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
Signed reviews
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.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Do Tabular Foundation Models Agree with Themselves?
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.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.