oyvind tafjord
OLMoE: Open Mixture-of-Experts Language Models
Muennighoff, Niklas, Soldaini, Luca, Groeneveld, Dirk, Lo, Kyle, Morrison, Jacob, Min, Sewon, Shi, Weijia, Walsh, Pete, Tafjord, Oyvind, Lambert, Nathan, Gu, Yuling, Arora, Shane, Bhagia, Akshita, Schwenk, Dustin, Wadden, David, Wettig, Alexander, Hui, Binyuan, Dettmers, Tim, Kiela, Douwe, Farhadi, Ali, Smith, Noah A., Koh, Pang Wei, Singh, Amanpreet, Hajishirzi, Hannaneh
We introduce OLMoE, a fully open, state-of-the-art language model leveraging sparse Mixture-of-Experts (MoE). OLMoE-1B-7B has 7 billion (B) parameters but uses only 1B per input token. We pretrain it on 5 trillion tokens and further adapt it to create OLMoE-1B-7B-Instruct. Our models outperform all available models with similar active parameters, even surpassing larger ones like Llama2-13B-Chat and DeepSeekMoE-16B. We present various experiments on MoE training, analyze routing in our model showing high specialization, and open-source all aspects of our work: model weights, training data, code, and logs.
Entailer: Answering Questions with Faithful and Truthful Chains of Reasoning
Tafjord, Oyvind, Mishra, Bhavana Dalvi, Clark, Peter
Our goal is a question-answering (QA) system that can show how its answers are implied by its own internal beliefs via a systematic chain of reasoning. Such a capability would allow better understanding of why a model produced the answer it did. Our approach is to recursively combine a trained backward-chaining model, capable of generating a set of premises entailing an answer hypothesis, with a verifier that checks that the model itself believes those premises (and the entailment itself) through self-querying. To our knowledge, this is the first system to generate multistep chains that are both faithful (the answer follows from the reasoning) and truthful (the chain reflects the system's own internal beliefs). In evaluation using two different datasets, users judge that a majority (70%+) of generated chains clearly show how an answer follows from a set of facts - substantially better than a high-performance baseline - while preserving answer accuracy. By materializing model beliefs that systematically support an answer, new opportunities arise for understanding the model's system of belief, and diagnosing and correcting its misunderstandings when an answer is wrong.