CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 508Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesGenerative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis

Plug and Play Language Models: A Simple Approach to Controlled Text Generation

Open access
Dathathri, Sumanth, Madotto, Andrea, Lan, Janice, Hung, Jane, Frank, Eric, Molino, Piero, Yosinski, Jason, Liu, Rosanne·2019·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1912.02164arXiv 1912.02164
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Large transformer-based language models (LMs) trained on huge text corpora have shown unparalleled generation capabilities. However, controlling attributes of the generated language (e.g. switching topic or sentiment) is difficult without modifying the model architecture or fine-tuning on attribute-specific data and entailing the significant cost of retraining. We propose a simple alternative: the Plug and Play Language Model (PPLM) for controllable language generation, which combines a pretrained LM with one or more simple attribute classifiers that guide text generation without any further training of the LM. In the canonical scenario we present, the attribute models are simple classifiers consisting of a user-specified bag of words or a single learned layer with 100,000 times fewer parameters than the LM. Sampling entails a forward and backward pass in which gradients from the attribute model push the LM's hidden activations and thus guide the generation. Model samples demonstrate control over a range of topics and sentiment styles, and extensive automated and human annotated evaluations show attribute alignment and fluency. PPLMs are flexible in that any combination of differentiable attribute models may be used to steer text generation, which will allow for diverse and creative applications beyond the examples given in this paper.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1912.02164

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Gendered and racial disparities have been documented in a number of language technologies.

    “Unsurprisingly, gendered and racial disparities have been documented in a number of language technologies [37, 79, 141]”

    From Data Governance in the Age of Large-Scale Data-Driven Language Technology (2022) · cites this paper as [37]

    Section 4.4, “Language Detoxification” (page unavailable), says language models reflect biases and reports racist GPT-2 output and toxicity measurements for prompts referring to racial or ethnic groups. It does not document gender disparities or disparities across a number of language technologies, so it supports only part of the cited claim. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The idea of activation perturbation can be traced back to plug-and-play controllable text generation methods, which require repeated forward and backward propagation.

    “The idea of activation perturbation can be traced back to plug-and-play controllable text generation methods (Dathathri et al., 2019; Krause et al., 2020; Li et al., 2022), which require repeated forward and backward propagation.”

    From Inference-Time Intervention: Eliciting Truthful Answers from a Language Model (2023) · cites this paper as Dathathri et al., 2019

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 45

  1. Ashutosh Baheti, Alan Ritter, Jiwei Li, and Bill Dolan. Generating more interesting responses in neural conversation models with distributional constraints. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pp. 3970-3980, 2018.
  2. Yoshua Bengio, Réjean Ducharme, Pascal Vincent, and Christian Jauvin. A neural probabilistic language model. Journal of machine learning research , 3(Feb):1137-1155, 2003.
  3. Yun Chen, Victor OK Li, Kyunghyun Cho, and Samuel R Bowman. A stable and effective learning strategy for trainable greedy decoding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.07915 , 2018. · arXiv
  4. Ning Dai, Jianze Liang, Xipeng Qiu, and Xuanjing Huang. Style transformer: Unpaired text style transfer without disentangled latent representation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.05621 , 2019a. · arXiv
  5. Zihang Dai, Zhilin Yang, Yiming Yang, William W Cohen, Jaime Carbonell, Quoc V Le, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. Transformer-xl: Attentive language models beyond a fixed-length context. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.02860 , 2019b. · arXiv
  6. Javid Ebrahimi, Anyi Rao, Daniel Lowd, and Dejing Dou. HotFlip: White-box adversarial examples for text classification. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers) , pp. 31-36, Melbourne, Australia, July 2018. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/P18-2006. URL https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P18-2006 . · DOI
  7. Yanai Elazar and Yoav Goldberg. Adversarial removal of demographic attributes from text data. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pp. 11-21, Brussels, Belgium, October-November 2018. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/D18-1002. URL https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/ D18-1002 . · DOI
  8. Jessica Ficler and Yoav Goldberg. Controlling linguistic style aspects in neural language generation. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Stylistic Variation , pp. 94-104, 2017.
  9. Marjan Ghazvininejad, Xing Shi, Jay Priyadarshi, and Kevin Knight. Hafez: an interactive poetry generation system. In Proceedings of ACL 2017, System Demonstrations , pp. 43-48, Vancouver, Canada, July 2017. Association for Computational Linguistics. URL https://www.aclweb. org/anthology/P17-4008 .
  10. Jiatao Gu, Graham Neubig, Kyunghyun Cho, and Victor OK Li. Learning to translate in real-time with neural machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.00388 , 2016. · arXiv
  11. Jiatao Gu, Kyunghyun Cho, and Victor OK Li. Trainable greedy decoding for neural machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.02429 , 2017. · arXiv
  12. Ari Holtzman, Jan Buys, Maxwell Forbes, Antoine Bosselut, David Golub, and Yejin Choi. Learning to write with cooperative discriminators. CoRR , abs/1805.06087, 2018. URL http://arxiv. org/abs/1805.06087 . · arXiv
  13. Zhiting Hu, Zichao Yang, Xiaodan Liang, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Eric P. Xing. Controllable text generation. CoRR , abs/1703.00955, 2017. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1703.00955 . · arXiv
  14. Nitish Shirish Keskar, Bryan McCann, Lav Varshney, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. CTRL -A Conditional Transformer Language Model for Controllable Generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909 , 2019.
  15. Yuta Kikuchi, Graham Neubig, Ryohei Sasano, Hiroya Takamura, and Manabu Okumura. Controlling output length in neural encoder-decoders. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pp. 1328-1338, Austin, Texas, November 2016. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/D16-1140. URL https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/D16-1140 . · DOI · Paper page
  16. Guillaume Lample, Sandeep Subramanian, Eric Smith, Ludovic Denoyer, Marc'Aurelio Ranzato, and Y-Lan Boureau. Multiple-attribute text rewriting. In International Conference on Learning Representations , 2019. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=H1g2NhC5KQ .
  17. Jiwei Li, Michel Galley, Chris Brockett, Jianfeng Gao, and Bill Dolan. A Diversity-Promoting Objective Function for Neural Conversation Models. arXiv e-prints , art. arXiv:1510.03055, Oct 2015. · arXiv
  18. Juncen Li, Robin Jia, He He, and Percy Liang. Delete, retrieve, generate: A simple approach to sentiment and style transfer. CoRR , abs/1804.06437, 2018. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/ 1804.06437 . · arXiv
  19. Chia-Wei Liu, Ryan Lowe, Iulian Serban, Mike Noseworthy, Laurent Charlin, and Joelle Pineau. Hownot to evaluate your dialogue system: An empirical study of unsupervised evaluation metrics for dialogue response generation. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pp. 2122-2132, 2016.
  20. Fuli Luo, Damai Dai, Pengcheng Yang, Tianyu Liu, Baobao Chang, Zhifang Sui, and Xu Sun. Learning to control the fine-grained sentiment for story ending generation. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pp. 6020-6026, 2019.
  21. Andrew L. Maas, Raymond E. Daly, Peter T. Pham, Dan Huang, Andrew Y. Ng, and Christopher Potts. Learning word vectors for sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies , pp. 142-150, Portland, Oregon, USA, June 2011. Association for Computational Linguistics. URL http: //www.aclweb.org/anthology/P11-1015 .
  22. Christopher D Manning, Christopher D Manning, and Hinrich Schütze. Foundations of statistical natural language processing . MIT press, 1999.
  23. Nicholas Metropolis, Arianna W Rosenbluth, Marshall N Rosenbluth, Augusta H Teller, and Edward Teller. Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines. The journal of chemical physics , 21(6):1087-1092, 1953.
  24. Nathan Ng, Kyra Yee, Alexei Baevski, Myle Ott, Michael Auli, and Sergey Edunov. Facebook fair's wmt19 news translation task submission. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.06616 , 2019. · arXiv
  25. Anh Nguyen, Jason Yosinski, and Jeff Clune. Deep neural networks are easily fooled: High confidence predictions for unrecognizable images. The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , June 2015.
  26. Anh Nguyen, Jeff Clune, Yoshua Bengio, Alexey Dosovitskiy, and Jason Yosinski. Plug & Play Generative Networks: Conditional Iterative Generation of Images in Latent Space. In The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , July 2017.
  27. Nanyun Peng, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Jonathan May, and Kevin Knight. Towards controllable story generation. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Storytelling , pp. 43-49, 2018.
  28. Martin Potthast, Tim Gollub, Kristof Komlossy, Sebastian Schuster, Matti Wiegmann, Erika Patricia Garces Fernandez, Matthias Hagen, and Benno Stein. Crowdsourcing a large corpus of clickbait on twitter. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics , pp. 1498-1507, 2018.
  29. Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI Blog , 1(8), 2019.
  30. Gareth O Roberts and Jeffrey S Rosenthal. Optimal scaling of discrete approximations to langevin diffusions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) , 60(1): 255-268, 1998.
  31. Gareth O Roberts, Richard L Tweedie, et al. Exponential convergence of langevin distributions and their discrete approximations. Bernoulli , 2(4):341-363, 1996.
  32. Abigail See, Stephen Roller, Douwe Kiela, and Jason Weston. What makes a good conversation? How controllable attributes affect human judgments. arXiv e-prints , art. arXiv:1902.08654, Feb 2019. · arXiv
  33. Tianxiao Shen, Tao Lei, Regina Barzilay, and Tommi S. Jaakkola. Style transfer from non-parallel text by cross-alignment. CoRR , abs/1705.09655, 2017. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/ 1705.09655 . · arXiv
  34. Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, Jean Wu, Jason Chuang, Christopher D. Manning, Andrew Ng, and Christopher Potts. Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pp. 1631-1642, Seattle, Washington, USA, October 2013. Association for Computational Linguistics. URL https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/D13-1170 .
  35. Felix Stahlberg, James Cross, and Veselin Stoyanov. Simple fusion: Return of the language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.00125 , 2018. · arXiv
  36. Nishant Subramani, Sam Bowman, and Kyunghyun Cho. Can unconditional language models recover arbitrary sentences? arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.04944 , 2019. · arXiv
  37. Christian Szegedy, Wojciech Zaremba, Ilya Sutskever, Joan Bruna, Dumitru Erhan, Ian J. Goodfellow, and Rob Fergus. Intriguing properties of neural networks. CoRR , abs/1312.6199, 2013. · arXiv
  38. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pp. 6000-6010, 2017.
  39. Eric Wallace, Shi Feng, Nikhil Kandpal, Matt Gardner, and Sameer Singh. Universal adversarial triggers for nlp. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.07125 , 2019. · arXiv
  40. Ronald J Williams. Simple statistical gradient-following algorithms for connectionist reinforcement learning. Machine learning , 8(3-4):229-256, 1992.
  41. Lili Yao, Nanyun Peng, Ralph Weischedel, Kevin Knight, Dongyan Zhao, and Rui Yan. Plan-andwrite: Towards better automatic storytelling. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume 33, pp. 7378-7385, 2019.
  42. Kyra Yee, Nathan Ng, Yann N Dauphin, and Michael Auli. Simple and effective noisy channel modeling for neural machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.05731 , 2019. · arXiv
  43. Lantao Yu, Weinan Zhang, Jun Wang, and Yong Yu. Seqgan: Sequence generative adversarial nets with policy gradient. In Thirty-First AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 2017.
  44. Lei Yu, Phil Blunsom, Chris Dyer, Edward Grefenstette, and Tomas Kocisky. The neural noisy channel. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.02554 , 2016. · arXiv
  45. Lei Yu, Laurent Sartran, Wojciech Stokowiec, Wang Ling, Lingpeng Kong, Phil Blunsom, and Chris Dyer. Putting machine translation in context with the noisy channel model. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.00553 , 2019. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dathathri, S., Madotto, A., Lan, J., Hung, J., Frank, E., Molino, P., Yosinski, J., & Liu, R.
Affiliations
  • Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HK)
  • Meta (Israel) (IL)
  • Broad Institute (US)
  • Uber AI (United States) (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2019
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1912.02164
arXiv
1912.02164
OpenAlex
W2993398598
Cited by
508
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 55 · 2023: 131 · 2022: 105 · 2021: 110 · 2020: 73 · 2019: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Rare & Special e-Zone (The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Generative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis
Keywords
controllable text generation, topic management, sentiment control, pre-trained language models, topic alignment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review