Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Why do Nearest Neighbor Language Models Work?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2301.02828 v2 pith:PX63XKQT submitted 2023-01-07 cs.CL cs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.LG
keywords standardlanguagemodelsneighborparametricrepresentationbettercomponent
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Language models (LMs) compute the probability of a text by sequentially computing a representation of an already-seen context and using this representation to predict the next word. Currently, most LMs calculate these representations through a neural network consuming the immediate previous context. However recently, retrieval-augmented LMs have shown to improve over standard neural LMs, by accessing information retrieved from a large datastore, in addition to their standard, parametric, next-word prediction. In this paper, we set out to understand why retrieval-augmented language models, and specifically why k-nearest neighbor language models (kNN-LMs) perform better than standard parametric LMs, even when the k-nearest neighbor component retrieves examples from the same training set that the LM was originally trained on. To this end, we perform a careful analysis of the various dimensions over which kNN-LM diverges from standard LMs, and investigate these dimensions one by one. Empirically, we identify three main reasons why kNN-LM performs better than standard LMs: using a different input representation for predicting the next tokens, approximate kNN search, and the importance of softmax temperature for the kNN distribution. Further, we incorporate these insights into the model architecture or the training procedure of the standard parametric LM, improving its results without the need for an explicit retrieval component. The code is available at https://github.com/frankxu2004/knnlm-why.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Experimental comparison of graph-based approximate nearest neighbor search algorithms on edge devices

    cs.DS 2024-11 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A benchmark showing that ANN search algorithm performance rankings shift between server and edge devices, and that low-cost edge hardware can match expensive counterparts on CPU workloads.

Pith tools