Abstract:Many applications of large language models (LLMs) require long-context understanding, but models continue to struggle with such tasks. We hypothesize that conventional next-token prediction training could contribute to this, because each token is assigned equal weight. Yet, intuitively, the amount of context needed to predict the next token accurately varies greatly across different data. To reflect this, we propose various novel token-weighting schemes that assign different weights to each training token in the loss, thereby generalizing existing works. For this, we categorize token-weighting methods using a two-step framework which compares the confidences of a long-context and short-context model to score tokens. We evaluate all methods on multiple long-context understanding tasks and show that non-uniform loss weights are helpful to improve the long-context abilities of LLMs. Different short-context models can be used effectively for token scoring, including models that are much smaller than the long-context model that is trained. All in all, this work contributes to a better understanding of the trade-offs long-context language modeling faces and provides guidelines for model steering via loss-weighting based on empirical evidence. The code can be found on Github.
Abstract:Despite their outstanding performance in the majority of scenarios, contemporary language models still occasionally generate undesirable outputs, for example, hallucinated text. While such behaviors have previously been linked to uncertainty, there is a notable lack of methods that actively consider uncertainty during text generation. In this work, we show how Minimum Bayes Risk (MBR) decoding, which selects model generations according to an expected risk, can be generalized into a principled uncertainty-aware decoding method. In short, we account for model uncertainty during decoding by incorporating a posterior over model parameters into MBR's computation of expected risk. We show that this modified expected risk is useful for both choosing outputs and deciding when to abstain from generation and can provide improvements without incurring overhead. We benchmark different methods for learning posteriors and show that performance improves with prediction diversity. We release our code publicly.
Abstract:Evaluating the pedagogical capabilities of AI-based tutoring models is critical for making guided progress in the field. Yet, we lack a reliable, easy-to-use, and simple-to-run evaluation that reflects the pedagogical abilities of models. To fill this gap, we present MathTutorBench, an open-source benchmark for holistic tutoring model evaluation. MathTutorBench contains a collection of datasets and metrics that broadly cover tutor abilities as defined by learning sciences research in dialog-based teaching. To score the pedagogical quality of open-ended teacher responses, we train a reward model and show it can discriminate expert from novice teacher responses with high accuracy. We evaluate a wide set of closed- and open-weight models on MathTutorBench and find that subject expertise, indicated by solving ability, does not immediately translate to good teaching. Rather, pedagogy and subject expertise appear to form a trade-off that is navigated by the degree of tutoring specialization of the model. Furthermore, tutoring appears to become more challenging in longer dialogs, where simpler questioning strategies begin to fail. We release the benchmark, code, and leaderboard openly to enable rapid benchmarking of future models.
Abstract:When finetuning multiple tasks altogether, it is important to carefully weigh them to get a good performance, but searching for good weights can be difficult and costly. Here, we propose to aid the search with fast previews to quickly get a rough idea of different reweighting options. We use model merging to create previews by simply reusing and averaging parameters of models trained on each task separately (no retraining required). To improve the quality of previews, we propose a Bayesian approach to design new merging strategies by using more flexible posteriors. We validate our findings on vision and natural-language transformers. Our work shows the benefits of model merging via Bayes to improve multitask finetuning.
Abstract:We show that variational learning can significantly improve the accuracy and calibration of Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) without a substantial increase in the cost. We replace AdamW by the Improved Variational Online Newton (IVON) algorithm to finetune large language models. For Llama-2 with 7 billion parameters, IVON improves the accuracy over AdamW by 2.8% and expected calibration error by 4.6%. The accuracy is also better than the other Bayesian alternatives, yet the cost is lower and the implementation is easier. Our work provides additional evidence for the effectiveness of IVON for large language models. The code is available at https://github.com/team-approx-bayes/ivon-lora.
Abstract:Large language models (LLMs) present an opportunity to scale high-quality personalized education to all. A promising approach towards this means is to build dialog tutoring models that scaffold students' problem-solving. However, even though existing LLMs perform well in solving reasoning questions, they struggle to precisely detect student's errors and tailor their feedback to these errors. Inspired by real-world teaching practice where teachers identify student errors and customize their response based on them, we focus on verifying student solutions and show how grounding to such verification improves the overall quality of tutor response generation. We collect a dataset of 1K stepwise math reasoning chains with the first error step annotated by teachers. We show empirically that finding the mistake in a student solution is challenging for current models. We propose and evaluate several verifiers for detecting these errors. Using both automatic and human evaluation we show that the student solution verifiers steer the generation model towards highly targeted responses to student errors which are more often correct with less hallucinations compared to existing baselines.
Abstract:Educational chatbots are a promising tool for assisting student learning. However, the development of effective chatbots in education has been challenging, as high-quality data is seldom available in this domain. In this paper, we propose a framework for generating synthetic teacher-student interactions grounded in a set of textbooks. Our approaches capture one aspect of learning interactions where curious students with partial knowledge interactively ask a teacher questions about the material in the textbook. We highlight various quality criteria that such dialogues should fulfill and compare several approaches relying on either prompting or fine-tuning large language models. We use synthetic dialogues to train educational chatbots and show benefits of further fine-tuning in different educational domains. However, human evaluation shows that our best data synthesis method still suffers from hallucinations and tends to reiterate information from previous conversations. Our findings offer insights for future efforts in synthesizing conversational data that strikes a balance between size and quality. We will open-source our data and code.
Abstract:Reframing a negative into a positive thought is at the crux of several cognitive approaches to mental health and psychotherapy that could be made more accessible by large language model-based solutions. Such reframing is typically non-trivial and requires multiple rationalization steps to uncover the underlying issue of a negative thought and transform it to be more positive. However, this rationalization process is currently neglected by both datasets and models which reframe thoughts in one step. In this work, we address this gap by augmenting open-source datasets for positive text rewriting with synthetically-generated Socratic rationales using a novel framework called \textsc{SocraticReframe}. \textsc{SocraticReframe} uses a sequence of question-answer pairs to rationalize the thought rewriting process. We show that such Socratic rationales significantly improve positive text rewriting for different open-source LLMs according to both automatic and human evaluations guided by criteria from psychotherapy research.
Abstract:We give extensive empirical evidence against the common belief that variational learning is ineffective for large neural networks. We show that an optimizer called Improved Variational Online Newton (IVON) consistently matches or outperforms Adam for training large networks such as GPT-2 and ResNets from scratch. IVON's computational costs are nearly identical to Adam but its predictive uncertainty is better. We show several new use cases of IVON where we improve fine-tuning and model merging in Large Language Models, accurately predict generalization error, and faithfully estimate sensitivity to data. We find overwhelming evidence in support of effectiveness of variational learning.
Abstract:Models trained on different datasets can be merged by a weighted-averaging of their parameters, but why does it work and when can it fail? Here, we connect the inaccuracy of weighted-averaging to mismatches in the gradients and propose a new uncertainty-based scheme to improve the performance by reducing the mismatch. The connection also reveals implicit assumptions in other schemes such as averaging, task arithmetic, and Fisher-weighted averaging. Our new method gives consistent improvements for large language models and vision transformers, both in terms of performance and robustness to hyperparameters.