What Makes Two Language Models Think Alike?

Do architectural differences significantly affect the way models represent and process language? We propose a new approach, based on metric-learning encoding models (MLEMs), as a first step to answer this question. The approach provides a feature-based comparison of how any two layers of any two models represent linguistic information. We apply the method to BERT, GPT-2 and Mamba. Unlike previous methods, MLEMs offer a transparent comparison, by identifying the specific linguistic features responsible for similarities and differences. More generally, the method uses formal, symbolic descriptions of a domain, and use these to compare neural representations. As such, the approach can straightforwardly be extended to other domains, such as speech and vision, and to other neural systems, including human brains.

What makes two models think alike?

Do architectural differences significantly affect the way models represent and process language? We propose a new approach, based on metric-learning encoding models (MLEMs), as a first step to answer this question. The approach provides a feature-based comparison of how any two layers of any two models represent linguistic information. We apply the method to BERT, GPT-2 and Mamba. Unlike previous methods, MLEMs offer a transparent comparison, by identifying the specific linguistic features responsible for similarities and differences. More generally, the method uses formal, symbolic descriptions of a domain, and use these to compare neural representations. As such, the approach can straightforwardly be extended to other domains, such as speech and vision, and to other neural systems, including human brains.

Metric-Learning Encoding Models Identify Processing Profiles of Linguistic Features in BERT's Representations

We introduce Metric-Learning Encoding Models (MLEMs) as a new approach to understand how neural systems represent the theoretical features of the objects they process. As a proof-of-concept, we apply MLEMs to neural representations extracted from BERT, and track a wide variety of linguistic features (e.g., tense, subject person, clause type, clause embedding). We find that: (1) linguistic features are ordered: they separate representations of sentences to different degrees in different layers; (2) neural representations are organized hierarchically: in some layers, we find clusters of representations nested within larger clusters, following successively important linguistic features; (3) linguistic features are disentangled in middle layers: distinct, selective units are activated by distinct linguistic features. Methodologically, MLEMs are superior (4) to multivariate decoding methods, being more robust to type-I errors, and (5) to univariate encoding methods, in being able to predict both local and distributed representations. Together, this demonstrates the utility of Metric-Learning Encoding Methods for studying how linguistic features are neurally encoded in language models and the advantage of MLEMs over traditional methods. MLEMs can be extended to other domains (e.g. vision) and to other neural systems, such as the human brain.

Bridging the Empirical-Theoretical Gap in Neural Network Formal Language Learning Using Minimum Description Length

Neural networks offer good approximation to many tasks but consistently fail to reach perfect generalization, even when theoretical work shows that such perfect solutions can be expressed by certain architectures. Using the task of formal language learning, we focus on one simple formal language and show that the theoretically correct solution is in fact not an optimum of commonly used objectives -- even with regularization techniques that according to common wisdom should lead to simple weights and good generalization (L1, L2) or other meta-heuristics (early-stopping, dropout). However, replacing standard targets with the Minimum Description Length objective (MDL) results in the correct solution being an optimum.

Minimum Description Length Hopfield Networks

Associative memory architectures are designed for memorization but also offer, through their retrieval method, a form of generalization to unseen inputs: stored memories can be seen as prototypes from this point of view. Focusing on Modern Hopfield Networks (MHN), we show that a large memorization capacity undermines the generalization opportunity. We offer a solution to better optimize this tradeoff. It relies on Minimum Description Length (MDL) to determine during training which memories to store, as well as how many of them.

Benchmarking Neural Network Generalization for Grammar Induction

How well do neural networks generalize? Even for grammar induction tasks, where the target generalization is fully known, previous works have left the question open, testing very limited ranges beyond the training set and using different success criteria. We provide a measure of neural network generalization based on fully specified formal languages. Given a model and a formal grammar, the method assigns a generalization score representing how well a model generalizes to unseen samples in inverse relation to the amount of data it was trained on. The benchmark includes languages such as $a^nb^n$, $a^nb^nc^n$, $a^nb^mc^{n+m}$, and Dyck-1 and 2. We evaluate selected architectures using the benchmark and find that networks trained with a Minimum Description Length objective (MDL) generalize better and using less data than networks trained using standard loss functions. The benchmark is available at https://github.com/taucompling/bliss.

Minimum Description Length Recurrent Neural Networks

We train neural networks to optimize a Minimum Description Length score, i.e., to balance between the complexity of the network and its accuracy at a task. We show that networks trained with this objective function master tasks involving memory challenges such as counting, including cases that go beyond context-free languages. These learners master grammars for, e.g., $a^nb^n$, $a^nb^nc^n$, $a^nb^{2n}$, and $a^nb^mc^{n+m}$, and they perform addition. They do so with 100% accuracy, sometimes also with 100% confidence. The networks are also small and their inner workings are transparent. We thus provide formal proofs that their perfect accuracy holds not only on a given test set, but for any input sequence.