CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 1

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

How do Language Models Bind Entities in Context?

Feng, Jiahai, Steinhardt, Jacob·2023·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2310.17191arXiv 2310.17191
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

To correctly use in-context information, language models (LMs) must bind entities to their attributes. For example, given a context describing a "green square" and a "blue circle", LMs must bind the shapes to their respective colors. We analyze LM representations and identify the binding ID mechanism: a general mechanism for solving the binding problem, which we observe in every sufficiently large model from the Pythia and LLaMA families. Using causal interventions, we show that LMs' internal activations represent binding information by attaching binding ID vectors to corresponding entities and attributes. We further show that binding ID vectors form a continuous subspace, in which distances between binding ID vectors reflect their discernability. Overall, our results uncover interpretable strategies in LMs for representing symbolic knowledge in-context, providing a step towards understanding general in-context reasoning in large-scale LMs.

Overview

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.2310.17191

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 32

  1. Yonatan Belinkov and James Glass. Analysis methods in neural language processing: A survey. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7:49-72, 2019. doi: 10.1162/ tacl a 00254. URL https://aclanthology.org/Q19-1004. · DOI
  2. Stella Biderman, Hailey Schoelkopf, Quentin Gregory Anthony, Herbie Bradley, Kyle O'Brien, Eric Hallahan, Mohammad Aflah Khan, Shivanshu Purohit, USVSN Sai Prashanth, Edward Raff, et al. Pythia: A suite for analyzing large language models across training and scaling. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 2397-2430. PMLR, 2023.
  3. Damai Dai, Li Dong, Yaru Hao, Zhifang Sui, and Furu Wei. Knowledge neurons in pretrained trans- formers. ArXiv, abs/2104.08696, 2021. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/ CorpusID:233296761. · arXiv
  4. Maria De-Arteaga, Alexey Romanov, Hanna Wallach, Jennifer Chayes, Christian Borgs, Alexandra Chouldechova, Sahin Geyik, Krishnaram Kenthapadi, and Adam Tauman Kalai. Bias in bios: A case study of semantic representation bias in a high-stakes setting. In proceedings of the Confer- ence on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pp. 120-128, 2019.
  5. Jerry A Fodor and Zenon W Pylyshyn. Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analy- sis. Cognition, 28(1-2):3-71, 1988.
  6. Atticus Geiger, Hanson Lu, Thomas Icard, and Christopher Potts. Causal abstractions of neural networks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:9574-9586, 2021.
  7. Mor Geva, R. Schuster, Jonathan Berant, and Omer Levy. Transformer feed-forward layers are key- value memories. ArXiv, abs/2012.14913, 2020. URL https://api.semanticscholar. org/CorpusID:229923720. · arXiv
  8. Dan Hendrycks, Nicholas Carlini, John Schulman, and Jacob Steinhardt. Unsolved problems in ml safety. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.13916, 2021. · arXiv
  9. Evan Hernandez, Sarah Schwettmann, David Bau, Teona Bagashvili, Antonio Torralba, and Jacob Andreas. Natural language descriptions of deep visual features. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021.
  10. Evan Hernandez, Belinda Z Li, and Jacob Andreas. Measuring and manipulating knowledge repre- sentations in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.00740, 2023a. · arXiv
  11. Evan Hernandez, Arnab Sen Sharma, Tal Haklay, Kevin Meng, Martin Wattenberg, Jacob Andreas, Yonatan Belinkov, and David Bau. Linearity of relation decoding in transformer language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.09124, 2023b. · arXiv
  12. John Hewitt and Percy Liang. Designing and interpreting probes with control tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.03368, 2019. · arXiv
  13. Najoung Kim and Sebastian Schuster. Entity tracking in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.02363, 2023. · arXiv
  14. Belinda Z Li, Maxwell Nye, and Jacob Andreas. Implicit representations of meaning in neural language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.00737, 2021. · arXiv
  15. Kenneth Li, Aspen K Hopkins, David Bau, Fernanda Viégas, Hanspeter Pfister, and Martin Watten- berg. Emergent world representations: Exploring a sequence model trained on a synthetic task. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.13382, 2022. · arXiv
  16. Kevin Meng, David Bau, Alex Andonian, and Yonatan Belinkov. Locating and editing factual associations in gpt. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:17359-17372, 2022.
  17. Tomáš Mikolov, Wen-tau Yih, and Geoffrey Zweig. Linguistic regularities in continuous space word representations. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference of the north american chapter of the association for computational linguistics: Human language technologies, pp. 746-751, 2013.
  18. Jesse Mu and Jacob Andreas. Compositional explanations of neurons. Advances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems, 33:17153-17163, 2020.
  19. Neel Nanda, Lawrence Chan, Tom Lieberum, Jess Smith, and Jacob Steinhardt. Progress measures for grokking via mechanistic interpretability. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learn- ing Representations, 2023. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=9XFSbDPmdW.
  20. Roma Patel and Ellie Pavlick. Mapping language models to grounded conceptual spaces. In Inter- national Conference on Learning Representations, 2021.
  21. Nikhil Prakash, Tamar Rott Shaham, Tal Haklay, Yonatan Belinkov, and David Bau. Fine-tuning enhances existing mechanisms: A case study on entity tracking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.14811, 2024. · arXiv
  22. Tilman Räuker, Anson Ho, Stephen Casper, and Dylan Hadfield-Menell. Toward transparent ai: A survey on interpreting the inner structures of deep neural networks. In 2023 IEEE Conference on Secure and Trustworthy Machine Learning (SaTML), pp. 464-483. IEEE, 2023.
  23. 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, 2021.
  24. 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 Computa- tional Linguistics. URL https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/D13-1170.
  25. Ian Tenney, Dipanjan Das, and Ellie Pavlick. Bert rediscovers the classical nlp pipeline. In Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics, 2019. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.05950. · arXiv
  26. Anne Treisman. The binding problem. Current opinion in neurobiology, 6(2):171-178, 1996.
  27. Jesse Vig, Sebastian Gehrmann, Yonatan Belinkov, Sharon Qian, Daniel Nevo, Yaron Singer, and Stuart Shieber. Investigating gender bias in language models using causal mediation analysis. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:12388-12401, 2020a.
  28. Jesse Vig, Sebastian Gehrmann, Yonatan Belinkov, Sharon Qian, Daniel Nevo, Yaron Singer, and Stuart Shieber. Investigating gender bias in language models using causal mediation analysis. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:12388-12401, 2020b.
  29. Kevin Wang, Alexandre Variengien, Arthur Conmy, Buck Shlegeris, and Jacob Steinhardt. Inter- pretability in the wild: A circuit for indirect object identification in gpt-2 small. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.00593, 2022. · arXiv
  30. Yizhong Wang, Hamish Ivison, Pradeep Dasigi, Jack Hessel, Tushar Khot, Khyathi Raghavi Chandu, David Wadden, Kelsey MacMillan, Noah A Smith, Iz Beltagy, et al. How far can camels go? exploring the state of instruction tuning on open resources. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.04751, 2023. · arXiv
  31. Zhengxuan Wu, Atticus Geiger, Christopher Potts, and Noah D Goodman. Interpretability at scale: Identifying causal mechanisms in alpaca. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.08809, 2023. · arXiv
  32. Zihao Zhao, Eric Wallace, Shi Feng, Dan Klein, and Sameer Singh. Calibrate before use: Improving few-shot performance of language models. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 12697-12706. PMLR, 2021.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Feng, J., & Steinhardt, J.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2310.17191
arXiv
2310.17191
References
3
Type
Preprint
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode

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