亚洲男人的天堂2018av,欧美草比,久久久久久免费视频精选,国色天香在线看免费,久久久久亚洲av成人片仓井空

Explainability methods are used to benchmark the extent to which model predictions align with human rationales i.e., are 'right for the right reasons'. Previous work has failed to acknowledge, however, that what counts as a rationale is sometimes subjective. This paper presents what we think is a first of its kind, a collection of human rationale annotations augmented with the annotators demographic information. We cover three datasets spanning sentiment analysis and common-sense reasoning, and six demographic groups (balanced across age and ethnicity). Such data enables us to ask both what demographics our predictions align with and whose reasoning patterns our models' rationales align with. We find systematic inter-group annotator disagreement and show how 16 Transformer-based models align better with rationales provided by certain demographic groups: We find that models are biased towards aligning best with older and/or white annotators. We zoom in on the effects of model size and model distillation, finding -- contrary to our expectations -- negative correlations between model size and rationale agreement as well as no evidence that either model size or model distillation improves fairness.

Is In-Context Learning (ICL) implicitly equivalent to Gradient Descent (GD)? Several recent works draw analogies between the dynamics of GD and the emergent behavior of ICL in large language models. However, these works make assumptions far from the realistic natural language setting in which language models are trained. Such discrepancies between theory and practice, therefore, necessitate further investigation to validate their applicability. We start by highlighting the weaknesses in prior works that construct Transformer weights to simulate gradient descent. Their experiments with training Transformers on ICL objective, inconsistencies in the order sensitivity of ICL and GD, sparsity of the constructed weights, and sensitivity to parameter changes are some examples of a mismatch from the real-world setting. Furthermore, we probe and compare the ICL vs. GD hypothesis in a natural setting. We conduct comprehensive empirical analyses on language models pretrained on natural data (LLaMa-7B). Our comparisons on various performance metrics highlight the inconsistent behavior of ICL and GD as a function of various factors such as datasets, models, and number of demonstrations. We observe that ICL and GD adapt the output distribution of language models differently. These results indicate that the equivalence between ICL and GD is an open hypothesis, requires nuanced considerations and calls for further studies.

Transformers pretrained on diverse tasks exhibit remarkable in-context learning (ICL) capabilities, enabling them to solve unseen tasks solely based on input contexts without adjusting model parameters. In this paper, we study ICL in one of its simplest setups: pretraining a linearly parameterized single-layer linear attention model for linear regression with a Gaussian prior. We establish a statistical task complexity bound for the attention model pretraining, showing that effective pretraining only requires a small number of independent tasks. Furthermore, we prove that the pretrained model closely matches the Bayes optimal algorithm, i.e., optimally tuned ridge regression, by achieving nearly Bayes optimal risk on unseen tasks under a fixed context length. These theoretical findings complement prior experimental research and shed light on the statistical foundations of ICL.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized natural language processing and demonstrated impressive capabilities in various tasks. Unfortunately, they are prone to hallucinations, where the model exposes incorrect or false information in its responses, which renders diligent evaluation approaches mandatory. While LLM performance in specific knowledge fields is often evaluated based on question and answer (Q&A) datasets, such evaluations usually report only a single accuracy number for the dataset, which often covers an entire field. This field-based evaluation, is problematic with respect to transparency and model improvement. A stratified evaluation could instead reveal subfields, where hallucinations are more likely to occur and thus help to better assess LLMs' risks and guide their further development. To support such stratified evaluations, we propose LLMMaps as a novel visualization technique that enables users to evaluate LLMs' performance with respect to Q&A datasets. LLMMaps provide detailed insights into LLMs' knowledge capabilities in different subfields, by transforming Q&A datasets as well as LLM responses into an internal knowledge structure. An extension for comparative visualization furthermore, allows for the detailed comparison of multiple LLMs. To assess LLMMaps we use them to conduct a comparative analysis of several state-of-the-art LLMs, such as BLOOM, GPT-2, GPT-3, ChatGPT and LLaMa-13B, as well as two qualitative user evaluations. All necessary source code and data for generating LLMMaps to be used in scientific publications and elsewhere is available on GitHub: //github.com/viscom-ulm/LLMMaps

There have been widespread claims about Large Language Models (LLMs) being able to successfully verify or self-critique their candidate solutions in reasoning problems in an iterative mode. Intrigued by those claims, in this paper we set out to investigate the verification/self-critiquing abilities of large language models in the context of planning. We evaluate a planning system that employs LLMs for both plan generation and verification. We assess the verifier LLM's performance against ground-truth verification, the impact of self-critiquing on plan generation, and the influence of varying feedback levels on system performance. Using GPT-4, a state-of-the-art LLM, for both generation and verification, our findings reveal that self-critiquing appears to diminish plan generation performance, especially when compared to systems with external, sound verifiers and the LLM verifiers in that system produce a notable number of false positives, compromising the system's reliability. Additionally, the nature of feedback, whether binary or detailed, showed minimal impact on plan generation. Collectively, our results cast doubt on the effectiveness of LLMs in a self-critiquing, iterative framework for planning tasks.

Multi-Label Text Classification (MLTC) aims to assign the most relevant labels to each given text. Existing methods demonstrate that label dependency can help to improve the model's performance. However, the introduction of label dependency may cause the model to suffer from unwanted prediction bias. In this study, we attribute the bias to the model's misuse of label dependency, i.e., the model tends to utilize the correlation shortcut in label dependency rather than fusing text information and label dependency for prediction. Motivated by causal inference, we propose a CounterFactual Text Classifier (CFTC) to eliminate the correlation bias, and make causality-based predictions. Specifically, our CFTC first adopts the predict-then-modify backbone to extract precise label information embedded in label dependency, then blocks the correlation shortcut through the counterfactual de-bias technique with the help of the human causal graph. Experimental results on three datasets demonstrate that our CFTC significantly outperforms the baselines and effectively eliminates the correlation bias in datasets.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in medical question answering by achieving passing scores in standardised exams and have been suggested as tools for supporting healthcare workers. Deploying LLMs into such a high-risk context requires a clear understanding of the limitations of these models. With the rapid development and release of new LLMs, it is especially valuable to identify patterns which exist across models and may, therefore, continue to appear in newer versions. In this paper, we evaluate a wide range of popular LLMs on their knowledge of medical questions in order to better understand their properties as a group. From this comparison, we provide preliminary observations and raise open questions for further research.

Large Language Models (LLMs), through their contextualized representations, have been empirically proven to encapsulate syntactic, semantic, word sense, and common-sense knowledge. However, there has been limited exploration of their physical reasoning abilities, specifically concerning the crucial attributes for comprehending everyday objects. To address this gap, we introduce NEWTON, a repository and benchmark for evaluating the physics reasoning skills of LLMs. Further, to enable domain-specific adaptation of this benchmark, we present a pipeline to enable researchers to generate a variant of this benchmark that has been customized to the objects and attributes relevant for their application. The NEWTON repository comprises a collection of 2800 object-attribute pairs, providing the foundation for generating infinite-scale assessment templates. The NEWTON benchmark consists of 160K QA questions, curated using the NEWTON repository to investigate the physical reasoning capabilities of several mainstream language models across foundational, explicit, and implicit reasoning tasks. Through extensive empirical analysis, our results highlight the capabilities of LLMs for physical reasoning. We find that LLMs like GPT-4 demonstrate strong reasoning capabilities in scenario-based tasks but exhibit less consistency in object-attribute reasoning compared to humans (50% vs. 84%). Furthermore, the NEWTON platform demonstrates its potential for evaluating and enhancing language models, paving the way for their integration into physically grounded settings, such as robotic manipulation. Project site: //newtonreasoning.github.io

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown excellent generalization capabilities that have led to the development of numerous models. These models propose various new architectures, tweaking existing architectures with refined training strategies, increasing context length, using high-quality training data, and increasing training time to outperform baselines. Analyzing new developments is crucial for identifying changes that enhance training stability and improve generalization in LLMs. This survey paper comprehensively analyses the LLMs architectures and their categorization, training strategies, training datasets, and performance evaluations and discusses future research directions. Moreover, the paper also discusses the basic building blocks and concepts behind LLMs, followed by a complete overview of LLMs, including their important features and functions. Finally, the paper summarizes significant findings from LLM research and consolidates essential architectural and training strategies for developing advanced LLMs. Given the continuous advancements in LLMs, we intend to regularly update this paper by incorporating new sections and featuring the latest LLM models.

Compared with cheap addition operation, multiplication operation is of much higher computation complexity. The widely-used convolutions in deep neural networks are exactly cross-correlation to measure the similarity between input feature and convolution filters, which involves massive multiplications between float values. In this paper, we present adder networks (AdderNets) to trade these massive multiplications in deep neural networks, especially convolutional neural networks (CNNs), for much cheaper additions to reduce computation costs. In AdderNets, we take the $\ell_1$-norm distance between filters and input feature as the output response. The influence of this new similarity measure on the optimization of neural network have been thoroughly analyzed. To achieve a better performance, we develop a special back-propagation approach for AdderNets by investigating the full-precision gradient. We then propose an adaptive learning rate strategy to enhance the training procedure of AdderNets according to the magnitude of each neuron's gradient. As a result, the proposed AdderNets can achieve 74.9% Top-1 accuracy 91.7% Top-5 accuracy using ResNet-50 on the ImageNet dataset without any multiplication in convolution layer.