Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
125 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
47 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
43 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Knowledge is a Region in Weight Space for Fine-tuned Language Models (2302.04863v3)

Published 9 Feb 2023 in cs.LG, cs.AI, and cs.CL

Abstract: Research on neural networks has focused on understanding a single model trained on a single dataset. However, relatively little is known about the relationships between different models, particularly those trained or tested on different datasets. We address this by studying how the weight space and the underlying loss landscape of different models are interconnected. Specifically, we demonstrate that finetuned models that were optimized for high performance, reside in well-defined regions in weight space, and vice versa -- that any model that resides anywhere in those regions also exhibits high performance. Notably, we show that LLMs that have been finetuned on the same dataset form a tight cluster in the weight space, while models finetuned on different datasets from the same underlying task form a looser cluster. Moreover, traversing around the region between the models leads to new models that perform comparably or even better than models obtained via finetuning, even on tasks that the original models were not finetuned on. Our findings provide insight into the relationships between models, demonstrating that a model positioned between two similar models can acquire the knowledge of both. We leverage this and design a method for selecting a better model for efficient finetuning. Specifically, we show that starting from the center of the region is as effective, if not more, than using the pretrained model in 11 out of 12 datasets, resulting in an average accuracy improvement of 3.06.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (72)
  1. Git re-basin: Merging models modulo permutation symmetries. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.04836, 2022.
  2. The second pascal recognising textual entailment challenge. 2006.
  3. SemEval-2018 Task 2: Multilingual Emoji Prediction. In Proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval-2018), New Orleans, LA, United States, 2018. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  4. TweetEval: Unified benchmark and comparative evaluation for tweet classification. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pp.  1644–1650, Online, November 2020. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2020.findings-emnlp.148. URL https://aclanthology.org/2020.findings-emnlp.148.
  5. SemEval-2019 task 5: Multilingual detection of hate speech against immigrants and women in Twitter. In Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, pp.  54–63, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, June 2019. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/S19-2007. URL https://aclanthology.org/S19-2007.
  6. BitFit: Simple parameter-efficient fine-tuning for transformer-based masked language-models. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pp.  1–9, Dublin, Ireland, May 2022. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2022.acl-short.1. URL https://aclanthology.org/2022.acl-short.1.
  7. The sixth pascal recognizing textual entailment challenge. In TAC, 2009.
  8. Loss surface simplexes for mode connecting volumes and fast ensembling. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 769–779. PMLR, 2021.
  9. e-snli: Natural language inference with natural language explanations. In NeurIPS, 2018.
  10. Semeval-2017 task 1: Semantic textual similarity multilingual and crosslingual focused evaluation. In International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, 2017.
  11. On the geometry of feedforward neural network error surfaces. Neural Computation, 5(6):910–927, 1993. doi: 10.1162/neco.1993.5.6.910.
  12. Where to start? analyzing the potential value of intermediate models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.00107, 2022a.
  13. Fusing finetuned models for better pretraining. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.03044, 2022b.
  14. BoolQ: Exploring the surprising difficulty of natural yes/no questions. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pp.  2924–2936, Minneapolis, Minnesota, June 2019. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/N19-1300. URL https://aclanthology.org/N19-1300.
  15. The pascal recognising textual entailment challenge. In MLCW, 2005.
  16. The CommitmentBank: Investigating projection in naturally occurring discourse. 2019. To appear in Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 23. Data can be found at https://github.com/mcdm/CommitmentBank/.
  17. Automatically constructing a corpus of sentential paraphrases. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Paraphrasing (IWP2005), 2005. URL https://aclanthology.org/I05-5002.
  18. Cold fusion: Collaborative descent for distributed multitask finetuning. 2022.
  19. Measuring causal effects of data statistics on language model’s ‘factual’ predictions. 2022.
  20. The role of permutation invariance in linear mode connectivity of neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.06296, 2021.
  21. Linear mode connectivity and the lottery ticket hypothesis. In III, H. D. and Singh, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pp.  3259–3269. PMLR, 13–18 Jul 2020. URL https://proceedings.mlr.press/v119/frankle20a.html.
  22. Loss surfaces, mode connectivity, and fast ensembling of dnns. Advances in neural information processing systems, 31, 2018.
  23. The third pascal recognizing textual entailment challenge. In ACL-PASCAL@ACL, 2007.
  24. Understanding the difficulty of training deep feedforward neural networks. In Teh, Y. W. and Titterington, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, volume 9 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pp.  249–256, Chia Laguna Resort, Sardinia, Italy, 13–15 May 2010. PMLR. URL https://proceedings.mlr.press/v9/glorot10a.html.
  25. Ups and downs: Modeling the visual evolution of fashion trends with one-class collaborative filtering. In proceedings of the 25th international conference on world wide web, pp.  507–517, 2016.
  26. Hecht-Nielsen, R. On the algebraic structure of feedforward network weight spaces. In ECKMILLER, R. (ed.), Advanced Neural Computers, pp. 129–135. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1990. ISBN 978-0-444-88400-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-88400-8.50019-4. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780444884008500194.
  27. Editing models with task arithmetic. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.04089, 2022.
  28. Repair: Renormalizing permuted activations for interpolation repair. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.08403, 2022.
  29. Linear connectivity reveals generalization strategies. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.12411, 2022.
  30. Looking beyond the surface: A challenge set for reading comprehension over multiple sentences. In Proceedings of the Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT). Association for Computational Linguistics, 2018. URL https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/papers/N/N18/N18-1023/.
  31. Similarity of neural network representations revisited. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 3519–3529. PMLR, 2019.
  32. The Winograd schema challenge. In Thirteenth International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, 2012. URL http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3031843.3031909.
  33. The winograd schema challenge. In KR, 2011.
  34. Branch-train-merge: Embarrassingly parallel training of expert language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.03306, 2022.
  35. Learning question classifiers. In COLING 2002: The 19th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, 2002. URL https://aclanthology.org/C02-1150.
  36. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. ArXiv, abs/1907.11692, 2019.
  37. Improving generalization of pre-trained language models via stochastic weight averaging. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.05956, 2022.
  38. Learning word vectors for sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pp.  142–150, Portland, Oregon, USA, June 2011. Association for Computational Linguistics. URL http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P11-1015.
  39. Good debt or bad debt: Detecting semantic orientations in economic texts. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(4):782–796, 2014.
  40. Merging models with fisher-weighted averaging. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.09832, 2021.
  41. Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data. In Artificial intelligence and statistics, pp.  1273–1282. PMLR, 2017.
  42. Parameter norm growth during training of transformers. 2020.
  43. Linear mode connectivity in multitask and continual learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.04495, 2020.
  44. Emotion intensities in tweets. In Proceedings of the sixth joint conference on lexical and computational semantics (*Sem), Vancouver, Canada, 2017.
  45. Adversarial NLI: A new benchmark for natural language understanding. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp.  4885–4901, Online, July 2020. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.441. URL https://aclanthology.org/2020.acl-main.441.
  46. Seeing stars: Exploiting class relationships for sentiment categorization with respect to rating scales. In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL’05), pp.  115–124, Ann Arbor, Michigan, June 2005. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.3115/1219840.1219855. URL https://aclanthology.org/P05-1015.
  47. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12:2825–2830, 2011.
  48. Sentence encoders on stilts: Supplementary training on intermediate labeled-data tasks. ArXiv, abs/1811.01088, 2018.
  49. WiC: The word-in-context dataset for evaluating context-sensitive meaning representations. In Proceedings of the Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT). Association for Computational Linguistics, 2019. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.09121.
  50. Collecting diverse natural language inference problems for sentence representation evaluation. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2018.
  51. Exploring mode connectivity for pre-trained language models. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp.  6726–6746, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, December 2022. Association for Computational Linguistics. URL https://aclanthology.org/2022.emnlp-main.451.
  52. SQuAD: 100,000+ questions for machine comprehension of text. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp.  2383–2392, Austin, Texas, November 2016. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/D16-1264. URL https://aclanthology.org/D16-1264.
  53. Recycling diverse models for out-of-distribution generalization. ArXiv, abs/2212.10445, 2022.
  54. Choice of plausible alternatives: An evaluation of commonsense causal reasoning. In 2011 AAAI Spring Symposium Series, 2011.
  55. SemEval-2017 task 4: Sentiment analysis in Twitter. In Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval-2017), pp.  502–518, Vancouver, Canada, August 2017. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/S17-2088. URL https://aclanthology.org/S17-2088.
  56. Evidence for universality and cultural variation of differential emotion response patterning. Journal of personality and social psychology, 66(2):310, 1994.
  57. Investigating societal biases in a poetry composition system. In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Gender Bias in Natural Language Processing, pp.  93–106, Barcelona, Spain (Online), December 2020. Association for Computational Linguistics. URL https://aclanthology.org/2020.gebnlp-1.9.
  58. Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp.  1631–1642, Seattle, Washington, USA, October 2013. Association for Computational Linguistics. URL https://aclanthology.org/D13-1170.
  59. Uncertainty-aware natural language inference with stochastic weight averaging. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.04726, 2023.
  60. Revisiting sequential information bottleneck: New implementation and evaluation. Entropy, 24(8):1132, 2022.
  61. Visualizing data using t-sne. Journal of machine learning research, 9(11), 2008.
  62. SemEval-2018 task 3: Irony detection in English tweets. In Proceedings of The 12th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, pp.  39–50, New Orleans, Louisiana, June 2018. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/S18-1005. URL https://aclanthology.org/S18-1005.
  63. GLUE: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2018 EMNLP Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pp.  353–355, Brussels, Belgium, November 2018. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/W18-5446. URL https://aclanthology.org/W18-5446.
  64. Superglue: A stickier benchmark for general-purpose language understanding systems. In NeurIPS, 2019.
  65. Neural network acceptability judgments. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7:625–641, 2019. doi: 10.1162/tacl_a_00290. URL https://aclanthology.org/Q19-1040.
  66. A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sentence understanding through inference. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pp.  1112–1122, New Orleans, Louisiana, June 2018a. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/N18-1101. URL https://aclanthology.org/N18-1101.
  67. A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sentence understanding through inference. In Proceedings of the Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT). Association for Computational Linguistics, 2018b. URL http://aclweb.org/anthology/N18-1101.
  68. lo-fi: distributed fine-tuning without communication. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11948, 2022a.
  69. Model soups: averaging weights of multiple fine-tuned models improves accuracy without increasing inference time. 2022b.
  70. Resolving interference when merging models. ArXiv, abs/2306.01708, 2023. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:259064039.
  71. Predicting the Type and Target of Offensive Posts in Social Media. In Proceedings of NAACL, 2019.
  72. Character-level convolutional networks for text classification. Advances in neural information processing systems, 28, 2015.
Citations (40)

Summary

  • The paper reveals that finetuned language models form distinct weight space clusters, each containing the necessary knowledge for optimal task performance.
  • It employs clustering analyses on RoBERTa-base models finetuned for tasks like NLI, sentiment analysis, and topic classification.
  • The study suggests that initializing models from these clusters can improve performance and enable more effective model ensembling.

Insightful Overview of "Knowledge is a Region in Weight Space for Finetuned LLMs"

The paper "Knowledge is a Region in Weight Space for Finetuned LLMs" presents an intriguing exploration into the configuration of the weight space within neural networks, specifically those that have undergone finetuning for performance optimization. This research challenges the conventional understanding of neural networks by unveiling the spatial distribution of knowledge within the weight space of finetuned LLMs.

Core Findings and Methodology

The authors delve into the interconnectedness between weight spaces of various models, emphasizing the cluster formation in weight space of models finetuned on the same dataset or task. The key assertion is that models finetuned for particular tasks or datasets congregate in well-defined regions within the weight space. The research further postulates that any point within these regions embodies the knowledge needed to achieve superior model performance.

This claim is substantiated through an array of experiments, primarily utilizing RoBERTa-base as the foundational pretrained model. The experiments involve finetuning on diverse datasets that span tasks such as natural language inference (NLI), sentiment analysis, and topic classification. Detailed clustering analyses reveal that models trained on similar data sets not only cluster together in weight space but also exhibit strong performance on associated tasks.

Implications of the Research

The implications of this research are manifold, extending both practically and theoretically. Primarily, this work suggests a paradigm shift in model finetuning and initialization. By proposing that starting from the centroid of models finetuned on similar datasets may result in better initialization points for subsequent task-specific finetuning, the research hints at the possibility of enhancing finetuning efficiency and performance.

Furthermore, the identification of low-loss regions in weight space opens up new avenues for optimizing model combinations. The paper highlights how interpolated models from these regions can outperform the individual models they originate from—a finding that aligns with recent successful practices of model fusion and averaging. This recognition could refine strategies in areas like model ensembling and multitask learning.

Future Speculations

Future explorations might focus on characterizing these weight space regions more precisely and understanding their boundaries. This could lead to deeper insights into how neural networks generalize and how various tasks or datasets overlap in weight space. Another intriguing direction would be exploring the implications of these findings for explainability and understanding the functional landscape of neural networks.

The paper underlines the potential for further theoretical explorations into the weight landscape of neural models, encouraging a shift from point-centric to region-centric analyses of neural networks. Incorporating such perspectives could refine both the interpretability and efficiency of AI systems, offering pathways for more robust generalization across diverse tasks and domains.

In conclusion, this paper contributes significantly to the understanding of neural network behavior in weight space, offering both an academic and practical toolkit for leveraging the spatial dynamics of knowledge in LLMs. It challenges traditional notions and paves the way for innovations in model training and initialization strategies, with promising implications for the development of AI systems.