning.



This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!

Follow @aimodelsfyi on š• ā†’

Related Papers

šŸ”Ž

Total Score

0

Why are Sensitive Functions Hard for Transformers?

Michael Hahn, Mark Rofin

Empirical studies have identified a range of learnability biases and limitations of transformers, such as a persistent difficulty in learning to compute simple formal languages such as PARITY, and a bias towards low-degree functions. However, theoretical understanding remains limited, with existing expressiveness theory either overpredicting or underpredicting realistic learning abilities. We prove that, under the transformer architecture, the loss landscape is constrained by the input-space sensitivity: Transformers whose output is sensitive to many parts of the input string inhabit isolated points in parameter space, leading to a low-sensitivity bias in generalization. We show theoretically and empirically that this theory unifies a broad array of empirical observations about the learning abilities and biases of transformers, such as their generalization bias towards low sensitivity and low degree, and difficulty in length generalization for PARITY. This shows that understanding transformers' inductive biases requires studying not just their in-principle expressivity, but also their loss landscape.

Read more

5/28/2024

šŸ¤”

Total Score

0

Towards Understanding Inductive Bias in Transformers: A View From Infinity

Itay Lavie, Guy Gur-Ari, Zohar Ringel

We study inductive bias in Transformers in the infinitely over-parameterized Gaussian process limit and argue transformers tend to be biased towards more permutation symmetric functions in sequence space. We show that the representation theory of the symmetric group can be used to give quantitative analytical predictions when the dataset is symmetric to permutations between tokens. We present a simplified transformer block and solve the model at the limit, including accurate predictions for the learning curves and network outputs. We show that in common setups, one can derive tight bounds in the form of a scaling law for the learnability as a function of the context length. Finally, we argue WikiText dataset, does indeed possess a degree of permutation symmetry.

Read more

5/29/2024

Transformers are Expressive, But Are They Expressive Enough for Regression?
Total Score

0

Transformers are Expressive, But Are They Expressive Enough for Regression?

Swaroop Nath, Harshad Khadilkar, Pushpak Bhattacharyya

Transformers have become pivotal in Natural Language Processing, demonstrating remarkable success in applications like Machine Translation and Summarization. Given their widespread adoption, several works have attempted to analyze the expressivity of Transformers. Expressivity of a neural network is the class of functions it can approximate. A neural network is fully expressive if it can act as a universal function approximator. We attempt to analyze the same for Transformers. Contrary to existing claims, our findings reveal that Transformers struggle to reliably approximate smooth functions, relying on piecewise constant approximations with sizable intervals. The central question emerges as: ''Are Transformers truly Universal Function Approximators?'' To address this, we conduct a thorough investigation, providing theoretical insights and supporting evidence through experiments. Theoretically, we prove that Transformer Encoders cannot approximate smooth functions. Experimentally, we complement our theory and show that the full Transformer architecture cannot approximate smooth functions. By shedding light on these challenges, we advocate a refined understanding of Transformers' capabilities. Code Link: https://github.com/swaroop-nath/transformer-expressivity.

Read more

9/2/2024

Generalization vs. Memorization in the Presence of Statistical Biases in Transformers
Total Score

0

Generalization vs. Memorization in the Presence of Statistical Biases in Transformers

John Mitros, Damien Teney

This study aims to understand how statistical biases affect the model's ability to generalize to in-distribution and out-of-distribution data on algorithmic tasks. Prior research indicates that transformers may inadvertently learn to rely on these spurious correlations, leading to an overestimation of their generalization capabilities. To investigate this, we evaluate transformer models on several synthetic algorithmic tasks, systematically introducing and varying the presence of these biases. We also analyze how different components of the transformer models impact their generalization. Our findings suggest that statistical biases impair the model's performance on out-of-distribution data, providing a overestimation of its generalization capabilities. The models rely heavily on these spurious correlations for inference, as indicated by their performance on tasks including such biases.

Read more

9/10/2024