Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Towards Reliable Latent Knowledge Estimation in LLMs: Zero-Prompt Many-Shot Based Factual Knowledge Extraction

Published 19 Apr 2024 in cs.CL and cs.LG | (2404.12957v2)

Abstract: In this paper, we focus on the challenging task of reliably estimating factual knowledge that is embedded inside LLMs. To avoid reliability concerns with prior approaches, we propose to eliminate prompt engineering when probing LLMs for factual knowledge. Our approach, called Zero-Prompt Latent Knowledge Estimator (ZP-LKE), leverages the in-context learning ability of LLMs to communicate both the factual knowledge question as well as the expected answer format. Our knowledge estimator is both conceptually simpler (i.e., doesn't depend on meta-linguistic judgments of LLMs) and easier to apply (i.e., is not LLM-specific), and we demonstrate that it can surface more of the latent knowledge embedded in LLMs. We also investigate how different design choices affect the performance of ZP-LKE. Using the proposed estimator, we perform a large-scale evaluation of the factual knowledge of a variety of open-source LLMs, like OPT, Pythia, Llama(2), Mistral, Gemma, etc. over a large set of relations and facts from the Wikidata knowledge base. We observe differences in the factual knowledge between different model families and models of different sizes, that some relations are consistently better known than others but that models differ in the precise facts they know, and differences in the knowledge of base models and their finetuned counterparts. Code available at: https://github.com/QinyuanWu0710/ZeroPrompt_LKE

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (37)
  1. Ask me anything: A simple strategy for prompting language models. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2023, Kigali, Rwanda, May 1-5, 2023. OpenReview.net.
  2. Pythia: A suite for analyzing large language models across training and scaling. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 2397–2430. PMLR.
  3. Inducing relational knowledge from bert. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 7456–7463.
  4. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877–1901.
  5. Discovering Latent Knowledge in Language Models Without Supervision. arXiv preprint. ArXiv:2212.03827 [cs].
  6. FacTool: Factuality Detection in Generative AI – A Tool Augmented Framework for Multi-Task and Multi-Domain Scenarios. arXiv preprint. ArXiv:2307.13528 [cs] version: 2.
  7. T-rex: A large scale alignment of natural language with knowledge base triples. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018).
  8. Promptbreeder: Self-referential self-improvement via prompt evolution. Preprint, arXiv:2309.16797.
  9. Jennifer Hu and Roger Levy. 2023. Prompting is not a substitute for probability measurements in large language models. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 5040–5060.
  10. RefChecker for fine-grained hallucination detection.
  11. Do large language models know about facts? arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.05177.
  12. Survey of hallucination in natural language generation. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(12):1–38.
  13. How can we know when language models know? on the calibration of language models for question answering. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:962–977.
  14. How can we know what language models know? Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:423–438.
  15. Measuring the knowledge acquisition-utilization gap in pretrained language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14775.
  16. Evaluating the Factual Consistency of Abstractive Text Summarization. arXiv preprint. ArXiv:1910.12840 [cs].
  17. Efficient memory management for large language model serving with pagedattention. In Proceedings of the 29th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, SOSP ’23, page 611–626, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery.
  18. P-adapters: Robustly extracting factual information from language models with diverse prompts. In International Conference on Learning Representations.
  19. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:27730–27744.
  20. Check your facts and try again: Improving large language models with external knowledge and automated feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.12813.
  21. Language models as knowledge bases? arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.01066.
  22. Quantifying language models’ sensitivity to spurious features in prompt design or: How i learned to start worrying about prompt formatting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.11324.
  23. On early detection of hallucinations in factual question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.14183.
  24. Head-to-Tail: How Knowledgeable are Large Language Models (LLM)? A.K.A. Will LLMs Replace Knowledge Graphs? arXiv preprint. ArXiv:2308.10168 [cs].
  25. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288.
  26. Language models are open knowledge graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11967.
  27. Survey on factuality in large language models: Knowledge, retrieval and domain-specificity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.07521.
  28. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38–45, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  29. A survey on large language models for recommendation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.19860.
  30. LLM lies: Hallucinations are not bugs, but features as adversarial examples. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01469.
  31. KoLA: Carefully benchmarking world knowledge of large language models. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations.
  32. Why johnny can’t prompt: how non-ai experts try (and fail) to design llm prompts. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1–21.
  33. Opt: Open pre-trained transformer language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01068.
  34. Siren’s song in the ai ocean: A survey on hallucination in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.01219.
  35. Efficiently programming large language models using sglang. Preprint, arXiv:2312.07104.
  36. Large language models for information retrieval: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.07107.
  37. Zeyuan Allen Zhu and Yuanzhi Li. 2023. Physics of language models: Part 3.1, knowledge storage and extraction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.14316.

Summary

  • The paper introduces an in-context learning based latent knowledge estimator (IC-LKE) that extracts factual information without explicit prompts.
  • Empirical evaluations show that IC-LKE improves accuracy and consistency across various LLM architectures compared to traditional prompt-based approaches.
  • Experimental results reveal a trade-off in chat-optimized models, emphasizing the need to balance conversational fine-tuning with retaining factual knowledge.

Towards Reliable Latent Knowledge Estimation in LLMs

This essay analyzes approaches in estimating latent knowledge embedded within LLMs using the research presented in the paper "Towards Reliable Latent Knowledge Estimation in LLMs: Zero-Prompt Many-Shot Based Factual Knowledge Extraction". We explore in-context learning-based Latent Knowledge Estimators (LKEs) and their implementations, focusing on practical implications and comparative performance with traditional prompt-based methods.

Problem Statement and Significance

The reliability of LLMs' factual outputs is critical when utilized in conversational and information retrieval applications. Factual inconsistency, often termed as hallucination, poses significant risks. Estimating the latent factual knowledge stored within an LLM is paramount to mitigating these risks. The challenge lies in reliably quantifying how well an LLM has internalized real-world facts, traditionally approached through various prompting strategies.

Methodology: In-Context Learning Based LKE

Framework Design

The paper introduces a novel LKE that leverages in-context learning (ICL) capabilities of LLMs. This approach minimizes reliance on explicit prompts by feeding the model a series of factual examples, thereby facilitating pattern recognition without explicit linguistic guidance.

The key innovation is the IC-LKE, which forms the basis of this estimation. By presenting the LLM with related factual triplets in sequence, the model infers relationships without additional context or prompts about the nature of the relationship itself.

Example Implementation:

A test input could involve the relation "birth-year" with training examples like ⟨Feynman, 1918⟩, ⟨Heisenberg, 1901⟩ concatenated with the test subject "Einstein."

1
test_input = "Feynman 1918 Heisenberg 1901 Einstein"

Evaluation Function

IC-LKE evaluates whether the model assigns a higher probability to the correct, multi-token factual object relative to the incorrect alternatives, using constructs like:

1
P_model(y | x, context) =  P(y_token_i | y_token_{i-1}, ..., context)

Here, each ytokeniy_{token_i} is a part of the factual object, modeled to ensure independence from tokenization schemes.

Empirical Validation and Results

Comparative Analysis with Prompting

IC-LKE and its efficient counterpart EIC-LKE were benchmarked against human-generated prompts (HGP) and machine-mined prompts (MMP) (2404.12957). Figure 1

Figure 1: Performance comparison for different latent knowledge extractors.

Results indicate that IC- and EIC-LKE not only improve accuracy over traditional prompting methods but also provide more consistent estimates across varying LLM architectures and sizes.

Robustness and Design Considerations

IC-LKE's robustness was accentuated through empirical evaluations, demonstrating resilience to random and sequential insertions of unknown or incorrect data points. Models showed greater vulnerability to incorrect facts rather than unknowns, highlighting areas for further refinement in LKE reliability. Figure 2

Figure 2

Figure 2

Figure 2

Figure 2

Figure 2: Variation in object probabilities of Nobel laureate data using Mistral-7B.

Implications for LLM Design and Utilization

  1. Model Scaling and Architecture Design: Larger models exhibited better factual recall, reflecting positively on in-depth representations. Moreover, structural elements such as tokenization resilience in IC-LKE are crucial for cross-architecture applicability.
  2. Fine-tuning Effects: Chat-optimized models demonstrated reduced factual accuracy, attributed to a potential trade-off with conversational responsiveness. Thus, balancing latent knowledge retention and application-specific fine-tuning remains critical.
  3. Future Directions: Further research is needed to generalize this method across non-factual domains, incorporating advanced pattern recognition in dynamic, logical, and abstract thinking tasks.

Conclusion

The transition from prompt-based knowledge estimation to an in-context learning framework in LLMs offers a significant leap toward understanding LLM capabilities reliably. In-context learning empowers more efficient, scalable, and robust estimation of factual knowledge embedded within LLM architectures, paving the way for more knowledgeable AI interactions. This shift signifies not only an improvement in latent knowledge extraction but also a broadening of the applications for which LLMs can be reliably employed.

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 4 tweets with 26 likes about this paper.