L LEMMA: Revolutionizing Mathematical Reasoning

Source: arxiv.org - PDF - 13,534 words - view

Introduction

• L LEMMA is a powerful language model for mathematics

• Outperforms other models on mathematical problem-solving tasks

• Trained on scientific papers, web data, and mathematical code

Unmatched Performance

• L LEMMA surpasses all known open base models on the MATH benchmark

• Capable of tool use and formal theorem proving without further fine-tuning

• Provides accurate and efficient solutions to complex mathematical problems

Open Release

• L LEMMA models, including 7 billion and 34 billion parameter models, are openly available

• Encourages further research in mathematical reasoning

• Promotes collaboration and innovation within the professional community

Proof-Pile-2 Dataset

• Created for training and fine-tuning large language models in mathematics

• Includes mathematical code, ArXiv papers, and web content from OpenWebMath

• Ensures comprehensive coverage of diverse mathematical concepts

Extensive Training Data

• Proof-Pile-2 dataset consists of scientific papers, web data, and mathematical code

• AlgebraicStack dataset contains 11 billion tokens of code specifically related to mathematics

• OpenWebMath dataset provides high-quality web pages filtered for mathematical content

Training Process

• L LEMMA models are initialized from Code Llama and further trained on Proof-Pile-2

• Autoregressive language modeling objective enhances mathematical reasoning capabilities

• Training performed using bfloat16 mixed precision and Tensor Parallelism across multiple GPUs

Superior Performance Evaluation

• L LEMMA outperforms other models on various mathematical problem-solving benchmarks

• Demonstrates the ability to use computational tools in solving mathematical problems

• Shows promising results in few-shot tool use and formal theorem proving

Optimal Data Mixture

• Mixture ratio of 2:4:1 (arXiv:Web:Code) yields the best performance for L LEMMA

• Carefully balanced combination of scientific papers, web data, and mathematical code

• Maximizes the model’s understanding and application of diverse mathematical concepts

Transparent Dataset Creation

• Proof-Pile-2 dataset created by the authors and funded by grants and employers

• Self-contained and does not rely on external resources

• Preprocessing and cleaning ensure high-quality language modeling data in mathematics

Dataset Availability and Usage

• Proof-Pile-2 dataset distributed under applicable terms of use via the HuggingFace Hub

• Used for training language models in proof autoformalization and theorem proving

• Can be utilized for general-purpose language modeling and other mathematics-related tasks

Ongoing Maintenance and Contributions

• Authors support maintenance of the dataset and can be contacted for inquiries

• Dataset will not be updated, but others can contribute using the provided codebase

• Extending or augmenting the dataset fosters continuous improvement and collaboration

Datasheet for Transparency

• Datasheet provides detailed information about Proof-Pile-2 dataset

• Composition, collection process, preprocessing, and distribution outlined

• Facilitates understanding and usage of the dataset, ensuring transparency

Empowering Mathematical Reasoning with L LEMMA

• L LEMMA revolutionizes mathematical reasoning with unmatched performance

• Openly available models and Proof-Pile-2 dataset drive research and collaboration

• Harness the power of L LEMMA for accurate, efficient, and innovative mathematical problem-solving.

Continuous Number Encoding for Large Language Models

Source: arxiv.org - PDF - 9,059 words - view

Introducing XVAL

• XVAL is a novel numerical encoding scheme for Large Language Models (LLMs)

• It addresses the challenges of tokenizing numbers in scientific datasets

• XVAL proposes a continuous number encoding approach that represents real numbers using a single token

Token Efficiency and Minimal Vocabulary Footprint

• XVAL provides a token-efficient and minimal vocabulary footprint representation

• It scales a dedicated embedding vector by the number value, resulting in efficient encoding

• This approach outperforms other encoding schemes in terms of token efficiency

Improved Generalization and Performance

• XVAL demonstrates improved generalization and performance compared to existing schemes

• It shows superior performance in synthetic and real-world datasets

• XVAL outperforms other encodings in temperature forecasting, avoiding spurious correlations

In-distribution and Out-of-distribution Performance

• XVAL offers the best mix of in-distribution and out-of-distribution performance among encoding schemes

• It is computationally efficient, making it a practical choice for large language models

• XVAL provides the optimal balance between performance and efficiency

End-to-End Continuity for Scientific Applications

• XVAL makes LLMs end-to-end continuous when mapping input numbers to output numbers

• This feature makes XVAL more suitable for scientific applications

• It improves the model’s ability to handle numerical data in scientific domains

Choosing the Best Encoding Method

• The choice of the best encoding method depends on the problem under consideration

• XVAL offers a promising approach for numerical encoding in LLMs, but other factors should be considered

• The desired inductive bias should guide the selection of the encoding method

Enhancing XVAL's Performance

• XVAL can be further enhanced by incorporating other statistical learning schemes

• Adding a Gaussian Mixture Model or differentiable loss can optimize the LLM’s objective

• Using Fourier features on the logarithm of the number can improve XVAL’s dynamic range

Advancing Numerical Encoding with XVAL

• XVAL is a groundbreaking numerical encoding scheme for LLMs

• It offers superior performance, improved generalization, and efficient tokenization

• XVAL makes LLMs more suitable for scientific applications, enhancing their usefulness in data analysis and discovery.

Explaining Large Language Models with Self-Explanations

Source: arxiv.org - PDF - 10,546 words - view

Introduction

• Large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT can generate self-explanations along with their responses.

• Self-explanations provide insights into LLMs’ predictions.

• This study investigates the quality of self-explanations generated by ChatGPT.

• Comparison with traditional explanation methods such as occlusion and LIME saliency maps.

Quality of Self-Explanations

• ChatGPT’s self-explanations perform on par with traditional methods in terms of faithfulness.

• Notable differences in agreement metrics between self-explanations and traditional methods.

• Self-explanations are much cheaper to produce as they are generated along with the predictions.

Limitations of Evaluation Methods

• Current evaluation methods have limitations in assessing the effectiveness of self-explanations.

• Further research is needed to develop better evaluation methods.

• Importance of understanding the limitations and challenges in evaluating self-explanations.

Challenging Interpretability Practices

• ChatGPT’s self-explanations challenge current model interpretability practices.

• Rethinking the interpretability pipeline for large language models with human-like reasoning abilities.

• Implications for the field of interpretability research.

Experimental Methodology

• Auto-regressive LLMs, specifically ChatGPT, used for experiments.

• Prompting strategy and traditional interpretability methods (occlusion and LIME) explained.

• Evaluation metrics used to assess faithfulness and agreement of self-explanations.

Results on Sentiment Analysis

• Accuracy of models with self-explanation generation compared to models without any explanation generation.

• Trade-off between accuracy and interpretability.

• Performance comparison of self-explanations, occlusion, and LIME using evaluation metrics.

Key Findings - Self-Explanations

• No distinct advantage of any explanation over others in terms of faithfulness.

• High disagreement among explanations according to agreement metrics.

• Need for further research to uncover better explanations.

Unique Characteristics of ChatGPT

• Rounded prediction and word attribution values in ChatGPT.

• Lack of fine-grained variations in explanations and predictions.

• Implications for evaluation metrics and understanding ChatGPT behavior.

Conclusion and Future Directions

• Rigorous assessment of LLMs’ capability to self-generate explanations.

• Need for better ways of eliciting self-explanations and rethinking evaluation practices.

• Future research directions: evaluating other LLMs, exploring other types of explanations, and ensuring responsible use.

Key Takeaways

• Large language models like ChatGPT can generate self-explanations, providing insights into their predictions.

• Self-explanations perform on par with traditional methods but have notable differences in agreement metrics.

• Self-explanations are cost-effective and challenge current interpretability practices.

• Further research is needed to improve evaluation methods and understand LLM-generated explanations.

The Surveillance AI Pipeline: Uncovering the Expansion of Mass Surveillance

Source: arxiv.org - PDF - 13,440 words - view

Introduction

• The Surveillance AI Pipeline: Analyzing Research and Patents

• Uncovering the connection between computer vision research and surveillance technologies

• Emphasizing the need for regulation and public involvement

Computer Vision Research and Mass Surveillance

• Computer vision research in AI contributes to the expansion of mass surveillance

• Analysis of three decades of research papers and patents reveals prevalence of human data extraction

• Human bodies and body parts are the focus of data extraction in computer vision technology

Involvement of Elite Universities and Big Tech Corporations

• Elite universities and big tech corporations are implicated in surveillance patents

• Challenges the perception that only a few entities contribute to surveillance

• Prolific institutions, nations, and subfields author computer vision papers with downstream patents

Increase in Computer Vision Papers Used in Surveillance Patents

• Significant increase in the use of computer vision research in surveillance patents over the years

• More than five-fold increase between the 1990s and 2010s

• Shift towards analyzing humans and semantic categories in computer vision research

Obfuscation of Language in Computer Vision Documents

• Language in computer vision papers and patents downplays or hides the extent of surveillance

• Terms like “objects” used to refer to humans, minimizing acknowledgment of human data extraction

• Figures and datasets may contain images of humans without explicit mention or discussion

Foundational Role of Computer Vision in Surveillance AI

• Perception of computer vision research as a neutral pursuit is challenged

• Progress in computer vision is closely tied to the expansion of Surveillance AI

• Recognition of social and ethical implications of computer vision technologies is crucial

Insights into Institutions, Nations, and Subfields Involved in Surveillance Patents

• Study provides insights into institutions, nations, and subfields contributing to surveillance patents

• Majority of computer vision papers with downstream patents are used in surveillance patents

• Implications for communities, policymakers, researchers, and the public to organize against surveillance

Methodology

• Analysis of papers and patents from Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

• Data gathered using Microsoft Academic Graph, paper-patent citation linkages, and Google Patents

• Content analysis conducted by a team of experts using an inductive-deductive methodology

Large-Scale Computational Analysis

• Computational analysis of over 40,000 papers and patents

• Surveillance indicator words used to identify patents related to surveillance

• Changes in the focus of papers and patents over the years

Background on Surveillance and Computer Vision

• Surveillance as a technology of social control perpetuating inequalities

• Computer vision’s rapid rise and lack of considerations for consent, privacy, and negative stereotypes

• Criticisms of efficiency, universality, and impartiality in the field

Understanding the Surveillance AI Pipeline

• Computer vision research contributes to the expansion of mass surveillance

• Elite universities and big tech corporations are involved in surveillance patents

• Increase in computer vision papers used in surveillance patents over the years

• Obfuscation of language in computer vision documents downplays the extent of surveillance

• Recognizing the foundational role of computer vision in Surveillance AI is crucial

Unveiling the General Intelligence Factor in Language Models

Source: arxiv.org - PDF - 5,648 words - view

The Concept of General Intelligence

• General intelligence factor (g) explains positive correlation in performance across different subjects.

• g is a robust and reliable construct in humans, explaining more than 40% of the variance in cognitive ability tests.

• g has been found in non-human animals, such as rodents, non-human primates, and some bird species.

Hypotheses and Methodology

• Researchers aimed to uncover the existence of g in language models and explore its factor structure.

• Hypothesized hierarchical structure of g with lower-level factors.

• Positive correlation expected between model size and g.

Dataset and Test Battery

• Open LLM Leaderboard (1,232 models) and GLUE Leaderboard (88 models) used for factor analyses.

• Test battery of subtests assessed cognitive abilities of language models.

Results - Highly Stable g Factor

• Unidimensional g factor accounts for significant variance in model performance.

• Highly stable and invariant across different test batteries and extraction methods.

• Moderate positive correlation between model size and g.

Practical Implications - Unified Metric

• Discovery of g provides unified metric for evaluating language models’ capabilities.

• Objective comparisons between models and standardized measures of test relevance.

• Simplifies and makes model evaluation more resource-efficient.

Focus on g as Primary Metric

• Improvements in specific abilities may not necessarily enhance general intelligence.

• Crucial to focus on g as primary metric for evaluating advancements in language models.

Limitations of the Study

• Relatively small sample size for GLUE Leaderboard may impact robustness of results.

• Factor structure of intelligence in language models not definitively confirmed, leaving room for future research.

Future Research Directions

• Confirm true factor structure of intelligence in language models.

• Investigate other factors explaining variations in g.

• Identify tests with high g-loadings that are challenging to train for or easily detectable.

Additional Research Areas

• Explore impact of fine-tuning or reinforcement learning on general ability.

• Investigate relationship between general ability and measures of bias.

Conclusion

• This study lays foundation for understanding general intelligence in language models.

• Offers theoretical insights and practical applications for evaluating and developing these models.

• Opens up new avenues for future research.

Key Takeaways

• General intelligence factor (g) exists in language models.

• Highly stable g factor accounts for majority of variance in model performance.

• Focus on g as primary metric for evaluating advancements in language models is crucial.