Language model prompt optimization research has shown that semantically and grammatically well-formed manually crafted prompts are routinely outperformed by automatically generated token sequences with no apparent meaning or syntactic structure, including sequences of vectors from a model's embedding space. We use machine-generated prompts to probe how models respond to input that is not composed of natural language expressions. We study the behavior of models of different sizes in multiple semantic tasks in response to both continuous and discrete machine-generated prompts, and compare it to the behavior in response to human-generated natural-language prompts. Even when producing a similar output, machine-generated and human prompts trigger different response patterns through the network processing pathways, including different perplexities, different attention and output entropy distributions, and different unit activation profiles. We provide preliminary insight into the nature of the units activated by different prompt types, suggesting that only natural language prompts recruit a genuinely linguistic circuit.

Catastrophic forgetting remains a severe hindrance to the broad application of artificial neural networks (ANNs), however, it continues to be a poorly understood phenomenon. Despite the extensive amount of work on catastrophic forgetting, we argue that it is still unclear how exactly the phenomenon should be quantified, and, moreover, to what degree all of the choices we make when designing learning systems affect the amount of catastrophic forgetting. We use various testbeds from the reinforcement learning and supervised learning literature to (1) provide evidence that the choice of which modern gradient-based optimization algorithm is used to train an ANN has a significant impact on the amount of catastrophic forgetting and show that--surprisingly--in many instances classical algorithms such as vanilla SGD experience less catastrophic forgetting than the more modern algorithms such as Adam. We empirically compare four different existing metrics for quantifying catastrophic forgetting and (2) show that the degree to which the learning systems experience catastrophic forgetting is sufficiently sensitive to the metric used that a change from one principled metric to another is enough to change the conclusions of a study dramatically. Our results suggest that a much more rigorous experimental methodology is required when looking at catastrophic forgetting. Based on our results, we recommend inter-task forgetting in supervised learning must be measured with both retention and relearning metrics concurrently, and intra-task forgetting in reinforcement learning must--at the very least--be measured with pairwise interference.

Sparse representations have been shown to be useful in deep reinforcement learning for mitigating catastrophic interference and improving the performance of agents in terms of cumulative reward. Previous results were based on a two step process were the representation was learned offline and the action-value function was learned online afterwards. In this paper, we investigate if it is possible to learn a sparse representation and the action-value function simultaneously and incrementally. We investigate this question by employing several regularization techniques and observing how they affect sparsity of the representation learned by a DQN agent in two different benchmark domains. Our results show that with appropriate regularization it is possible to increase the sparsity of the representations learned by DQN agents. Moreover, we found that learning sparse representations also resulted in improved performance in terms of cumulative reward. Finally, we found that the performance of the agents that learned a sparse representation was more robust to the size of the experience replay buffer. This last finding supports the long standing hypothesis that the overlap in representations learned by deep neural networks is the leading cause of catastrophic interference.