As large language models (LLMs) are widely applied across various fields, model compression has become increasingly crucial for reducing costs and improving inference efficiency. Post-training pruning is a promising method that does not require resource-intensive iterative training and only needs a small amount of calibration data to assess the importance of parameters. Previous research has primarily focused on designing advanced pruning methods, while different calibration data's impact on pruning performance still lacks systematical exploration. We fill this blank and surprisingly observe that the effects of calibration data even value more than designing advanced pruning strategies, especially for high sparsity. Our preliminary exploration also discloses that using calibration data similar to the training data can yield better performance. As pre-training data is usually inaccessible for advanced LLMs, we further provide a self-generating calibration data synthesis strategy to construct feasible calibration data. We conduct experiments on the recent strong open-source LLMs (e.g., DCLM, and LLaMA-3), and the results show that the proposed method outperforms commonly used calibration data and can effectively enhance strong pruning methods (e.g., Wanda, OWL).
相關內容
The proliferation of large language models has raised growing concerns about their misuse, particularly in cases where AI-generated text is falsely attributed to human authors. Machine-generated content detectors claim to effectively identify such text under various conditions and from any language model. This paper critically evaluates these claims by assessing several popular detectors (RADAR, Wild, T5Sentinel, Fast-DetectGPT, GPTID, LogRank, Binoculars) on a range of domains, datasets, and models that these detectors have not previously encountered. We employ various prompting strategies to simulate adversarial attacks, demonstrating that even moderate efforts can significantly evade detection. We emphasize the importance of the true positive rate at a specific false positive rate (TPR@FPR) metric and demonstrate that these detectors perform poorly in certain settings, with [email protected] as low as 0\%. Our findings suggest that both trained and zero-shot detectors struggle to maintain high sensitivity while achieving a reasonable true positive rate.
Generalization abilities of well-trained large language models (LLMs) are known to scale predictably as a function of model size. In contrast to the existence of practical scaling laws governing pre-training, the quality of LLMs after post-training compression remains highly unpredictable, often requiring case-by-case validation in practice. In this work, we attempted to close this gap for post-training weight quantization of LLMs by conducting a systematic empirical study on multiple LLM families quantized to numerous low-precision tensor data types using popular weight quantization techniques. We identified key scaling factors pertaining to characteristics of the local loss landscape, based on which the performance of quantized LLMs can be reasonably well predicted by a statistical model.
Understanding the internal computations of large language models (LLMs) is crucial for aligning them with human values and preventing undesirable behaviors like toxic content generation. However, mechanistic interpretability is hindered by polysemanticity -- where individual neurons respond to multiple, unrelated concepts. While Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) have attempted to disentangle these features through sparse dictionary learning, they have compromised LLM performance due to reliance on post-hoc reconstruction loss. To address this issue, we introduce Mixture of Monosemantic Experts for Transformers (Monet) architecture, which incorporates sparse dictionary learning directly into end-to-end Mixture-of-Experts pretraining. Our novel expert decomposition method enables scaling the expert count to 262,144 per layer while total parameters scale proportionally to the square root of the number of experts. Our analyses demonstrate mutual exclusivity of knowledge across experts and showcase the parametric knowledge encapsulated within individual experts. Moreover, Monet allows knowledge manipulation over domains, languages, and toxicity mitigation without degrading general performance. Our pursuit of transparent LLMs highlights the potential of scaling expert counts to enhance} mechanistic interpretability and directly resect the internal knowledge to fundamentally adjust} model behavior. The source code and pretrained checkpoints are available at //github.com/dmis-lab/Monet.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed via public-facing interfaces to interact with millions of users, each with diverse preferences. Despite this, preference tuning of LLMs predominantly relies on reward models trained using binary judgments where annotators select the preferred choice out of pairs of model outputs. In this work, we argue that this reliance on binary choices does not capture the broader, aggregate preferences of the target user in real-world tasks. We propose a taxonomy that identifies two dimensions of subjectivity where different users disagree on the preferred output-namely, the Plurality of Responses to Prompts, where prompts allow for multiple correct answers, and the Indistinguishability of Responses, where candidate outputs are paraphrases of each other. We show that reward models correlate weakly with user preferences in these cases. As a first step to address this issue, we introduce a simple yet effective method that augments existing binary preference datasets with synthetic preference judgments to estimate potential user disagreement. Incorporating these via a margin term as a form of regularization during model training yields predictions that better align with the aggregate user preferences.
When developing Bayesian hierarchical models, selecting the most appropriate hierarchical structure can be a challenging task, and visualisation remains an underutilised tool in this context. In this paper, we consider visualisations for the display of hierarchical models in data space and compare a collection of multiple models via their parameters and hyper-parameter estimates. Specifically, with the aim of aiding model choice, we propose new visualisations to explore how the choice of Bayesian hierarchical modelling structure impacts parameter distributions. The visualisations are designed using a robust set of principles to provide richer comparisons that extend beyond the conventional plots and numerical summaries typically used. As a case study, we investigate five Bayesian hierarchical models fit using the brms R package, a high-level interface to Stan for Bayesian modelling, to model country mathematics trends from the PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) database. Our case study demonstrates that by adhering to these principles, researchers can create visualisations that not only help them make more informed choices between Bayesian hierarchical model structures but also enable them to effectively communicate the rationale for those choices.
Multimodal models typically combine a powerful large language model (LLM) with a vision encoder and are then trained on multimodal data via instruction tuning. While this process adapts LLMs to multimodal settings, it remains unclear whether this adaptation compromises their original language reasoning capabilities. In this work, we explore the effects of multimodal instruction tuning on language reasoning performance. We focus on LLaVA, a leading multimodal framework that integrates LLMs such as Vicuna or Mistral with the CLIP vision encoder. We compare the performance of the original LLMs with their multimodal-adapted counterparts across eight language reasoning tasks. Our experiments yield several key insights. First, the impact of multimodal learning varies between Vicuna and Mistral: we observe a degradation in language reasoning for Mistral but improvements for Vicuna across most tasks. Second, while multimodal instruction learning consistently degrades performance on mathematical reasoning tasks (e.g., GSM8K), it enhances performance on commonsense reasoning tasks (e.g., CommonsenseQA). Finally, we demonstrate that a training-free model merging technique can effectively mitigate the language reasoning degradation observed in multimodal-adapted Mistral and even improve performance on visual tasks.
Large language models are often ranked according to their level of alignment with human preferences -- a model is better than other models if its outputs are more frequently preferred by humans. One of the popular ways to elicit human preferences utilizes pairwise comparisons between the outputs provided by different models to the same inputs. However, since gathering pairwise comparisons by humans is costly and time-consuming, it has become a common practice to gather pairwise comparisons by a strong large language model -- a model strongly aligned with human preferences. Surprisingly, practitioners cannot currently measure the uncertainty that any mismatch between human and model preferences may introduce in the constructed rankings. In this work, we develop a statistical framework to bridge this gap. Given a (small) set of pairwise comparisons by humans and a large set of pairwise comparisons by a model, our framework provides a rank-set -- a set of possible ranking positions -- for each of the models under comparison. Moreover, it guarantees that, with a probability greater than or equal to a user-specified value, the rank-sets cover the true ranking consistent with the distribution of human pairwise preferences asymptotically. Using pairwise comparisons made by humans in the LMSYS Chatbot Arena platform and pairwise comparisons made by three strong large language models, we empirically demonstrate the effectivity of our framework and show that the rank-sets constructed using only pairwise comparisons by the strong large language models are often inconsistent with (the distribution of) human pairwise preferences.
The recent success of large language models (LLMs) trained on static, pre-collected, general datasets has sparked numerous research directions and applications. One such direction addresses the non-trivial challenge of integrating pre-trained LLMs into dynamic data distributions, task structures, and user preferences. Pre-trained LLMs, when tailored for specific needs, often experience significant performance degradation in previous knowledge domains -- a phenomenon known as "catastrophic forgetting". While extensively studied in the continual learning (CL) community, it presents new manifestations in the realm of LLMs. In this survey, we provide a comprehensive overview of the current research progress on LLMs within the context of CL. This survey is structured into four main sections: we first describe an overview of continually learning LLMs, consisting of two directions of continuity: vertical continuity (or vertical continual learning), i.e., continual adaptation from general to specific capabilities, and horizontal continuity (or horizontal continual learning), i.e., continual adaptation across time and domains (Section 3). We then summarize three stages of learning LLMs in the context of modern CL: Continual Pre-Training (CPT), Domain-Adaptive Pre-training (DAP), and Continual Fine-Tuning (CFT) (Section 4). Then we provide an overview of evaluation protocols for continual learning with LLMs, along with the current available data sources (Section 5). Finally, we discuss intriguing questions pertaining to continual learning for LLMs (Section 6). The full list of papers examined in this survey is available at //github.com/Wang-ML-Lab/llm-continual-learning-survey.
As artificial intelligence (AI) models continue to scale up, they are becoming more capable and integrated into various forms of decision-making systems. For models involved in moral decision-making, also known as artificial moral agents (AMA), interpretability provides a way to trust and understand the agent's internal reasoning mechanisms for effective use and error correction. In this paper, we provide an overview of this rapidly-evolving sub-field of AI interpretability, introduce the concept of the Minimum Level of Interpretability (MLI) and recommend an MLI for various types of agents, to aid their safe deployment in real-world settings.
Large language models (LLMs) have significantly advanced the field of natural language processing (NLP), providing a highly useful, task-agnostic foundation for a wide range of applications. The great promise of LLMs as general task solvers motivated people to extend their functionality largely beyond just a ``chatbot'', and use it as an assistant or even replacement for domain experts and tools in specific domains such as healthcare, finance, and education. However, directly applying LLMs to solve sophisticated problems in specific domains meets many hurdles, caused by the heterogeneity of domain data, the sophistication of domain knowledge, the uniqueness of domain objectives, and the diversity of the constraints (e.g., various social norms, cultural conformity, religious beliefs, and ethical standards in the domain applications). To fill such a gap, explosively-increase research, and practices have been conducted in very recent years on the domain specialization of LLMs, which, however, calls for a comprehensive and systematic review to better summarizes and guide this promising domain. In this survey paper, first, we propose a systematic taxonomy that categorizes the LLM domain-specialization techniques based on the accessibility to LLMs and summarizes the framework for all the subcategories as well as their relations and differences to each other. We also present a comprehensive taxonomy of critical application domains that can benefit from specialized LLMs, discussing their practical significance and open challenges. Furthermore, we offer insights into the current research status and future trends in this area.
小貼士
登錄享
注冊地址： 北京市海淀區羊坊店路18號2幢3層301-191