Motivated by the surge of large language models, there has been a push to formally characterize the symbolic abilities intrinsic to the transformer architecture. A programming language, called RASP, has been proposed, which can be directly compiled into transformer weights to implement these algorithms. However, the tasks that can be implemented in RASP are often uncommon to learn from natural unsupervised data, showing a mismatch between theoretical capabilities of the transformer architecture, and the practical learnability of these capabilities from unsupervised data. We propose tracr-injection, a method that allows us to distill algorithms written in RASP directly into a pre-trained language model. We showcase our method by injecting 3 different algorithms into a language model. We show how our method creates an interpretable subspace within the model’s residual stream, which can be decoded into the variables present in the code of the RASP algorithm. Additionally, we found that the proposed method can improve out-of-distribution performance compared to our baseline, indicating that indeed a more symbolic mechanism is taking place in the inner workings of the model. We release the code used to run our experiments.

Interpretability and analysis (IA) research is a growing subfield within NLP with the goal of developing a deeper understanding of the behavior or inner workings of NLP systems and methods. Despite growing interest in the subfield, a criticism of this work is that it lacks actionable insights and therefore has little impact on NLP. In this paper, we seek to quantify the impact of IA research on the broader field of NLP. We approach this with a mixed-methods analysis of: (1) a citation graph of 185K+ papers built from all papers published at ACL and EMNLP conferences from 2018 to 2023, and their references and citations, and (2) a survey of 138 members of the NLP community. Our quantitative results show that IA work is well-cited outside of IA, and central in the NLP citation graph. Through qualitative analysis of survey responses and manual annotation of 556 papers, we find that NLP researchers build on findings from IA work and perceive it as important for progress in NLP, multiple subfields, and rely on its findings and terminology for their own work. Many novel methods are proposed based on IA findings and highly influenced by them, but highly influential non-IA work cites IA findings without being driven by them. We end by summarizing what is missing in IA work today and provide a call to action, to pave the way for a more impactful future of IA research.

Recent advancements in natural language processing by large language models (LLMs), such as GPT-4, have been suggested to approach Artificial General Intelligence. And yet, it is still under dispute whether LLMs possess similar reasoning abilities to humans. This study evaluates GPT-4 and various other LLMs in judging the profoundness of mundane, motivational, and pseudo-profound statements. We found a significant statement-to-statement correlation between the LLMs and humans, irrespective of the type of statements and the prompting technique used. However, LLMs systematically overestimate the profoundness of nonsensical statements, with the exception of Tk-instruct, which uniquely underestimates the profoundness of statements. Only few-shot learning prompts, as opposed to chain-of-thought prompting, draw LLMs ratings closer to humans. Furthermore, this work provides insights into the potential biases induced by Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF), inducing an increase in the bias to overestimate the profoundness of statements.