On the Informativeness of Supervision Signals

Learning transferable representations by training a classifier is a well-established technique in deep learning (e.g., ImageNet pretraining), but it remains an open theoretical question why this kind of task-specific pre-training should result in ''good'' representations that actually capture the underlying structure of the data. We conduct an information-theoretic analysis of several commonly-used supervision signals from contrastive learning and classification to determine how they contribute to representation learning performance and how the dynamics of learning are affected by training parameters such as the number of labels, classes, and dimensions in the training dataset. We validate these results empirically in a series of simulations and conduct a cost-benefit analysis to establish a tradeoff curve that enables users to optimize the cost of supervising representation learning on their own datasets

Characterizing Similarities and Divergences in Conversational Tones in Humans and LLMs by Sampling with People

Conversational tones -- the manners and attitudes in which speakers communicate -- are essential to effective communication. Amidst the increasing popularization of Large Language Models (LLMs) over recent years, it becomes necessary to characterize the divergences in their conversational tones relative to humans. However, existing investigations of conversational modalities rely on pre-existing taxonomies or text corpora, which suffer from experimenter bias and may not be representative of real-world distributions for the studies' psycholinguistic domains. Inspired by methods from cognitive science, we propose an iterative method for simultaneously eliciting conversational tones and sentences, where participants alternate between two tasks: (1) one participant identifies the tone of a given sentence and (2) a different participant generates a sentence based on that tone. We run 100 iterations of this process with human participants and GPT-4, then obtain a dataset of sentences and frequent conversational tones. In an additional experiment, humans and GPT-4 annotated all sentences with all tones. With data from 1,339 human participants, 33,370 human judgments, and 29,900 GPT-4 queries, we show how our approach can be used to create an interpretable geometric representation of relations between conversational tones in humans and GPT-4. This work demonstrates how combining ideas from machine learning and cognitive science can address challenges in human-computer interactions.Comment: Accepted to Main Conference at ACL 202

Disentangling Abstraction from Statistical Pattern Matching in Human and Machine Learning

The ability to acquire abstract knowledge is a hallmark of human intelligence and is believed by many to be one of the core differences between humans and neural network models. Agents can be endowed with an inductive bias towards abstraction through meta-learning, where they are trained on a distribution of tasks that share some abstract structure that can be learned and applied. However, because neural networks are hard to interpret, it can be difficult to tell whether agents have learned the underlying abstraction, or alternatively statistical patterns that are characteristic of that abstraction. In this work, we compare the performance of humans and agents in a meta-reinforcement learning paradigm in which tasks are generated from abstract rules. We define a novel methodology for building "task metamers" that closely match the statistics of the abstract tasks but use a different underlying generative process, and evaluate performance on both abstract and metamer tasks. In our first set of experiments, we found that humans perform better at abstract tasks than metamer tasks whereas a widely-used meta-reinforcement learning agent performs worse on the abstract tasks than the matched metamers. In a second set of experiments, we base the tasks on abstractions derived directly from empirically identified human priors. We utilize the same procedure to generate corresponding metamer tasks, and see the same double dissociation between humans and agents. This work provides a foundation for characterizing differences between humans and machine learning that can be used in future work towards developing machines with human-like behavior

MacGyver: Are Large Language Models Creative Problem Solvers?

We explore the creative problem-solving capabilities of modern LLMs in a novel constrained setting. To this end, we create MACGYVER, an automatically generated dataset consisting of over 1,600 real-world problems deliberately designed to trigger innovative usage of objects and necessitate out-of-the-box thinking. We then present our collection to both LLMs and humans to compare and contrast their problem-solving abilities. MACGYVER is challenging for both groups, but in unique and complementary ways. For instance, humans excel in tasks they are familiar with but struggle with domain-specific knowledge, leading to a higher variance. In contrast, LLMs, exposed to a variety of specialized knowledge, attempt broader problems but fail by proposing physically-infeasible actions. Finally, we provide a detailed error analysis of LLMs, and demonstrate the potential of enhancing their problem-solving ability with novel prompting techniques such as iterative step-wise reflection and divergent-convergent thinking. This work (1) introduces a fresh arena for intelligent agents focusing on intricate aspects of physical reasoning, planning, and unconventional thinking, which supplements the existing spectrum of machine intelligence; and (2) provides insight into the constrained problem-solving capabilities of both humans and AI.Comment: NAACL 202

Getting aligned on representational alignment

Biological and artificial information processing systems form representations that they can use to categorize, reason, plan, navigate, and make decisions. How can we measure the extent to which the representations formed by these diverse systems agree? Do similarities in representations then translate into similar behavior? How can a system's representations be modified to better match those of another system? These questions pertaining to the study of representational alignment are at the heart of some of the most active research areas in cognitive science, neuroscience, and machine learning. For example, cognitive scientists measure the representational alignment of multiple individuals to identify shared cognitive priors, neuroscientists align fMRI responses from multiple individuals into a shared representational space for group-level analyses, and ML researchers distill knowledge from teacher models into student models by increasing their alignment. Unfortunately, there is limited knowledge transfer between research communities interested in representational alignment, so progress in one field often ends up being rediscovered independently in another. Thus, greater cross-field communication would be advantageous. To improve communication between these fields, we propose a unifying framework that can serve as a common language between researchers studying representational alignment. We survey the literature from all three fields and demonstrate how prior work fits into this framework. Finally, we lay out open problems in representational alignment where progress can benefit all three of these fields. We hope that our work can catalyze cross-disciplinary collaboration and accelerate progress for all communities studying and developing information processing systems. We note that this is a working paper and encourage readers to reach out with their suggestions for future revisions.Comment: Working paper, changes to be made in upcoming revision