Pre-trained Language Models Learn Remarkably Accurate Representations of Numbers

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08966v1
• Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 16:37:35 GMT
• Title: Pre-trained Language Models Learn Remarkably Accurate Representations of Numbers
• Authors: Marek Kadlčík, Michal Štefánik, Timothee Mickus, Michal Spiegel, Josef Kuchař,
• Abstract summary: Existing work showed limited success in probing numeric values from models' representations.<n>We propose a novel probing technique that decodes numeric values from input embeddings with near-perfect accuracy.<n>We find that the embeddings' preciseness judged by our probe's accuracy explains a large portion of LM's errors in elementary arithmetic.
• Score: 1.8874331450711404
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Pretrained language models (LMs) are prone to arithmetic errors. Existing work showed limited success in probing numeric values from models' representations, indicating that these errors can be attributed to the inherent unreliability of distributionally learned embeddings in representing exact quantities. However, we observe that previous probing methods are inadequate for the emergent structure of learned number embeddings with sinusoidal patterns. In response, we propose a novel probing technique that decodes numeric values from input embeddings with near-perfect accuracy across a range of open-source LMs. This proves that after the sole pre-training, LMs represent numbers with remarkable precision. Finally, we find that the embeddings' preciseness judged by our probe's accuracy explains a large portion of LM's errors in elementary arithmetic, and show that aligning the embeddings with the pattern discovered by our probe can mitigate these errors.

Related papers

• Probing for Arithmetic Errors in Language Models [86.8227317662622]
  Internal activations in language models can be used to detect arithmetic errors.<n>We show that simple probes can accurately decode both the model's predicted output and the correct answer from hidden states.<n>We train lightweight error detectors that predict model correctness with over 90% accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-16T16:27:50Z)
• The Validation Gap: A Mechanistic Analysis of How Language Models Compute Arithmetic but Fail to Validate It [23.803612556616685]
  We present a mechanistic analysis of error detection in large language models (LLMs)<n>Through circuit analysis, we identify the computational subgraphs responsible for detecting arithmetic errors across four smaller-sized LLMs.<n>Our findings reveal that all models heavily rely on $textitconsistency heads$--attention heads that assess surface-level alignment of numerical values in arithmetic solutions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T13:00:44Z)
• Subtle Errors in Reasoning: Preference Learning via Error-injected Self-editing [59.405145971637204]
  We propose a novel preference learning framework called eRror-Injected Self-Editing (RISE)<n>RISE injects predefined subtle errors into pivotal tokens in reasoning or steps to construct hard pairs for error mitigation.<n>Experiments validate the effectiveness of RISE, with preference learning on Qwen2-7B-Instruct yielding notable improvements of 3.0% on GSM8K and 7.9% on MATH with only 4.5K training samples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T07:43:38Z)
• Understanding and Mitigating Classification Errors Through Interpretable Token Patterns [58.91023283103762]
  Characterizing errors in easily interpretable terms gives insight into whether a classifier is prone to making systematic errors. We propose to discover those patterns of tokens that distinguish correct and erroneous predictions. We show that our method, Premise, performs well in practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-18T00:24:26Z)
• Limitations of Language Models in Arithmetic and Symbolic Induction [20.49118435604774]
  Large pretrained Language Models (LMs) can perform remarkably well on a range of Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks. We find that these models have limitations on certain basic symbolic manipulation tasks such as copy, reverse, and addition. We investigate the potential causes behind this phenomenon and examine a set of possible methods, including explicit positional markers, fine-grained computation steps, and LMs with callable programs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-09T21:47:01Z)
• Imputation-Free Learning from Incomplete Observations [73.15386629370111]
  We introduce the importance of guided gradient descent (IGSGD) method to train inference from inputs containing missing values without imputation. We employ reinforcement learning (RL) to adjust the gradients used to train the models via back-propagation. Our imputation-free predictions outperform the traditional two-step imputation-based predictions using state-of-the-art imputation methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-05T12:44:39Z)
• Masked Language Modeling and the Distributional Hypothesis: Order Word Matters Pre-training for Little [74.49773960145681]
  A possible explanation for the impressive performance of masked language model (MLM)-training is that such models have learned to represent the syntactic structures prevalent in NLP pipelines. In this paper, we propose a different explanation: pre-trains succeed on downstream tasks almost entirely due to their ability to model higher-order word co-occurrence statistics. Our results show that purely distributional information largely explains the success of pre-training, and underscore the importance of curating challenging evaluation datasets that require deeper linguistic knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-14T06:30:36Z)
• Good Classifiers are Abundant in the Interpolating Regime [64.72044662855612]
  We develop a methodology to compute precisely the full distribution of test errors among interpolating classifiers. We find that test errors tend to concentrate around a small typical value $varepsilon*$, which deviates substantially from the test error of worst-case interpolating model. Our results show that the usual style of analysis in statistical learning theory may not be fine-grained enough to capture the good generalization performance observed in practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-22T21:12:31Z)

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.