Exposure Bias versus Self-Recovery: Are Distortions Really Incremental for Autoregressive Text Generation?
Tianxing He, Jingzhao Zhang, Zhiming Zhou, James R. Glass
Abstract
Exposure bias has been regarded as a central problem for auto-regressive language models (LM). It claims that teacher forcing would cause the test-time generation to be incrementally distorted due to the training-generation discrepancy. Although a lot of algorithms have been proposed to avoid teacher forcing and therefore alleviate exposure bias, there is little work showing how serious the exposure bias problem actually is. In this work, we focus on the task of open-ended language generation, propose metrics to quantify the impact of exposure bias in the aspects of quality, diversity, and consistency. Our key intuition is that if we feed ground-truth data prefixes (instead of prefixes generated by the model itself) into the model and ask it to continue the generation, the performance should become much better because the training-generation discrepancy in the prefix is removed. Both automatic and human evaluations are conducted in our experiments. On the contrary to the popular belief in exposure bias, we find that the the distortion induced by the prefix discrepancy is limited, and does not seem to be incremental during the generation. Moreover, our analysis reveals an interesting self-recovery ability of the LM, which we hypothesize to be countering the harmful effects from exposure bias.
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 beb9598e-2ce0-42ba-8ea4-7ac9cbbb4727Cited by top-tier papers13
- On-Policy Distillation of Language Models: Learning from Self-Generated MistakesRishabh Agarwal, Nino Vieillard, Yongchao Zhou, Piotr Stanczyk et al.ICLR 2024 · 311 citations
- Learning to Break the Loop: Analyzing and Mitigating Repetitions for Neural Text GenerationJin Xu, Xiaojiang Liu, Jianhao Yan, Deng Cai et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 135 citations
- Exposing Attention Glitches with Flip-Flop Language ModelingBingbin Liu, Jordan T. Ash, Surbhi Goel, Akshay Krishnamurthy et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 90 citations
- Coarse-to-Fine: a Hierarchical Diffusion Model for Molecule Generation in 3DBo Qiang, Yuxuan Song, Minkai Xu, Jingjing Gong et al.ICML 2023 · 31 citations
- On the Blind Spots of Model-Based Evaluation Metrics for Text GenerationTianxing He, Jingyu Zhang, Tianle Wang, Sachin Kumar et al.ACL 2023 · 10 citations
Builds on6
- Language Models are Few-Shot LearnersTom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 64,255 citations
- The Curious Case of Neural Text DegenerationAri Holtzman, Jan Buys, Li Du, Maxwell Forbes et al.ICLR 2020 · 4,112 citations
- Seq2Sick: Evaluating the Robustness of Sequence-to-Sequence Models with Adversarial ExamplesMinhao Cheng, Jinfeng Yi, Pin-Yu Chen, Huan Zhang et al.AAAI 2020 · 268 citations
- Negative Training for Neural Dialogue Response GenerationTianxing He, James R. GlassACL 2020 · 52 citations
- BLEURT: Learning Robust Metrics for Text GenerationThibault Sellam, Dipanjan Das, Ankur P. ParikhACL 2020 · 40 citations
Related papers
- kNN-LM Does Not Improve Open-ended Text GenerationShufan Wang, Yixiao Song, Andrew Drozdov, Aparna Garimella et al.EMNLP 2023 · 3 citations
- Language GANs Falling ShortMassimo Caccia, Lucas Caccia, William Fedus, Hugo Larochelle et al.ICLR 2020 · 236 citations
- Mixed Cross Entropy Loss for Neural Machine TranslationHaoran Li, Wei LuICML 2021 · 21 citations
- Improving Text Generation with Student-Forcing Optimal TransportJianqiao Li, Chunyuan Li, Guoyin Wang, Hao Fu et al.EMNLP 2020 · 11 citations
- Predicting Through Generation: Why Generation Is Better for PredictionMd. Kowsher, Nusrat Jahan Prottasha, Prakash Bhat, Chun-Nam Yu et al.ACL 2025
