Information-Theoretic Probing with Minimum Description Length
Elena Voita, Ivan Titov
Abstract
To measure how well pretrained representations encode some linguistic property, it is common to use accuracy of a probe, i.e. a classifier trained to predict the property from the representations. Despite widespread adoption of probes, differences in their accuracy fail to adequately reflect differences in representations. For example, they do not substantially favour pretrained representations over randomly initialized ones. Analogously, their accuracy can be similar when probing for genuine linguistic labels and probing for random synthetic tasks. To see reasonable differences in accuracy with respect to these random baselines, previous work had to constrain either the amount of probe training data or its model size. Instead, we propose an alternative to the standard probes, information-theoretic probing with minimum description length (MDL). With MDL probing, training a probe to predict labels is recast as teaching it to effectively transmit the data. Therefore, the measure of interest changes from probe accuracy to the description length of labels given representations. In addition to probe quality, the description length evaluates 'the amount of effort' needed to achieve the quality. This amount of effort characterizes either (i) size of a probing model, or (ii) the amount of data needed to achieve the high quality. We consider two methods for estimating MDL which can be easily implemented on top of the standard probing pipelines: variational coding and online coding. We show that these methods agree in results and are more informative and stable than the standard probes. 1
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 28f99371-bcea-4893-b446-41e53e197a54Cited by top-tier papers88
- AutoPrompt: Eliciting Knowledge from Language Models with Automatically Generated PromptsTaylor Shin, Yasaman Razeghi, Robert L. Logan IV, Eric Wallace et al.EMNLP 2020 · 1,162 citations
- True Few-Shot Learning with Language ModelsEthan Perez, Douwe Kiela, Kyunghyun ChoNeurIPS 2021 · 547 citations
- Masked Language Modeling and the Distributional Hypothesis: Order Word Matters Pre-training for LittleKoustuv Sinha, Robin Jia, Dieuwke Hupkes, Joelle Pineau et al.EMNLP 2021 · 177 citations
- Linearity of Relation Decoding in Transformer Language ModelsEvan Hernandez, Arnab Sen Sharma, Tal Haklay, Kevin Meng et al.ICLR 2024 · 163 citations
- An Information-theoretic Approach to Prompt Engineering Without Ground Truth LabelsTaylor Sorensen, Joshua Robinson, Christopher Michael Rytting, Alexander Glenn Shaw et al.ACL 2022 · 142 citations
Builds on1
Related papers
- Probing as Quantifying Inductive BiasAlexander Immer, Lucas Torroba Hennigen, Vincent Fortuin, Ryan CotterellACL 2022
- A Latent-Variable Model for Intrinsic ProbingKarolina Stanczak, Lucas Torroba Hennigen, Adina Williams, Ryan Cotterell et al.AAAI 2023 · 6 citations
- Probing Task-Oriented Dialogue Representation from Language ModelsChien-Sheng Wu, Caiming XiongEMNLP 2020 · 20 citations
- A Bayesian Framework for Information-Theoretic ProbingTiago Pimentel, Ryan CotterellEMNLP 2021 · 2 citations
- Perturbed Masking: Parameter-free Probing for Analyzing and Interpreting BERTZhiyong Wu, Yun Chen, Ben Kao, Qun LiuACL 2020 · 158 citations
