Sylber: Syllabic Embedding Representation of Speech from Raw Audio

Syllables are compositional units of spoken language that play a crucial role in human speech perception and production. However, current neural speech representations lack structure, resulting in dense token sequences that are costly to process. To bridge this gap, we propose a new model, Sylber, that produces speech representations with clean and robust syllabic structure. Specifically, we propose a self-supervised model that regresses features on syllabic segments distilled from a teacher model which is an exponential moving average of the model in training. This results in a highly structured representation of speech features, offering three key benefits: 1) a fast, linear-time syllable segmentation algorithm, 2) efficient syllabic tokenization with an average of 4.27 tokens per second, and 3) syllabic units better suited for lexical and syntactic understanding. We also train token-to-speech generative models with our syllabic units and show that fully intelligible speech can be reconstructed from these tokens. Lastly, we observe that categorical perception, a linguistic phenomenon of speech perception, emerges naturally in our model, making the embedding space more categorical and sparse than previous self-supervised learning approaches. Together, we present a novel self-supervised approach for representing speech as syllables, with significant potential for efficient speech tokenization and spoken language modeling.

FineZip : Pushing the Limits of Large Language Models for Practical Lossless Text Compression

While the language modeling objective has been shown to be deeply connected with compression, it is surprising that modern LLMs are not employed in practical text compression systems. In this paper, we provide an in-depth analysis of neural network and transformer-based compression techniques to answer this question. We compare traditional text compression systems with neural network and LLM-based text compression methods. Although LLM-based systems significantly outperform conventional compression methods, they are highly impractical. Specifically, LLMZip, a recent text compression system using Llama3-8B requires 9.5 days to compress just 10 MB of text, although with huge improvements in compression ratios. To overcome this, we present FineZip - a novel LLM-based text compression system that combines ideas of online memorization and dynamic context to reduce the compression time immensely. FineZip can compress the above corpus in approximately 4 hours compared to 9.5 days, a 54 times improvement over LLMZip and comparable performance. FineZip outperforms traditional algorithmic compression methods with a large margin, improving compression ratios by approximately 50\%. With this work, we take the first step towards making lossless text compression with LLMs a reality. While FineZip presents a significant step in that direction, LLMs are still not a viable solution for large-scale text compression. We hope our work paves the way for future research and innovation to solve this problem.

Is Bigger Edit Batch Size Always Better? -- An Empirical Study on Model Editing with Llama-3

This study presents a targeted model editing analysis focused on the latest large language model, Llama-3. We explore the efficacy of popular model editing techniques - ROME, MEMIT, and EMMET, which are designed for precise layer interventions. We identify the most effective layers for targeted edits through an evaluation that encompasses up to 4096 edits across three distinct strategies: sequential editing, batch editing, and a hybrid approach we call as sequential-batch editing. Our findings indicate that increasing edit batch-sizes may degrade model performance more significantly than using smaller edit batches sequentially for equal number of edits. With this, we argue that sequential model editing is an important component for scaling model editing methods and future research should focus on methods that combine both batched and sequential editing. This observation suggests a potential limitation in current model editing methods which push towards bigger edit batch sizes, and we hope it paves way for future investigations into optimizing batch sizes and model editing performance.

Uncertainty-aware Active Learning of NeRF-based Object Models for Robot Manipulators using Visual and Re-orientation Actions

Manipulating unseen objects is challenging without a 3D representation, as objects generally have occluded surfaces. This requires physical interaction with objects to build their internal representations. This paper presents an approach that enables a robot to rapidly learn the complete 3D model of a given object for manipulation in unfamiliar orientations. We use an ensemble of partially constructed NeRF models to quantify model uncertainty to determine the next action (a visual or re-orientation action) by optimizing informativeness and feasibility. Further, our approach determines when and how to grasp and re-orient an object given its partial NeRF model and re-estimates the object pose to rectify misalignments introduced during the interaction. Experiments with a simulated Franka Emika Robot Manipulator operating in a tabletop environment with benchmark objects demonstrate an improvement of (i) 14% in visual reconstruction quality (PSNR), (ii) 20% in the geometric/depth reconstruction of the object surface (F-score) and (iii) 71% in the task success rate of manipulating objects a-priori unseen orientations/stable configurations in the scene; over current methods. The project page can be found here: https://actnerf.github.io.

A Unified Framework for Model Editing

Model editing is a growing area focused on updating the knowledge embedded within models. Among the various methodologies, ROME and MEMIT stand out as leading "locate-and-edit" model editing techniques. While MEMIT enables batched editing of memories, ROME is limited to changing one fact at a time. This paper introduces a unifying framework that brings ROME and MEMIT under a single conceptual umbrella, optimizing for the same goal, which we call the "preservation-memorization" objective. This objective aims to preserve the representations of certain selected vectors while memorizing the representations of new factual information. Specifically, ROME optimizes this objective using an equality constraint, whereas MEMIT employs a more flexible least-square constraint. In addition to making batched edits, MEMIT also edits the model at multiple layers. We disentangle the distribution of edits to multiple layers from the optimization objective of MEMIT and show that these edit-distribution algorithms should be considered separate entities worthy of their own line of research. Finally, we present EMMET - an Equality-constrained Mass Model Editing algorithm for Transformers, a new batched memory-editing algorithm. With EMMET, we present a closed form solution for the equality-constrained version of the preservation-memorization objective. We show that EMMET is able to perform batched-edits on par with MEMIT up to a batch-size of 256 and discuss the challenges in stabilizing EMMET. By articulating the "locate-and-edit" model editing algorithms under a simple conceptual framework of "preservation-memorization", we aim to bridge the gap between intuition and mathematics and hope to simplify the journey for future researchers in model editing.

Rebuilding ROME : Resolving Model Collapse during Sequential Model Editing

Recent work on model editing using Rank-One Model Editing (ROME), a popular model editing method, has shown that there are certain facts that the algorithm is unable to edit without breaking the model. Such edits have previously been called disabling edits. These disabling edits cause immediate model collapse and limits the use of ROME for sequential editing. In this paper, we make two main contributions. Firstly, we show that model collapse with ROME only happens when making edits using the CounterFact dataset and does not happen when using the zsRE dataset. Secondly, we find that disabling edits are an artifact of the original implementation of ROME. With this paper, we provide a more stable implementation ROME, which we call r-ROME and show that we no longer observe model collapse when making large scale sequential edits with ROME.

Identifying Multiple Personalities in Large Language Models with External Evaluation

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are integrated with human daily applications rapidly, many societal and ethical concerns are raised regarding the behavior of LLMs. One of the ways to comprehend LLMs' behavior is to analyze their personalities. Many recent studies quantify LLMs' personalities using self-assessment tests that are created for humans. Yet many critiques question the applicability and reliability of these self-assessment tests when applied to LLMs. In this paper, we investigate LLM personalities using an alternate personality measurement method, which we refer to as the external evaluation method, where instead of prompting LLMs with multiple-choice questions in the Likert scale, we evaluate LLMs' personalities by analyzing their responses toward open-ended situational questions using an external machine learning model. We first fine-tuned a Llama2-7B model as the MBTI personality predictor that outperforms the state-of-the-art models as the tool to analyze LLMs' responses. Then, we prompt the LLMs with situational questions and ask them to generate Twitter posts and comments, respectively, in order to assess their personalities when playing two different roles. Using the external personality evaluation method, we identify that the obtained personality types for LLMs are significantly different when generating posts versus comments, whereas humans show a consistent personality profile in these two different situations. This shows that LLMs can exhibit different personalities based on different scenarios, thus highlighting a fundamental difference between personality in LLMs and humans. With our work, we call for a re-evaluation of personality definition and measurement in LLMs.

Model Editing at Scale leads to Gradual and Catastrophic Forgetting

Editing knowledge in large language models is an attractive capability to have which allows us to correct incorrectly learnt facts during pre-training, as well as update the model with an ever-growing list of new facts. While existing model editing techniques have shown promise, they are usually evaluated using metrics for reliability, specificity and generalization over one or few edits. We argue that for model editing to have practical utility, we must be able to make multiple edits to the same model. With this in mind, we evaluate the current model editing methods at scale, focusing on two state of the art methods: ROME and MEMIT. We find that as the model is edited sequentially with multiple facts, it continually forgets previously edited facts and the ability to perform downstream tasks. This forgetting happens in two phases -- an initial gradual but progressive forgetting phase followed by abrupt or catastrophic forgetting phase. Both gradual and catastrophic forgetting limit the usefulness of model editing methods at scale -- the former making model editing less effective as multiple edits are made to the model while the latter caps the scalability of such model editing methods. Our analysis also highlights other key limitations of ROME and MEMIT at scale. With our work, we push for the development and evaluation of model editing methods keeping scalability in mind.

Investigating the Applicability of Self-Assessment Tests for Personality Measurement of Large Language Models

As large language models (LLM) evolve in their capabilities, various recent studies have tried to quantify their behavior using psychological tools created to study human behavior. One such example is the measurement of "personality" of LLMs using personality self-assessment tests. In this paper, we take three such studies on personality measurement of LLMs that use personality self-assessment tests created to study human behavior. We use the prompts used in these three different papers to measure the personality of the same LLM. We find that all three prompts lead very different personality scores. This simple test reveals that personality self-assessment scores in LLMs depend on the subjective choice of the prompter. Since we don't know the ground truth value of personality scores for LLMs as there is no correct answer to such questions, there's no way of claiming if one prompt is more or less correct than the other. We then introduce the property of option order symmetry for personality measurement of LLMs. Since most of the self-assessment tests exist in the form of multiple choice question (MCQ) questions, we argue that the scores should also be robust to not just the prompt template but also the order in which the options are presented. This test unsurprisingly reveals that the answers to the self-assessment tests are not robust to the order of the options. These simple tests, done on ChatGPT and Llama2 models show that self-assessment personality tests created for humans are not appropriate for measuring personality in LLMs.

Are ChatGPT and GPT-4 Good Poker Players? -- A Pre-Flop Analysis

Since the introduction of ChatGPT and GPT-4, these models have been tested across a large number of tasks. Their adeptness across domains is evident, but their aptitude in playing games and specifically their aptitude in the realm of poker has remained unexplored. Poker is a game that requires decision making under uncertainty and incomplete information. In this paper, we put ChatGPT and GPT-4 through the poker test and evaluate their poker skills. Our findings reveal that while both models display an advanced understanding of poker, encompassing concepts like the valuation of starting hands, playing positions and other intricacies of game theory optimal (GTO) poker, both ChatGPT and GPT-4 are NOT game theory optimal poker players. Through a series of experiments, we first discover the characteristics of optimal prompts and model parameters for playing poker with these models. Our observations then unveil the distinct playing personas of the two models. We first conclude that GPT-4 is a more advanced poker player than ChatGPT. This exploration then sheds light on the divergent poker tactics of the two models: ChatGPT's conservativeness juxtaposed against GPT-4's aggression. In poker vernacular, when tasked to play GTO poker, ChatGPT plays like a Nit, which means that it has a propensity to only engage with premium hands and folds a majority of hands. When subjected to the same directive, GPT-4 plays like a maniac, showcasing a loose and aggressive style of play. Both strategies, although relatively advanced, are not game theory optimal.