A Bayesian Framework for Information-Theoretic Probing
Tiago Pimentel, Ryan Cotterell
Abstract
Pimentel et al. (2020) recently analysed probing from an information-theoretic perspective. They argue that probing should be seen as approximating a mutual information. This led to the rather unintuitive conclusion that representations encode exactly the same information about a target task as the original sentences. The mutual information, however, assumes the true probability distribution of a pair of random variables is known, leading to unintuitive results in settings where it is not. This paper proposes a new framework to measure what we term Bayesian mutual information, which analyses information from the perspective of Bayesian agents -- allowing for more intuitive findings in scenarios with finite data. For instance, under Bayesian MI we have that data can add information, processing can help, and information can hurt, which makes it more intuitive for machine learning applications. Finally, we apply our framework to probing where we believe Bayesian mutual information naturally operationalises ease of extraction by explicitly limiting the available background knowledge to solve a task.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 19b2ea0f-97cd-4d00-8474-68d765acec0cCited by top-tier papers9
- Understanding Dataset Difficulty with V-Usable InformationKawin Ethayarajh, Yejin Choi, Swabha SwayamdiptaICML 2022 · 337 citations
- Probing for the Usage of Grammatical NumberKarim Lasri, Tiago Pimentel, Alessandro Lenci, Thierry Poibeau et al.ACL 2022 · 72 citations
- SocioProbe: What, When, and Where Language Models Learn about SociodemographicsAnne Lauscher, Federico Bianchi, Samuel R. Bowman, Dirk HovyEMNLP 2022 · 6 citations
- Predicting Fine-Tuning Performance with ProbingZining Zhu, Soroosh Shahtalebi, Frank RudziczEMNLP 2022 · 6 citations
- Using Shapley interactions to understand how models use structureDivyansh Singhvi, Diganta Misra, Andrej Erkelens, Raghav Jain et al.ACL 2025 · 1 citation
Builds on11
- ALBERT: A Lite BERT for Self-supervised Learning of Language RepresentationsZhenzhong Lan, Mingda Chen, Sebastian Goodman, Kevin Gimpel et al.ICLR 2020 · 7,418 citations
- Compositional Explanations of NeuronsJesse Mu, Jacob AndreasNeurIPS 2020 · 229 citations
- A Theory of Usable Information under Computational ConstraintsYilun Xu, Shengjia Zhao, Jiaming Song, Russell Stewart et al.ICLR 2020 · 211 citations
- Information-Theoretic Probing with Minimum Description LengthElena Voita, Ivan TitovEMNLP 2020 · 34 citations
- Dominantly Truthful Multi-task Peer Prediction with a Constant Number of TasksYuqing KongSODA 2020 · 33 citations
Related papers
- Information-Theoretic Probing for Linguistic StructureTiago Pimentel, Josef Valvoda, Rowan Hall Maudslay, Ran Zmigrod et al.ACL 2020 · 21 citations
- Probing as Quantifying Inductive BiasAlexander Immer, Lucas Torroba Hennigen, Vincent Fortuin, Ryan CotterellACL 2022
- Probing Task-Oriented Dialogue Representation from Language ModelsChien-Sheng Wu, Caiming XiongEMNLP 2020 · 20 citations
- A Latent-Variable Model for Intrinsic ProbingKarolina Stanczak, Lucas Torroba Hennigen, Adina Williams, Ryan Cotterell et al.AAAI 2023 · 6 citations
- Debiasing Methods in Natural Language Understanding Make Bias More AccessibleMichael Mendelson, Yonatan BelinkovEMNLP 2021 · 12 citations
