I0T: Embedding Standardization Method Towards Zero Modality Gap

Contrastive Language-Image Pretraining (CLIP) enables zero-shot inference in downstream tasks such as image-text retrieval and classification. However, recent works extending CLIP suffer from the issue of modality gap, which arises when the image and text embeddings are projected to disparate manifolds, deviating from the intended objective of image-text contrastive learning. We discover that this phenomenon is linked to the modality-specific characteristic that each image/text encoder independently possesses and propose two methods to address the modality gap: (1) a post-hoc embedding standardization method, $\text{I0T}_{\text{post}}$ that reduces the modality gap approximately to zero and (2) a trainable method, $\text{I0T}_{\text{async}}$, to alleviate the modality gap problem by adding two normalization layers for each encoder. Our I0T framework can significantly reduce the modality gap while preserving the original embedding representations of trained models with their locked parameters. In practice, $\text{I0T}_{\text{post}}$ can serve as an alternative explainable automatic evaluation metric of widely used CLIPScore (CLIP-S).

Stable Language Model Pre-training by Reducing Embedding Variability

Stable pre-training is essential for achieving better-performing language models. However, tracking pre-training stability by calculating gradient variance at every step is impractical due to the significant computational costs. We explore Token Embedding Variability (TEV) as a simple and efficient proxy for assessing pre-training stability in language models with pre-layer normalization, given that shallower layers are more prone to gradient explosion (section 2.2). Moreover, we propose Multi-head Low-Rank Attention (MLRA) as an architecture to alleviate such instability by limiting the exponential growth of output embedding variance, thereby preventing the gradient explosion (section 3.2). Empirical results on GPT-2 with MLRA demonstrate increased stability and lower perplexity, particularly in deeper models.

Can Large Language Models Infer and Disagree Like Humans?

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown stellar achievements in solving a broad range of tasks. When generating text, it is common to sample tokens from these models: whether LLMs closely align with the human disagreement distribution has not been well-studied, especially within the scope of Natural Language Inference (NLI). In this paper, we evaluate the performance and alignment of LLM distribution with humans using two different techniques: Monte Carlo Reconstruction (MCR) and Log Probability Reconstruction (LPR). As a result, we show LLMs exhibit limited ability in solving NLI tasks and simultaneously fail to capture human disagreement distribution, raising concerns about their natural language understanding (NLU) ability and their representativeness of human users.