Recent work has shown that language models (LMs) have strong multi-step (i.e., procedural) reasoning capabilities. However, it is unclear whether LMs perform these tasks by cheating with answers memorized from pretraining corpus, or, via a multi-step reasoning mechanism. In this paper, we try to answer this question by exploring a mechanistic interpretation of LMs for multi-step reasoning tasks. Concretely, we hypothesize that the LM implicitly embeds a reasoning tree resembling the correct reasoning process within it. We test this hypothesis by introducing a new probing approach (called MechanisticProbe) that recovers the reasoning tree from the model’s attention patterns. We use our probe to analyze two LMs: GPT-2 on a synthetic task (k-th smallest element), and LLaMA on two simple language-based reasoning tasks (ProofWriter & AI2 Reasoning Challenge). We show that MechanisticProbe is able to detect the information of the reasoning tree from the model’s attentions for most examples, suggesting that the LM indeed is going through a process of multi-step reasoning within its architecture in many cases.

Various design settings for in-context learning (ICL), such as the choice and order of the in-context examples, can bias the model’s predictions. While many studies discuss these design choices, there have been few systematic investigations into categorizing them and mitigating their impact. In this work, we define a typology for three types of label biases in ICL for text classification: vanilla-label bias, context-label bias, and domain-label bias (which we conceptualize and detect for the first time). Our analysis demonstrates that prior label bias calibration methods fall short of addressing all three types of biases. Specifically, domain-label bias restricts LLMs to random-level performance on many tasks regardless of the choice of in-context examples. To mitigate the effect of these biases, we propose a simple bias calibration method that estimates a language model’s label bias using random in-domain words from the task corpus. After controlling for this estimated bias when making predictions, our novel domain-context calibration significantly improves the ICL performance of GPT-J and GPT-3 on a wide range of tasks. The gain is substantial on tasks with large domain-label bias (up to 37% in Macro-F1). Furthermore, our results generalize to models with different scales, pretraining methods, and manually-designed task instructions, showing the prevalence of label biases in ICL.

Recent work has demonstrated that pre-trained language models (PLMs) are zero-shot learners. However, most existing zero-shot methods involve heavy human engineering or complicated self-training pipelines, hindering their application to new situations. In this work, we show that zero-shot text classification can be improved simply by clustering texts in the embedding spaces of PLMs. Specifically, we fit the unlabeled texts with a Bayesian Gaussian Mixture Model after initializing cluster positions and shapes using class names. Despite its simplicity, this approach achieves superior or comparable performance on both topic and sentiment classification datasets and outperforms prior works significantly on unbalanced datasets. We further explore the applicability of our clustering approach by evaluating it on 14 datasets with more diverse topics, text lengths, and numbers of classes. Our approach achieves an average of 20% absolute improvement over prompt-based zero-shot learning. Finally, we compare different PLM embedding spaces and find that texts are well-clustered by topics even if the PLM is not explicitly pre-trained to generate meaningful sentence embeddings. This work indicates that PLM embeddings can categorize texts without task-specific fine-tuning, thus providing a new way to analyze and utilize their knowledge and zero-shot learning ability.