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

Fine-Tuning Enhances Existing Mechanisms: A Case Study on Entity Tracking (2402.14811v1)

Published 22 Feb 2024 in cs.CL and cs.LG

Abstract: Fine-tuning on generalized tasks such as instruction following, code generation, and mathematics has been shown to enhance LLMs' performance on a range of tasks. Nevertheless, explanations of how such fine-tuning influences the internal computations in these models remain elusive. We study how fine-tuning affects the internal mechanisms implemented in LLMs. As a case study, we explore the property of entity tracking, a crucial facet of language comprehension, where models fine-tuned on mathematics have substantial performance gains. We identify the mechanism that enables entity tracking and show that (i) in both the original model and its fine-tuned versions primarily the same circuit implements entity tracking. In fact, the entity tracking circuit of the original model on the fine-tuned versions performs better than the full original model. (ii) The circuits of all the models implement roughly the same functionality: Entity tracking is performed by tracking the position of the correct entity in both the original model and its fine-tuned versions. (iii) Performance boost in the fine-tuned models is primarily attributed to its improved ability to handle the augmented positional information. To uncover these findings, we employ: Patch Patching, DCM, which automatically detects model components responsible for specific semantics, and CMAP, a new approach for patching activations across models to reveal improved mechanisms. Our findings suggest that fine-tuning enhances, rather than fundamentally alters, the mechanistic operation of the model.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (54)
  1. Gpt takes the bar exam. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.14402, 2022.
  2. Causal scrubbing: A method for rigorously testing interpretability hypotheses. https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/JvZhhzycHu2Yd57RN/causal-scrubbing-a-method-for-rigorously-testing, 2022. Accessed: February 14, 2023.
  3. Vicuna: An open-source chatbot impressing gpt-4 with 90%* chatgpt quality, March 2023. URL https://lmsys.org/blog/2023-03-30-vicuna/.
  4. Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017.
  5. A toy model of universality: Reverse engineering how networks learn group operations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.03025, 2023.
  6. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11416, 2022.
  7. Towards automated circuit discovery for mechanistic interpretability. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024.
  8. Discovering variable binding circuitry with desiderata, 2023.
  9. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Jill Burstein, Christy Doran, and Thamar Solorio (eds.), 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.  4171–4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota, June 2019. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/N19-1423. URL https://aclanthology.org/N19-1423.
  10. A mathematical framework for transformer circuits. Transformer Circuits Thread, 2021.
  11. Toy models of superposition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.10652, 2022.
  12. How do language models bind entities in context?, 2023.
  13. Dissecting recall of factual associations in auto-regressive language models. In Houda Bouamor, Juan Pino, and Kalika Bali (eds.), Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp.  12216–12235, Singapore, December 2023. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.751. URL https://aclanthology.org/2023.emnlp-main.751.
  14. Localizing model behavior with path patching, 2023.
  15. Knowledge is a region in weight space for fine-tuned language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04863, 2023.
  16. Don’t stop pretraining: Adapt language models to domains and tasks. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp.  8342–8360, 2020.
  17. Irene Heim. File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. Semantics Critical Concepts in Linguistics, pp.  108–135, 1983.
  18. Universal language model fine-tuning for text classification. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pp.  328–339, 2018.
  19. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021.
  20. Editing models with task arithmetic. ArXiv, abs/2212.04089, 2022. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:254408495.
  21. Mechanistically analyzing the effects of fine-tuning on procedurally defined tasks, 2023.
  22. Discourse representation theory. In Handbook of Philosophical Logic: Volume 15, pp.  125–394. Springer, 2010.
  23. Lauri Karttunen. Discourse referents. In Notes from the linguistic underground, pp.  363–385. Brill, 1976.
  24. Entity tracking in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.02363, 2023.
  25. Revealing the dark secrets of BERT. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pp.  4365–4374, Hong Kong, China, November 2019. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/D19-1445. URL https://aclanthology.org/D19-1445.
  26. Fine-tuning can distort pretrained features and underperform out-of-distribution. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.10054, 2022.
  27. Implicit representations of meaning in neural language models. In Chengqing Zong, Fei Xia, Wenjie Li, and Roberto Navigli (eds.), Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pp.  1813–1827, Online, August 2021. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.143. URL https://aclanthology.org/2021.acl-long.143.
  28. Emergent world representations: Exploring a sequence model trained on a synthetic task. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.13382, 2022.
  29. Does circuit analysis interpretability scale? evidence from multiple choice capabilities in chinchilla, 2023.
  30. Tracr: Compiled transformers as a laboratory for interpretability. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024.
  31. Tiedong Liu and Bryan Kian Hsiang Low. Goat: Fine-tuned llama outperforms gpt-4 on arithmetic tasks, 2023.
  32. Language models of code are few-shot commonsense learners. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp.  1384–1403, 2022.
  33. Gary Marcus. The deepest problem with deep learning, December 2018. URL https://medium.com/@GaryMarcus/the-deepest-problem-with-deep-learning-91c5991f5695.
  34. Locating and editing factual associations in GPT. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2022.
  35. What happens to BERT embeddings during fine-tuning? In Afra Alishahi, Yonatan Belinkov, Grzegorz Chrupała, Dieuwke Hupkes, Yuval Pinter, and Hassan Sajjad (eds.), Proceedings of the Third BlackboxNLP Workshop on Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pp.  33–44, Online, November 2020. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2020.blackboxnlp-1.4. URL https://aclanthology.org/2020.blackboxnlp-1.4.
  36. Progress measures for grokking via mechanistic interpretability. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.05217, 2023.
  37. When peanuts fall in love: N400 evidence for the power of discourse. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 18(7):1098–1111, 2006.
  38. Feature visualization. Distill, 2(11):e7, 2017.
  39. Zoom in: An introduction to circuits. Distill, 5(3):e00024–001, 2020.
  40. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:27730–27744, 2022.
  41. Task-specific skill localization in fine-tuned language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.06600, 2023.
  42. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9, 2019.
  43. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(1):5485–5551, 2020.
  44. Stanford alpaca: An instruction-following llama model, 2023.
  45. Chess as a testbed for language model state tracking. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, pp.  11385–11393, 2022.
  46. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models, 2023a.
  47. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288, 2023b.
  48. Investigating gender bias in language models using causal mediation analysis. In H. Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. Hadsell, M.F. Balcan, and H. Lin (eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pp.  12388–12401. Curran Associates, Inc., 2020. URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2020/file/92650b2e92217715fe312e6fa7b90d82-Paper.pdf.
  49. Interpretability in the wild: a circuit for indirect object identification in gpt-2 small, 2022.
  50. Similarity analysis of contextual word representation models. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp.  4638–4655, Online, July 2020. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.422. URL https://aclanthology.org/2020.acl-main.422.
  51. Interpretability at scale: Identifying causal mechanisms in alpaca. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024.
  52. Judging llm-as-a-judge with mt-bench and chatbot arena. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05685, 2023.
  53. LIMA: Less is more for alignment. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023.
  54. A closer look at how fine-tuning changes BERT. In Smaranda Muresan, Preslav Nakov, and Aline Villavicencio (eds.), Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pp.  1046–1061, Dublin, Ireland, May 2022. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.75. URL https://aclanthology.org/2022.acl-long.75.
User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (5)
  1. Nikhil Prakash (8 papers)
  2. Tamar Rott Shaham (14 papers)
  3. Tal Haklay (4 papers)
  4. Yonatan Belinkov (111 papers)
  5. David Bau (62 papers)
Citations (36)
View on Semantic Scholar

Summary

Fine-Tuning Enhances Existing Mechanisms in LLMs for Improved Entity Tracking

Introduction

This paper embarks on illuminating how fine-tuning affects the internal mechanisms of LLMs (LMs), with a particular focus on entity tracking—a vital competency for understanding narrative contexts. While it is known that fine-tuning LMs on generic tasks such as mathematics can significantly enhance their performance, the underlying effects on their internal mechanisms remain less explored. Using a range of innovative methodological approaches, this research disentangles the complex interplay between fine-tuning and the mechanistic operation of LMs.

Fine-Tuning and Mechanistic Interpretability

The quest to understand how fine-tuning alters the behavior of neural networks, especially in the context of performing specific tasks, has led to several notable advances. Prior work has largely focused on the performance metrics, leaving the mechanistic explanations somewhat amorphous. This gap in knowledge presents an interesting challenge, as elucidating these mechanisms could provide deeper insights into the workings of LMs and potentially guide the development of more efficient and interpretable AI systems.

Entity Tracking as a Case Study

To probe the effects of fine-tuning, the research zeroes in on entity tracking—a proficiency that enables LMs to remember and reason about the attributes of entities over discourse. The paper rigorously examines whether the improvement witnessed post fine-tuning on arithmetic tasks is due to the introduction of new circuits within the model or an enhancement of existing mechanisms.

Methodological Approaches

The research employs a suite of sophisticated tools and techniques, including Patch Patching, Desiderata-based Component Masking (DCM), and Cross-Model Activation Patching (CMAP), to dissect and analyze the operational mechanics of LMs. These methodologies offer a glimpse into the nuanced ways in which fine-tuning interacts with the pre-existing model architecture, how it exploits or enhances specific computational pathways, and, ultimately, how it elevates performance on tasks such as entity tracking.

Findings

The analysis reveals that:

  • The entity tracking mechanism, even after fine-tuning, relies on essentially the same circuit within the model as prior to fine-tuning.
  • These circuits perform consistent functionalities across both original and fine-tuned models, leveraging positional information to track entities efficiently.
  • The leap in performance observed in fine-tuned models can be attributed largely to the improved capacity of these circuits to handle augmented positional information.

Theoretical and Practical Implications

This paper advances our understanding of how fine-tuning influences LMs, showing that the procedural essence of task execution remains invariant, albeit with enhanced efficiency. The identification of specific components within the model that are pivotal for task performance, and how their functionality is augmented, could pave the way for more targeted and efficient fine-tuning practices. Moreover, this work potentially opens up new avenues for developing LMs that are not only performant but also more interpretable, by shedding light on the mechanics of their operation.

Looking Forward

While the paper provides compelling evidence that fine-tuning enhances rather than overhauls the mechanistic framework of LMs for improved task performance, many questions remain open. Future investigations could expand upon the notion of mechanistic invariance across a broader spectrum of tasks and models. Additionally, exploring the dynamics of the fine-tuning process itself could offer valuable insights into how and when these enhancements occur, further contributing to our collective understanding of LMs.

Conclusion

This research marks a significant step forward in demystifying the effects of fine-tuning on the internal workings of LMs, particularly through the lens of entity tracking. By leveraging sophisticated analytical tools to dissect model mechanisms, the paper underscores the importance of enhancing existing computational pathways to achieve notable gains in model performance. As the field of AI continues to evolve, such insights are invaluable for guiding future developments toward more efficient and interpretable models.

File Document Download Save Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com PDF File Document Download Save Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Markdown
Youtube Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

YouTube