Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
167 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
42 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Fractal Patterns May Illuminate the Success of Next-Token Prediction (2402.01825v2)

Published 2 Feb 2024 in cs.CL and cs.AI

Abstract: We study the fractal structure of language, aiming to provide a precise formalism for quantifying properties that may have been previously suspected but not formally shown. We establish that language is: (1) self-similar, exhibiting complexities at all levels of granularity, with no particular characteristic context length, and (2) long-range dependent (LRD), with a Hurst parameter of approximately H=0.7. Based on these findings, we argue that short-term patterns/dependencies in language, such as in paragraphs, mirror the patterns/dependencies over larger scopes, like entire documents. This may shed some light on how next-token prediction can capture the structure of text across multiple levels of granularity, from words and clauses to broader contexts and intents. In addition, we carry out an extensive analysis across different domains and architectures, showing that fractal parameters are robust. Finally, we demonstrate that the tiny variations in fractal parameters seen across LLMs improve upon perplexity-based bits-per-byte (BPB) in predicting their downstream performance. We hope these findings offer a fresh perspective on language and the mechanisms underlying the success of LLMs.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (60)
  1. Wavelets, spectrum analysis and 1/f processes. Wavelets and statistics, pp.  15–29, 1995.
  2. Alabdulmohsin, I. M. Summability calculus: A comprehensive theory of fractional finite sums. Springer, 2018.
  3. On the origin of long-range correlations in texts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(29):11582–11587, 2012.
  4. Andres, J. On de Saussure’s principle of linearity and visualization of language structures. Glottotheory, 2(2):1–14, 2009.
  5. Gemini: A family of highly capable multimodal models. arXiv:2312.11805v1 [cs.CL], 2023a.
  6. PaLM 2 technical report. arXiv:2305.10403v3 [cs.CL], 2023b.
  7. Apostol, T. M. An elementary view of Euler’s summation formula. The American Mathematical Monthly, 106(5):409–418, 1999.
  8. Aref, S. Hurst phenomenon and fractal dimensions in long-term yield data. In Conference on Applied Statistics in Agriculture, 1998.
  9. Ausloos, M. Generalized Hurst exponent and multifractal function of original and translated texts mapped into frequency and length time series. Physical Review E, 86(3):031108, 2012.
  10. JAX: composable transformations of Python+NumPy programs, 2018. URL http://github.com/google/jax.
  11. Web 1T 5-gram Version 1, 2006. URL https://catalog.ldc.upenn.edu/LDC2006T13. Web Download. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.
  12. Sparks of artificial general intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4, 2023.
  13. PaLM: Scaling language modeling with pathways. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02311, 2022.
  14. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. arXiv:2210.11416v5 [cs.LG], 2022.
  15. Training verifiers to solve math word problems. arXiv:2110.14168v2 [cs.LG], 2021.
  16. Cover, T. M. Elements of information theory. John Wiley & Sons, 1999.
  17. Explaining world wide web traffic self-similarity. Technical report, Boston University Computer Science Department, 1995.
  18. An introduction to the bootstrap. CRC press, 1994.
  19. Eftekhari, A. Fractal geometry of texts: An initial application to the works of Shakespeare. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 13(2-3):177–193, 2006. doi: 10.1080/09296170600850106.
  20. An introduction to the theory of self-similar stochastic processes. International journal of modern physics B, 14(12n13):1399–1420, 2000.
  21. Feller, W. The Asymptotic Distribution of the Range of Sums of Independent Random Variables. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 22(3):427 – 432, 1951. doi: 10.1214/aoms/1177729589. URL https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177729589.
  22. The Pile: An 800GB dataset of diverse text for language modeling. arXiv:2101.00027v1 [cs.CL], 2020.
  23. The estimation and application of long memory time series models. Journal of time series analysis, 4(4):221–238, 1983.
  24. Stochastic models that separate fractal dimension and the Hurst effect. SIAM Review, 46(2):269–282, 2004. doi: 10.1137/s0036144501394387.
  25. Fractal dynamics in physiology: alterations with disease and aging. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 99(suppl_1):2466–2472, 2002.
  26. On calibration of modern neural networks. In ICML. PMLR, 2017.
  27. Heaps, H. S. Information retrieval, computational and theoretical aspects. Academic Press, 1978.
  28. Measuring massive multitask language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.03300, 2020.
  29. Hurst, H. E. Long-term storage capacity of reservoirs. Transactions of the American society of civil engineers, 116(1):770–799, 1951.
  30. A domain-specific supercomputer for training deep neural networks. Communications of the ACM, 63(7):67–78, 2020.
  31. Language models (mostly) know what they know. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.05221, 2022.
  32. The psychology and neuroscience of curiosity. Neuron, 88(3):449–460, 2015.
  33. Complexity and human writings. Complexity, 7:1–6, 2000.
  34. Kolmogorov, A. N. Wienersche spiralen und einige andere interessante kurven in hilbertscen raum, cr (doklady). Acad. Sci. URSS (NS), 26:115–118, 1940.
  35. High time-resolution measurement and analysis of LAN traffic: Implications for LAN interconnection. In IEEE INFCOM, 1991.
  36. On the self-similar nature of Ethernet traffic. IEEE/ACM Transactions on networking, 2(1):1–15, 1994.
  37. The flan collection: designing data and methods for effective instruction tuning. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML’23. JMLR.org, 2023.
  38. Mandelbrot, B. How long is the coast of Britain? Statistical self-similarity and fractional dimension. science, 156(3775):636–638, 1967.
  39. Mandelbrot, B. Gaussian self-affinity and fractals: globality, the earth, 1/f noise, and R/S. Springer Science and Business Media, 2002.
  40. Mandelbrot, B. B. The fractal geometry of nature. WH freeman New York, 1982.
  41. Noah, Joseph, and operational hydrology. Water resources research, 4(5):909–918, 1968.
  42. Long-range fractal correlations in literary corpora. Fractals, 10(04):451–461, 2002.
  43. The fractal patterns of words in a text: a method for automatic keyword extraction. PloS one, 10(6):e0130617, 2015.
  44. OpenAI. GPT-4 technical report. arXiv:2303.08774v4 [cs.CL], 2023.
  45. Wide area traffic: the failure of Poisson modeling. IEEE/ACM Transactions on networking, 3(3):226–244, 1995.
  46. Long-range correlations in nucleotide sequences. Nature, 356(6365):168–170, 1992.
  47. Fractal analysis of time-series data sets: Methods and challenges. In Ouadfeul, S.-A. (ed.), Fractal Analysis, chapter 2. IntechOpen, Rijeka, 2018. doi: 10.5772/intechopen.81958. URL https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.81958.
  48. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. arXiv:1910.10683v4 [cs.LG], 2019.
  49. Scaling up models and data with t5x and seqio, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.17189.
  50. Long range correlations in DNA: scaling properties and charge transfer efficiency. Physical review letters, 91(22):228101, 2003.
  51. Samorodnitsky, G. Long memory and self-similar processes. In Annales de la Faculté des sciences de Toulouse: Mathématiques, volume 15, pp.  107–123, 2006.
  52. Long range correlation in human writings. Fractals, 1(01):47–57, 1993.
  53. Shannon, C. E. Prediction and entropy of printed English. Bell system technical journal, 30(1):50–64, 1951.
  54. Adafactor: Adaptive learning rates with sublinear memory cost. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 4596–4604. PMLR, 2018.
  55. SlimPajama: A 627B token cleaned and deduplicated version of RedPajama, June 2023. URL https://huggingface.co/datasets/cerebras/SlimPajama-627B.
  56. Beyond the imitation game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.04615, 2022.
  57. Challenging BIG-Bench tasks and whether chain-of-thought can solve them. arXiv:2210.09261v1 [cs.CL], 2022.
  58. Watkins, N. Mandelbrot’s stochastic time series models. Earth and Space Science, 6(11):2044–2056, 2019.
  59. Self-similarity in high-speed packet traffic: analysis and modeling of Ethernet traffic measurements. Statistical science, pp.  67–85, 1995.
  60. Self-similarity through high-variability: statistical analysis of Ethernet LAN traffic at the source level. IEEE/ACM Transactions on networking, 5(1):71–86, 1997.

Summary

  • The paper demonstrates that language exhibits self-similarity with a quantifiable Hurst parameter of 0.70 ± 0.09.
  • It introduces a combined metric that boosts adjusted R² from approximately 0.65 with perplexity alone to over 0.86, enhancing prediction accuracy.
  • The study finds that extending training context length does not necessarily improve performance, challenging common assumptions in language model training.

Introduction to Fractal Analysis in Language

The intricate qualities of language make it both a fascinating and challenging subject for computational modeling. In the past, various heuristic methods have emerged in an attempt to capture these qualities, with varied success. This paper explores the field of fractals and their relation to language structures, revealing insights with implications for the predictive capabilities of LLMs.

Fractal Patterns in Language

A notable contribution of the paper is the establishment of language as a self-similar process, consistent with fractal characteristics seen in natural phenomena. Not only does this overturn simplifying assumptions in previous linguistic models, but it also identifies the fractal structure as an endeared quality that can be precisely quantified. The paper introduces the concept of self-similarity and long-range dependence (LRD) in language with a statistical formalism, characterized by the Hölder and Hurst parameters.

A fascinating statistical result posited by the authors is that the Hurst parameter (H) has been calculated to be 0.70 ± 0.09. This suggestively sweet spot lies between utter randomness and complete predictability, potentially facilitating the LLMs learning process. This paper does not shy away from the numerical support for its claims, pushing the known bounds of how we perceive language structuring.

Beyond Perplexity: Predicting LLM Performance

Conventional metrics such as perplexity, often used to measure model performance, are enriched by this fractal analysis. The authors propose a combined metric, leveraged from fractal dimensions, which significantly outperforms perplexity metrics alone in predicting downstream performance. Specifically, this fusion increases the adjusted R2 from approximately 0.65 with perplexity to over 0.86, highlighting the robustness and forecasting prowess of fractal parameters. This metric, however, does not improve the prediction of rankings, an insight that suggests the nuanced application of these mathematical constructs.

Insights on Model Training and Inference

The implications of self-similarity and LRD extend to practical considerations in training LLMs. While one might assume that training models on longer text contexts could inherently improve performance due to capturing more of language's self-similar structures, the paper finds that context length at training time does not necessarily correlate to increased performance. This insight serves as a testament to the complexity of language and the nuances in training models to capture its full breadth.

In summary, the paper provides a comprehensive analysis with concrete estimations of language parameters across several domains and model architectures. It posits that the intelligent behavior exhibited by LLMs can be viewed through the lens of fractal structures in language, a fresh perspective that might pave the way for advancements in understanding and harnessing these models' capabilities. The collaborative nature of the inquiry and the authors' concentration on established statistical methods ensure that the conclusions drawn are solidly grounded in empirical evidence, opening doors for future research in this field.

Youtube Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com