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
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.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Experimental comparison of graph-based approximate nearest neighbor search algorithms on edge devices
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.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.