CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 32Topic ModelingDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningNatural Language Processing Techniques

Why Do Pretrained Language Models Help in Downstream Tasks? An Analysis of Head and Prompt Tuning

Open access
Wei, Colin, Xie, Sang Michael, Ma, Tengyu·2021·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2106.09226arXiv 2106.09226
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Pretrained language models have achieved state-of-the-art performance when adapted to a downstream NLP task. However, theoretical analysis of these models is scarce and challenging since the pretraining and downstream tasks can be very different. We propose an analysis framework that links the pretraining and downstream tasks with an underlying latent variable generative model of text -- the downstream classifier must recover a function of the posterior distribution over the latent variables. We analyze head tuning (learning a classifier on top of the frozen pretrained model) and prompt tuning in this setting. The generative model in our analysis is either a Hidden Markov Model (HMM) or an HMM augmented with a latent memory component, motivated by long-term dependencies in natural language. We show that 1) under certain non-degeneracy conditions on the HMM, simple classification heads can solve the downstream task, 2) prompt tuning obtains downstream guarantees with weaker non-degeneracy conditions, and 3) our recovery guarantees for the memory-augmented HMM are stronger than for the vanilla HMM because task-relevant information is easier to recover from the long-term memory. Experiments on synthetically generated data from HMMs back our theoretical findings.

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.2106.09226

Cites

9 of 9 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?

  • The idea of unifying multiple NLP tasks into a QA framework has been further explored in information extraction and text classification.

    “Later, this idea has been further explored in information extraction [70,142] and text classification [12].”

    From Pre-train, Prompt, and Predict: A Systematic Survey of Prompting Methods in Natural Language Processing (2023) · cites this paper as [142]

    The Abstract (p. 1) and Formulations and notations (p. 3) describe downstream classification using head and prompt tuning, but do not describe recasting text classification as question answering. A search for QA reformulation found no passage in our copy addressing that attributed idea. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 32

  1. [1][1] Sanjeev Arora, Hrishikesh Khandeparkar, Mikhail Khodak, Orestis Plevrakis, and Nikunj Saunshi. A theoretical analysis of contrastive unsupervised representation learning. In International Conference on Machine Learning , 2019. -
  2. [2][2] Xiang Chen, Xin Xie, Ningyu Zhang, Jiahuan Yan, Shumin Deng, Chuanqi Tan, Fei Huang, Luo Si, and Huajun Chen. Adaprompt: Adaptive prompt-based finetuning for relation extraction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.07650 , 2021. - · arXiv
  3. [3][3] Justin T Chiu and Alexander M Rush. Scaling hidden markov language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.04640 , 2020. - · arXiv
  4. [6][6] Tianyu Gao, Adam Fisch, and Danqi Chen. Making pre-trained language models better few-shot learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.15723 , 2020. - · arXiv
  5. [7][7] Mario Giulianelli, Jack Harding, Florian Mohnert, Dieuwke Hupkes, and Willem Zuidema. Under the hood: Using diagnostic classifiers to investigate and improve how language models track agreement information. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.08079 , 2018. - · arXiv
  6. [8][8] Amit Gruber, Yair Weiss, and Michal Rosen-Zvi. Hidden topic markov models. In Artificial intelligence and statistics , pages 163-170. PMLR, 2007. -
  7. [11][11] John Hewitt and Christopher D Manning. A structural probe for finding syntax in word representations. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers) , pages 4129-4138, 2019. -
  8. [12][12] Ganesh Jawahar, Benoît Sagot, and Djamé Seddah. What does bert learn about the structure of language? In ACL 2019-57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , 2019. -
  9. [15][15] Taeuk Kim, Jihun Choi, Daniel Edmiston, and Sang-goo Lee. Are pre-trained language models aware of phrases? simple but strong baselines for grammar induction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.00737 , 2020. - · arXiv
  10. [16][16] Daphne Koller and Nir Friedman. Probabilistic graphical models: principles and techniques . MIT press, 2009. -
  11. [17][17] Ananya Kumar, Aditi Raghunathan, Robbie Jones, Tengyu Ma, and Percy Liang. Fine-tuning can distort pretrained features and underperform out-of-distribution. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.10054 , 2022. - · arXiv
  12. [18][18] Julian Kupiec. Robust part-of-speech tagging using a hidden markov model. Computer speech & language , 6(3):225-242, 1992. -
  13. [19][19] Jason D Lee, Qi Lei, Nikunj Saunshi, and Jiacheng Zhuo. Predicting what you already know helps: Provable self-supervised learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.01064 , 2020. - · arXiv
  14. [21][21] Yoav Levine, Barak Lenz, Opher Lieber, Omri Abend, Kevin Leyton-Brown, Moshe Tennenholtz, and Yoav Shoham. Pmi-masking: Principled masking of correlated spans. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.01825 , 2020. - · arXiv
  15. [25][25] Guanghui Qin and Jason Eisner. Learning how to ask: Querying lms with mixtures of soft prompts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.06599 , 2021. - · arXiv
  16. [26][26] Lawrence Rabiner and Biinghwang Juang. An introduction to hidden markov models. ieee assp magazine , 3(1):4-16, 1986. -
  17. [28][28] Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J Liu. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.10683 , 2019. - · arXiv
  18. [29][29] Anna Rogers, Olga Kovaleva, and Anna Rumshisky. A primer in bertology: What we know about how bert works. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics , 8:842-866, 2020. -
  19. [30][30] Nikunj Saunshi, Sadhika Malladi, and Sanjeev Arora. A mathematical exploration of why language models help solve downstream tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.03648 , 2020. - · arXiv
  20. [31][31] Timo Schick and Hinrich Schütze. Exploiting cloze questions for few shot text classification and natural language inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.07676 , 2020. - · arXiv
  21. [32][32] Timo Schick and Hinrich Schütze. It's not just size that matters: Small language models are also few-shot learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.07118 , 2020. - · arXiv
  22. [33][33] Taylor Shin, Yasaman Razeghi, Robert L Logan IV, Eric Wallace, and Sameer Singh. Autoprompt: Eliciting knowledge from language models with automatically generated prompts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.15980 , 2020. - · arXiv
  23. [34][34] Koustuv Sinha, Robin Jia, Dieuwke Hupkes, Joelle Pineau, Adina Williams, and Douwe Kiela. Masked language modeling and the distributional hypothesis: Order word matters pre-training for little. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.06644 , 2021. - · arXiv
  24. [35][35] Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, Arthur Szlam, Jason Weston, and Rob Fergus. End-to-end memory networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.08895 , 2015. - · arXiv
  25. [36][36] Ian Tenney, Dipanjan Das, and Ellie Pavlick. Bert rediscovers the classical nlp pipeline. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.05950 , 2019. - · arXiv
  26. [37][37] Ian Tenney, Patrick Xia, Berlin Chen, Alex Wang, Adam Poliak, R Thomas McCoy, Najoung Kim, Benjamin Van Durme, Samuel R Bowman, Dipanjan Das, et al. What do you learn from context? probing for sentence structure in contextualized word representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.06316 , 2019. - · arXiv
  27. [38][38] Christopher Tosh, Akshay Krishnamurthy, and Daniel Hsu. Contrastive estimation reveals topic posterior information to linear models. arXiv:2003.02234 , 2020. - · arXiv
  28. [39][39] Christopher Tosh, Akshay Krishnamurthy, and Daniel Hsu. Contrastive learning, multi-view redundancy, and linear models. In Algorithmic Learning Theory , pages 1179-1206. PMLR, 2021. -
  29. [40][40] Colin Wei, Kendrick Shen, Yining Chen, and Tengyu Ma. Theoretical analysis of self-training with deep networks on unlabeled data, 2020. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=rC8sJ4i6kaH . -
  30. [41][41] Jason Weston, Sumit Chopra, and Antoine Bordes. Memory networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1410.3916 , 2014. - · arXiv
  31. [42][42] Tianyi Zhang and Tatsunori Hashimoto. On the inductive bias of masked language modeling: From statistical to syntactic dependencies. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.05694 , 2021. - · arXiv
  32. [43][43] Zexuan Zhong, Dan Friedman, and Danqi Chen. Factual probing is [mask]: Learning vs. learning to recall. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.05240 , 2021. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wei, C., Xie, S. M., & Ma, T.
Affiliations
Stanford University (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2021
Volume
34
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2106.09226
arXiv
2106.09226
OpenAlex
W3166143997
Cited by
32
References
9
Citations by year
2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (2045685)
  • National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
pre-trained language models, prompt tuning, hidden Markov models, long-range dependencies, non-degeneracy condition, synthetic data

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