-
Instruction-tuning Aligns LLMs to the Human Brain
Authors:
Khai Loong Aw,
Syrielle Montariol,
Badr AlKhamissi,
Martin Schrimpf,
Antoine Bosselut
Abstract:
Instruction-tuning is a widely adopted finetuning method that enables large language models (LLMs) to generate output that more closely resembles human responses. However, no studies have shown that instruction-tuning actually teaches LLMs to process language in a similar manner as humans. We investigate the effect of instruction-tuning on aligning LLM and human language processing mechanisms in t…
▽ More
Instruction-tuning is a widely adopted finetuning method that enables large language models (LLMs) to generate output that more closely resembles human responses. However, no studies have shown that instruction-tuning actually teaches LLMs to process language in a similar manner as humans. We investigate the effect of instruction-tuning on aligning LLM and human language processing mechanisms in two ways: (1) brain alignment, the similarity of LLM internal representations to neural activity in the human language system, and (2) behavioral alignment, the similarity of LLM and human behavior on a reading task. We assess 25 vanilla and instruction-tuned LLMs on three datasets involving humans reading naturalistic stories and sentences, and find that instruction-tuning generally enhances brain alignment (~6%), but has no similar effect on behavioral alignment. To identify factors underlying this improvement in brain alignment, we compute correlations between brain alignment and various LLM properties, such as model size, problem-solving, and world knowledge understanding. Notably, we find a strong positive correlation between brain alignment and model size (r = 0.95), as well as performance on tasks requiring world knowledge (r = 0.81). Our results demonstrate that instruction-tuning LLMs improves both world knowledge representations and brain alignment, suggesting that the mechanisms that encode world knowledge in LLMs also improve representational alignment to the human brain.
△ Less
Submitted 9 August, 2024; v1 submitted 1 December, 2023;
originally announced December 2023.
-
Training language models to summarize narratives improves brain alignment
Authors:
Khai Loong Aw,
Mariya Toneva
Abstract:
Building systems that achieve a deeper understanding of language is one of the central goals of natural language processing (NLP). Towards this goal, recent works have begun to train language models on narrative datasets which require extracting the most critical information by integrating across long contexts. However, it is still an open question whether these models are learning a deeper unders…
▽ More
Building systems that achieve a deeper understanding of language is one of the central goals of natural language processing (NLP). Towards this goal, recent works have begun to train language models on narrative datasets which require extracting the most critical information by integrating across long contexts. However, it is still an open question whether these models are learning a deeper understanding of the text, or if the models are simply learning a heuristic to complete the task. This work investigates this further by turning to the one language processing system that truly understands complex language: the human brain. We show that training language models for deeper narrative understanding results in richer representations that have improved alignment to human brain activity. We further find that the improvements in brain alignment are larger for character names than for other discourse features, which indicates that these models are learning important narrative elements. Taken together, these results suggest that this type of training can indeed lead to deeper language understanding. These findings have consequences both for cognitive neuroscience by revealing some of the significant factors behind brain-NLP alignment, and for NLP by highlighting that understanding of long-range context can be improved beyond language modeling.
△ Less
Submitted 28 February, 2023; v1 submitted 21 December, 2022;
originally announced December 2022.
-
Detecting False Alarms from Automatic Static Analysis Tools: How Far are We?
Authors:
Hong Jin Kang,
Khai Loong Aw,
David Lo
Abstract:
Automatic static analysis tools (ASATs), such as Findbugs, have a high false alarm rate. The large number of false alarms produced poses a barrier to adoption. Researchers have proposed the use of machine learning to prune false alarms and present only actionable warnings to developers. The state-of-the-art study has identified a set of "Golden Features" based on metrics computed over the characte…
▽ More
Automatic static analysis tools (ASATs), such as Findbugs, have a high false alarm rate. The large number of false alarms produced poses a barrier to adoption. Researchers have proposed the use of machine learning to prune false alarms and present only actionable warnings to developers. The state-of-the-art study has identified a set of "Golden Features" based on metrics computed over the characteristics and history of the file, code, and warning. Recent studies show that machine learning using these features is extremely effective and that they achieve almost perfect performance.
We perform a detailed analysis to better understand the strong performance of the "Golden Features". We found that several studies used an experimental procedure that results in data leakage and data duplication, which are subtle issues with significant implications. Firstly, the ground-truth labels have leaked into features that measure the proportion of actionable warnings in a given context. Secondly, many warnings in the testing dataset appear in the training dataset. Next, we demonstrate limitations in the warning oracle that determines the ground-truth labels, a heuristic comparing warnings in a given revision to a reference revision in the future. We show the choice of reference revision influences the warning distribution. Moreover, the heuristic produces labels that do not agree with human oracles. Hence, the strong performance of these techniques previously seen is overoptimistic of their true performance if adopted in practice. Our results convey several lessons and provide guidelines for evaluating false alarm detectors.
△ Less
Submitted 11 February, 2022;
originally announced February 2022.
