0.9CLJun 9, 2023
Using Foundation Models to Detect Policy Violations with Minimal SupervisionSid Mittal, Vineet Gupta, Frederick Liu et al.
Foundation models, i.e. large neural networks pre-trained on large text corpora, have revolutionized NLP. They can be instructed directly (e.g. (arXiv:2005.14165)) - this is called hard prompting - and they can be tuned using very little data (e.g. (arXiv:2104.08691)) - this technique is called soft prompting. We seek to leverage their capabilities to detect policy violations. Our contributions are: We identify a hard prompt that adapts chain-of-thought prompting to policy violation tasks. This prompt produces policy violation classifications, along with extractive explanations that justify the classification. We compose the hard-prompts with soft prompt tuning to produce a classifier that attains high accuracy with very little supervision; the same classifier also produces explanations. Though the supervision only acts on the classifications, we find that the modified explanations remain consistent with the (tuned) model's response. Along the way, we identify several unintuitive aspects of foundation models. For instance, adding an example from a specific class can actually reduce predictions of that class, and separately, the effects of tokenization on scoring etc. Based on our technical results, we identify a simple workflow for product teams to quickly develop effective policy violation detectors.
First is Better Than Last for Language Data InfluenceChih-Kuan Yeh, Ankur Taly, Mukund Sundararajan et al.
The ability to identify influential training examples enables us to debug training data and explain model behavior. Existing techniques to do so are based on the flow of training data influence through the model parameters. For large models in NLP applications, it is often computationally infeasible to study this flow through all model parameters, therefore techniques usually pick the last layer of weights. However, we observe that since the activation connected to the last layer of weights contains "shared logic", the data influenced calculated via the last layer weights prone to a ``cancellation effect'', where the data influence of different examples have large magnitude that contradicts each other. The cancellation effect lowers the discriminative power of the influence score, and deleting influential examples according to this measure often does not change the model's behavior by much. To mitigate this, we propose a technique called TracIn-WE that modifies a method called TracIn to operate on the word embedding layer instead of the last layer, where the cancellation effect is less severe. One potential concern is that influence based on the word embedding layer may not encode sufficient high level information. However, we find that gradients (unlike embeddings) do not suffer from this, possibly because they chain through higher layers. We show that TracIn-WE significantly outperforms other data influence methods applied on the last layer significantly on the case deletion evaluation on three language classification tasks for different models. In addition, TracIn-WE can produce scores not just at the level of the overall training input, but also at the level of words within the training input, a further aid in debugging.