Automatic data selection and curriculum design for training large language models is challenging, with only a few existing methods showing improvements over standard training. Furthermore, current schemes focus on domain-level selection, overlooking the more fine-grained contributions of each individual training point. It is difficult to apply traditional datapoint selection methods on large language models: most online batch selection methods perform two-times forward or backward passes, which introduces considerable extra costs with large-scale models. To mitigate these obstacles, we propose irreducible curriculum as a curriculum learning algorithm for language model pretraining, which prioritizes samples with higher learnability. Specifically, to avoid prohibitive extra computation overhead, we simulate the sample loss along the main model's training trajectory using a small-scale proxy model. Our experiments on the RedPajama-1B dataset demonstrate a consistent improvement on validation perplexity across all 7 domains compared to random uniform baseline and the anti-curriculum strategy. Our method also reduces the sharpness of the network and illustrates a better 5-shot accuracy on MMLU benchmarks.

In the age of artificial intelligence, the role of large language models (LLMs) is becoming increasingly central. Despite their growing prevalence, their capacity to consolidate knowledge from different training documents - a crucial ability in numerous applications - remains unexplored. This paper presents the first study examining the capability of LLMs to effectively combine such information within their parameter space. We introduce EpiK-Eval, a novel question-answering benchmark tailored to evaluate LLMs' proficiency in formulating a coherent and consistent knowledge representation from segmented narratives. Evaluations across various LLMs reveal significant weaknesses in this domain. We contend that these shortcomings stem from the intrinsic nature of prevailing training objectives. Consequently, we advocate for refining the approach towards knowledge consolidation, as it harbors the potential to dramatically improve their overall effectiveness and performance. The findings from this study offer insights for developing more robust and reliable LLMs. Our code and benchmark are available at https://github.com/chandar-lab/EpiK-Eval

We show that LLMs hallucinate because their output is not constrained to be synonymous with claims for which they have evidence: a condition that we call evidential closure. Information about the truth or falsity of sentences is not statistically identified in the standard neural probabilistic language model setup, and so cannot be conditioned on to generate new strings. We then show how to constrain LLMs to produce output that does satisfy evidential closure. A multimodal LLM must learn about the external world (perceptual learning); it must learn a mapping from strings to states of the world (extensional learning); and, to achieve fluency when generalizing beyond a body of evidence, it must learn mappings from strings to their synonyms (intensional learning). The output of a unimodal LLM must be synonymous with strings in a validated evidence set. Finally, we present a heuristic procedure, Learn-Babble-Prune, that yields faithful output from an LLM by rejecting output that is not synonymous with claims for which the LLM has evidence.

Moral foundations theory (MFT) is a psychological assessment tool that decomposes human moral reasoning into five factors, including care/harm, liberty/oppression, and sanctity/degradation (Graham et al., 2009). People vary in the weight they place on these dimensions when making moral decisions, in part due to their cultural upbringing and political ideology. As large language models (LLMs) are trained on datasets collected from the internet, they may reflect the biases that are present in such corpora. This paper uses MFT as a lens to analyze whether popular LLMs have acquired a bias towards a particular set of moral values. We analyze known LLMs and find they exhibit particular moral foundations, and show how these relate to human moral foundations and political affiliations. We also measure the consistency of these biases, or whether they vary strongly depending on the context of how the model is prompted. Finally, we show that we can adversarially select prompts that encourage the moral to exhibit a particular set of moral foundations, and that this can affect the model's behavior on downstream tasks. These findings help illustrate the potential risks and unintended consequences of LLMs assuming a particular moral stance.

The potential of large language models (LLMs) to simultaneously perform a wide range of natural language processing (NLP) tasks has been the subject of extensive research. Although instruction tuning has proven to be a data-efficient method for transforming LLMs into such generalist models, their performance still lags behind specialist models trained exclusively for specific tasks. In this paper, we investigate whether incorporating broad-coverage generalist instruction tuning can contribute to building a specialist model. We hypothesize that its efficacy depends on task specificity and skill requirements. Our experiments assess four target tasks with distinct coverage levels, revealing that integrating generalist instruction tuning consistently enhances model performance when the task coverage is broad. The effect is particularly pronounced when the amount of task-specific training data is limited. Further investigation into three target tasks focusing on different capabilities demonstrates that generalist instruction tuning improves understanding and reasoning abilities. However, for tasks requiring factual knowledge, generalist data containing hallucinatory information may negatively affect the model's performance. Overall, our work provides a systematic guide for developing specialist models with general instruction tuning. Our code and other related resources can be found at https://github.com/DavidFanzz/Generalist_or_Specialist.

In this paper, we explore the application of large language models (LLMs) for generating code-tracing questions in introductory programming courses. We designed targeted prompts for GPT4, guiding it to generate code-tracing questions based on code snippets and descriptions. We established a set of human evaluation metrics to assess the quality of questions produced by the model compared to those created by human experts. Our analysis provides insights into the capabilities and potential of LLMs in generating diverse code-tracing questions. Additionally, we present a unique dataset of human and LLM-generated tracing questions, serving as a valuable resource for both the education and NLP research communities. This work contributes to the ongoing dialogue on the potential uses of LLMs in educational settings.

Recently slot filling has witnessed great development thanks to deep learning and the availability of large-scale annotated data. However, it poses a critical challenge to handle a novel domain whose samples are never seen during training. The recognition performance might be greatly degraded due to severe domain shifts. Most prior works deal with this problem in a two-pass pipeline manner based on metric learning. In practice, these dominant pipeline models may be limited in computational efficiency and generalization capacity because of non-parallel inference and context-free discrete label embeddings. To this end, we re-examine the typical metric-based methods, and propose a new adaptive end-to-end metric learning scheme for the challenging zero-shot slot filling. Considering simplicity, efficiency and generalizability, we present a cascade-style joint learning framework coupled with context-aware soft label representations and slot-level contrastive representation learning to mitigate the data and label shift problems effectively. Extensive experiments on public benchmarks demonstrate the superiority of the proposed approach over a series of competitive baselines.

We report the presence of a simple neural mechanism that represents an input-output function as a vector within autoregressive transformer language models (LMs). Using causal mediation analysis on a diverse range of in-context-learning (ICL) tasks, we find that a small number attention heads transport a compact representation of the demonstrated task, which we call a function vector (FV). FVs are robust to changes in context, i.e., they trigger execution of the task on inputs such as zero-shot and natural text settings that do not resemble the ICL contexts from which they are collected. We test FVs across a range of tasks, models, and layers and find strong causal effects across settings in middle layers. We investigate the internal structure of FVs and find while that they often contain information that encodes the output space of the function, this information alone is not sufficient to reconstruct an FV. Finally, we test semantic vector composition in FVs, and find that to some extent they can be summed to create vectors that trigger new complex tasks. Taken together, our findings suggest that LLMs contain internal abstractions of general-purpose functions that can be invoked in a variety of contexts.

Visual reasoning requires multimodal perception and commonsense cognition of the world. Recently, multiple vision-language models (VLMs) have been proposed with excellent commonsense reasoning ability in various domains. However, how to harness the collective power of these complementary VLMs is rarely explored. Existing methods like ensemble still struggle to aggregate these models with the desired higher-order communications. In this work, we propose Cola, a novel paradigm that coordinates multiple VLMs for visual reasoning. Our key insight is that a large language model (LLM) can efficiently coordinate multiple VLMs by facilitating natural language communication that leverages their distinct and complementary capabilities. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our instruction tuning variant, Cola-FT, achieves state-of-the-art performance on visual question answering (VQA), outside knowledge VQA, visual entailment, and visual spatial reasoning tasks. Moreover, we show that our in-context learning variant, Cola-Zero, exhibits competitive performance in zero and few-shot settings, without finetuning. Through systematic ablation studies and visualizations, we validate that a coordinator LLM indeed comprehends the instruction prompts as well as the separate functionalities of VLMs; it then coordinates them to enable impressive visual reasoning capabilities.

Logical reasoning, i.e., deductively inferring the truth value of a conclusion from a set of premises, is an important task for artificial intelligence with wide potential impacts on science, mathematics, and society. While many prompting-based strategies have been proposed to enable Large Language Models (LLMs) to do such reasoning more effectively, they still appear unsatisfactory, often failing in subtle and unpredictable ways. In this work, we investigate the validity of instead reformulating such tasks as modular neurosymbolic programming, which we call LINC: Logical Inference via Neurosymbolic Computation. In LINC, the LLM acts as a semantic parser, translating premises and conclusions from natural language to expressions in first-order logic. These expressions are then offloaded to an external theorem prover, which symbolically performs deductive inference. Leveraging this approach, we observe significant performance gains on FOLIO and a balanced subset of ProofWriter for three different models in nearly all experimental conditions we evaluate. On ProofWriter, augmenting the comparatively small open-source StarCoder+ (15.5B parameters) with LINC even outperforms GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting by an absolute 38% and 10%, respectively. When used with GPT-4, LINC scores 26% higher than CoT on ProofWriter while performing comparatively on FOLIO. Further analysis reveals that although both methods on average succeed roughly equally often on this dataset, they exhibit distinct and complementary failure modes. We thus provide promising evidence for how logical reasoning over natural language can be tackled through jointly leveraging LLMs alongside symbolic provers. All corresponding code is publicly available at https://github.com/benlipkin/linc