CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 15Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesMultimodal Machine Learning Applications

What is Wrong with Perplexity for Long-context Language Modeling?

Open access
Fang, Lizhe, Wang, Yifei, Liu, Zhaoyang, Zhang, Chenheng, Jegelka, Stefanie, Gao, Jinyang, Ding, Bolin, Wang, Yisen·2024·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2410.23771arXiv 2410.23771
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Handling long-context inputs is crucial for large language models (LLMs) in tasks such as extended conversations, document summarization, and many-shot in-context learning. While recent approaches have extended the context windows of LLMs and employed perplexity (PPL) as a standard evaluation metric, PPL has proven unreliable for assessing long-context capabilities. The underlying cause of this limitation has remained unclear. In this work, we provide a comprehensive explanation for this issue. We find that PPL overlooks key tokens, which are essential for long-context understanding, by averaging across all tokens and thereby obscuring the true performance of models in long-context scenarios. To address this, we propose \textbf{LongPPL}, a novel metric that focuses on key tokens by employing a long-short context contrastive method to identify them. Our experiments demonstrate that LongPPL strongly correlates with performance on various long-context benchmarks (e.g., Pearson correlation of -0.96), significantly outperforming traditional PPL in predictive accuracy. Additionally, we introduce \textbf{LongCE} (Long-context Cross-Entropy) loss, a re-weighting strategy for fine-tuning that prioritizes key tokens, leading to consistent improvements across diverse benchmarks. In summary, these contributions offer deeper insights into the limitations of PPL and present effective solutions for accurately evaluating and enhancing the long-context capabilities of LLMs. Code is available at https://github.com/PKU-ML/LongPPL.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2410.23771

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • PPL may not distinguish a model's ability to capture local vs. long-range dependencies between tokens.

    “This finding is in line with recent criticism that PPL may not distinguish a model's ability to capture local vs. long-range dependencies between tokens (Hu et al., 2024; Fang et al., 2024).”

    From MesaNet: Sequence Modeling by Locally Optimal Test-Time Training (2025) · cites this paper as Fang et al., 2024

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Fang, L., Wang, Y., Liu, Z., Zhang, C., Jegelka, S., Gao, J., Ding, B., & Wang, Y.
Affiliations
  • Peking University (CN)
  • MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (US)
  • Alibaba Group (China) (CN)
  • Munich Center for Machine Learning (DE)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2410.23771
arXiv
2410.23771
OpenAlex
W4404347231
Cited by
2
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • 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 › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
Keywords
perplexity, long-context language modeling, large language models, evaluation metrics, token weighting, in-context learning, long-context understanding

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