Metric properties of partial and robust Gromov-Wasserstein distances

The Gromov-Wasserstein (GW) distances define a family of metrics, based on ideas from optimal transport, which enable comparisons between probability measures defined on distinct metric spaces. They are particularly useful in areas such as network analysis and geometry processing, as computation of a GW distance involves solving for registration between the objects which minimizes geometric distortion. Although GW distances have proven useful for various applications in the recent machine learning literature, it has been observed that they are inherently sensitive to outlier noise and cannot accommodate partial matching. This has been addressed by various constructions building on the GW framework; in this article, we focus specifically on a natural relaxation of the GW optimization problem, introduced by Chapel et al., which is aimed at addressing exactly these shortcomings. Our goal is to understand the theoretical properties of this relaxed optimization problem, from the viewpoint of metric geometry. While the relaxed problem fails to induce a metric, we derive precise characterizations of how it fails the axioms of non-degeneracy and triangle inequality. These observations lead us to define a novel family of distances, whose construction is inspired by the Prokhorov and Ky Fan distances, as well as by the recent work of Raghvendra et al.\ on robust versions of classical Wasserstein distance. We show that our new distances define true metrics, that they induce the same topology as the GW distances, and that they enjoy additional robustness to perturbations. These results provide a mathematically rigorous basis for using our robust partial GW distances in applications where outliers and partial matching are concerns.

On Logical Extrapolation for Mazes with Recurrent and Implicit Networks

Recent work has suggested that certain neural network architectures-particularly recurrent neural networks (RNNs) and implicit neural networks (INNs) are capable of logical extrapolation. That is, one may train such a network on easy instances of a specific task and then apply it successfully to more difficult instances of the same task. In this paper, we revisit this idea and show that (i) The capacity for extrapolation is less robust than previously suggested. Specifically, in the context of a maze-solving task, we show that while INNs (and some RNNs) are capable of generalizing to larger maze instances, they fail to generalize along axes of difficulty other than maze size. (ii) Models that are explicitly trained to converge to a fixed point (e.g. the INN we test) are likely to do so when extrapolating, while models that are not (e.g. the RNN we test) may exhibit more exotic limiting behaviour such as limit cycles, even when they correctly solve the problem. Our results suggest that (i) further study into why such networks extrapolate easily along certain axes of difficulty yet struggle with others is necessary, and (ii) analyzing the dynamics of extrapolation may yield insights into designing more efficient and interpretable logical extrapolators.

Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models

Language models demonstrate both quantitative improvement and new qualitative capabilities with increasing scale. Despite their potentially transformative impact, these new capabilities are as yet poorly characterized. In order to inform future research, prepare for disruptive new model capabilities, and ameliorate socially harmful effects, it is vital that we understand the present and near-future capabilities and limitations of language models. To address this challenge, we introduce the Beyond the Imitation Game benchmark (BIG-bench). BIG-bench currently consists of 204 tasks, contributed by 442 authors across 132 institutions. Task topics are diverse, drawing problems from linguistics, childhood development, math, common-sense reasoning, biology, physics, social bias, software development, and beyond. BIG-bench focuses on tasks that are believed to be beyond the capabilities of current language models. We evaluate the behavior of OpenAI's GPT models, Google-internal dense transformer architectures, and Switch-style sparse transformers on BIG-bench, across model sizes spanning millions to hundreds of billions of parameters. In addition, a team of human expert raters performed all tasks in order to provide a strong baseline. Findings include: model performance and calibration both improve with scale, but are poor in absolute terms (and when compared with rater performance); performance is remarkably similar across model classes, though with benefits from sparsity; tasks that improve gradually and predictably commonly involve a large knowledge or memorization component, whereas tasks that exhibit "breakthrough" behavior at a critical scale often involve multiple steps or components, or brittle metrics; social bias typically increases with scale in settings with ambiguous context, but this can be improved with prompting.