Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Inconsistencies in Masked Language Models

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2301.00068 v3 pith:KX7VLWQ6 submitted 2022-12-30 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords mlmsmaskedinconsistencieslanguagemodelsconditionalsconsiderabledifferent
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Learning to predict masked tokens in a sequence has been shown to be a helpful pretraining objective for powerful language models such as PaLM2. After training, such masked language models (MLMs) can provide distributions of tokens in the masked positions in a sequence. However, this paper shows that distributions corresponding to different masking patterns can demonstrate considerable inconsistencies, i.e., they cannot be derived from a coherent joint distribution when considered together. This fundamental flaw in MLMs can lead to self-contradictory behaviors during inference. On various benchmark datasets including MMLU, MLMs can give different predictions to the same input question. From BERT-base to UL2-20B, we show that such inconsistencies exist ubiquitously in MLMs of diverse sizes and configurations. In light of our observations, we further propose an inference-time strategy for MLMs called Ensemble of Conditionals. It jointly considers a selected range of inconsistent conditionals directly produced by the MLM for the final prediction, which often leads to considerable accuracy improvement.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Do Tabular Foundation Models Agree with Themselves?

    cs.LG 2026-08 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    All evaluated tabular foundation models violate both marginalization and factorization consistency, so their autoregressive joint distributions are order-dependent and cannot arise from any single joint distribution.

Pith tools