When pretrained language models (LMs) are applied to discriminative tasks such as multiple-choice questions, they place probability mass on vocabulary tokens that aren’t among the given answer choices. Spreading probability mass across multiple surface forms with identical meaning (such as “bath” and “bathtub”) is thought to cause an underestimation of a model’s true performance, referred to as the “surface form competition” (SFC) hypothesis. This has motivated the introduction of various probability normalization methods. However, many core questions remain unanswered. How do we measure SFC? Are there direct ways of reducing it, and does doing so improve task performance? We propose a mathematical formalism for SFC which allows us to quantify and bound its impact for the first time. We identify a simple method for reducing it—namely, increasing probability mass on the given answer choices by a) including them in the prompt and b) using in-context learning with even just one example. We show this method eliminates the impact of SFC in the majority of instances. Our experiments on three diverse datasets and six LMs reveal several additional surprising findings. For example, both normalization and prompting methods for reducing SFC can be ineffective or even detrimental to task performance for some LMs. We conclude with practical insights for effectively prompting LMs for multiple-choice tasks.

The instruction learning paradigm—where a model learns to perform new tasks from task descriptions alone—has become popular in research on general-purpose models. The capabilities of large transformer models as instruction learners, however, remain poorly understood. We use a controlled synthetic environment to characterize such capabilities. Specifically, we use the task of deciding whether a given string matches a regular expression (viewed as an instruction) to identify properties of tasks, instructions, and instances that make instruction learning challenging. For instance, we find that our model, a fine-tuned T5-based text2text transformer, struggles with large regular languages, suggesting that less precise instructions are challenging for models. Instruction executions that require tracking longer contexts of prior steps are also difficult. We use our findings to systematically construct a challenging instruction learning dataset, which we call Hard RegSet. Fine-tuning on Hard RegSet, our large transformer learns to correctly interpret (with at least 90% accuracy) only 65.6% of test instructions, and 11%-24% of the instructions in out-of-distribution generalization settings. We thus propose Hard RegSet as a challenging instruction learning dataset, and a controlled environment for studying instruction learning.

Mathematical reasoning skills are essential for general-purpose intelligentsystems to perform tasks from grocery shopping to climate modeling.Towards evaluating and improving AI systems in this domain, we proposeLILA, a unified mathematical reasoning benchmark consisting of 23 diversetasks along four dimensions:(i) mathematical abilities e.g., arithmetic, calculus (ii) language format e.g., question-answering, fill-in-the-blanks (iii) language diversity e.g., no language, simple language (iv) external knowledge e.g., commonsense, physics. We construct our benchmark by extending 20 datasets benchmark by collecting task instructions and solutions in the form of Python programs,thereby obtaining explainable solutions in addition to the correct answer.We additionally introduce two evaluation datasets to measure out-of-distribution performance and robustness to language perturbation.Finally, we introduce BHASKARA,a general-purpose mathematical reasoning model trained on LILA. Importantly, we find that multi-tasking leads to significant improvements (average relative improvement of 21.83% F1 score vs. single-task models),while the best performing model only obtains 60.40%,indicating the room for improvement in general mathematical reasoning and understanding.

Targeted syntactic evaluations have demonstrated the ability of language models to perform subject-verb agreement given difficult contexts. To elucidate the mechanisms by which the models accomplish this behavior, this study applies causal mediation analysis to pre-trained neural language models. We investigate the magnitude of models’ preferences for grammatical inflections, as well as whether neurons process subject-verb agreement similarly across sentences with different syntactic structures. We uncover similarities and differences across architectures and model sizes—notably, that larger models do not necessarily learn stronger preferences. We also observe two distinct mechanisms for producing subject-verb agreement depending on the syntactic structure of the input sentence. Finally, we find that language models rely on similar sets of neurons when given sentences with similar syntactic structure.