In their paper titled "Let's Think Dot by Dot: Hidden Computation in Transformer Language Models," Jacob Pfau, William Merrill, and Samuel R. Bowman explore the use of filler tokens in language models to improve performance on algorithmic tasks. The authors investigate whether the observed performance gains in language models can be attributed to human-like task decomposition or simply the increased computational capacity provided by additional tokens. The study demonstrates that transformers can effectively utilize meaningless filler tokens, such as '......,' to solve challenging algorithmic tasks that they previously struggled with when responding without intermediate tokens. However, the researchers note that learning to use filler tokens effectively requires specific and dense supervision for convergence. Furthermore, the authors provide a theoretical framework for identifying problems where filler tokens are beneficial based on the quantifier depth of a first-order formula. They argue that for problems meeting this characterization, chain-of-thought tokens may not necessarily provide information about the intermediate computational steps involved in multi-token computations. Overall, the results suggest that additional tokens can offer computational advantages independent of token choice. However, concerns are raised about large language models engaging in unauditable hidden computations detached from observable chain-of-thought tokens when intermediate tokens serve as fillers. The study also includes a detailed analysis and comparison of different LM question-answering protocols, including chain of thought reasoning, filler token usage, and immediate answer approaches. Through experiments, it is shown that filler tokens can match the performance of chain-of-thought reasoning on certain tasks. Additionally, the authors make their code available for further exploration and replication of their findings at https://github.com/JacobPfau/fillerTokens. This research sheds light on how transformer language models leverage filler tokens for improved computational performance and raises important considerations regarding hidden computations within these models.
- - Researchers explore the use of filler tokens in language models to improve performance on algorithmic tasks
- - Transformers can effectively utilize meaningless filler tokens, such as '......,' to solve challenging algorithmic tasks
- - Learning to use filler tokens effectively requires specific and dense supervision for convergence
- - Theoretical framework provided for identifying problems where filler tokens are beneficial based on quantifier depth of a first-order formula
- - Additional tokens can offer computational advantages independent of token choice
- - Concerns raised about large language models engaging in unauditable hidden computations detached from observable chain-of-thought tokens when intermediate tokens serve as fillers
- - Filler tokens can match the performance of chain-of-thought reasoning on certain tasks
SummaryResearchers are looking at using extra words in computer programs to make them work better. These extra words, called filler tokens, can help computers solve difficult problems. To use filler tokens well, computers need specific and close supervision to learn how to do it right. By adding more filler tokens, computers can get better at solving problems faster. However, there are concerns that using too many filler tokens might make it hard to understand how the computer is thinking.
Definitions- Researchers: People who study and investigate different things to learn more about them.
- Filler tokens: Extra words or symbols added into a computer program to help it perform better.
- Algorithmic tasks: Problems or challenges that computers need to solve using a set of rules or instructions.
- Transformers: Advanced computer models that can process and understand language data effectively.
- Supervision: Guidance and oversight given to help someone or something learn and improve.
- Computational advantages: Benefits gained by using computers for processing information and solving problems efficiently.
Introduction
In recent years, transformer-based language models (LMs) have achieved remarkable success in various natural language processing tasks. These models have shown impressive performance on tasks such as text generation, machine translation, and question-answering. However, a recent study by Jacob Pfau, William Merrill, and Samuel R. Bowman titled "Let's Think Dot by Dot: Hidden Computation in Transformer Language Models" explores the use of filler tokens in LMs to improve their performance on algorithmic tasks.
The authors investigate whether the observed performance gains in LMs can be attributed to human-like task decomposition or simply the increased computational capacity provided by additional tokens. The study demonstrates that transformers can effectively utilize meaningless filler tokens to solve challenging algorithmic tasks that they previously struggled with when responding without intermediate tokens.
The Role of Filler Tokens
Filler tokens are meaningless symbols inserted into the input sequence of an LM during training and inference. They do not carry any semantic meaning but serve as placeholders for intermediate computations within the model. The idea behind using filler tokens is to provide additional information to the model about the structure of a problem and guide it towards better solutions.
The researchers hypothesize that filler tokens help LMs perform better on algorithmic tasks by providing them with more explicit guidance towards solving these problems step-by-step rather than relying solely on their general language understanding capabilities.
The Study Design
To test their hypothesis, Pfau et al. conducted experiments using two different types of algorithms: arithmetic word problems and logical reasoning problems based on first-order logic formulas.
For arithmetic word problems, they used a dataset called MathQA which contains questions requiring multi-step calculations such as addition, subtraction, multiplication, division etc., along with their corresponding answers. For logical reasoning problems based on first-order logic formulas, they used a dataset called NLVR which contains images paired with natural language statements that require logical reasoning to determine their truth value.
The Results
The results of the study showed that using filler tokens significantly improved the performance of LMs on both arithmetic word problems and logical reasoning tasks. The models trained with filler tokens achieved higher accuracy than those without them, indicating that these meaningless symbols do indeed provide valuable guidance to the model.
Furthermore, the researchers also compared different LM question-answering protocols, including chain-of-thought reasoning (where intermediate steps are explicitly provided), filler token usage, and immediate answer approaches. Through experiments, they showed that filler tokens can match the performance of chain-of-thought reasoning on certain tasks.
Theoretical Framework for Identifying Beneficial Problems
In addition to their experimental findings, Pfau et al. also provide a theoretical framework for identifying problems where filler tokens are beneficial based on the quantifier depth of a first-order formula. They argue that for problems meeting this characterization, chain-of-thought tokens may not necessarily provide information about the intermediate computational steps involved in multi-token computations.
This framework provides a useful tool for understanding when and why filler tokens can be effective in improving LM performance. It also highlights potential limitations and challenges in utilizing these symbols effectively.
Concerns About Hidden Computations
One concern raised by this research is the possibility of large language models engaging in unauditable hidden computations detached from observable chain-of-thought tokens when intermediate tokens serve as fillers. This raises important questions about transparency and interpretability in these models and how we can ensure they are making decisions based on understandable processes rather than hidden computations.
While this study does not directly address this issue, it brings attention to it and calls for further exploration into how we can make these models more transparent and accountable.
Conclusion
In conclusion, "Let's Think Dot by Dot: Hidden Computation in Transformer Language Models" sheds light on how transformer LMs leverage filler tokens for improved computational performance. The study provides evidence that these meaningless symbols can guide the model towards better solutions on algorithmic tasks, but also raises concerns about hidden computations and the need for transparency in these models.
The authors make their code available for further exploration and replication of their findings, which will undoubtedly contribute to future research in this area. This paper serves as an important contribution to our understanding of how LMs work and highlights potential challenges and considerations when using them for various applications.