Nicholas Lourie

Nicholas Lourie, Kyunghyun Cho, He He

The choice of hyperparameters greatly impacts performance in natural language processing. Often, it is hard to tell if a method is better than another or just better tuned. Tuning curves fix this ambiguity by accounting for tuning effort. Specifically, they plot validation performance as a function of the number of hyperparameter choices tried so far. While several estimators exist for these curves, it is common to use point estimates, which we show fail silently and give contradictory results when given too little data. Beyond point estimates, confidence bands are necessary to rigorously establish the relationship between different approaches. We present the first method to construct valid confidence bands for tuning curves. The bands are exact, simultaneous, and distribution-free, thus they provide a robust basis for comparing methods. Empirical analysis shows that while bootstrap confidence bands, which serve as a baseline, fail to approximate their target confidence, ours achieve it exactly. We validate our design with ablations, analyze the effect of sample size, and provide guidance on comparing models with our method. To promote confident comparisons in future work, we release opda: an easy-to-use library that you can install with pip. https://github.com/nicholaslourie/opda

Michael Y. Hu, Jane Pan, Ayush Rajesh Jhaveri et al.

Neural scaling laws predict how language model performance improves with increased compute. While aggregate metrics like validation loss can follow smooth power-law curves, individual downstream tasks exhibit diverse scaling behaviors: some improve monotonically, others plateau, and some even degrade with scale. We argue that predicting downstream performance from validation perplexity suffers from two limitations: averaging token-level losses obscures signal, and no simple parametric family can capture the full spectrum of scaling behaviors. To address this, we propose Neural Neural Scaling Laws (NeuNeu), a neural network that frames scaling law prediction as time-series extrapolation. NeuNeu combines temporal context from observed accuracy trajectories with token-level validation losses, learning to predict future performance without assuming any bottleneck or functional form. Trained entirely on open-source model checkpoints from HuggingFace, NeuNeu achieves 2.04% mean absolute error in predicting model accuracy on 66 downstream tasks -- a 38% reduction compared to logistic scaling laws (3.29% MAE). Furthermore, NeuNeu generalizes zero-shot to unseen model families, parameter counts, and downstream tasks. Our work suggests that predicting downstream scaling laws directly from data outperforms parametric alternatives.

Nicholas Lourie, He He, Kyunghyun Cho

Hyperparameters greatly impact models' capabilities; however, modern models are too large for extensive search. Instead, researchers design recipes that train well across scales based on their understanding of the hyperparameters. Despite this importance, few tools exist for understanding the hyperparameter loss surface. We discover novel structure in it and propose a new theory yielding such tools. The loss surface is complex, but as you approach the optimum simple structure emerges. It becomes characterized by a few basic features, like its effective dimension and the best possible loss. To uncover this asymptotic regime, we develop a novel technique based on random search. Within this regime, the best scores from random search take on a new distribution we discover. Its parameters are exactly the features defining the loss surface in the asymptotic regime. From these features, we derive a new asymptotic law for random search that can explain and extrapolate its convergence. These new tools enable new analyses, such as confidence intervals for the best possible performance or determining the effective number of hyperparameters. We make these tools available at https://github.com/nicholaslourie/opda .

Abhipsha Das, Nicholas Lourie, Siavash Golkar et al.

The scientific literature's exponential growth makes it increasingly challenging to navigate and synthesize knowledge across disciplines. Large language models (LLMs) are powerful tools for understanding scientific text, but they fail to capture detailed relationships across large bodies of work. Unstructured approaches, like retrieval augmented generation, can sift through such corpora to recall relevant facts; however, when millions of facts influence the answer, unstructured approaches become cost prohibitive. Structured representations offer a natural complement -- enabling systematic analysis across the whole corpus. Recent work enhances LLMs with unstructured or semistructured representations of scientific concepts; to complement this, we try extracting structured representations using LLMs. By combining LLMs' semantic understanding with a schema of scientific concepts, we prototype a system that answers precise questions about the literature as a whole. Our schema applies across scientific fields and we extract concepts from it using only 20 manually annotated abstracts. To demonstrate the system, we extract concepts from 30,000 papers on arXiv spanning astrophysics, fluid dynamics, and evolutionary biology. The resulting database highlights emerging trends and, by visualizing the knowledge graph, offers new ways to explore the ever-growing landscape of scientific knowledge. Demo: abby101/surveyor-0 on HF Spaces. Code: https://github.com/chiral-carbon/kg-for-science.

Mayee F. Chen, Michael Y. Hu, Nicholas Lourie et al.

Language model performance depends on identifying the optimal mixture of data groups to train on (e.g., law, code, math). Prior work has proposed a diverse set of methods to efficiently learn mixture proportions, ranging from fitting regression models over training runs to dynamically updating proportions throughout training. Surprisingly, we find that no existing method consistently outperforms a simple stratified sampling baseline in terms of average test perplexity. To understand this inconsistency, we unify existing methods into a standard framework, showing they are equivalent to solving a common optimization problem: minimize average loss subject to a method-specific mixing law -- an implicit assumption on the relationship between loss and mixture proportions. This framework suggests that measuring the fidelity of a method's mixing law can offer insights into its performance. Empirically, we find that existing methods set their mixing law parameters inaccurately, resulting in the inconsistent mixing performance we observe. Using this insight, we derive a new online method named Aioli, which directly estimates the mixing law parameters throughout training and uses them to dynamically adjust proportions. Aioli outperforms stratified sampling on 6 out of 6 datasets by an average of 0.27 test perplexity points, whereas existing methods fail to consistently beat stratified sampling, doing up to 6.9 points worse. Moreover, in a practical setting where proportions are learned on shorter runs due to computational constraints, Aioli can dynamically adjust these proportions over the full training run, consistently improving performance over existing methods by up to 12.012 test perplexity points.

Nicholas Lourie, Michael Y. Hu, Kyunghyun Cho

Downstream scaling laws aim to predict task performance at larger scales from the model's performance at smaller scales. Whether such prediction should be possible is unclear: some works discover clear linear scaling trends after simple transformations of the performance metric, whereas others point out fundamental challenges to downstream scaling laws, such as emergence and inverse scaling. In this work, we conduct a meta-analysis of existing data on downstream scaling laws, and we find that predictable scaling only occurs in a minority of cases: 39% of the time. Moreover, seemingly benign changes to the experimental setting can completely change the scaling behavior. Our analysis underscores the need to understand the conditions under which scaling laws succeed. To accurately model the relationship between pretraining loss and task performance, we must embrace the cases in which scaling behavior deviates from linear trends.

Jeff Shen, Francois Lanusse, Liam Holden Parker et al. · cambridge

Sequential scientific data span many resolutions and domains, and unifying them into a common representation is a key step toward developing foundation models for the sciences. Astronomical spectra exemplify this challenge: massive surveys have collected millions of spectra across a wide range of wavelengths and resolutions, yet analyses remain fragmented across spectral domains (e.g., optical vs. infrared) and object types (e.g., stars vs. galaxies), limiting the ability to pool information across datasets. We present a deep learning model that jointly learns from heterogeneous spectra in a self-supervised manner. Our universal spectral tokenizer processes spectra from a variety of object types and resolutions directly on their native wavelength grids, producing intrinsically aligned, homogeneous, and physically meaningful representations that can be efficiently adapted to achieve competitive performance across a range of downstream tasks. For the first time, we demonstrate that a single model can unify spectral data across resolutions and domains, suggesting that our model can serve as a powerful building block for foundation models in astronomy -- and potentially extend to other scientific domains with heterogeneous sequential data, such as climate and healthcare.

Nicholas Lourie, Ronan Le Bras, Chandra Bhagavatula et al.

Commonsense AI has long been seen as a near impossible goal -- until recently. Now, research interest has sharply increased with an influx of new benchmarks and models. We propose two new ways to evaluate commonsense models, emphasizing their generality on new tasks and building on diverse, recently introduced benchmarks. First, we propose a new multitask benchmark, RAINBOW, to promote research on commonsense models that generalize well over multiple tasks and datasets. Second, we propose a novel evaluation, the cost equivalent curve, that sheds new insight on how the choice of source datasets, pretrained language models, and transfer learning methods impacts performance and data efficiency. We perform extensive experiments -- over 200 experiments encompassing 4800 models -- and report multiple valuable and sometimes surprising findings, e.g., that transfer almost always leads to better or equivalent performance if following a particular recipe, that QA-based commonsense datasets transfer well with each other, while commonsense knowledge graphs do not, and that perhaps counter-intuitively, larger models benefit more from transfer than smaller ones. Last but not least, we introduce a new universal commonsense reasoning model, UNICORN, that establishes new state-of-the-art performance across 8 popular commonsense benchmarks, aNLI (87.3%), CosmosQA (91.8%), HellaSWAG (93.9%), PIQA (90.1%), SocialIQa (83.2%), WinoGrande (86.6%), CycIC (94.0%) and CommonsenseQA (79.3%).

Daniel Khashabi, Gabriel Stanovsky, Jonathan Bragg et al.

While often assumed a gold standard, effective human evaluation of text generation remains an important, open area for research. We revisit this problem with a focus on producing consistent evaluations that are reproducible -- over time and across different populations. We study this goal in different stages of the human evaluation pipeline. In particular, we consider design choices for the annotation interface used to elicit human judgments and their impact on reproducibility. Furthermore, we develop an automated mechanism for maintaining annotator quality via a probabilistic model that detects and excludes noisy annotators. Putting these lessons together, we introduce GENIE: a system for running standardized human evaluations across different generation tasks. We instantiate GENIE with datasets representing four core challenges in text generation: machine translation, summarization, commonsense reasoning, and machine comprehension. For each task, GENIE offers a leaderboard that automatically crowdsources annotations for submissions, evaluating them along axes such as correctness, conciseness, and fluency. We have made the GENIE leaderboards publicly available, and have already ranked 50 submissions from 10 different research groups. We hope GENIE encourages further progress toward effective, standardized evaluations for text generation.

Orion Weller, Nicholas Lourie, Matt Gardner et al.

Typically, machine learning systems solve new tasks by training on thousands of examples. In contrast, humans can solve new tasks by reading some instructions, with perhaps an example or two. To take a step toward closing this gap, we introduce a framework for developing NLP systems that solve new tasks after reading their descriptions, synthesizing prior work in this area. We instantiate this framework with a new English language dataset, ZEST, structured for task-oriented evaluation on unseen tasks. Formulating task descriptions as questions, we ensure each is general enough to apply to many possible inputs, thus comprehensively evaluating a model's ability to solve each task. Moreover, the dataset's structure tests specific types of systematic generalization. We find that the state-of-the-art T5 model achieves a score of 12% on ZEST, leaving a significant challenge for NLP researchers.

Swabha Swayamdipta, Roy Schwartz, Nicholas Lourie et al.

Large datasets have become commonplace in NLP research. However, the increased emphasis on data quantity has made it challenging to assess the quality of data. We introduce Data Maps---a model-based tool to characterize and diagnose datasets. We leverage a largely ignored source of information: the behavior of the model on individual instances during training (training dynamics) for building data maps. This yields two intuitive measures for each example---the model's confidence in the true class, and the variability of this confidence across epochs---obtained in a single run of training. Experiments across four datasets show that these model-dependent measures reveal three distinct regions in the data map, each with pronounced characteristics. First, our data maps show the presence of "ambiguous" regions with respect to the model, which contribute the most towards out-of-distribution generalization. Second, the most populous regions in the data are "easy to learn" for the model, and play an important role in model optimization. Finally, data maps uncover a region with instances that the model finds "hard to learn"; these often correspond to labeling errors. Our results indicate that a shift in focus from quantity to quality of data could lead to robust models and improved out-of-distribution generalization.

Nicholas Lourie, Ronan Le Bras, Yejin Choi

As AI systems become an increasing part of people's everyday lives, it becomes ever more important that they understand people's ethical norms. Motivated by descriptive ethics, a field of study that focuses on people's descriptive judgments rather than theoretical prescriptions on morality, we investigate a novel, data-driven approach to machine ethics. We introduce Scruples, the first large-scale dataset with 625,000 ethical judgments over 32,000 real-life anecdotes. Each anecdote recounts a complex ethical situation, often posing moral dilemmas, paired with a distribution of judgments contributed by the community members. Our dataset presents a major challenge to state-of-the-art neural language models, leaving significant room for improvement. However, when presented with simplified moral situations, the results are considerably more promising, suggesting that neural models can effectively learn simpler ethical building blocks. A key take-away of our empirical analysis is that norms are not always clean-cut; many situations are naturally divisive. We present a new method to estimate the best possible performance on such tasks with inherently diverse label distributions, and explore likelihood functions that separate intrinsic from model uncertainty.

Alon Talmor, Jonathan Herzig, Nicholas Lourie et al.

When answering a question, people often draw upon their rich world knowledge in addition to the particular context. Recent work has focused primarily on answering questions given some relevant document or context, and required very little general background. To investigate question answering with prior knowledge, we present CommonsenseQA: a challenging new dataset for commonsense question answering. To capture common sense beyond associations, we extract from ConceptNet (Speer et al., 2017) multiple target concepts that have the same semantic relation to a single source concept. Crowd-workers are asked to author multiple-choice questions that mention the source concept and discriminate in turn between each of the target concepts. This encourages workers to create questions with complex semantics that often require prior knowledge. We create 12,247 questions through this procedure and demonstrate the difficulty of our task with a large number of strong baselines. Our best baseline is based on BERT-large (Devlin et al., 2018) and obtains 56% accuracy, well below human performance, which is 89%.

Maarten Sap, Ronan LeBras, Emily Allaway et al.

We present ATOMIC, an atlas of everyday commonsense reasoning, organized through 877k textual descriptions of inferential knowledge. Compared to existing resources that center around taxonomic knowledge, ATOMIC focuses on inferential knowledge organized as typed if-then relations with variables (e.g., "if X pays Y a compliment, then Y will likely return the compliment"). We propose nine if-then relation types to distinguish causes vs. effects, agents vs. themes, voluntary vs. involuntary events, and actions vs. mental states. By generatively training on the rich inferential knowledge described in ATOMIC, we show that neural models can acquire simple commonsense capabilities and reason about previously unseen events. Experimental results demonstrate that multitask models that incorporate the hierarchical structure of if-then relation types lead to more accurate inference compared to models trained in isolation, as measured by both automatic and human evaluation.

Noah Siegel, Nicholas Lourie, Russell Power et al.

Non-textual components such as charts, diagrams and tables provide key information in many scientific documents, but the lack of large labeled datasets has impeded the development of data-driven methods for scientific figure extraction. In this paper, we induce high-quality training labels for the task of figure extraction in a large number of scientific documents, with no human intervention. To accomplish this we leverage the auxiliary data provided in two large web collections of scientific documents (arXiv and PubMed) to locate figures and their associated captions in the rasterized PDF. We share the resulting dataset of over 5.5 million induced labels---4,000 times larger than the previous largest figure extraction dataset---with an average precision of 96.8%, to enable the development of modern data-driven methods for this task. We use this dataset to train a deep neural network for end-to-end figure detection, yielding a model that can be more easily extended to new domains compared to previous work. The model was successfully deployed in Semantic Scholar, a large-scale academic search engine, and used to extract figures in 13 million scientific documents.