In the last few years, many works have tried to explain the predictions of deep learning models. Few methods, however, have been proposed to verify the accuracy or faithfulness of these explanations. Recently, influence functions, which is a method that approximates the effect that leave-one-out training has on the loss function, has been shown to be fragile. The proposed reason for their fragility remains unclear. Although previous work suggests the use of regularization to increase robustness, this does not hold in all cases. In this work, we seek to investigate the experiments performed in the prior work in an effort to understand the underlying mechanisms of influence function fragility. First, we verify influence functions using procedures from the literature under conditions where the convexity assumptions of influence functions are met. Then, we relax these assumptions and study the effects of non-convexity by using deeper models and more complex datasets. Here, we analyze the key metrics and procedures that are used to validate influence functions. Our results indicate that the validation procedures may cause the observed fragility.
相關內容
Influence functions (IF) have been seen as a technique for explaining model predictions through the lens of the training data. Their utility is assumed to be in identifying training examples "responsible" for a prediction so that, for example, correcting a prediction is possible by intervening on those examples (removing or editing them) and retraining the model. However, recent empirical studies have shown that the existing methods of estimating IF predict the leave-one-out-and-retrain effect poorly. In order to understand the mismatch between the theoretical promise and the practical results, we analyse five assumptions made by IF methods which are problematic for modern-scale deep neural networks and which concern convexity, numeric stability, training trajectory and parameter divergence. This allows us to clarify what can be expected theoretically from IF. We show that while most assumptions can be addressed successfully, the parameter divergence poses a clear limitation on the predictive power of IF: influence fades over training time even with deterministic training. We illustrate this theoretical result with BERT and ResNet models. Another conclusion from the theoretical analysis is that IF are still useful for model debugging and correcting even though some of the assumptions made in prior work do not hold: using natural language processing and computer vision tasks, we verify that mis-predictions can be successfully corrected by taking only a few fine-tuning steps on influential examples.
Machine learning systems such as large scale recommendation systems or natural language processing systems are usually trained on billions of training points and are associated with hundreds of billions or trillions of parameters. Improving the learning process in such a way that both the training load is reduced and the model accuracy improved is highly desired. In this paper we take a first step toward solving this problem, studying influence functions from the perspective of simplifying the computations they involve. We discuss assumptions, under which influence computations can be performed on significantly fewer parameters. We also demonstrate that the sign of the influence value can indicate whether a training point is to memorize, as opposed to generalize upon. For this purpose we formally define what memorization means for a training point, as opposed to generalization. We conclude that influence functions can be made practical, even for large scale machine learning systems, and that influence values can be taken into account by algorithms that selectively remove training points, as part of the learning process.
An emerging method to cheaply improve a weaker language model is to finetune it on outputs from a stronger model, such as a proprietary system like ChatGPT (e.g., Alpaca, Self-Instruct, and others). This approach looks to cheaply imitate the proprietary model's capabilities using a weaker open-source model. In this work, we critically analyze this approach. We first finetune a series of LMs that imitate ChatGPT using varying base model sizes (1.5B--13B), data sources, and imitation data amounts (0.3M--150M tokens). We then evaluate the models using crowd raters and canonical NLP benchmarks. Initially, we were surprised by the output quality of our imitation models -- they appear far better at following instructions, and crowd workers rate their outputs as competitive with ChatGPT. However, when conducting more targeted automatic evaluations, we find that imitation models close little to none of the gap from the base LM to ChatGPT on tasks that are not heavily supported in the imitation data. We show that these performance discrepancies may slip past human raters because imitation models are adept at mimicking ChatGPT's style but not its factuality. Overall, we conclude that model imitation is a false promise: there exists a substantial capabilities gap between open and closed LMs that, with current methods, can only be bridged using an unwieldy amount of imitation data or by using more capable base LMs. In turn, we argue that the highest leverage action for improving open-source models is to tackle the difficult challenge of developing better base LMs, rather than taking the shortcut of imitating proprietary systems.
Reinforcement Learning (RL) is a powerful machine learning paradigm that has been applied in various fields such as robotics, natural language processing and game playing achieving state-of-the-art results. Targeted to solve sequential decision making problems, it is by design able to learn from experience and therefore adapt to changing dynamic environments. These capabilities make it a prime candidate for controlling and optimizing complex processes in industry. The key to fully exploiting this potential is the seamless integration of RL into existing industrial systems. The industrial communication standard Open Platform Communications UnifiedArchitecture (OPC UA) could bridge this gap. However, since RL and OPC UA are from different fields,there is a need for researchers to bridge the gap between the two technologies. This work serves to bridge this gap by providing a brief technical overview of both technologies and carrying out a semi-exhaustive literature review to gain insights on how RL and OPC UA are applied in combination. With this survey, three main research topics have been identified, following the intersection of RL with OPC UA. The results of the literature review show that RL is a promising technology for the control and optimization of industrial processes, but does not yet have the necessary standardized interfaces to be deployed in real-world scenarios with reasonably low effort.
Most state-of-the-art machine learning techniques revolve around the optimisation of loss functions. Defining appropriate loss functions is therefore critical to successfully solving problems in this field. We present a survey of the most commonly used loss functions for a wide range of different applications, divided into classification, regression, ranking, sample generation and energy based modelling. Overall, we introduce 33 different loss functions and we organise them into an intuitive taxonomy. Each loss function is given a theoretical backing and we describe where it is best used. This survey aims to provide a reference of the most essential loss functions for both beginner and advanced machine learning practitioners.
Reasoning is a fundamental aspect of human intelligence that plays a crucial role in activities such as problem solving, decision making, and critical thinking. In recent years, large language models (LLMs) have made significant progress in natural language processing, and there is observation that these models may exhibit reasoning abilities when they are sufficiently large. However, it is not yet clear to what extent LLMs are capable of reasoning. This paper provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge on reasoning in LLMs, including techniques for improving and eliciting reasoning in these models, methods and benchmarks for evaluating reasoning abilities, findings and implications of previous research in this field, and suggestions on future directions. Our aim is to provide a detailed and up-to-date review of this topic and stimulate meaningful discussion and future work.
The notion of "in-domain data" in NLP is often over-simplistic and vague, as textual data varies in many nuanced linguistic aspects such as topic, style or level of formality. In addition, domain labels are many times unavailable, making it challenging to build domain-specific systems. We show that massive pre-trained language models implicitly learn sentence representations that cluster by domains without supervision -- suggesting a simple data-driven definition of domains in textual data. We harness this property and propose domain data selection methods based on such models, which require only a small set of in-domain monolingual data. We evaluate our data selection methods for neural machine translation across five diverse domains, where they outperform an established approach as measured by both BLEU and by precision and recall of sentence selection with respect to an oracle.
Over the past few years, we have seen fundamental breakthroughs in core problems in machine learning, largely driven by advances in deep neural networks. At the same time, the amount of data collected in a wide array of scientific domains is dramatically increasing in both size and complexity. Taken together, this suggests many exciting opportunities for deep learning applications in scientific settings. But a significant challenge to this is simply knowing where to start. The sheer breadth and diversity of different deep learning techniques makes it difficult to determine what scientific problems might be most amenable to these methods, or which specific combination of methods might offer the most promising first approach. In this survey, we focus on addressing this central issue, providing an overview of many widely used deep learning models, spanning visual, sequential and graph structured data, associated tasks and different training methods, along with techniques to use deep learning with less data and better interpret these complex models --- two central considerations for many scientific use cases. We also include overviews of the full design process, implementation tips, and links to a plethora of tutorials, research summaries and open-sourced deep learning pipelines and pretrained models, developed by the community. We hope that this survey will help accelerate the use of deep learning across different scientific domains.
This is a review of "The Book of Why", by Judea Pearl.
Lots of learning tasks require dealing with graph data which contains rich relation information among elements. Modeling physics system, learning molecular fingerprints, predicting protein interface, and classifying diseases require that a model to learn from graph inputs. In other domains such as learning from non-structural data like texts and images, reasoning on extracted structures, like the dependency tree of sentences and the scene graph of images, is an important research topic which also needs graph reasoning models. Graph neural networks (GNNs) are connectionist models that capture the dependence of graphs via message passing between the nodes of graphs. Unlike standard neural networks, graph neural networks retain a state that can represent information from its neighborhood with an arbitrary depth. Although the primitive graph neural networks have been found difficult to train for a fixed point, recent advances in network architectures, optimization techniques, and parallel computation have enabled successful learning with them. In recent years, systems based on graph convolutional network (GCN) and gated graph neural network (GGNN) have demonstrated ground-breaking performance on many tasks mentioned above. In this survey, we provide a detailed review over existing graph neural network models, systematically categorize the applications, and propose four open problems for future research.
注冊地址： 北京市海淀區羊坊店路18號2幢3層301-191