Namrata Shivagunde

Sherin Muckatira, Namrata Shivagunde, Vijeta Deshpande et al.

Grokking, the phenomenon in which neural networks generalize long after fitting their training data, has been studied in supervised settings on many epochs. LLM pre-training instead involves next-token prediction over an unlabeled corpus, with limited data repetition and no explicit train/validation split. To address this, we propose an exposure-based framework that enables the study of grokking-like dynamics during LLM pre-training. We ground our evaluation in BLiMP minimal pairs, which provide controlled grammatical contrasts. For every BLiMP minimal pair, we identify a critical phrase, the smallest continuous span that captures the grammatical contrast and the phenomenon-relevant context. Examples whose critical phrase appears in the pre-training window are assigned to the proxy-train split; the remaining examples are assigned to the proxy-validation split. Across five grammatical phenomena, we observe delayed generalization. Analyzing pre-training checkpoints before and after generalization shows that grammatical concept vectors become more predictive of grammatical acceptability and occupy a higher-dimensional subspace after generalization. We also find that attention from the critical token to the relevant context token is concentrated in a small number of heads.

Vijeta Deshpande, Namrata Shivagunde, Sherin Muckatira et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are being applied to increasingly difficult problems and use cases. To navigate their vast solution spaces effectively, LLMs need to be creative. Yet the subjective nature of creativity and the limits of human judgment make training LLMs for creativity especially challenging. As a solution, we train LLMs on Codenames, a word-association game that exercises the two central axes of creativity, divergent and convergent thinking, while yielding objectively verifiable outcomes. This verifiability lets us bypass human judgment and train with Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR). We train Qwen3-1.7B, 4B, and 8B models and evaluate them on ten creativity and four reasoning benchmarks. We find that the precision-diversity trade-off is scale-dependent: the 8B model prioritizes creativity over precision, while the 1.7B and 4B models gain reasoning precision at the cost of creativity. Concretely, the 8B model shows modest but consistent creativity gains (8 of 10 benchmarks) with only minor reasoning degradation, whereas the smaller models achieve substantial gains on reasoning tasks. Our study presents a scalable and effective solution to train LLMs for creativity.

Namrata Shivagunde, Vladislav Lialin, Anna Rumshisky

Language model probing is often used to test specific capabilities of models. However, conclusions from such studies may be limited when the probing benchmarks are small and lack statistical power. In this work, we introduce new, larger datasets for negation (NEG-1500-SIMP) and role reversal (ROLE-1500) inspired by psycholinguistic studies. We dramatically extend existing NEG-136 and ROLE-88 benchmarks using GPT3, increasing their size from 18 and 44 sentence pairs to 750 each. We also create another version of extended negation dataset (NEG-1500-SIMP-TEMP), created using template-based generation. It consists of 770 sentence pairs. We evaluate 22 models on the extended datasets, seeing model performance dip 20-57% compared to the original smaller benchmarks. We observe high levels of negation sensitivity in models like BERT and ALBERT demonstrating that previous findings might have been skewed due to smaller test sets. Finally, we observe that while GPT3 has generated all the examples in ROLE-1500 is only able to solve 24.6% of them during probing. The datasets and code are available on $\href{https://github.com/text-machine-lab/extending_psycholinguistic_dataset}{Github}$.

Vladislav Lialin, Namrata Shivagunde, Sherin Muckatira et al.

Despite the dominance and effectiveness of scaling, resulting in large networks with hundreds of billions of parameters, the necessity to train overparameterized models remains poorly understood, while training costs grow exponentially. In this paper, we explore parameter-efficient training techniques as an approach to training large neural networks. We introduce a novel method called ReLoRA, which utilizes low-rank updates to train high-rank networks. We apply ReLoRA to training transformer language models with up to 1.3B parameters and demonstrate comparable performance to regular neural network training. ReLoRA saves up to 5.5Gb of RAM per GPU and improves training speed by 9-40% depending on the model size and hardware setup. Our findings show the potential of parameter-efficient techniques for large-scale pre-training.

Vladislav Lialin, Kevin Zhao, Namrata Shivagunde et al.

Existing pre-trained transformer analysis works usually focus only on one or two model families at a time, overlooking the variability of the architecture and pre-training objectives. In our work, we utilize the oLMpics benchmark and psycholinguistic probing datasets for a diverse set of 29 models including T5, BART, and ALBERT. Additionally, we adapt the oLMpics zero-shot setup for autoregressive models and evaluate GPT networks of different sizes. Our findings show that none of these models can resolve compositional questions in a zero-shot fashion, suggesting that this skill is not learnable using existing pre-training objectives. Furthermore, we find that global model decisions such as architecture, directionality, size of the dataset, and pre-training objective are not predictive of a model's linguistic capabilities.

Saurabh Kulshreshtha, Olga Kovaleva, Namrata Shivagunde et al.

Solving crossword puzzles requires diverse reasoning capabilities, access to a vast amount of knowledge about language and the world, and the ability to satisfy the constraints imposed by the structure of the puzzle. In this work, we introduce solving crossword puzzles as a new natural language understanding task. We release the specification of a corpus of crossword puzzles collected from the New York Times daily crossword spanning 25 years and comprised of a total of around nine thousand puzzles. These puzzles include a diverse set of clues: historic, factual, word meaning, synonyms/antonyms, fill-in-the-blank, abbreviations, prefixes/suffixes, wordplay, and cross-lingual, as well as clues that depend on the answers to other clues. We separately release the clue-answer pairs from these puzzles as an open-domain question answering dataset containing over half a million unique clue-answer pairs. For the question answering task, our baselines include several sequence-to-sequence and retrieval-based generative models. We also introduce a non-parametric constraint satisfaction baseline for solving the entire crossword puzzle. Finally, we propose an evaluation framework which consists of several complementary performance metrics.

Namrata Shivagunde, Vijeta Deshpande, Sherin Muckatira et al.

Pre-training large language models is dominated by the memory cost of storing full-rank weights, gradients, and optimizer states. Low-rank pre-training has emerged to address this, and the space of methods has grown rapidly. A central question remains open: do low-rank methods produce models that generalize comparably to full-rank training, or does the rank constraint fundamentally alter the solutions reached? Existing comparisons rely almost entirely on validation perplexity from single-seed runs, often carried forward from prior literature. Yet perplexity is a poor proxy for solution quality; two methods can match on perplexity while converging to different loss landscape regions and internal representations. We close this gap by characterizing the solutions found by five low-rank pre-training methods, GaLore and Fira (memory-efficient optimizers), CoLA and SLTrain (architecture reparameterizations), and ReLoRA (adapter-style updates with periodic resets), against full-rank training at three model scales (60M, 130M, 350M). We evaluate each along 16 metrics across four dimensions: 1-D loss landscape along random/top-K PCA directions, 1-D interpolation between checkpoints, spectral structure of the weights and learned updates, and activation similarity to full-rank training. We show that low-rank methods are not equivalent to full-rank training, nor to one another, even when validation perplexity is close. Full-rank training settles into a sharper basin than low-rank methods along random directions, while the reverse holds for the top-1 PCA direction. Each method converges to a geometrically distinct basin. Low-rank activations diverge from full-rank in later layers as training progresses, with GaLore tracking full-rank most closely. Further, validation perplexity does not translate to downstream performance at every scale. Adding geometric and spectral metrics improves the prediction.

Namrata Shivagunde, Vladislav Lialin, Sherin Muckatira et al.

The ability of large language models (LLMs) to $``$learn in context$"$ based on the provided prompt has led to an explosive growth in their use, culminating in the proliferation of AI assistants such as ChatGPT, Claude, and Bard. These AI assistants are known to be robust to minor prompt modifications, mostly due to alignment techniques that use human feedback. In contrast, the underlying pre-trained LLMs they use as a backbone are known to be brittle in this respect. Building high-quality backbone models remains a core challenge, and a common approach to assessing their quality is to conduct few-shot evaluation. Such evaluation is notorious for being highly sensitive to minor prompt modifications, as well as the choice of specific in-context examples. Prior work has examined how modifying different elements of the prompt can affect model performance. However, these earlier studies tended to concentrate on a limited number of specific prompt attributes and often produced contradictory results. Additionally, previous research either focused on models with fewer than 15 billion parameters or exclusively examined black-box models like GPT-3 or PaLM, making replication challenging. In the present study, we decompose the entire prompt into four components: task description, demonstration inputs, labels, and inline instructions provided for each demonstration. We investigate the effects of structural and semantic corruptions of these elements on model performance. We study models ranging from 1.5B to 70B in size, using ten datasets covering classification and generation tasks. We find that repeating text within the prompt boosts model performance, and bigger models ($\geq$30B) are more sensitive to the semantics of the prompt. Finally, we observe that adding task and inline instructions to the demonstrations enhances model performance even when the instructions are semantically corrupted.