PreprintCited by 3Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesAdversarial Robustness in Machine Learning

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Language Model Cascades: Token-level uncertainty and beyond

Open access

Abstract

Recent advances in language models (LMs) have led to significant improvements in quality on complex NLP tasks, but at the expense of increased inference costs. Cascading offers a simple strategy to achieve more favorable cost-quality tradeoffs: here, a small model is invoked for most "easy" instances, while a few "hard" instances are deferred to the large model. While the principles underpinning cascading are well-studied for classification tasks - with deferral based on predicted class uncertainty favored theoretically and practically - a similar understanding is lacking for generative LM tasks. In this work, we initiate a systematic study of deferral rules for LM cascades. We begin by examining the natural extension of predicted class uncertainty to generative LM tasks, namely, the predicted sequence uncertainty. We show that this measure suffers from the length bias problem, either over- or under-emphasizing outputs based on their lengths. This is because LMs produce a sequence of uncertainty values, one for each output token; and moreover, the number of output tokens is variable across examples. To mitigate this issue, we propose to exploit the richer token-level uncertainty information implicit in generative LMs. We argue that naive predicted sequence uncertainty corresponds to a simple aggregation of these uncertainties. By contrast, we show that incorporating token-level uncertainty through learned post-hoc deferral rules can significantly outperform such simple aggregation strategies, via experiments on a range of natural language benchmarks with FLAN-T5 models. We further show that incorporating embeddings from the smaller model and intermediate layers of the larger model can give an additional boost in the overall cost-quality tradeoff.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2404.10136

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 widely held notion that one needs models of various sizes to benefit from cascading is incorrect.

    “For instance, it is widely believed that one needs models of various sizes to benefit from cascading (Chen et al., 2023; Gupta et al., 2024; Khalili et al., 2022), but we show that this notion is incorrect.”

    From A Unified Approach to Routing and Cascading for LLMs (2024) · cites this paper as Gupta et al., 2024

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Gupta, N., Narasimhan, H., Jitkrittum, W., Rawat, A. S., Menon, A. K., & Kumar, S.
Affiliations
Google (United States) (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4394907048
Cited by
3
References
1
Citations by year
2025: 3
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
Keywords
length bias, cost-quality trade-off, generative language models, Flan-T5, uncertainty aggregation

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