Impact of Co-occurrence on Factual Knowledge of Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.08256v1
• Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2023 12:01:32 GMT
• Title: Impact of Co-occurrence on Factual Knowledge of Large Language Models
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) often make factually incorrect responses despite their success in various applications. Our results reveal that LLMs are vulnerable to the co-occurrence bias, defined as preferring frequently co-occurred words over the correct answer.
• Score: 25.89517624732426
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) often make factually incorrect responses despite their success in various applications. In this paper, we hypothesize that relying heavily on simple co-occurrence statistics of the pre-training corpora is one of the main factors that cause factual errors. Our results reveal that LLMs are vulnerable to the co-occurrence bias, defined as preferring frequently co-occurred words over the correct answer. Consequently, LLMs struggle to recall facts whose subject and object rarely co-occur in the pre-training dataset although they are seen during finetuning. We show that co-occurrence bias remains despite scaling up model sizes or finetuning. Therefore, we suggest finetuning on a debiased dataset to mitigate the bias by filtering out biased samples whose subject-object co-occurrence count is high. Although debiased finetuning allows LLMs to memorize rare facts in the training set, it is not effective in recalling rare facts unseen during finetuning. Further research in mitigation will help build reliable language models by preventing potential errors. The code is available at \url{https://github.com/CheongWoong/impact_of_cooccurrence}.

Related papers

• Mitigating Spurious Correlations in LLMs via Causality-Aware Post-Training [57.03005244917803]
  Large language models (LLMs) often fail on out-of-distribution (OOD) samples due to spurious correlations acquired during pre-training.<n>Here, we aim to mitigate such spurious correlations through causality-aware post-training (CAPT)<n> Experiments on the formal causal inference benchmark CLadder and the logical reasoning dataset PrOntoQA show that 3B-scale language models fine-tuned with CAPT can outperform both traditional SFT and larger LLMs on in-distribution (ID) and OOD tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-11T06:30:28Z)
• Hey, That's My Data! Label-Only Dataset Inference in Large Language Models [63.35066172530291]
  CatShift is a label-only dataset-inference framework.<n>It capitalizes on catastrophic forgetting: the tendency of an LLM to overwrite previously learned knowledge when exposed to new data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-06T13:02:59Z)
• Towards Resource Efficient and Interpretable Bias Mitigation in Large Language Models [1.787433808079955]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been observed to perpetuate unwanted biases in training data. In this paper, we mitigate bias by leveraging small biased and anti-biased expert models to obtain a debiasing signal. Experiments on mitigating gender, race, and religion biases show a reduction in bias on several local and global bias metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-02T16:56:08Z)
• Promoting Equality in Large Language Models: Identifying and Mitigating the Implicit Bias based on Bayesian Theory [29.201402717025335]
  Large language models (LLMs) are trained on extensive text corpora, which inevitably include biased information. We have formally defined the implicit bias problem and developed an innovative framework for bias removal based on Bayesian theory.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-20T07:40:12Z)
• Nob-MIAs: Non-biased Membership Inference Attacks Assessment on Large Language Models with Ex-Post Dataset Construction [37.69303106863453]
  Membership Inference Attacks (MIAs) aim to detect whether specific documents were used in a given Large Language Models (LLMs) pretraining. This paper addresses the evaluation of MIAs on LLMs with partially inferable training sets. We propose and validate algorithms to create non-biased'' and non-classifiable'' datasets for fairer MIA assessment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-12T07:49:28Z)
• Downstream bias mitigation is all you need [2.7824025230291003]
  This paper studies the extent of biases absorbed by large language models (LLMs) during pre-training and task-specific behaviour after fine-tuning. We find that pre-training does matter, but after the model has been pre-trained, even slight changes to co-occurrence rates in the fine-tuning dataset has a significant effect on the bias of the model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-01T14:52:04Z)
• A Peek into Token Bias: Large Language Models Are Not Yet Genuine Reasoners [58.15511660018742]
  This study introduces a hypothesis-testing framework to assess whether large language models (LLMs) possess genuine reasoning abilities. We develop carefully controlled synthetic datasets, featuring conjunction fallacy and syllogistic problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-16T19:22:53Z)
• GPTBIAS: A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluating Bias in Large Language Models [83.30078426829627]
  Large language models (LLMs) have gained popularity and are being widely adopted by a large user community. The existing evaluation methods have many constraints, and their results exhibit a limited degree of interpretability. We propose a bias evaluation framework named GPTBIAS that leverages the high performance of LLMs to assess bias in models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-11T12:02:14Z)
• Can Large Language Models Infer Causation from Correlation? [104.96351414570239]
  We test the pure causal inference skills of large language models (LLMs) We formulate a novel task Corr2Cause, which takes a set of correlational statements and determines the causal relationship between the variables. We show that these models achieve almost close to random performance on the task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-09T12:09:15Z)
• Unbiased Supervised Contrastive Learning [10.728852691100338]
  In this work, we tackle the problem of learning representations that are robust to biases. We first present a margin-based theoretical framework that allows us to clarify why recent contrastive losses can fail when dealing with biased data. We derive a novel formulation of the supervised contrastive loss (epsilon-SupInfoNCE), providing more accurate control of the minimal distance between positive and negative samples. Thanks to our theoretical framework, we also propose FairKL, a new debiasing regularization loss, that works well even with extremely biased data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-10T13:44:57Z)
• Learning from others' mistakes: Avoiding dataset biases without modeling them [111.17078939377313]
  State-of-the-art natural language processing (NLP) models often learn to model dataset biases and surface form correlations instead of features that target the intended task. Previous work has demonstrated effective methods to circumvent these issues when knowledge of the bias is available. We show a method for training models that learn to ignore these problematic correlations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-02T16:10:54Z)
• Improving Robustness by Augmenting Training Sentences with Predicate-Argument Structures [62.562760228942054]
  Existing approaches to improve robustness against dataset biases mostly focus on changing the training objective. We propose to augment the input sentences in the training data with their corresponding predicate-argument structures. We show that without targeting a specific bias, our sentence augmentation improves the robustness of transformer models against multiple biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-23T16:22:05Z)
• Towards Robustifying NLI Models Against Lexical Dataset Biases [94.79704960296108]
  This paper explores both data-level and model-level debiasing methods to robustify models against lexical dataset biases. First, we debias the dataset through data augmentation and enhancement, but show that the model bias cannot be fully removed via this method. The second approach employs a bag-of-words sub-model to capture the features that are likely to exploit the bias and prevents the original model from learning these biased features.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-10T17:56:10Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.